Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD Somalia
Files in Category:PD Somalia
[edit]I think that we are lacking evidence that these were first published in Somalia and not published in a Berne Convention country within 30 days after that, which is a requirement for {{PD-Somalia}}. According to s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101, "‘‘Publication’’ is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." This leads to a question on whether distribution on the Internet constitutes publication or not. There seem to be two common positions:
- Copies on the Internet are not published copies as the copies aren't distributed for the purpose of further distribution etc. This could mean that copies on the Internet aren't published copies and that these photos might be unpublished. The Swedish supreme court took this position in a case a couple of years ago. If this is the correct position, then we need evidence that these have been published somewhere before we can apply a {{PD-Somalia}} tag, as the tag doesn't apply to unpublished works.
- Another position is that images on the Internet are published in all countries in which the Internet is accessible. In that case, {{PD-Somalia}} isn't satisfied unless someone can dig up a non-Internet publication which took place more than 30 days before the photos were first uploaded to the Internet, due to the 30-day restriction in the template.
- File:Edna-adan-maternity-hospital-hargeisa.jpg
- File:Puntland presidential.jpg
- File:Somali man with spotted hyena skin.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I am the webmaster for www.ednahospital.org which is featured in one of the photos. A few years ago, I asked Edna Adan, who built this hospital, to get me a panoramic photo of the hospital for use in the banner at the site. She sent somebody across the street with a camera. This is the photo that resulted. Edna welcomes anybody to use it. It's been widely circulated for all these years. How can we discuss Edna Hospital without showing a photo of it? To remove it would be silly.
That said, there is now a new building just inside the gate to the right (Radiology) and there are some added security features so the photo is no longer completely accurate. We'll get a new one as soon as the radiology is fully complete. Are we supposed to have the new photo actually printed to the local newspaper before we're allowed to share it here??
--Chuckupd (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Publication on the Internet is kind of a gray area and we have not really paid attention to it at all. For now we've simply assumed that pictures published on a Somali website (i. e. in Somali language or targeted to Somalis) are subject to Somali law, and the same to other countries as well. I think that is very much a reasonable assumption. Now I don't make decisions here, but I would just let them pass for now until there is a US court case about publication on the Internet, similar to how we handle the FOP-from-the-rest-of-the-world-within-the-US gray area. (and how we used to handle URAA until we actually had a court decision right there)
The first picture should be okay because as stated here, the copyright owner has given permission to use it. (And oh god, please don't come with the overly-bureaucratic-and-stupid OTRS procedure, no one needs it here, it's as clear as it can get.) As for the second picture, it says it's self-made. I am not sure whether to replace the tag with PD-self (might be a mistake) or just slap a no license sticker on it. The third photo, yeah, see the previous paragraph. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)- The first problem is that there is no evidence that the copyright holder has given any permission (see the file talk page). The second problem is that files have to be free in both the source country and the United States, and USA provides copyright protection to for example unpublished Somali photos. The third problem is that the www.raxanreeb.com website appears to be from the US (not from Somalia), as a geographical IP tool shows a location in California. The advertising page contains a telephone number from Minnesota, which further suggests that there are some ties with the United States.. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me to the discussion page; I hadn't seen it before. This kind of controversy means we will probably have to let go of this image. As for the third image, I already said there's no definite criteria to determine "country of publication" in case of the Internet. It might be based on the server location, or it might not. The only thing we have that's remotely similar is that old US court case where a judge decided that foreign-language works with no copyright notice were considered unpublished within the US. Of course, the issue of copyright formalities is long gone, and this court case only applies to certain states (and not the one Commons is located in), but it does suggest language is taken into account when considering country of publication. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The idea that a non-US publication didn't constitute "publication" was, I believe, based on the Copyright Act of 1909 (which did not define the word "publication"). The word "publication" was then defined in the Copyright Act of 1976, which means that things which happened after 1977 may need to be treated differently. I'm not sure how this affects this situation, though. I'm also not sure how the language issue works with regard to things such as photographs; only literary works have a language. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me to the discussion page; I hadn't seen it before. This kind of controversy means we will probably have to let go of this image. As for the third image, I already said there's no definite criteria to determine "country of publication" in case of the Internet. It might be based on the server location, or it might not. The only thing we have that's remotely similar is that old US court case where a judge decided that foreign-language works with no copyright notice were considered unpublished within the US. Of course, the issue of copyright formalities is long gone, and this court case only applies to certain states (and not the one Commons is located in), but it does suggest language is taken into account when considering country of publication. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The first problem is that there is no evidence that the copyright holder has given any permission (see the file talk page). The second problem is that files have to be free in both the source country and the United States, and USA provides copyright protection to for example unpublished Somali photos. The third problem is that the www.raxanreeb.com website appears to be from the US (not from Somalia), as a geographical IP tool shows a location in California. The advertising page contains a telephone number from Minnesota, which further suggests that there are some ties with the United States.. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Edna Hospital is one thing. Friends of Edna Hospital is a U.S.-based (Minnesota) charity which exists solely to help support the hospital, and it is a whole other legal entity with 100% different officers and legal standing. This photo of Edna Hospital was taken at Edna's own instruction. It belongs to Edna or to the hospital which she built and runs in Hargeisa, Somaliland. Both Edna and her Hospital Board of Directors wish for it to be shared widely. Edna could not possibly care less about who uses it and where. The web site www.ednahospital.org (which I maintain for free for my friend Edna) is run from a server in the USA. If it will help everybody to sleep better, I can post a notice onto www.ednahospital.org stating that the photos are free for anybody to use however they like.
--Chuckupd (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted the last one where we have all the problems outlined by Stefan4 and the author is unknown. The first one is still being discussed, for the second one I do not quite see the problem, since the uploader claims this is their photo.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- For the second one, we have the same problem as with the first one: see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 17#File:Puntland presidential.jpg (no evidence that the uploader is the author). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. If you are the uploader, please email OTRS FASTILY 08:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)