Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama bin Laden making a video at his compound in Pakistan-2.jpg

File:Osama bin Laden making a video at his compound in Pakistan-2.jpg

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

User:Denniss wrote: "video not made by US government - just published by them".

•  Keep - The video is made by members of al Qaida but before being published it was seized by members of the U.S. armed forces and now it is property of the U.S. government, which was published in the United States for the first time with credits given to U.S. Department of Defense. Anything that is seized by the U.S. government automatically becomes their property unless they release it back to the lawful owners which isn't going to happen in this case. It was seized and made U.S. government property before being published.--Officer (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete Per nom, not convincing license. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment - Please go here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama bin Laden making a video at his compound in Pakistan.jpg--Officer (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete Only works produced by the US Government is PD, or that which is formally transferred to it. I see no reason to believe that there was a legal transfer of intellectual property. Jujutacular ^talk 19:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep Per Officer. UNpublished work, now property of US givernment. This is one of the most ridiculous copyvio claims I've ever seen. Does anybody seirously think bin Laden, his family or al Qaeda would pursue a law suit against wikipedia for use of his image? Its pathetic, sorry it really is. They seized a private unpublished video which is now US government property. Unless somebody seriously think bin laden's folk are going to sue wiki for copyright infringement then this should be permitted.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.--Chaser (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Question Are there any court cases or laws dealing specifically with (or equivalent): when the US federal government seizes copyrightable materials, is it seizing just the phyiscal medium or its copyright as well? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I could not find any.--Chaser (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I could not find any either. The closest was this page from Canada which was more about the seizure of intellectual property rights themselves. It did not address if copyright ownership is automatically transferred simply because the government seized some media containing copyright work. It also did not address what the file uploader is trying to assert which is that that the copyright ownership would instantly change to public domain when the government seizes media containing copyright work. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep Officer came up with a novel argument that nobody here has successfully argued down. Good work. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't agree. I am repeating something others have pointed out -- while the unique peculiarities of US law place images made by US Federal employees in the public domain, I don't believe there is anything in US law which places other material where the US acquires copyright in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep It clearly states here: https://kb.defense.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/478, "All imagery on our websites are considered public domain. If you are looking to use the images for commercial purposes, we ask that you adhere to the following guidelines as published on our DefenseImagery website." Images/videos can be found here: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4820 . It appears to me that the images are in the public domain. I would agree with user Officer as above, this appears to back up that statement. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

-Also, during the meeting, a reporter asked about the videos:

SR. INTEL OFFICIAL: We do not know the dates of these clips we just showed you. As Bryan mentioned, the video files are on DVD. :They will be provided at the end of the background briefing. I think there’s enough for one per person.

Q: Is that the extent of the clips that will be provided on the DVD, just those five?

SR. INTEL OFFICIAL: Today. They’re yours to use as you like. Just please source them to the U.S. government. Finally, we will hand out with the DVDs an on-the-record comment from Leon Panetta, director of the CIA. And with that, I will open it up to questions.

Again, sourced to the US Government. I would argue that they are in the public domain. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep I vote to keep based on same thing Officer said. Jlcoving (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete – The act of seizing property should not automatically put it into the public domain. For example, the government could seize someone's intellectual property to satisfy a debt. In that case, they would file to have the copyright transferred to the government which would then collect license fees, sell it, etc. The only way it could be become public domain material is if the government explicitly released it to the public domain.

A secondary issue is that the seizure was done during a military action on foreign soil and without the support or permission of that country. The videos were apparently made in Afghanistan or Pakistan implying their copyright rules would apply.

I’m advocating delete as we can’t clearly show that this is public domain material. The uploader has constructed a novel argument but is unable to show that this is public domain media. An alternative to deleting the media is to keep it under one of the non-free media tags. Marc Kupper (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We are not the international court to decide how copyright laws should be applied or decide if U.S. violated any law going inside Pakistan, etc. When the U.S. government says or implies that they are the rightful owners of these 5 videos confiscated in Pakistan we the uploaders at Commons are nobody to challenge them, and whenever the U.S. government mentions the term "release" in regards to images or videos found on their websites it simply means that they are released into the public domain and can be used by everyone in the world as long as the U.S. government is attributed. Commons accepts these under the USGov license and I don't think we need to take this further. Can you explain to me on what grounds Pakistan gets to own the copyright of videos or images a foreigner (or anyone) create with their own camera inside their house in Pakistan?--Officer (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, copyvio. Don't give me bull about "freed by seizure". You're opening a can of worms with this "argument". NVO (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the Department of Defense to ask what the copyright is on the photos (if they're public domain or not). Hopefully that will solve this whole mess... 129.33.19.254 13:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

They cannot speak for Afghan or Pakistani legislators, or wherever these tapes were made of. Just like they cannot speak for the regional government of Bavaria which stills holds "copyright" for Mein Kampf (ah, well, discussion reached Godwin point here..). NVO (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan is not involved in this in any way, the videos were made inside Pakistan and since they were never published in that country it (Pakistan) also becomes irrelevant. Btw, Osama was neither an Afghan or a Pakistani but an Arab from Saudi Arabia.--Officer (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Publishing has nothing do with copyright these days. In all of the Berne Union countries stuff is copyright the instant it's written down, recorded, created, etc. Please see wikipedia:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works#History. This very sentence is my copyright material as I type it onto the screen. I released it into the public domain by pressing [Save Page]. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Delete Officer is acting with highly questionable arguments/regulations here. The best way to handle this is to move the files to en wiki under fair use claim and delete them from Commons. US Gvt (or any other gvt) have the rights to seize physical property of criminals, that does not automatically include a copyright transfer to this gvt. --Denniss (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 Delete per Marc Kupper. This is a novel argument, but support for both parts of it (that seizure constitutes a transfer of intellectual property and that "release" means releasing something irretrievably into the public domain) is lacking.--Chaser (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment - The videos where this captured image comes from are posted at U.S. Dept. of Defense and a Senior Intelligence Official from the Central Intelligence Agency has told us that "They’re yours to use as you like. Just please source them to the U.S. government." I think this discussion should end at this point. There's no point in explaining about how or why the U.S. government became the owner of copyrights to videos that were made by terrorists in Pakistan, or stuff like we need to see a written contract, etc. That's upto the international courts to investigate if they ever wanted to and like I said early we are not the court here.--Officer (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is the first I've seen of this (I didn't notice it in the dialog quoted above). It might be enough to justify an {{Attribution}} tag. I think it's possible the government intends a PD release, but it's also possible this is a standard release of press photos that the media would then use as fair use (as they often do). I'd prefer something more explicit, so I'll reassess once we get a response to Oaktree's email.--Chaser (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Normally no debate is needed when it comes to material found on a site such as www.defense.gov as the material is clearly the work of the defense department itself. The U.S. Defense department has clearly asserted that the videos in question were not their own work. That automatically means that the first part of §105 does not apply. §105 is very short and very clear. Both Pakistan and the United States are signatories of the Berne Convention which simplifies things for us. The copyright automatically defaulted to whoever shot each of the videos and as signatories that copyright is valid in both Pakistan and the USA. As you noted we are not the international court. We can't be parsing laws, comments in press comments, etc. to manufacture a claim that what is clearly copyright material is now in the public domain. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  It doesn't necessarily have to be a U.S. federal government created work, it also includes works or materials that are purchased and or obtained by other means. For example, if I am the U.S. federal government and I purchase pictures of Osama from John Doe the photographer and post them on my website then that makes me the copyright holder, owner and author but not John Doe or anyone else. An author could be the creator or the owner. It's not our job to defend al Qaida here or to investigate how exactly did the U.S. government make these videos of al Qaida theirs. As long as we have a written statement from a senior official allowing us to use these here then that satisfies the requirement of Commons. You also keep mentioning Pakistan. Osama was not a Pakistani and none of these videos were ever published in Pakistan to involve the copyright law of that nation.--Officer (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Would this not fall under the "otherwise" part of §105? Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  If there is a law which makes seized videos (including the copyright of the videos) a property of U.S. government then they are covered in the first part of §105... Copyright protection under this title is not available for "any work of the United States Government," but if not then yes it would fall under "or otherwise" most likely.--Officer (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Officer wrote "As long as we have a written statement from a senior official allowing us to use these here then that satisfies the requirement of Commons." That's the key - we don't have this written statement. Per basic copyright law the videographer owns the copyright and was most likely one of the Pakistani men living in the compound. It's possible there was a work for hire agreement and that bin Laden, al Qaeda, or someone else is the copyright owner. The details of the agreement are irrelevant. The material was copyrighted the instant it was "reduced to tangible form" (see copyright law link above). Officer, your John Doe the photographer would still own the copyright after selling images to the the U.S. federal government. Again, see the copyright law link above. The only ways John Doe, or people who made the videos under discussion would loose their copyrights is if they did a "copyright assignment." Again, see the copyright law link above. If you look at §105 you will see that mentions assignment. §105 also mentions "bequest, or otherwise." So far we are still on basic copyright law and so when I saw that the al Qaeda had been tagged "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code" I instantly knew we were dealing with either a mistaken license assignment by the uploader or something truly extraordinary in copyright law. I'm pretty sure that bin Laden or al Qaeda has not assigned or bequested the copyrights for their stuff to the U.S. government leaving us with "or otherwise." If that's the case it's an exceptional situation and will need exceptional evidence. I, for one, will be satisfied if the DoD responds to Oaktree_b that they consider the stuff public domain. I'll know it was an extraordinary situation in terms of copyright law but it'll allow Wikipedia to have the images on Commons. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I've written to the Department of Defense for their opinion, as below:

see talk page

I would hold out until they reply... Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Oaktree . Asking the DoD for clarification is a good idea. FWIW, there is a third option which is the government now claims ownership of the copyrights. The evidence for this would be their requesting that they be credited as the source when people use the videos and that they posted the material on their web site. Presumably they would not engage in pirating videos. :-) Marc Kupper (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@M. Kupper, I was refering to this "They’re yours to use as you like. Just please source them to the U.S. government." which is shown in the DoD website in the form of writing although it was verbally stated by the Senior Intelligence Official at the Pentagon. The point of this is that the government allowed them for use here. You're argument is that al Qaida is the actual copyright holder and what I'm telling you is that to determine who owns the copyright of these videos right now is not our job here because we are not the international court. The stuff you mentioned about videographer being Pakistani and the possibility that a work for hire agreement was made is just speculation. Osama and his family are all Arabs, foreigners to Pakistan, he didn't share his house with Pakistanis. My theory on that is that Osama recorded himself without the assistance of Pakistanis. The camera is not moving and we have no such evidence of someone being behind it. So let's not continue with this because it's irrelevant. I was just being general about what happens once the U.S. government buys an image from a photographer, whatever proceedure is required by the law we all know that in a time like this the U.S. government would complete this according to the law. By them releasing these videos to the public and giving us permission to "use as you like", we can only assume that they have satisfied what the copyright law requires. Anyway, let's see what they have to say.--Officer (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• What they say is likely to be of no great relevance. As we have already read, they consider it theirs to do with as they see fit. The 'please be sure to credit the Defense Department' reminder is clear enough of that. They seem to be saying "we own it whether anybody likes it or not, we even put it on our website clearly putting it into the public domain, so it is. And tough shit of you don't like it." Please refer to my vote and detailed reasoning below. --Ohconfucius (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete Nobody disputes that the USDOD now has put the files on its website asserting ownership, nor that Osama's family are ever likely to fight the mighty government of the US of A for restitution, but that is completely missing the point, I believe. It needs to work both ways, so we have to imagine how the claim would pan out if were taken by an American subject and 'seized' by the Pakistani government without authorisation. The legitimate transfer of ownership of the intellectual property has not been adequately demonstrated. The raid itself was an incursion into a foreign territory and without warrant or other authorisation – as witnessed by the strong protest by Pakistan; that Pakistan is unlikely to sue the US in international courts does not lend legitimacy to the raid. Claiming you own something because you seized it in a questionable raid ignores the fine distinction between possession and ownership; claiming intellectual property rights merely because you have a copy of the original mastertape is also highly contestable, particularly if the Americans were the supposed copyright holders. There are just too many doubts as to each part of the chain of ownership/logic for us to put it onto commons. --Ohconfucius (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2001-12-13-frame-grab-DoD.jpg. You may also want to read this

  US forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say... Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion. "There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us."

• --Officer (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  It just seems from that example that might is right, that the law is what the DOD says it is, and that Wikimedia is happy to go along with it because it's not violating any American laws although it is morally theft. If you guys think that's the proper way of doing things, then I guess there's nothing more to say. I'll just fuck off, then. --Ohconfucius (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • IP rights are complicated. The law can be counter-intuitive. After many years of discussion I am getting more cautious about images from Afghanistan.
  • One important difference between images of OBL from Abbottabad, Pakistan, and the image of OBL in File:2001-12-13-frame-grab-DoD.jpg is that the earlier image was found in the rubble of destroyed building in Afghanistan and was recorded in Afghanistan, prior to OBL fleeing to Pakistan. Pakistan has IP laws, Afghanistan doesn't. Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep
  1. Wikimedia servers are located in the United States. Pakistani law does not apply.
  2. I believe al-Qaeda operates under a free license. All material may be freely redistributed. In fact, free redistribution is the only way they could ever get their message out.

  -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Please read COM:L. Specifically "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Pakistan does matter. If you can show that al-Qaeda has issued a declaration that all of their material is in the public domain (much like TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 105) then that could allow uploading three of the four videos to Commons. The one of OBL watching TV seems to be a personal video and not intended to be an al-Qaeda production. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Law of the United States

This case only involves the law of USA, not Pakistan or any other country. The following 4 points make these images acceptable to Commons.

1. The video is marked as "U.S. Gov. Video", meaning it belongs to the U.S. Government.
2. Posted on an official U.S. Government site, which states "All imagery on our websites are considered public domain"
3. A senior representative of the U.S. Government told us in plain language that "They’re yours to use as you like."
4. Tite 17, Chapter 1, section 105 makes it possible for the U.S. Government to transfer the copyright of the unpublished videos that were confiscated from al Qaida. "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." The "otherwise" could include that a) they were confiscated in a legitimate search operation by the U.S. Government, b) seized as evidence for courts, and c) they were unpublished and its author died leaving nobody to claim them.

If we are going to question the legitimacy of the copyright transfer then the only way to do that would require going to federal courts in the United States, which is beyond the capacity of most of us here, and something like that shouldn't turn to reasons to stop us from uploading legitimate images to Commons. In other words, if the transfer was done in accordance with the law then it is wrong to not allow this image in Commons. I believe that the uploading of these latest images of Osama are not only legitimate but also very important so that everyone sees how he looked after the 1998 and 2001 terrorist attacks. Also, to see the outcome of someone who turns against the world. So far the only image shown in Wikipedia is the one from 1997, during the time when he always smiled and was not accused of crimes.--Officer (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Important stuff can reside on wikipedias under their local house rules. Safely. There's no need to litter commons with dubious content that can be brought to deletion again and again. NVO (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Files uploaded to Wikipedia are usually transferred to here so that they are displayed on all Wikimedia projects. Others will try to upload these same files here again and again.--Officer (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment - Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama bin Laden watching TV at his compound in Pakistan.jpg.--Officer (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No response as of yet from the DoD, perhaps I'll send another email asking for their point of view for inclusion in Commons, again asking if the material is in the public domain or not... Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the "machine generated" response, https://kb.defense.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78

basically we can use the images unless they are marked as copyrighted.

• Permission to Use DoD Photographs and Imagery

Published 06/25/2002 03:12 PM | Updated 01/28/2011 05:05 PM I have a site on the Internet, and was wondering if I could post some of your pictures on my site? Photographs and imagery on behalf of Department of Defense, unless otherwise noted, are in the public domain and available for use, however certain guidelines apply.

Please click on the Guidelines for Using DoD Imagery for more information on using Defense Department images.

If you are using the media images for commercial advertisement, approval must be done through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. You may review these requirements at: Commerical Use of Still Media.

This is the reference: Use this reference number for follow up: #110517-000105 Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)