DEA hardly created this image. FunkMonk ( talk ) 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Delete indeed they did not. Rama ( talk ) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Keep They use it, so they most likely bought the rights and now use it as a governemental work. JJ Georges ( talk ) 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

That's extremely unlikely. Even if it was the case, buying a license for using a photo does not make it your intellectual property. FunkMonk ( talk ) 23:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Keep This image is a work of a Drug Enforcement Administration employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105). Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 16:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

  Do you have sources to back that allegation? Rama ( talk ) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

Por supuesto. Mira te voy a dar 2 ejemplos para que te des cuenta de lo que te afirmo. Primero que todo te comento que cualquier persona que haya tomado una foto a un terrorista es libre de hacer con ella lo que desee, como el caso del periodista Hamid Mir el cual divulgo una foto en una entrevista con Osama Bin Laden y es utilizada aqui en wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg Por otra parte el siguiente portal web del gobierno de los Estados Unidos muestra de forma detallada a otros terroristas: Narcotics Rewards Program - Target Information entonces no se te extrane que sea el gobierno de Colombia quienes le hayan suministrado estas foto, entre las 2 naciones hay multiples acuerdos y financiamientos, inclusive de Estados Unidos hacia Colombia en la lucha por acabar el terrorismo y el narcotrafico, entonces porque tu tienes que dudar de la procedencia de estas fotos?? si son los mimos gobiernos quienes las proporcionan a los Estados Unidos?? o mejor aun, entonces siendo asi como tu dices porque no se han borrado todas las fotos de los siguientes articulos: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_Revolucionarias_de_Colombia , http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%ADnea_de_mando_de_las_FARC-EP , y de muchos otros articulos?? me parece que estamos perdiendo el tiempo en una discusion que la verdad no tienen relevancia, osama bin laden es una persona como tu y como yo, la unica diferencia es que esa persona es un terrorista como los son los de las FARC, entonces cual es la diferencia?? entonces porque no se han borrado las fotos de los articulos que te acabo de senalar?? Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

One does not forfeits their rights to copyright by engaging in criminal or terrorist activities. And in the case at hand, we know nothing of the photographer. Rama ( talk ) 04:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

Yo en ningun momento dije que el fotografo pierde sus derechos, lo que dije fue que la foto fue suministrada al gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos tal cual como lo hizo el gobierno de Colombia, entregandole las fotos de otros terroristas, entonces cual es la diferencia con osama bin laden?? si todos son igualmente terroristas?? la foto fue dada a los Estados Unidos y de alli su divulgacion, no viola ningun derecho. Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 16:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

This has been going on since september, with no consensus for deletion. Could we end this discussion, keep the image and move on?? JJ Georges ( talk ) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

Delete the image and move on?? Rama ( talk ) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

No, keep the image and move on. Are we supposed to go on until there is a consensus for the deletion?? JJ Georges ( talk ) 13:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

No, but we are not forced to take opinions based on patent misunderstandings into consideration either. This is not a vote. Rama ( talk )

Estoy a favor del usuario JJ Georges, ya que debemos seguir y no darle mas vueltas a este asunto, porque no nos fijamos en redactar articulos para la Wikipedia en ves de perder el tiempo quitando fotos que estan claramente sustentadas por el Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos?? Yo de verdad que dejaria la foto porque no viola ningun derecho.

Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 01:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

 Delete , File:Osama.jpg#Licensing is simply untrue, this file was not created by an employee of the U.S. federal government. -- Martin H. ( talk ) 13:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

De verdad que esta foto no viola copyright, expuse un caso de una pagina del Gobierno Federal de Estados Unidos donde aparecen fotos de varios terroristas internacionales. El hecho no es tanto que un estadounidense que trabaje para el gobierno de EE.UU. haya tomado la foto, pero si se puede dar el caso de que la persona que tomo la foto la haya donado al gobierno de EE.UU. como el caso que ya expuse, en este caso si puede ser publicada y de hecho asi lo es?!. [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5]

Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 01:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. ?/ M endaliv / ^2￠ / _Δ's / 15:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

Si dices que las fotos las cargan con derechos de autor, entonces como determinas tu que dicho autor no pudo haber cedido sus derechos para que otras agencias o personas las publiquen?? Te repito que el Gobierno Federal de Estados Unidos ha soportado fotos en sus paginas con muchos terroristas internacionales. Si esto fuera como tu dices entonces porque no se procede con el borrado de fotos para este articulo?? Estructura Militar de las FARC , teniendo en cuenta que fueron tomadas de EE.UU. aqui Target Information . Te comento otro ejemplo, si fuera com dices, entonces porque la wiki permite que se suban fotos de terroristas internacionales en estos articulos:

• Pablo Escobar
• Joaquin Guzman Loera
• Zacarias Moussaoui
• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

I don't understand Spanish very well, I'm afraid. The best I can tell is you're asking me how I know the rights were not assigned to the US govt. or another agency? That's just it: I don't know and can't figure it out. Nobody has put forth an adequate accounting of the image's publication history. Therefore, we must delete. It is unacceptable to naively assume that this is a PD image simply because it has appeared on a US govt. publication. ?/ M endaliv / ^2￠ / _Δ's / 13:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

Aun no respondes a mi pregunta, si es como tu dices, entonces porque no se borran las fotos de los articulos previamente mensionados?? sabiendo que fueron tomados de estas paginas que acabo de mostrar. No es posible que se borren las fotos para unos articulos y para otros no.

Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

I'm not saying anything about other files in this DR because it's neither relevant nor necessary. The point at issue is whether this specific image is the product of the US government, or is otherwise freely licensed. If we cannot verify that this image is freely licensed, we cannot keep it on Commons. ?/ M endaliv / ^2￠ / _Δ's / 19:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

No, como me vas a decir que no es relevante?? acaso las imagenes que te hablo de otros proyectos no estan subidas en Commons?? Aqui , solo falta mirar ese enlace para saber que estas imagenes son del Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos porque en Colombia estas imagenes fueron "donadas" o cedidas por el acuerdo que tienen los dos paises en contra del Terrorismo y el narcotrafico. Estamos hablando de Osama Bin Laden un terrorista internacional como lo son los terroristas de las FARC, entonces que diferencia hay?? Ninguna?! ambos (FARC y AL QAEDA) son 2 redes terroristas y hablan el mismo lenguaje. Entonces porque si se suben fotos de las FARC y de AL QAEDA no?? Y si tu crees que no se sabe la procedencia, te repito, entonces porque no se borran las imagenes de las FARC?? si son terroristas??

Nanovapor9 ( talk ) 22:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Comment

Source: http://www.state.gov/misc/87529.htm#copyright

Copyright Information

Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated.

If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. For photos without captions or with only partial captions, hold your cursor over the photo to view the "alt tag" for any copyright information. Please note that many photos used on this website are copyrighted. Only State Department photos are in the public domain.

Pablo Lopez We fly together 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

If a photo belongs to U.S. Departament of State it finds in this database: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/index.htm

Pablo Lopez We fly together 06:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

I add the following images in equality of circumstance:

• File:Reyes farc.jpg
• File:Tiro fijo farc.jpg
• File:Rios farc.jpg
• File:Victoria140.jpg
• File:Ivan farc.jpg
• File:Timochenco.jpg
• File:Cano farc.jpg
• File:Milton farc.jpg
• File:Timochenko.jpg
• File:Noe SR.jpg
• File:Jose benito C.jpg
• File:Abelardo CC.jpg
• File:Luis antonio L.jpg
• File:Edgar lopez G..jpg
• File:Ct042402fig15.jpg

All of those should most likely be deleted too. And again, government websites use copyrighted images all the time, no reason to believe a picture is created by them if it not explicitly says so. FunkMonk ( talk ) 13:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

Other images probably copyrighted:

• File:Traqueticopabloescobar.png

Supposed original source: http://www.dea.gov/speeches/s102901.html , the same that Osama.jpg -now http://www.justice.gov/dea/speeches/s102901.html See: http://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.dea.gov/speeches/s102901.html - but this image has 82 x 141 and 3.4 kb vs 314 x 480 and 289 kb of the photo in Commons.

1. It isn't a DEA's image
2. That isn't the original source

• File:Zacarias Moussaoui.jpg

Original source: http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/terrst-vuln.htm -See: http://web.archive.org/web/20070419184832/www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/terrst-vuln.htm- but Alabama Department of Homeland Security doesn't belong to the federal government, it belong to the state of Alabama. See about us . This departament has your own policies - http://dhs.alabama.gov/policies/webpolicies.aspx- but I don't know if they publish under CC or not.

Webarchive has a copy of 150 x 168 and Commons of 358 x 450, but it doesn't mean anything because it isn't the original source.

Pablo Lopez We fly together 09:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

Deleted. Photographs of people that the Federal Government would like to arrest and who have not been arrested are very unlikely to be Federal government photographs -- if the Federal Government had been able to take a photo of the person, it would have arrested him at the same time. The fact that it is on a Federal website means nothing -- many Federal websites are very careless about credit for photos.? ? ? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward ( talk to me ) 15:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

Unused personal photo - out of scope Gbawden ( talk ) 08:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC) [ reply ]

Deleted. out of scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC) [ reply ]