Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Qamar Javed Bajwa.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:General Qamar Javed Bajwa.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Adamgerber80 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: ISPR also states this "publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material". Images have been removed in the past with same terms.
Converted by me to DR to allow for discussion. IMO, the terms outlined on the source-site equal the CC-BY-SA license. Even the official CC licenses usually do not restrict "moral rights", as this would be illegal in many jurisdictions. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. But I want take this back to a discussion which happened here Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-01#File:Devraj_Anbu_NC.jpg. IMO, this is the same rationale as the one applied there. Moral rights are equivalent to no mutilation/distortion of the image which according to other editors on Wikimedia is not allowed in CC. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that upholding moral rights is not allowed or that "mutilation/distortion of the image" is not allowed?
CC on "moral rights" and CC licenses: [1], [2]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everybody! Túrelio, you said very rightly that: "The terms outlined on the source-site equal the CC-BY-SA license". I have the same opinion, and this is my core point of view in justification of the objection made by Adamgerber80. --Atagill (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jameslwoodward,LX and Magog the Ogre were party to the issue in the earlier case. I would like them to weigh in on this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep License OK. Yann (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This content has been marked by CC-by-SA license on source's website. So this discussion has come to its logical conclusion now. I will thank Túrelio & Yann for their support. --Atagill (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the license is OK. The Indian Army case is different. Moral rights protect the author from use of the image in a way that would negatively affect the reputation of the author. This is clearly explained in the first CC essay cited above. The Indian Army license, on the other hand, restricted the use of their images in ways that were derogatory to the subject. Thus, it would be perfectly possible under the license here to publish the image with the caption "This man is a criminal" (if it weren't true, then it might be libel, but it would not violate the license). If you did the same with one of the Indian Army images, you would be violating the license. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to close this nomination since the Disclaimer page on ISPR has been updated and now clearly states CC BY SA. --Saqib (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. --Saqib (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]