Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 8



File:Senator Mike Gabbard, 2015.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Senator Mike Gabbard, 2015.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Clearly not uploader's own work; see official profile at . Taking here instead of tagging copyvio because I'm not sure of the copyright status of works of the Hawaii state government. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on https://portal.ehawaii.gov/page/terms-of-use/ and Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments, I see no indication that this would be in the public domain. —  Earwig   talk 22:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Keep scaled-down version as fair-use. DMacks (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This image belongs to Colorado Springs Police Dept. It is not affiliated with the US federal government. All works by a county department may be subject to copyright, not what the uploader claims. Also, the same image was deleted on Commons as not permissible. Whether the image shall be kept or removed based on WP:NFCC can be discussed here... or later. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * May? Why do you think so? DreamGuy (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The county department owns works and has rights to commercially and publically distribute works. Also, it has rights to permit anyone a license to distribute it with or without some limitations. As for "fair use", we can personally own the photo into our own personal connection without spreading it all over the Internet. Or we must follow WP:NFCC and determine whether or not the photo in Wikipedia meets criteria. --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated the copyright status as it's clearly not public domain. However, it does meet the NFCC requirements for an identifying picture.  Since Dear is incarcerated, it's unlikely a free picture will be available.  All NFCC criteria are met for "fair use" and considering that Colorado encourages fair use over copyright when fair-use makes public records more accessible to the public, "fair use" is very broad here.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons here and below. It was deleted after not having permission, even though PD images do not need permission. As you were the one who got it deleted from Commons with falsehoods, and you also moved the page from a consensus name to your own favored name, you seem to be working to undermine the article instead of working following Wikipedia policies. To see you jump on this is no surprise. A zillion Wikipedia articles use recent mugshots for the same reason: they want these images used and release them to be used and the government allows them to be used. Funny how it's this article you object to. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mugshots from some jurisdictions may be free from copyright restrictions. We aren't talking about those. I don't see any evidence that this image is in the public domain. Jonathunder (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy, you have been a contributor for 10 years, you must have picked up some copyright law knowledge by now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And you should know better than putting alicense on it and then taking it off. You should also not repeat falsehoods. Clearly I know more about copyrights than you do. I've known more about copyright than twice as long as I've been on this site. I read about this all the time. DreamGuy (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unlike Florida, Colorado does not have a sunshine law making most public records public domain. If it was a federal facility or the FBI, it would be public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly invalid PD claim. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Before "everyone thinks" sets in, please read the Wikipedia article on Mug shot publishing industry, this link, this link and *many more*. That's just what I found in a minute or two. Mugshots are public domain, regardless of people think they know, and certainly people writing snark against it but no real proof is wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first external link is an editorial stating how Techdirt believes things should be, not how they are currently. From your second link: "It’s more likely than not that they are. All works made by federal agencies are automatically in the public domain, so if the mugshot was made by a federal agency like the FBI, it is certainly in the public domain.


 * However, states and state agencies can make their own rules about how they want to handle their intellectual property rights. Often though, states still release their works in entirety to the public domain." (ESkog)(Talk) 18:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for invalid license / no evidence of permission. Only works made by federal employees are in the public domain (See Template:PD-USGov) as are works made by employees of some, but not all, states (See Category:US State PD templates). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately ignorance sets in. You didn't even have time to read any links. Just because some template said something doesn't mean it's so. Somebody set those up wrong. Do you read anything on this? Or just vote? Besides which, you are quoting template text that isn't even on this image. So the other tag doesn't apply, that doesn't mean this one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "On April 11, 2014 House Bill 14-1407 was signed into law [in Colorado]. House Bill 14-1407 requires commercial websites to remove people’s mug shots *if* the person was found innocent of the crime for which they were arrested." [I added asterisk.) That's what CO says about mugshots, not what these other people are saying. DreamGuy (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you meant personality rights, different from copyrights. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, no. You are reading what you want into it to not have to admit you were wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We are talking about copyright and not other use restrictions. I also said the image lacks evidence of permission. Please link us to a disclaimer by Colorado Springs Police Department that explicitly says that their "mugshot[s] taken by official goverment worker on government money and released to public" are released to the public domain. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 03:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ALL* US mugshots by police are explicitly PD unless there is a law to the contrary. I've already proven that with links above. Clearly you haven't read those, so we should I provide *more*? Please prove why you want *this* mugshot to be treated differently. And at this rate maybe we should get the Wikimedia Lawyers to chime in, because this is crazy. You can't prove a negative. Maybe no one in Colorado Springs took it to trial because they saw other agencies lose. Your asking for a link that will never happen in real life, and I provided a link to Colorado state law.. DreamGuy (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an explicit law to the contrary: United States Code/Title 17 states that photograph are copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

24-72-203. Public records open to inspection.
 * Delete No evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's what the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) has to say about copyright by local agencies:

(4) Nothing in this article shall preclude the state or any of its agencies, institutions, or political subdivisions from obtaining and enforcing trademark or copyright protection for any public record, and the state and its agencies, institutions, and political subdivisions are hereby specifically authorized to obtain and enforce such protection in accordance with the applicable federal law; except that this authorization shall not restrict public access to or fair use of copyrighted materials and shall not apply to writings which are merely lists or other compilations.

(C.R.S. 24-72-201 to 24-72-309)
 * This file is not in the public domain. Delete. Jonathunder (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the original version has been deleted and it has been made quite clear the scaled-down copy is not in the public domain, I have no opposition to keeping it under proper fair use. Jonathunder (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete absent any evidence that governing local law places the image in the public domain. Under modern US national copyright law, any content which falls under copyright law is copyrighted upon its creation. The governmental creator of the content may place the work in the public domain, by statute, regulation, or appropriate order, or it may maintain the copyright, by action or by default. Unless it's shown that the state of Colorado or an appropriate subordinate governmental body has placed such images in the public domain, it is by our standards nonfree. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per everyone else. Parsley Man (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and reclassify as fair use. It has historical value and is unlikekly to have a free alternative.  Use it as fair use until a free version is found.  This isn't commons and non-free content is allowed in certain circumstances.  This is one of them.  Even the law cited above notes "fair use" exceptions to allow public access to such things as booking photos and arrest reports.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you upload a lower resolution version and write up a proper fair use template, I will support that. This image, however, was alleged to be public domain when it is not. Jonathunder (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's been done. The low-res probably isn't a FU requirement here but we only use a thumbnail anyway and somebody already did it.  I think low res is only required where the high-res version has some commercial value which this can't have as a copyrighted public document.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Small version meets NFCC as a low-resolution version of a copyrighted work of historical significance. -- Callinus (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Profile shot of Jane Michael Ekanem.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Profile shot of Jane Michael Ekanem.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * EXIF: Copyright holder www.emmanueloyeleke.com Eeekster (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:F. W. Murnau-Sunrise-Gaynor and O&

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:F. W. Murnau-Sunrise-Gaynor and O& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of publication without notice provided. Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:F. W. Murnau-Sunrise-Gaynor and O&

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:F. W. Murnau-Sunrise-Gaynor and O& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of publication without notice provided. Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:York&

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: delete. —  Earwig   talk  21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:York& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image taken from here: http://news.psu.edu/story/308644/2014/03/21/athletics/penn-state-york-baseball-team-play-revs-stadium-april-6

Copyright belongs to Penn State University. Mosmof (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:A-ha photo.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * File:A-ha photo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader is admittedly not owner. No proof of licensing. Would go F9 but I couldn't find a source for this exact image. BethNaught (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.