Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 August 28

< August 27	August 29 >

August 28

Image:Bob-Mould-press-photo-2005.jpg

There's no mention of the author of this image, and no proof that the copyright holder agreed to release the photo under a free license. --02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. I received a very polite note from an IP address who had no talk page and no instructions. The above comment is unsigned, but could or might not be from that person. No idea. So, who is asking for what? What form should that what take and where does Wikipedia explain that? Thanks for any clues. -Susanlesch 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Col. Allen Allensworth.jpg

This picture is certainly old, but no source is given to prove that it's pre-1923. This site sources it to a 1926 book. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 05:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, on second glance that's not the same image. Still, there's no proof it's pre-1923. If anyone could find a clearly PD photo of this guy (I would imagine one does exist), that would be great. Calliopejen1 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:10284052110509047539.jpg

Claims both CC-BY-2.6 and "Used with permission". What is it? // Liftarn 07:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1997VR4close.JPG

"Any alteration without permission prohibited." makes it non-free. // Liftarn 07:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1997VR4.JPG

"Any alteration without permission prohibited." makes it non-free. // Liftarn 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:9799VR4.jpg

"Any public alteration prohibited." makes it non-free // Liftarn 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1983 Renault Fuego.jpg

Photo by Motor Car Portfolio LLC. No indication they have released it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftarn (talk • contribs) 07:59, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Image:1910 c1910s-30s Bowler hat by Scotts of London and Calhoun's of Canada.jpg

"Image author requests all image use limited to resized versions for other Wikipedia articles." makes it non-free.

Image:1910 c1910s-30s Bowler hat by Scotts of London and Calhoun's of Canada prv.jpg

"Image author requests all image use limited to resized versions for other Wikipedia articles." makes it non-free.

Image:1913, March 9, Man wearing bowler hat, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.jpg

No indication the photographer has released the image.

Image:Fred & Georgeiii.jpg

Appears to be a screenshot from an indeterminate Herry Potter film. Apparently licensed as {{MultilicenseFromowner}} to circumvent WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a copyvio; deleted. Shell ^babelfish 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChelseaReserveProgramme.jpg

While the user may release his scan, this does not mean that the programme scanned is also in the public domain. Since it was printed in 1945, it is likely unfree for our purposes. Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CheyenneJackson.jpg

No evidence that this image is actually released under cc-by-sa; no ticket in regards to image at OTRS. Appears to be a promo photo but fails nfcc because it is replaceable. Shell ^babelfish 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Premises.jpg

No evidence uploader has authority to release image from website under public domain. Calliopejen1 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Church San Luis.jpg

Image was copied from Florida Memory Project, listing there [1] indicates this is a work of the Florida government. Florida's website appears to indicate that works of the state government are not automatically considered public domain [2]. Shell ^babelfish 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another image with the same issue Image:Council House San Luis.jpg [3] Shell ^babelfish 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jumah.jpg

I question this image being created by the user who uploaded it. Appears to be a promotional photo for the company; looking for source. Shell ^babelfish 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there are many images uploaded by this user with a similar problem:

Still looking for sources on others. Shell ^babelfish 19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zinedine.jpg

Image tagged PUI by another user a month ago, but never listed here. This uploader routinely claimed copyright over all sorts of images that were copyrighted by news agencies and found on search engines. Calliopejen1 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F.Meira.jpg

Looks like a professional photo. This uploader routinely claimed copyright over all sorts of images that were copyrighted by news agencies and found on search engines. Calliopejen1 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ressurectionstone.jpg

Image used to say that it had been released into the public domain by it's author. I asked at the Village pump a while back, and thought that it had already been reported. Image now sits without a license tag. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg

I don't believe that works of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department are in the public domain, although they may be publicly available. The police department probably retains rights over derivative works of the mug shots. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that works of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department are protected, they are public domain and publicly available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W@ntonsoup (talk • contribs) 0:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed explicitly by the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration. From http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/1994/94020 :

"If booking photos are not classified by any of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, then in this particular instance booking photos should be treated as public data pursuant to the general rule for all government data as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1."

The exceptions cited have to do primarily with the use of photographs in ongoing investigations. With the guilty plea, this investigation is closed. Based on the available informaion, it appears rather clear that removal of the photograph is unwarranted. AdamRoach 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to second W@ntonsoup's assertion. I recognize that my previous assertion isn't crystal clear on copyright ownership, so I'm going to instead turn the floor over to a law professor: "[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and as- sembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." - Henry H. Perritt, Jr., JD -- see "SOURCES OF RIGHTS TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION" AdamRoach 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that analysis only applies to works of the United States federal government, not works of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That passage appears after the joint federal-vs-state analysis in the source and thus clearly should apply to both. It seems to me that it covers both. 209.77.205.2 04:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that works of state governments in the United States are not always in the public domain, even though works of the federal government are. I do not fully understand the lawyer's explanation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. But I note that the paragraph quoted above is not backed by any sources in Mr. Perritt's article. It appears to be his private opinion, which furthermore appears to be untested in court: all the later examples that he gives deal exclusively with the question whether laws and statutes can be coyprighted by a state. (They can't.) I don't think the broad formulation quoted above is applicable to other works an employee of a state agency creates as part of his duties, such as photos. Lupo 11:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthemore, please note that Section 13.03 of the Minnesota Statutes is about "access to data". Please do not confuse "public access" with the "public domain". See WP:PD#Public records. Lupo 11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The peer-reviewed opinion of a legal scholar specializing in the subject should be preferred to the speculation of presumably unqualified Wikipedia editors. ←Ben^B4 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have grossly misrepresented Mr. Perritt's article, and now you're even single-handedly trying to get that gross misrepresentation into WP:PD. Hilarious. Learn at least a little about copyright, please, before wrecking havoc. Lupo 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I believe the JD qualifies him as "Dr. Perritt", not "Mr. Perritt." Second, Ben and I seem to agree on this topic, so I'm not certain how our position qualifies as "single-handed." Third, the article we're citing -- and I assume you read it -- gets into a number of extremely relevant Supreme Court rulings that have to do with copyright law as it applies to information produced by the states. Keep in mind that, while we're talking about state-produced information here, the authority to assign and recognize copyright resides exclusively in the federal government; the states have no authority here. If there are U.S. Supreme Court rulings that conclude that state-generated works that are produced by state employees as part of their duties cannot constitutionally be considered for copyright protection, that would seem to trump any rulings at the state level. Dr. Perritt's position is argued using such cases -- so I would think you need to find evidence at the federal level supporting the copyrightability of state-generated materials before you start making ad hominem attacks about the education level of people you merely disagree with. (cf. WP:ATTACK) --- AdamRoach 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you an example. Utah.gov, the official web site for the state of Utah, states "Copyright © 2007 State of Utah - All rights reserved." Their terms of use actually allow free use for personal purposes, but in any case, why would the State of Utah assert copyright if it clearly does not have it? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two potential answers to this line of argumentation; the first is: "the same reason states and state contractors attempted to claim copyright in the numerous cases cited by Perritt in the article in question." That's not very satisfactory, though; while it is a solid logical answer, it doesn't address the implied question of whether the web site itself is eligible for copyright protection. For that, you would need to evaluate whether such work would have been performed absent any copyright protection whatsoever. Is this work incented by copyright? (from the article: "Congress lacks the power under the Patents and Copyrights Clause of the United States Constitution to extend copyright protection beyond that which is necessary to provide incentives for creative efforts.") In the case of a government web site, that is a good question, which I am not qualified to answer. However, in the case of the products of legally compelled processing subsequent to an arrest, the utilitarian nature of the work makes it pretty clear that the incentive to produce the work derives from practical considerations, not the promise of limited monopoly provided by copyright protection. --- AdamRoach 02:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd settled this a long time ago--that we couldn't claim blanket public domain status for these photos, but that they were obviously acceptable fair use as long as they illustrate commentary on the arrest (as this one does). Chick Bowen 01:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just fine legally, but it seems to me like such use would violate WP:NFCC #8 (significance). In other words, the reader can understand perfectly well that the subject was arrested without seeing the subject's booking photo. We already have Image:Larry Craig official portrait.jpg to show what he looks like, so the mug shot is not the primary means of visual identification for the article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which may be an issue for the removal of the photo from the article... but that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not under "possibly unfree images". Furthermore, putting the removal request here seems similar to other bogus copyright-based claims used to attempt underhanded suppression of unfavorable depictions or information, such as Uri Geller's attempts to remove his Tonight Show appearances from YouTube postings, or the COS's attempts to supress OT III. He's made himself look like an idiot; trying to hide this seems POV. Abb3w 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world is this still a topic that needs debating. We have a precedent with various artists, politicians, and athletes who have gotten their mugshots on their Wiki articles. As far as it's being public domain, this [5] at the smoking gun should establish that fact. If you go back a page or two, you will also notice a number of people that have their mugshots on there. --Hourick 21:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, nowhere on [6] does it say that the image is in the public domain. Second, {{Non-free mugshot}} seems to be used to provide photos of criminals for the purpose of showing what they look like, not to decorate sections on their arrests. So, if this image is not in the public domain, then it most likely fails WP:NFCC #8. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you propose they got it? TSG broke into the various police stations with Ninja Suits? I think not. If you have an explanation--Hourick 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC) other than public domain, i'm more than interested in hearing about it.[reply]

You are confusing "public records" with "public domain". For example, photos on flickr are public, but they are not public domain. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in following this conversation, the preponderance of it seems to have migrated to Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Public_records --- AdamRoach 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think. (Message also cross-posted to the Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Public_records board)

Regardless of the opinion of a peer-reviewed law professor, I have to go along with the 1994 opinion of the State of Minnesota as it relates to the status of booking photos. I cannot at this time second-guess this opinion, even one that is more than 10 years old. Unless I can find something in the Minnesota statute that supersedes this opinion, the photo is not public domain material, although it is now publicly available through news reports about the senator -- thus, the reason why I had edited the source a few days ago to show "Mug shot released by the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department to news organizations." That's the true source, instead of the news organization that released the story.

To continue the points that I've raised here, the photo is still protected under the copyright held by the State of Minnesota, although the booking photo was released publicly to news organizations. With that said, although the photo was publicly available, the state did not explicitly release the photo to the public domain -- at least, to my knowledge. Big difference here. Even CNN, one of the recipients that purportly received the photo in response to a Minnesota Public Data Act request, appeared to recognize this point by leaving intact the attribution "Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department" on the photo. However, one of the editors decided to crop the photo (i.e., creating a derivative work) to remove this important information that shows attribution of the photo, thus raising some of the the confusion we are facing here about its status. Therefore, the booking photo should be treated as a non-replaceable, non-free mugshot that cannot be duplicated since this booking photo is part of an official record of the state, with a rationale that states our purpose for using the photo for this newsworthy article. In the meantime, I'm going to search the Lexis-Nexis database to anything that points to an update to the 1994 opinion by Minnesota, and if I find anything, I'll post it here. Finally, the original upload of the booking photo that shows the attribution to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport should be restored in place of the one in use should to show the original, proper source of the photo. →Lwalt^♦ talk 15:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make clear that the booking photo of Sen. Craig should be permitted under fair use, with attribution to the airport police as the original source of the photo, as already included in the fair use rationale for the image. I've already provided my (quite lengthy) views on how this photo should be tagged at applicability of PD or non-free image tag for Sen. Craig mugshot. →Lwalt^♦ talk 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously acceptable as a fair use image. This should be moved to the image talk page as a discussion about whether a free image tag can be used, but the image should not be deleted in any case. Savidan 19:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously fair use.--Politophile 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously fair use and should not be deleted. By the way, JDs are not called "doctor." Racepacket 04:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously fair use. — Omegatron 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that we seem to have abandoned the claim that this photo is public domain, I'd like to point out that its current use violates WP:NFCC #8. The photo does not significantly help the reader understand that "Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on suspicion of lewd conduct." Its use is almost entirely decorative. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain discussion has not been abandoned, since the issue has not yet been cleared up after the reading of the MN statutes as to "public" vs. "public domain." That discussion was moved to the Public Domain talk page (my "Update" message on the board), as I've posted a lengthy message there about that issue.

But, are you now shopping reasons to delete the mugshot after the public domain argument went up in smoke? The booking photo documents and identifies the person who is the subject, who coincidently appeared to conceal this arrest from everyone around him which, at least for his political career, is pretty significant in itself and relevant to the accompanying discussion about the incident (besides, there's even a discussion to later move the content about the incident to a sub-article so as to not overwhelm the main content about Sen. Craig's political career). For that matter, the booking photo is not considered "decoration" - your rationale for deletion. If booking photos were decoration for articles, Wikipedia would not have not one of them in any article on its site. Using the rationale that you've given, I could consider the JFK photo just before his assassination to be decoration for his article by looking at the picture and asking myself whether I learned anything about JFK and Jackie Kennedy Onassis riding in a convertible down a street without visible street signs? Looking at this photo, using your rationale, would tell me nothing about the assassination itself. But, of course, that point would indeed be debatable. So, no...images that appear in this (Craig) article, or many other articles for that matter, are not there for the sake of being there. →Lwalt^♦ talk 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PINK HELMET.jpg

[1] Y4kk 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]