Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with FBI most wanted

< Commons:Deletion requests
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.

Files found with Special:Search/FBI most wanted

edit

As noted in several previous DRs (first, second, third, fourth), these photographs are used by the FBI as fair use. They are not shot by the FBI and should be deleted.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep the images distributed before 1989. Distributing the images as wanted posters constitutes publication, see Commons:Publication where a copy is viewed by a member of the public, other than the photographer's immediate family, as they need a copyright symbol to avoid public domain status. The correct license would be "PD-US-no notice" for images up to 1977 devoid of the copyright symbol, and those up to 1989 still required registration with the copyright office within 5 years of creation per "PD-US-1978-89", and I have never seen a mugshot in the registration database. Those created in 1990 up to the present can be deleted. I defer to consensus on the post 1989 images. --RAN (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's... not how fair use works. If the image was published elsewhere beforehand, or elsewhere and registered within 5 years (1978-89), then it is still copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither license involves fair use, both are instances where an image enters the public domain, either by absence of a copyright symbol or by failure to register with the copyright office. I repeat: There are no mugshots in the copyright registration database that I can find, if you are aware of any, now would be a good time to link to them. --RAN (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Strategically ignoring my point is not going to help your cause. The onus is on you, the uploader, to prove that these images weren't published with formalities at any time within 5 years of publication here. You still haven't done so. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't prove a negative, it is impossible. I can't prove to you that God does not exist, but all it takes is for God to appear to show me that he/she exists. --RAN (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Magog the Ogre: I think the two of you may be talking past each other; the criteria is somewhere in the middle. The real criterion is likely that only publication with consent of the copyright holder and failure to follow copyright formalities prior to March 1991 is public domain; publication without consent of the copyright holder doesn't count against the copyright holder. Mugshots are almost certainly works for hire, and therefore the copyright holder is the government agency, and I think it's reasonable to assume that the originating law enforcement agency providing another law enforcement agency with mugshots of wanted fugitives indicated consent by the copyright holder to publish. Personal photos are a different matter: You'd have to show that the person who actually took the photo (or otherwise held the copyright), not just their family members or other people who had possession of the photo, were consenting to publication. So any wanted posters containing non-mugshot photos is problematic. --Closeapple (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep You haven't even bothered to look over the images you've nominated for deletion. For example, the File:Gary Ray Bowles.jpg file is a mug shot of him taken from the Florida Department of Corrections, which falls under PD-FLGov and has nothing to do with the FBI. Inexpiable (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Where has any photographer in any of these cases made a copyright claim? IP lawyers are paid handsomely to send notices for these kinds of takedowns; don't do their work for free. Evackost (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of notice is not an argument for retaining -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Outside of the FL image above, there isn't evidnce that these are the work of the federal government --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet they were were still made available to the public (published in copyright parlance) and either not renewed, or not even registered in the copyright database. Those up to 1990 would be in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per RAN, I would love to start checking those files that if some can juct change to use {{PD-US-no notice}} or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw and split into more specific nomination(s), or at least withdraw type #1 below. As per my reply in RAN's comment, there are likely 3 different classes of files nominated here: (1) files whose only potentially copyrighted content is government mugshots (and maybe sketch artist renderings and other law enforcement work for hire) published when copyright formalities were still required before 1978/1989; (2) files whose only potentially copyrighted content is government mugshots (and maybe sketch artist renderings and other law enforcement work for hire), but some did not appear in published material until after the 1978/1989 formalities cutoff; (3) files whose potentially copyrighted content is other than mugshots and law-enforcement work product, for example personal photos, whose donor for publication may not have been the actual photographer/copyright holder. #1 is probably {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}} because it's reasonable to assume that the law enforcement agency holding the copyright consented to publication and didn't demand a copyright notice or formalities, similar to entertainment industry publicity photos without copyright notices; #2 is possibly copyrighted because the (non-federal) authors didn't need copyright formalities to retain copyright by then, so consent to the publisher is moot; #3 is copyrighted because there's no evidence that the actual copyright holder was the one consenting to the publication. --Closeapple (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I've added a note on FBI images to Commons:Problematic sources. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Angela Davis FBI wanted poster, which serves to illustrate an injustice visited upon her in the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis, irrefutably falls under the public domain. Such works are not entitled to domestic copyright, regardless of metadata, reproduction method or boilerplate claims which may be affixed: "A work of the United States government, as defined by the United States copyright law, is 'a work prepared by an officer or employee' of the federal government 'as part of that person's official duties.' In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States Texas Jack LarrySimpsonus (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There doesn't seem to be any legal basis for OP's claim - images published by the federal government are in the public domain, which is why you don't see official US government agencies publishing artwork of copyrighted material. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Mass DR of images of different sources and provenance. Please renominate separately with a justification. --Yann (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_FBI_most_wanted&oldid=658070598"