Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:James Holmes booking photo.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation. The license is false, nothing on the page it links to says that Colorado documents are in the public domain.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing templates on Commons don't comprise authoritative representation of state law. 75.166.200.250 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is from http://www.colorado.gov/about_this_website.html 75.166.200.250 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I missed that. The website concerns me to an extent. I'm checking the current website. I still haven't found anything that talks about the copyright status but will make a note if I do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do note that Colorado.gov has a copyright notice at the bottom. This would imply that they are able to copyright their works. Note that USA.gov has no such notice. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indiana does the same thing, but claiming a copyright doesn't take it out of the public domain in either case. I'll get the case law.... 75.166.200.250 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this which states

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. 24-72-203

This convinces me that Colorado can copyright it's material. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"except that this authorization shall not restrict public access to...copyrighted materials" is the same situation as Indiana: They can go through the motions, but it doesn't mean a thing. Can you get the Annotated Code on that statute? 75.166.200.250 00:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restricting public access and having a copyright are two entirely different things. There are many things that my local government is forced to give me access to; however, they don't need to give me permission to use it as a result. Do you have any idea where I could start searching for an annotated code? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Annotated code is at the bottom of the page I linked to. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this image falls under fair use. 71.53.2.245 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be uploaded locally (e.g. English Wikipedia) because Commons is only for free content. -- Luke (Talk) 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUG. Photos of people should not be disparaging.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that wikipedia policies may not apply here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paris Hilton's appears to be copyright free. It is from California rather than Colorado, and it appears like someone contacted an official. I was planning on contacting the Colorado state government, but haven't been successful in realizing which department I should contact. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the en:wp article rule about using mugshot. I find you can email any .gov and they usually forward it to the right place so the one above may get it there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken by the state and CO docs are PD, so I'd think this is PD. The copyright stmt is probably there just in case, but IANL so I'll wait for a lawyer to come by. PumpkinSky talk 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixes@businessinsider.com Is the webmaster at the site the image came from and they should know the law. The article says the image was 'released' and I think Reuters has posted it as well. This may mean it is PD by Colorado state law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Emails sent to both. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that released records are PD until the Colorado agency producing them actually seeks to obtain copyright protection, which has never happened. But I have to agree with you that the remote possibility probably means these should be on enwiki instead of (or in addition to?) commons. 75.166.200.250 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found anything on the new website to state that documents are in the public domain? How did you reach the link of the old website? It doesn't appear to be on the up and up. If this can't be hosted on commons then it can't be hosted on Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The website has www.colorado.gov at the beginning, which means it is valid. No, one can't just forge it short of hijacking the domain name server, and even then somebody would notice fast. If the image is from a CO state agency, then, yes, that is all the proof we should need it is PD. Ajoykt (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled something like [Colorado agency records public domain] and it was the top link from a colorado.gov site. 75.166.200.250 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News credits the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department with the photo and has no copyright marks for it. There are e-mail addys on the link to the Sheriff's page--maybe they would help? We hope (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the sheriff as well as the undersheriff. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category Mug shots of people of the United States contains over 250 mugshot pictures with various licenses. I mention it as a policy research resource. O'Dea (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One gets to the mentioned licence link by typing "Are colorado state government documents in public domain" at the Google search box. The website is valid--you can't hijack the www.colorado.gov domain name without somebody noticing. And yes it does mention stage agency authored documents are in the public domain. But is this mugshot from a state agency? The county sheriff isn't a state employee. That said, I don't think we should be in a hurry to delete--there is a good chance the sheriff's office isn't interested in any implicit copyright. As for WP:MUG I don't think that matters for a person in the news for a major crime; the only pictures we are going to see from now on would all be somewhat similar. 68.126.187.2 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sheriff is a state employee. Counties aren't partly sovereign in the way states are from the federal government. Teachers, local police, and county employees all are governed primarily by Colorado law and their paychecks are counter-robo-signed by state officials and drawn on local accounts held by the state. But then again, the law in question authorizes the sheriff or the county to obtain copyright protection if they decided to seek it. 75.166.200.250 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once a document is put in the public domain, it cannot be taken back and copyrighted. Think of the complete confusion that would create. And the official www.colorado.gov statement, by default, puts it in public domain. I think the permissions are ok. Ajoykt (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone could appease me and find a statement saying it is in the public domain on the current site. The wording on that confuses me anyways because it specifically states that documents are in the public domain (might not reference images) and then states that copyright restrictions may apply. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your source for this expertise on the structure and laws of Colorado government is what? This seems like a bunch of speculation. Copyright exists automatically by operation of federal copyright law when a work is created. The county sheriff does not need a copyright notice on their website to trigger it. They don't need to be "interested" for "implicit" copyright to apply--it is implicit by law regardless of interest. This image is probably fair use, but there is not sufficient evidence of suitable licensing or public domain to keep it on Commons.--Chaser (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the claim by 75.166.200.250 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) about Colorado law a bit strange. Is there a citation for that? It's clear from http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/Departments/SH/DetAdServices/Detention/detention.asp that, as in almost all U.S. states, the county jail is a unit of the sheriff's office. It also appears that, as in most states, the sheriff's office is a separately elected local office. http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/About/OrgChart/org%20chart_12.pdf shows an organizational chart that matches that of a typical county in a typical state the U.S. If they do it differently in Colorado, it doesn't look like it from the county website. (I'd find it interesting to see any evidence of those teacher / local police / county employee paychecks drawn off a of state account rather than the school district, city, or county treasury. I don't think it would affect the local corporate status of a county government or its sheriff's office, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is correct. States must state that their works are copyrighted, otherwise they are not. I believe that the law I pointed to above may make this case, but I am not entirely sure. In addition, according to w:Dillon's Rule, local governments only have the power given to them by the State Government. In this manner, if the state government never decided to copyright it's own works and never gave that power to the county governments, the images would be public domain. If the state government said material was copyrighted and didn't give the power to the county governments, the image would be copyrighted. The other two scenarios are fairly clear as well. In any case, I don't know that any of us are experts on Colorado copyright law and the research I have done has been relatively inconclusive. I think it is best to wait for a reply from one of the officials. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another link which says Colorado state agency authored documents are public domain:
        http://www.parks.state.co.us/Pages/ColoradoStateParksPrivacyPolicy.aspx

Ajoykt (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looks like PD works can be re-copyrighted (at least Congress can do that). But that isn't our concern:
             http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
      I am not sure the wording of "copyright restrictions apply" matters, once "public domain" has been mentioned. Ajoykt (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Canada. I think the question is who was the photographer employed by? Is the sherriff's department photographer a state employee or employed by the sherriff's department?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us are not experts on copyright law in Colorado. Realistically, the only way to use this image is to have permission from the Sheriff's Department involved. Without that, it is likely to be deleted.--Ianmacm (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous emails have been sent. Should we decide whether to keep or speedy delete pending email response?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone comes in with some more information, I think the best choice is to wait a couple days for a response. If we don't get one, we can make a decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is public domain. Has no one seen the "Jail Report" or "Arrest Report" magazines? All mugshots can be used in the public domain. The state of Colorado does not copyright its mugshots. All mugshots are public record... and Federal law allows the reproduction of any public record. For God sakes people... the information is actually ON Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot#Copyright_status

Common misunderstanding, and this applies to much of the above discussion. A photograph can be released for use in the public domain, a common phrase simply meaning the copyright holder has declared its use to be unrestricted. This is entirely different from releasing the copyright to the public domain, that is, disclaiming any copyright over a work. And what you've said on mugshots only applies to those taken by Federal entities (whose works, by law, have no copyright claim, and thus are public domain), not by state and local entities (whose works by default are copyright to the individual government entity). Those state or local works would have to be specifically released, and in my experience, rarely are. For this image, the the agency who photographed it, IIRC the Arapaho County Sheriff's Office, would have to specifically release its copyright, not simply allow its use in the public domain. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File deletion

Note: Image has been deleted to prevent misuse in articles covering this sad incident. If any evidence comes in it will be released with a free license, the image may be restored. Case not (yet) closed to enable further discussion. BTW it's the individual state or local authority responsible for specifying usage terms if not covered by law. --Denniss (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the new evidence, it seems to me if the sheriff and his deputies were state employees, it's PD, but sheriff's rarely are. They usually work for a city or county. If this is copyrighted, many newspapers, magazines, and TV stations are in trouble. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where Colorado state government specifically releases copyright on works into PD, but perhaps I'm just being dense right now. It would be best to find something in state law about this, rather than relying on potential misinterpretation of wording on their website. Also, media would not be in trouble, since they can claim fair use of the image. For the English Wikipedia, at least, this is not possible since their policy states that, so long as a free image could possibly be obtained, fair use images cannot be used. Since he is still alive, there is every possibility that such a free image could be obtained, regardless of potential difficulty. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aribitrary Break

I think the question is the employer of the photographer. As a state employee it would be public domain by Colorado law but we don't know at this point who it was. Emails have been sent x4?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to where Colorado state law says their works are public domain? http://www.colorado.gov/about_this_website.html and http://www.parks.state.co.us/Pages/ColoradoStateParksPrivacyPolicy.aspx both state "State agency authored documents are in the public domain", but the very next line on both states "Copyright and access restrictions apply", so I feel this remains an ambiguous situation. I took at look at a copy of the Colorado statues and constitution on LexisNexis and could find nothing about state documents being released from copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that the copyright notice at the bottom of the colorado.gov website and the statute I posted above show that state materials are/can be copyrighted. I would like to see something specifically stating that images are PD. On another note, I received a reply from the website that first published it. I got a response that the person didn't think it was copyrighted but they had no idea what the laws were on it. That would make sense because they didn't have to know it. Commons and en.wiki place restrictions on image use that are much higher than any newspaper would reasonably use. In addition, many news organizations have agreements with eachother to be able to use images. Again, this is something that en.wiki doesn't use. So the fact that it is widely published and publicly available would not mean it is public domain in the legal sense. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can email the state through their website:http://www.colorado.gov/apps/feedback/contactUs.faces I would myself but a Canadian emailing a US government may sent the CIA to my door.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I'll be sure to do it tonight. I'll also note that I don't think the CIA would care much about a Canadian sending an email (unless you are a pharma drug pusher or something like that ) Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
attorney.general@state.co.us Attorney general email. Isn't he the biggest lawyer in the state?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might be going a bit too high. Note that state attorney generals generally represent the state in Lawsuits. I could see emailing the County Attorney for Arapahoe, or the City attorney for Aurora if you can find either of those emails. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not go high? He may have the power to release it? I see that the attorney general press photos are released as copyright but with attribution so they may not be PD by law. I couldn't find a county or city attorney so they may not exist and just use state ones? https://www.auroragov.org/Departments/Communications/index.htm is the communications dept. for the city but the email on that site may be listed above. Was it a city or county photo?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.da18.org/DAsOffice/ContactUs.aspx County DA, email through website.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems both are district 18 DA.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
en:Aurora, Colorado spans 3 counties in the infobox, none named Aurora thought. I think it happened in Arapahoe County.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, Lexis has it all. That's what I used to pull up my earlier one. I don't think it is nearly as useful as this in Minnesota, but it's what we have. If you have time to do some more wading through, go ahead. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't read through it as I trust you have. If we can't cite that it is PD by law, then our next step is to email those involved to see if they will release it under a free license. The photographer up to the attorney general? We may still wish to start at the top. Could we use one from flickr I wonder if any exist there with a free licence.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly haven't read through it all. I did a decent amount of searching but I'll probably take another look. As far as flicker is concerned we'd need to be worried about Flickrwashing. Frankly, I don't believe there will be a truly acceptable image on Flickr, but I wouldn't surprised if we found images that seemed acceptable. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48331433@N05/7631099528/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/7617385584/ Is the univerisity one PD I wonder? I only found the two. The other is media from court. Is court filmed by government?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are correct licenses by my glance. The court ones are uploaded by news organizations, the University one states that it is "based on a photo from the University of Colorado". The image was released without the red background to news agencies earlier. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The court one is a photo uploaded by a journalist. I don't have a flickr account to email him though. He has an email on this site:http://www.seatonsnet.com/ He may know the license or have taken it himself?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not only is he a journalist, but he's a journalist for Yahoo. Flickr is owned by yahoo. That leads me to believe the license is correct. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that he changes the licenses for various images; however, I have one major problem. He released an image of MLK and it says it was taken on July 11 of this year. In addition, he released a Barack Obama yearbook picture and I believe that license may be incorrect. I can send an email; however, if he is mistaken on these images, I don't trust his knowledge of copyright. I'll focus more on finding out if he took the picture. Ryan [[User
Aribitrary Break 47

Ask about all of his images on flickr that are free license. We could use some?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the images I found are either copyrighted or have an incorrect license. Can you link me to some images? -- Luke (Talk) 19:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are working on it. Many emails sent etc. Our best line so far is the Seaton image just above this section. If you live in the area could you ask if you can go into his cell and take a picture for us?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Booking Photos are Public Domain

Copyright is at the Federal level, so please don't scour CO law for information.

In US copyright law, works created after 1978 are owned immediately by the employer or author, whether or not a copyright mark is provided. At the same time, if there is a copyright symbol, the work may still be public domain. In my state, the publication of the state's laws has a copyright symbol followed by the state's office of legislature, but it is public domain. For this reason, the credit should be to Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, but it is still public domain.

According to the Copyright Office FAQ, copyright only applies to works that involve creativity (even if it is just the smallest amount). Mug shots and passport photos would not count as a creative work.

With fair use there are also a number of reasons to believe that Wikipedia would be using the documents fairly. The photos were released to the press, they were not licensed to the press: i.e. it has been entered into public domain; a copyright holder MUST enforce copyright to retain it. Additionally, the sheriff's office is not in the business of selling photography; they take photos as records. The publication is not for profit. The picture contains content relevant to the article that is better seen than described in words: namely the dye-job. Thelema418 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be at the federal level but doesn't the state have to have a law to force public domain of their works created for the state? The federal government forces this and I think that is why we were looking into Colorado laws.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where Thelema is getting their information, but they are completely mislead. United States federal government works by law are public domain, however, it is up to the individual state, county, or municipality to declare if their government works are public domain, as Florida has done. There is no evidence at this time that Colorado has a similar law, and there is certainly no evidence that Arapaho County S.O. works are public domain. Thelema is also mislead about the copyright symbol equating to copyright status...under current U.S. law, all works are copyrighted upon creation, except in specific situations (federal works, very simple works, etc). I would, however, like to know which state Thelema is from, as that has significant relevance on their perspective.
As for fair use, Wikipedia may normally use such works if it is impossible to obtain a free image, but with living persons, fair use must not be applied, as it is understood that, regardless of difficulty, a freely licensed image may be obtained. Thelema is also completely incorrect regarding "a copyright holder MUST enforce copyright to retain it". Under modern law, all photographic works published after 1-1-1979 are protected by copyright for 70 years after the death of the author, see Commons:Licensing#United_States. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very correct and thank you for your input. I am amazed this image lasted the few hours that it did. Users are trying to find the employer of the photographer and the laws involved with that entity. I am sure that if a similar image is uploaded again and used in an article then it will be speedied if it is not 100% cleared of license policies on commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are most likely looking for the "Colorado Open Records Act". The Sheriff's Office released the photo to the press, which makes it a public document. Open records are different than copyright. A list of names of the people the government is spying on is a record, but the list does not satisfy U.S. copyright laws because it is a material fact. When the government prevents access to this information, copyright is not the matter of law at hand. The current FAQ for Copyright.gov clearly states that creativity must be a part of a copyright-able work; drawing is generally creative, but drawing lines to create a piece of notebook paper is not copyright-able (Their example, not mine.)
Also this Reporter's Guide for Police Records has a section on Colorado and mug shots that cites relevant statutes: http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/POLICE.pdf
Colorado Springs has booking photo info here, no http://www.springsgov.com/Page.aspx?NavID=2202 You will note that the fee is explained as related to the rate of the employee to do the clerical task; it is not a licensing fee as would be the case if copyright were the issue with booking shots. Thelema418 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disparaging Photo?

In some cases a booking photo could be disparaging. For example, changing Art Garfunkel's photo to a mugshot would be considered disparaging because he is important for his music and not because of his arrest records. Holmes has a Wikipedia article because he stands accused of a high profile crime of national interest. The booking photo is probably less disparaging than what he stands accused of in the written text. The booking photo is also important because it shows his dayglo-orange dyed hair. I don't think this can be explained well in text form.

Living people with mug shots as their main pic include John Hinckley, Jr., Mark David Chapman (whose mug shot is used instead of the yearbook pictures of him), and Charles Manson. The Luka Magnotta article contains no main pic, but a mug shot later in the article.

en:Paris Hilton has one as well. Should it be removed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paris Hilton, has an extensive legal problems section; she is honestly known more as an entertainer. I think it is stranger that en:O. J. Simpson does not have any courtroom photos or booking shots; nor the en:O. J. Simposon Murder Trial article. But unlike both celebrities, I do believe the Holmes' mugshot is important because it depicts the dye-job at the time of the shooting. Thelema418 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:James_Holmes_booking_photo.jpg&oldid=75401540"