Talk:Konstantine Anthony

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mayor Spanky

So this communist getting spanked by a drag queen is NOT going to be put in his wikipedia article? Talk about conforming to the worst conservative tropes, wiki editors. 2601:280:C981:8270:2127:A531:8450:D6EF (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Page Protection: Konstantine Anthony

Dear Administrators,

I am writing to request page protection for the Wikipedia page of Konstantine Anthony. This page has recently experienced persistent vandalism, which is affecting the integrity of the content.

The continuous nature of these disruptive edits suggests that temporary semi-protection of the page is necessary. This measure would allow only registered users or autoconfirmed users to make edits, thereby helping to maintain the standard of Wikipedia's content and prevent further vandalism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing efforts to preserve the quality of Wikipedia.

Kind regards, Sleeplessmason (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Image Use and Neutrality in Konstantine Anthony Article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close as an improper RFC. The statement is neither short nor neutral and WP:RFCBEFORE was not followed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Request for Comments seeks community input on two key issues regarding the Konstantine Anthony Wikipedia article:

1. Copyright Concerns: The image titled "Konstantine Anthony, 2022.jpg" (sourced from [here](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Konstantine_Anthony,_2022.jpg)) was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by [User:Reppop](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Reppop). The image is claimed to be a work of the City of Burbank, and its original source is the city's official website ([link](https://www.burbankca.gov/konstantine-anthony)). It's crucial to determine whether the City of Burbank, as an incorporated city, holds copyright to this image, which may not be public domain like federal agency images. It is common for municipal government entities to claim copyright over works they create, unless they specify otherwise or release them into the public domain. This raises concerns about whether the image was uploaded and used without proper consent or release of copyright by the City. Considering Wikipedia's strict adherence to copyright laws, should this image be retained or removed based on its copyright status?

2. Editing Dispute and Potential Bias: The same user who uploaded the image, [User:Reppop](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Reppop), has been actively adding it to the Konstantine Anthony article. Observations indicate that the page has undergone rapid edits, possibly portraying a politically positive spin, potentially in line with Konstantine Anthony's upcoming run for county supervisor. This could raise questions about neutrality and the presence of a politically motivated campaign influencing the article's content. How should Wikipedia address this potential bias to maintain the neutrality and integrity of the article?

Given these concerns, I seek the community's perspectives on whether the image should be retained or deleted, and how to address the potential bias in the article's edits.

Sleeplessmason (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to defend myself from the editor calling me "biased".

The image is public domain, and California law states that California governments cannot enforce a copyright on images subject to the California Public Records Act, even if they do have a copyright line. I have stated this and given them the template used for the image and why it was undeleted for the exact same reasoning, that they cannot enforce a copyright for the records subject to the CPRA. I have repeatability told them that it is, in fact, public domain. See C:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-11#File:Konstantine_Anthony,_2022.jpg for why it was undeleted.

I've only edited the Konstantine Anthony page a total of four times, and all of them to only add the images (twice in May, once in November and once in December). I haven't touched any of the content within the article, so I'm not sure how a total of four edits for images constitutes "rapid editing" and "portraying a politically positive spin" for a run that I didn't even know was happening until now.

reppop^talk 21:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image license appears to be valid. See c:Template:PD-CAGov. Curbon7 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Curbon7,

Thank you for your reminder about the Assume Good Faith policy. I agree that it's crucial for maintaining a collaborative and respectful atmosphere here on Wikipedia. Your emphasis on this guideline helps highlight the importance of constructive dialogue and avoiding assumptions about other editors' motives.

In light of this, I'll make sure my contributions and interactions on the platform are aligned with this principle. It's always beneficial to have such reminders, as they help keep the community focused on positive and productive collaboration.

Perhaps another editor would like to contact the City of Burbank to ask if they are asserting copyright on the subject image, that may settle that up quickly. Copyright is a complex topic and I am not a copyright attorney.

Best regards,

Sleeplessmason (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the template:

"It is a public record that was not created by an agency which state law has allowed to claim copyright, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States."

"County of Santa Clara v. CFAC held that the State of California, or any government entity which derives its power from the State, cannot enforce a copyright in any record subject to the Public Records Act in the absence of another state statute giving it the authority to do so. This applies even if there is a copyright notice, so long as the State of California or one of its agencies is indicated as the copyright holder."

reppop^talk 22:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the image in the infobox, it is of better quality than the previous image, and since he is the mayor of Burbank, an official portrait seems apropos. The copyright concerns have already been addressed at commons, as pointed out above, if you still have lingering concerns about the copyright status, then you should discuss that issue with the administrators at commons, rather than here. I'm not seeing where you have discussed this copyright issue with either administrator, Jameslwoodward or Yann, who were involved in the un-deletion request.

Furthermore, see MOS:IMAGEQUALITY - Use the best quality images available. A total of four edits to this BLP, which are all adding/re-adding the image does not mean Reppop has a "potential bias" or is engaged in a "politically motivated campaign". In my view, the neutrality and integrity of the article, has not been compromised by adding a better quality image. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isaidnoway,

I appreciate your input on the image quality and relevance of an official portrait for the mayor of Burbank. Your points about the image's quality and appropriateness in the context of the article are insightful.

I also want to thank the other contributors to this discussion for their insights regarding the copyright concerns. The issue raised at commons and the subsequent discussions are crucial for ensuring the integrity of the Wikipedia content.

Regarding the copyright status of the image it is indeed a complex issue. The claim by the City of Burbank's website, despite the PD-CAGov template suggestion, warrants a closer look. In agreement with the 'abundance of caution' principle, I believe seeking further legal opinions would be a prudent step. The "County of Santa Clara v. CFAC" case doesn't provide a clear precedent for this situation relating to photographic media, and unless someone here is a copyright attorney, a deeper investigation seems warranted.

Thank you all for your valuable contributions to this discussion. Your perspectives are greatly helping in navigating this complex issue. I am going to reach out to a copyright attorney so seek clarification as well.

I look forward to reading any other comments or input from editors.

Sleeplessmason (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Template:PD-CAGov is being used on over 6,000 files on Commons, with many of them being images of California politicians, maybe your allegations about the use of this template, in regards to copyright status, would be better suited for a discussion at Commons, since it has the potential to affect so many articles. Here is the talk page for the aforementioned template. In addition, here is the help page, and the admin noticeboard at Commons. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Licensed Attorney Comment

Patent and copyright attorney Eric Allen Kelly graciously provides this missive:

"Short answer: Unless the 'government edicts doctrine' gets extended to local government, then photos of elected officials appearing on a local government (city) website are copyright protected.

As a general rule, photographs, including digital ones, that are taken by humans are treated as creative works that are protected by U.S. copyright law. The thinking is that the process of a photographer deciding how to frame a given photo, how to light the subject or use existing light, what shudder speeds to use, what aperture settings to use, lenses to use, etc. are all creative decisions that warrant protection by having a copyright attach to each such photo.

The subject in the photo is not that relevant to whether or not the photo has a copyright. And sometimes the subject itself may warrant its own copyright, in which case, the photo may be a derivative work of the original work. For example, if the photo was of a human created sculpture.

Further, as a general rule it’s the photographer that owns the copyrights in the photos made by that photographer. However, if the photographer was an employee and was taking the photos for their employer, it could be that the employer is deemed the creator and the owner of the copyrights in such photos and not the actual employee photographer. Or by way of written assignments, copyright ownership in a given photo may be changed.

Then there is further wrinkle here because the photos in question are on a local government website. As a matter of U.S. federal statutory law, the U.S. federal government, including by way of its employees acting in their employed capacity, do NOT create copyrights; however, U.S. federal government can own copyrights created by others (17 U.S.C. section 105). In 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court extended their 'government edicts doctrine' to state government legislators, such that judges and legislators, including those at the state level, may not be considered the 'authors' (creators) of, and therefore cannot copyright, the works they produce in the course of their official duties as judges and legislators (Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. [2020]). If the 'government edicts doctrine' is extended to local government, then it could be possible that photos of elected officials, taken in that capacity, would not be protected by U.S. copyrights – but that may require an appropriate court to actually litigate that particular issue and I'm not sure if that issue has already been litigated or not."

I look forward to other remarks from legal professionals.

If someone has time to discuss this at Commons, please feel free to help with this topic. It is interesting. Sleeplessmason (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read, that's more so just a general copyrights of the states, where in most they are copyrighted. But I don't see anything specific to California governments. Or anything about California in general. Also, this shouldn't be discussed here, it should be on Commons, probably somewhere like C:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. reppop^talk 02:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant: WP:PDOMG#News. reppop^talk 22:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you and your purported attorney want to challenge the undeletion of this image, you need to do that at Wikimedia Commons, please see - appealing decisions - If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. Have you done that? Likewise, if you and your attorney want to challenge the use of the PD-CAGov template, you also need to do that at Wikimedia Commons. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]