Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 22 July 24 >

July 23

[edit]

Template:Nevada State Historic Places

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. Garish, but harmless. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nevada State Historic Places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Way, way too big. --SPUI (T - C) 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:HistoricPhoto

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HistoricPhoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For reasons I have outlined at Template talk:HistoricPhoto#Fair use assertion, I do not believe that the current fair use rationale of the template is valid. Images that meet it are not necessarily fair use, and many should not be kept; your pictures don't become free for use by any nonprofit for educational purposes just because they have historic value. The template should be redirected to Template:No licenseTemplate:Fair use, requiring an explicit rationale. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Mugshot

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mugshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Much like Template:PD-CAGov, I believe that this template is based on a faulty understanding of the underlying copyright law. Public records kept by states are not automatically in the public domain; some may be, varying state by state, but not all. See the discussion at Template talk:Mugshot#Freeness. The template should be redirected to Template:No license. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a while until the dispute over the freeness of mugshots is resolved. For now, we should avoid delete current mugshots just as well as avoid uploading new ones. And if this is the case that mugshot come to be non-free, this template will help us to identify the images do delete. --Abu Badali 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, when there's a question of whether something's copyrightable, better to err on the side of caution. Please do notice that it's been a month and a half since I first questioned the copyright, and no one has yet provided any evidence that public records in general are not copyrightable. See also this case's citation of a Second Circuit decision that "the New York Freedom of Information Law did not prevent a county from holding a copyright in GIS maps the county had produced", likewise see this case's statement that "we conclude as a matter of law that the codes here at issue had not entered the public domain" (clear example of public records being accorded copyright), and even see our own discussion of whether public records are automatically PD at Template talk:PD-CAGov. It appears exceptionally unlikely at this point that anyone will be able to come up with any evidence that all mugshots are in the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mugshots are documents of the record and/or the public courts and therefore not suject to copyright protection. "...However, public ordinances, court decisions and similar official legal documents _and_ public records of the state and local governments are generally not considered copyrightable for reasons of public policy." (The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices) Bdelisle 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where in the compendium this is. A full copy is available here, and I have been unable to find that term. When I contacted the Copyright Office, as detailed at Template talk:Mugshot#Freeness, I was pointed to Section 206.01 of the Compendium, which mentions nothing regarding public records. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I didn't have anything to do with this template so I don't know the reasoning behind it, it's possible that the intent was not as a new category of fair use images, but rather for categorisation so that there aren't 20,000 images in {{fairuse}}. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NO! Mug-shots are (were) believed to be Public Domain, and not Fair use. --Abu Badali 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even if mugshots are no free, certainly most uses of them would qualify as "fair use". Why not change this template to a "fair use" template? BigDT 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree. Mugshots are usually used on Wikipedia as a free image of a living person to be used on the article for this person. If we come to conclude that they are not free, most of current uses won't be fair uses. --Abu Badali 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have a template that says that this image is in the public domain by (enter reason here). Some mugshots are in the public domain, while others are not. It depends on who takes them and where it is taken. Just double check before the upload. As with another image license template on TFD, we should assess and decide what should happen next. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each mugshot would have to be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the fair use rationales would have to be added. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. From the links I posted over on Template talk:Mugshot, I don't believe these images can be considered PD or GFDL, but given that newspapers and like the use them freely, I imagine the de facto legal status right now is that these images, if copyright can be claimed on them at all, are licensed freely and nonexclusively by the states, or fall under fair use. In any event, the notice that the copyright of mugshots is a legally grey area should be noted until someone can point to some conclusive evidence. Everything I've seen so far implies that what little legal guidance there is varies from state to state. --FreelanceWizard 07:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pragmatically, no one is going to sue Wikipedia or its mirrors. They can't, what with various shield laws, unless someone publishes a hard copy. But our copyright policy is intended to be more idealistic than pragmatic: we're supposed to respect copyright even if we aren't going to be prosecuted by it. Otherwise we'd take the common Internet approach of turning a blind eye until Jimbo receives an OCILLA notice, by which course we would be totally protected from prosecution. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe change to fair use if copyright is in question, a large majority of uses here would qualify as fair use anyways as they're usually on the entry of the person in question which comments about their arrest. --TheTruthiness 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hmm. I'm not into legal questions in any way because I feel so incompetent in these matters. But I'm just thinking. Weren't these photos taken for identification purposes, the same as we use them here? For example if a former inmate gets in trouble for the second time his picture will be published and shown in all media possible...and every cop gets a copy of it. Then how can its use can possibly be restricted? Top 100 Most Wanted are distributed worldwide (I live in Europe and remember to see them on local TV). Maybe Zsa Zsa Gabor should reach the 99th spot... (Ok I know they are considered Federal business and those are different). Isn't that the same case as High School graduation photos? Who owns those? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're distributed to police officers and posted up in various places, and given to anyone who requests them under FOIA laws, but that doesn't mean that they're free of copyright. Nobody's going to sue you, but it's still generally illegal to redistribute them, subject to local public-records laws. Note that many of these are just photos of someone who got picked up once by the police, not of wanted criminals. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but amend by state. Most documents associated with a person's arrest and trial are released to the public for bill of rights issue about not having secret trials, including much more sensative information than a booking photo. That's how organzitions like the ACLU and other watchdog groups can investigate things. See the explanation here for the State of Florida. This database includes details court documents, including mug shots. Additionally, federal documents are available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act, which doesn't just include arrest and trial documents, but almost any federal document that doesn't compromise national security. [FBI.gov] provides a searchable database of federal documents, and highlights the documents related to Jackie Kennedy, the Beatles, Albert Einstein, Gracie Allen, Thurgood Marshall, and Walter Winchell. According to the website, "All information the Bureau provides at this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied, subject to Sections 701 and 709 of Title 18, United States Code, which prohibit the unauthorized use of the FBI seal or the use of the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation," the initials "FBI," or any colorable imitation of these words and initials "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such [activity] . . . is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." (and Wikipedia never pretends to be the FBI). There is a chance that in some state jurisdictions mugshots are not free, but that would be the exception, and should be explored further. That's why I think the mugshot template should be {{mugshot-va}}, {{mugshot-pa}}, {{mugshot-ca}} for examples. If it were not free in a state, that state's template would actually be a deletion tag (like for the image licenses that aren't free). In the states where it was free, it would be the current template with the name of the state inserted somewhere. Insted of having 50 templates, probably just three could be created (one for federal, one for deletions, and one for state keepers) a la the Bable template.--Esprit15d 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Florida and the federal government are the exceptions. They're the only two I've seen that explicitly release their public records into the public domain. Federal courts have ruled that maps maintained by New York county agencies, for instance, are not in the public domain despite the state's Freedom of Information Law (County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3rd 179 (2d Cir. 2001), as summarized in many places although the text doesn't seem to be online), and other courts have ruled likewise even for actual regulations (Veeck v. Southern Building Code, Fifth Circuit; copyrights on regulations "remain enforceable, even as to non-commercial copying, as long as the citizenry has reasonable access to such publications cum law"). Public records are not generally in the public domain; they still have copyright on them in most states, certainly until proven otherwise. Their resale or modification is generally prohibited (which makes them unfree by itself), and even their redistribution is often restricted in some cases. I've already created {{PD-FLGov}} to handle the one state I know of that does, in fact, release most of its public records into the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a state forbids it, I think it we should use the standards that other media outlets do, and that is that booking photos are fair game. 99.9% of all booking photos at Wikipedia were copied and pasted from some news outlet on the internet. It's not like editors are going to the courthouse, paying court fees, and scanning in booking photos. And 99.9% of the booking photos on the internet are from The Smoking Gun or news sites — who get these photos from police press releases. If the police are releasing them, it's free. Mug shots from Washington citizens (the only state I know that forbids mugshot use outside of legal use) are probably rare, since one has to go through a boatload of drama to get them. My point is - if it is at wikipedia, it is probably free. The number of real mugshots wrongly used at Wikipedia are slim to none. The template can probably stay how it is, and the policy be altered to include a few paramaters, like "and not from Washington State" or "from California, and convicted." The source should (as always) also be required.--Esprit15d 13:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not generally use the same standards that other media outlets do. Other media outlets use the standard "use it if there's no real chance of being sued over it"; Wikipedia uses the standard "use it if it's not copyrighted". Mugshots are in fact copyrighted, in almost every state, even if the states don't usually enforce their copyrights. Pragmatically speaking, we could use most state works, but we don't. That is, to the very best of my knowledge, Foundation policy; editors who aren't board members or executives of the WMF are supposed to be deciding what's copyrighted and what's not, not deciding what the copyright status is of works we can use. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is ludicrous. It's absolute beaurocracy at its worst. Of course mug shots are public domain, their very purpose is to make the public aware of the visage of criminals and suspects, villigantes and crooks. Multiple templates for each juristiction or anything else will overcomplicate wikipedia. I am going to vote against your aim here. It creates unrequired work.--I'll bring the food 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a supporter of mugshots - I've uploaded several myself and really want them to be kept. But the statement "Of course mug shots are public domain" is said out of ignorance. In Washington (mind you the only state I know of) they are not free, and the courts have decided that jailhouse and arrest booking photographs ... be used only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Persons have sued magazines, newspapers, etc. for publishing mugshots and won. Any simple way to respect this state I am all in favor of.--Esprit15d 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked above to various cases stating that state records are copyrighted unless stated otherwise, and I've only seen evidence that one state (Florida) has largely forfeited that right. From the few "case study" states I've seen evidence for or against, I would wager that all but a few states maintain copyright on public records, even if not always enforced. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of mugshots is not to "make the public aware of the visage of criminals and suspects, villigantes and crooks", but to record those visages for future reference by law enforcement. Mugshots aren't those things they put up on America's Most Wanted, they're what the police take and file away when they arrest you, for any offense at all. A number of the mugshots we currently have are from, e.g., the arrest of a celebrity for drunk driving or the like. Few are from wanted posters for serial killers or the like. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Fawlty Towers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant with {{Infobox television episode}}, which should be used to keep articles standard. This FT specific one offers no further fields than the standard one. Only used in two articles at present (maximum would be 12). No-one responded on its talk page to my query, so TFD it is... Delete and replace uses with {{Infobox television episode}}. The JPStalk to me 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Soft drinks

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Soft drinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, unfocused template with almost random entries. Rmhermen 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Cobocopyviowarn

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cobocopyviowarn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Derivative of {{nothanks}}, made for warning about copyvios that were tagged by the bot Cobo (talk · contribs). However, it appears that Cobo was never completed (the account's sole contribution was the creation of its userpage) -- and this all dates back to almost a year ago. Since the reason these templates exist never happened, this is unused and not necessary, and thus should go. (Note that this is, in a way, related to the nomination of {{cobocopyvio}}.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23&oldid=1136431860"