Commons:Deletion requests/FBI most wanted

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.

FBI most wanted

[edit]
Note: Files kept if sufficient evidence for USGov work, otherwise deleted --Denniss (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taken at a time consistent with being in custody
Note: Files kept, enough evidence for USGov work. --13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


Not Taken at a time consistent with being in custody
Note: Files deleted - no or not sufficient evidence for primary USGov work --Denniss (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

The FBI published these photos but doubtfully created them (unless they took the pictures... in order to release a picture to the public in order to find them). The sourcing is unclear enough that they should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless it can be proven they are in the public domain for some other reason. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The disclaimer at the end of [[1]] says:

Notice: The official FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list is maintained on the FBI website. This information may be copied and distributed, however, any unauthorized alteration of any portion of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives posters is a violation of federal law (18 U.S.C., Section 709). Persons who make or reproduce these alterations are subject to prosecution and, if convicted, shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

Chovain (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, we really care about those because no one has proved that the images are copyrighted. We do have someone - the delete nominator - who has assumed ("doubtfully created", in his words) they are copyrighted, but no proof yet. All things considered, no one has proved they are copyrighted and the rebuttals being made intend to prove the images are PD. We that said, let's not be presumptious in our qualifications. The ShadedSeal and the Signpost links don't prove anything related to the images in this delete nomination. Mercy11 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I came here because I saw the deletion nomination notice for File:Victor Manuel Gerena.jpg", and my comment is as follows: Common sense would tell you that if the FBI published these photos then the FBI either (1) created them or (2) they are in the public domain, as to be otherwise, it would then follow that the FBI would be using a copyrighted image, and would thus be itself be in violation of the law, and there are limitations in what the Government can do to impart justice: It can't, for example, seek to bring a criminal to justice (call it in order to find them, or what have you) by committing another crime. Seems to me invoking the precautionary principle here is really a failure to apply a bit of common sense. My name is 24.187.189.193 00:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message. [reply]
    Right, except for two very large problems: fair use (which Commons doesn't allow), and usage with permission, meaning they can use it for law enforcement purposes, but we can't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except they explicitly say we can use them, as long as we don't modify them. Chovain (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that is the case, a no modification clause is insufficient for Commons. Compare with {{Cc-by-nd}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Keep. I understand Magog the Ogre concerns and I understand her desire to err on the "precautionary principle". However, unlike normal where I seem to agree with Magog the Ogre, this time I cannot. Not only that I strongly disagree with Magog the Ogre. The FBI claims to hold the copyright of this image. On there "Legal Policies and disclaimers Legal Policies and disclaimer" page it reads "Copyright Status and Citation: Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission".
  While Magog the Ogre concerns that the image may have come from a different source, I see nothing on the FBI's website that says that anywhere. That is an assumption, not backed up by the websites "Legal Policies and disclaimers". The FBI has not credited any external agency with creation of these image. They have not said that you have to ask agency X for permission, as suggested in there "Legal Policies and disclaimers Legal Policies and disclaimer" would be required if the images came from a external source. They have not put any kind of notice that says any of these image came from a non-FBI source. They have punished these images themselves and claim to own images on there entire website, unless otherwise specified. I see no reason that we cannot give them the same right to claim copyrights that you, Magog the Ogre or myself have. When I take a photo all I have to do is say "It's mine, I took it" and that is enough for Commons and Wikipedia. I don't have to prove it, I don't have to sign an legal affidavit, I don't have to send Wikimedia a certified documented. If something come up later to disprove that claim then the image is deleted. I don't see why we don't give the FBI, the people who ironically enforce copyright rules, that same ability. The image are there unless there is something to refute that claim.
  They say the images are theirs, they say that they made them, as far as I'm concerned, that is enough for me. Additionally, and I admit irrelevantly, they publish them expressly so that they appear everywhere they can. I don't see a situation where they are going to complain that the images are used in a format where "More" people see them.
  As to the "usage with permission" and "Non-modification" that is irreverent. Wikipedia has made it clear that it dose not agree with the FBI's claim to control images that they make that fall under the {{PD-USGov-FBI}}. The FBI has in the past claim control of image that it has no right to If you see:
In that case the FBI didn't want Wikipedia to display it's seal (unlink in this case where it want us to use these image), but Wikipedia General Counsel said "NO". They contended and stood up to the FBI and siad that the image fell under {{PD-USGov-FBI}} and we have the right to display them. They refused to let the FBI make those same claims of "usage with permission" and "Non-modification" that Magog the Ogre is concerned about. The only difference I see here is the the FBI wants everyone to see and use these images.
  Personally, I don't think it would be appropriate in this case for any "administrator" to delete these without seriously considering the damage it will cause to Wikipedia.
  First: To delete these because we don't "trust" the FBI claims, would mean the deletion of EVERY image in the Category:FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and the majority of the images using {tl|PD-USGov-FBI}}. The same concerns of "doubtfully creation" can be made on ALL images the the FBI has claimed and all images found on the FBI website. The same concerns of "doubtfully creation" can be made on images from the White house or the Military. Do we also delete those image? This risks setting a very bad and dangerous prescient that can lead to a huge number of "Public Domain" image being deleted under a "precautionary principle".
  Second: It goes against what Jimmy Wales and what Wikipedia General Counsel have already said "Image by the FBI are Pubic Domain" and we have the right to show them. For an Admin to go against that seems to go against what they stood up against the FBI.
  Third: It goes against Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Assume good faith principal. Unless something to the contrary can be found, aren't we suppose to assume that claims of "Ownership" are in fact correct? To assume that an image claim is false goes against how Wikipedia is structured in my view.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is debating that FBI works are public domain. There is debate that these works are FBI works though. It seems blisteringly obvious that the FBI did not create the works (for reasons stated above). If someone claims to have taken a photo that all logic claims they have not taken, then no, we do not take their claim at face value. The only way they own the copyright is if it was signed over to them. And there is ample precedent on Commons to delete FBI most wanted photos: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama Bin Laden-Pentagon.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama Bin Laden.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osama Bin Laden.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no evidence that they didn't take the image. Your looking at deleting ALL FBI image because you assume that didn't take them. No one argues that the images found on the US Military or the White House images were taken by federal employees? Those pages normally don't credit any person, but because they say the images are the US Military or the White House images we assign then the US-GOV tag. Why is the FBI any different? The FBI website says that every image on the page is Public Damian owned by then. Unless you find evidence that they arn't it is only an assumption that they are not PD.
  As to your ample precedent I disagree. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama Bin Laden-Pentagon.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama Bin Laden.JPG were not FBI 10 Most Wanted Photos. They were images of copyrighted photos of Osama Bin Laden captured by the US Military in combat. The argument was did the copyright then become government property when captured. They had nothing to do with the FBI.
  Only Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Osama Bin Laden.jpg was in any way relevant. It was argued that it was acutely unlikely that the image was taken by a FBI employee. While I disagree with the finding, I can see the argument. Osama Bin Laden was hiding in a cave somewhere halfway across the world. How would a FBI agent have the chance to make the images? This cases was unique and not relevant here, as these people all lived in the US or have been in the US in the past. They have all had some interaction with the FBI in the past and it is highly likely the the FBI did in fact have a chance to take the images.
  Your belief that the FBI didn't take the photos is only an assumption. I have requested deletion of images hundreds of time and when people make assumptions I say "Prove it". There is no evidence to back your claim that all images are bad. I see no difference in these image than all the image your and I have uploaded. If you or I make a mistake and upload one image that was in fact copyrighted do we then assume that all the image you or I uploaded should be deleted, without any proof that they are bad? The FBI may have used an image of Bin Laden that they didn't own (and was has not proven one way or the other). That image was deleted. So dose that mean ALL image from the FBI are bad? --ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The level of proof you're requiring is unreasonably high. First off, it's not my job to provide the proof, it's yours to provide it: Commons:Project scope/Evidence. Second off, as I've stated above, an iota of common sense shows the FBI does not take photos of people they're trying to find. If they knew where they were and were thus able to take the photo, then it would defeat the whole purpose. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete These images are posted by the FBI in order to find wanted criminals -- people who the FBI does not have in custody. Some of the images may have been taken by the FBI at some earlier date, but many of them come from other sources, including other law enforcement agencies and the public, none of whose images are necessarily PD. The fact that the FBI has posted them does not say anything about their copyright status -- the FBI's use is a Fair Use under USA law. The cited permission to copy the poster is an appropriate extension of that Fair Use. Therefore, without evidence of the copyright status of each image, we certainly must delete them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - if the decision is delete, I would appreciate the chance to upload these as fair use on English Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - First Magog the Ogre can't use Fair Use as these image are of people who are presumably alive. Fair use can't be used on images of living people.
Second the website clearly reads in the websites "Legal Policies and disclaimers" that the FBI owns the images unless they are credited to an external agency. They have not said that you have to ask agency X agency for permission. They have not claim "Fair Use" as Jameslwoodward suggest. They have not put any kind of notice that says any of these image came from a non-FBI source. They have published these images themselves and claim to own images on there entire website, unless otherwise specified.
Third: To delete them under the "Assumption" that they are lying sets a hugely bad president. You realize this means that any image of a person wanted by the FBI will automatically be deleted and no Wikipedia page of any living FBI fugitive will ever have an image, all because ONE image or Osama Bin Laden bin-lading was deleted because the "Date" it was taken was unknown, therefor it was "{assumed" to be a non-FBI source?
I don't think it's right to assume that the FBI is lying. They claim to own the copyrights and just like any editor on Commons they deserve the right to be believed unless there is evidence that they don't in fact own the copyright.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 08:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest that the FBI is "lying" -- that accusation requires that the person uploading the images is fully versed in copyright law and is aware that another place on the site says that the FBI owns all images unless otherwise stated. I think that one part of the FBI isn't paying attention to what another part is saying -- that the person actually uploading the most wanted images has not even thought about copyright issues -- he or she simply uses what is available. We have certainly seen cases of this before. This is not like a Commons uploader who is, we hope, at least aware of copyright and that he should not be uploading images that are not freely licensed. This is a person whose overriding interest is catching a criminal and copyright isn't something he cares about.
As far as creating a precedent, I don't think this does. In cases where it seems clear that the image was in fact taken by the FBI, we will keep it. But in those cases where it appears that an image came from another source -- as most of these do -- we should delete them.
Remember, please, that here on Commons the burden of proof is on the uploader.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions about fair use should be discussed on the relevant project, not here, but I will note that there is already an exception from the general "no fair use pictures of living people" principle at w:WP:NFC#UULP, so this is not an absolute rule. I think you could argue that pictures of fugitives are not reasonably replaceable. --Avenue (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Keep - SINCE the FBI site states the images are theirs and SINCE the FBI is a US Federal Govt agency IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT the images are in the PD. Mercy11 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The FBI claims something that is patently false on the surface; does that mean we should follow it anyway? If you think so, I suggest you might need to brush up on the law, which disagrees. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks but no thanks; I will decide when its time for me to brush up on anything.
In fact, after reading the additional comments you and the others (both sides) have made in this post, I am more convinced than ever that the delete nomination in poorly founded, at best a case of pure extremism, and a failure to understand no just the letter of the law but its objective as well.
The Wikipedia US Fed Govt license reads "This image or file is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." It doesn't matter whether the Govt employee was taking a photo of a criminal in an FBI jail cell after it was captured, whether the US Govt employee was a navy seal that appropriated the picture from a drawer in the criminal's house, or whether the US employee flew to the Moon to obtain the photo from a Mexican military attaché working as a double agent for the Saudi govt in outer space, the fact is the image resulted from work done by a US govt employee while being paid by the US Govt to perform an official duty. Photographing, invasions, and flying to outer space are all examples of Federal Government "work".
The delete nominator is assuming that "work" means only the first one of the three sample cases above ("unless they took the pictures... in order to release a picture to the public in order to find them"). This is an assumption -- and a bad one. Why? read on.
Here is another bad asssumption by the delete nominator: "an iota of common sense shows the FBI does not take photos of people they're trying to find." This presumptious statement assumes that the case has never existed before when the FBI was trying to find a fugitive for whom the FBI had no photo (check out [2] to see how bad this assumption is)!!! Worse yet, it also assumes that if the FBI did apprehend the non-photo fugitive and -- as it always does for updates and filing purposes -- photographed the fugitive but, subsequently, the fugitive escaped, this assumes that the photo of the escaped fugitive that the FBI would then display in Post Offices around the USA would not(!!!) be the photo the FBI took when it apprehended the fugitive earlier. At best, it assumes that the FBI would always post a photo other than the photo taken by the Bureau. These variously layered, nested, or cascaded assumptions (remember, the "I think that one part of the FBI isn't paying attention to what another part is saying" above?) just make no sense to me. You end up with assumptions to justify your original assumption.
Another poor asummption that has been made - though, cleverly, never flatly stated - yet we are not oblivious enough to let it fly by us: "The FBI, the most powerful and resourceful anti-crime organization in the world, depends on others to obtain the majority of the photos of its fugitives." ("in those cases where it appears that an image came from another source -- as most of these do...") This assumes, for instance, that the FBI never uses in its website a photo the FBI took of the fugitive when he was not yet wanted (example, the subject happened to be in an FBI group photo previously taken by the FBI). Or that the FBI never uses in its webiste photos for which is has bought the right to own in perpetuity. ETC, ETC, ETC, I am sure we can think of many other such scenarios. IAE, such poor ingenuity is the result of making the kind of assumptions that are being made here. This is what happens when you take the precautionary principle to the extremes. Hey, as shown by another editor above, even Wikipedia had to stand up to the FBI when the FBI took the precautionary principle too far.
This leads to this reasonable result: If we start making assumptions, as Magog has made from the beginning of this nomination ("doubtfully created") and on forward, there will always be an assumption than can be made such that even the most robust of U.S. Govt images can be disqualified as not PD. Such radicalism is just nonsense. Progress was never the result of nonsense, but the result of reasonable people that were willing to think within the confines of fairness - and fairness is what copyright laws everywhere are all about. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, essentially per Jameslwoodward. The relevant policy here is our precautionary principle, that files should be deleted if there is significant doubt about their freedom. All of these files are I think subject to significant doubt. Yes, the FBI published them all, but that isn't the issue - what matters is whether (an employee of) the FBI created them. All the photos were published when the individuals were fugitives, so the question is generally whether the pictures were taken by the FBI at an earlier time, e.g. when they were in custody or under surveillance.
There are a few different styles of image here.
  • Posed portraits like File:Robertfisher.jpg seem highly unlikely to be taken by the FBI.
  • Mug shots (like File:Saenz jl2.jpg) and other front-on poses (like File:Glen Godwin.jpg and File:James Bulger 1994.jpg) could have been taken earlier by the FBI, but there I can imagine many other plausible authors - state police or drivers licensing photographers, for instance.
  • Unposed close-quarters shots (i.e. those of Semion Mogilevich, looking away from the camera) could perhaps have been taken by an FBI agent, and those are the two pictures I feel least sure of, but there are other possible authors there too.
  • We also have age-retouched photos (like File:Robert Fisher retouched.jpg) and drawings (File:Glen Stewart Godwin.jpg), which might well have been retouched or drawn by an FBI employee, but these are based on earlier photos, again of uncertain provenance.
The source links given on the image description pages also do not provide any information about who took the photos. So I think there is significant doubt about the authorship of all these pictures, and they should be deleted from Commons. --Avenue (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except that nowhere in {{PD-USGov-FBI}} does it say the FBI must have "created" them. It is enough for the FBI to have "taken or made" the image to fulfill Wikipedia's copyright requirement. Anything beyond that is purely argumentative. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  •  Keep Comment The our precautionary principle keeps being quoted here. However, I don't see how it applies. The US governments says the copyright is theirs. Therefore there is no "significant doubt" that the copyright is theirs. Who else should be able to decides who owns the copyright but the US government? Additionally non-of the 5 examples applies, since this isn't a question of "we can get away with it". This is a question of "The US government says we own the copyright" but a few users for some reason seem to think "This is not enough". Jimbo Wails thought it was enough, when the FBI tried to force the removal of the FBI seal from commons.
our precautionary principle seems to be used to often to justify deletions that are just silly. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't you already vote keep above? Anyway, the government has not said that they produced these images anywhere that I've seen. (The FBI seal is different.) The Legal Policies and Disclaimers page you linked to earlier states that "With respect to materials generated by entities outside of the Department of Justice, permission to copy these materials, if necessary, must be obtained from the original source." We need either evidence that these photos were produced by the Department of Justice (or another arm of the federal government), not by external entities, or a free license from the relevant external entities, to be able to keep them on Commons. --Avenue (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't realize I had put {{VK}} twice as the page has gotten long.
However, the Department of Justice and FBI websites all say that all images belong to them. This has never been in doubt. The issue the nominator is saying "But how can they have made the images". That is irreverent. The FBI says that the images are theirs, therefore the images are PD.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do they say that? I haven't seen it. --Avenue (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the images will be deleted in the next few days unless someone has proof these images are of primary FBI (or similar fedgov agency) source. Primary = originally made by them, everything else is a derivative work at best. Just hosting images on fedgov sites doesn't make them PD-USGov. --Denniss (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I have emailed the FBI office in my town asking for information on how I can get at Commons:OTRS letter about these images. I would request a little extra time, since I believe it will take some time for me to get a response.
Second, If the image are deleted as planned, I plan to appeal immediately. I am only saying, so that instead of one Admin making a call that I belive is totally wrong on a miss applied "Precationaly Principal", perhaps instead of deleting them outright the apeal process can be used first and the images wont be lost for the time being.
Third, I have an alternative solution. This issue I keep hearing is that the "FBI" may not have "Made" these images, despite there claim at ownership. However, the FBI says that the images are theirs, claim to own the entire website, maintained the list and the lists' website, and allows the information to be copied and distributed as PD, unless otherwise specified, which there is none. Therefore change the tags to {{PD-copyright holder|Federal bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice}}
If, as a person, I can create a website and then say the same things, ie, I own the entire website, the images are mine and you can use anything on the website as PD, this would be more than enough for Commons to accept. I don't think the FBI should be held to a higher a standard. Therefore the "Created by" issue is resolved.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 06:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I have e-mailed User:Geoffbrigham, General Counsel for Wikimedia Foundation to ask him to chime in. I think this deletion request, along with a number of with similar thinking, goes against legal principals and basic logic. I also think it goes again what Jimmy Wales and the former Wikipedia General Counsel have already said about FBI images. The "deletion" of these images will lead to the deletion of a huge number of images, based on this new "Precedent" and it will harm Commons for a bad reason. I don't know if he will chime in, but I hope he dose.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not resolved. For the photos deleted in the past there is no doubt that the photos are not created by the FBI. So the reason given by USGov templates such as {{PD-USGov-FBI}} cant apply, the photo is not taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. So there is no reason why it is public domain and therefore there is no reason to upload a file here, especially not with the obviously untrue statement made by adding {{PD-USGov-FBI}}. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was resolved. I was trying to come up with an alternative. The idea I had was to remove the "Creation" issue from the files, but simply saying the the Copyright holder released permission to use the images. You can be the copyright holder and NOT the creator. For example, works made for hire. The FBI says it's the copyright holder, therefore the image can be released by the copyright holder, even if they didn't take the photo using {{PD-copyright holder}}. I'm saying to removed {{PD-USGov-FBI}} from the equation. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To comply with {{PD-USGov-FBI}} it is not necessary to prove the image was "created" by the FBI as you are stating. That word, that descriptor, and that implied definition is not used anywhere in {{PD-USGov-FBI}}. As such, you would be making up your own interpretation of {{PD-USGov-FBI}} if you use it here. The only requirement of {{PD-USGov-FBI}} is that the image must have been "taken or made" by the FBI. Let's stick to the standard defined in {{PD-USGov-FBI}} and do not create a higher standard with the expectation that it be complied with, for that is not what Wikipedia lawyers have defined as the "enough and sufficient" to pass {{PD-USGov-FBI}} muster. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Yeah, except the word "created" is not used anywhere in {{PD-USGov-FBI}}.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
While the current tag dose use "Created by a FBI employee", normally you only have to show that they person who is claiming that the copyright is their is actual the copyright holder. There are hundreds of cases where a person who didn't take the photo is the copyright holder, like works made for hire. Therefore, to remove the issue, lets remove the "created by" completely. The FBI says they are the copyright holder and there is evidence that they are. Therefore, remove the "Created by", by using {{PD-copyright holder}} then you don't have to "provided that these images were created by the FBI".--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What are you talking about? "Created by a FBI employee" is not used - ever - in {{PD-USGov-FBI}}. That phrase is an invention - and assuming good faith I hope invented in error only - and invention used by the nominating editor ("The FBI published this photo but doubtfully created it..."). In fact the {{PD-USGov}} template goes ever farther from this non-existent higher standard and simply says works are "in the public domain in the United States because it is a work "prepared" by an ... employee of the US Government." The higher standard inferred by the injection of the word "created" by the nominating editor in seeking to delete these PD US Govt images is watered down even further from the "taken or made" of {{PD-USGov-FBI}} to simply "prepared by".My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
No, there is no reason to remove the "created by" from {{PD-USGov}} templates, because that reason is written in the law and that is the reason why we created the template. A copyright transfer requires a written form, so evidence of copyright transfer can be provided... but is unlikely because - despite you - no one claims that the FBI has the copyright/intelectual property rights on the photos. So creating a speculative and most likely untrue template as you suggest will not happen on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? "Created by"? {{PD-USGov}} never uses those words, as such your argument is a not an argument at all.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  •  Delete Standard case of {{subst:nsd}}. The police are looking for some people and posted some photos of them on their web site. If the police are looking for someone, it means that the person isn't easily accessible, so it may have been difficult for the police to take a photo of the person. Presumably, they have instead looked for photos from other sources (driving licences, passport, school photos, family photos et cetera). Maybe they have been to relatives to the people and obtained photos that way. Some photos are listed as derivative works above. The FBI may have created the derivative work, but the source photo is still unidentified and the derivative photos may violate the copyright of the underlying originals. Some photos may have been created by some US government department for whatever reason, but there is absolutely no way to tell without more information. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? We could expeculate a lot of "maybe" but the fact being argued here is that the images should be deleted becuase -- presumably -- they were not "created" by the FBI,,, when creation by the FBI is not a requirements of the neither {{PD-USGov-FBI}} nor {{PD-USGov}}.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  •  Comment I think some analysis of individual images is warranted. Some appear to be mugshots, and the photograph years listed match their arrest for earlier crimes. In the USA is the primary arrest mugshot usually taken by a state or federal agency? --99of9 (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, but I suspect it would often depend on whether the crime they were arrested for fell under state or federal jurisdiction. --Avenue (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking those three fugitives in order:
  1. Godwin was held at Puente Grande, a Mexican federal prison, in 1991.
  2. From w:Alexis Flores: "Flores was arrested for possession of a forgery device, a felony in Arizona. [...] He was incarcerated for 60 days and deported to Honduras after his release in June 2005." So he would probably have been in state custody, then transferred to (federal) INS custody for deportation. His 2002 arrest was for shoplifting, also in Arizona.
  3. Ravelo was a relatively small-time gang leader in Texas in the late 1990s.[3] This suggests to me that he was more likely in state custody than federal.
None strike me as likely to have been photographed by a US federal employee at the time, although there is probably most doubt regarding Flores' 2005 picture, since he passed through INS hands then. --Avenue (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-issue. We can't be dealing with "probabilities" when the {{PD-USGov-FBI}} is very clear: The only requirement to be met is that producing the image must be the result of (WHAT?) "work (BY WHOM?) "of an FBI employee" ... (WHEN?) "during the course of an his official duties". If "photographing" (or drawing, rendering, drafting, writing, spying, sneaking, or what have you) was a requirement, the Wikipedia lawyers would have said so in the CR license.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
First, the wording of the various PD templates is only our summary of the legal situation, so don't rely too heavily on exactly how these are worded. They omit a lot of the subtleties. The actual legislation (and the courts' interpretation of it) is what determines whether a work is protected by copyright.
Second, although the FBI website is probably the work of federal employees in the course of their official duties, and the resulting compilation is thus a work of the US government, this does not mean that every image on the site becomes a work of the US government and thus enters the public domain. The images retain whatever copyright protection they had beforehand. See 17 USC § 103(b).
Third, a similar situation applies to derivative works like the aged drawing and photos. While the changes to the image would probably be a work of the US government, the author of the underlying photo would have copyright over the elements of their photo that remain in the derivative work. See 17 USC § 103(b) again. --Avenue (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the wording of the various PD templates is not "only our summary of the legal situation". We are dealing with Wikipedia policies here, not with unexact guidelines open to editorial interpretation. By their own nature, policies are given to be used verbatim. We have our job; attorneys have theirs. A quick look at any disclaimer, software license, etc, will show how precise attorneys are, and if Wikipedia attorneys did not use "created" then there is no basis to make creation the gold standard for this nomination. To assume editors know better than the Wikipedia attorneys who decided on the wording would be quite naive. The "derivatives", etc, arguments are pre-empted by the lack of a meritable basis in the original nomination. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
This is Commons, not Wikipedia, so no Wikipedia policies apply here. Anyway, the policy is that images have to be free according to the definition given here. It is thus irrelevant how a Commons template is formulated; if the images don't fulfil the criteria given on that page, they are not free enough for Commons. In this case, the question on whether they are free or not depends on United States legislation. According to United States legislation, a work is in the public domain if it was created by the United States federal government. Thus, you need to prove that the photos presented here were created by the United States federal government, or else the photos will be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, the Wikimedia lawyers had no input into the wording of the {{PD-USGov-FBI}} template. It's strictly the work of community members. --Carnildo (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, essentially one community member.[4] (The Commons template was copied from the en wiki one.) --Avenue (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Only those kept with sufficient evidence of primary USGov work, others gone Denniss (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/FBI_most_wanted&oldid=73007503"