Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg
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.
As Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel has never been in FBI custody, there's no reason to believe this—or any of the miscellaneous disparate photos used on his wanted poster—are the works of the FBI or US federal government. (FWIW, this looks most like a passport photo, the copyright of which would be vested in the photographer commissioned by Patel, and to which the FBI would've had ready access for their purposes.) Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a w:WP:POINTY nomination, created because I randomly cited this image as one of many, many examples showing that FBI photos of suspects are PD-USGOV at Wikimedia -- in response, User has nominated the single image I cited, when their objection is actually to our policies that acknowledge FBI suspect photos may be reproduced under PD-USGOV. The intellectually honest move is to withdraw this nomination and replace it with a proposal to revise our longstanding policies. Feoffer (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{PD-USGov-FBI}} says, "This image or file is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." This isn't an FBI-created photo, as Patel has never been a suspect in federal custody to have had a booking photo taken. This is the FBI using a third party's photo under fair use, which is their prerogative, but we at Commons have to respect the original creator's copyright. Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're imagining a "right" that does not exist. Copyright means the US federal govt limits who can publish an image -- and that's ALL it means. So when the US federal Gov asserts its right to create and publish content for public distribution, copyright does not apply and it enters the public domain. You can't use copyright to limit the speech of a court or a congressional committee or a federal agency. Feoffer (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{PD-USGov-FBI}} says, "This image or file is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." This isn't an FBI-created photo, as Patel has never been a suspect in federal custody to have had a booking photo taken. This is the FBI using a third party's photo under fair use, which is their prerogative, but we at Commons have to respect the original creator's copyright. Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom and special:diff/822567412. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep {{PD-ineligible}} as booth picture. Yann (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Booth picture"? Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. If this isn't the FBI picture, then it is probably taken from his passport (or driving license). There is no photographer, therefore there is no copyright. Yann (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see anything at Template:PD-ineligible that relates to that, though? Firstly, I guess my question is, do photo-booth photos not receive copyright protection recognition on Commons? The composition of the photograph is still consciously and specifically undertaken by the photographee prior to the photos capture; the photographer is the subject, and it's just the shutter release that's been automated. Secondly, I've never seen a photo booth take driving or passport photos; it's always a person (government employee or contracted third party) who's working to make sure the composition is perfectly acceptable for the purpose. Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- PD-ineligible is very generic and doesn't detail all situations. The point of ID pictures is that there is no creativity or originality involved, which is the basic requirement for copyright. Yann (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen lots of US driving license photos deleted because they're copyrighted: 2011, 2020, & 2022 for example, with Florida licenses being the exception thereto (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohamed Atta.jpg). Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, IMO these deletions are a mistake. I would support undeletion. Yann (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've seen lots of US driving license photos deleted because they're copyrighted: 2011, 2020, & 2022 for example, with Florida licenses being the exception thereto (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohamed Atta.jpg). Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- PD-ineligible is very generic and doesn't detail all situations. The point of ID pictures is that there is no creativity or originality involved, which is the basic requirement for copyright. Yann (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see anything at Template:PD-ineligible that relates to that, though? Firstly, I guess my question is, do photo-booth photos not receive copyright protection recognition on Commons? The composition of the photograph is still consciously and specifically undertaken by the photographee prior to the photos capture; the photographer is the subject, and it's just the shutter release that's been automated. Secondly, I've never seen a photo booth take driving or passport photos; it's always a person (government employee or contracted third party) who's working to make sure the composition is perfectly acceptable for the purpose. Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. If this isn't the FBI picture, then it is probably taken from his passport (or driving license). There is no photographer, therefore there is no copyright. Yann (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Booth picture"? Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP, I'm not familar with a booth picture dimension to US ToO. Probably should be discussed at COM:VPC. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
