Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christopher J. Speer -b.jpg
It is unclear if this is in the public domain. It appears to be taken from the following website: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA498317 Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep Note: The URL that concerns Darryl Kerrigan points to an issue of The Journal of Special Forces Medicine, a DoD publication. I can't help wondering whether nominator simply overlooked that the publication this image was taken from was under the .mil domain. That publication is 90 pages long, and I don't believe it contains a single photo that is not in the public domain, because it was taken by a DoD employee, in performance of their duties. Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- You could simply make a FOIA request to ask weather this pic is in PD as it is a official work of the US Military.--Sanandros (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sheesh! FOIA requests are not "simple". They take months, or years, to be processed.
Why, in the name of heck, would we go to all that trouble for THIS image, when we never went to that hassle for any other of the huge number of other images that are PD because they were clearly taken by a US Federal employee? Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sheesh! FOIA requests are not "simple". They take months, or years, to be processed.
- You could simply make a FOIA request to ask weather this pic is in PD as it is a official work of the US Military.--Sanandros (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - For the reason given above, that it is a DoD publication. And secondly, having a picture used on a page/website does not make it the source- it is a memorial, and the picture was clearly taken while he was still alive. Ergo, that publication is not the source of the photo, and simply took advantage of an already extant photo. In any case, unless you have evidence to show that it was NOT an official government portrait as all evidence suggests, I don't think there are any grounds to remove the photo. El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)*
- Yes. I did not realize that the Journal of Special Operations Medicine was a government publication at the time, or actually that .mil was a government domain. If the photo was taken by a government employee it is public domain in the US. I have no idea how that works outside the US.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I believe the USA is unique in making the work of Federal employees public domain.
But, Darryl Kerrigan, you still haven't explained why you doubt that this image is in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I flagged it because I was unsure if it was in the public domain. I see that the working assumption is that the photograph was taken by an army/government employee, but that appears to be an assumption on our part because the photograph is not credited to anyone in the Journal of Special Operations Medicine edition the link directs to. While news publications (which perhaps this journal would qualify as) are entitled to fair use of copyrighted materials, that does not necessarily mean that the materials are in the commons, or public domain. I flagged this photograph because I am unsure if it is in the commons, or who created it based on the link provided. It could have been taken on base by a fellow soldier (likely in the courses of his/her duties) or it could have been taken by a loved one or a photographer at the local mall for his loved ones before he shipped out. I simply don't know who took the photograph, and by extension if it is in the commons, hence I flagged it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- I should also say, I disagree with El cid, el campeador's position above. My understanding is that we must prove the image is in the commons, if it is to remain here, not the other way around. We are not to just assume photographs or other materials are in the commons, until proven otherwise.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- I flagged it because I was unsure if it was in the public domain. I see that the working assumption is that the photograph was taken by an army/government employee, but that appears to be an assumption on our part because the photograph is not credited to anyone in the Journal of Special Operations Medicine edition the link directs to. While news publications (which perhaps this journal would qualify as) are entitled to fair use of copyrighted materials, that does not necessarily mean that the materials are in the commons, or public domain. I flagged this photograph because I am unsure if it is in the commons, or who created it based on the link provided. It could have been taken on base by a fellow soldier (likely in the courses of his/her duties) or it could have been taken by a loved one or a photographer at the local mall for his loved ones before he shipped out. I simply don't know who took the photograph, and by extension if it is in the commons, hence I flagged it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- I believe the USA is unique in making the work of Federal employees public domain.
- Yes. I did not realize that the Journal of Special Operations Medicine was a government publication at the time, or actually that .mil was a government domain. If the photo was taken by a government employee it is public domain in the US. I have no idea how that works outside the US.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Daphne Lantier 18:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
