Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crimeo III.png

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.

File:Crimeo III.png

[edit]

No evidence at source that this is the work of an FBI empployee, rather than acquired by the FBI from, say, social media or a family member of the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep proviene del gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos. Elías (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The immediate source is indeed the federal government of the United States. But as I note in the nomination, there is no evidence of where they obtained it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is this different from all the other FBI mugshots? --Trade (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where is the evidence that it is an "FBI mugshot"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • la evidencia está aquí Law Enforcement Assistance - FBI.gov. Está la foto de Crimo III y la de su vehículo. De hecho, en el pdf dice lo siguiente: Field Office: Chicago, es decir, la fotografía proviene de un trabajo derivado del Chicago - FBI.gov (FIELD OFFICES CHICAGO). Elías (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • The question is not whether the FBI created that wanted poster. The question is whether the FBI actually took the photo being used in the poster Are you suggesting that the FBI had the suspect already in its custody, took a photo of him, and then used that photo in wanted poster so that others could help find him? Did the FBI have the subject in its custody and then the subject somehow escaped? Was the suspect was previously arrested and photographed by the FBI? If none of those things are the case, then it's likely that the photo came from some other than the FBI. So, if the FBI didn't take the photo, then the person who did would be the copyright holder and {{PD-USGov-FBI}} wouldn't be applicable to the photo. Not everything that appears in a US federal government publication means that it was originally created by an federal government employee; in some cases, content created by others appears in such publications and such content may be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • el FBI de Chicago seguramente tenía registros fotográficos del señor Crimo III, tanto así que el pdf es un archivo proveniente de Field Office: Chicago. De hecho hay reportes de que Crimo era conocido por autoridades locales y por la policía de Chicago, en un informe emitido por la autoridades de Chicago en 2019 donde advirtieron que "era un peligro claro y presente". Si el FBI y las autoridades de Chicago tenían antecedentes de este señor, entonces es claramente posible que la foto derive de ellos como autoridad. Elías (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • en esta referencia de aquí se afirma que las autoridades tenían antecedentes del señor Crimo III, por suicidio y amenaza a su familia, entonces es claramente posible que la foto sí provenga de una fuente federal de los Estados Unidos como la policía y el FBI. Elías (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • en esta referencia de aquí que es de un artículo se evidencia lo que he venido diciendo: la policía sí tenía un registro fotográfico del señor Crimo III. Él ya había posado para la policía de Illinois (Oficina del Sheriff de Lake County). En ese artículo se evidencia que fue así. La foto sí pudo haber sido tomada por un funcionario de la policía o del FBI, motivo por el cual se deriva de una fuente federal del gobierno de los Estados Unidos. {{PD-USGov}} En el pie de la fotografía dice: Robert Crimo III posa para una foto de identificación policial en Waukegan, Illinois, en una imagen sin fecha. (Oficina del Sheriff de Lake County). Siendo así, la foto fue tomada por un empleado/funcionario "como parte de las funciones oficiales". No hay razón para dudar. Elías (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "could have been taken by a police or FBI official" That's "could" not "certainly was". And in any case, the police in US states or counties are not federal (or US government) agencies. I shall not be replying further on this point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As pointed out above by Andy Mabbit and also by en:WP:PD#US government works, works created by employees of state, country and municipal governments as part of their official duties are not automatically within the public domain, except perhaps in the case of California ({{PD-CAgov}}}) and Florida ({{PD-FLGov}}). Illinois does not seem to be a state in which works created by official employees at even the state level are within the public domain per this; so, Commons isn't going to assume otherwise based on a bunch of newspaper articles about the suspect or event showing different photos of the suspect on the belief the photo could've come from the FBI. What is needed is some type of COM:EVID that this particular photo clearly was taken by the FBI. For reference, the photo shown in this article you linked to above is a different photo but it is attributed as "(Oficina del Sheriff de Lake County vía Getty Images)" which I'm assuming means something like "Official photograph of Lake County Sheriff via Getty Images". That's interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that the Lake County Sheriff's Office isn't a US federal government agency and thus isn't covered under any type of {{PD-USGov}}. The second reason is that Lake County Sheriff is using en:Getty Images to make the image available to others. Getty is in the business of selling image rights to others so that they can use photos created by someone else. It makes agreements with copyright holders to make the copyright holder's works available for a license fee. Some copyright holders probably go to Getty because they don't want to deal with all of the hassle in trying to negotiate individual license deals with everyone who wants to use their work. This is a completely different photo than the one you uploaded, but it shows things are probably more complicated and it just can't be assumed that any photos of the suspect are automatically PD because they were taken by law enforcement. The one you uploaded has actually been attributed to someone other than the FBI. en:CNN attributes it to the "Highland Park Police Department" in this article, en:Newsweek does the same in this article, and en:USA Today does the same in this article. If the Highland Park Police Department had a previously taken photo of the suspect, then they most likely made that photo available to media organizations and others to help in his capture. The FBI could've gotten the photo the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • El FBI tenía registros fotográficos del señor Crimo III por unas denuncias realizadas en su contra en el pasado, las referencias de esos periódicos y medios lo demuestran. El PDF de la foto es un registro del FBI Chicago. Elías (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I disagree with you that this proves anything (though I'm using Google translate for your posts so perhaps that's not what you're saying). The photo is attributed to Highland Park Police Department by three different national news organizations (links showing this were provided above); so, at least now, there's a strong enough reason per COM:PCP to think that this is the case. The question is not whether there were criminal complaints filed about this individual in the past. It's also not whether the PDF using the photo was created by the FBI. It's whether the photo was actually taken by the FBI. That's what you're going to need to establish here per COM:EVID, and what you haven't done (again in my opinion) so far. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      •  Comment I should note that something like "Official photograph of Lake County Sheriff via Getty Images" simply means that the media got it from Getty Images. Getty Images (and other similar sites) routinely get Public Domain images and include them in their repository. So, that someone got it from Getty Images does not mean it isn't US Government work (but neither does it mean that it is). Regarding the references from other sources:
                      So they are crediting the Police Department of the City en:Highland Park, Illinois
                      Interestingly, although I found a number of articles of AP about the case: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], they don't seem to use that photo, using instead a photo by the Lake County Major Crime Task Force.
                      Platonides (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thank you for that analysis, but I'm not sure that anything you added clearly demonstrates that the photo originated with FBI. Without such a thing being clearly shown, I don't think it would be appropriate to claim this as {{PD-USGov-FBI}}. The photo you found here is attributed as you say to the "Lake County Major Crime Task Force", but there's no indication when it was taken. The task force appears to a county operated task force, not federal government, which means once again it's not really covered under by any of the {{PD-USGov}} licenses. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Y yo discrepo de sus apreciaciones: para mí la foto es atribuida a una fuente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, tipo FBI. Nadie, absolutamente nadie puede descartar esa opción que a día de hoy es real.Elías (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                          • (Once again using Google translate) It appears that you're stating that since nobody can prove the file didn't originate from the FBI, then it's OK to assume that it did. That's not really how COM:EVID works. It your responsibility as the file's uploader to establish that the file did originate from the FBI, not that it could've originated from the FBI or that others are unable to prove that it didn't come from the FBI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                            • yo sostengo lo que digo: el FBI sí tenía registros fotográficos del señor Crimo III, la evidencia está allí y nadie puede decir lo contrario por más contrario que se quiera ser. Es un trabajo derivado de un organismo oficial del Gobierno. Elías (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                              • We seem to be going around in circles here and I don't see how my commenting any further is going to change that. The photo has been shown to have been attributed by certain media organizations to somebody other than the FBI. That at least makes its provenance unclear, and nothing you've posted so far has unequivocally shown they those media outlets are wrong and that you're right. So, that's really the evidence that is there and you can't say otherwise no matter how contrary you want to be. Regardless, I'm not the only person participating in this discussion and three of the other participants have also stated they disagree with your assessment. If you can convince them that you're right and they're also wrong and then also convince the administrator who reviews this discussion of the same, then my opinion won't matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                • aparte de mí hay otros usuarios que sí están de acuerdo en que la foto proviene de una fuente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos y eso también hay que tenerlo en cuenta. En una de las fuentes que ha dejado el usuario Platonides he podido leer que en una foto la policía se atribuye una de sus fotos, lo que me hace pensar y reforzar mi postura: la policía sí tenía registros fotográficos del señor Crimo III. Por lo demás, yo no tengo porqué convencer a los demás, cada quien el libre de opinar y eso habría que respetarlo. Elías (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Agree. Zero evidence that this is a federal government photo. -- Veggies (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep MrMemer223 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It is not even clear from the discussion above that anyone knows that the image came from the FBI. At best we have a guess that the handout from the FBI to find him supposedly had a picture of him taken by the FBI which is absurd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: not a work of the FBI. "Robert (Bobby) E. Crimo III. (City of Highland Park Police Department via AP)", "(photo credit: ILLINOIS GOVERNMENT/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)". --✗plicit 12:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Crimeo_III.png&oldid=682846803"