Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico

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.

Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico

[edit]

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20070418201446/http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/dea/product/pr980602.htm says that they were arrested by the Mexican police and not by the US one. This means that the photos probably were taken by the Mexican government and that the {{PD-USGov}} claims are wrong.

Stefan4 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico

[edit]

The above images are or were used by the US government because the people depicted are or were wanted by the police, but the people were not yet arrested when the photos were used by the US government. The claims that the photos were taken by the US government are therefore dubious. It is more likely that the US government found the images at some unidentified source.

Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can understand that the argument Stenfan is making ("they were arrested by the Mexican police and not by the US one. This means that the photos probably were taken by the Mexican government and that the {{PD-USGov}} claims are wrong") could possibly apply to the 2 files for Luis and Jesus Amezcua (File:Jesus Amezcua.gif and File:Luis Amezcua.gif) listed further above, because they are images of the two individuals that the WayBack link mentions by name as having been captured by Mexican law enforcement. But the WayBack link does not name any of the other individuals in the list of 16 images immediately above from here, and which are also being bundled into this same nomination. The nomination is extrapolating to every other Mexican war lord image the unrelated WayBack link and that, IMO, is not a reasonable deduction.
This nomination needs to take into account that the US possesses some of the most powerful, ingeneous, comprehensive and resourceful information-gathering, spy, and crime-investigating machines in the world. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to know this means that it rarely goes to others to get anything, instead others generally come to it to get things like photos and information. As such, to say that "It is more likely that the US government *found* the images at some unidentified source" is not a valid delete rationale: it is dubious at best and naive at worst.
It is also widely known that the US collaborates with Mexican authorities in apprehending Mexican criminals wanted by the US and that the US provides intelligence (and this is not limited to pictures, photos, images, etc) of such criminals to the Mexican government. (See, for example, HERE and HERE) As such, to claim that "The above images are or were used by the US government because the people depicted are or were wanted by the police, but the people were not yet arrested when the photos were used by the US government" is, again, naive at best. For one thing, if the Federal Government site has the image at its site, it is likely they are implying is that the photos were taken covertly by the US Federal Government (possibly on Mexican soil, where the US was under no jurisdiction to make an arrest).
The claim "but the people were not yet arrested when the photos were used by the US government" would be incorrect on the basis that files File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG and File:Floresbrothers.jpg are clearly mugshots.
The claim that "the US government found the images at some unidentified source" appears to imply that the images were taken by Mexican authorities, but there is a problem with that presumption because we can observe that all of the images (except, again, for these two: File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG and File:Floresbrothers.jpg) are not mugshot images, and, as such, those other 14 non-mugshot images couldn't have been taken at the time of their arrest by the Mexican (or any other) police to begin with.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Well, if the US government was able to locate the criminals in order to take photos of them, then why didn't they arrest the criminals at the same time or ask the Mexican authorities to do that if the criminals were in Mexico? All of the files in the second nomination have links going to some page which tells that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught. File:Floresbrothers.jpg could just as well be a passport photo or something. It says that File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG was arrested at some earlier point too, but it doesn't say where he was arrested or by whom the photo was taken. US government websites use images from various sources, not only images taken by the government itself. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan, maybe you did not understand my comments. I will use an analogous question to clarify and, at the same time, answer your "why-didn't-they-arrest-the-criminals-at-the-same-time" question, and my question is this:
If the US government was able to locate Osama Bin Laden in order to take photos of him, then why didn't the US arrest him at the same time?

As you can see, the point is that we cannot assume the US first needs to locate a criminal before they can own a picture of him, as you are implying. You are assuming that for the US govt to own a picture of a criminal it must have first -located- the criminal, and this is not always the case and, possibly, this is probably most often -not- the case.

There are many ways the U.S. may come to own photos of foreign nationals way before it would have a -need- to arrest them. Pre-arrest photos may come from video supplied to the Feds by the criminal himself, as it happened HERE; from cameras confiscated by the Feds, as it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE; from previous arrests by the Feds, such as illegal border crossing (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), and gang activities (like this other pre-arrest Feds photo HERE); from mugshots taken when the subject was in federal custody but subsequently comitted another crime while out on bond (like this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE), while on parole as with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE, or from escaping a US prison, like it happened with this pre-arrest Feds photo HERE. As I said, the US routinely collaborates with the Mexican government in such undercover activities (See HERE). So a bit more research would also uncover that the Feds also own pictures of foreign nationals obtained -- pre-arrest -- as a result of Federal surveillance and intelligence-gathering investigative actities. In any event, I am not saying that it is known to me that these 16 pictures above are indeed from any of these sources I covered above. What I am saying is that if the US govt published those photos, then they -must- have come from sources that would make the photos property of the Feds and, thus, public domain. You are assumming that every pre-arrest photo was not taken by the Feds; I am saying, "Wrong. That is not only speculation, but it is also false (as I proved above)". You are also assuming that every pre-arrest photo was not owned by the Feds, and thus not PD, and I am saying "Wrong. That is the least likely of speculative scenarios. The most likely scenario is that the Feds own the photos and this is why they don't display a copyright notice with the photos - they cannot display a copyright notice because the photos are not copyrighted. They are PD because --whether or not theFeds took the shots themselves-- they are owned by the Federal Government, and are thus PD." Pictures of criminals come from a variety of sources -- yes. But ultimately if the US government publishes them, I would also believe, the US is doing so because it owns the photo. That is, I believe the US Govt acts in accordance with U.S. Law (including Copyright Law), whereas for your premise to stand you would have to believe the US Govt is in violation of its own laws by publishing pictures it doesn't own. My argument is that a law-abiding federal govt is a more plausible belief than to expeculate -- as you are doing -- that the US govt "found the images at some unidentified source", and that then it can somehow -- without impunity-- publish them without including even a copyright notice to the effect that the photo is under someone else's copyright. This would be quite a unbelievable.

To support your nomination rationale, you would have to support that in seeking criminals the US govt is above the law of the land, and this just isn't the case. There is International Law that limits the Feds powers on non-US citizens criminals in foreign jurisdictions. Again, I would tend to believe that if the US published a photo, it is because it had a right to do so. Your statement "US government websites use images from various sources, not only images taken by the government itself", not only fails to provide a citation for support, but also seems to be saying that the US would be guilty of violating its own copyright laws by using images that it does not legitimately own. To me, that (not your statement, but what it would imply) would be dubious at best.

Additionally, an assumption you are making is that the holder of the copyright is automatically always the organization that *took* the photo versus the organization that *published* the photo. That is not always the case either. Just like editors transfer their copyrights to Wikipedia when donating a photo they took, so do authors transfer their copyright to a federal agency when they donate a picture that the Feds subsequently publish. Such publishing act is what puts the image in the public domain. (See HERE)

Finally, for a photo from a US Government site to be PD, the requirement is not, as you are assuming, that the photo was taken by the US Government. The requirement is that the photo was "prepared by". Work can be prepared by law enforcement (DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc) without it having been directly involved in the actual shooting of photos. {{PD-USGov}} doesn't say anywhere that work must have been personally performed by, or that photos must have been directly "shot by", but that the work must have been "prepared by".

And lastly you have three statements that are incorrect:

  1. "All of the files in the second nomination have links going to some page which tells that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught." - Actually, none of the files in your nomination have links going to pages that state that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught. Your assumption there is incorrect. To be fair - even credible-, at a minimum, you should provide links to such alleged pages with the exact wording that you are allegedly using to support your claims. Of course, you did not provide this information because (without intending any offense to you) it is actually mere speculation without any factual data to support it.
  2. "The File:Floresbrothers.jpg could just as well be a passport photo or something" - well that photo is not "a passport photo or something". Again, your statemenst are speculation. The photos of the Flores Brothers are U.S. DOJ/U.S. Marshalls Office photos at the time of their arrest; for proof, read HERE, where it states, "In 2008, the Flores twins were indicted in Chicago and began secretly cooperating with [Federal] law enforcement" and see HERE (Pedro) AND HERE (Margarito).
  3. "It says that File:Edgar Barbie Valdez.JPG was arrested at some earlier point too, but it doesn't say where he was arrested or by whom the photo was taken." - The file description page does not say anything of the sort. What it does say is "This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it is an official Congressional portrait, because it was taken by an official employee of the Congress, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.". Since Edgar Barbie Valdez's photo is not an official Congressional portrait, nor (likely) a photo taken by an official employee of the Congress, what the justification template is saying is that the photo of Edgar Barbie Valdez "has been released into the public domain." Congress knows this, because Valdez is a U.S. citizen (See HERE), who was first arrested by U.S. authorities in Texas when he was 19, and then went to live illegally in Mexico. Asisted by using the arrest photo provided them by the US authorities and other intelligence, the Mexicans eventually arrested Valdez in Mexico on drug charges and, knowing the photo was a federal mugshot and thus PD, Congress re-published his photo on its website (he is still wanted in the US). (See HERE for the facts).

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

And above you have three points with incorrect statements:
  1. All of the files in the second nomination do indeed have links going to some page which tells that the photos were taken before the criminals were caught, although you have to use the Internet Archive for most of the links in order to find the source. The exception would be the mistake below.
  2. I missed that the article in which the images were used wasn't about the persons depicted. Yes, these photos are more likely to be government works.
  3. The source says this: "“La Barbie,” head of the Sinaloa enforcers alleged to have killed members of Zetas". The text provides no information about the photographer or the photographer's employment status. You listed a page which says that the person was arrested in Texas at the age of 19. Was he arrested by federal police or by state police? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan, as for #1 you really need to stop standing on a soapbox. What is needed is actual proof or -- at least -- evidence, of your allegations. So far are just repeating yourself ad nuseum. So we can discuss intelligently, perhaps you would care to provide actual links in support of your suspicions and allegations instead of vague references?
As for #2, I see you are finally admitting that your research, prior to you mass nominations, was incomplete and faulty.
As for #3, you are again speculating. Nowhere have you uncovered that the photograpgh has been copyrighted by anyone; on the contrary, the site where it is posted states that the photo "has been released into the public domain".
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

There are a lot of possible options here. Some examples:

  1. The photos might have been taken by someone else but confiscated by the US government.
  2. The photos might have been taken by the Mexican authorities and provided to the US government.
  3. The photos might have been taken by friends or family and provided to the US government.

{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of the person's official duties as a US government employee. If the photos were taken by someone who wasn't employed by the US federal government, then the photos are protected by copyright, although the US government might be the copyright holder. See s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Sections 105 and 106: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." A claim that the photos were taken by the US government simply because the photos appear on a website operated by the US government isn't really credible in a case like this. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3 statements above, plus "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise", all support my position that insofar as the US government is the copyright holder, that's all that's required to make a photo PD (except if they especifically label a photo copyrighted); otherwise the US Govt would had marked the photos "copyrighted" in their websites. The only plausible explanation that your position could reasonably provide is that "those 16 photos are copyrighted, the US Govt holds the copyrights, BUT they just forgot to say so in their websites." I don't subscribe to that. The Govt knows the law and they very rarely deviate from following it.
Additionally, your statement that "{{PD-USGov}} requires that the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of the person's official duties as a US government employee" is incorrect because you have changed {{PD-USGov}} to "the photos were taken by" from the "prepared by" wording. Your interpretation goes beyond what the very clear language of the template states "work was prepared by". You need to stick to that language and defend your nomination using language from the {{PD-USGov}} template, not your own changed language.
And finally, bringing Section 106 into this discussion is irrelevant as the {{PD-USGov}} template does not mention Section 106 at all. It says: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.". You need to defend your nomination based on the language of the {{PD-USGov}} template, the template being used to claim PD status for those 16 photos. So, No, I am Not going to see Section 16 becasue Section 16 has nothing to do with this.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
The {{PD-USGov}} template is very clear: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." Either you show that the photos were "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" as required by the template, or the images need to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Section 105 is very clear; it is clear to those of us who read it to mean what it was intended to mean: a balancing act between the rights of the copyright holder and the needs of the user. The problem is that there are always folks who hold extremist views of the law, and see the law only in black and white. You are giving Section 105 your own interpretation. How? Well you are, again, assuming that the phrase "because it is a work prepared" (from Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code) means "that the photos were taken by" as you said in your opening line. Nowhere does Section 105 mention the word "taken". You are changing the word "prepared" with your own word "taken". This is not the way that the {{PD-USGov}} template works, Stefan. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this messsage.[reply]
All we know is that the U.S. published them and did not provide any other copyright holders because they own the pictures. Are you implying that the United States government failed to address the true copyright holders and is not acting in accordance with U.S. copyright laws? That doesn't make any sense. ComputerJA (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The United States government does not provide any other copyright holders. In addition, many of the men in the most-wanted poster are also considered U.S. fugitives, so I'm sure that the US government might have collaborated with the Mexican authorities to come up with these pictures. I've been given no good reason to believe that there is another copyright holder besides the United States; if there were, the page would have stated it. ComputerJA (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Stefan, lumping all these 16 images together when they originated at different sites is not the way to go. I think the correct way to determine if any of these are copyrighted is to first look at the source of each of the photos individually and determine what the site states regarding the individual picture's copyright status. Here is what you will find:

A derivative of THIS DOJ poster, thus Original Source = DOJ
There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from HERE, according to this page HERE, thus Original Source = DOJ
There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from HERE, according to THIS page, thus Original Source = State Department
The following information comes from the U.S. State Department's website HERE:
"Photographs on this site are in the public domain unless a copyright is indicated. Only public domain photos can be reproduced without permission. Citation of this source is appreciated. Permission to reproduce copyrighted photos must be sought from the original source."
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not marked with "a copyright".
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
A derivative from the one below, so also came from U.S. House of Representatives.
Most US HOR sites ([1][2][3]) state this identical message: "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and is not copyrighted]." As such, by extrapolation, it is reasonable to believe that their over-arching copyright policy is "Not copyrighted unless indicated", rather than "Copyrighted unless otherwise indicated."
FACT: Original image (see below) is from their website and is not marked with Copyrighted.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from page 13 HERE, thus Original Source = U.S. House of Representatives
Most US HOR sites ([4][5][6]) state this identical message: "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and is not copyrighted]." As such, by extrapolation, it is reasonable to believe that their over-arching copyright policy is "Not copyrighted unless indicated", rather than "Copyrighted unless otherwise indicated."
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not marked with Copyrighted.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from THIS DOJ Poster, thus Original Source = U.S. DOJ
There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from THIS U.S. Dept of Treasury poster, thus Original Source = Dept of Treasury.
The DOT website states HERE: No copyright may be claimed for any work on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employee in the course of their duties. Images and text appearing on this web site may be freely copied. Credit is requested. If copyrighted material appears on the site, or is reached through a link on this site, the copyright holder must be consulted before the material may be reproduced.
FACT: Photo is an image from their website and "may be copied freely".
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally a mugshot of arrested individuals.
It states HERE: "I obtained the file through an FOIA request from the DEA." (Description HERE also states "DEA booking photo of Flores brothers."). Source HERE was "Source = DEA employee".
FACT: Uploader verified with the DEA that the image was produced by a DEA employee.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from HERE, according to THIS page; thus Original Source = DOJ.
There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from THIS U.S. Dept of Treasury poster, thus Original Source = Dept of Treasury.
The DOT website states HERE: No copyright may be claimed for any work on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employee in the course of their duties. Images and text appearing on this web site may be freely copied. Credit is requested. If copyrighted material appears on the site, or is reached through a link on this site, the copyright holder must be consulted before the material may be reproduced.
FACT: Photo is an image from their website and "may be copied freely".
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from THIS FBI website.
THIS publication by the FBI exemplifies the copyright status of photos in their website: like every other US Govt website, their practice is "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and thus PD]."
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not noted as not "a work of the Federal government."
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from this DOJ page HERE according to this page HERE.
There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from THIS DOJ page, according to THIS page.
There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from THIS U.S. Dept of Treasury poster, thus Original Source = Dept of Treasury.
The DOT website states HERE: No copyright may be claimed for any work on this web site that was created or maintained by Federal employee in the course of their duties. Images and text appearing on this web site may be freely copied. Credit is requested. If copyrighted material appears on the site, or is reached through a link on this site, the copyright holder must be consulted before the material may be reproduced.
FACT: Photo is an image from their website and "may be copied freely".
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originally from THIS DOJ page, according to THIS page.
There are only four copyrighted works in the entire DOJ site according to their site HERE and none of them are this photo.
FACT: Photo is from their website and is not one of their four works marked with a Copyright.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
Originaly from THIS FBI page, according to THIS page.
THIS publication by the FBI exemplifies the copyright status of photos in their website: like every other US Govt website, their practice is "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government [and thus PD]."
FACT: Photo is from their website and not tagged as Copyrighted.
RESULT FOR THIS PHOTO= Copyright exempted, not copyrighted, PD.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I see that I missed to include a couple of posters in the nomination. Now fixed. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the dead links may be accessed at archive.org, just in case you're wondering if the sources were real. ComputerJA (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Whether these images were donated to the police or accquired through surveilance, these images were in fact collected and placed in the public domain by the the U.S. Department of Justice for wide public access. Even if you invoke a Wiki-technicality against it, the principles and spirit of Wikimedia's rules matter more than their literal wording (Wikipedia:Five pillars). The images were published by U.S. Government specifically for their public distribution and public access, and common sense in Commons is quite required. Thank you.
Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are mixing up freedom of information with public domain. Freedom of information only means that people are permitted to access the images, not that people are allowed to use the images. For what it is worth, the US government might depend on fair use. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does not matter who is confusing what with what: what matters is what is the copyright status of the photo in question at upload time. It would be silly to think that the uploader of the File:Floresbrothers.jpg photo went thru the trouble of contacting US Government personnel simply to be "permitted to access the images" when access to the image was already possible to the uploader via the Internet and was what led him to the government source to begin with. So, for the File:Floresbrothers.jpg photo the uploader may or may not have chosen the correct wording. What is certain is that he was satisfied the US Govt was releasing the photo as PD. This is clear from the his statement that "I obtained the file through an FOIA request from the DEA". Assuming good faith, the uploader --not Wikipedia-- would be in violation of copyright if this is false. Also, what user BatteryIncluded above is saying could be referenced by pointing to COM:DM, because a good-faith effort has taken place to ascertain that none of the images are --individually-- under copyright, and as evidence of this are the PD copyright links for each individual photo as researched above. However, if any of them were copyrighted --which they are not-- the technicality presented by the nominator is so trivial as to be a moot point under COM:DM. (BTW, Stefan, you seem to have failed to notify that uploader (Jlcoving) of your delete nomination.) My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
COM:DM means that the inclusion of a copyrighted work in an image is incidental and that removal of the copyrighted work wouldn't affect the way in which the image can be used. In which way do you think that this applies here? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. COM:DM means what it says, and what it says is that "'The law does not concern itself with trifles'...De minimis use of a copyrighted work is such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required." There is no "way" in which I think that DM applies here. You are choosing a very narrow instance of DM that has nothing to do with this subject, but overlooking the larger scenario for which it exists: that the copyright law does not concern itself with trifles. As the saying goes, your interpretation is so fixiated on a tree that you have failed to see the forest: The websites in question have all stated that their content is PD. There is no reason to exclude anything; the websites have already made the copyright status of its content clear, but you have elected to believe, based on your own minute interpretations, that certain images are copyrighted. But your claim is not valid, because the law does not concern itself with minutenesses, trifles, trivialities, introduced by technicalities, when determining copyright status. Of course, yours would be a moot point anyway because the images are not copyrighted to begin with. The other editor's point is that, if they were copyrighted, you are hanging your hat on a technicality. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

 Keep per BatteryIncluded and I would say that the U.S. government can seize or otherwise acquire the copyright for publishing the stuff as PD. --Ras67 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright belongs to the individual whose finger pushed the trigger button on the camera. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 03:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Drug cartels of Mexico

[edit]

Although the US government made the posters, it is not clear where the individual photos come from. Several of the people are obviously wanted by the US government, so it is likely that the underlying photos weren't taken by a US government employee but instead taken from some unidentified source. Compare with photos of US statues: such photos taken by the government are deleted unless the sculptor gave the government permission to release the photo of the sculpture to the public domain. Only the contributions by the US government are in the public domain, whereas the copyright to any incorporated works by other people retain their copyright status.

Stefan4 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep both of the above. Past precedents such as "US statues" do not prove or disprove the copyright status of an unrelated work and are irrelevant here. The fact is that the site where these charts came from (US DEA) states HERE that there are only four works in their entire site that are copyrighted, and none of them are these charts. No federal government site is obligated to stating that each and every single one of the photos in their charts are PD, which appears to be the basis of the nominator in nominating these for deletion; a blanket statement, such as the one they provide, is sufficient for any reasonable person. It would be common sense that if the chart is PD by the government, then its individual components were PD as well. It would make no sense to assume the government doesn't know what it is doing. Let's use some common sense and stop second guessing websites that have, by defalut, already stated the photos and the poster are PD. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Exactly in what way are relevant previous precedents irrelevant? Unless you can prove that all of the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of his official duty as a US government employee, then the posters need to be deleted per COM:EVIDENCE. Your comment contains no evidence that all of the photos were taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of his official duty as a US government employee. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COM:EVIDENCE does not state anything of the sort, and I challenge you to use actual quotes rather than --no offense intended-- hide behind generic allegations. The proof that these charts are PD has already been made crystal clear as the site containing the charts clearly states HERE that there are only four works in their entire site that are copyrighted, but none of them are these charts. No offense, but that you choose to believe in some radical, unreasonable, and non-realistic interpretation of COM:EVIDENCE is something else, but the proof has already been given ad nauseum. Your position is that the copyright statement they have given is worthless. My position is the statement given at the site provides the reasonable evidence required to ascertain the chart as well as all of its contents are PD. Otherwise, what would be the value of their copyright statement, and what would be the intent of DOJ/DEA personnel in going thru the trouble of deciding, planning, composing, and publishing such statement? But even if they were copyrighted --which they are not as already shown-- their use in Commons would still be protected under COM:DM anyway. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
This page tells that four images on the website are protected by copyright. The page doesn't provide any information about the copyright status of any other images on the website, so the page can't be used to draw any conclusion about the copyright status of any images. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what state or what State you are coming from, but maybe an analogy might help: in the United States, the government doesn't go around tagging law-abiding citizens as "non-criminals" and then assumes those not tagged -are- criminals. No, the government leaves the law-abiding citizens alone, and then creates databases of criminals, not databases of non-criminals. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that such is the only efficient way to operate a government website. This is called "Rule by Exception". Likewise, the federal government has dealt with the issue of copyright notification in its websites by issuing a blanket statement that ALL of its information is in the public domain, it then indicates exceptions to such blanket statement, with statements like the page I sent you to. Your mentality is contrary to Rule by Exception; it is more like, "Although the sites state that their content is PD, some elements couldn't possibly be PD and, since every Rule has an Exception, the exception here must be that the charts cannot be PD because elements of them could not possibly be PD", and that would be second-guessing the Authority that has provided the information. Again, if certain elements were under copy protection --which they are not, and the proof is that the Government itself is saying so -- then the problem would lie with the Government misinformation, and not with the editors that in good faith used Government information to copy the image elsewhere.
Your logic above ("This page tells that four images on the website are protected by copyright. The page doesn't provide any information about the copyright status of any other images on the website, so the page can't be used to draw any conclusion about the copyright status of any images.") is faulty and it leaves me in disbelief. Following your logic you could then say that if a Parking sign said "No Parking Sundays", then that means that we couldn't park there on Mondays thru Saturdays either, because (so goes your reasoning) "the sign tells that parking is prohibited on Sundays. The sign doesn't provide any information about the parking prohibitions of any other days of the week, so the sign can't be used to draw any conclusion about the parking prohibition of any other days of the week." Outrageous!
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Copyright belongs to the individual whose finger pushed the trigger button on the camera. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 03:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Drug_cartels_of_Mexico&oldid=93997024"