| Revision as of 03:19, 8 December 2015 editFinnusertop (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users89,190 edits :: We are talking about copyright and not other use restrictions. I also said the image lacks evidence of permission. Please link us to a disclaimer by Colorado Springs Police Department that explicitly says that their "mugshot taken by official goverm← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:29, 8 December 2015 edit undoDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →December 8: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| *''"On April 11, 2014 House Bill 14-1407 was signed into law . House Bill 14-1407 requires commercial websites to remove people’s mug shots *if* the person was found innocent of the crime for which they were arrested."'' ] (]) 03:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | *''"On April 11, 2014 House Bill 14-1407 was signed into law . House Bill 14-1407 requires commercial websites to remove people’s mug shots *if* the person was found innocent of the crime for which they were arrested."'' ] (]) 03:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :: I think you meant ], different from copyrights. ] (]) 03:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | :: I think you meant ], different from copyrights. ] (]) 03:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Ugh, no. You are reading what you want into it to not have to admit you were wrong. ] (]) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : We are talking about copyright and not other use restrictions. I also said the image lacks evidence of permission. Please link us to a disclaimer by Colorado Springs Police Department that explicitly says that their "mugshot taken by official goverment worker on government money and released to public" are released to the public domain. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | : We are talking about copyright and not other use restrictions. I also said the image lacks evidence of permission. Please link us to a disclaimer by Colorado Springs Police Department that explicitly says that their "mugshot taken by official goverment worker on government money and released to public" are released to the public domain. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::*ALL* US mugshots by police are explicitly PD unless there is a law to the contrary. I've already proven that with links above. Clearly you haven't read those, so we should I provide *more*? Please prove why you want *this* mugshot to be treated differently. And at this rate maybe we should get the Wikimedia Lawyers to chime in, because this is crazy. You can't prove a negative. Maybe no one in Colorado Springs took it to trial because they saw other agencies lose. Your asking for a link that will never happen in real life, and I provided a link to Colorado state law.. ] (]) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:29, 8 December 2015
| < December 7 | December 9 > |
|---|
December 8
File:Senator Mike Gabbard, 2015.jpg
- Clearly not uploader's own work; see official profile at . Taking here instead of tagging copyvio because I'm not sure of the copyright status of works of the Hawaii state government. (ESkog) 01:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg
- This image belongs to Colorado Springs Police Dept. It is not affiliated with the US federal government. All works by a county department may be subject to copyright, not what the uploader claims. Also, the same image was deleted on Commons as not permissible. Whether the image shall be kept or removed based on WP:NFCC can be discussed here... or later. George Ho (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was deleted after not having permission, even though PD images do not need permission. As you were the one who got it deleted from Commons with falsehoods, and you also moved the page from a consensus name to your own favored name, you seem to be working to undermine the article instead of working following Misplaced Pages policies. To see you jump on this is no surprise. A zillion Misplaced Pages articles use recent mugshots for the same reason: they want these images used and release them to be used and the government allows them to be used. Funny how it's this article you object to. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Mugshots from some jurisdictions may be free from copyright restrictions. We aren't talking about those. I don't see any evidence that this image is in the public domain.
Jonathunder (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- DreamGuy, you have been a contributor for 10 years, you must have picked up some copyright law knowledge by now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- And you should know better than putting alicense on it and then taking it off. You should also not repeat falsehoods. Clearly I know more about copyrights than you do. DreamGuy (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- DreamGuy, you have been a contributor for 10 years, you must have picked up some copyright law knowledge by now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Unlike Florida, Colorado does not have a sunshine law making most public records public domain. If it was a federal facility or the FBI, it would be public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly invalid PD claim. (ESkog) 02:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Before "everyone thinks" sets in, please read the Misplaced Pages article on Mug shot publishing industry, this link, this link and *many more*. That's just what I found in a minute or two. Mugshots are public domain, regardless of people think they know, and certainly people writing snark against it but no real proof is wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for invalid license / no evidence of permission. Only works made by federal employees are in the public domain (See Template:PD-USGov) as are works made by employees of some, but not all, states (See Category:US State PD templates). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately ignorance sets in. You didn't even have time to read any links. Just because some template said something doesn't mean it's so. Somebody set those up wrong. Do you read anything on this? Or just vote? Besides which, you are quoting template text that isn't even on this image. So the other tag doesn't apply, that doesn't mean this one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- "On April 11, 2014 House Bill 14-1407 was signed into law . House Bill 14-1407 requires commercial websites to remove people’s mug shots *if* the person was found innocent of the crime for which they were arrested."
- I think you meant personality rights, different from copyrights. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ugh, no. You are reading what you want into it to not have to admit you were wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- We are talking about copyright and not other use restrictions. I also said the image lacks evidence of permission. Please link us to a disclaimer by Colorado Springs Police Department that explicitly says that their "mugshot taken by official goverment worker on government money and released to public" are released to the public domain. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 03:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- ALL* US mugshots by police are explicitly PD unless there is a law to the contrary. I've already proven that with links above. Clearly you haven't read those, so we should I provide *more*? Please prove why you want *this* mugshot to be treated differently. And at this rate maybe we should get the Wikimedia Lawyers to chime in, because this is crazy. You can't prove a negative. Maybe no one in Colorado Springs took it to trial because they saw other agencies lose. Your asking for a link that will never happen in real life, and I provided a link to Colorado state law.. DreamGuy (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)