The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on August 17 --B (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SylviaFine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aussie2 ( | contribs).

• Non-free image with no clear source, URL given does not exist. Copyright status unknown and purpose unknown, better replaced with screencap because copyright and source are known and only encompasses a small portion of the work (a screencap is one frame amongst many vs. promotional photo which is the complete work.) This has been done for countless TV publicity photos. Ejfetters (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on August 17 --B (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niles (The Nanny).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Melesse ( | contribs).

• Non-free image with no clear source, URL given does not exist. Copyright status unknown and purpose unknown, better replaced with screencap because copyright and source are known and only encompasses a small portion of the work (a screencap is one frame amongst many vs. promotional photo which is the complete work.) This has been done for countless TV publicity photos. Ejfetters (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on August 17 --B (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MaggieSheffield.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aussie2 ( | contribs).

• Non-free image with no clear source, URL given does not exist. Copyright status unknown and purpose unknown, better replaced with screencap because copyright and source are known and only encompasses a small portion of the work (a screencap is one frame amongst many vs. promotional photo which is the complete work.) This has been done for countless TV publicity photos. Ejfetters (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GraceSheffield.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Melesse ( | contribs).

• Non-free image with no clear source, URL given does not exist. Copyright status unknown and purpose unknown, better replaced with screencap because copyright and source are known and only encompasses a small portion of the work (a screencap is one frame amongst many vs. promotional photo which is the complete work.) This has been done for countless TV publicity photos. Ejfetters (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aequorin 1EJ3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Berserker79 ( | contribs).

• OR and OB by File:Aequorin_1EJ3.png Berserker79 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, obsoleted and better quality image. Ejfetters (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry Louis Gates, Jr. mugshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justmeherenow ( | contribs).

• The image is apparently used to "illustrate the arrest." To me, this looks like a replaceable image of a living person. I fail to see why what his mugshot looks like is of importance. Please see the non-free content criteria, specifically points 1 and 8. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uploader has changed license to free (see my !vote for deletion below). ↜Just M E here , now 19:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The photo may very well be public domain (product of government agency) but even if it weren't, it certainly qualifies as extremely topical for the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates article and qualifies under US fair use rules. Any other free photograph of Gates would not be pertinent to the record of his arrest.Mattnad (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Mugshots are not a creative work, and the purpose of copyright is to protect creative expression, not ministerial duties, so any claim of copyright would probably not stand. Still without knowing the copyright status, a fair use rational is provided, and it it obviously not replaceable in the context of the arrest. Dhaluza (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhaluza.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Another Keep per Dhaluza. 222.153.52.226 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete In the U.S., agencies can and do hold copyrights to mug shots. Unless specifically released by those agencies under a free license, there's no question that this work must be considered copyrighted by this project. Dhaluza's claim on this point is therefore moot. As for the relevance of fair use in this case, this too is a moot point. There is nothing of significance in the visual appearance of Gates in the mug shot that can not be adequately conveyed by a free license image. We know by the very title of the article that the gentleman in question was arrested. We don't need a mug shot to convey that. Since the subject is alive, and per m:Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, the image is replaceable, this image must be deleted as replaceable due to the subject being alive and there being nothing significant about the mug shot that requires its inclusion here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Hammersoft is a copyright attorney, but I looked up this debate in Wikpedia [[1]]. Aside from all of the arm-chair lawyering, there was actually an opinion from a real lawyer (or so she stated) that works of official government records are not subject to copyright and even bothered to include legal citation. And it makes sense: do we really want our government using copyright to prevent the publication of key records? Where there seems to be differences (by state) is how and when certain records are released.Mattnad (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The debate there is not clear as to consensus. As for "official government", it's important we draw a distinction here. We know by U.S. code that works of the U.S. federal government are public domain. This does not extend to state or local governments. I'm not suggesting this is being stated here, but it's important to understand the source of this image is not a federal government agency, and therefore a clear case for public domain must be made without reference to federal government laws. I recommend contacting the copyright holder directly for release information. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are conflating two different concepts. Federal law defines both that creative works can be copyrighted and that creative works of the federal government are not subject to copyright. State governments can claim copyright to creative works, but they cannot redefine what can be copyrighted under federal law. So the point was not that the material was subject to the same exemption as a work of the federal government, it was that it was not subject to copyright as a simple ministerial act of a government entity that did not reflect any creative expression. Dhaluza (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Hammersoft. comment: the local government may routinely release mugshots and other material which is copyrighted, but that the govt doesnt charge a fee for, or restrict unnecessarily. I doubt you could start a business selling posters of mugshots without the local govt having a say in it. if this is true, its still not free use, and thus we need a fair use reason, which i think we dont have (proof of arrest is public record, and any free use photo could be used). if there was a quality to this photo which was unique-say, wounds to the face which had cleared up quickly, or the obvious appearance of drunkenness, then maybe we could justify it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that local governments possess copyright for their records? By this rationale, could our local governments prevent the publication of minutes of government meetings, written court decisions, local budgets, contracts awarded to business, government salaries etc. under copyright laws? I would welcome a reliable source supporting this point of view.Mattnad (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a little bit of local information from Massachusetts [2] which states, "Records created by Massachusetts government are not copyrighted and are available for public use."Mattnad (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is irrelevant. This mug shot was created by the Cambridge Police, not the Massachusetts Government. There is a difference. If you look at the website of the Cambridge Police Department, there's a "© 2005" notice on the bottom. They certainly seem to think they can claim copyright in general. I don't see any reason why they can't claim copyright specifically for a mug shot they create. Can you provide a source indicating this police department releases rights to its creative work? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you should bone up on your Massachusetts law. The MA public recrods laws include local government entities. And an informational website is not a "public record" per se. If you read the guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, "The Massachusetts Public Records Law applies to records created by or in the custody of a state or local agency, board or other government entity" (P. 1) and "These records include minutes of local board meetings, town meeting documents, warrants, street lists, municipal financial documents, etc." (p.3) See: [[3]] Mattnad (talk)

• Page 15 of that document notes "A record that is recorded as a result of the initiation of criminal proceedings or other consequent proceeding may be withheld under the C.O.R.I. statute." I.e., the case is still not clear here. Regardless, actually contacting the police agency and requesting access to the mug shot via this law is the way this should be handled. Presuming it is free without contacting the agency in question is not the way to proceed. Until we have release from the police department, it's not released. We don't presume. We prove. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a copyright/non-free issue. And clearly the mugshot has been released so the exemption you mention above did not apply. Since it's not a copyright issue, what exactly is your objection to showing the image? Mattnad (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because this release has nothing to do with release of copyrights, and there are exemptions anyway, which appear to potentially cover this photograph. So, we still have an unclear copyright situation. What is your objection to contacting the Cambridge Police Department? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Massachusetts law - there's no copyright on government records. I want to make it very clear that there's is no Copyvio here. What I think you want me to do is another FOIA request even though the police department already released the photograph to the news media? If that's the case, I think that's overreaching and I'd defer to other Wikipedians to weigh in here.Mattnad (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you show me where in Massachusetts law where it claims there is no copyright on government records? I searched the entire document you cited, and there's no mention of "copyright". --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without digging into legal citations, here's a quote from the Massachusetts secretary of state website which states, "Records created by Massachusetts government are not copyrighted and are available for public use." And note it didn't say "The Massachussetts Government". As already demonstrated, this rule applies to local as well as state entities.Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Whether the City of Cambridge retains copyright of the photo is irrelevant. Use of that photo falls squarely under fair use. It is a picture of what the article is about. Despite what the copyright extremists on WP will say, fair-use images are allowed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So show why we must use a fair use image in this case to depict the person being arrested vice a free license image? What does this image convey that can not be conveyed in text? --Copyright extremist (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cute renaming. Just in case it's not obvious, Hammersoft jokingly renamed his signature here. Made me laugh.Mattnad (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:NFCC violation. Insofar as the purpose is to show what he looks like, it is replaceable by a free image. Insofar as the purpose is to show that he was arrested, that can be expressed in plain text with no need for illustration. Does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the article. U.S. law may allow fair use, but Wikipedia policy highly restricts it. —teb728 t c 18:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Citing references provided by User Mattnad above I've now uploaded the image to Commons (which is the place that such police department mugshots as File:Mel Gibson taken July-28-2006.jpg, File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg &c have also been uploaded, note). ↜Just M E here , now 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Commons only for public domain images? I believe there's still a debate over whether this is a fair-use image. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no debate, Squidfryerchef, has occurred about the image yet at Commons. (And maybe it won't -- if the score/s of similar mugshots already over there are any sign, their being accompanied by the same type of state regs and policies as cited with regard to the case here.) ↜Just M E here , now 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it is non-free, it fails WP:NFCC#8, and if it's free, CSD:F8 applies. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, BUT: supplement it with a picture from his beer at the White House with President Obama (and the arresting officer). Balance - NPOV - and, perhaps even ask Professor Gates if he wants to supply an older photo of himself (showing him when he was young enough to have pushed the door in without needing help from the driver) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.233.229 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if this should be a White House press corps photo op, we'll end up with no free shot and have to settle for a fair use license; but if there should be, say, just one shot taken by a White House photographer, yes, it would be free. ↜Just M E here , now 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Per Dhaluza. --Victor^talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is used in an article about the arrest, -not- the article about the person. It cannot be replaced by a free image. It would be competely inappropriate for someone to take a picture of him giving a speech somewhere and use it in the arrest article.

There are only two images out there that are relevant to the arrest article. One is the mugshot and the other is one a photographer took at the scene which ran in many newspapers. The mugshot is the appropriate image to use, as the other was taken for commercial purposes. One element of fair use is that it should not deprive the copyright owner of market value; no such concern exists with the city of Cambridge.

Also, the arguments centering around NFCC #8 are not apt. The rule is that the image should increase understanding of the topic. Which this does. Maybe the situation could be described in text, but the rule is that images are allowed when they increase understanding. There's no requirement that images only be used if they are impossible to describe in text. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm, you missed item #1 on WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 is "no free equivalent". If the mughot's being in public domain was in doubt, there's no free image to replace it. That other image that's been in the media is AFAIK not free. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is a bit moot considering the mugshot is free of copyright.Mattnad (talk)

If we're settled on this then I endorse deletion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Image tends to give the mis-impression that the arrest stuck, rather than charges being rather quickly dismissed. The text states charged dropped, but pictures speak louder than words..Using the mug shot as the sole image for this story is unfair to Gates, a living individual. Pechmerle (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest did stick. The charges did not. And per WP:BLP contentious material may remain if properly sourced.198.23.5.11 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see that the image adds value, especially in consideration of WP:BLP. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The file has been transwiki'd to Commons: so the argument here seems a moot point, and I propose that it be deleted on those grounds. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stewart Wyatt TDS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinemaniac ( | contribs).

• A non-free image is not needed to illustrate his interaction with colleagues. This image does not significantly increase reader understanding. Any value the article gets from this image could be replaced with plain text. —teb728 t c 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete: Image is being used to depict a living person, with no real reason for inclusion other than depiction. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Hammersoft. Ejfetters (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.