Commons:Deletion requests/File:Officer Michael Thomas Slager.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
We don't have any templates which state that works published by the state of South Carolina are public domain, except the Manual on Uniform Control Traffic Devices ({{PD-MUTCD-SC}}).
However, this image on Wikipedia quotes this text:
| “ | The State Library of South Carolina in a Statement of Rights, opined that, "Records, documents and information made available by the agencies of South Carolina state government or its subdivisions are the property of the people of the state of South Carolina. Therefore, the South Carolina State Library considers these items to be in the public domain according to US copyright law."South Carolina State Library "[1]" | ” |
- I uploaded it, being fairly ignorant about this stuff and not knowing whether it would fly. But, to my understanding, the North Charleston Police Department (the copyright owner in this case) is no more a part of the South Carolina government than South Carolina is part of the federal government. What SC says about public domain would therefore seem irrelevant, and we have no strict basis for this image. That said, images produced by local law enforcement jurisdictions in the U.S. are routinely included and accepted in my experience. Mandruss (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mandruss What do you mean "routinely included and accepted"? This seems like the work of an organization which does not release content into the public domain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry - What I meant was that I have run across other cases of images from US local LE that had been uploaded and included months or years prior, with no explicit PD basis from that specific jurisdiction. As I said, I'm fairly ignorant about this area, and I mimicked existing examples to do something that I felt improved an article (and still do). Several more knowledgeable editors were present at the article when the image was added and gave it their tacit approval. But if it violates Wikipedia policy, so be it. If the image is removed from that article, the image of the other individual (the person this person shot and killed) will also have to be removed per NPOV, despite its clear PD status as a product of the US government. Mandruss (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mandruss There are options for keeping this picture. There is a lot of jargon in Wikimedia projects, though, and it is required that when pictures are shared they are categorized with the right jargon.
- Work by the US Federal Government is in the public domain; work by any local government in the US (state or city) almost never is. The default assumption should be that any photos by local law enforcement are copyrighted by that law enforcement office, so have to be treated like any other non-free content. I am not sure what other cases you are seeing of uploads of photos to Commons from local LE offices. I am not aware of any LE office doing this, but if you have seen one, I would be curious to see it. You talked about the person shot - I see no reason to remove that one, if en:File:Shooting_of_Walter_Scott.jpeg is it. That is tagged as non-free, hosted on English Wikipedia and not Commons, and is low resolution so anyone wanting to reuse it would need to go to the source for a good copy. How familiar are you with en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and the differences between what Commons can host versus what has to be stored in a restricted way on English Wikipedia as fair use? If this photo of the officer is not free content, it still may be included in that Wikipedia article as non-free fair use, but only if it stored in English Wikipedia and not Wikimedia Commons.
- Would it be helpful for me to talk you through any part of this? Do you see anything that I am missing here, or can you share more information about any similar photos that are free? I am not sure what you might have seen that was free on Commons. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry - What I meant was that I have run across other cases of images from US local LE that had been uploaded and included months or years prior, with no explicit PD basis from that specific jurisdiction. As I said, I'm fairly ignorant about this area, and I mimicked existing examples to do something that I felt improved an article (and still do). Several more knowledgeable editors were present at the article when the image was added and gave it their tacit approval. But if it violates Wikipedia policy, so be it. If the image is removed from that article, the image of the other individual (the person this person shot and killed) will also have to be removed per NPOV, despite its clear PD status as a product of the US government. Mandruss (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mandruss What do you mean "routinely included and accepted"? This seems like the work of an organization which does not release content into the public domain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep In my understanding a work made by an agency of the South Carolina state government is in PD [2] and [3], then an image owned by this police, that seems to be a governmental agency, should be ok but the current PD license tag is indeed not the good one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)- Comment: based on a couple of images from police departments that were debated over the last couple of years, my understanding is that this is a confusing and difficult situation. Such images are usually released into the public record but this is not necessarily the same thing as being released into the public domain. I recall having an OTRS conversation with a police spokesperson last year about a photo of someone who was charged with a felony. They said that the image was made available to the public for law enforcement purposes but refused to say whether anyone could re-use it for any purpose. There is no harm in contacting the relevant police department to see if they could clarify the issue. I do however agree that the police department is an agency of the state government because local governments in South Carolina exist at the whim of the state legislature, even the ones that have home rule. Green Giant (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: this is not a 'raffic control device design', not information, not a document, this is a picture. It has remained unclear whether a picture taken by the NC police, would be PD. No evidence of permission. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
