File:Fulton County Georgia booking photo of Sidney Powell.jpg
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded with sourced critical commentary explicitly discussing this image in-depth -Fastily 03:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This photo doesn't seem to meet criterion #1 of NFCC, because there is a freely-licensed photograph of Powell available (and currently used in the infobox). The argument that this mugshot is somehow "historic" would seem to apply to any mugshot, and we routinely use freely-licensed photographs of individuals that are less recent than non-free alternatives. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:MUGSHOT, should not be used out of context, but this subject has been convicted (not just booked), and the photo is appropriate for illustrating the section Sidney Powell § Criminal charges and guilty plea. Or maybe the image shouldn't have been tagged as a non-free photo. This Fulton Co press release re Sidney Powell et al, Release of booking information to include mugshots will occur daily at approximately 4:00 p.m. (EST) via media advisory. And there is this related topic, “Whether the Fulton County Sheriff's Department would decide to enforce its copyright is entirely up to them,” Rosenblatt said. “But it's also reasonable to think that the Fulton County Sheriff's Office might think, you know, this is a public document, it belongs to the world in a way, [the] copyright belongs to us. But the news about it belongs to the world. And we're not going to undertake the expense and trouble of hiring copyright counsel and sending out takedowns and cease and desist and letters, or in lawsuits.” ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about the BLP concerns — WP:MUGSHOT is satisfied here. My concern is about the fair use rationale. Many copyright holders don't vigorously pursue takedown requests of their copyrighted content — that doesn't make the photograph freely licensed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But no one says it's free licensed, only that NFCC permits its use. Its owner explicitly disavows commercial opportunities (NFCC #2), and it does show a notable historic event, not an everyday arrest. Feoffer (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that this mugshot is somehow "historic" would seem to apply to any mugshot This concern rings hollow, per Grorp. Feoffer (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fastily 09:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grorp's reasoning. This image, along with Trump's, is used in a more significant way than that of a typical mugshot; this is a more liberal interpretation of the NFCC, but it still qualifies (and given the photo's publisher and widespread use, I doubt the harm in using a more liberal interpretation here). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFCC#8. The stated purpose is "Attorney Sidney Powell smiles during her booking photo after her guilty plea", but there is no significant sourced critical commentary about the smiling in the article. As used, the image is purely decorative and its removal would not detract from a reader's understanding of the article, and in particular, its removal from the section does not detract from a reader's understanding of her conviction. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFCC#8 requires for the media file to both "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and its omission to "be detrimental to that understanding". Textbook failure to live up the NFCC policy. There is nothing historical about the mugshot itself. ✗plicit 14:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. WP:F8. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File was copied to Commons: File:MeadowoodOldOrchard.jpg Yann (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The source website is available under a CC0 license. The uploader applied a fair-use tag because the screenshot "may contain copyrighted images." However, the website's FAQ states that editors should only upload their own work and that they should not copy content from Wikipedia unless it is in public domain. Therefore, it is probably safe to assume this screenshot does not contain non-free elements. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Not sure that we need a local copy for this file - while it's widely used, the Commons file commons:File:Symbol template class.svg is upload-protected for being widely used cross-project and has nothing dangerous in its history. That and going by the file talk page, it seems like having a local copy needs a bit more maintenance work than what can be justified by the number of incidents on the Commons fileJo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main complication is that the images have different colors on Wikipedia (pink) vs Commons (orange). Pink seems to be the template color both here and there, so making the image orange doesn't make a lot of sense. However, the current pink on Wikipedia isn't very high-contrast. Maybe #e03070 (from File:Template-protection-shackle.svg) could be a better "foreground color" for the image? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the FFD question isn't really about the colour. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
