The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Non-free. There are two arguments in favor of marking the image as free. I will address both:

The FBI "confiscated" the photograph and placed it into the public domain.

Incorrect. The FBI does not own the photograph to begin with, and as such cannot place it into the public domain. The fact that they got permission from the store (or utilized fair use) to publish this photograph for law enforcement purposes does not mean that the photograph has been placed in the "public domain." If the store did grant permission, it was likely only for that purpose. Assuming the copyright is valid, the store would still be entirely within its rights to sue a reuser of this content who did not follow fair use laws, and was not following the FBI's original directive.

The image does not show enough creativity to pass the threshold of originality

This is an untested point of US law. And, as a general matter of practice, Wikipedia practices restraint when it comes to copyright law (c.f., the codified version of this practice on Commons: commons:COM:PRP). If in doubt, we treat it as non-free. It is by no means unlikely that a court would rule that the photograph belongs to the store, just like photographs by the European Space Agency garner a copyright even though it is a mechanistic process.

The image is already of low enough resolution that it need not be lowered. However, we will need to write up a rationale, and all uses in articles will need to comply with our fair use standards. I will be removing the image from the articles; I encourage another contributor here to write up a rationale. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File possibly not owned by FBI; so this may not be free —Chris!_c/t 02:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Private security cam footage, not a work by the FBI. And with the large number of free images available for and in the article, there's just not enough justification for inclusion of a non-free image. Delete. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a picture made by the FBI from the security cam footage and is 1st published by them. Works "prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties" are automatically in the public domain by law.17 U.S.C. § ch1 Theworm777 (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not actually true. The original work is copyrighted, and the FBI release is a derivative work of that copyrighted set of images. Unless the copyright owner releases the rights, or licenses them under a free license, they remain copyrighted, no matter the FBI's involvement in their distribution. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you getting your infomation? That "The original work is copyrighted" I think these Surveillance Cameras in the Metropolitan Boston Region were paid for by Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant funding from the federal Department of Homeland Security here is a link to info on this. http://www.privacysos.org/CCTV-Boston Theworm777 (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Until we know for certain the status of the owner of the camera, we have to assume copyright. Further, even if it was paid for with a grant, that doesn't mean that the copyright becomes the governments. *IF* it is the city of Boston's camera, they still own and operate it. I am unaware that Boston automatically releases copyright on anything, like the U.S. Government does. So, in the absence of any evidence, we should err on the side of caution rather than making assumptions. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Copyright is not held by the owner of the camera in the U.S., but by the photographer. And there was no photographer. No one is eligible to claim copyright here. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who said only the photographer can claim copyright? I am interested to know how you draw that conclusion. Anyway even if you are right, I don't think the FBI is in position to claim copyright either as they did not create the image.—Chris!_c/t 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who said the owner of the camera hold the copyright to a photo? That sounds novel. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • If I took my fancy handheld camera and chose to bolt it to the side of my house, aimed at my driveway, and then hit the shutter button, would you agree that I hold the copyright in the resultant photo, uninteresting and uncreative though it may be? Yes! Now, what if before hitting the shutter button, I set the camera to a 30-second delay, so I can no longer "control" the shot? Do I still have the copyright? Yes! Now, what if I set it to record video? Do I still hold the copyright to the video, and to each frame of that video? Yes! Now, what if I have my personal butler do it? I still hold the copyright, because he was my employee doing the work for me. And if I hire a service technician to do it? That's a work for hire, so depending on our contractual arrangement, either the technician's employer holds the copyright or I do, but regardless, someone still holds the copyright. So explain to me the difference here? Grollτech (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Because you (or your paid agent) is making creative decisions that affect the work. It's very basic to U.S. copyright law that only creative works are eligible for copyright, and only the creator (or his/her agent) can claim copyright. If you created a photo, and made some non-negligible artistic choice that affects the shot (e.g. lighting or subject matter) then you can claim copyright. That's clearly not the case here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fairuse low possibility of a free photo coming up prior to their actual identification. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep FBI first published and gave permission (begged) for wide distribution. Media all using it commercially. See link by TheWorm777 Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my reply above, link is irrelevant, since FBI is not the copyright holder of the images. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The FBI did not take the picture so they are not the copyright holder. We need a 'free license' from the owners of the security camera.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment we don't need a free license, we can work with a fair use rationale. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment one of the two suspects is now dead, so no new free image can be created. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further still, no new free image of them carrying the bombs onto the scene can be created. Grollτech (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that we need to assume the image is copyrighted. It turns out that images from webcams that are not controlled are not copyrighted, as no one contributed any creative effort in making the image. I do not see that we can assume this was the case. I see no reason for the image. Apteva (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Jesus Christ some of you people are nuts! You really think the owner of the store security camera are going to sue Wikipedia for using that photo?!!? 118.90.117.81 (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key is the owner could sue. Anyway, Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia can't allow potentially unfree images.—Chris!_c/t 20:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as obvious fair use. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This photograph was made by a security camera that took pictures every second of the street below. Why would it be eligible for copyright? Who would hold the copyright? Photos are usually eligible for copyright because a person made creative decisions about subject matter, lighting, arrangement, etc., but none of that applies here. I know of no case where a photo made by a security camera was claimed to be copyrighted and defended successfully in court. I'm not even sure who would have standing to claim it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wouldn't it be eligible for copyright? I must ask. The security camera owner could claim copyright. Just because you (I assume not a legal expert) don't know whether such case exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I could be wrong but unless we know for certain, we need to be safe.—Chris!_c/t 20:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is we do not have enough information about where it came from. Security cameras that are pointed at a specific location and just take pictures all day long are not copyrightable because there is no creative effort involved. If someone is aiming the camera, whoever they work for owns the copyright, because there is a creative effort involved. While it is likely that the image is not copyrightable, it is better for us to be certain. We already have many images that we can use, and this one is not particularly important. Apteva (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand and respect what you're saying, and I'm all for erring on the side of caution. But in this case, I'd say it crosses the line of "copyright paranoia" to imagine that there could be a valid copyright claim on this work in the current context. Though it has not been released which surveillance camera took this photograph, pictures of surveillance cameras along the street show them to be fixed in place, and that certainly appears to be the case here. (The angle does not move on any of the pictures.) We would be deleting the photo to honor an imagined copyright claim that we admit is extremely likely to exist, and that no news organization on the planet seems to honor. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• May be public domain — Static security camera footage may very well be public domain. Note the public domain tag on File:Atta in airport.jpg. I would try and track down the original source, though. -- Veggies (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obvious fair use. And one subject is dead. And no creative contribution by a photographer. And no support pointing to anything other than personal conjecture that somehow, while we know copyright adheres to a photographer, it otherwise adheres to the owner of the camera if there is no photographer.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, there is no fair use category that applies. For example, say the FBI is searching for someone, and finds a photo of them and gets permission to use it in their wanted posters etc., and asks everyone to post the picture. We can not post it because it is copyrighted (but we can link to it). One of the fair use categories is not, because the FBI wanted us to. Our decision rests solely on whether the image is public domain. Apteva (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When it comes to webcams, which lack creative contribution by a photographer, no photographer is in existence as to whom to credit the copyright.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfree It doesn't seem to have been taken by an FBI employee during his official service as an FBI employee, so the image is unfree. Can't be kept as a freely licensed image. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Automated security camera images are not copyrightable as they are not the products of human authorship. US Copyright Office Compendium II 503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author. "In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable." See also Threshold of originality. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A human author set up the security camera and arranged so that photos would be taken according to specific rules, so one could certainly say that there is an author. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that this is sufficiently creative to gain copyright protection, so you may be right. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Setting up a security camera or a webcam does not constitute sufficient creative effort to allow copyright, that is pretty well established. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it is not at all established in the United States. See my comments below. Grollτech (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Images of the brothers at the marathon were not made by FBI employees or equipment but were taken by business-owned security cameras, including cameras owned by Lord & Taylor department store. — O'Dea (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but figure out what the ownership is It's an image that proved to be especially crucial to the identification and manhunt for the suspects. The historical value alone should be more than enough to allow the image to remain on Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep treating it as non-free until we can be clear on the copyright; its use as non-free is certainly well within NFC allowances since this and the other photos released by the FBI triggered the manhunt, hence can be considered historically significant. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PD-CCTV. Cameras can't be the copyholders, as copyrights belong to humans. The person who put the camera there is not the copyholder as he never planned this to be filmed. This is PD because "there was no creativity involved on what to record, when to record, or how to record it, making this footage ineligible for copyright."[1]. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, under Fair Use. But first, I feel I must address the "creativity hurdle" and "no author" fallacies...

• "per PD-CCTV" – Huh? I know we Wikipedians value consensus and all, but a bunch of us can't override copyright law simply by getting together on a talk page and developing a consensus! I think we'd need to be members of Congress first, or at the very least, a Federal circuit judge... The "creativity hurdle" for copyright is a compelling argument, but it isn't as high a hurdle as many here would have us believe... it's more like a step.
• Please see Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned cameras, especially if you've already read that article before last night, because until then, the article was dead wrong, as demonstrated by my edit from last night (citations in article).
• Lots of folks point to the discussions that took place for Commons:File:Atta_in_airport.jpg (noting the discussions linked from the file's talk page. Those linked discussions were decisively concluded when someone cited a U.S. District court case, Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman, and pulled out some great quotes. These words of gospel have since been sprinkled liberally throughout Wikipedia (including this page) to justify the use of ((PD-ineligible)) tags on surveillance video. All would be right with the world, and Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman would be right on point, if only the case had ever been heard! You see, boys and girls, this "gospel" was not uttered by the court, but by the defendant when the casino sued him for infringing on their surveillance videos. Making matters worse, the defendant's arguments were never heard or considered in open court, because the plaintiff's case fell apart for other reasons.
• To date, therefore, this question has not been tested in U.S. courts.
• Today, I made another update to Threshold of originality, adding details of a case from England that followed the death of Princess Diana, when a security guard stole stills from security video showing her and Dodi Fayed. In that case, "ownership and subsistence of copyright were not in dispute", because, "as section 1 of the 1988 Act makes clear, copyright is a property right" which was owned by the security company (citations in article).
• IMHO, therefore, "Fair Use" is the most defensible position in support of keeping it. To that end, I added a fair use claim and NFUR to the file page, underneath the ((PD-Ineligible)) tag. Grollτech (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the first, nor will it be the last time that someone has made an argument and edited a wp article cited to reinforce that point. Apteva (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And what, pray tell, are you insinuating, Apteva? Exactly what "point" do you think I'm trying to make, besides the truth? Before you go making unsubstantiated-but-authoritative-sounding statements like "Setting up a security camera or a webcam does not constitute sufficient creative effort to allow copyright, that is pretty well established", don't you think you ought to first know that it's true? About a thousand years ago, Alhazen, the "father of the scientific method", said, "The seeker after truth, does not place his trust in any consensus, however broad or however venerable: instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and he scrutinizes, measures, and verifies ... The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow." Words to live by... how he foresaw Wikipedia, I'll never know.
• My "point", as I stated above, was simple: With respect to the originality threshold for copyrightability, "this question has not been tested in U.S. courts", contrary to claims that it is "well established". That's it. I'll agree that the arguments which I have heard in support of that position are compelling, there's no doubt about it. But then again, I also know enough to know that there are usually compelling arguments on both sides of an issue, and that we, as Wikipedians, have a vested interest in this issue, so I'm not likely to hear too many of the other side's compelling arguments until the question is tested.
• Suggestion: Personally, I think the image should stay, because it's an historic image, the release of which, in the words of the Boston Police Commissioner, "was the turning point in the investigation". "Fair use" allows us to keep that image if a credible argument can be made to support that use – I believe I have done so in the NFUR. Going a step further, I'd suggest that we keep the licensing as it currently stands, with both ((PD-Because)) and ((Non-free historic image)) as a fall-back position.
• Believe me, I would have liked nothing more than to instead say unequivocally that it's ineligible for copyright protection per WP:CCTV – bam, slam dunk, image kept. But I can't, because that so-called "cited wp article" (in it's prior form) was a work of fiction and original research.
• Don't believe me? See for yourself. Please tell me if these sources here and here support the article's previous stance on the legal treatment of security cams in the U.S., as follows: "One District Court case, Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp vs Darrell Flyingman and Doris Thunderbull is on point and supports the point of view that surveillance videos do not have copyright protection." So? Is it as "well established" as that sentence would mislead one to believe? I did nothing nefarious or underhanded, neither in my statements above, nor in my edits to that article. All I did was call bullshit.
• Now, I recognize that I may have sounded a bit alarmist yesterday, but does anybody else find references to WP:CCTV or the discussion located at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 22#Live feeds and also en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 22#File:Atta atm.jpg the least bit concerning? Both of those conversations bowed down blindly to the "gospel of Flyingman".
• So, Apteva, until you can bring sources to back up your statements and/or to disprove mine, please don't take coy potshots at my integrity just because my "point" – the truth – undermined your credibility. Grollτech (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument above is a reasonably strong argument for not considering automated surveillance video made in Britain as public domain. However, the British case is likely to have little persuasive power under US copyright law, under which this image would be judged, and where there is a Constitutional requirement of creativity (Feist v. Rural). Here, the reasoning of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is more apposite in holding that faithful digitization of a preexisting two-dimensional public domain image does not evince the creativity required under Feist to result in copyright. Here, the addition of a third dimension changes the analysis not at all. The possibilities for the necessary creativity could be said to lie in the angle of the surveillance camera (think of creative camera angles in a Hitchcock film), but here it is functional so as to capture passersby on a public sidewalk, not creative, and functional elements have long been held not to be creative. Creativity might be said to lie in the fixation itself (think of a photographer choosing that perfect moment to snap the shutter), but here the fixation was continuous or at fixed intervals. The phrase "slavish copying" has been used to describe the work done in Bridgeman. What could be more slavish than an automated surveillance camera? Could an artist use an automate camera creatively? No doubt, but that is not this case. As to the argument that we should only include images in Wikipedia where there is a settled court case, note that Bridgeman, itself, is settled law only with respect to the Southern District of New York and yet we rely upon it everywhere else. (National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute) Why? Because we judge the reasoning to be sound. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha! Thank you, 24, for your substantive arguments. How refreshing. You make some excellent points, and I have some thoughts, but honestly, I think it best that I go cool off and pick this back up in the A.M. Grollτech (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as fair use at least - other keep arguments above also convincing - notwithstanding comments immediately above. CoolMike (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ineligible for copyright. If it is decided that we cannot mark the photo as ineligible, I believe the photo could be used under our non-free content criteria, so long as the specific and iconic photo has commentary about it. (Note that if the photo is non-free, our NFCC won't allow us to use it to show what the subject looked like, since other photos exist. But our NFCC would allow us to use the photo to illustrate the importance of the specific historic photo itself, depicting a non-reproducible event. The FBI released this image to the public, garnering world-wide attention, and the increased traffic temporarily brought down the FBI website. It led within 12 hours to the largest manhunt is U.S. history. It's clear the photo itself is historic.) But all of this should be moot, really, since I consider it implausible that any U.S. court would judge this photo to be eligible for copyright protection. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Copyright Status and Citation from http://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies.htm that is the link from the page the FBI released these photos on at http://www.fbi.gov/news/updates-on-investigation-into-multiple-explosions-in-boston/photos

"Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission. Citation to the Department of Justice as the source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. The use of any Department of Justice seals, however, is protected and requires advance authorization, as described below. With respect to materials generated by entities outside of the Department of Justice, permission to copy these materials, if necessary, must be obtained from the original source. For information on materials generated by external entities with Department of Justice funding, please refer to individual component policies. This copyright notice only pertains to the Department of Justice website."

These photos were produced by the FBI and not external entities and there is no copyright on them and they are public domain. Theworm777 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the photos were not produced by the FBI. They were distributed by them but not generated. This is a common issue that happens with, say, NASA or other US Gov sites - they may publish information that is copyrighted by others and not a product of that agency which would normally fall under PD-GOV or PD-NASA, and people mis-identify them as that way. Now, it may be that because the original images were from CCTV that there's a non-artistic facet to them and they would by default be PD, whether published by the FBI or not, and then keeping this image would be of no question. But if they are copyrighted, they have to be treated as non-free, but we're now clearly able to rationalize their use per NFCC, and there's no question to keep. Basically, this is no longer a matter of deletion but how to properly tag the files in their license and then consider moving to commons. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes these photos were generated by the FBI from video and if they were copyrighted they would need to state that on the photos or they would be breaking copyright law. So they are public domain. Maybe someone should call and ask about them. "All media inquiries should be directed to the FBI’s National Press Office at (202) 324-3691" Theworm777 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it would simply be fair use (assuming the originals were copyrighted), which doesn't require any attribution at all. Yes, integrity in reporting would suggest one should always document where images came from, but that's simply not a requirement of fair use. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment File:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg has also been nominated under PUF for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious Keep I am saddened that a few wikipedia editors insist they are smarter about copyright law than the FBI who released these images and every major media outlet on the planet who continues to run them. If you really disagree, go convince or sue the FBI, CNN, AP, BBC, CBC and any other alphabet organization you can find. Good luck with that :) Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not challenging the keep aspect , but it must be pointed out there is a huge difference between copyright/fair use law (which is what you're citing above, basically) and WP's non-free content policy, which looks at whether the image has any type of limiting IP on it. If the image can't fit into the PD or CC-BY license models, we can't treat it as free, but that doesn't mean we can't use it under non-free policy (and I think that answer is resoundingly "yes"). It's just a question of what the proper license is to use on this image. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The FBI confiscated the image under the laws of eminent domain and was the first to publish the image. Since the United States owns the image, whoever produced it did so as an agent thereof. Should any claim arise it can only name the US government as respondent, as in the Zapruder film. My76Strat (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment File:Suspect1and2.jpg has also been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kesarin Chaichalermpol.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Scan of printed image? Eeekster (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 235 x 320 and claiming own work? Shouldn't we just put a speedy copyvio on these? If they want to provide their own work they should be decent sizes and contain EXIF. They don't need to provide the largest size but at least a decent size.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search for Kesarin Chaichalermpol on google for images shows this photo is published online at http://fabio-ilmiodiario.blogspot.com/2013/03/kesarin-chaichalermpol-1979vivente.html So the users claims that it has not been published are not true. Theworm777 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:WPRFC Crest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As this appears to be an organisational crest, I am unsure how this can be a self. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A low res of this can be used for fair use to illustrate the subject. The current image is probably small enough to qualify. Apteva (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frederick md seal.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I cannot find a date for this seal but its image would obviously be under copyright if it had been created recently enough. I find that in 1927 the city used a quite different seal [2], and the style of the image suggests that it might be recent indeed. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this can be used as fair use. Obviously it is a low res image that illustrates the subject. Apteva (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's two hundred fifty years old, and tagged ((pd-old)). For images that are categorically public domain, the source is irrelevant to determine its copyright status, because designs are what can be copyrighted. In the same way, ((pd-text)), ((pd-textlogo)), ((pd-chem)), ((pd-shape)), and ((pd-ineligible)) files just plain don't need any source information. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that old, because none of the steeples shown in the image are that old; the oldest building in the city limits is barely 250 years old. As I said, I could find no indication of how old this version of the city seal is, but the only information I did find implied that it was relatively young. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This has now been reloaded from the on-line Maryland Manual here. This page states that "This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain," which has been used to justify a PD tag. However, just below that it is the statement that "Rights assessment for associated source material is the responsibility of the user." I have difficulty seeing how the first statement is not largely nullified by the second; I also have to wonder how the state can place the city's seal into the public domain. I am increasingly unwilling to accept anything less than a statement from the city that they have placed the seal into public domain or will otherwise license it freely. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message from the MD Manual people saying "go ask the Frederick government", so I have to assume that their assurance of PD material does not extend to the seal, and that the current PD tag is invalid insofar as it is based off the MSA site. Still working on getting info from Frederick. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.