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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:103 Motorised Division Piacenza.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jim Sweeney (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Replaced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:103_Motorised_Division_Piacenza.svg, unused fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:34, 12 August 2012 (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: Keep as fair use. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Medeis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I don't feel this meets NFCC #1, the dazed aspect isn't a great enough issue to justify this image as one for which a free image couldn't be found  Ryan Vesey 06:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree here, Holmes is still alive, and without an OTRS ticket from the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department, this looks like failing WP:NFCC#1.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFCC#1 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image is not just any picture of Holmes. It specifically depicts his hair as dyed orange at the time of his arrest and his "dazed" demeanor as commented on widely in the press (ABC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, Daily Mail, etc.) and in the article. No free equivalent of depicting these specific aspects at the time of his arrest will be available. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The dyed-orange hair is a significant issue in this history, and while this is written in the article, it is best seen in a picture. There is no reason to believe a later picture will depict this characteristic. Additionally, this picture has become important in memes and political statements where Holmes' likeness has been used. On the matter of copyright, the photo was released by the Arapahoe Sheriff's Office to the press; while Colorado does not release all police info (such as rape cases), in giving the material to the press they have indicated that this "information" can be distributed among the public. I will accept that some people believe this is non-free content, but even then, it serves NFCC#1 for reasons mentioned in the beginning of this post. Thelema418 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sole purpose is apparently to show what he looks like, but he is still alive, so a different photo can be taken. If you need a specific hair colour, well then just ask him to dye his hair before the photo shot. Besides, the photo fails WP:NFCC#8 in the article 2012 Aurora shooting: you don't need a photo of the main suspect in the article about the shooting. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read the prior discussion No, the image does not illustrate him generally, it shows his unique aspect and demeanor at the time of the crime and arraignment, which were highly remarked upon in the press as unusual, and are entirely irreplaceable. I also refer everyone to the earlier discussion, where there was no consensus for deletion, but a general presumption in favor of fair use and acceptance that according to Colorado law the image was not copyrighted unless the state otherwise acted to do so, which is not in evidence. The prior image was deleted solely on the grounds that it had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under general use, rather than locally under fair use, as is done in this article, with no prejudice in favor of deleting future images. Read the prior conclusion that the image can be reloaded locally under fair use here. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons discussion is mainly about the copyright status of the image and comes to the conclusion that the image appears to be unfree. Fair use can't be decided by Commons; it is up to each project (such as English Wikipedia) to decide what to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give the diff where there is consensus that the image is unfree. At worst it says that the image may be unfree, should Colorado act to copyright the image, and allows the resubmission under fair use, which this is. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • By default all images are assumed to be copyrighted, unless specifically released or by law inapplicable (such as for the U.S. federal government). There is zero evidence that images by the Arapaho County Sheriff's Office, such as this one, are public domain. This is not a matter of consensus, as we can't decide for them if the image is free or not. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the thread, the consensus is quite clear. The deletion was jsutified solely on the basis that the image was uploaded to commons, which is not appropriate for fair use. As for the default assumption, the default is explicitly overridden by CO law which says state documents are public domain unless other action is taken. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh buh what? No part of the Colorado state law that I've seen says anything about state records having no copyright protection. Their statement of documents being public domain is not a release of copyright but a statement that documents are open to inspection by the public. There's a difference. The CO open records act specifically mentions that it is intended to ensure records are available for public access and fair use of copyrighted documents. No where (that I've seen) does it say that state documents, and especially county and local documents, are automatically released from copyright, as Florida and the federal government does. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain has a very specific copyright law meaning, and it does not simply mean "open to public revue", your brilliant huh buh wha defense notwithstanding. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no consensus in the discussion to upload it locally as fair use, and even it there was it wouldn't matter for two reasons. First, commons consensus doesn't affect English Wikipedia and second, consensus can change. I'll also point out that the discussion showed specific statements of the state showing its ability to copyright and aside from the questionable first link no law of any sort was provided to say that state documents were public domain. Ryan Vesey 05:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media resources for reporters of crime in Colorado state that mugshots can be reproduced. The greatest issue with copyright and state / municipality works is that the credit must be given: for it is illegal to publish such a document as if it were authored by a private entity. Does anyone really think that CO will post claim to copyright on a photo that was released to every media outlet? Those who are against posting this photo are running a SLAPP. Thelema418 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful about making such accusations; it is extraordinary bad faith to state someone is intentionally trying to censor information or intimidate opponents here. I think you well know that no such thing is occurring...this is an exercise in both determining the appropriateness of this image on en.wiki and whether this image has been released from copyright.

As to the points you raised... The right to reproduce in this context is not related to licensing but to the idea that the image can be disseminated freely (two very different things). And again, the Arapaho Co SO has no need to claim copyright, as U.S. law states all works are automatically copyright upon creation, and nothing has been produced which definitively states Colorado government entity works are by default without copyright. Just because an image has been released to the media does not mean that copyright is released. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no copyright violations in publishing this photo as long as credit is given to the Sheriff's office. There is no reasonable expectation that the Sheriff's office will make claim to the copyright for licensing purposes. If it did, it would simply have to come down in cease and desist fashion, from Wikipedia and every news source on the web. Copyright in the US also requires something inventive in the process (even if it is minutely inventive / creative), this is clearly state on the copyright.gov site. Mugshots do not fit this description because they are merely record documents. The state can try to prevent them from being shared, but this is not due to copyright. For example, a list of people the FBI is secretly spying on is not sufficient for protection on grounds of copyright; the government uses other rationale to prevent access to that information. I assert that preventing this photo from being portrayed on wiki is akin to a SLAPP... why should I be careful? As further evidence as to why I believe this is a SLAPP, how many people asking for this photo to be removed are doing anything to find a photo that can be added to the article? Thelema418 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NFCC #1 and the basic rule of thumb used on en.wiki: non-free images of living persons are unacceptable, as there is *always* the possibility of obtaining a free image. I don't care if this shows his red hair or not, that is purely a decorative function that doesn't require an image to describe. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is well-known and associated with the killer and shooting. --Boycool † (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. this picture is in the article 2012 Aurora shooting but it does not belong there it should be on his own article but not on the main article about the shooting also photo fails WP:NFCC#8 Fox2k11 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes has no notability outside the shooting, the article on him needs to be deleted. I will nominate it for that. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dye-job at the time of the suspect's arrest cannot be expressed fully in words; it is better seen; thus it satisfies NFCC#8. By the reasoning posed in NFCC#8, why are there pictures of OJ Simpson or Mark David Chapman on Wikipedia? Do you say those should be removed too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelema418 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If his hair color changes, the picture would become eligible. Until then, it is still possible to get a picture of him with the orange hair. Ryan Vesey 23:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ryan Vesey 01:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Holmes' orange hair is fading with darker curls growing beneath it. He has grown long sideburns and a mustache." (Not that I accept your argument.) μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but we should add a mugshot template instead. What do you all think? ComputerJA (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is determined to be free of copyright (which, at this time, it cannot be), then certainly, this should be added. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per changed appearance. This picture now meets NFCC #1, it would be impossible to obtain a new image that has the same effect. Ryan Vesey 12:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit confused on the mugshot template issue. I see no reason not to add it to the file, but I do not see the code itself at the template page. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image shows the suspect at the time of his arrest, dazed and with dyed hair, which is relevant to illustrate the text, and as such the file is not replaceable.  Sandstein  08:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MUG - do not depict in a false or disparaging light. Ill grant you that this is not false, but per several of the rationales above, it is certainly dispariging (perhaps not inaccurately, but still). This is compounded by the NFCC issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The full quote says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light" That means, don't use a mugshot and present it as if it was their best photo. If it is presented as a mugshot, then it is not used out of context. If the intent of the policy was to outlaw mugshots, it would say that. Ryan Vesey 14:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close, please Can we please close this? There is no consensus in favor of deletion. Reasons given for deletion--that the mugshot is defamatory, or that the subject, (whose lawyers are pursuing an insanity defense, and who will likely spend life institutionalized or incarcerated) can pose for a future dazed red-dyed-hair portrait--are hardly cogent. All fair use criteria are met. Colorado state law indicates that state documents are not copyrighted unless action is taken to do so, which is not indicated, given the free distribution of the picture. The prior deletion discussion concluded that the picture could be uploaded locally with a fair use rationale, just not the free use rationale on wikimedia that was previously given. Obviously the objections that have been made are in good faith, but there is no threat of commercial dilution from this cropped, low res image which can always be deleted later should some authority seek to establish and then enforce copyright protection. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In view of the widespread media use of this image, the mugshot template is justified. It is not intended to depict Holmes in a false or disparaging light.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the mugshot template. Can someone please add it or swap it for the current template? I haven't been able to figure out how to do this for the life of me. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2012 (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 as F2 by Favonian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiminsuit.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bodajozef (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This user is clearly not the creator as the copyright tags claim. Believe this to be copyright of KCNA. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is at the Wikimedia Commons, but I am going to get it deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:55, 12 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:People living in Blithfield.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davis.Stephanie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless the point would be to illustrate the website from which this was taken. Seeing all the "i" footnote tags makes this confusing/pointless for use anywhere, and it could be easily done as a wikiformat table if the information were wanted somewhere. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Substitutional interstitial solute.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Siamrut (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Contains 2 distinct depictions. One comes from lower resolution source, leading to blurring. These depictions are available separately on commons as both PNG and SVG, see File:Interstitial_solute.svg and File:Substitutional_solute.svg aswell as PNG's of same name. Image is also orphaned Zerodamage (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ironchef2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kattenstoet (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused photo of unidentified people. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:54, 12 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue built after Ahil Vellani.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mohamedali18499 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Yes, it's funny, but I'm not sure that this unused photo has much encyclopaedic value. SuperMarioMan 20:38, 12 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Itsy Bitsy Spider Dubstep Remix.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tesmy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused. out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turn it on again tour edition.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jotamide (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Excessive: there is already File:Turn It On Again.png. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2012 (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.