Template talk:Mugshot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 July 23. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Sources:

[edit] Forum discussions

• http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=1201205
• http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/25814

[edit] Related links

• http://myfloridalegal.com/sun.nsf/manual/B3145618EC05D8EC852566F30070699B (applicable only to Florida, citing [1])
• http://www.lc.org/hotissues/2001/aba_1-18/public_records_laws_by_state.htm (Note that this is just a public-records-law listing by state. None of the statutes cited explicitly disclaims copyright on anything. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC))
• http://www.mddcpress.com/mdaccess/sunshineweek/foiguide.pdf (HTML version) (warning: doesn't appear to cite sources, may be unreliable)

Official response from US copyright office (but see below):

As a general matter, state and local governments may claim copyright in their works. However, public ordinances, court decisions and similar official legal documents and public records of the state and local governments are generally not considered copyrightable for reasons of public policy.

[edit] Freeness

According to User:Dragons flight,

The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01 states, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." and 206.03 clarifies "Works (other than edicts of government) prepared by officers or employees of any government (except the U.S. Government) including State, local, or foreign governments, are subject to registration if they are otherwise copyrightable."

This doesn't seem to square with the idea that mugshots are PD. Look at the Office's response again: "public ordinances, court decisions and similar . . . public records". Is a mugshot "similar" to a public ordinance or court decision? It seems very different to me.

I've e-mailed them asking for clarification. Hopefully they'll get back to me. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That was speedy. Here's my question, exact wording:

Here's their response, exact wording:

So now we have to consider: do mugshots qualify as "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents"? Clearly not. I think these images will need to be reclassified as unfree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one's responded, I've put a notice on the tag saying it's disputed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert (or even an amateur, really), but could it be possible that these images are simply ineligible for copyright because they contain no original authorship, similar to survellience cameras? --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Unless you can get either a court case or some other kind of high-quality legal opinions on this, preferably from the Legal department or ideally from the general counsel, I would suggest that the images be considered unfree. There are certain limited aspects of creativity involved in positioning of the subject that, it could be argued, aren't merely functional, or at least are no more functional than such aspects in an ordinary photograph. Remember that the bar for creativity is very low. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This can get complicated. [2] seems to imply that there's really no law, at least in Minnesota, about whether booking photos are released into the public domain. The commissioner found that booking photos should be released to the public, ostensibly with duplication allowed, but didn't address the copyright issue. However, [3] seems to imply that in Washington County, OR, booking photographs aren't considered copyrighted material -- or, at least, the state allows free, unlimited reproductions. All that having been said, it seems to me that the law varies from state to state or, alternatively, that there is no clear legal status. Certainly that would mean that they couldn't be classified as GFDL or PD images. --FreelanceWizard 05:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, in my experience, all documents that are a matter of public record are non-copyright, unless they are material specifically sold by the government for revenue-generating purposes. Public records, like booking photos are subject to Sunshine laws that allow for access and duplication by the press and common citizenry. How can something that's photocopied by the press a gazillion times and used in newspapers have a copyright. Even so, the rule of fair use would still apply here as the photo is being used for historic, nonprofit purposes and there isn't an alternate photo reasonably available.24.130.41.116

Public records (except of the U.S. federal government) are typically copyrighted in the United States. Generally broad license for copying is available, but not always; they must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. And a mugshot might qualify as fair use, but that would also have to be evaluated case-by-case. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First off - I almost never contribute to Discussions and don't know how this formatting and editing works - if someone can let me know, that'd be helpful. Anyhow - each state, and often each County in the United States sets its own laws relating to these photos. In some cases, they are not legally available under Sunshine laws at all, while in other cases they are clearly listed as PD and freely available. This distinction is, as I said, very location-by-location, and should not be generalized for the United States in general. Thus - this lable is categorically wrong, because there is no way to know the copyright status of a mug shot / arrest picture taken out of context. One example: http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/cori_public_hearing_of_regs.pdf . This states that, just in the state of MA, mug shots of arrested people are only releasable to the public (not even public documents) in a very specific set of circumstances, making it case-by-case even within the state - it would depend on whether the person in the picture served jail time, how much jail time, and how long they have been out since then. I hope this helps. Zakolantern 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a booking photo considered to be part of the arrest record? If so, it seems to me that a good place to start researching the copyright issues associated with booking photos might be to examine case law as it relates to arrest records in general. --DavidGC 19:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Booking photos are, I think, and I am not fully sure of this, only *sometimes*, in *some* places a part of an arrest record. It depends on the state, the open records law in effect at the time and place they were arrested, ectera. I would love to know the official answer, but don't think there is one for the entire USA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zakolantern (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Booking photos are public records. The copyright status of public records varies by state, but generally they're copyrighted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above evidence and general agreement on the TFD, I've changed the template to reflect the fact that booking photos are not in the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Mugshot

Template:Mugshot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)