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: Converted to non-free - FASTILY 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

File:FBI Photo of Anthony Quinn Warner.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Octoberwoodland ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The FBI presumably did not create this photo themselves, but instead released a private photo that has a private copyright holder. Suggest relicense to non-free or delete. Wikiacc ( ¶) 06:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The FBI is distributing the photo on both their website and twitter account. You state you presume it's a private photo, but how are we to know that? Are you certain of this? There was no information encoded in the image data that indicates anyone holds copyright on it. I don't think it's a problem tagging it as fair use, however, a free equivalent is better for the article. Fair use images are a major pain in the butt to manage on Wikipedia. I can tag it as fair use and you can as well. What do you think? Octoberwoodland ( talk) 06:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

It appears this photo is from his drivers license from the Tennessee drivers license bureau. What are the rules on use of images used for drivers license that are subsequently released to the public by law enforcement? Octoberwoodland ( talk) 06:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale added. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 07:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I have verified this photo was created and issued by the Tennessee drivers license division. All of their drivers license photos use the same blue background for Class D drivers license photos. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 07:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The terms I can find on some State of Tennessee websites indicate "fair use" is allowed for noncommercial, educational and news reporting purposes. (They charge money for DMV information). • Gene93k ( talk) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

It clearly isn't PD. Local government-produced material is copyrighted unless expressly stated otherwise. If they released it for non-commercial use, it's still not usable on Wikipedia under those terms. It is, however, an image of a deceased person that cannot be created freely, eventually. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I uploaded a PD image of Warner on Commons: [1] I checked the first and last few pages of the yearbook and did not find a copyright notice. This can be verified through the Ancestry.com link in the description (although registration is required): [2] It can also be verified using this Classmates.com link if registration is too inconvenient: [3] So perhaps we do not need a fair use image.

Even though the driver's license photo is not created by a federal government employee, I think it may still be PD by virtue of being published by the FBI. For example, some childhood photos of US presidents such as this one are PD and considered as the work of the US federal government even though they may not be created by a federal employee. By virtue of being supplied by a federal employee, the photos may become PD. I personally contacted the presidential library for the Bill Clinton example and can confirm that this is indeed true. We can contact the FBI about the copyright of the driver's license photo to confirm its PD status. FunnyMath ( talk) 22:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

A free PD image is always preferred on Wikipedia. You should contact the FBI and ask about this photo. I tend to agree that if an image is published by a federal agency, that alone should indicate the image is classified as PD, however, that's clearly not Wikipedia's policy which requires an explicit release of the image into the PD from its original copyright holder. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (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: Missing clear evidence of permission. May be restored upon receipt of permission via OTRS - FASTILY 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

File:Brookfield, CT Train Station.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AirportExpert ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence that this photo was originally published in a manner such that copyright is now expired. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I have emailed the webmaster to inquire about the file's copyright status. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 21:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I just want to point out that there are advertisements on the side of the station stating that a pack of cigarettes cost only 10 cents. Hopefully that provides some indication of when this photo was taken.-- AirportExpert ( talk) 17:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert 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.