Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Gates mugshot.png

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bill Gates mugshot.png

Some editors feel that the rationale for publication is too vague. I think we should seek consensus on this file as an example for future discussions. Was the point of creation the actual publication date? Canoe1967 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep Obviously. New Mexico states that mug shots are free for distribution. Under the pre-1978 copyright act they would have been distributed without a copyright notice. Merely offering copies to the public without a copyright notice constituted publication. (which is why I don't have to prove that such a copy was ever distributed). -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Merely offering copies to the public without a copyright notice constituted publication." - source? Assuming correct, it also needs to go into Commons:Publication. Of course, the definition of "offering" may well be an issue here, in a way it wouldn't normally be with copies on sale. Rd232 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• • You mean where it says "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication."? Already in there! -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Er, OK. :) Rd232 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't know much about New Mexico law, but it seems the main thrust of the Inspection of Public Records Act is to allow the public access to inspect public records. It also requires officials to "provide reasonable facilities to make or furnish copies" of the records. Is the distinction between "offering to distribute copies" and merely providing facilities to make copies important here? If not, would the authorities have been offering to provide copies "for the purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display"? --Avenue (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• "County and municipal records are not included in the term "public records" as that term is defined in this article." from http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/info/14-3NMSA.pdf Does that law ony cover state employees and not Albuquerque police?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is an old Attorney General opinion without weight of law. If you look through there you will notice that the same AG opined that police reports do fall under the statute. Recent court rulings also make it plain that city government does fall under the statute[1]. I don't have access to the old AG opinions, but it is possible he was distinguishing "municipal" affairs involving the day to day affairs of operation of the city from higher level city functions, such as planning. But like I said the AG also said police reports were covered. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep Copyright status tag seems correct from what I see. Infrogmation (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Check out this version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Kept: per consensus. INeverCry 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)