Talk:Rick Perry veto controversy

Mugshot violates BLP and copyright law

No mugshots are allowed because they violate BLP and this particular does not seem to have a copyright attached.--NK (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLP says, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)." An article about criminal charges against a person is the proper context.--v/r - TP 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• The mugshot photo seems perfectly appropriate given the subject of this article. It's not as if he's bothered by it. Also, it seems to be in the public domain.- MrX 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not only that, but there has been quite a bit of media about the mugshot itself. From the t-shirts, to his smirk, to his tie, to his lack of glasses, the ice cream afterwards, and even the twitter reactions about it. We could have a whole section on his mugshot. Unfortunately, without this article growing, it might be a bit undue. But it is all there in the sources. Adds a bit of humor and lightness to an otherwise very serious article.--v/r - TP 19:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Regardless, the mug shot should not be used per WP:MUG. Should we add the Mugshot of Rosemary Lehmberg? Her mugshot is equally, if not more, important for the context of this article. It would be hard to defend the inclusion of one and not the other. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • In an Arrest of Rosemary Lehmberg article, yes. In her biography, no. This article is about his indictment - it is appropriate in context per the policy above. What you are saying is directly opposed to the actual WP:BLP policy. WP:MUG is a subsection of WP:BLP and I've quoted it above. You can either click on MUG and actually read it, or you can read the quote above.--v/r - TP 20:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) You referenced the same policy that TParis did, which says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." What better image would you use to illustrate this subject? To answer your question, yes, if we had an article called Rosemary Lehmberg's DUI conviction, then a mug shot would be appropriate. - MrX 20:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Who said anything about her Bio? I am saying in this article. It is relevant here. Regardless, Perry's mugshot should not be used for the person infobox. Arzel (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Perhaps. I'm planning to write a section about the mugshot itself - would you prefer it in that section and to use the same photo as his bio? I don't necessarily agree, but I'm willing to compromise to move past this.--v/r - TP 17:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the infobox is not a person infobox, it's a generic infobox. In that case, the photo serves as the lede image. Is there another image that is more representative of the indictment that we should be using? I'm really don't understand the objection to using the mug shot.- MrX 17:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It has all of the apperances of your standard infobox. The argument for use of the mugshot has been that it has some historical value, that does not appear how it is being used here. We all know that the whole purpose of the mugshot was for political purposes. Perry is apparently trying to also use it for his own political purposes. Not sure why you think that WP should play that game as well. Arzel (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How's this for context: copyright

MrX thinks context is important. Fine. How about we see from whomever uploaded the mugshot a copyright waiver or some kind of permission from Travis County, Texas or some kind of permission from the State of Texas--until that information is provided then it just best to take it down. Whoever uploaded it is putting Wikipedia at risk.--NK (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Context? I got context for ya! Take a gander at these apples: Wikipedia:Image use policy.--NK (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, when we get permission from Travis county, you would be OK wit the mugshot? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly positive that this image would fall under fair use anyway. WP:NFCC 1) It's not reproducable, 2) It's low enough quality not to detract from the original, 3) Only used on this article, 4) Previous published by Travis County and other media sites, 5) This topic is encyclopedic, 6) Meets image use policy, 7) Used on at least 1 article, 8) Significant i the context of his indictment, 9) In article space, 10) Has yet to be done - Cwobeel? @TLSuda: You're an expert on NFCC, what do you think? (Disclaimer, I nom'd TLSuda for RfA).--v/r - TP 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it may not survive at Commons, without an OTRS from Travis County, but may survive here under fair use. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. If there is no paperwork for Wikipedia then there is no paperwork. There aren't different rules for Wikipedia and Wikimedia, they are both owned by Wikipedia Foundation.--NK (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Umm, yes there is. Wikimedia Commons only hosts free content. Wikipedia has a Non-free content criteria and can host non-free content. If there was no difference in policy, then why would English Wikipedia even need its own ability to upload files separate from Commons?--v/r - TP 22:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really believe that Cwobeel has met all of the requirements of that policy? If yes then please have him provide the documentation for the NFCC, ok?--NK (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already asked him to above. See "10) Has yet to be done - Cwobeel?"--v/r - TP 22:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the unlikely event that this image is not public domain, and the file is deleted from Commons, it can be uploaded here under fair use, with margin to spare. In fact, that could be done now and the image could be restored to the article.- MrX 22:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And to answer your question, TP, which is not relevant, each of those organizations have different goals, different policies, etc. Just because they are both owned by the Wikipedia Foundation does not mean the same day to day operations applies, the operations is guided by the each organizations goals and policies.--NK (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong. Wikimedia Commons is responsible for hosting free content. Wikipedia does not host free content - any that gets uploaded is moved automagically by a bot. We have clear and defined goals for both project and Commons' goal is to provide for the common media needs of all languages by being a central repository for free content.--v/r - TP 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I will upload at WP under fair use. Later today. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Y Done - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed the non-free mugshot image until there has been a determination that the image is truly legally usable under fair use

I removed the mugshot image until image has valid reason provided on the image's talk page, explaining why this non-free image cannot be simply replaced with a free image of Rick Perry from his main article. It just seems that according to the fair use exemption to the copyright laws there must be compelling need to use the mugshot for Perry, instead of a free image, which Wikipedia already has in stock. There is a picture of Wikipedia has already acquired properly. The requirements of the fair use exception are not met.--NK (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Says who? There is no reason to remove the image. As explained above it fits smack into fair use doctrine. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bribery?

“I’ve been indicted by that same body now for I think two counts, one of bribery, which I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really understand the details here” (Rick Pery in ABC News). Maybe another Ooops? [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is quite distressing to see many people accuse him of basically bribery for the claim of coersion and now wehen he repeats the claim they go right on and claim he is a moron for not knowing what he has been accused of because he doesn't use the tecnical term. The left should get their journalist on the same page, because it has been reported as bribery. Arzel (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Politico and ABC are "the left"? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, they can't keep what their attack stories straight. Arzel (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Or more likely, not. It is not our task to deal with anything not covered in reliable secondary sources. And a lot of lawyers appear to find the charges difficult to understand at this point. IANAL, so I empathize with confusion over what "coercion of someone who does not pay the slightest attention to the coercion" really means. The usual meaning is that the coercion is an act of forcefully making someone do something. If the person does not do it, I find the charge of "coercion" to be problematic. [2] Collect (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The indictment is just two pages [3] What is the confusion about? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the legal definitions? I suggest the confusion is reasonable for a non-attorney looking at the facts -- that if Lehmberg resigned Perry would restore funding is part of the case -- which is the reverse of "coercion". Texas Gov. Rick Perry Indicted on Coercion, Bribery Charges (Updated), Andrea Grimes, Senior Political Reporter, RH Reality Check [4], [5] Perry could be charged with coercion of a public servant, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine, abuse of official capacity, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine, and bribery, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. and the original complaint: A complaint by watchdog group Texas for Justice alleged Perry violated state laws concerning bribery, coercion and abuse of authority. In other words, the complaint did allege "bribery." Cheers. Now wait for non-political reliable sources to stress that confusion. Collect (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the edit proposed here? That Perry has sleep apnea and can't remember what two felony counts he's being charged with, or that he's crazy like a fox and manipulating the press in preparation for his 2016 bid for POTUS?- MrX 21:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)