Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump 2025 inaugural potrait.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Donald Trump 2025 inaugural potrait.png

[edit]

And also:

The prior deletion request was closed because this photograph was believed by the closing user to be public domain. Such claim is, at best, of dubious concern. The White House copyright page, which has been retained from prior administrations, notes that copyright material will be disclosed. Either, then, the White House has released the copyright of this image or it has not been properly stated that it is still the copyright of the inaugural committee. In this circumstance, Commons should default to deletion until clarification has been provided by the Trump administration. ElijahPepe (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Official White House copyright page states "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License."
There is no "otherwise noting" attached to the photograph. Even then, considering this may be third-party content by the Trump inauguration committee, without the "otherwise stipulation", it's going to be CC 3.0. Unless Commons is explicitly contacted by the relevant party, this is PD or CC 3.0. BarntToust (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per above --Minilammas (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - the admin closing the last deletion request ignored the information present and the clear consensus that this is not "normal". The White House cannot "steal" copyright from a private photographer. These images were taken by a private photographer who was not a government employee, and who has made a statement to a user here that they do not wish the photo to be usable for commercial uses. There is no evidence the photographer has signed the rights over to the White House, and in fact, there is precedent for the Trump White House stealing copyrighted images and posting them without notice. Per the precautionary principle, there is more than ample evidence that this is, yet again, a "theft" of the images by the Trump White House, and barring any explicit release by the photographer into the public domain or under an acceptable license, they cannot be treated as freely licensed. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I've asked the admin who closed those deletion requests to reconsider and at a minimum reopen those for further discusson. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have concerns that the White House is stealing copyright, you should contact a publicist. Do not speculate that the White House is "stealing" any work: they do not note anywhere that the photograph is copyright of a photographer, thus this would be public domain. If they in fact are licensing this from the Trump inaugural committee, it would be CC 3.0, this license being the blanket copyright default considering there is no stipulation present that denotes otherwise. BarntToust (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't speculation. Read the link - they've done this before. They don't have to note that the image is the copyright of a photographer - we know it is, because the photographer has said as much to at least one user here. The Trump inaugural committee does not own the copyright. Per COM:PRP we must delete until/unless the photographer changes their mind and chooses to release it into the public domain. The White House cannot make that choice for them. It's textbook license laundering, which is explicitly prohibited by Commons policy. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the photographer say that he currently holds the copyright?-- Jfhutson (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File talk:TrumpPortrait.jpg told a user that it would be published by the white house but that they do not wish for it to be commercial use without permission. Hence, the photographer still owns the copyright (they're prohibiting commercial use) and has merely permitted the White House to do whatever they want with it. AKA license laundering. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Torok said it would be public domain and, contradictorily, that it would be commercial use restricted. We will not take that twitter statement into condition, as I do not think Torok fully understands that his "wishing" it would not be used in commercial purposes does not ultimately matter. What he wants, and what rights he retains and waives are irrelevant to that Twitter post. BarntToust (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to have him reach out to VRT/OTRS. A statement that it "will be public domain" does not amount to the irrevocable, clear statement of release that Commons requires. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Torok is an employee, what he says about the rights of the works he was paid for under contract do not matter at all. As their chief photographer it is obvious this was a work for hire and that Trump ultimately released it Bedivere (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Work for hire" is not universal in the US. It is only if someone is a permanent employee. Contracted photographers must explicitly sign their rights away in their contract for it to be a work for hire. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He said that 4 days ago. It's completely plausible that he subsequently changed his mind, especially since he just said "should be" about what would happen in the future. Since now we have a blatant statement that it is CC BY 3.0, we don't have to guess. -- Jfhutson (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have confirmation by the OTRS team that this is license laundering? If not, I suggest you strike these allegations unproved against the White House, Trump staffers, etc. You are allowed to doubt veracity and make reports to the relevant parties, but we at Commons do not act definitively without definitive, damning information concerning copyright laundering. We do not have that now. We just have "they did it once before", amounting to general speculation on your end. BarntToust (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need confirmation by the OTRS team. We have evidence that this happened before, and there is more than enough evidence that it may be happening again. Thus, as a precaution, we delete until there is positive evidence that it is not happening. Anyone is free to contact the photographer and ask them to submit their release/statement to VRT/OTRS. But the default is delete - not to keep - when there is doubt. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
White House says things are the way they are; I have no suspicion that they are wrong based on a legally uninformed photographer's Twitter post. He says it's public domain, but also that it is commercial use restricted; his lawyers would give us doubt on the state of this photo, not him. He is an unreliable narrator who conflates what he thinks and wishes with copyright law. BarntToust (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't have suspicion based on the fact that the White House was wrong before? He doesn't need a lawyer to enforce his copyright either. He can choose to enforce it at any time, with or without a lawyer. Requiring someone to have a lawyer to hold onto their copyright and prevent it from being stolen is asinine. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If his twitter post was true, we could use that as the declaration of dedication to public domain. We could also use it to confirm CC BY-NC 4.0. He isn't a relevant or viable detractor. BarntToust (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about his lawyers themselves, I'm saying, we need to hear detraction from a person who knows copyright law rather than hearing wishy washy Twitter posting from the clearly unreliable narrator who is Daniel Torok. A lawyer is someone who I give an example of who would probably know what they are talking about. BarntToust (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahPepe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:PRP we must assume it is copyrighted until there is evidence otherwise. If he doesn't make an explicit, clear, and irrevocable release, we don't get to just assume he meant to make such a release. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what COM:PRP says. -- Jfhutson (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PRP says: The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.
Please tell me you are not just pulling words from the hinterland and that you simply linked to the wrong policy.
So far, the only thing significant here is the volume of your bludgeoning of this general process. BarntToust (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t call at least half a dozen editors agreeing there is doubt, including multiple admins, “significant”, then that’s for you to figure out. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took his comment to mean that he believed that the image would be public domain with commercial protection on January 20, but there are several issues with this. For one, an image cannot be public domain with restrictions. Turok's statement does not constitute a binding waiver of rights; a single photographer cannot decide that because his work is the property of the inaugural committee. The appropriate course of action is to wait for further clarification from someone who is knowledgeable. The VRT can assist with this. ElijahPepe (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone not understanding copyright law doesn't mean they don't have rights. Commons requires a clear and irrevocable release for this very reason. It's absurd that you'd say what amounts to "this guy doesn't understand how copyright works, so he doesn't have rights!" Berchanhimez (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying he does not have rights?? We are saying he is not clearly declared a copyright and has not indicated a license; and that the X post is null and void: so the policy by the US government stands. If he wants to defend or declare his copyright clearly he can but he hasn't. X post is moot.
Read Wikipedia:bludgeon for us please. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to "clearly declare[] a copyright". Copyright exists by default. The White House cannot "steal" the copyright from him. Only he can release the copyright. He doesn't have to defend it or declare it for him to have those rights. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an employee of Trump Team, his work would go to Trump Team. Trump team lets the White House release copyright 3.0. There. Does speculation make me right too? YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, neither of you need to speculate on here. The White House has released explicit terms, Torok has not. We trust, uh, the explicit terms over the Twitter post. BarntToust (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. We trust the photographer. Not someone who isn't the photographer. That is the definition of license laundering. Berchanhimez (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admit that the photographer's statements are contradictory: on one hand, he claims the work is in the public domain, but on the other, he states it cannot be used for commercial purposes... Pantarch (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - so COM:PRP applies and until he explicitly releases them we must assume he intends to enforce those prohibitions. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned in another discussion, where I voted to delete the photo, that this is simply intended to accuse Wikipedia of wanting to censor the portrait. Wikimedia Foundation should issue a public statement on the matter, period. Pantarch (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Since many of you are speculating, how can you believe that Trump doesn't own the rights to the photo? Do you seriously think he had a photo taken without securing the rights to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantarch (talk • contribs)
Because there is no evidence that Trump does own the rights and because in 2017 he did not obtain the rights to the photograph he hired to be taken of him pre-inauguration. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Wikimedia Foundation must release a statement on the matter through its social media profiles (e.g., X) to clarify the situation. Pantarch (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The licensing at File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg is false. The picture is not in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. It was taken weeks before Trump's inauguration, so even if a government employee was moonlighting as a photographer for Trump's transition team it wouldn't be part of their official duties.}} Has Torok confirmed that he has submitted his work to Whitehouse.gov with the understanding that he was granting a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Vk}} It appears that if the PD status is not ok then we should keep these under the CC-BY 3.0 license that the White House grants them. SDudley (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The White House cannot grant a license for an image it does not own. This image was not taken by an employee of the White House - it was taken by a private photographer, acting as a private citizen. There is no evidence that the private photographer in question has signed their rights away to the White House - license laundering, in other words. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you to some extent, but it is clearly a work for hire. Pantarch (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read that page. It is not a work for hire - there is no evidence that Mr. Torok was/is a permanent employee of Trump. If it was produced just under a one time or short term contract, then whether rights are signed away or not is based on the contract. There is no automatic work-for-hire in the United States unless someone is a permanent employee - basically the same requirement as {{PD-US-gov}}. See this quote from that page: The first situation applies only when the work's creator is an employee, not an independent contractor. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe the White House or Team Trump does not own it, Berchanhimez? You are speculating when you say that. Going after other voters for speculating the opposite direction is just the pot calling the kettle black. BarntToust (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. You are speculating that they do own it. The photographer has not stated that they signed it away. We believe the photographer, not someone else. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The photographer has not stated that they signed it away" where did they say that? You are misrepresenting the statements by the photographer and also diminishing their status as the chief photographer of Trump by saying this is just a one off photograph when it's not. He was part of the team. And they also said the WH would make the conditions clear on the copyright status of the photograph, which they did Bedivere (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. "Chief photographer of President-elect (sic) Trump" is how he describes himself on Twitter, so not really a private, particular, unknown individual. And evidently not a one-off work, but an obvious work for hire. He is the chief photographer of Trump, come on! Bedivere (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I say "I'm the chief photographer for Bedivere" you can post any image I ever created? The law in the US is clear - it must be explicit, and at the time the contract is signed. Merely stating that you're a specific job title is not a waiver of rights. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for hire are an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally-recognized author of that work - so yes, if you were under a contract with me, I'd post any image you created as my employee. Bedivere (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Until now you are only speaking, writing, and writing all over again the same arguments (without any actual proof other than your assumptions). At this point it seems to me as disruptive. Will stay away until somebody else takes the mop. We are not getting anywhere and it's all because you don't want to. Bedivere (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because you have now lied about multiple things - you've said it was public domain "undoubtedly" because it was posted on the White House website (false). You've said it was clearly released by the photographer to the Trump team (false, no evidence). You're now saying it was a work for hire - which is again, false and is disproven by a quick read of the law itself. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was in the public domain'. Never, ever. You are lawyering and I am too lawyering in an attempt to understand your unusual interest in having this portrait deleted for the most incorrect reasons. Bedivere (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that wanting to protect the copyright of a photographer was a "most incorrect" reason. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not how work for hire works in the US. If you did that, and I was not a permanent employee, but just a contractor, then you would be violating my copyright and I'd sue you. Read the link I sent you, go to the sources present in it if you don't "trust Wikipedia". A contractor is not an employee for the purposes of a work for hire. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I literally called you an "employee". Lol Bedivere (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I never said I was an employee. You contracted me to do some work for you. I used the title "Chief photographer for Bedivere" as part of my contract, because I like being recognized as your chief photographer. Do you see now how merely being called a "chief photographer" does not mean there is an employer-employee relationship in place? Berchanhimez (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My stance on the matter is neutral. Based on what is stated on the White House website – Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License – the website photo appears to be under a free license. It would be the photographer's responsibility to report any violation, if there is one. However, this photo (and many others) are not the ones used on the site. The photo on the site is cropped and at a lower resolution.--Pantarch (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Let me clarify: a photo can be released under different licenses depending on its resolution or if it is cropped. For example, a low-resolution photo might be under a free license, while a high-resolution version could be under a non-free license. All the photos should be deleted, and only the version from the White House website should be used.--Pantarch (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Pantarch, that's by far not as clear as you stated your comment AFAIK (IANAL). As the allowable licenses for Commons make for provisions that allow adaptations, be it a B&W transformation, a cropping, distortions (like perspective corrections), it is sensible to assume that a work like a photograph has not a inextricable relationship to an actual digital file. A work could be represented by several digital versions, e.g. in different sizes, without changing the licensing status of the work. Whether a license only applies to a concise file or to any file representing that work is a point of contention since the first inception of free licenses, Commons, and the notion by a lot of contributors here who uploaded only low resolution files and offered high-res versions on request only or for sale. This practice has died out somewhat, though. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It would be the photographer's responsibility to report any violation, if there is one." But not here on Commons, where it is the uploader's responsibility to show correct license status. -- 00:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
 Speedy delete Not because of licensing issues (this is a public domain file now) but because this is an exact duplicate of a preferred file. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would request that this DR be retained open until a decision is made on all the files involved. As the prior DR shows, there will continue to be duplicates uploaded, and fragmenting discussion based on which of the files is currently a "duplicate" or not isn't conducive to a final outcome. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Daniel Torok is currently not an employee of the US Federal Government, so the PD license is invalid. CC license applies only if the white house is the copyright holder. I think this falls under the "Except where otherwise noted" circumstances. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"CC license applies only if the white house is the copyright holder." It's not true. The website says Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Pantarch (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, nowhere on the website is the copyright status of Trump's portrait "otherwise noted," so it certainly doesn't fall under that exception. DecafPotato (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't noted in 2017 either, but there's confirmation from the copyright holder of those images (the photographer) that they did not ever sign over copyright. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Any version not published by the White House. On the WH website Donald-J-Trump.jpg is a 900x900 version, vastly cropped, and smaller than any version we have here. I haven't seen any evidence of any uploaded version sourced from the White House. People above are only quoting WH copyright policy and (as far as I can see) never referencing the actual image. Perhaps someone has a secret link to the full size official portrait on the White House site? This is a near-duplicate version of what I wrote at JD Vance's DR. I see that Pantarch and Grand-Duc raised the same issues above. We can't just take an unpublished higher resolution larger version of a published photo and re-publish it under a free licence. zzuuzz (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with you. This is the official source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/ Pantarch (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, there is also a full portrait version published at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/President-Elect-Donald-J.-Trump.jpg
It's currently used on the front page of whitehouse.gov. However, it's a lower-resolution version (720x932) and appears to be edited differently (colder color temperature, more light on the jacket, and some sharpening if I'm not mistaken).
I don't know whether Commons considers such differences in quality and editing to be enough to establish new copyright, so I'll leave it for others to determine whether the files listed in this DR should be kept. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All works under a free license are still protected by copyright; it is objectively possible to release the same work at different resolutions under different licenses.
Creative Commons license ≠ Public domain Pantarch (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify one thing - any version derived from the version published by the White House would be OK, but not any version derived from the full version. It seems obvious to me that the limited WH version is CC-BY-3.0 (unless or until we see complaints or retractions), whereas there's absolutely no indication that the fuller version has been freely licensed by the photographer. I also want to add that the admin who (somewhat controversially) closed the previous discussion has also stated that versions not derived from a White House version of the image should be deleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the full version was made available so I take back that comment. Bedivere (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, are you stating that you have reason to believe that this time is any different than the last time, when Trump directed his White House staff to effectively "steal" images that neither he nor the federal government owned copyright to? Note that there was never a retraction last time either - the White House left it up because, to be blunt, no copyright holder is going to bother trying to sue the White House over copyright. That doesn't mean we can also violate the copyright too. Berchanhimez (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, having reviewed the photographer's (confusing) statements, and the White House copyright page, I've reached the conclusion that some version/s of the photo/s were submitted to the White House in acceptance of their website copyright policy. It's not a government work, so can only be CC-BY, even though I see no attribution there. However, I am sympathetic to your view as stated throughout, and I think we should be prepared to listen if it comes back to bite us. At this time, I think the White House copyright statement is basically plausible, even if the entire situation is a mess. zzuuzz (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: Per the precautionary principle we don't assume that someone submitted something "in acceptance" of their copyright policy. For all we know, he could've submitted it assuming they would honor their own policy that states they will clearly denote any copyrighted images. But they didn't do so. We cannot assume either way. An unambiguous release or statement of license from the copyright holder is needed for hosting on Commons. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Regarding the photo used on the website, there is currently no evidence (from a reliable source) indicating that Daniel Torok's rights have been violated by the White House. As a result, much of the debate is based on assumptions. It is clearly stated on the website that, unless otherwise specified, third-party content is licensed under CC BY 3.0 US.--Pantarch (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested in the past: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/donald-trump-official-portrait-wikipedia-copyright/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantarch (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. To correct previous claims that a full portrait version hasn't been published by the White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/President-Elect-Donald-J.-Trump.jpg
It's right there on the front page, so anyone claiming only the cropped 900x900 version was available clearly didn't look very hard. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of that portrait on the site (which isn't even the high-resolution version) does not imply that we are allowed to use it.
It's evident that the URL you provided cannot contain a note – that page is not indexed. Pantarch (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of that portrait on the site [...] does not imply that we are allowed to use it.
Yes, it absolutely does. The White House copyright policy is very unambiguous about that. Everything on the site produced by the government is PD, other materials are CC-BY-3.0 unless otherwise noted.
I don't know what you mean by "cannot contain a note" and "not indexed". The former is simply untrue, since image files can contain Exif metadata that's easily viewed with any decent image editor and various other pieces of software. And in this case, the image contains plenty of metadata, including a comment, which makes no mention that the photograph is not under CC-BY-3.0. The Copyright tag doesn't even exist for this image while plenty of other information is present, which is a pretty strong indication that it's CC-BY-3.0.
I've attached below the entire contents of the Exif.Image.ImageDescription tag, ie. the comment field of the file (President-Elect-Donald-J.-Trump.jpg):
Official Inaugural Portrait of President-Elect Donald J. Trump / Daniel J. Torok
If there was a place where you would "otherwise note" something, this is it. But there is no note, and therefore the photo is CC-BY-3.0. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, if anything, that's more indication that it's not CC-BY-3.0. If it was, they would've included it in the metadata. They didn't do so because they are haphazardly posting whatever Trump wants at his direction - doing it fast, but not actually caring if it's copyrighted or not.
Think of it yourself - the copyright tag doesn't exist, thus it can't be copyrighted? That's not how Commons works. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Shouldn't File:Donald Trump portrait official 2025.jpg be included in the discussion here? TansoShoshen (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per above Samuele1607 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The photographer has stated it will be public domain. It is not incorrect to say that "commercial" use, as in advertising, will be controlled by Trump. I see it distinct from the previous case, where apparently the photographer was not happy about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as public domain. (1) We don't know the details of the contract when the photo was commissioned. Let's not speculate. For all we know, there was a clause to transfer the copyright to the federal government post-inauguration. (2) The photographer, Daniel Torok, said that the photo "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval", the latter of which is dubious but it's not our responsibility to lecture him on copyright law. (3) The photo is being actively posted in federal offices around the world as if it were PD. Therefore, I think it's safe beyond a reasonable doubt to publish as PD and move on. TarkusAB (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Mr. Torok wanted it to be public domain, he would have said so explicitly. The fact that he didn't is evidence that he thought he had no control over it becoming public domain or not. He has all the control. Commons does not violate someone's copyright just because they don't understand they have rights. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly is the easiest answer at this point just having someone reach out directly to the photographer for his permission to use it on here? That would save us a lot of time. SDudley (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple people (including myself) have tried to reach out to him to confirm, and his only response so far that I've seen was "it's okay to use on Wikipedia". That is not sufficient for Commons. He must release it into the public domain or under a sufficiently free license. A sufficiently free license would be one that allows anyone, anywhere, to use it at any time (i.e. irrevocable) for any purpose, with only attribution being allowed to be required. Berchanhimez (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    how have you gone about trying to reach him? Is it only on Twitter or is there an email that he can be reached at? I'd give it a go myself, but I do not use Twitter. SDudley (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Unsure whenever if this file is public domain or copyrighted, it does met precautionary principle. Absolutiva (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at his twitter page the photographer bio states "Chief White House Photographer" Shadow4dark (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is when the photograph was taken. There is no evidence that he was a permanent employee at that time, and the work was likely performed under contract, meaning that he retains copyright unless that contract specifically signed copyright over to Trump or someone else. Nobody has provided any evidence whatsoever that his contract terms before Trump entered the White House had any such clause. Berchanhimez (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add in that Jill Biden's first portrait is still hosted here. It was taken BEFORE the assumption of Biden to the presidency in 2021. Yet we still believe that its CC-BY license is valid. SDudley (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because we don't have any evidence that the Biden White House stole copyrighted images from private photographers.
    We do, on the other hand, have documented evidence that the Trump White House did exactly that his last presidency. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, per above. Tobiasi0 (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Content published on the WH website. --InfattiVedeteCheViDice (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, per above. And  Comment: Come on, he is already the incumbent president, and this portrait will be put up sooner or later.--Will629 (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per this (White house have a license CC-BY-3.0) (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Berchanhimez has shown that the Trump White House previously claimed CC BY 3.0 licensing on third-party photos when they were still under private control. Torok making a Twitter post about future conversion of the photo's license by the Trump White House does not serve as the clear proof of free licensing needed to overcome the precautionary principle. ViridianPenguin (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, shameful deletion request dragging on for about ten pages in an attempt to force the point of view that the portraits of Trump and Vance are licensing laundering. The White House has already released them under CC BY 3.0, and that is sufficient for us (who would believe the absurd claim that the White House would violate someone's copyright?[1]). To me, this seems like a politically motivated deletion request opposing Trump's political views, which I also disagree with, but anyway. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who would believe it? Anyone who read the 2017 deletion discussion where it was shown that the Trump White House violated someone's copyright. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • License laundering??? The rest of the world outside of Wikimedia really doesn't care about such things. The White House is putting up a photo that they want to put up. They don't give a flying flip about what Wikimedia does. This is NOT anything remotely related to the scenario where a Wikipedia editor opens a Flickr account and posts a photo there for the sake of deceiving other Wikipedia editors about the copyright of the photo. Trump is not a Wikipedia editor. The White House isn't doing things for the sake of getting them on a Wikipedia page. --B (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I have yet to see proof that the private photographer licensed his work under any free license. The only evidence we have for this remains his single incomprehensible tweet that conflates "public domain" with copyrighted and claims the license requires the image "can’t be used for commercial purposes" which violates Commons policy. Until the photographer makes a statement to other effect, this image may not be used on Commons. I'm also shocked that the admin closing the previous deletion discussion would overrule consensus by linking to clear license laundering, given that this is exactly the same issue as in 2017. Dan Leonard (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I'd like to additionally note that the CC-BY 3.0 license listed on the White House copyright page is clearly intended as a waiver of liability intended for submissions to comment fields, etc. as evidenced by Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Previous administrations have allowed members of the public to post petitions to whitehouse.gov, so attorneys for the Office of the President likely encourage this copyright waiver to cover possible similar endeavors. It's not entirely clear that this copyright page is intended to state that every single piece of copyrighted work on the domain is CC-BY 3.0, and the White House wouldn't be able to license others' works that way. In fact, this entire page has been maintained with the same language verbatim through the administrations of Obama, Trump, and Biden, which indicates that the copyright page of whitehouse.gov is simply boilerplate written by a staff attorney in 2009 that doesn't accurately reflect the status of these specific images. Dan Leonard (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 This is a liability thing, not a guarantee "we've reviewed all of this". See also this RfC and dozens of related deletion requests related to the fact that the NWS, in having such a disclaimer, did not actually vet their images - and that's been going on throughout multiple President's administrations from both parties. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete We require actual evidence that a photo is PD or otherwise under a free license. There is none. We need some sort of evidence that either Torok was an employee of the US government at the time he took the photo (as far as I can tell, he was not - he was employed by the transition team); or we need evidence that he transferred the copyright to the White House, which in turn released it under a CC license, or otherwise consented to the license (nobody has provided any evidence that I have seen). --B (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Hosted on Whitehouse.gov and looks like it is covered by Creative Commons License.[2] PackMecEng (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/07024bed-769c-482f-a243-5c5ee1682e9e Cbls1911 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This link showing that the image currently appears on Trump's campaign website is still not proof of free licensing. Torok clearly granted Trump the rights for reuse on the White House website, but whether anyone can freely use it remains unknown if we cannot trust the White House's blanket copyright statement. ViridianPenguin (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep – per above Bakhos2010 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as per above. The white house website states third party content is published under CC BY 3.0 unless otherwise stated. --Trashpanda 🦝○○(✨🗑️✨) 23:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Another example of where "trusting the government" didn't work in our favor. This RfC and dozens of related deletion requests. The NWS hosts a lot of images that they have the rights to host, but that are not copyright free/under a free license. So to claim that we can blindly trust the White House website's disclaimer for any and all images has already been disclaimed by a RfC on Commons here. As such, any keep vote that is based on "because the White House says it is" should be discounted - it's already been determined that blindly trusting the government in the face of evidence that they have failed before is not within the guidelines of the precautionary principle. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, your thirty-seventh comment in this deletion request saying much the same thing as your previous thirty-six is rather unlikely to sway this discussion. And your bludgeoning of this discussion with the two specific examples you could find in an eight-year period in absence of any evidence that this specific image is not under the license it is stated to be under isn't particularly helpful, either. DecafPotato (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time I've pointed out this other example of the government hosting images that it does not own. The onus isn't on me nor the copyright holder to prove that it's under copyright - the onus is on the people claiming it is freely licensed to prove, beyond substantial doubt that it is so. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is not "stated to be" under any license. It is plainly obvious that the copyright page is a general disclaimer, and not a statement of fact about every single file ever hosted on the whitehouse.gov domain. If the image were specifically paired with a copyright disclaimer then this would be a completely different story. Dan Leonard (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that it's a general disclaimer if there was more than twelve images on the entire website. (The portraits in question of Trump and Vance; portraits of the first and second ladies; the giant lead image of Trump and another picture included in the "our priorities" section; pictures of Trump signing an executive order and speaking to reporters; two images of the White House; one of Camp David; and one of Air Force One.) Given that the WH, Camp David, and AF1 pictures, as well as ones of Trump signing and speaking and Melania's portrait are official government works (Usha's 99% is also because I could find no evidence that it wasn't), arguing that the phrase Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License somehow does not apply to the Trump/Vance portraits, which are 50 percent of all even possibly third-party content hosted on the site, without any evidence whatsoever that the photographer makes any claim to copyright, doesn't seem "plainly obvious" to me. DecafPotato (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (It turns out I haven't actually done this here yet. If it isn't obvious, my choice is to  Keep.) DecafPotato (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This general copyright disclaimer was added to whitehouse.gov by a webmaster in Obama's administration, and doesn't specifically pertain to what's on it today. It was much more likely intended to cover user-submitted works from We the People, and has carried on like a zombie "covering" over a decade of multiple incarnations of whitehouse.gov, far more than the twelve images on it today. Regardless, it is crucial that it be proven that the photographer irrevocably ceded his copyright directly to the Government of the United States, which there remains no evidence of. Dan Leonard (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 There is no reason to believe that the new administration is complying with the disclaimer, even if the past administration did. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the same disclaimer existed in Obama's administration doesn't somehow make it irrelevant, especially because Whitehouse.gov gets a complete makeover during transfers of power; the Trump team doesn't just indiscriminately keep everything. (See, e.g., the DMCA notice on the Obama-era copyright page you linked, which no longer exists) You also can't will away the copyright notice by claiming, without evidence, that it was only intended for user-submitted petition works — especially when that case seems explicitly covered by the next sentence, which says that Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the [CC-BY-3.0]. DecafPotato (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Cancel this deletion request per this. Heylenny (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This deletion request was opened to dispute the prior closure as the closer refused to reconsider, which the nominator and many editors think was done without consensus. Dan Leonard (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Trump_2025_inaugural_potrait.png&oldid=987112867"