Talk:Colton Harris Moore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links[edit]

I took all of these links out because they weren't really external links, but here they are if anyone wants to add them as references:

I put one back as a real reference (not an external link) with a change to the article text. None of the 3 references (before I put that one back) or the article mentioned the car theft or the illegal border crossings. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cherrypicked" NPOV[edit]

I added this in there because this article sounds like a release from "America's Most Wanted" or some facsimile thereof. He may actually be dangerous being on the run, but Wikipedia isn't the place to put a police report. -RomeW (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has never been violent in any way. Too Old (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you think. BurtonReingold (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

The article and the mock wanted poster states he is 6'5", however the mugshot circulating on the internet shows him 6'1". Dlodge (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that mugshot is from 2007 when he was 16. The AP and various papers have reported 6'5" 200 lbs. but I am not sure of the origin. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38015925 6'3" in 2009 stated by the San Juan County Sheriff's office http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/sanjuans/isj/news/60061222.html Satanico (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Department of State through the US Embassy in the Bahamas press release on the FBI reward "He is a white male, between 6'03" and 6'05" tall" http://nassau.usembassy.gov/fbicolton.html Satanico (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, however tall he is that's pretty tall. BurtonReingold (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

  • Please stop edit warring over the photo! WRFEC (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a photo of Colton Harris-Moore to the infobox. I am unsure of the copyright on the photo, so I put CC-by-SA for now -- the image was taken by himself and recovered from a stolen digital camera [1], so I'm not sure exactly how you treat the copyright on that one? Either way, this photo is being used by numerous websites in the media currently, so I don't think there should be a problem. WTF? (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Things don't become CC-BY-SA without someone specifically releasing them under that license. Things don't become PD or having a lack of trouble for us because of wide use in the media. I'm removing the license, and tagging this as fair use since we don't have any reason to believe it's available under a free license. Further, I've removed it from the article as being replaceable fair use since this individual, so far as we know, is still alive. I'm also tagging the image as missing a fair use rationale, and more importantly as being replaceable fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how anyone can legally claim copyright on an image that was taken with a stolen camera. But alas, I am not a lawyer. I've raised the question at the village pump. WTF? (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use rationale added to image. I will disagree that the image is replaceable, since the subject depicted is currently wanted at-large. Therefore, obtaining a free or alternative fair-use image could be difficult, even extremely dangerous, at this time. That could change if he's captured, but until then, this appears to be the best available image. WTF? (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully strongly disagree. There's been plenty of other cases where we have deleted images of people who are still living, and even in jail for extended periods. The Foundation mandate on this is quite clear. One of the very few cases that non-free imagery is permitted of a living person for depiction purposes is when that person is incarcerated for life. Colton is still quite alive, and he's not been incarcerated for life, nor is he likely to be. I am re-adding the replaceable fair use tag. Please do not remove it again. If you wish to contest it, follow the instructions on the tag. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are in disagreement then. WTF? (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot easier to get pictures of an incarcerated person in a known place than a fugitive. If ease of photographing an incarcerated person is the decision standard, then I feel this case surpasses that standard. Blue Rasberry 14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the standard I've seen applied. I have seen an image deleted of a person from the Middle East who will be in prison at least until 2019. He is not known for his appearance, and so the image had no particular historical value. The fact that he would be released at some point in the future, and the fact that he was not dead, was enough for the image to be deleted. Here in this case, the subject is alive so far as we know. There's a very high chance he'll eventually be apprehended. I think now, given the nature of his crimes plus the sheer quantity of the crimes, it is likely he'll be incarcerated for life. There will likely be an opportunity in the future to obtain free imagery of him, from the moment he is apprehended to the moment he receives his sentencing. I did do some research into whether the State of Washington, like Massachusetts, has no copyright claims over booking photos. However, under their open records law, booking photos are excluded. Therefore, the publicly available booking photo of Colton is not free licensed. There are other photos taken of him while in police custody. The Island County sheriff [2] holds rights to those images. It would be worthwhile to contact them for release of certain photos. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: The image in question is currently being used by the FBI [3], so it's possible that {{PD-USGov-FBI}} would possibly be appropriate here. WTF? (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope. The source remains the Island County sheriff dept. The FBI's use of it doesn't release it from copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you're a copyright lawyer with years of experience in copyright law? WTF? (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you are, and therefore can explain to me without any evidence to support such a conclusion that the Island County Sheriffs Department released rights to the image, despite the State of Washington Open Records Law prohibiting such? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's astonishing how much time and energy is wasted here misappropriating the intent of laws and policies. The fact of the matter is, fair use is one of many valid justifications for use of the image on wikipedia. It is evidence in a crime - in fact, it was created in the commission of a crime - and, culturally, the best known image of the subject. That such a debate must be had about this at all is unfathomable. Do what's best for the project.
--K10wnsta (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I a in complete agreement with K10wnsta. This entire line of reasoning is a waste of time. The reason the we avoid copyrighted works is to protect the project from legal harm by a damages claim. There is no chance of that here. Fair use or not, the project is better off with the picture than without. I have modified the picture to include the entire wanted poster which is undoubtedly a work of the FBI, hopefully that resolves this question. Either way, the question is a waste of time. WRFEC (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not make projections about whether or not the project can sustain legal harm from the use of an image. Our legal counsel Mike Godwin has made it clear that if an image is used under terms of Fair Use on en.wiki, and especially if that use is compliant with our WP:NFCC policy, that the chance of legal harm to the project is virtually nil. That isn't the point. The project takes a very strong stance against the use of non-free images when free images can be obtained or created. That's covered by policy at WP:NFCC #1, and again as below by Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy #3, which says that the use of non-free images of living people is almost always unacceptable. Modifying the picture to be the FBI wanted poster does not clear rights of the images. The left most image is copyright Colton himself, which can be seen at File:Colton_Harris-Moore.jpg, which is properly marked as non-free. The middle and right photos are copyright to the Island County Sheriff. That the FBI is using the photos doesn't mean they are clear of copyright. They didn't create the images. They are using them. There's a huge difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft I like your user page, it fits what I have seen of you so far perfectly! Evidently you take pride in removing content from wikipedia that is inconsistant with mission or policy without regard to its benefit to the articles. Thanks for your contributions (is contribution the right word for someone who removes content?)! Sorry, that was off topic, but I just had to say it! WRFEC (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, did you mean to reference something in relation to the article Colton Harris-Moore? Perhaps you meant to place this on my talk page. Do I have your permission to remove it to my talk page? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is contesting that the use of the image would be fair use. That isn't the point. The point is that we are a free content resource, and in as much as possible we strive to maintain a standard of using free content wherever possible, even if non-free content is available. We don't use non-free content when free content is available, or could be created. This is covered in our policy at WP:NFCC #1. It's also further covered in Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which is a dictum from the Foundation that oversees this project. In nearly all cases, we do not use non-free imagery of living people for depiction purposes. Colton is alive. Nobody disputes that. The prior arguments for using the non-free image was that he was a fugitive, and thus obtaining a free license image of him was difficult. That is no longer true. He is now in custody, isn't in danger of dying any time soon, and there will be multiple opportunities for a free license image of him to be taken. Until such time as he is incarcerated for life, there's no justification for using a non-free image of him. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree that the image is automatically made "replaceable" simply because the subject is captured. If you want to argue that an image is "replaceable", then to me, using common sense, that would mean that an image should be readily available for us to use now. It doesn't mean that "an image could be available at some point in the future" -- I'm concerned with NOW. At the moment, the image in question is the only image available. At some point in the future, either through the incarceration process or the trial, a free image could become available. But that hasn't happened yet, so right now, the image is non-replaceable. Since the subject of the photo is in federal custody (or actually, at the moment, in Bahamian custody) -- and most likely in a situation a bit higher than "low security", since he's obviously a flight risk -- it's highly unlikely that the feds or any government is going to let some Wikipedian wander in there and snap a photo "in the name of Wikipedia". I would say that use of the image is warranted in the article, especially since, now that he's captured, the article's traffic is undoubtedly going up. So having the ability to portray to the reader what the subject looks like will certainly help, and should fall under "fair-use" as far as I am concerned. WTF? (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NFCC #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" It does NOT say "non-free content is used until free content is found". That is an important distinction that is apparently being lost here. As for the ability of a wikipedian to wander into Colton's presence and take a picture of him; an AP photographer did precisely that. If an AP photographer did it, so can a wikipedian. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was obviously taken by a member of the media who had a media press pass. It's very likely that they had a member of the media present at the time of the transfer, specifically for photo ops like this. To say that a random citizen or wikipedian could gain such access is just ludicrous. WTF? (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Member of the media, yes. That's obvious because the photo is attributed to AP. Press pass? There's no evidence to suggest the reporter had a press pass, just that the reporter was there. You're making assumptions of facts not in evidence. And yes, I am ludicrous. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence to suggest that he didn't have a press pass, either. WTF? (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: arent the FBI Poster and the images within Public domain? Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because none of the images is a work of the United States Government (one is copyrighted by the subject, two are the work of a Sheriff's department in Washington state). — Gavia immer (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a government agency, is it not the same rules? Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Works created entirely by the United States Federal Government, specifically, do not have any copyright interest. For instance, the text of the wanted poster in uncopyrighted. Works by state and local governments may be copyrighted, depending on state law. There has been evidence provided upthread that the Washington state photographs cannot even be distributed by the department that took them - never mind that they actually were - and so the department in question cannot give a release of copyright on them. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems to me everything in the poster is Autormatically PD, personally but thats just my way thinking. It seems very silly concept that half the the poster is and half is not. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing.
The countless misinterpretations of policy here do nothing to change the fact that Colton Harris-Moore cannot claim a copyright on the picture he took of himself with the stolen camera. Copyright can only be applied to lawfully made works. If that weren't the case, anyone who had a camera stolen, used, and then recovered could be sued by the thief if they deleted the stored images. And while I'm sure some of you would argue that the thief could, in fact, do just that, the argument would not only be in defiance of legal intent, but a blatant affront to common sense.
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the discussion threads from WP:VPP and WP:MCQ over here, to centralize the comments. Placeholders with a summary still remain at those pages. TheFeds 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Village pump (policy)[edit]

 – TheFeds 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(permanent link: [4])

I uploaded the following image (File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg) to the Colton Harris-Moore (barefoot bandit) article. Another user has placed bold copyright violation tags on the article and is now calling for its deletion. I'm really not sure what the appropriate copyright solution is here, since Time Magazine states that the image was taken by the subject himself from a stolen digital camera that was claimed by police. So the real question is, who owns the copyright of this image? Can someone legally claim copyright on an image that they took with a stolen camera? A GIS for "barefoot bandit" reveals that the image is being used by numerous media sources all over the place. What copyright tag is appropriate here? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not have the legal background required to answer all your questions, they have little direct effect on how Wikipedia should deal with this image. Under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of which the United States is a member, copyright is automatic. A quick glance at the article about the image subject and at the date of the Time Magazine article show that there is no way that copyright has expired. With the image clearly being under copyright and no realistic hope for the copyright holder, who ever that might be, granting a release, the copyright violation tags are correct and proper. Unfortunately in this case, WP:NFC#UULP does not allow for fair use of images of living people so even a fair use claim appears out of the questions. News agencies do not need to worry about reuse of their product and thus tend to have more liberal fair use policies than Wikipedia. --Allen3 talk 07:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the whole issue! Time Magazine DOES NOT OWN the copyright! The image is being used by many other media sources. Technically, the image "copyright" is owned by the subject of the photo, who took it himself, with a STOLEN camera. The photo was recovered by police. It's also being used by the Guardian, Digital Journal, CBS News, and many, many more agencies. Did all these news agencies ask the permission of the copyright holder -- in this case, this is a fugitive that's currently wanted by the FBI and other police agencies? I don't think so. WTF? (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time Magazine does not own copyright but uses the photo. It's their decision. The people who set the rules here decided that wikipedia will not use such photos. Just accept it. East of Borschov 09:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that there are some apparent exceptions to WP:NFC#UULP, in particular for notorious recluses (e.g., J. D. Salinger), mugshots of those incarcerated for lengthy sentences, and fugitives, which would seem to be the case here. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Verno: I don't see an exception written into WP:NFC#UULP for fugitives. To WTF: A camera being stolen doesn't mean a person can't claim copyright on images he takes with it. That has no effect on its copyright status. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... if I take a photo of some tourists for them with their camera, does that mean I own copyright on that photo? Fences&Windows 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, yes, as it is the creator of the image, not the owner of the contraption or the subject of the photo, who is entitled to claim copyright, unexpected as that might seem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I don't think that's correct. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but common sense would say that if you took a photo for a group of tourists using their camera, you'd give their camera back to them. Once you give the camera back to them, there's no record of either (a) who you are or (b) that you took the photo in question, so you effectively relinquish copyright back to the owner of the camera. In reality, only a serious, self-prophetic douchebag would ever make any tourist sign copyright papers over a simple image that you're taking as a favor for someone, and only the dumbest tourist in the world would ever sign them (most people would just ask someone else to take the photo). WTF? (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The law is an ass, but it's a legalistic ass. The reason it's never an issue is that tourist snaps are never an issue, not because the law does not work in the asinine way I have described. Under the Berne Convention copyright subsists at the time of creation, and what I said is as I have said it is, even if it does seem tremendously stupid. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The law is not exactly stupid: Berne Convention protects "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as ... photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography." Glorifying casual snapshots or police mugshots to works (of literary, scientific or artistic domain, pick your favorite) is quite silly. East of Borschov 07:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be silly, but it's a form of silliness espoused, at the very least, by every court in the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court. In the US, the threshold for "artistic work" is very, very low. --Carnildo (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the hypothetical group of tourists (or one of them) would own the copyright to the snapshot. They produced the work by engaging a photographer, determinign the pose, probably composing the shot by setting the zoom level and camera settings, and telling him when to press the button. It's more like a work for hire than an independent creation of the "artist" holding the camera. And the photo of Colton-Harris seems, itself, to be notable. Does that make a difference?--Hjal (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Hammersoft: I think that if Colton Harris-Moore ever tried to sell copies of that picture to his "fans" the owner of the camera and their attorney would have something to say about the effects of the camera being stolen on his copyright. WRFEC (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the owners of the camera attempted to use the photo for monetary gain, Colton Harris-Moore would be in a position to sue them for violation of copyright. I have no comment on whether the camera owners hold any rights to the image, but there's no question Colton Harris-Moore also holds rights to the image, as he is the one who created it. If you believe the camera owners also hold rights, then all the more reason to believe the image is non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Everyone else following this discussion. This article is clearly better with a picture of the individual. I understand the policy preference for free content but I fail to understand the lack of existence of a policy which would allow a known photo of this individual to exist on the article page. Please help us find a way to have a picture, even if its not the same picture, to improve the article. Thank you! WRFEC (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is clearly better with an image, I agree. It would be wonderful if we obtained a free licensed image of Colton Harris-Moore. That appears possible now that he is no longer a fugitive, and is going to be in public many times before his final sentencing. I'm hopeful. In the meantime, we don't maintain non-free content in the hope that free content will become available. WP:NFCC #1 is clear on this, and this policy does cover the issue you're concerned about. It says, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis mine). I hope this clarifies the issue. If it doesn't, feel free to ask. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Media copyright questions[edit]

 – TheFeds 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the current copyright status if the image File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg is being raised by editors at Talk:Colton Harris-Moore#Photo. The image originated from a stolen digital camera taken by the subject himself, and was recovered by Island County (Washington) Sheriffs, based on information provided in this article. The image is also currently being used by numerous reputable media agencies on the Internet and a derivative image of his face from the photo is also being used by someone selling t-shirts ("Momma Tried") as well as in the FBI's wanted poster.

The image is currently tagged as copyrighted, assuming that the copyright is attributable either to the subject himself or to the Island County Sheriffs Department, who recovered the photo (unsure on this?). It's labelled as non-replaceable fair-use -- up until Sunday, he was a fugitive on the run, so obtaining a free image could be considered near difficult or impossible. He was caught Sunday, July 11, 2010, though I am not convinced that his capture immediately makes the image become "replaceable" -- he's currently held in captivity by the Royal Bahamian Police Force in The Bahamas, with very limited contact by either the public or the press. Although an AP photograph post-capture exists, that photo is copyrighted to the AP and really doesn't do a good job at capturing his face, since he's looking downwards. It can also be noted that the AP also has a copy of the photo we're debating about here as well, with no copyright attributions to the original author. It should also be noted that most media agencies that use this photo do not attribute it's copyright to Colton Harris-Moore (allegedly the photographer of his self-photo); some attribute it to the AP, others to the Island County Sheriff, and others to no one. The FBI's wanted poster does not attribute it's copyright to anyone, either.

It should also be noted that the primary opposition to the use of this photo is Hammersoft, citing, "Individual is no longer a fugitive, voiding the prior arguments about this image not being replaceable due to his fugitive status. If an AP reporter can photograph him, then so can a Wikipedia editor." He cites that it is replaceable per WP:NFCC.

So the bottom line is: (a) can Wikipedia use this image under the claim of fair-use (the image itself has already been reduced in resolution to better comply with fair-use); (b) who really owns the copyright here? The subject? The sheriff? Is it public domain since it was recovered in a crime? I think that use of the image is warranted and necessary in an article describing a very notable individual receiving a lot of media coverage (and likely to continue as the trial goes on).

Thanks! WTF? (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I 'll briefly summarize what I explained over there. Copyright only applies to lawfully made works. As Mr. Harris-Moore was both a fugitive from the law and the image was self-created and stored entirely with stolen property, it is public domain. It doesn't even require reduced resolution, as fair use status isn't necessary (although it certainly justifies use for our purpose).
--K10wnsta (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate K10wnsta's argument, I'm unaware of its basis in law. It seems to me that while there may exist an equitable principle upon which a court could theoretically rely to transfer the copyright to a party other than Harris-Moore, until such a judgment is made, he's the copyright owner of the work because he's the sole author (etc.). And per U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S.C. §201(e), depriving Harris-Moore of the copyright is going to be a very difficult thing to do, despite the strong equitable argument. (For similar reasons, I don't think asset forfeiture will work either—plus as far as I know, it applies only to tangible things, not to the underlying copyright.)
The owner of the camera could sue Harris-Moore with regard to the conversion of the camera, and maybe to recover any profits derived from his use of the photo—but since he's apparently not profiting from it, that probably won't help. The law enforcement agencies and the media seem to be using it under fair use—or at least the presumption that they're not going to get sued by Harris-Moore for disseminating it. Equally, Harris-Moore could sue for infringement, but I suspect that in that case, the court will have a bit more flexibility to consider equity, and he'll never see a judgment in the amount of anything more than $1 for his trouble.
So what do we do here? Apply WP:NFC. Incidentally, I think that the photograph, because it portrays a unique image of Harris-Moore in actus reus, is not replaceable with a free image. (To the extent that it also serves to identify him, it could be replaced.) I think that when used to illustrate the nature of his criminal activity, it meets all of the non-free content criteria. And given that Harris-Moore was allegedly trespassing and burgling when the photo was taken, I don't think we have to worry about his privacy rights (such as under WP:IUP), because he probably isn't entitled to any under the circumstances. So, basically, keep it, and apply a fair use rationale. TheFeds 05:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this image is not replaceable by a free one. There is little being depicted here but Harris-Moore himself. He's not being shown in the act of breaking into a home, stealing a boat, stealing a plane, what have you. It's just a picture of him, nothing more. It's being used for depiction purposes, not to relate it to a specific crime he has allegedly committed. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy takes a very strong stance against the use of non-free content for depicting a living individual. WP:NFCC #1 instructs us not to use non-free content when free content could be created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The encyclopedic purpose being served by this image is depiction of him. That's it. A free image of him can be made to serve the same purpose, since he is (a) alive, (b) not sentenced yet and (c) it is unlikely he'll be sentenced for life (worst case estimates I've seen so far indicate 15 years). --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it seems to me that the consensus on this issue is moving in the direction of allowing fair use of the image in question, with the appropriate fair use rationale. From my perspective, the only person that seems to be fighting this anymore is Hammersoft. What do other editors think? WTF? (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If ten thousand wikipedians said this would be fair use, it's irrelevant. The point is, is it replaceable or not? Even that many wikipedians all agreeing can not override the Foundation's stance on this. Is this subject alive? Yes. Has he been sentenced for a crime? No, and until then he'll be appearing in public multiple times, as proven by the AP photographer's photos. WHEN he is sentenced (it's highly unlikely he'll get off), the worst case estimates have his sentence extending 15 years. 19+15 = 34 years of age when he's released, in the worst case scenario, allowing some 40+ years of free life in which a free license alternative of him can be created after his sentence has been served. The first claims of the replaceability of this image were that since he was a fugitive, obtaining an image of him was impossible. He's no longer a fugitive. Recently you claimed someone needs a press pass to photograph him. That's been proven false, since a crowd gathered on the tarmac to watch his deplaning in Nassau. Now your claiming it's not replaceable because ...I don't know what. There doesn't seem to be a claim on the table. So on what basis are you NOW saying this isn't replaceable with a free alternative? Or, maybe you're asserting that it's not replaceable by claiming I'm wikilawyering and trying to eagerly impose my view on things. Or maybe you'd prefer to base your arguments on my supposedly being ludicrous again? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly that ham-handed interpretation of policy that has left countless quality articles in such an awful state. Colton Harris-Moore is incarcerated in a foreign country and currently inaccessible to the general public. Common sense must factor in to the interpretation of policy that a freely available image could be made of him. An image of the Mariana Trench could be taken by a wikipedian, but to use that as a basis for removal of a non-free image being used in the article would be, as already stated, an overly broad application of policy and a gross misinterpretation of its intent. This case is no different.
As much a possibility as it might be that Harris-Moore will one day be free and available for our picture-taking pleasure, it's also a possibility that he will have a heart attack or be killed by another inmate before ever setting foot outside his bahamian jail cell again. It is not our job to speculate on what may or may not be reasonably possible in the future - we must do what's best for the project with the resources we have available to us now, at this time.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colton Harris-Moore is not permanently incarcerated, nor is it likely he will be incarcerated for even a majority of his remaining life. Further, it's unlikely he'll be incarcerated for any great length of time in the Bahamas. In fact, he hasn't even been sentenced. We don't know if he'll be allowed free on bail while his trial(s) wend their ways through court. He has not been convicted of anything. Regardless of what happens in the Bahamas, he will very likely be transferred via extradition request to the United States and possibly Canada. During those transfers, it's likely he'll be in public, as witnessed by the AP photographer who was part of an assembled crowd on the tarmac at Nassau. During any trials, there will likely be multiple opportunities for free licensed images to be obtained of him. Colton isn't incarcerated interminably at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. He will be accessible at multiple opportunities in the foreseeable future. Overly broad? So how would you interpret Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy #3 where it says "such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals"? Allow non-free imagery where it's inconvenient to obtain free imagery? Allow it when he won't be available in public for the next X months/years? Allow it when there's a chance the person might suffer a heart attack before a free image could be taken of him? You say it's not our job to speculate. You're right. It isn't. We do know he is alive. We do know that he hasn't been sentenced to life in prison. Have a look at this FfD for an image of a person who HAS been sentenced, but not for life. That image was deleted. What makes Colton so special when he hasn't been sentenced, and even when he is it's unlikely he'll be sentenced for life? We don't maintain non-free content hoping for the day when free content becomes available. WP:NFCC #1 is explicit about that. Or do you have an alternative interpretation of "or could be created"? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An image taken when he finally gets out of prison is unlikely to be very notable or worthy of inclusion in his article by then. If he's 34 or 35, he'll have changed significantly since the time he committed the crimes, and may very well no longer be in the public eye, either. So such a photo in the future will be irrelevant. And per WP:NFC#UULP, it does allow for an earlier photo to be used under fair use, citing the following example (which would still apply here): "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." WTF? (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image you are wanting to maintain isn't notable either. It was being used for depiction purposes only in the article, and has no historical significance. It does not show him in the act of committing a crime, for example. There's no verifiable sources pointing to the notability of the image other than as one used to depict him. Colton isn't notable for his appearance. He's just an average looking 19 year old. He's notable for his actions. 20 years from now, people aren't going to remember Colton as "Oh yeah, that white kid with short hair". They'll remember him as "Oh yeah, that kid who was on the run for two years stealing planes, boats and cars". His visual appearance has nothing to do with his actions and has no relation to his notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It now looks as if the Bahamas are done with him [5]. He's being deported to Miami, possibly as early as tonight. Wikipedians in the Miami area should watch the development of this. He's pleaded guilty to only a minor charge in the Bahamas, and instead of extradition he's simply being deported. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're whole argument still depends on whether an image could be available at some point in the future. As of right now, this moment, an alternative free image does not exist. WTF? (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am of the opinion that mugshots (or other non-free images) are allowable when the subject is a fugitive or incarcerated with limited public access for a life-sentence (or an effective life-sentence for their age), during this period of time where he is no longer a fugitive and has not been sentenced to an extended jail sentence (and may never be), I agree with Hammersoft that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 and should stay removed from the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

its worth noting that the photo is used in the FBI Wanted poster online, as a Federal work does that not mean it is PD if we utilize the image from the poster and not from a third party source. It seems logical to me. Even if we utilize one of the other 2 images on the poster that seem to less questionable to copy right then the one he took himself Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, since the images are not federal works. The FBI is, in this case, the third party source. The images on the FBI wanted poster are all copyrighted to other sources. That the FBI is using them does not clear them of copyrights. The left image is copyrighted, with no statement of release, by Harris-Moore. The middle and right images are booking photos from the Island County Sheriffs Department in the State of Washington. In the State of Washington, booking photos are not public domain. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the legality of the photo's creation and storage, under Washington law, all correspondance with state agencies becomes public record. In addition to the notes he left taunting investigators, the camera and its contents (his picture) were correspondance with state officials and as such, have ceded copyright to public domain.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to cite law to support that? Copyright law does support the conclusion that works created remain the property of the creator unless rights are released or the works are too trivial to have encumbered rights. That's covered by 17 U.S.C. §201(e). His rights can not involuntarily be removed by government action. Do you have a citation to refute that? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one copy of the text of the law, which has not passed yet. The law says nothing about a transfer of rights into the public domain, so the pictures still could not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I am not sure if there is a licensing type which would make these pictures released for free use to any media source postable on Wikipedia; what is the answer? Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of images on Commons[edit]

It should be noted that three files on Commons depicting Colton Harris-Moore have been deleted as copyright violations by two different administrators. Those are File:Colton Harris-Moore in 2009.jpg which was the image Colton took of himself), File:Artists rendition of Colton Harris-Moore.JPG, which was a montage image of a booking photo of Colton overlayed on a plane, and File:Colton harris-moore.JPG which was the FBI wanted posted containing the first image listed here and two booking photos from the State of Washington. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use, only free images. English Wikipedia does allow fair use, in certain articles, where a fair use rationale is used. WTF? (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entirely relevant, as some in this thread are attempting to claim that these photos are not copyrighted. The two administrators on Commons certainly felt they were. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally irrelevant.
Wikimedia's policy regarding image use has always been poorly conceived, ill-managed, and a detriment to the project as a whole. While this is a case where even its pervasive state has little purchase, the issue is not being addressed over there. The admin's were simply following procedure on tagged images - something they have to and will do even when a tag is inappropriate.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't have to follow the tags. They are expected to use their judgment. They are not drones. If they were, we could use robots there. We don't. The point is the admins felt there was credible reason to believe these images were not available under a free license, and thus were deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, if they don't have to follow the tags on the Commons, as you say, then I think we shouldn't have to follow the tags you put on the image hosted on en.wiki, so we should be able to then use the image with no problems, since, you know, no one has to follow the tags. Fair enough? ;-) WTF? (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you intended humor, so I'll take it as that :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file pertinent to this article, File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. WTF? (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (permanent link: [6])75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or if you are interested in it being deleted. Please don't canvas looking for keep votes. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is over. Hammersoft has won. WTF? (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't 'win' or 'lose' and neither did you. A decision was made via consensus for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Sometimes a decision for the betterment of the encyclopedia results in an image being kept. Sometimes, it's deleted. In this case, it was deleted. That isn't win or lose. It just is. There is no contest here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" my ass! You steamrollered against every attempt and argument for using it as fair-use. Just admit it. You won. WTF? (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opposed it's use, yes. As an editor here on Wikipedia, I have the privilege of doing so. So do you. You chose to support its inclusion. I chose to oppose it. The weight of opinion in the debate judged it should not be included. If you think that somehow counts as "winning", so be it. I don't view it as winning or losing. It just is. That was the decision that was made. You can choose to be happy, sad or indifferent about it. I don't care how you feel about it. I do want to make clear I feel no sense of 'winning', happiness or sadness at its deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of face image to story[edit]

I believe that the legal issues regarding use of the face image of Colton Harris-Moore have been resolved. Per this article, published in 2011 (which also has a copy of the image in question), "Under the 28-page plea agreement, the 20-year-old agreed to forfeit any profits, intellectual property and life story rights from his crimes." Therefore, he no longer holds copyright on the photo in question, since it is connected with his crimes, and the photo is a free image. I think that we should add the image back to the article. WTF? (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not so easy, unfortunately. First, this image isn't necessarily associated with his crimes. Therefore, the agreement may not have affected his rights from this image. Second, even if it did, "forfeit" and "free" are not the same things. Forfeit to who? Who holds copyright now? Simply forfeiting rights doesn't mean the image is free. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Hammersoft. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the news article may have gotten it wrong (gee, big shock, journalists wrong? Whodathunk it?). Check out the second post on this thread. Ok, yeah, it's a fanclub site and not reliable EL and all that. I get that. But, the picture may not be as clear as the news article is making it out to be. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on links[edit]

Just a question: why are there so many links in the article? It's not necessary to hyperlink the term "indicted" or "vehicle theft" -- if someone doesn't know what the term means they can google it! Jon EP1 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK agrees. There shouldn't be links to common English words. I've cleaned up most of them. --Dbratland (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

FBI wanted poster. N419BH 15:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you mean source for images of Colton, all three of those images are copyrighted. The left most image is property of Colton himself. The middle and right images are property of the Island County Sheriffs Department, and in the State of Washington, their Open Records Law forbids the release of booking photos (which these are). They are bound by law NOT to release rights to these images. Just because the images are being used by the FBI, doesn't mean they have rights to them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Wanted Alert[edit]

Perhaps as a compromise of sorts to their being no photo of Harris Moore on his page (ahem), I have just inserted a LINK to his FBI Most Wanted alert. While Harris-Moore evidently has been caught, this poster can be useful because it can provide the American public with information in case Harris-Moore and/or other thiefs considered in these thefts/burglaries can be apprehended with this useful information. I don't think this link violates his rights or an Wikipedia rules, but let me know if it does. Myk60640 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's fine. The link also provides some basis for various physical attributes and the crimes he is associated with. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the wanted alert link since (a) it's already being used as a citation in the article, so the link is still there. (b) the external links section was placed improperly; it belongs at the end of the article as the last section, not in the middle, before references. WTF? (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

In removing a link deemed non-germane, this edit introduced the "Mama Tried" spelling used in the song; the source, though, makes clear that the t-shirts used "Momma". Thanks in advance, then, to anyone who might make the change (it's semi'd, so I can't). 76.229.215.195 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for noticing this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting twist on his mother's ability to profit[edit]

I just read this article, which notes the State of Washington has a Son of Sam law, which could be invoked to prevent Pam Kohler (Colton's mother) and Colton himself from profiting through telling their stories. I don't know there's much meat from that to be added to this article, but it might be relevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be relevant if they try to write a book about it or something along those lines. Until then, nope. N419BH 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography is sensationalist drivel[edit]

The bio section reads like the script from one of those portrait-of-a-serial-killer TV specials, all bloated with significance and portent, i.e. "We all knew he was bad from the start, he had such an awful childhood." This is Wikipedia, not TruTV. I'll be cleaning it up some, but it likely needs a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.16.201 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The text you're quoting as being from this article does not exist on the article, even at the time you posted the above. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it isn't; that wasn't meant to be a direct quote. What I'm referring to are the commensurately ridiculous statements like "she knew there was "something off about him" – "sort of a disconnection"." Garbage. 198.254.16.201 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. :) If you think you can improve it, then do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, they probably can't. Remember, the page has been semi-protected, meaning IPs can't edit the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but if he registers and waits a few days, does a few edits, he can then do it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised to see you applying the same "logic" to everything, just like you've said that a free image "could" be available at some point in the future, this anonymous editor "could" edit at some point in the future. Ah, the irony! WTF? (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Question[edit]

Since the picture of Colton taken by himself isn't being allowed, could an Associated Press photo be allowed? If so, this photo has made it around the country and the world and back since trail in the Bahamas. This was taken in Nassau, Bahamas on July 11, 2010 according to the link and says "AP Photo/Felipe Major" on the link as well. With a proper FUR, this image could be used. It doesn't show Colton's face like the other picture, but it is better than nothing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issue with the self taken portrait is it is copyrighted, and not available under a free license. The image you reference suffers the same issue. In that respect, there's no difference between them. If we were to allow the image you've referenced, there'd be no reason not to allow the self taken portrait. The underlying issue isn't the copyright status of the image, it's the replaceability of the image (which the AP photo further proves). --Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, just thought since it was an AP photo, copyright status wouldn't be in question and a simple FUR would do. Just an idea. Carry on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There really isn't any question of the copyright status of the self taken portrait. It is copyrighted. Copyright subsists at the time of creation by the creator for non-trivial works. There's claims that a stolen camera usage makes it non copyrighted because of the idea of it being done in the commission of a crime. But, no crime was being committed when Colton took the photo. There's claims that since the federal government was using it in communications, that Colton's copyrights were voided. But, that was proven false by 17 U.S.C. §201(e) (focus on (e)). There's been claims that since it's on the FBI wanted poster, it's a work of the federal government and therefore PD. But, the FBI using it doesn't = they created it, and again per 17 USC 201e, they can't involuntarily remove Colton's rights. There's been considerably weaker claims it's not copyrighted because it's been widely distributed and even used in commercial enterprises. That doesn't waive Colton's rights. Until we have a specific release of the image under a free license by Colton Harris-Moore, the image is copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the summary of the long discussion far above. I was more focused on the AP photo being an "alternative", but since you said it would still be copyrighted even with a proper FUR, that is out too. Someone, somewhere, will take a picture. Perhaps someone should troll Flickr in case this has already happened. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah. I'm hopeful. There's been many opportunities. When he was flown from Eleuthera to Nassau, there were opportunities when he was embarking and debarking. In fact, there was a crowd on the tarmac at Nassau. When he was taken to court, and left court there were two more opportunities. I've seen video of him being taken to court through the streets of Nassau, and there were quite a number of people around [7]. While he as in court,there was a professional photographer in the audience [8]. When he embarked on the plane from Nassau to Miami there was an opportunity, and when he got off the plane in Miami there was another opportunity. When he appeared in court in Miami there was an opportunity (depending on whether they restrict cell phones from court). There'll be another hearing in Miami, another flight from Miami to Seattle, more hearings in Seattle, possible bail, the trial itself, and so on before sentencing. It's looking like he's probably going to get out in less than ten years if he's well behaved in prison, so there will be lots of opportunities after prison. There's tons of opportunities available in the future. I'm hopeful someone takes a photo of him and releases it under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that normally happens with Flickr is they are released under CC 3.0 or just free license. I checked Flickr and found a couple copies of the self-taken photo and the one of him in the Bahamas, but nothing that could be used. Those were under the self-copyright and AP copyright respectively. Oddly, the Seattle Times had some other photos I hadn't seem before, but they were from the AP too.
I do have a question...there is newly released security cam footage from a marina (I think) showing what appears to be him. You can see one of the photos here, courtesy of KING-TV in Seattle. The credit on the on the photo is from the "San Juan County Sheriff's Dept." according to the link. Could that be used or would it fall under the same copyright problems as the other photos? I am thinking so, but want to make sure. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall reading about a court case about the copyrightability of security camera footage. The crux of the case was whether or not there was creative vestment in the work if there was no camera operator. As I recall (might be wrong) the court ruled that the footage was copyrightable. I think we have to presume the footage is copyrightable, and from the owner of the security camera not the San Juan County Sheriff's Department. Regardless, it's not free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn....I kinda figured it would be copyright. Oh well. My search continues :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

self-taken photo issue[edit]

Wikipedia may actually be able to freely use the self-taken photo of Harris-Moore after all. According to the indictment filed in US District Court in Seattle, he is required to forfeit, "any profits or proceeds received in connection with any publication or dissemination of information". The actual court document reads, "upon conviction of the offense alleged in Count 1 of this Indictment,..." -- so it's a bit too early to add the image to the page again. But in the strong likelihood that he is convicted, he essentially loses any rights to the image (and pretty much anything else, including book & movie rights). WTF? (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Voiding of his copyrights is a bit more complicated than that. Copyright was gained the moment he took the image. The image isn't a "profit or proceed". It's an image. If he attempted to sell it, under those terms he would have to forfeit any remuneration from the sale, but he could just as well opt to keep the image for himself alone, without any intention to sell. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really just don't want this image on Wikipedia, do you? Despite the fact that just about every major, for-profit media company on the planet is using the photo, most likely without permission, either,. . . WTF? (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm just a jerk that way. Come on. I'm talking about the copyright status of the image. I don't give a rat's ass how many media outlets are using an image. It doesn't void copyright. Just because there are 10,000 uses of an image under fair use law in the world doesn't mean the image is somehow magically placed in the public domain. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological report[edit]

If colton's psychological report is read you will see that his father did not choke him at the age of two he was older than that and he was involved in his life as late as about 12 years old off and on...there are many conflicting stories in the background section of this page and the psychological report in which i feel is most accurate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.12.80 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the above user is from Erie, PA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The age did indeed need to be corrected, but one account of an event does not necessarily exclude another, especially if both are from reliable sources. KimChee (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sketch"[edit]

Would someone please explain what such a bad sketch adds to the encyclopedia? How do we know it is a good likeness, but beyond that, what's the point of it? It might as well be a stick figure. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: It is a good likeness. Secondly, there are no other copyright-free images of him in the Commons at this time (that I'm aware of). Thirdly, previous consensus (viewable on this talk page) is that any free likeness is better than none in a BLP article. Lastly, because there has already been considerable discussion on the issue of a Harris-Moore picture in this article previously, I think it's best to either leave the sketch there rather than deleting it. On the other hand, if you are aware of a free image that's available (a mugshot, perhaps), would like to upload it to the Commons and then include it here in place of the sketch, you are welcome to do so.
Other editors weighing in on this would be helpful. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it's a good likeness? My 5 year old nephew could do better. In my view, no image is better than a poor sketch. While it is good for articles to have images that add to the reader's understanding of the subject, there is no guideline that says a sketch is better than nothing. In this case, I think no image is better than this image. – ukexpat (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said, "in my opinion, it is a good likeness". Regardless --and once again -- if you want to find a free image to replace the sketch, feel free to make that happen. But.....as already stated in a previous consensus-gathering effort on this very discussion page, the current image is better than no image. If you would like to seek consensus again (in lieu of finding a free image to upload and add to the infobox), go for it. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sketch Colton Harris-Moore Barefoot Bandit.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Sketch Colton Harris-Moore Barefoot Bandit.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which father? when?[edit]

His 'father' walked out when he was 12 but his 'stepfather' died when he was 7?? Too Old (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where Is He?[edit]

The Inmate Locator at bop.gov gives this info:

Name Register # Age-Race-Sex Release Date Location

1. COLTON A HARRIS-MOORE 83421-004 21-White-M 03-12-2016 NOT IN BOP CUSTODY

Not due for release till 2016, but not in custody. So, where is he? Some minimum-security farm not directly run by BOP(Bureau of Prisons)?

Or has he escaped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.149.203 (talk • contribs)

  • If he had escaped, we would know about it from the news pretty much instantly. No, he's being held at the Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington. You can confirm this by going to this offender info search and putting in his Department of Corrections number, which is 356118. This information is updated nightly. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section[edit]

The first section of this article is too long in my opinion. The information is repeated in the sections further down. The intro should be nice and short and not contain too much information that is going to be detailed in the rest of the article anyway. What do you guys think? MDEVER802 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colton Harris Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 17 (to London Times) is now behind a paywall[edit]

I don't have a good replacement though. 2001:558:6045:103:B0DB:5E59:E97E:9A3B (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His Twitter account[edit]

The link toward the top of the wiki is a link directly to the Twitter account of Colton Harris Moore. He no longer operates the blog from several years ago, since it has been replaced with the Twitter account. It is his and media have verified that it is official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsmv (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Colton Harris Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restitution obligation[edit]

The article says he owed his victims $129,000. I have difficulty reconciling this with the $1.4 million he is said to have paid his victims from the sale of his movie rights to 20th Century Fox as can be seen at the very end of the youtube video "Barefoot bandit" (search term 144TR3ejIts). Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colton_Harris_Moore&oldid=1207556878"