File talk:Antonio Lamer.jpg

While a picture of the man could be taken, having him in his legal robes is important for the article. It would be impossible to get a PD photo of him in his robe as cameras are not allowed in the court chambers.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't he wear his robes outside court chambers? – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was looking through the Supreme Court of Canada site to see if I could find some reference, but was unable to.  I do remember from a tour I took at the court that while the robes are owned by the judge, they are worn only during court proceedings.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the only time they would wear their robes outside of the court room is during select ceremonies such as reading of the speech from the throne and perhaps at the appointment of a new governor-general or the election of a new government. I can't think of a time where they would wear the red robes for any other type public appearance. --PullUpYourSocks 22:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments, it is clearer to my memory (highschool trips are so long ago) that it would be for official duties such as the above.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What's exactly the importance of the robes to the article? The image caption only says "The Right Honourable Antonio Lamer", and it's used as the mais image in a biographical article to identify the subject. Robes are never discussed, let alone the robes-dressing by the subject. My poing is, what would we be loosing is using an image of this person without the robes? --Abu Badali 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is important because the individuals are primarily notable for being the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. These are the robes of the SCC judges.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a gray area. At the very least, if we're making a non-replaceable fair use claim, then each article should at least discuss the official outfit, if only in the caption. But it's my opinion that another image of Lamer, not in his robes, would illustrate the article sufficiently. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the current images are fine. It is not the intention of the "non-replaceable" policy to mean that every image of a living person need be deleted — it is primarily to avoid needless fair use. The official portrait of a Supreme Court member is certainly within the bounds of this (where else can we get a free official portrait?) and well within the bounds of any potential legal problem. --Fastfission 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the "Official Portrait". it's about the Supreme Court member. So, some other image could be used instead, what makes the image replaceable. --Abu Badali 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair Use is about context. The context here is to show what the person looks like. That is replaceable. If the context were to show what the robes looked like, that could arguably be FU, but only on an article about the robes, and only if it was impossible to find an alternative. ed g2s &bull; talk 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the image is "free content" by the strictest definition of the term is not the only criterion to be considered. Canadian government-owned images are close enough to being free, and this image improves the quality of the article enough, that IMO it deserves to be kept. - Mcasey666 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Canadian government-owned images" are completly non-free. There's should be no exception to people dressing robes. Theses are simply repeatable unfree images of people and we don't use such images. --Abu Badali 10:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. The government does retain all its rights to enforce its ownership of the images and so I don't think its safe to treat them as "close enough" to free. However, I think the argument that the article must be about the robes or portrait itself might be going a bit far. Is there a such a case of any official portrait? It seems too improbable to me and really defeats much of the purpose of the fair use criteria. The issue, in my mind, is whether the robes are an essential descriptive element of the article. On the one hand, you could argue that the subject's likeness is the only essential element. Robed or unrobed, the person described in the photo is essentially the same. Conversely, you could argue that since they are notable as Supreme Court judges, their dress is an essential component of their description. While I find the latter argument a bit more attractive, I'm not sufficiently experienced with US fair use to say anything for sure and so I'm on the fence about which way to go. --PullUpYourSocks 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well one problem with limiting the discussion to this guy and his robes is that dozens of images in this category have been marked for deletion. This is why an RFC has been opened, to start a broader and more useful discussion, and I hope all of you will provide your input. - Mcasey666 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have closed these cases, and deleted all the images in question. The reason I have done so is as follows:

It is true that each of these individuals is primarily notable as a member of the Canadian supreme court. This fact alone, however, does not necessarily mean that the article is enhanced by showing them in their supreme court robes. What we have to ask ourselves is what purpose the image on a biographical article serves. I agree with those who argue that the purpose of the image is to show the appearance of the person, and I believe that assessment is borne out by the manner in which the images were used in the articles. This being the case, therefore, a photo of the judges in their judicial robes would not offer any more to the article than would a free photo taken, for example, at a speaking engagement. This means that the images are indeed replaceable, and I have deleted them accordingly. --RobthTalk 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)