File talk:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image. Fails NFCC#1 - replaceable image

Replaceable fair use File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg
This is the discussion over whether this could be replaced or not from User_talk:Surfer43. Thanks for uploading File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would like to know why you think that this picture could be replaced by non-free content or "adequately described by words". The full picture is freely accessible on Panoramio. This is the only picture of the species on the internet. I carefully examined all of the non-free content requirements and see no problem with this picture. Thanks, Surfer43 (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of that argument makes the photo fair use. Fair use doesn't apply just because you find it hard to get a free photo. The bat still exists and a picture can be taken of it, therefore grabbing a non-free picture isn't legit. Eeekster (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument for free use is: this meets all ten criteria on Non-free content. Why is there such a big problem showing a picture that is not used commercially by the photo taker? And what criteria do you think this does not meet? If you would read the policy, it says that it can be used if no freer alternative of acceptable quality exists, and none does. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" both answer no. This complies with fair use law in every way. Would you have a problem with using the only picture of another solar system from inside it and freely accessible online, but it happened to have rights reserved because they don't want people to pretend it is theirs?Surfer43 (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does NOT meet all the criteria since it is most certainly a picture that can be taken be someone. You cannot just grab a picture to use here and say it's okay because it's not being use commercially, that's just theft. Eeekster (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is NOT theft because it obviously applies to fair use law and all other 9 criterion and gives full credit to the author. You are misusing criterion 1. There is very little known about this species, so only experts/locals would know which bat is the right one. By your logic anything but official logos would fail criterion 1. Wikipedia's content guidlines are best treated with common sense. It should say "could be created" with any reasonableness whatsoever. I was saying that the Photographer was not using the image commercially. I am almost 100% sure the photographer would be fine with this because he is fine with putting it on Google Earth so half the people that look at take it and use it with no credit. That is just theft. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia a content-free place, Surfer43 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's says: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" That's not negotiable. So please stop arguing and accept the reality of our policy. Eeekster (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Five pillars says Wikipedia does not have firm rules. That's not negotiable. So please stop arguing and accept the reality of our policy, reasonableness. Surfer43 (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet the image will be deleted. Why? Because it isn't Wikipedia's rule, it's the law. You stole and image and fair use doesn't apply because it can be replaced. Whining about it being too hard doesn't change that. Eeekster (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I broke no law. The only law I broke is Wikipedia's firm rules. Please read fair use and stop whining about how any picture that could possibly be recreated does not apply to Wikipedia's fair use, because it complies 100% with the law. US law does not say if it can be recreated, it can't be used. That is just Wikipedia's firm rules.


 * I'm done with this discussion. Please take any concerns to Media copyright questions. Eeekster (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.