File talk:I Am America EP.jpg

Fair Use
I believe I have addressed all of the legitimate fair use questions on this image, but as the uploader I am reluctant to remove the template without agreement from the user who added it. Rather, I will wait for an admin to decide whether the argument about there not being consensus for this use is sufficient, though I believe its use is legitimate as the album cover is the only visual representation of an item that is the subject of critical commentary in the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have still not provided any reason at all why this cover is significant (beyond the fact that it's a cover of something mentioned in the article) or given any explanation of how the article would be worse off without it. If you don't think that's a "legitimate" concern, I think you need to reread the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cover art is explicitly allowed under fair use when it is the cover of something that is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. The something that is mentioned is significant.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quoting a guideline out of context; I'm not really interested in debating the intricacies of that line. If you feel that it allows content in this situation, then it is clearly misleading. I am quoting the policy that dictates this matter, and clearly have precedent and standard practice on my side. I really have better things to do than fight about this; can we please just remove the image from the article? If you're so attached to it, why not create an article on the EP? If you do not feel that the EP is worthy of an article, it's astounding that you feel that its cover is so important that we have to make use of it, despite its non-free licensing. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How am I quoting out of context? Later on the guideline is even more explicit by saying: "In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject." Clearly your insistence that the cover itself needs to be the subject of commentary is not adequately understanding the guideline. What I noticed when looking over the talk page of NFCC is that you previously insisted on taking this same principle of yours, that the cover needs to be discussed to be included, and applying it to articles on the actual albums. Including an image of the cover art of a work that is the subject of sourced commentary is no different from including a photo that is the subject of sourced commentary. If the photo is noteworthy enough to be discussed in an article, but not noteworthy enough to have its own article there is no issue with including it if it meets all the other criteria and the same principle would apply here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)