File talk:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg

Replacability disputed
The subject is dead, and its a picture from a movie. It quite simply cannot be replaced with a free image. EVula // talk // ☯  // 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This image is a key scene in the movie and has a direct relation to popular culture. Unless someone can show how this is replaceable, the tag should go quickly. --evrik (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at Can't Undo's history, I can't help but feel the account is a sock for someone with an axe to grind. I'm going to revert the changes solely because of the suspicious nature of the user. --evrik (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki?
We would like to use this picture in the Hungarian version of the Scouting article. How would it be possible? (These copyright laws are a bit difficult for me...:S ) Thanks! --Kun25 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a good answer for you. Why don't you post the question to the village pump? --evrik (btalk) 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NFCC #3
To paraphrase my favorite comedy, I don't think that rule means what you want it to mean.

a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.

Using this image in no way violates the spirit or even the letter of this. This isn't the "multiple items of non-free content" that a adresses, nor is it the "an entire work used if only a portion will suffice" spoken of in b. I know you don't like non-free content, FPaS, but your crusade against this image really needs to stop. S. Dean Jameson 17:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-free content use has to be minimal. Doing the same thing twice is not minimal. That's the rule, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting NFCC #3, period. The use of "minimal" there has nothing, less than nothing to do with the number of articles in which it's used. Please stop removing the FUR for Scouting. I am readding it, per your complete lack of explanation regarding how it supposedly violates NFCC#3. It patently does not, as I explained above. S. Dean Jameson 00:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the image currently isn't in Scouting, there's no real reason for a fair use rationale. And since the image, nor anything pertaining to it, is not discussed in that article, there's no reason to have the image there in the first place.  So I removed it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Fut Per removed it from that article with an edit summary threatening a block. Removing the FUR based on the rationale that it's not in that article right now, when there's an admin threatening to block anyone who dares place it there is speciaous at best. S. Dean Jameson 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has a history, and as far as I can see, that history doesn't discuss Indiana Jones whatsoever. That is the rationale I'm removing it on. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Status update
I've added some text to the Scouting article that I feel makes this image more appropriate and defensible there. As such, I've readded the FUR here, and replaced the image in the article. S. Dean Jameson 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)