File talk:Lady Gaga Fame EDP.jpg

Replaceability
Due to the persistence of the nominator about the issue of replaceability of this image, a detailed defense has been provided.

The Lady Gaga Fame Eau de Parfum is a branded commercial product that is protected by copyright and trademark law. Due to the unique and unusual design of the perfume, an image of the product will allow the article to more comprehensively illustrate the product in a way that text alone can not convey. However, for a number of reasons, only a non-free fair-use image can achieve this purpose:
 * According to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter components of product packaging are considered to be artistic works under the law, and are therefore, subject to copyright.
 * All 3rd-party-produced photographs or reproductions of this product, will by definition, be derivative works (as stated on Commons:Derivative works ). A derivative work does not void the original copyright, and can only be uploaded with the express written permission of the original copyright holder, in this case, Coty, Inc., in addition to the permission of the 3rd-party.
 * Even if written permission can be obtained, unless the original copyright holder explicitly agrees to free distribution by surrounding all rights, it will not constitute a free license. That is, it will still only be a non-free fair-use image at best.

It is also for these reasons that there are no available free-licensed versions of images of items such as music albums or action figures.

In the past, the replaceability of images of various items has been queried. Examples of images of products where no free-license alternative exists:
 * N-Gage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ngage_n81.jpg
 * NAACO Brigadier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NAACO-Brigadier.jpg
 * AMC Cavalier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1965-AMC_Cavalier_ShowCar.jpg

In summary, there are no available free-licensed replacements and this image should be kept to fulfill the role outlined in the fair-use rationale.


 * That's a pile of crap for two reasons:
 * Have you searched the entire world to find a free copy of this image? That's a rhetorical question; the answer is no.
 * Has anyone held a gun to your head and told you they will kill you if you find the product and take your own photo? Another rhetorical question; the answer is no.
 * You clearly don't have a clue about either copyright law or Wikipedia's policies about copyright. Drop this matter and move on. Cresix (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility
Cresix, thank you for your contribution. However, as a Wiki reviewer, I hope you are aware of Wikipedia:Civility : "editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message." "Don't Handsdown.1 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Make snide comments
 * Make personal remarks about editors
 * Be aggressive"
 * Utterly ridiculous. I made no personal comments about an editor. My comments are directed toward your absurd arguments. And the user warning template I gave you was not only permissible, it is encouraged. In case you haven't figured it out, Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Users who repeatedly violate copyright, as you have, should be templated to avoid an inevitable block if that user continues violating copyright. Cresix (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and non-free content
Dear Cresix, From Wikipedia:Non-free content, copyrighted media can be classified as non-free fair-use if all criteria are met: "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." Template used by nominator Chasewc91 specifically queries the image on the basis of the first criterion only. Until there is a result from this debate, please do not issue me templated block warnings. I am genuinely trying to engage in a worthwhile debate. Handsdown.1 (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have ignored my questions about the first criterion (no free equivalent), so here they are again:


 * Have you searched the entire world to find a free copy of this image?
 * Has anyone held a gun to your head and told you they will kill you if you find the product and take your own photo?

Cresix (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cresix, I haven't ignored your questions. I've addressed them in detail in my original defense using the Wiki guidelines. I also have a question for you: please answer this one: Why are there no free-licensed alternatives to non-free fair-use music album covers? Handsdown.1 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, why haven't you or other Wiki editors/reviewers also challenged all of the Lady Gaga album covers? From the logic behind your two questions (both of which are actually quite valuable), shouldn't we rigorously pursue free alternatives to all her album covers? And if we haven't "searched the entire world" then we should remove all of then (because, as you've repeatedly reminded me, the default is to leave out copyrighted material, until the debate is finalised)? Handsdown.1 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Derivative of non-free content
It should be noted that a previous Wikipedia editor uploaded a self-taken photograph of the perfume as 'free' media  but has since been deleted and deemed inappropriate for Commons (quote reason "Derivative of non-free content").

Until a free alternative can be provided, this non-free fair-use image should be kept for the Lady Gaga Fame article, which does not have any supporting images. Handsdown.1 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)