File talk:My muse Amanda looking great in the frames I designed for her.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.

On my talk page the anonymous contributor who challenged this image wrote: "I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia.".

I disagree.

I can't help noticing that the challenger hasn't suggested this free text equivalent. The original Google Glass design was controversial, seen as ugly by many. The custom-designed model shown here looks much more like high-end conventional glasses. Some commentators thought they were much more attractive than the original design.

This is clearly a judgment call, a judgment that absolutely has to be made by viewing the image.

In addition these glasses were supposed to have been particular designed for Ms Rosenberg. A judgment as to whether they suited Ms Rosenberg has to be made by viewing the image. Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The text currently in the article ("Rosenberg didn't only promote Google Glass, from behind the scenes -- she served as a model for the glasses, starring in promotional videos, and having a designer develop a more fashionable version of the glasses that she said were specifically inspired by her") adequately expresses the idea conveyed by the non-free image. Historically, Wikipedia has been very reluctant to use fair use images to illustrate living people, for whom a free image can be created, unless such an image is a "unique historic image" (see Template:Non-free historic image), which I do not believe this image is, though I am unclear if this is what you are arguing. I do not disagree with you, though, that whether to include this image is a judgment call. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-free images are only permitted in certain circumstances, and this case does not qualify. The event can easily be described using prose alone. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.