File talk:SerBac.jpg

Fair use disputed
Is it actually fair-use to have this image when there is a public domain image(Image:Sergebac7thcentury.jpg) that illustrates the same saints? The image is not being used in a discussion about the artwork, only in discussing the saints also depicted in the free image. Aleta 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided a fair use rationale, at Image:SerBac.jpg, and incorporated discussion of the painting into the articles where it is used, History of Christianity and homosexuality and Saints Sergius and Bacchus. I believe this now satisfies fair use criteria. — coe l acan t a lk  — 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support the view that this is not replaceable by the public domain image. One work of art is generally not a substitute for another unless solely intended to show what someone looks like. This painting is being used to show the artists view of the relationship between the subjects and illustrates that in both articles. There is no public domain substitute for the painting in that context. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With both the expanded fair use rationale and inclusion of discussion of the artwork itself in the articles, I think it now meets fair use. I have removed the dispute tags from the image page.  Good work, Coelacan and WJBscribe! :) Aleta 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Righto. Please also watchlist the articles it is included in; we've already seen a user (CRCulver) attempt to remove the image disussion text under spurious pseudolegalistic argument.  Thanks, — coe l acan  t a lk  — 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

November 5, 2007
This has been ongoing. I really don't believe the fair use claim here holds water. It is arguable that this image meets fair use simply because it portrays these two saints in a homoerotic way (it is also arguable that it portrays them as identifiably "gay" at all). Further it fails other WP:NFC criteria as well; specifically #3, minimal usage, which states that non-free content is to be used "only if necessary", and #8, significance, which states it should only be used if its "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That is not the case here at the article in which it is currently included.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)