Talk:Dule Hill/RfC on image

RfC
This RfC concerns the image as it is used in the body of article Dule Hill.


 * I argue that fair use rationale has been provided for image:|Dule_Hill.jpg (pomotional photo intended for wide distribution). Please see rationale here. The image is intented to portray a character played by the person of the article (as it is located in the body of the article) and not only the actual person. I am merely trying to secure the content of an article which I believe constitutes fair use.


 * User Quentin X takes the position that the image:Dule_Hill.jpg is a violation of fair use and holds that "a screenshot, which gives a good example of what can be used in place of a copyrighted photo, whuch is a replaceable free use."

The article remains reverted by Quentin X with image:Dule_Hill.jpg removed for the sake of resolving the issue.

Please read the relevant policies on this matter: Wikipedia Fair use criteria

Based on these policies: Additionally, all others requirements are satisfied.
 * 1. Image:Dule_Hill.jpg has not been removed from article Charlie Young seeming to suggest there is no fair use problem with the image itself. (policy #7 under fair use)
 * 2. The image is copyrighted to NBC but has been released for promotional purposes and wide distribution.
 * 3. An exhaustive search has led to no free non-copyrighted equivalent. Screenshots for this subject are not considered "more free" by any means. (policy #1 fair use)
 * 4. The image contains all the necessary rationale for fair use.
 * 5. The image contribute significantly to the article.

Image:Dule Hill.jpg
Image:Dulé Hill.jpg I have reverted your edit to the Dulé Hill page. Promotional images of actors are only fair use if they are under the characters page and should not be used to illustrate the actual person. Fair use images such as the ones on Brad Pitt or Sean Bean illustrate what is allowed. (Quentin X 13:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Image:Dulé Hill.jpg
Please note: One, image:Dule_Hill.jpg is not intended to depict the title of the article but rather the information presented in the article (as it is located in the body) which is a character played by the person in question. For reference, please see image:007Connery.jpg in article Sean Connery or to use your own example, image:006 Alec Trevelyan.jpg in article Sean Bean. Furthermore, rationale for fair use has been provided for Dule_Hill.jpg so please do not revert again. Thank you. Anubis3 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dule Hill.jpg
Image:Dulé Hill.jpg I have reverted your edit to the Dulé Hill page. Promotional images of actors are only fair use if they are under the characters page and should not be used to illustrate the actual person. Fair use images such as the ones on Brad Pitt or Sean Bean illustrate what is allowed. (Quentin X 13:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)) • Thanks for the message. I have moved the Sean Connery photo for the same reasons as Dulé Hill. The image on the Sean Bean page is a screenshot, which gives a good example of what can be used in place of a copyrighted photo, whuch is a replaceable free use. The idea of Wikipedia is to keep it as free as possible and to have multiple uses of a single copyrighted image goes against that idea. It would be easy to get a screenshot of Charlie or a photo of Dulé Hill in character on set. The image of David Caruso is a good example of this. I have reverted the page again and would remind you of the three revert rule. (Quentin X 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

image:Dule_Hill.jpg Query
Thank you for your message. It appears that we have some disagreement on the issue of fair use images. I would like to reaffirm my position that fair use rationale for Dule_Hill.jpg has been provided. For the sake of your query, I expanded upon the existing rationale to make it absolutely clear that this is a copyrighted image but is intended for wide distribution to promote the program as well as the person in the article. Again, the image is not portraying the article title but, rather, a role of the person in the title (as it is located in the body of the article). Such has been the practice on countless images that have been, for long, accepted in the Wikipedia community. Unfortunately, it is impossible to rewrite Wikipedia rules because a single person’s interpretation of “fair use.” In addition, the reasoning about screenshots is incorrect. Are you truly implying that screenshots are not copyrighted? There seems to be an inconsistency in this reasoning. Please do not revert again as this will be considered a sign of bad faith. If you still do not agree and the matter of this article concerns you very much, then I would suggest we submit the matter to arbitration. Also… Anubis3 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of simply reverting articles or removing information from them, I would like to remind you that Wikipedians are encouraged to improve upon them. Anubis3 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dule Hill.jpg
I have had a look at the expanded rationale and all it seems to do is extend to the photo as being used on the character's page and not the actors. As such I believe that it is not applicable to the page Dule Hill.

Also, to take up other points that you have made and the relevant questions. As far as screenshots are concerned and the ability to use them in articles when it concerns the roles that actors play rather than promotional pictures, you can liken them to the photocopying of books for educational uses. I am not sure of the law in the U.S. but in the U.K., if it is for educational purposes, you are allowed to photocopy a chapter or 10%, whichever is the greater. That analogy can be used for a screenshot which is a miniscule amount of a copyrighted film.

Secondly, the fact that photos have been used for a long time does not make it right to use them. Jimbo Wales has gone on record as saying that Wikipedia should be as free as possible and that this has not necessarily been the case in the past. Also, this is not a 'single person's' view. Just because you have not come across it in the six months that you have been a registered user under this name does not mean that this process has not been ongoing. I tried, albeit forlornly, to keep an image that I had used for a good three months until I accepted the argument that had been used which is basically, "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used.". As far as this image is concerned, it can.

Furthermore, and without wanting to bore either of us, the first sign of bad faith was used by yourself when you reverted my edit initially without giving a reason and then did it again when not signed in to your account. (Unless two people at your University have an interest in West Wing actors). Finally, I understand your point about improving articles but if we used that process Wikipedia would be 99% nonsense and no one would use it.

As such I am again reverting the Dule Hill photo, primarily because the first act of bad faith was by yourself. I am also doing this due to the problems with fair use rationale but, as the image is still used in Charlie Young, there is no danger of it being orphaned. If you wish to take this to arbitration then you are more than welcome. (Quentin X 13:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Our Dispute
It appears that, on your part, this issue concerning Dule_Hill.jpg has become a personal one but I would thoroughly and sincerely ask you to refrain from personal attacks. I am merely trying to secure the content of an article which I believe constitutes a fair use.

That having been said, I am not exactly sure how U.K. photocopying laws fits into the picture. Neither cyberspace nor wikipedia is governed by U.K. law but I’m sure that you already know that. Based on the reasoning you provided, every copyrighted photo in the Wikipedia commons should be deleted. Additionally, it is also unfortunate that you see a single revert on my behalf (before discussing with you) as a sign of bad faith. Reverts constitute neither vandalism nor personal attack. However, when a fellow member specifically asks another member not to revert but rather submit the matter to arbitration and the latter ignores this, that can be seen as a sign of bad faith.

To continually extend my good faith, I will, for the time being, hold off on reverting or editing the article Dule Hill. But, at the same time, I would ask you to please try, at least, to replace the image (with what you think constitutes fair use) rather than simply remove it. Thank you. Anubis3 16:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)