Talk:Ida Kar

Image
Hi again, Justlettersandnumbers. Did you know that the image is only restricted to "professional license"? It's not released under Creative Commons, and the "academic license" is disabled. This may indicate a failure to comply with WP:NFCC. George Ho (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought about replacing it with one of the images: image 1, image 2, or image 3. George Ho (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I know that this is a non-free image – that's why I uploaded it to Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale. If it had been free I would have uploaded it to Commons, obviously, but I did not manage to find any appropriately-licenced free image of Kar. This does not fail WP:NFCC because it is at a low resolution quite insufficient for commercial reproduction (actually it was already at such a resolution even before reduced it still further). None of the other images you suggest is suitably licenced either; one of them does have a Creative Commons licence, but it is CC BY-NC-ND, and so not compatible for our purposes. Just to set my mind at rest, please tell me that you do understand the difference and haven't uploaded images licenced in that way?
 * Also this is a much better photograph; I find that I haven't written the last bit of this article (oops!), but she went pretty crazy towards the end of her life, and this, to me, shows that well. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If the source is a professional agency type of image then it will fail WP:NFCC (like you won't find a single "Getty image" as non-free file). In my view, Image 3 looks similar if you want a replacement. The automatic reduction by DatBot6 was done to get the image just below the NFC guideline of 100,000 pixels. Maybe use Files for Discussion to see if File:Ida Kar by Mark Gerson, 1974, grayscale, cropped.jpg is allowed. NB:if it is OK, I could do a different crop on the original if desired to achieve the guideline size. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that CC BY-NC-ND is not an acceptable license, so I don't use it. Nonetheless, I always have added fair-use rationale for content, including ones under such license, as long as I limit such content to normally just one article. The ones I don't find meeting standards of "fair use" are the ones from NPG requiring licensing fees (academic or professional) and not yet released under CC BY-NC-ND. However, I can take the image to FFD if you like me to and if it's not risking forum shopping. (BTW, who's NB?) George Ho (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake, I meant to say that the ones not meeting "fair use" standards are those from NPG used without a paid (academic or professional) license and not yet released under a CC license. But that's my opinion. George Ho (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * FFD will settle it once and far all, so we know which image to use, or it will be always a unknown. (NB = nota bene = https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/NB) Ron h jones (Talk) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, this image is hosted by the National Portrait Gallery, not some commercial image agency, so I really don't know what you think the problem might be. How exactly could an image being released under the wrong CC licence make the blindest bit of difference? The other three images mentioned are hosted by exactly the same rather important national museum. But please, do exactly as you wish, take it to FFD or indeed to the ninth circle of the Inferno if you wish. Oh, and a guideline is just that, guidance; does anyone really believe that 27-pixel difference in width is going to impact the commercial opportunities of the museum in any significant way? See nota bene. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Non free images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. One could argue it should be cropped smaller to show just a portrait. The image was 20% over the guideline, hence the tag - the reducing bots allow a 5% oversize, so the image was reduced. Ron h jones (Talk) 23:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The image is taken to Files for discussion/2018 February 27. George Ho (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I emailed NPG. NPG says that they approve "fair use" in low-resolution images and that they do not object usage of the images at Wikipedia. Therefore, I guess I was wrong about usage. --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)