Talk:Lena Forsén

Rationale
Please see the talk page for the Lenna image for a discussion of why the image conforms to Wikipedia standards.

Merge?
The request to merge this and Lenna sounds reasonable, but this is part of a series on Playboy playmates, so you don't want to turn it into a redirect to an article about how her picture has become a de-facto standard for imaging ... and I think the Lenna picture is sufficiently established in the geek world that Lenna is justified going into more detail than would be justifiable here. So I would say no, don't merge them. - DavidWBrooks 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I say keep them separate. -- Chupon 00:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the merge tag. Neither here nor on Lenna has anybody supported the idea. - DavidWBrooks 20:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia
Lenna's centerfold appeared in a scene in Woody Allen's 1973 film Sleeper. His character was revived 200 years in the future and was asked to identify certain paraphernalia from his century, including the centerfold from Playboy magazine. He decided to take it with him, so he could "study it in more detail". — Loadmaster 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How do I get a hold of Lena ? I’m her daughter from Rochester New York Princessdarcy (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lenna.png
The image Image:Lenna.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the rationale for the page to the image (identical to those for Lenna.) Mvolz (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of File:Lenna.png in this article
The image File:Lenna.png is a fair use image. Per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, the use of fair use images for depicting living people is not supported. This subject is alive, therefore this image is considered to be replaceable and can not be used on this article for depicting Ms. Soderberg. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's unclear why you feel compelled to have the article locked when there's a good-faith discussion ongoing. In particular, I tried to edit the article to use the image more clearly in the irreplaceable context of illustrating and discussing its famous use, rather than in the person infobox where I agree it appears to not be compatible with policy.  Here's what I'm trying to add:
 * The concept of not using fair use imagery to depict a living person is pretty much ironclad. We just don't do it. I requested page protection because there was an ongoing war that needed to end. Now, there are iconic pictures of people that are used on their biographies on a case by case basis. This case does not qualify for that because the iconic nature of the image is discussed in a separate article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement that "the use of fair use images for depicting living people is not supported" is false. The following is, I believe, the relevant quote from Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (emphasis mine):


 * An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.


 * Obviously the picture of L.S. "as pictured in the Lenna image" cannot be replaced by a freely licensed version. Similarly, any other version will not serve the same educational purpose, i.e. educating the reader as to what Lena Soderberg "as pictured in the Lenna image" looks like.


 * My point is not that it is abundantly clear that this is an acceptable use of this image, it is just that it is NOT abundantly clear that it is NOT an acceptable use. This being the case, in the interests of adding and improving content rather than deleting and destroying content, we should keep the image and defend its use. What is the rationale for a mindless and overly strict interpretation of the rules, using any conceivable interpretation which allows the destruction of content? None. How is Wikipedia improved by removing useful content which is arguably acceptable? What are the dire consequences of keeping the image in this article? None. You need to show more than that an argument can be concocted for deleting it, you need to show that the argument against deleting it has no merit (cannot be done) OR you need to show that deleting the image is in the best interests of Wikipedia as a provider of content (again, cannot be done). --PAR 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I grow increasingly tired of the "argument" that working to limit fair use image use is some how causing destruction of content and ruining the encyclopedia. The default case here is to not include fair use content. To get past that default case, you have to jump over hurdles that exist in policy, guideline, mission and Foundation resolution. Only then can the fair use image be used. The proper stance is to defend the lack of a fair use image and keep it off until there's a clear case of acceptability. That doesn't exist here. See also User:Hammersoft/fair use arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to what the Resolution states; it clearly shows that using fair use images of living people is an extreme case. In practice, I know of very few exceptions to this rule. As to "whenever one is available" this is the Foundation's stance, and this local project has a more strict interpretation of that in WP:NFCC #1, "or could be created". We follow the more stricter of the two. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which of the 10 criteria do you claim is not being met. The first one has the clause "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."  As I explained, it is not possible to create a free alternative to illustrate the standard test image, just as a different crop of the original copyrighted centerfold would not do. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why nobody is disputing the image being used on Standard test image.--Damiens .rf 13:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It belongs on the standard test image article, but not on her biography. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And still my questions go unanswered. All you are doing is stating your interpretation of the rules, presenting it as if it were established fact. "It belongs on the standard test image article, but not on her biography." Says who? Says you, and Damiens.rf. I would like to discuss whether yours is a constructive interpretation of the rules, but I am met with only a steady repetition of "the rules" as you interpret them. Why do you avoid discussion of what constitutes a constructive interpretation, rather than unilaterally declaring your version as the truth?

Let me ask again, for the third time on this and other pages: —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAR (talk • contribs)
 * What is the rationale for your interpretation of the rules? For example, you say "The proper stance is to defend the lack of a fair use image and keep it off". Where is this written?
 * What are the dire consequences of keeping the image in this article?
 * How is Wikipedia improved by removing content which is useful and (arguably) justifiable?
 * We've been telling you what the standard practice is. It's not our interpretation, but how things are generally handled here. I'm sorry you disagree with it. Wikipedia is often improve by removing fair use content in furtherance of it's mission to provide a free encyclopedia. Please sign your comments in the future using ~ . Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PAR, now you're going in circles. You've showed you're not prepare to accept any consensus you don't previously agree to. Your line of argumentations is now the same as that of the Tortoise in Lewis Carroll's "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles". --Damiens .rf 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL - and STILL the questions are unanswered! Still the rote repetition of rules! You guys are funny.


 * I never said I was unprepared to accept consensus - when it occurs, I will accept it, like it or not. As far as I can see, DickLyon and I disagree with Hammersoft and Damiens.rf. No consensus there. But regardless, we can end this particular conversation very easily, consensus or not, all you have to do is ignore the legitimate questions for yet the fourth time, and repeat the rules again to me. Its my personal policy not to beat my head against a brick wall more than about three times :) PAR (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't answer to your questions without pointing to the existing policies. Without them, you could use any picture anywhere.
 * The answer to your first item "Where is this written?", is of course, "it's written on a policy". Where would you expect it to be written? In a document on the Vatican? It's written in WP:NFCC as "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.". But of course, it's a police!
 * The second item, the one about "dire consequences", is immaterial to the point. We don't apply policy based on case-by-case analisys of the "dire consequences". In any case, the consequence is the increase of the overuse of redundant non-free content on the Free Encyclopedia.
 * The third item, can only be answered taking into question Wikipedia's principles. We do improve Wikipedia in the sense of these principles by minimizing the amount of redundant non-free content.


 * But againg, if what you want are justifications for not using this image not based on policies, I simply can't help you.


 * Now it's your turn. Please, play the Tortoise for us. --Damiens .rf 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my questions. Before I answer, I have another - I looked at the tortise.html page, and its very long and involved. Could you summarise it so that I can be suitably indignant at your accusations? As far as the 10 criteria are concerned, here is the list and a short explanation of why each is fulfilled for this case. PAR (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. No free equivalent
 * There is certainly no free equivalent to a picture of Lena Soderberg "as pictured in the Lenna image".

2. Respect for commercial opportunities
 * This image will certainly not replace nor interfere with the use of the original.

3a. Minimal usage. Multiple items...
 * Not applicable, one item

3b. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice...
 * Obviously a portion of the Lenna image is not the Lenna image.

4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia...
 * Abundantly true. Hundreds of image processing articles, poster displays at image processing conferences, etc.

5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
 * Certainly true. Not an article-specific requirement: If its true for one article, then its true for any article.

6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
 * Where applicable, and given the nature of the image as a standard test image, these requirements are fullfilled.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article
 * Obviously true

8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * This is arguable - the argument that the image is displayed in another article is insufficient. If this were strictly applied, then one could remove all instances of multiple use, and that is not the intent of this requirement. If it were, then there would be a "one article maximum" rule.

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions....
 * Image appears in article namespace

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following...
 * All requirements are fullfilled on the image description page.

Photo "Lenna" used in image processing
This 512-by-512 pixel scan of a section of the centerfold photo is known as "Lenna", and is a commonly used standard test image in the image processing field.]]

Her photo (known as Lenna) is often used in the field of digital image processing. She was a guest at the 50th annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science and Technology in 1997 where she was busy signing autographs, posing for pictures, and giving a presentation about herself.

OK? Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. I would make a link to the article discussing the iconic image, rather than playing the image on her biography. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is linked already, but that's not a reason to not have the image here as well, since it's crucial to explain the fame of the topic person. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just not necessary. If someone has an interest in the photo, they can go to the article. It's the same as how we handle things with music artists and discographies. While an artist might be notable for their discography, we don't include the album covers on their biography article; it goes on the discography. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As PAR points out above, there's not a one-article-maximum rule, but a one-article-minimum rule. The fact that the image can be found in a linked article does not make it less relevant in explaining the fame of Lena Soderberg based on this particular crop of a copyrighted photo. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The one article minimum does not indicate we should use a fair use image multiple times whenever and for whatever reason we want. As others have noted, linking to the article that discusses the image is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The one article minimum does not prohibit us from using a fair use image multiple times. The fact that it "does not say we should" is not equivalent to "it says we should not". We therefore have the freedom to include it in multiple articles, if it passes the 10 criteria. Can you please respond to the fact that all of the 10 criteria for including the Lenna image in this article are fulfilled? Also, you say "linking to the article that discusses the image is appropriate". Where is this written, please? If this is not policy, then it has no standing, unless it is a consensus. PAR (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PAR, several times now people have responded. I'll go with what someone else said; we're going in circles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I used to play chess with a guy who, everytime he was about to lose, would flip the board over and accuse me of cheating. At first I was angry, but then I realized that it was just his code for "I resign" and I relaxed. You quote the criteria, I show that they are fulfilled, and then you have no response except that we are going in circles. I understand. PAR (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so now you accuse me of petulant, child-like behavior. I choose not to respond. If you want to engage in intelligent discourse, let me know. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the chess/personality assessments, but I agree with the underlying statement "I show that they are fulfilled, and then you have no response except that we are going in circles." Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then begin at Talk:Lena_Soderberg and read. The questions have already been answered, and PAR does not accept the answers. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PAR, as I last try to discuss respectfully with you, your verbose explanation about how the criteria "are fulfilled" above, fails on item #8 (exactly the only one being disputed to begin with (thus "verbose")). You say "the argument that the image is displayed in another article is insufficient", and I say this is not sufficient. Non-free images can be used in more than one article if they are used for different purposes. Once we discuss the image as as standard test image in one article of its own, we follow the minimum usage rule, and avoid discussing this same thing in other articles. --Damiens .rf 19:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If this discussion isn't going to achieve consensus, could I suggest using the dispute resolution process? Possibly an article Request for Comment? PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not need to start an RfC on what is a cut and dried case. The Foundation has a very strong stance against using fair use imagery of living people for depiction purposes. This image flatly isn't necessary, and there's no need for debate on whether to include or not. We may need to spend more time educating people who think it does belong, but the debate about whether to allow the image or not was essentially over before it began. There's no need for an RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. RFCs on non-free content issues are bad idea, since most of the users ignore or abhor this unpopular policy. Users will vote for illustrating/decorating the website as much as they can, regardless of what the foundation thinks. --Damiens .rf 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What, then, is your notion of community consensus. Are you authorized to speak for the foundation? Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, in particular where it says "such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". Also note that this resolution states near the top, "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Whether we disagree with it or not, whether a million editors here find consensus that the resolution is wrong, we still have to abide by it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the discussion hinges on that "almost all" thing; this is not a case where the image is replacable, as is almost always the case with living persons. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the image existed on Wikipedia solely for the purpose of being on this article, I would not have an issue with it being on this article. But, it exists elsewhere. As such, it is appropriate to link to the article where it is displayed, rather than repeating the display here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Above is a perfect example of what I am disputing. I dispute Hammersoft's and Damien.rf's assumption that they know and understand the wishes and intent of The Foundation. As for Damien.rf's idea that "Users will vote...", I quote from the Request for Comment page:


 * "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes."

If one person will stand up and give a reasoned explanation as to why this image unarguably violates Wikipedia Policy in this article, then they should win against myself and a thousand users who side with me. To be specific, the argument revolves around #8 of the 10 criteria specified in WP:NFCC which are necessary to include the image, namely:


 * Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

to which I commented:


 * This is arguable - the argument that the image is displayed in another article is insufficient. If this were strictly applied, then one could remove all instances of multiple use, and that is not the intent of this requirement. If it were, then there would be a "one article maximum" rule.

The most direct rebuttal put forth by those wishing to remove the image was given by Damiens.rf:


 * You say "the argument that the image is displayed in another article is insufficient", and I say this is not sufficient.

I will assume Damiens.rf meant to say "is sufficient". Note that even this is not an argument, but is rather a pronouncement which at least does not presume to speak for The Foundation. This is clearly not a cut and dried case, and the process for resolving this should be continued. I believe an RFC is an appropriate first step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAR (talk • contribs)
 * Please do not claim false consensus. You do not represent a thousand editors who side with you. You've been given reasoned explanations as to why this usage fails. You choose not to accept those reasons. That's your prerogative. But, your dismay at these explanations is being mirrored back to us and we are repeatedly being encouraged to re-state the arguments that have already been stated. Enough, please. The image won't be allowed. Link to the article where the image is displayed. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * False consensus? Read it again, slowly. We clearly cannot reach an agreement, so lets pursue other avenues. I apologise for any offense, I take a few snide (e.g. tortise) comments, I give a few, but I don't want them to interfere with the resolution of this problem. PAR (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You claimed a thousand editors sided with you. You have no evidence that a thousand editors agree with your position. That's false consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that was a really long sentence. Sorry. PAR (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Lenna image inclusion
Please see above discussions. It is very important to understand that the Lenna image is more than just a picture, it is a standard test image. It is constantly referred to in the image processing literature, and every pixel has a particular value which cannot be changed, if the image is to be the Lenna test image.

Although the image is displayed in the article on the test image (Lenna), the question is whether it can be displayed in the Lena Soderberg article. Lena Soderberg is the model pictured in the test image. To be specific, the argument revolves around #8 of the 10 criteria specified in WP:NFCC which are necessary to include the image, namely:


 * Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.


 * This is arguable - the argument that the image is displayed in another article is insufficient. If this were strictly applied, then one could remove all instances of multiple use, and that is not the intent of this requirement. If it were, then there would be a "one article maximum" rule. Inasmuch as it is aguable, and in the absence of a clear reasoned argument against it, we should opt for the choice that does the most to improve Wikipedia content and advance the goal of educating the reader, by including the image. It is by far Lena Soderbergs biggest claim to fame, much greater than her Playboy appearance per se, and as such deserves to be included in the article, with the title "As pictured in the Lenna image". PAR (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Please note there is no negative impact on Wikipedia from the use of this image. To quote from the Lenna article: PAR (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold. Says Eileen Kent, VP of new media at Playboy: "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."
 * Whether or not a particular copyright holder would sue Wikipedia for the use of an image or not is immaterial. Frankly, Wikimedia doesn't care. Our fair use policies are intentionally more restrictive than fair use law in the United States. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And here we go in circles again. PAR, it's been explained to you several times now. I'm sorry you do not accept the explanation. I'm sorry you don't accept the Foundation's resolution. Nevertheless, we do NOT use fair use imagery to depict living people, with very, very few exceptions. Since there's another article with the image on it, we can link to that article from her biography. It is NOT necessary to repeat the image again, and doing so further encroaches on our goal of creating a free content encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft's repeated statement of going in a circle fulfills itself. But consider the 10 criteria at NFCC; all of them are satisfied. In particular, the guideline that fair-use images of living persons are almost always inappropriate is not applicable here, this being the exception to the "almost", because to explain Lena Soderberg's famous association with this image, it is not possible to replace the image with a free alternative photo of her. Hammersoft and a few others seem unable to grasp this distinction from the almost always case. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We grasp it perfectly well, thank you. The point is, you can link to the article that discusses the image in great depth. You do not need to host it on this article. This is one of the essences of minimal use, and why this use fails WP:NFCC. As another example, there are plenty of actors who are famous for a single role in their lives. Yet, for the ones who are still alive, we do not use screenshots from their one performance to illustrate their article. It simply isn't necessary. Case point: Peter Hinwood. VERY famous for his role in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. There's no image of him on the article though, though it would be trivial to obtain a screenshot from the movie. He's still quite alive. The notion that this is an exceptional case that warrants being an exception to the Foundation's policy is false; we can link to the article showing the image, making this use unnecessary to explain her fame from that image. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep converting "you do not need to" into "you are not allowed to". I looked up "minimal" on the page you linked, and it has nothing to do with what you're claiming.  There's no policy behind your assertions.  The Peter Hinwood case is not a good analogy, as I have explained, which I why I say you don't grasp the situation of a particular image versus an image to show what a person looks like. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether you think I grasp something or not is irrelevant. I could just as well say you don't grasp the concept of a free encyclopedia. Stop commenting on editors please. Can we agree to disagree? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Minimal usage implies linking "you do not need to [use non-free content]" into "you are not allowed to [use non-free content]". We're only allowed to use non-free free content when we need to. --Damiens .rf 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We allow images of living people in special circumstances, as Hammersoft has said again and again. I should hope that "the most widely used test image for all sorts of image processing algorithms (such as compression and denoising) and related scientific publications" would qualify as one of those exceptions.  WP:IAR if necessary to convince you.  This individual derives the vast majority of her notability from this image.  Not any image of her, but this one in particular.  The image itself is of significance to who she is and why she's notable and is completely irreplaceable.  Therefore, it meets the bar for inclusion here IMO. Oren0 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeezo. If so much of her fame derives from this ONE image that we absolutely must replicate it on her biography, then deprecate her biography and turn it into a redirect to Lenna. Sounds like a case for WP:BLP1E. Oh, and WP:IAR doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this answer is indicative of your general reasoning in these cases. You claim to be trying to encourage the creation of "more free content", but you'd rather delete an article with a few paragraphs of free content than allow all of the free content to stay with one (barely) non-free image in a clearly exceptional case.  No free image could ever be on this page that would have the same meaning as this one, and just because the vast majority of one's notability comes from one event doesn't mean all of it does.  See the template at the bottom of the page, where all of the 1972 playmates have articles? Oren0 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "barely" non-free. Either something is available under a free license or it isn't. You can't be "barely" pregnant, and you can't have an image that is "barely" non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I may have started all of this! I have tried to take onboard comments above. IMO WP:NFCC says "Pictures of people still alive" is "unacceptable use". Now the smallprint says for "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable". Whilst I agree much of her notability rests in that photo, the problem is that an article on that photo exists. The article is mentioned in her biography, and I believe the duplication of the photo in it constitutes overuse of non-free content. If she is only notable for the photo then Lena Soderberg should be merged into Lenna (or vice versa). For example Sharbat Gula redirects to the photo she is famous for, similarly for Péter Guzli etc. For these reasons I feel using the photo in both articles is not justified. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  21:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in policy that makes the other article a problem for inclusion of the image in this article. The topics of the two articles are very distinct, if not quite disjoint, so merging them would not be appropriate either.  Lena S. would have an article if she had been simply a playmate (in the issue that was the top seller of all time, by the way), but her extra fame from this cropped image is really key, too. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)