User:HeartThrobs/ImageTalkRebeccaCummings.jpg

Copied from Image_talk:Rebecca_Cummings.jpg (Deleted revision as of November 9, 2006) AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use criteria
"The primary goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy is to protect our mission of producing and distributing free content which is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification, and application for all users and in all mediums. This goal could best be met by completely disallowing all content which is not free content; however, we understand that in order to completely meet the second part of our mission, producing a quality encyclopedia, we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary."

The image meets all ten criteria requirements.

I am assuming that you are going to say the first criteria isn't met since the tag has "illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created" in bold letters. If there is a picture of Rebecca that meets the "copyleft" criteria please feel free to replace the current picture.

A different but important discussion on this subject can be found at HeartThrobsTalk.


 * Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The following points are based on Wikipedia policy:
 * 1. Fair Use#Counterexamples|Fair Use Counterexample # 8 is completely contradictory to the fair use policy point # 8 that says, "the material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The image contributes significantly to the article because it identifies the subject of the article.


 * 2. Whether a free image exists or not at this time is relevant because fair use criteria states, "this goal could best be met by completely disallowing all content which is not free content; however, we understand that in order to completely meet the second part of our mission, producing a quality encyclopedia, we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary." It is stated exactly the same in the Fair Use policy.


 * It is also relevant to the fair use policy criteria point # 1 which states, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible."


 * 3. Instead of deleting the image why not add it to Category:Fair use image replacement request and see if anyone can come up with a suitable free replacement?

--HeartThrobs 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use policy says in part, "we understand that in order to completely meet the second part of our mission, producing a quality encyclopedia". A paparazzi style shot of someone in sweats and no makeup or a low quality camera phone shot with a nasty background does not coincide with producing a quality encyclopedia. Would a hard cover encyclopedia have paparazzi style shots? A publicity photo adds quality to the article and Wikipedia?

The tag says, "if this image is determined to be replaceable within one week from 4 November 2006 (11 November), the image may be deleted by any administrator." Is the Images for deletion process used or are they just automatically deleted with out any discussion?--HeartThrobs 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused
Okay, I'm confused about something. Don't you know this person? Why don't you just ask her if she'll release that photo under the GFDL? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do know her but she will not release the image with the GFDL. It has been recommended to her by her magazine photographers not to release it. Being in the adult industry I have to agree GFDL is not appropriate for an adult (content) magazine model.


 * I was hoping to avoid having to try and explain this. I'll start by saying this is tough to explain so if you have questions please ask.


 * The photograph was posted under the Fair Use license to protect the value of Rebecca's image. Photographs of her face and body are what make her money. The posting of her photograph all over the world wide web would dilute the value of her face and body to the adult magazines. An example of this is the proliferation of the amatuer style magazines, videos and websites. If anyone uses her photographs she should at the very least have to give permission for them to use it.


 * We work very hard to protect the value of our models and where their photographs are used. One example of this can be found on my talk page. As always I posted a photograph of Rebecca with her copyright on it. After being told it was against policy I came up with the solution of posting a smaller lower resolution photograph. The idea came after reading the Fair use policy section 2 about uploading photographers photographs. The best example of this can be found on Rebecca's website and Yahoo group where any photograph that is posted has a copyright notice and most also have a semi-transparent copyright in the middle of the photograph. The semi-tranparent copyright started being added after I found a website that had photographs of Rebecca submitted with the bottom copyright cropped off.


 * Since her face and body have value Rebecca should have to give permission to use an image of them. Across the country there are Right of Publicty, Right of Privacy and Unfair Competition laws that were enacted because of the way photographs, names,videos, etc were misused. We are currently in the early stages of resolving an issue with a publication using her copyrighted photograph without her permission. Fair Use protects Rebecca from the misuse of her photograph and the dilution of the value of her face and body by giving her legal grounds to ask that the use of her photograph be stopped while still allowing the quality of her Wikipedia article to be enhanced with her image.--HeartThrobs 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you admit that she feels this way, and allude to litigation with somebody else for using her image, is a big red flag for me. I think that, given her (and your) views on limiting free information, I think for our own protection we need to delete this image posthaste. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very start of the my reply to you I said, "please ask questions," but instead you decide to make the false accusation that a lawsuit has been filed against someone. The issue is being solved in a civil (adjective 2. being reasonable or polite) mannner. I, Rebecca, HT Productions, Heart Throbs Adult Entertainment or anyone directly connected with the companies have never (not ever - at no time) been a plantiff in a lawsuit against anyone for business or personal reasons. Not even when I had an easy win case!

I don't understand why you turned this personal by attacking the integrity of our values on the whole issue of free information when you don't know us. This involves one issue of many concerning free information, enhancing the quality of Wikipedia and it's articles while protecting the value of a person's image.--HeartThrobs 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse's statement, per request

 * I've been asked to comment on the image separately from the article, so I will, though I suspect the ‎article will be deleted for non-notability (Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings), making the image argument moot. Without attacking anyone's integrity, it is splitting the legal hair very fine, when the owner of an image puts the image on Wikipedia, where every edit prominently bears the notice "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.", and insists the image is not licensed for free use. That is possibly within the letter of the Wikipedia policy, but it is certainly against its spirit. Not just the spirit of the image policy, but the spirit of the whole idea behind Wikipedia.
 * The fair use image policy, however, is even more clear. If we can get a completely free image rather than a fair use image, we should. In several cases we have used poorer quality free images rather than better quality fair use ones, I believe a recent important minister of Canada was an important case. Now what "we can" means is debatable, and in a few cases I do believe Chewbak may have stretched the point a bit - it's not realistic for the common Wikipedian editor to be requested to personally supply a photograph of a reasonably reclusive star, which professional paparazzi earn lots of money and undergo great difficulty to do just that, especially when there are "press kit" images specifically meant for use in articles about the star. I may be following up some of Chewbak's other proposals and saying exactly that, let's see how that turns out. However, in this case, the editor knows the star personally. Is it that hard to take a photo of someone you see every day? $10 electronic cameras are available in every convenience store. The only reason could be that the editor doesn't want to, and that's exactly what is written here - doesn't want to for commercial reasons.
 * Now I could go on about how unreasonable that is from a business point of view - surely someone willing to pay $9.95 for a magazine or whatever membership in the star's site costs, isn't doing it to receive just one photo, especially one that is specifically supposed to be an identifying photo rather an erotic one. I could mention that, frankly, the copyright on porn star photos isn't the most respected thing in the world, and Wikipedia is among a very small percentage of sites that genuinely tries not to violate it, while most others happily steal photos left and right. I could mention that, unlike those sites, Wikipedia is consistently among the 20 most visited web sites in the whole world, and becoming the definitive first place to go for information on virtually any subject, so much so that notable Fortune500 companies are paying money to professionals to get their article in the Wikipedia to the best state it can be (Arch Coal for example, which we then rewrote specifically because we were uncomfortable with the idea of articles being written for pay). They believe it makes them more famous, thereby bringing them more business. But all that is less important than the basic simple principle of the Wikipedia, stated many times by our founder. "We're trying to give the world a free encyclopedia." Free as in Speech, not as in Beer - Libre, not just Gratis. We're not trying to improve anyone's business - if we do, that's all right, but that is not our goal. We're trying to give the world a free encyclopedia, and if we can make a free, truly free image for an article, we certainly should. Here it seems obvious that we can, specifically one of us can, and if that one person can, and doesn't, then they aren't primarily motivated by our basic fundamental principle, and doesn't deserve support in that. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)