Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Joggers-PromoPhoto.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image.

—Angr 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that even mean, when a free image is not otherwise available?!? Before upping a photo for this band, I read WP guidelines and this image follows them, period. It is clearly a promotional photo provided by the band's promo company, with a high-res version also available... exactly what WP guidelines state is "fair-use"Guyanakoolaid 09:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:FUC, which states that a fair-use image cannot be used if a free image "could be created". In this case, a free image could be created. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in your haste to read the part of WP:FUC which supports your beloved pasttime of deleting all fair-use images you come across on WP, you failed to read the entirety of the article. The very first sentence of WP:FUC states: "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 is what a promotional photo is for. It is given freely by the company allowed to do so to whomever wants it to freely use to describe the band wherever they want. The first sentence of the second paragraph reads,"Copyrighted material lacking a free licence such as GFDL may be used on the English-language Wikipedia under fair use if the following criteria are met." According to this sentence, an image must have a free license, which WP accepts if, as it says in the above tag, ownership can be proven. Ownership comes from the fact that, well, one look at the promotional company's website (which was clearly linked for you before you started this unecessary mess) clearly lays out the fact that they are indeed the band's management, and the fact that they provide a high-resolution version of the same image almost 10MB big proves they own it, which again a link to was clearly laid out for you. They clearly are providing this image completely free. A thourough reading of WP:FUC clearly shows its intention to be to provide as free an alternative as possible. I really don't know how a more free image could be found unless i went to one of the band's shows and had them lineup and take their picture myself, and that is if they ever came here. I have read the other comments at your user space, and it does indeed seem as if you get a kind of thrill out of having the enforcement of some line of text taken out of context to go around and delete as many photos as you can. Your response to me was certainly bullying in nature..."Instead of fighting me on this, why not spend your time contacting the band's management to see if they'll release the image under a free license?". Actually, why don't you? WP clearly states that it wishes its editors be at least a bit pro-active before deleting content. I guess your zeal blinds any thoughts of courtesy. But again, I believe you are completely out of order, I believe this image is clearly provided to be free, and that no adequate "more free" substitute is available.Guyanakoolaid 06:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, your speculations about my motives in this matter are unseemly and counterproductive. Please let me know when you are willing to discuss this in good faith. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then let's for sake of argument cast aside all speculation about motives. I have clearly laid out my case "in good faith" and would like to hear about how a better free alternative is available.Guyanakoolaid 10:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A photo could be taken of the band in a concert or otherwise in public and released under a free license, or the band themselves could release this or another image under a free license. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you will take the time to read WP:FUC, you will clearly see that this image meets each and every one of the requirements. As for your comment on my talk page, i really don't see how you have confused anything i have written with me possibly thinking "free" only means monetarily free. I have never even said anything of the sort, my assertion is that a promo company giving away a 9+MB version of the photo clearly shows their intent to distribute it freely. In fact, WP:FUC itself states: "Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy)." So WP knows that giving away a 9+MB version of the file shows clear intent to distribute.

And there is another important word, which appears prominently twice in WP:FUC which you are completely ignoring: "EQUIVALENT". Almost no photo I have ever seen of any band has clearly shown all the members of the band at the same time. Your argument may not intend to have the following consequences, but it will, which is why i am debating you here instead of simply asking the band, who i am aquainted with... because in the end your argument will mean that a half-ass fan shot of a band with the drummer buried behind his kit and half the face of the bass player will be used over a clear promotional image intended by its creators to accompany articles and media about the subject. Guyanakoolaid 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see... I believe that your photo violates WP:FUC #1 because a free image "could be created that would adequately give the same information". You seem to think that's impossible, but I disagree. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.