Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:JohnnySlut.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.

Invalid fair use rationale
This non-free image is being used in a couple of different ways -
 * 1) To illustrate the article on Specimen (band). This rationale is invalid due to WP:NFCC - this person is living and a free equivalent could be found.
 * 2) To illustrate a particular fashion/style prevalent at the time. Also fails WP:NFCC, as no doubt there are many people who were alive at that time who possess free images of themselves (or other people) with this particular fashion style. A copyrighted image is not necessary to demonstrate it. Videmus Omnia 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is clearly no free use equivalent. The policy mentions pictures of living people as an example of cases where there is usually a free use equivalent, but that is clearly not the case.  This is not about what Johnny Slut intrinsically looks like, it's an image of something he did, a music project.  The style and clothing is an intrinsic part of the band; you can't understand a pioneering goth band without understanding their make-up, dress, and expressive visual presentation, and that can only be conveyed adequately with a picture.  They aren't doing it anymore so a new picture is not practical.  Suggesting that a free use license is in order is all well and good but you could say that about any copyrighted image.  That's what fair use is all about, you do not have to ask.Wikidemo 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But isn't this sort of use infringing on the copyright holder's use of the work (WP:NFCC)? Videmus Omnia 12:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Infringement is a legal conclusion and as far as I know the issue here is not infringement but Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding policy issue #2, I don't see how the picture being on Wikipedia competes with the commercial purpose of this photograph, which is to promote the band in order to sell concert tickets and record albums.Wikidemo 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But the source is listed as a book on Gothic Rock, not a promotional photograph. It seems to me that by using the image in our own history of this music style, we're competing with the copyright holder. Videmus Omnia 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Small correction. This particular image is not in "Gothic Rock" book. That book does contain few images obiviously from the same photshoot and those images are credited to Jon Barraclough. I gave the book as reference for checking the photographer's name. The Merciful 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what is the source/copyright for this particular image? Videmus Omnia 20:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless there is contrary information, the photographer should be the copyright holder by default (unless I'm utterly mistaken on UK copyright). The Merciful 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't know exactly who the copyright holder is it's not safe to make assumptions. Copyrights are often assigned from one party to another.  The source information is important, where it comes from, not just who the photographer is.  For example, a book publisher may have only obtained the copyright for the images it uses; the photographer may have kept the others or sold them for some other purpose.  If nobody knows where a picture is from, then with only a handful of exotic exceptions there's no way it can meet Wikipedia policy, whatever the fair use rationale might be.Wikidemo 22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should the image be tagged as "no source", or does someone have a valid source for it? Videmus Omnia 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a promophoto of the whole band uploaded at Discogs. Seems to be copyrighted to Sire Records (logo), but as noted free alternative is a pipe dream here. Could this be possible alternative? The Merciful 17:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO it's better than the current picture, which is unsourced and of a single bandmember. So it rises to the level of every other Wikipedia band article with a picture of the band, currently a contentious issue.  Hard to believe people used to dress like that.  22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, most people didn't dress like that :).


 * I went and uploaded it as Image:Specimen promo.jpeg and linked to Specimen (band). The article Deathrock fashion would still need some help I think, as the only other image besides Jonny Slut one is a magazine cover from 2006... The Merciful 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

for article Specimen (band):
The article states:

"[Specimen] are widely credited as one of the pioneers of the Gothic movement, both musically and stylistically." and "Unusual for a keyboardist, Jonny Slut became the face of the band and its most famous member, due largely to his striking image and fashion sense."

In other words, this image of not only shows the said person, but his style in 1980. Article identifies his style of dress, haircut and make up as notable influence for a specific subculture style. I don't know if Jonny Slut is a public figure anymore (I don't think he is), but I'm sertain he doesn't sport this kind of look anymore. For this reason a period image is neccessary. While it is always possible an old photograph taken by a fan will surface, it is highly unlikely considering the band's cult status. Furthermore, such image won't likely be of sufficient quality. Therefore the image is not reasonably replaced by a free image.

for article Deathrock fashion:
This is a weaker case I think, since the style can indeed be exhibited by some other person. However, Jonny Slut is identified as a forerunner of the style, so his image is of considerably higher value to the article than of any random deathrocker (quote: "The picture above of Jonny Slut is a prime example of a deathhawk". A free image would also likely lose historical context, since the style has morphed over decades and the free image would likely from present day.

The Merciful 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.