Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Marty Schottenheimer.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.

RMANCIL stated in the Replaceable fair use disputed template: depicts a famous coach in time expressly made for release publicity United States Federal Law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without the authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use” and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody. Such fair use is permitted on the English-language Wikipedia.

Not all inclusions of fair use material may violate the GFDL. If there is a significant reason to include the image and no permission can be obtained it may still be allowable under the GFDL.

Though this image is subject to copyright, this non-replaceable use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

The exhibition of low-resolution images of images, to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. By definition a picture of a subject to identify and illustrate the subject is almost always relevant. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell product or said image. The image is significant for the article as it shows visual from product. No free or public domain images are possible, as this is a unique image. Image is intended as publicity for the product. It is used for informational purposes only. Such images are distributed with implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted. Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality. Its use does not detract from either the original image, or from the network itself. Image is used solely for the identification of the subject. The further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder in any way. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This image is of a low-enough resolution not to supplant any possible market role that may at some point in the future be created for the image. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used. This content has been published outside Wikipedia. Use meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. Use meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. This content is used in at least one article. This content contributes significantly to at least one article Use significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. Use is not merely decorative and is thus acceptable. Use aids the identification of the subject, which was independently discussed in many publications outside of Wikipedia. This content is not used on templates. This content is not replaceable by a free alternative image because all visual appearances are from modern copyrighted works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social movement to create "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" content, Creation of free/libre content does not have a higher priority than the creation of encyclopedic content. Some users, citing poorly worded and contradictory policies, believe nearly all "non-free" images should be deleted, whether or not they can be replaced with equivalent "free" substitutes. Editors cannot be expected to do original work for Wikipedia (as stated in the five pillars). If someone else's intentions for using an image contradicts fair use, it is not Wikipedia's problem. This content is also not replaceable by free text as the comprehension of a discussion would be impaired by the lack of an image of this subject. This image is an important visual representation of an subject that serves to immediately identify that subject in the real world and it serves exactly the same purpose on Wikipedia. This was specifically created to promote a product. The industry standard is that such images may be used for commercial or noncommercial purposes in illustration. This is an image that is useful and has no available free substitute. Fair use images can be distributed freely. As this content contributes significantly to at least one article, it does not serve a purely decorative purpose. One can not realistically expect this content to be released under a free content license, but the subject matter is hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. There is no legitimate question about whether or not this image is fair use. This photograph is properly used in accordance with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This image is properly used under our strict fair use guidelines, and when "free" images become available -- however unlikely, given the intellectual property issues involved -- they then can be uploaded as replacements The above seems to be a generic rant comprised of various selective quotes from the policy copied to several images, and has almost no relevance to the replacability of this particular image. I will however adress a few of the ponts to explain why I remain unconvinced. Firstly the claim that this is a (unique) publicity photo of the product(?!?) in question is clearly false (and people are not "contemporary copyrighted works"), the image is sourced to Wireimage, a commercal image agency who make theyr profit from selling images like this to other media outlets. The relevant part is the claim that no free image of this "subject" can be created, but it's only eluded to "intellectual property issues" as the reason for this. No explanation is actualy given as to why no one can photograph this person and release the image under a free liense though. Yes it's low resolution, yes it could illustrate the subject and so on, but that's not relevant as to wheter or not it's possible for a replacement to be created. So despite the unsubstancianted claims above it this seems entierly possible that a replacement could be created since it's just a generic photo of a living person. Not currently having a replacement is also not sufficient to keep such images. This is a Wikipedia policy issue, so what the US fair use law permits is also pretty much irrelevant in this case since the policy is deliberately stricter than the law. --Sherool (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.