Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Onslaught-boxart.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.

Per - This claims to be a promotional image, but does not identify an advertisement or press package whence it comes. Indeed, it comes from a fan website, and there is no documentation on Wikipedia or on the fansite asserting that copyright has been lifted for its use. It does not meet fair-use requirements since this image, meant to illustrate the toy, can easily be replaced with a photograph of the toy itself. --EEMeltonIV 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Added rational for licensing and changed to non-free character. user:mathewignash


 * "Character" applies to comics and whatnot. The artwork here clearly is intended to represent a product, i.e. the toy; non-free character is a similarly incorrect tag. These images still can be replaced with a photograph of the actual toy. --EEMeltonIV 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The tag states "This image is an illustration of a character...". It is just that. user:mathewignash


 * It's an illustration of a toy, which I'd contend is different. Ultimately, though, the toy itself -- which also represents the "character" -- can easily be photographed; this copyrighted image is easily replaced. --EEMeltonIV 02:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cant, the toy itself is copyrighted by hasbro and any images of toys are not considered free and thus replaciable fair use does not apply here and theres no evidence that rfu extends to unfree characters anyway as hasbro products are both character and toys altogeather anyway and many of the orignal toys are not made anymore. Int92 13:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ether way, changing it to product cover is possibly the proper licence. Int92 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see previous, discussions Int92 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Product cover" doesn't work either, since it's not actually the cover -- it's a piece of art excised from the cover. And, again, the product itself can still be photographed. --EEMeltonIV 12:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not make it a free image, see discussions listed above. Int92 12:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Free images of copyrighted products are still free images. You can take a photo of a copyrighted toy and released it under a free license. Now you would have to claim "fair use" on the representation of the copyrighted character, but you wouldn't have to claim fair use on the photo itself. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats not a valid argument, theres no such thing as free image of a copyrighted product. And realsing a photograph of copyrighted toy, character, under the free licence volates that companys own copyright policyInt92 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus people can take photographs of copyrighted products for their own personal use but they cannot display it for any other use like placing it on the internet etc, doing that is copyright infrigement and thus rfu does not apply to copyrighted toys, characters, screenshots and products and the defintion of a free image is :"there must be no significant legal restriction on its use, redistribution or modification, for any purpose" Taking photographs of copyrighted products dont make the image free because companies, organziations and enterprises can restrict the use of these images regardless of who took the photo and again RFU does not apply to toys, charcters and other copyrighted products. Int92 12:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This image requires a fair use claim to me made against both the use of the image itself and the depiction of the character that the image represents. A free photograph of the toy, while still a derivative image, would have to make a fair use claim only against the depiction of the character represented and not against the image itself. Depicting the toy cannot be done without making a fair use claim -- but we do not have to use a non-free image to do so. This image is therefore replaceable, and has been deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.