Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Samantha Morton.jpg

Deletion of former image at this title
Note: The following archived discussion is about an earlier, now deleted image with the name "Samantha Morton.jpg", not about the Commons image that currently exists at this title. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * 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.

Re: this image's "replaceability"&mdash;it's rather hard to get a "free" replacement for a screenshot from a copyrighted film. Postdlf 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about a replacement for an image that is used to show how a specific living person looks like? --Abu Badali 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate? You seem to be operating from some rather reductionist, unstated premises, and I don't think you're actually considering the specific image and subject at hand.  Postdlf 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is being used as the main (and only one) image on a bio article, and not in an article about a movie or a fictional character. --Abu Badali 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how that answers the question, but to deconstruct your premises insofar as I understand them (no one can ever accuse you of verbosity), an article about an individual is an article about their career, not just them as a free-floating, singular entity isolated from all other topics. An article about an actor is significantly about that actor's roles, and this screenshot illustrates one of Morton's most important roles, for which there is no free alternative.  Perhaps you need to elaborate further (beyond a single declaratory sentence) if I'm still not getting you.  Postdlf 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me also that the image is being used in the article to illustrate what the actor looks like, and not what she looked like in a specific role. This is because (among other things) it's at the top of the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well, it's a short article, so the layout options are limited, but would this edit change your mind, or would placing it in the filmography section?  Postdlf 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And what are the "other things", btw?
 * Hm. Well, the fact that there are no photos of the actor (not in any character) lend support to the interpretation that the existing image is used to illustrate the person. . . but there's not much you can do about that. This is one of those borderline cases. I would probably not delete the image, but I will leave it to the processing admin to decide. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.