Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Shauna parsons.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.

FU dispute
This image could only be replaced with another fair use image, such as a image capture of a newscast. I don't see the rationale behind substituing one fair use image for another. Fourdee 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither do I and I am removing the ridiculous tag until the tagger comes up with a satisfactory explanation. --Irpen 04:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * She attends public events outside the studio from time to time, correct? And we have Wikipedians from Portland, correct?  If so, then the image seems to be replaceable.  --Interiot 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And do you think that amateur photo taken in the street conditions is a good replacement for a professional image specifically taken to represent the subject and released to the public specifically with that very purpose? --Irpen 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "I'd rather have an image from a wikipedian that's not quite as good, than a professional image which we can only use under the very narrow doctrine of fair use. We're not fundamentally about having a really pretty encyclopedia, we're fundamentally about having a free encyclopedia, and in the end that's far more pretty, if you ask me." -Jimbo  --Interiot 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless Jimbo is making an executive decision in his god-king capacity where he can overule the consensus, he is just expressing his opinion similar to you and me. As such, this carries as much weight as the opinion of another respected Wikipedian. Also, "Jimbo said" that in any discussions the argument that starts with "Jimbo said" should be replaced with something more meaningful. --Irpen 22:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the page was deleted under the pretence that it "clearly" violates the fairuse policy. I don't see the such clear judgement from the discussion in any way. --Irpen 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First, the Policy was recently rewritten by a narrow group of deletionists with no input from other Wikipedians. Second, even the current policy if interpreted in good faith does not forbid the image. My point exactly is that it is impossible to create a free image that would reasonably replace the current one because we are talking about the entetainer whose looks play a significant enough role in her public perception. If a professional quality publicity image is replaced by a amateur image taken in the street, the article would be deprived of too much of its usefulness as the replacement amateur image would not in any reasonable way illustrate what the article is all about.

Generally, the problem is two-fold. How reasonable amount of effort would it take to get a replacement image and how reasonable is to expect that the image taken within a reasonable effort would reasonably provide the same adequate information to the reader.

To the first question the answer is it depends. Taking an image of a notable building or church located in an area that we expect to be frequented by Wikipedia editors is withing reasonable effort. At the same time taking an image of the top of Everest or of the back side of the Moon is in principle possible (Pay $$$ to Roskosmos and they will take you to space). These are two extreme case where it is easy to judge whether a free picture could reasonably be created. There are lots of territory between them and each case should be judged my its own merit. How likely is for a Wikipedian with a Camera to meet a particular person in conditions where one can make a good enough photoshot (note the words good enough). Suppose the person is accessible, like the sibject is a regular college professor who walk in his university every day. Quite another case is when the subject lives quite an exclusive life (and not necessarily secluded one). Chances of meeting such person in conditions that may produce a reasonably acceptable photo are very unlikely.

Second question is how well such a picture, if taken, illustrate the article. I guess for a professor or a writer such amateur image as a replacement of a professional one, would not miss somethin critically important for the article's reader. In the end, how exactly such people look is of secondary importance. But what about the entetainers whose looks played an important role in making them notable. Does a PD mugshot of a celebrity caught drunk-driving provide an adequate information to the reader to understand the article? Of course it is not.

Of course getting the image subjects releasing their images for free would be the best solution. The proposal of organizing such campaign has been cleverly floated at Chowbok's RfC. Perhaps we will start getting more such approvals if this becomes an organized effort. However, for the cases where no such image is available, the fair use publicity images are irreplaceable. --Irpen 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Shauna Parsons? Pretty face/talking head, very marginally notable. I question whether she deserves an article, but I would say that for sure she doesn't deserve a picture, when the idea of using publicity pix is so fraught and exception to no-copyrighted-images should be made only in the more extreme and important cases. Her 15 minutes are up, 86 her pic. Herostratus 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue whether she is notable for an article needs to be resolved at the AfD only. This discussion here should be based on the propriety of the usage of the image for an existing article rather than the hypothetical issue of the article's right to exist. As such, we start from the article being here and the assumption that it is to provide the reader with the information that gives the best idea of the article's subject. The articles about a TV perosnality (again we presume from the article existence that notability is there), being stripped of the image on what she looks like during the activity that makes her notable is deprived of information that is crucial for the reader. There is no indication that the free license image that would reasonably convey the info to the reader may be obtained in this case. Random image taken in the street is unlikely to be made and would certainly not convey the info on what makes this particular person succesful (or unsuccesful) in her specialty.

So, I say keep. Again, if the subject it not notable, PROD or AfD the article. Also, Fairuse IS the policy and using Fairuse image is not bending the policies if they are used properly. --Irpen 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Notability aside, if you believe that it would be impossible (or ridiculously difficult) for anyone to photograph this person, then there is at least a debate on the photo's replaceability. But if you admit that someone could photograph her at some point (and I don't see how you could avoid this conclusion), then your objection is with the policy in general, not with the replaceability of this particular image. Debates on policy belong elsewhere. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong since this is the debate within the policy. The issue is not only about possibility of someone taking "some" photo of her but the acceptable photo in the context of the article. The policy states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." (That is of course within the article's context.) as Fairuse claim is article specific. The case has been made that the expectation that the free image could be created that would adequately give the essential information in the specific article are unreasonably low. --Irpen 07:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.