Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:The Fab Faux.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.

Keep: This is a proper example of fair use. It is exceedingly unlikely we'd be able to get these five people together, at a performance, and take a rights-free photograph that meets with the likeness approval (which then must be signed-off on as rights-free) of all five performers. This kind of silliness is why fair use was invented, and, in fact, is fair. Its tagging as a potential violation was done by people or persons with a very limited understanding and narrow interpretation of both fair use guidelines and Wikipedia policy, an interpretation that does not take in to account what's best for the community of WIkipedians, but instead, seems designed to protect future re-users of Wikipedia material.
 * They don't have to sign off on a new photo. Only the photographer does. As for protecting "future re-users of Wikipedia material", I plead guilty. That's the GFDL. It's important. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think images created for Wikipedia (and, btw, "taking new photos just for Wikipedia" is probably a violation in spirit, if not in letter, of a major Wikipedia pillar) are exempt from personality rights, but I'm sure you've got a reason. I don't believe there's an easy way to take a picture of a famous person without the famous person in question retaining those rights... Jenolen 09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the personality rights laws in Florida (and I suspect you don't, either), but in most states that recognize them (a minority of states, BTW), they only apply to commercial use. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  14:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused? Is Wikipedia a "commercial use"? Jenolen 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia is non-commercial use. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, 28 out of 50 is not a "minority." And given that Wikipedia is a legitimate non-commercial use, then tell me again what party is harmed by the inclusion of promotional photos?  Who benefits from the exclusion of promotional photos?  They are being appropriately used here... on Wikipedia.  Fairly.  Under a restrictive set of fair use criteria.  If Wikipedia is a legitimate non-commercial use, as you state, then why on earth do you insist on going beyond the normal, accepted criteria for fair use?  I mean, it just boggles my mind that you (and I!) have spent so much time on this sort of stuff, as opposed to writing, editing, and creating new articles for Wikipedia.  I'm going to spend more time doing that, and I encourage you to do the same.  But if you continue to make Wikipedia poorer, by your over-agressive interpretation of arcane bits of legalese, I'm sure you won't mind that I will continue to stand in opposition.  I am hopeful that you'll abide by the consensus that develops in this area.  Jenolen 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is harmed by the overreliance on fair-use images. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to have a re-distributable encyclopedia. Every fair-use image we have is a hinderance to that goal.


 * Let me ask you a question. You keep acting like I'm some rogue element here on an insane crusade, and that there's no basis in policy for my actions. I certainly may be wrong in classifying this or that image as "replaceable", but have you read the relevant discussions? This is not some random kick I'm on, but rather an enforcement of existing (and long-standing) Wikipedia policy. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)