Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:U2photo.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.

I tagged this image as not meeting the criteria for fair use. There is a free image available at the Wikimedia Commons, so the promotional photo is replaceable. —ShadowHalo 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image meets the criteria for fair use:
 * U2-released promotional image
 * Taken by Anton Corbijn, U2's official photographer - thus copyright owned by U2
 * This photo (and others similar presumably from same session) appeared in many magazine's promitional interviews with the release of the 2004 album.
 * It's low res - well, actually, it could be lower still, but that doesn't mean deletion.
 * it illustrate's the subject being discussed - it is the only decent image in the article, including those provided by ShadowHalo which show almost nothing - and larry playing keyboards (only down it one song last year)


 * As for the assertion that "This image fails the fair use criteria since "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken" - that's rubbish. In theory, maybe, but which wikipedian is going to get it? Thus, it "cannot be taken". --Merbabu 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a freely-licensed photograph can certainly be taken since it already has (like this one). —ShadowHalo 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I mentioned it above. Is the fact that it is unclear and unrepresentative of any importance to the issue? I think it is. --Merbabu 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, it doesn't seem to be unclear and it certainly doesn't seem unrepresentative. In fact, it's probably more representative in that each member is play his respective instrument (except, obviously, for Bono).  It also seems rather clear to me, especially since it can be shown in its full 1954x1728 resolution, unlike fair-use images which must be scaled down.  Also, WP:FU states, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available."  —ShadowHalo 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unclear - you can barely see the faces of two of the band members, even in the hi res version.
 * The fair use image is very clear – even if it was scaled down further. It is much clearer, particularly in that it doesn’t have to be clicked on twice.
 * It is unrepresentative – Larry Mullen is playing a keyboard f*s!!!!
 * But is is not an alternative. It’s does not illustrate the bad either clearly or representatively. The image shows the band, and is better quality at illustrating that.
 * I’ve mentioned all this in my post above. Please don’t ignore it. --Merbabu 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, is the clarity of the image even relevant here? "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."  U2 are in no way in recluse (unlike the exceptions to removing fair use images, like J.D. Salinger).  They make public appearances all the time at concerts, award shows, etc.  A free equivalent could indeed be created.  You asked which Wikipedian is going to get it.  Well, U2 can be added to Requested images.  Regardless of who takes the picture, a picture can indeed be taken.  So a promotional image fails the first fair use criterion.  —ShadowHalo 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "is the clarity of the image even relevant here" - lol. are you serious? In that case why not just put a black box and say it is U2 in the dark. Clarities everything. What good is an unclear picture? As for the ability to take a photo, you are being completely unrealistic. Where do you propose someone takes a picture that is not copyright. The tour is just about over (or is it over already). A suitable free picture almost certainly cannot be found. Seriously, how likely do you think it is?? This whole thing smells of wikilawyering. It is a guideline: that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."--Merbabu 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. What I'm saying is that this image would fail the first fair use criterion even if there were no free image available (yet) since the criterion says "could be created". I propose that someone get a picture of U2 the next time they make a public appearance, whenever that may be. They've been nominated for a Grammy, so no doubt they'll appear there. Regardless, it is most certainly possible that someone take a picture of them. Because you're right: there are exceptions. But the exceptions are only when the subject of a picture is in recluse; for example, it's hard to take a picture of Osama bin Laden if he's hiding. However, this is not a guideline. It's a policy. You'll see so at the top of the WP:FUC page. —ShadowHalo 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * U2 are elusive - while not hiding in a cave, they don't go around posing for photos for wikipedians. THe tour's over and another tour might be 5 years away, in which case one has then gotta get front row seats. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia send a representative to the Grammys? This is ludicrous - the fact that there aren't decent free images (only the rubbish pics you offer) shows just hard it is. Your suggestion for "someone" to get a picture is just, I'm sorry to say, stupid, and is based on an unresonable and perfunctory application of rules. It's completely unrealistic. --Merbabu 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They don't need to pose for photos for Wikipedians. For example, the free pictures that I've shown here weren't (so far as I know) taken by Wikipedians; rather, some person took the picture and posted it on Flickr under a Creative Commons license.  And even if they're no longer touring, they're still making public appearances; the Grammys is just the one I knew off-hand.  And while they're still making public appearances, a free picture can still be taken.  —ShadowHalo 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete - The image ShadowHalo is suggesting is not equivalent - somebody snapping a shot of U2 from the pit in Madison Sq Gardens is not equivalent to a promotional shot. The test is (from FUC) to ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" The answer: no, therefore it should stay.

I would also suggest that ShadowHalo read IAR: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them, unless you've been drinking." (This is official policy.)

Finally, the image is a promotional shot, photographed and distributed in order to promote U2. It is being used here in the sense that its owners intended. Even if it was not already coverd by fair use, please, have a little cop on. --sony-youth 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on several points. First, that quick question does not sum up the fair use policy.  As the following sentence states, it identifies some (but not all) of the images that should not be uploaded.  Also, a free equivalent can certainly be created.  For example, User:Merbabu pointed out on my talk page that there was an image of even better quality taken by someone who does not seem to identify himself as a professional photographer and who may be willing to license the image under the GFDL.  As you can tell from the above discussion, we probably have different impressions of what improving Wikipedia means.  User:Merbabu seems to believe that the higher quality image takes precedent; I disagree and believe that keeping Wikipedia free takes precedent.  —ShadowHalo 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - I didn't say that quality always overrides keeping wikipedia free. It's just that that particular image is of such low quality as a represetative photo (not in terms of resolution though) that i suggested that it is NOT the "alternative" that WP:FU requires. In fact, irrespective of copy issues, I'd rather NO pic than that particular concert pic. I'm OK in principle, with replacing a FU image with a lower quality free one, as long as the free one has some quality. --Merbabu 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I meant the quality of the image as it pertains to this situation. Thanks for clarifying though.  —ShadowHalo 03:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The image that you refer to on flicker is not a free equivalent (note the "© All rights reserved"). If the owner of this work agrees to license it under the LGPL then it will be, at least, free, but currently it is not.  Please, in future, do not say that a free alternative exists unless it actually does. --sony-youth  20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. I said that the author "may be willing to license the image under the GFDL" (I noted that he didn't identify himself as a prof. photographer since they often are hired such that their work won't be used by anyone else commercially).  —ShadowHalo 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For those interested in following this conversation, see comments across our talk pages (sony-youth, ShadowHalo) --sony-youth 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My comment on the first criterion of WP:FUC for this image:
 * No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. → at the moment, there is no free equivalent image. The Image:U2AtMadisonSquare.jpg is not equivalent because it does not give the same information with this image. A face of one of the band members is not recognizable.
 * If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. → well, somebody can ask the owner of this image: on Flickr. If we get lucky, we will be able to upload it to wikipedia or commons. However, at the moment, we don't have it yet, so FUR image is allowed.
 * However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. → yes, but not a celebrity like U2. Do you want to compete with paparazzi? :-)
 * The ultimate FUC question: Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect? → not yet. The free Image:U2AtMadisonSquare.jpg does not give the same effect.
 * Conclusion: keep the image. It does not violate WP:FUC criteria. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the presence of a free image would change whether or this one meets the fair use criteria. If an adequate free image could be created but does not exist, then an image fails WP:FUC.  If an adequate free images does exist, then an adequate free image obviously could be created since it exists, and the image fails fair use.  At the moment, an image of lesser quality exists (I believe it's adequate, but others disagree and are free to do so).  But I believe the existence of this image shows that it is certainly possible to create an adequate image.  There's no reason that if this picture can be taken, another one like it in which the fourth member is more visible cannot be taken.  —ShadowHalo 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The presence of free image if it could be created that would adequately give the same information. Read the boldface several times, please. Let say you go to a photo booth and take 2 pictures. One from the front that show your face; and the other from behind. Do you think that the two will give the same information? And lesser quality does not mean giving two equal information. For instance, you take another picture from the front that your face is visible but your camera has dirts in the sensor. The picture will be dirty and gives lesser quality but the same information. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 07:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I missing some part of what you said? The image shows the front of U2, not the back.  I'm also not seeing what extra information is conveyed by a camera that is not "dirty".  Photo retouching really doesn't add much information (at least, not in this case).  —ShadowHalo 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell me if you can recognize the face of the U2 member who holds a guitar at right side of Bono at this image. Is that image shows the front of his face?? Is that image gives the same information with the image that we are talking about here??? Oh come on, I gave you one example of what is lesser quality image. It does not mean that it always a "dirty" picture. Please don't mix between "gives the same information" with "lesser quality image". They are different things. One is about the content and the other is the image quality. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted. While there's some debate as to whether or not a freely-licensed replacement is currently available, there's no doubt that the subject of the image still exists. WP:FU criteria on replaceable images is not whether or not a free image currently exists but whether one could be created. And specifically, one can be created if the subject still exists. --Yamla 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.