Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-06 Linda Hamilton

Who are the involved parties?
User:Geno

User:Chowbok

What's going on?
Chowbok has a history of removing fair use images from many pages, even when the images are fully sensible content for those pages. He himself identifies the removed pictures as fair use. It seems as if Chowbok is following some kind of legal agenda rather than creating accurate and informative page entries.

I believe Chowbok cannot be objective in this issue, as he works for a company whose income is based on paid distribution of copyrighted images, Playboy Enterprises. (This is his own statement, from his personal page.)

The ongoing discussion is on the Linda Hamilton Talk Page.

What would you like to change about that?
I want Chowbok to cease all copyright or fair use image edits.

I would like someone involved in the administration of Wikipedia to confirm that it is not only acceptable, but sensible and reasonable, to post images of characters on actors' pages.

Administrative notes

 * Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Linda Hamilton
 * Case discussion will take place here

Discussion
Having viewed the discussion, including the picture of Sarah Connor in the Linda Hamilton may not be appropriate unless ther is a section devoted to her role as Sarah Connor. However, fair use images can be included in articles if there is no other free image that can be used. I would encourage both of you to read Non-free content. I would like both of you to make an short statement to clarify details-- Phoenix 15 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with your statement that "fair use images can be included in articles if there is no other free image that can be used". According to Non-free content criteria, the rule is that "[n]on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created" (emphasis mine). As a free image could be created of Linda Hamilton, a fair use image cannot be used, even if one is not currently available. This has been the justification for deleting thousands of fair use images in the last 10 months or so. In this case the image shouldn't be deleted, because a free image could not be created of Sarah Connor&mdash;but it has no place in the Hamilton article. The link you pointed to is less relevant, I believe, because that's simply talking about the law rather than Wikipedia policy, which is more strict. Note also that the page says that the fair use law applies "in addition to our other restrictions"; i.e., if it meets the criteria laid out in WP:FUC, then it must also be fair use according to the law. Since this does not meet our criteria in the first place, the law is irrelevant in this instance.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to approach this. There has been talk of Wikipedia policy, but think that any interpretation of Wikipedia policy that compromises article content must be mistaken. Perhaps a preference for free license materials over fair use materials has been interpreted as a requirement. I guess a summary of my point of view would be:


 * (1) Actors act; they portray characters.


 * (2) It's sensible to show an actor doing their work on their page. We show mail carriers carrying mail. We show a teacher teaching. Why would we not show an actor acting? The reason an actor gets an entry is that they are notable for portraying characters. Why would we not show them doing exactly this?


 * (3) No character images are are under a free license; all character images are copyrighted. This requires fair use and is the one of the reasons fair use doctrine exists.


 * (Let me clarify: I am pro free license. I agree that free is preferable, but I believe that fair use materials are required in this particular case of actors' pages.)


 * (4) If it is really Wikipedia policy that an image of a character cannot be used on the actor's page, then I guess I'm really asking for an explicit change in Wikipedia policy, based on (2) and (3), above. -- Geno Z Heinlein 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good arguements but I am here to help you reach a compromise rather than make a decision myself. Chowbock, it is possible that a free image could be created but it probably won't be. I would like you both to read WP:IGNORE as it may help you reach a compromiise. As I said above, I do not think a picture of Sarah Connor should be included unless there is a section about her role as Sarah Connor. Again, I am here to help you reach a compromise and these are just suggestion. I would like you to try and reach a compromise yourselves here. I will watch and comment where needed-- Phoenix 15 17:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't see this is an issue that's very amenable to compromise. It's not like arguing over the inclusion of a paragraph, where it could possible be rephrased to meet everyone's concerns; either this image is included in the article or it isn't. I don't see how WP:IGNORE is really applicable here, either; both Geno and I are already in good faith working to improve Wikipedia, we just disagree on what "improve" means in this case. This may need to be escalated.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What I mean by "compromise" is "reach a decision a between yourselves". I will watch and add comments etc. I still stand by my opinion that ther shouldn'd be a picture of Sarah Connor unless there is a section about her role as Sarah Connor-- Phoenix 15 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's what I propose. I've removed the image; I believe Chowbok is acting in good faith and I will honor that. What I ask -- and no one is obligated here -- is that we keep this topic and discussion open, and Chowbok, I'd really appreciate it if you would continue to support the idea of escalating this so we as Wikipedians can address this actor's page issue more definitively. The short version seems to be:


 * (1) WP:IGNORE, fair use and characters on actor's pages; possibly erring to a too liberal use of copyrighted materials, versus


 * (2) A much stronger preference for freely licensed materials as in WP:FU, using fair use only when absolutely necessary, and thus not using character images on actors' pages, and


 * (3) There is a need for a clarification or interpretation from above, since there is a lot of Wiki material to support both sides of the issue, with WP:FU and WP:IGNORE perhaps being the extremes.


 * Chowbok, please correct me if I've mis-summarized, or add if there's something I've left out.


 * I think a Sarah Connor section is a good idea, as the character page is more oriented to the stories and plot, and I'd like to add something here about the importance of the role as a role; but I don't want that to muddy the image issue and I will refrain from placing an image for the time being.


 * Until now, I've been involved mostly by making small edits, so I'm not sure what the next step up the chain-of-command is, and would value any advice. -- Geno Z Heinlein 01:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am assuming from the lack of response that everyone agrees with me that in-character pictures may be used on actors' pages. -- Geno Z Heinlein 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Non-free images may not be used to show the appearance of living people per WP:NFCC. This was specifically addressed in the Foundation's policy. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a lack of a response (although there have been plenty elsewhere) does not indicate a consensus towards your favour. Per WP:NFCC, the image should not be added because there is no free equivalent. There is no real manner to evade this, and "ignoring all rules" -- as you so stated in the edit summary -- is not acceptable.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are really two reasons why the image has not been included: So the first thing we need to do is decide that fair use is okay or else find a free image. We then need to write a section on Linda Hamilton's role as Saraf Connor. Of course, A section on Sarah Connor isn't desperatly needed so the image can be included but would be desireable-- Phoenix 15 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no Sarah Connor section in this article
 * All images of Sarah Connor available to wikipedia are fair use

Here is your admin response.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seicer, lay off. You have posted, what, four times now? I still do not have an answer. Not one person has answered what I'm actually saying. See the Linda Hamilton Talk Page for why. -- Geno Z Heinlein 09:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a long-standing editor to Wikipedia and your off-handed remark is not welcome. As it stands, Geno has "resigned" from Wikipedia, so the case is pretty much closed.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)