Image talk:Jennifer Granholm.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 of the debate was to Delete the image.

[edit] Fair Use

User talk:Chowbok marked this image as a copyright violation, but he's wrong. This photo is a freely released copyrighted image produced by the Government of Michigan and is sourced here: [1] --Jeff 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a copyright violation, I said it was replaceable. And it is. —Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable where, Chowbok? Steelbeard1 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The governor's office could release this or a similar photo under a license we can use, or a photo could be taken of her at a speech or other public appearance. —Chowbok ☠ 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, How do we do that? Do we E-mail the Governor's office? How would the Governor grant permission so you would honor it? Steelbeard1 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which discusses the issues involved and has some sample letters which you can use. —Chowbok ☠ 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The following was e-mailed to: http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995---,00.html Dear Gov. Granholm: I am one of the many volunteer editors of Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), a Web-based collaboration.

I respectfully request your permission to use your excellent official state portrait, at <http://www.michigan.gov/images/gov_hs_sm_54991_7.jpg>, as Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is a multilingual open-content encyclopedia that strives for complete and reliable content. Volunteers from around the world collaboratively create content, but Wikipedia depends upon photos, such as yours, to clearly illustrate that content.

It is to that noble end that I make this request. However, for Wikipedia to use your material, you must agree to the GNU Free Documentation License (often referred to as the GNU-FDL, or GFDL). In essence, the GFDL allows you to retain the copyright and authorship of your work, but grants permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). You can read the complete license at "wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text of the GFDL".

If you grant permission for use, we will credit you for your work, <and> state that it is used with your permission <<if applicable>, and provide a link back to your website>.

I sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please advise your decision of this request <by mail, email, telephone, etc.> and I will gratefully forward it to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thank you, and I hope you will consider accepting this request.

Sincerely, (my real name) Steelbeard1 03:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a nice message and I'm glad it was sent and even more hopeful that they might clarify what exactly the license is on the photos. However, I don't think every image on Wikipedia needs to be free of copyright. Fair use is perfectly fine and especially obviously fine in this case as the photo is obviously from a press kit. --Jeff 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Wikipedia policy is that we cannot use fair-use images if they are replaceable. —Chowbok ☠ 08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And as soon as you (or someone else) come up with a replacement that is equivalent to the one used and is licensed freely, i support the use of that photo. Until then, the image should absolutely not be removed. --Jeff 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It is blindly overzealous copyright paranoia to pre-emptively remove images like this without already having a free replacement in hand. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It actually has very little to do with "copyright paranoia", for me at any rate. It's just that I believe in our goal to be as freely-redistributable as possible. Experience has shown that as long as a fair-use image is in an article, nobody bothers to find a free replacement (and even if they did, it would as often as not be reverted because "the lighting isn't as good" or some such). Getting rid of the free images before we have a replacement is the best way to guarantee we will get a replacement. And it's not the end of the world if this article doesn't have a picture for a little while. —Chowbok ☠ 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but to me the costs/benefits of not having any picture vs. having a high quality image with minimal risk weighs pretty heavily towards keeping the picture. While there is no shortage of people willing to contribute text, there are relatively few contributors willing or capable of contributing high quality photographs of arbitrary subjects. The realistic prospects for actually getting completely free replacements for all of these images anytime soon is pretty slim. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All we need is one. I don't think it's that unlikely. —Chowbok ☠ 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have launched a "jihad" against the official governor's portraits. Your actions are heavy handed and unwarranted. Most of the headshots do qualify as "fair use" images and there for are not appropriate candidates for "speedy deletion." You are not the leader of wikipedia. You will have to get the opinion of other wikipedians on talk pages like this before you act in a dictatorial manner.--Megatropolis 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Oh, trust me, this has been discussed. A lot. This is not simply something I made up out of the blue. Please see User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation and the pages I link to there for some background. —Chowbok ☠ 01:06, 4 December 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)} 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I just simply could not possibly be further from how you feel about this issue. I believe your interpretation of the Wiki fair use policy is completely off base. The policy absolutely does not forbid fair use images. The way you interpret fair use is extremely strict and that's a shame. Rule #1 is the one most cited by folks from your side of the camp about why copyrighted promotional photos should not be used, but I read it and see nowhere where it says such images should be deleted! It also depends on your justification of equivalent. Is a posed, well lit promotional photo equivalent to an amateur photo of the person taken at a rally? Absolutely not! Highschool kids and people everywhere are writing papers about these people we create articles of and illustrate with photos. No one wants to use a crappy photo someone randomly took at a speach or on the street.

Rule #1 It says that a freer alternative should be used, but NOWHERE does it preclude copyrighted images, such as promotional photos, from being used nor justify their deletion! A freer alternative should be used if one is available. That's it. You sir are completely off base in this regard of going through and deleting photos that are perfectly used under fair use doctrine, as if by fiat. There is no wiki policy that supports the wanton deletion of images that are properly being used under wikipedia fair use policy. --Jeff 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But it says that fair use images should not be used if a free image exists "or could be created". That seems pretty straightforward to me. A free image could be created, therefore this should not be used. And "not used" means "deleted". As for there being no policy, you're wrong; there is a policy, and this is it. We've already deleted hundreds of photos as "replaceable fair use". Just because you didn't know about the policy doesn't mean it doesn't exist. —Chowbok ☠ 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are intentionally ignoring a key word in the Policy. That word is equivalent. I mentioned it above, and with your blinders on, you continually miss it. I contend that images like these simply do not have equivalent replacements. A photo taken on the street or at a rally by an amateur is not equivalent to a studio photo taken with cooperation of the subject in a properly lit, professional setting. --Jeff 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Equivalent" does not mean "just as professional in every respect". If that were the case, this policy would have no teeth. A decent amateur photo of her at a speech would be equivalent for our purposes. We're trying for as free an encyclopedia as possible, not the prettiest. —Chowbok ☠ 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're just plain wrong. [2] "3 : corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function" --Jeff 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok#Outside view by Jimbo Wales for Jimbo's view on the matter. (Jimbo, if you weren't aware is the founder of Wikipedia, Foundation Board Member Emeritus, and the one who pays the bills for all this.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of who Jimbo is and judging from everything he's wrote, wouldn't hold himself above anyone else on any issue (except a few bans he's made). I think it's funny (and a bit telling) that you are holding his opinion as policy. I seem to remember more than a few wiki pledge drives to pay for wikipedia. --Jeff 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I said his view, I didn't say his policy. Our policy on the matter is pretty clear, for those who aren't actively trying to get around it. I just wanted to point out that if you think my "interpretation" is "completely off base", then you have to also hold that the founder of Wikipedia is also completely off-base about Wikipedia's policies. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering: If the governor (or her representation) writes back, refusing to allow a photo to be licensed under GFDL, doesn't that effectively negate the possibility of a free image being created? Under the rule can be reasonably created, I think that in that case, it would be "unreasonable" to expect a free image (since the only way to get one would be against the person;s wishes). To me, that would make the current image irreplacable. TheQuandry 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Governer Granholm is a public figure. Therefore (as I understand the law, I am no lawyer) she cannot prevent photographers taking her image if she appears in a public place, as she no longer has an unfettered right to privacy. Any such image thus is subject only to the copyright restrictions the photographer places on it. This image now has a free replacement, so taken, which is equivalent enough... it is an image of her and is recent, and is adequately representative. It does not have to be as aesthetically pleasing or professional to be equivalent. The fair use image should therefore be deleted under our replaceable fair use policy. You may fault Chowbok for how that message has been delivered if you like (although I find no fault) but the policy is clear... Fair Use images complicate matters for downstream forks and feeds as the information is not totally free. Our goal is to be as free as possible. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, you are wise to consider the personality rights issues involved in a "free" replacement photo. These are state-by-state rights here in the U.S., so please make sure any replacement "free" photo addresses the rights appropriate to the state in which the photograph was taken, along with the state of residence of the subject (in this case, Michigan), and any other outstanding concerns. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Granholm's photo gallery (which contains the image) says:

Governor Granholm's photographs are available to the press, businesses, organizations, and individuals.

Doesn't that mean that it can be used on Wikipedia (an organization)?--JCGracik ^{talk c} 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That means it can be used. But it doesn't make it free, which is what Chowbok and other's who share his viewpoint are after. They interpret Wikipedia's purpose to create a wholly free (in every respect) encyclopedia with some sacrifice of quality. I, on the other hand, think Wikipedia should be able to use FU promotional photos in the name of quality.--Jeff 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.