Image talk:Katherine Moennig.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fair use disputed

This is an in-character publicity shot; it's Moennig as "Shayne" from the L Word. Unless someone sneaks on to the set, or unless you ignore the context-specific information this provides and narrowly and mistakenly assume that any possible picture of Moennig is interchangeable with any other picture, it can't be replaced with a free alternative. A screenshot from the show would probably be even more informative, however. Postdlf 15:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to revisit what #1 of WP:FUC says:

1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

That's pretty clear to me. This is a public person who is, obviously, still alive. Although it may be dificult to find or take a fair use image, it's completely possible. Because of this, it fails first fair use criterion. Roguegeek (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's revisit it again:

1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

A freely licensed photograph could be taken of any subject that exists, but it won't necessarily "give the same information," which you're failing to consider. Postdlf 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No. You assume this. I have taken it into consideration and it still fails. Roguegeek (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, what specific information are you trying to show? Roguegeek (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose to acquire an image showing what this individual looks like in the programme in question, without breaking onto the set as outlined above? Lankiveil 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Even if this image could pass first fair use criterion (which is doesn't), it's still missing fair use rationale in the description which should explain why it passes all 10 of the fair use criteria which is specifically asked for on the upload page. Roguegeek (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That will be easy to take care of. Postdlf 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's nice that it could it. It's still not there. Like I said above, though. It wont matter if it is. It fails first criterion. Roguegeek (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained that, you've just asserted it without actually discussing what information the image provides. I just added a FU rationale. BTW, there's a similar image at Image:Characters shane.jpg that is currently on the character article Shane McCutcheon. Only one of these two should be kept. I like this one better, but ultimately a screenshot would be best. Postdlf 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That image will most likely go also, but I'm not too sure about how it works when the article is about a fictional character. In any case, my focus is here right now and circumstances are different with a real living person. We should also keep in mind how lucky we are that Wikipedia lets us use any fair use images what so ever. All non-English Wikipedias don't allow fair use images of any kind. Roguegeek (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Far more than promotional photos (or even images of any kind) would go if fair use content was not permitted, but people often strain at gnats and swallow camels when it comes to this subject. Regardless, the image is being used to illustrate her portrayal of a fictional character that is discussed in her article, and a red carpet or candid grocery store papparazzi photo is going to lack all of that information specific to that role. Furthermore, just because one article is titled "Katherine Moennig" and the other "Shane McCutcheon" does not mean that the fictional character isn't a topic in both. But we should seek to replace it with a screenshot from the L Word, as that will be even more informative of her work. Postdlf 18:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing a promotional image of her depicts her fictional character? Where is this proof? If you didn't see, the promotional tag also asks for a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. None of that has been provided in the way described in the links. All I see is a little paragraph that address only a couple of the WP:FUC (and not properly to begin with) and it's not even in the numbered format Wikipedia asks for. Most images that fail fair use fail because the uploader didn't follow the clearly laid out instructions. Address this first before anything else because admins will just delete the file without even looking at the argument. Even if it is a promotional image that depicts a fictional character she plays, there's a place for that too! Her fictional character has her own article where this content can go. The Katherine Moennig article is no place for even passable fair use content (which this image clearly isn't). As for the other image, yes, I'm pretty sure the same guidelines apply to both articles which is why the other image is going to be placed for deletion also. Roguegeek (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No information about the character "Shane" depicted in the photo, hmm? So if I were to characterize Shane as a traditionally feminine, prudish and unstylish individual, the photo would have nothing to say about that? Would a red carpet photo of Moennig smiling in a frilly pink dress and with bows in her hair be useful to illustrate Shane? On the flipside, could the publicity photo be useful to illustrate Moennig as a person, such that it could be used as evidence of Moennig's androgynous, though still sexually charged and hip personal style? I'm sorry if this comes across as a personal attack, but you're simply not very good at analyzing an image's content and information if you can't understand these distinctions.

Your statement that the Moennig article "is no place for even passable fair use content" is without any basis. An album cover scan can be used in a musician's article that discusses that album, and a film screenshot can be used in a director's article that discusses that film. Fair use is justified by the substantive, informative content relating to the image's topic, not by something as arbitrary as the title of the article.

The most obnoxious thing about this conversation is that you're not viewing it as a conversation, or a process through which we can work everything out. You're instead trying to dictate results and you seem annoyed from the very fact that I'm disagreeing with you. You're really quibbling because I haven't inserted numbers in the fair use rationale, or yet taken the time to write the best paragraph possible? Take a deep breathe, start over, and realize you're talking to a seasoned, prolific and legally-trained contributor and administrator, not some newbie who just wandered in off the street. You're not going to get me to roll over by repeating your conclusions, but I'm amenable to persuasion if you can clearly state and explain your points, which you have not done yet. Postdlf 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend like you are sorry because you knew it was a personal attack before you said it. That's why it was disclaimed and that's why a warning (at the very least) is in order. I do enjoy, though, how you complete ignored the main fact I brought up in my last statement. Once again, a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. If this isn't there, any argument after it has no weight. Roguegeek (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You could have explained that you don't actually equivocate all pictures of an individual to be of equal informative value, or that you do understand the distinction between an in-character picture and one that's not, but you don't seem to disagree with that characterization. If that's the case, it's a fair description that your analysis of the image's content has been superficial, to the extent that you've actually analyzed it at all, which I haven't seen. You also could have responded substantively to my specific comments on the content of this image, and how it relates to the character specifically, but you failed to do so. If you're not actually going to respond to anything substantive I've said, it's time for you to move along because you're not actually accomplishing anything.

And if all you have left is the fair use rationale quibbles, the source of the image has been clearly stated as the Showtime website, and the Showtime network is also obviously the copyright holder of the website content as well as the L Word and its characters. Postdlf 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already stated a number of times my rationale for deletion. The core of this somehow was lost over this disagreement which is why I'll state it for the very last time. It does not pass the first fair use criterion because, even though no free equivalent is available at this time that would give the same information, the subject of the photograph still exists and, therefore, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. It is that simple. Roguegeek (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue for the moment of just what the "subject" of the photo is, I've already asked you to clarify that very point regarding the photo's "information": do you believe the words "adequately give the same information" in FU #1 are of no effect, and if so, why? Do you believe that any picture of "subject X" is replaceable with any other picture of "subject X", without there ever being any further consideration or qualifications, and if so, why? I suggest you also consider this relevant discussion, which at a minimum may show that there is not a consensus for that interpretation. This is your chance to explain why you hold your premises: you have my full attention. Postdlf 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep photo. Fair use qualifies in this case and the above argument by the editor attempting to delete does not square with reality. "Reasonableness" is a qualification in our policy and I don't believe it is reasonable to expect that a Wikipedian might sneak onto the TV series's set and capture a photo of this actress in character. Thank you, however, for your valuable input. Badagnani 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I would like you to answer one question, Roguegeek... how can a picture of a character ever be free? Think about that for a second and I think you'll realize we're not talking about a picture of an actress... we're talking about a picture of a character. It's not replacable in the sense that anyone can just go out and take a picture of this acress in character, nor can one take a picture while she's acting on the set and have it be "free", nor is a freely-licensed version going to be released by the studio. It passes FUC #1 because no free equivalent can be created, period. It's impossible. -- ChadScott 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if that is the case, it's only for the character article and not the bio article. But that brings up another question. Does it go both ways? What I mean by that is this. When a free use image does become available for Katherine Moennig, will that image also work in the character article? The actress is, obviously, a part of that article. Roguegeek (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, it does not go both ways because the character and the person are only related by the fact that the person plays the character, but the opposite is not true. I won't argue my strong opinions on the FUC here except to say a picture of the actress herself does not convey the same information as picture of the actress in character. -- ChadScott 18:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chad is correct that a picture of a character cannot be replaced. We will want to keep one picture for use in the Shane McCutcheon article. We obviously do not need two fair use images of the same subject, so one of the two should be deleted. The question is whether an image of the Shane McCutcheon character is a valuable addition in the Katherine Moennig article (i.e. whether it meets fair use criterion #8 in that article). My answer would be yes; as this is the role for which the actress is currently known, I think there is value in depicting that role in the article. Other people may differ on this, but that is an issue that can be worked out on the article's talk page. What needs to be decided now is which of the two images is to be kept. --Robth^Talk 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether or not an image of a character can qualify under fair use. I'm pretty clear on that to a certain point. I am questioning whether or not promotional fair use images of a fictional character could be used, though, under this specific article. Now if this was the only article on the actress and character, I'd agree with it just fine. The fact that there is a completely separate article for the character, to me, changes this. We have a clear distinction between living person and fictional character. So now, can an image serve two purposes of information? Well sure it can. This is understandable now. What isn't clear to me now is how two fair use images showing the same information even exist on Wikipedia. I guess they could if used separately in different articles where they can't be compared, but that just seems like a sneaky way to get from the fact that both exist. Roguegeek (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's no call for two separate fair use images in this case; I'm sure the other one was uploaded by someone who was simply unaware that this already existed. I think either one of them is adequate to use in both the character and actress articles to illustrate the character/role. I'm a little less confident of the origins of the other one though; it looks like it was cropped out of something larger, or modified in some way to remove a background. This one I know was taken as-is (except reduced) from the Showtime website. Postdlf 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a message about the two images on Talk:Shane McCutcheon to get comments about which one to keep. Postdlf 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

Not reading the above text.. my 2c are: The image does not fail the FUC as it is used within (not in an infobox) a body of text, it is providing critical commentary within that body of text. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View by Quadell

It is nearly always acceptable to use a non-free photo of a fictional character in the article about that character. It is sometimes acceptable to use a non-free photo of a fiction character in an article about the actor, and sometimes not, depending on how the image is used. In this case, the image is used in the "career" section, and not in the heading or an infobox or the "personal life" section. The career section includes information about the character. It seems to me that the image is acceptable to use in this context. It makes sense that this section would be illustrated by an image of the character, and no free image of the character could be created. Compare to Image:CreekPromoHolmesJackson.JPG in Katie Holmes, a featured article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you here Quadell, I fail to see how Shane McCutcheon could be depicted with a free use photograph. - hahnchen 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)