Image talk:Lohanspeak.PNG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tag replacement

At present, no known PD or free images exist (and, certainly, none since she was a small child). "[C]an reasonably be created" must assume reasonable availability for such an image to be created and, at present, neither the article subject nor her handlers make such opportunities common. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

She is a public person. Unfree images of such celebrites are not wellcome, see #8 in Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. Unless you have some reason to believe it's specially hard to produce a free image of this person, you should remove the disputed tag. Note that the fact that some person is a celebrity doesn't make it specially hard to make a picture of this person. Wikipedia has tons of free images of celebrities. --Abu Badali 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; please bear in mind that, as the editor who took this article through the WP:FA process, I am aware of WP:FUC. Please also note that, while we may have "tons" of free images of celebrities, there also exist "tons" of celebrities for whom we do not. Very few images of Lindsay Lohan exist outside of those taken and copyrighted by professional photographers; of those images, none of which I'm aware has been offered for free use. My objection stands. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

By the time this article was in WP:FA, there existed some interpretations of FUC#1 that would allow such image use. I'm not saying this image was uploaded and used in bad faith or in ignorance of rules. The point is that since September 9, Wikipedia:Fair use has been clarified to better express Jimbo's interpretations of the issue (according to and IRC chat with him). And now, it's is clearly stated that unfree images of living persons, objects, buildings and places do not pass the "unrepeatable" criterion on FUC. There's a lot of such images on Wikipedia, and they are all going to be removed. This one is just one more of them. For celebrities like this lady, the artilce is much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use one. --Abu Badali 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, this has changed considerably since the last time I read it in its entirety. Still, I would argue the image is acceptable under Wikipedia:Fair use#Acceptable uses where publicity images are specifically noted. Also, I was never of the opinion that you were suggesting bad faith. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)

Wikipedia:Fair use#Acceptable uses points us to Wikipedia:Publicity photos, which is an essay, not a policy not even a guideline. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is policy. Also, it was exaclty on the talk page for this essay that Jimbo expressed his opinion on the use of unfree images for celebrities: "...But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo". --Abu Badali 23:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo is Jimbo, but I think he's taking the issue too far. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I have to say I agree with his decision. The use of unfree images in such cases makes people lazy to go out and produce/find a free replacement. Of course, what comes to mind is "it's toooo hard to take pictures of celebrities"... but if we were around when Jimbo said "We're going to build a free content encyclopedia", we would have probably said "it's toooo hard to build..." :) Wikipedia is such a great project and we should never lost our faith on it.

So, would you mind reverting the "{{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag? Thanks, --Abu Badali 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not just yet; item #8 in WP:FUC specifically states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article..." in direct contravention to #8 in Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. I want to get clarification on the issue before I go further. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no contravention, RadioKirk. For an unfree image to be used, it should pass all 10 fair use criteria. An image of a random celebrity used to show how the celebrity looks like passes the criterion #8 ("contribute significantly to the article") but not criterion #1 ("No free equivalent is available or could be created"). --Abu Badali 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree; all 10 are met, in my estimation. Re #1, no known free alternative exists, therefore fair use is assertable; re #8, the image does "identify the subject of an article" rather than simply provide an image of a person "that merely shows what they look like." With all respect, my disagreement with your interpretation remains. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this image "identify the subject of an article" (when used in Lindsay Lohan). But it fails item #1. Please, re-read item 1 of FUC. It isn't enough that "no known free alternative exists" as you said. To be used, the unfree image should be that "No free equivalent is available or could be created". There's nothing preventing us to create a free image of this lady. You could say it would be hard, but building a free encyclopedia is a hard task. --Abu Badali 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When I attend conventions, I keep an eye out for Wikipedia-featured individuals who may be featured speakers or other attendees there so I can get a picture; I contributed shots of Richard Lederer (author, language pundit) and Alan Rachins (actor). Unfortunately, Lindsay Lohan hasn't been at the same convention as me yet. *Dan T.* 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your reading is too strict; could reasonably be created. I maintain that "reasonable" is subjective, and your read would require that virtually every fair-use image on Wikipedia be deleted. I will be back in a few hours. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you also implying that Jimbo's is also being "too strict" when he says it's better to have no pictures in such cases? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu badali (talk • contribs).

(reduce indent) I'm saying your read of Jimbo's intent is too strict—far too strict, in my estimation. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you read "...But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo." ? (to see it on its context, see Wikipedia_talk:Publicity_photos#This page is dangerous). --Abu Badali 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"[A]n ordinary photo of a random celebrity" would be an ordinary photo of a random celebrity placed in an article about celebrities. As you note above, this is an image of Lindsay Lohan in an article about Lindsay Lohan specifically designed to identify Lindsay Lohan—in other words, you've moved away from point #1 (which we were discussing) and back to point #8 (which you conceded). I'm sorry but, absent direct intervention from Jimbo at this point, we're arguing in circles. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "an ordinary photo of a random celebrity" has anything to do with FUC#8. Forget FUC#8. I'm only talking about FUC#1;

For god's sake, have you read Jimbo's statement on Wikipedia_talk:Publicity_photos#This page is dangerous? Do you still want more clarification? Can it be more clear than "In general, ordinary publicity photos of celebrities should not be used in Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license.". You're not being reasonable, RadioKirk. --Abu Badali 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I disagree with your assessment of Jimbo's intentions. Absent his direct intervention here, I'm done arguing. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for dispute intervention are usually (and wisely) ignored on Jimbo's talk page. You may want to work with editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Fair use first. Or you may want to simply put the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag back to this image. Otherwise, I see no other action to take other than sending this image to ifd. --Abu Badali 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then take it to IFD. I will not change the template; satisfaction of point #8 removes the word "ordinary" and all possible attendant meanings from the picture. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is ordinary because it's not historic, famous, unique or unrepeatable. I'm taking it to ifd so. --Abu Badali 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)