Wikipedia talk:Replaceability of fair-use images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] some practical examples

How would you envisage applying this proposal to, say Russell T. Davies, Aaron T. Beck. Would personal knowledge be needed? Thanks..luke 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to have some sort of discussion based on the criteria, of course, and establish what people knew and what efforts to contact either of them personally or a representative yielded. I don't see anything in either article that could establish anything. Yet.
The question would be, which direction would we default to if a criterion cannot be conclusively met? Daniel Case 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, so now you'll see that Prof Beck's image is gone from Wikipedia. I've written to him twice at the address given on his web page, but with not even a response. And Russell Davies's image is not even tagged (a fan site says he is as easy to contact as the Queen, by the way)...any comments please. ...luke 07:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree with this proposal

I have carefully read this proposal and I fully agree with it. Although I have been fully executing the current 7-day deletion of "replaceable" images (personally deleting or tagging some 100 images) it is clear that we need good guidelines of what replaceable means. I would ask for a clarification on one point: "If a product, is currently on the market", it counts as replaceable. What about products that used to be on the market, but haven't been for decades? Because many old products no longer being sold are collectibles or displayed in museums (or car shows, for classic and antique automobiles), I think that they fall under replaceable too, and the wording should be changed slightly. Andrew Levine 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought about that and I will add appropriate language. Daniel Case 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also products that are on the market but are exceedingly rare or are distributed in channels not accessible by the general public. Such things as the interiors of luxury yachts or corporate aircraft, aircraft cockpits, the inner workings of large sea-faring vessels, etc. It would be nice to have a criterion allowing promotional pictures available under a fair-use rationale if they are of products, vantage points, or items that would not be encountered or accessible to the general public. -- ChadScott 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the proposal has been updated since I last read it, so I think my above concern has been met. -- ChadScott 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This would certainly be an improvement over the de facto current policy in which pretty much everything that gets noticed gets deleted. john k 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing as I consider this more fully: Professional athletes who are still in their playing careers probably fall under the "reasonably replaceable" heading rather than "may not be reasonably replaceable," because sporting events are accessible to the public and the athlete's permission is not required. The exceptions would include players who are retired, or who play in leagues/venues where professional-quality cameras are not permitted (I know that at least some NFL stadiums forbid them). Andrew Levine 07:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That was what I had in mind when I wrote the guidelines, yes. And, to be fair, professional-quality cameras are allowed for media photographers who have sideline passes. I'd love to see someone apply for such a credential strictly to shoot images for us ... I wonder if you'd get it ("hello, wikinews sports desk").
Even if it got disallowed, there would probably be at least a few photographers with passes who'd be tempted to share low-res images here (and, more to the point, would be freelancers not bound by employment terms in which any images they create on the job are their employers' and not their own).
We do have free pictures of athletes in game situations. See this picture of Peyton Manning. Of course, that also illustrates my point elsewhere about unrepresentative pictures ... wouldn't you rather see him in a Colts' uniform than those generic Pro Bowl ones? Daniel Case 07:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this gets back to the FUC#1 comment about "adequately conveying the same information." A picture of Manning in civilian garb or in a Pro Bowl uniform does not adequately convey the same information as a picture of him in his Colts uniform. If "adequately conveying the same information" is interpreted as broadly as that, it may as well be taken out, as it is entirely meaningless. john k 15:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But here's a great fan image (taken, I bet, from a good endzone seat) that's also free. It's not impossible. Daniel Case 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Should our guideline be based on impossibility, or likelihood? Just because it is possible to get a free use image does not mean that we should delete fair use images pre-emptively, imo. If we have to delete perfectly legal promo images for which we don't have replacements, imo we should limit the instances we have to do this to cases where it is obviously genuinely easy to get a free picture, not to cases where it's merely "possible". john k 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And on pictures of athletes in action I'd be willing to be flexible. The general public is not always likely to be able to get the shots professionals do. Therefore, such photos of active athletes competing should, at best, have {{fair use replace}} on them. Daniel Case 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small difficulty

  • I'm very pleased someone has written this. It's well done, I must say. However, I have one small difficulty - I think the "At one point in their lives, allowed or is likely to have allowed a public-domain image to have been taken of themselves" criterion is too general, and directly contradicts the pointers on what may not or is not reasonably replaceable. For example, someone could meet any of the following (the "may not" criteria):
      • Makes limited or unscheduled public appearances only (therefore their appearance cannot be predicted), or
      • Rarely grants media interviews or allows few, if any, photographs to be taken of themselves for professional purposes, or
      • Regularly resides or works in a location not generally known or to which access is restricted, or not among non-notable individuals, or
      • Resides in a known location, but distant from population centers, or
      • Does not go about their daily affairs in locations freely accessible to the general public, or
      • Discourages photography of themselves, or permits it only at a distance which can adversely affect the quality and representativeness of an image taken using commonly available photographic equipment.

However, I would hazard to say that in a lot of disputable cases, the inclusionists will cite these, but the deletionist will cite the above phrase to try and get rid of the photo. If that phrase is to be allowed, it should fit in more with what may not be, or what isn't a reasonably accessible and replaceable photo.

I would include politicians and judges in some countries in the "may not" category as well. There are exceptions, but coming from Australia, most of them you can't get anywhere near usually, especially in their work environments. JROBBO 12:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I wrote that PD exception is because these do exist. That's what we have for Thomas Pynchon, for example, and it's representative because, well, he's not let anyone take a picture of himself since he was in college. Also, we use a heavily-edited PD image for what I would still consider a representative, if dated, lead picture of Michael Jackson.
I think I need more clarity about what is and isn't a representative image. Daniel Case 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this point is a bit off. I'm not sure I understand its utility at all. If we can find a public domain image, then it should be used. If we can't find one, the idea that it's theoretically possible that one already exists shouldn't be used to delete an existing image, I think. john k 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That is why I wrote these guidelines. I was sufficiently upset when the image of Alice Sebold I had found, the subtle, shadowed portrait used on the cover of The Lovely Bones was deleted under this new policy, which I hadn't heard about, on the apparent grounds that, since she's alive and not a recluse (never mind that an attempt to find out where she lives (in the sense more specific than "Southern California") just failed on switchboard.com) a free image could be created. Oh, I asked her agent about the photo, and they told me to call up the photogrpaher ... in Italy! Do I get the sense the free-image mujahideen didn't stop and think about things like this when they headed out into the image galleries with their {{replaceable fair use}} tags? Well, one of them did and said that, since he had gotten a lot of "professors and porn stars" to release rights to pictures of themselves, it couldn't be that difficult, could it?
Anyone who has ever had, as part of their work obligations, some responsibility for publicity photos of celebrities knows that you're just better off with fair use, that you are not going to get rights released or Creative Commons licenses that easily. Yes, it's nice when we do. But we can't count on it. That's why the may be replaceable category exists, for these judgement calls.
As for the theoretical possibility that a PD image exists, either they are easily found and used if we aren't already, or they're not. It's easy to settle, usually. Daniel Case 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another item to consider

There are some countries (such as Japan) which have case law which forbids the taking of photos without the subject's permission, and punishments can include fines and jail time (though rarely the latter). How do we address this in these proposed guidelines? I'm currently attempting to find examples of this, but doing so (searching legal writings) in a second language is not an easy task. So, in the case of Japanese celebrities who rarely, if ever, travel outside of Japan, finding or obtaining free use images is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and I don't think Wikipedia wants to condone lawbreaking just to obtain an elusive free use photo. I don't know if there are any other countries with similar laws, but I imagine they exist. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of cases are these? Are we talking people getting convicted for taking photots of celebreties performing in public or signing autographs or whatever, or are we talking perverts sticking camera phones up the ladies skirts on packed trains and such? There are usualy degrees of this stuff, and just because something is illegal doesn't nessesarily mean you can never photograph someone without written permission first. Though I'm obviously not familiar with Japanese law. --Sherool (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Getting free photos of Japanese celebrities is almost (if not entirely) impossible. Just check out the Japanese Wikipedia and see how many images there are there of celebrities. We have all these fair use image deletionists running around deleting thousands of images that will likely never have a free use equivalent,. They don't listen to anything anyone says about it, and they act as if those of us uploading the images had just crawled out from under a rock and are hardly worth their time. It's very frustrating to deal with them even with detailed fair use rationale provided in addition to the existing fair use templates that are provided. The contracts these celebrities sign with their talent agencies almost always specifically forbid them from releasing any photographs not authorized by the agency, and the agency isn't going to release any of their images into the public domain or under any license that won't let them do whatever they want to do with the photos. That's how they make their money after all. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe California has a similar law against publishing a photograph of a person without their consent called the "Right of publicity". Fourdee 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love it

This is much needed. There is too much gray area in "replaceability". I think we need to now have a well worded guideline for what is "representative", as well. I have a problem with the PD guideline as well, but I think that could be fixed by taking out the hypothetical "is likely to" phrase. "Likely" is just too vague of a word. – flamurai (t) 12:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is something that is very much needed. Many fair-use images are being deleted without any replacement being available, and that damages the encyclopedia (IMO) more than having a fair-use image. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Dittos. I am seeing images deleted on the grounds that, theoretically, someone could go out and take a free image of them. Well, that is all fine and dandy, but it isnt always practical. IF aa free use image is available, it should be used, but if no free use images exist, it shouldnt give enforcers the right to go out and delete images when no replacement is currently available. I would think that all of us would cooperate in the finding of free use images, but using the policy as a stick for coercion (if I delete the fair use image that will force people to go out and take a photo of the subject and donate it) seems patently unfair and wrong. People are donating their time to make an encyclopedia. That type of coercion against volunteers is insulting. Caper13 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for working on this. It looks great. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right of publicity

California's Right of publicity statute and common law precedents may actually prohibit any use of the image of a person without their consent, especially for a commercial purpose which Wikipedia may potentially be used for. Photographing people without their permission may also be an invasion of privacy in some cases. How does this come into play? Fourdee 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A challenge

I'm glad to see this page taking off, especially as it's my first-ever venture into crafting project policy.

Now I have an idea. Let's test these guidelines on some real subjects:

  • Helen Mirren: I noticed when I was working on The Queen after I saw the movie a couple of weeks back (which I highly recommend, BTW), that the article about her lacked both an infobox and an image other than a bunch of stills whose use in an infobox would be impermissible. From what I can find out about her, she seems to be about as public a person as any prominent British actor. Would someone be likely to catch her and take a picture walking around on the streets of Islington, where she lives? If you hung out at the stage door after a theatrical performance and she came out, would she pose? would she want to?

    I know nothing about this ... can our British colleagues speak to this? And if you think you could create a free-use image, would you be interested in actually trying? (Seriously)

  • Anna Wintour: Another Englishwoman, this time in New York. We have no picture currently of the legendary Vogue editor (we did once, but it got bounced for something having to do with bad sourcing and I didn't like it anyway). She appears in public a lot, but at some distance. If I called her office and said I was with Wikipedia and I'd like one minute to take a good free-use picture of her, am I likely to get it? Does anyone want to try? Or can you find a good picture on, say, Flickr and persuade someone to change the licensing? (Actually, I did this right now and — voilá — this picture is CC but with an NC endorsement (plus I wouldn't use it if I had my druthers), and this is great but you'll have to persuade the photographer to release it (And it doesn't sound like he'd be amenable). Try this one ... it would be my fave for the article. (In fact, I'm emailing the photographer right now).

    OK, maybe this was too easy. Daniel Case 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was too easy. I got the Wintour photo I wanted (she's wearing sunglasses indoors — very representative) and it now graces the article. Daniel Case 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Anna Wintour Experience

Maybe it wasn't. Hereby hangs a tale that should be read by anyone who wonders why some of us were advocates for less strict fair-use enforcement.

I uploaded the picture to the Commons only to find it deleted the next morning. Apparently the admin read the wrong license tags on the original picture. It took one more cycle and me uploading a screenshot of the Flickr page with the correct licensing indicated to get the image accepted.

So, again, this calls into question the fact that we have no real policy page on dealing with Flickr images. What do we do if, in a situation like this, I can't get communication from the image author that clarified contradictory licensing info there? Is there some sort of default assumption that you stick with the more restrictive license? How does Flickr let this happen, for that matter? Is it some bug in their software that we should be aware of? And what are the implications of the answers to these questions for our replaceability guidelines? Daniel Case 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Now to try with Dame Helen ... Daniel Case 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publicity photos

I first became aware of this proposed guideline during a discussion regarding the copyright status of Image:Rodneytom.jpg. I feel that the proposed guideline is insufficiently flexible with regard to images that are deliberately created and distributed by their subjects to serve as their illustrations in media. These images are not, in my opinion, truly "repeatable"; in the example I gave as in literally hundreds of other publicity stills that adorn Wikipedia, the subject sat for a carefully-posed studio portrait and presumably approved the end result. A candid snapshot would not accurately repeat the effect.

These images are, again, created for the express purpose of illustrating their subjects. Surely their use for this purpose could not be construed as anything but fair. I do not believe there are any legitimate copyright concerns over using Rodney Tom's press image to illustrate an article on Rodney Tom, nor using Cristine Gregoire's press image to illustrate an article on Christine Gregoire, nor using Jennifer Granholm's press image to illustrate an article on Jennifer Granholm, nor using any of the press photos which are fairly used on Wikipedia. I've seen no evidence of any clear consensus that this should not be the case, and until and unless the community inexplicably decides to purge these fair uses, press photos should not be subject to speedy deletion. VoiceOfReason 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it seems so far that the consensus has been that we can use press photos only when they are clearly identified at the point of original download as such, with an appropriate license visible, and we have asked to use them. So the {{promophoto}} template seems to say.
This proposal is meant to fill a need the decision to more strictly enforce FUC #1 created: when is an image replaceable? In my experience as well as that of many others here, the original fair-use mujahid were incredibly naive about that. Daniel Case 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Part of the argument against is not necessarily that it's a problem using a photo on Wikipedia, but that it would be a problem on derivative works (specifically for-profit works). – flamurai (t) 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why this is particularly true, though. Numerous for-profit entities use these kinds of photos. The Internet Movie Database, for instance, is, so far as I can tell, for-profit, and it is not clearly "media," either. john k 07:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Good luck actually getting anywhere with this, though. (you might look at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, if you haven't already). john k 07:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, if by "consensus" you mean "the loud voices of a few", I agree with you. But this is by no means the first silly cause to attract loud voices. I only became aware of this because of the attempted deletion of Image:Rodneytom.jpg (which, I am sorry to say, seems to have led directly to jihadi attacks on Image:Gov_Romney2HRes.jpg and Image:GregoirePicture.jpg), but I am certain that were Wikipedians more aware of this crusade being led by a noisy few, the vast majority would see it for the farce it is.
Harsh? Maybe. Not WP:CIVIL? If not, I'll take my lumps and return after my suspension. But I call it like I see it, and what I see is a handful of people determined to make Wikipedia worse. VoiceOfReason 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the above paragraph(s) is so very well-phrased. Congrats. Tvccs 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I empathize. I found out about this little crusade when I got a notice that the picture of Alice Sebold that I had uploaded (basically the B&W book-jacket photo, by far IMO way better and more flattering to the subject than the alternatives, was removed from the page and deleted.
I accepted the rationale for this, even did my bit to find free-use images for other people, but at the same time I knew, from my own work experience, that simply because a subject was living and not a recluse did not mean that it would be easy to take or obtain a good-quality photo of him or her. I thought the original backers of this policy change were incredibly naïve as to how this sort of thing works in the real world, something I could address through relevant work experience. These guidelines are my attempt to mitigate the damage I believe would be done to Wikipedia otherwise. I am pleased to see this discussion happening.
And let me also say that the original genesis of this was an understandable concern that well-meaning novice editors were, despite cautions on the image upload page, assuming that any photo of a celebrity was automatically a publicity photo. However, the solution to that IMO would have been better educating these editors about what genuinely constitutes fair use and what can come under a publicity photo. Someone already wrote an essay on publicity photos that embraces the new FUC #1 standard; your energy on that direction might be better expended commenting over there.
So, here we are trying to fill the gap. Since Jimbo threw his weight behind the change I think this is the best we can do. Daniel Case 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think the above essay on Publicity photos means anything in reality in regards to FUC #1, think again. Admin Quadell, the lead Fair Use of living persons image destroyer of present, completely blew this off as functionally meaningless, and recently destroyed 29 of my images that were mostly very carefully obtained, in some cases personally from the artists themselves, fair use/publicity photos. Those of us that have cited this essay, especially on the now-endless Chowbok Rfc pages, have been targeted and attacked by those that take a near-absolutist position on the issue of fair use of living persons, and we have seen dozens of valuable Wikipedia contributors left angry, and in some cases simply leaving the project, with no ability to have their work left alone until a quality free image is found to replace it. And so far, at least, no admin seems willing to do anything to stop it. My answer at this point is simply to stop adding images at all to Wikipedia, and ask others to consider doing the same until this policy and the way it's being enforced are modified and the images reverted. Tvccs 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course he's ignoring it, it's an essay, after all, which is not policy. If we develop some reality-based guidelines as to what constitutes replaceability, and they become policy, then that behavior can result in a desysopping. But not until. We have a chance to do the right thing here. Let's. Daniel Case 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much the same effect as the same information we are after. If the promo photo is just used to show what someone looks like then a candid photo can usualy do the job just as well. The principle of only allowing fair use images if it is not possible to create a free licensed alternative have been part of the fair use criterea that all our fair use images are supposed to follow for over a year. Most people have been ignoring it so back in June an amendment to add some "teeth" to the enforcement process was proposed and finaly approved after a couple of months of debate by a solid consensus. Granted some have claimed that this was not a valid consensus since despite beeing anounced multiple times and debated for months a lot of people never knew about it since they never bother with policy stuff. Though frankly the same can be said about every single policy and guideline we have... Anyway yes in some cases images may have been deleted somewhat indiscriminately so a clearification would be helpfull, and some bouts of incivility haven't helped either. I do wish people would stop with all the "holy war" imagery and hostility, and asume some good faith on the part of those why try to keep Wikipedia as close to it's free content goals as possible though. Believe it or not this "push" to enforce the fair use criterea is not motivated by a desire to destroy the Wikipedia or upset people who have uploaded lots of fair use images. --Sherool (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Does a candid shot do as good a job illustrating a person as a posed studio portrait? If so, why do people spend big bucks for the latter? Do you seriously think that an amateur trundling down to Olympia and shouting, "Hey, Governor!" with EasyCam at the ready will produce an image that's a suitable replacement for a publicity photo? Regarding the debate you reference, which went on for a whopping three weeks, I certainly didn't see any of the announcements it was going on, and my initial claim still stands: if more Wikipedians were aware that there was a determined effort on the part of a few people to expunge publicity stills from the encyclopedia, most of them would oppose it. However, I'm not even necessarily arguing against the rule adopted by consensus in the debate you cite, I'm arguing whether these images violate the fair use criteria to begin with. I continue to maintain that the definition of replaceable that you're using renders {{promophoto}} completely moot, since every publicity photo of a famous living person who isn't an utter recluse is replaceable according to you.
Regarding WP:AGF, I haven't accused anybody of bad faith. Not that this invalidates the comparisons to a holy war; holy warriors have the purest of faith as well. I do not doubt that those who are pushing to purge Wikipedia of perfectly legitimate uses of promotional photos have good intentions. See "Hell, road to, paving materials of." VoiceOfReason 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So long as it's not just a blurry dark shadow in the picture then yes, the quality may not be the same, but the point of these photos are usualy just to show what a person looks like, and most candid photos can do that just fine. You don't need a photo of someone with 10 layers of makeup and professional lighitng that have been photoshopped to prefecting in order to do that. The fair use criterea itself have stated that fair use should only used if "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" since October 4 2005 (the point is the information the image brings to the article, not the "eye candy factor"). The referenced amendment was just about actualy getting around to enforcing it (and the other 9 criterea).
So long as it's not just a blurry dark shadow in the picture ...
See here. I see someone brightened this up some, thank God, but it's still a subpar picture compared to its fair-use predecessor (which was clearly identified as a promo photo at its source). And this instance was touted as a successful replacement of a fair-use image by a free one. Daniel Case 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I know it's not a standard thing to do to follow policy debates closely. Most of us, after all, are interested mainly in creating and improving content. But it would still have helped to try to identify some frequent uploaders of such images and include them in the conversation. Without that effort, it was inevitable that there would be some seriously alienated people since so many of that group (myself included) only found out when we were notified that images we had uploaded were to be deleted unless we could improve the fair-use rationale or find a free one. No, the policy change wasn't intended to do so. But it had that effect in practice, and complaining about the complaints isn't helpful. Some understanding, please. Daniel Case 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Anouncements about the proposal was made here, here and here. It was also prominently linked to from the WP:FUC page itself since late Febrary. I think most users would just have been anoyed if a bot ran around and notified them about every new policy proposal, so I'm not sure how much more could have been done rely.
The AGF remark was not directed at you spesificay, though saying that people would would prefeer a free licensed candid photo over a unfree promo photo are "determined to make Wikipedia worse" does seem to asume malice rater than good faith on theyr part. --Sherool (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:COOL. OK? Let's try to drop the efforts to get in the last dig and see what we can all do to work together and resolve this. Daniel Case 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A couple of clarifications. First of all, I'm not alleging any misfeasance on the part of those who drove the policy change; I'm just asserting the (self-evident, I hope) fact that people with an interest in seeing the policy adopted were more likely to know about it. If nothing else, those who made the proposal to begin with can be expected to be likelier to personally notify those who agree with them. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying that the cadre of editors who were aware of the policy proposal is not necessarily representative of the community as a whole.
Second of all, my comment about "making Wikipedia worse" (which I stand by) went to effect, not motivation. Regardless of the motives of those who are making it their personal cause to attempt to delete virtually every promotional image on Wikipedia, the net effect of their actions is to harm Wikipedia. I have no reason to doubt that they believe they are acting for the best, but I have every reason to doubt that they are in fact acting for the best.
So the policy is No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Sections in boldface are subject to interpretation, and my problem here is the insistence on overly-restrictive interpretations. To see the effects, consider the prospect of a talented artist carefully crafting a digital representation of a living person, dead person, or past event. Surely such a representation would convey the same information as a photograph, and it could be created albeit at the expense of a great deal of time and effort, and would be the equivalent , at least for Wikipedia's purposes. Does it follow, then, that every fairly-used copyrighted image is replaceable? An argument could be made, if one uses a very strict interpretation of the policy, but such an interpretation would be nonsensical as it would render WP:FU completely meaningless.
So, I would argue, is the apparent claim of some that any publicity photo of a living person who is not entirely reclusive is "replaceable". I would argue that a candid shot of (say) Gov. Gregoire at a public function does not convey the same information as her promotional photo, which conveys the information, "This is how this person chooses to be represented when her mugshot is called for." I ask you again, under your interpretation of the policy, is {{promophoto}} valid for any living non-recluse? VoiceOfReason 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, please incorporate what came out of this debate into your policy proposal regarding the importance of the context. The images of the same quality may or may not adequately convey the essensial info depending on who the article is about. And how reasonably is to expect the free image to become available depends on what quality image would suffice in a particular context. Since the entire fairuse concept is context dependent, we should illustrate this issue by an example, I think.

What quality image would suffice for the particular article? How likely can we obtain an adequate image for the article about a, say, politician, journalist or academic? The case of the college professor is different from the professional entetainer's especially in cases when the subject's looks played important role in making them what they are: pop-stars, actors, models, etc. For the latter cases a requirement of the quality of the image to convey the higly essensial info is much higher of course. Also, such subjects are less likely to release their images under free license. (Attempts to obtain such images should be enocuraged of course). --Irpen 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] groups of people

There are questions many have involving musical bands and other predefined groups of people. There is some discussion on this at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "in the context of the specific article"

I am just curious what follows from this phrase re: ongoing debates. For example, does this mean that a free image of an actor at a premiere would not be acceptable in an article about a fictional character that actor plays because the context of the article is the fictional work? Or that a free image of all four KISS members out-of-makeup would not preclude the inclusion of a fair use image of the members in makeup? Or that a free image of Boy George from present day would not preclude a fair use image of him from his period of fame? – flamurai (t) 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, does this mean that a free image of an actor at a premiere would not be acceptable in an article about a fictional character that actor plays because the context of the article is the fictional work?
It would mean a slam-dunk fair-use justification, IMO. These guidelines are intended to help us decide when a fair-use image can get bounced because there's a strong possibility someone could take a new picture of whoever or whatever and freely license it. Daniel Case 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What's important is how likely is the reasonably obtainable free pic would provide the adequate info in the context of the particular article. If the actor's and a model's article is demonstrated by the amateur shot, the article is devoid of highly important information for the reader. The importance of the context needs to be emphasized in the policy much stronger than whether someone is simply alive. --Irpen 06:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This change still allows too many images to be called "replacable"

As it is, this change would still allow too many images to be considered replacable. For example, this proposal would consider a photo of someone who "Frequently grants interviews in the news media or allows themselves to be photographed by professional photographers, ..." to be replacable. That would cover far too many people. Just because a super-model is often photographed by professional photographers, that is not reason to mark their photo as replacable. Their professional photography sessions still would not let an average person take a photo of them, and those professional photographers are not very likely to put their photos (which they like to get paid for) into the public domain. This provision should be removed. Johntex\talk 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why there are other criteria. A lot depends on what consensus emerges on whether someone permits photos to taken of themselves in a casual way. No, I would say a supermodel article should probably be illustrated by a picture taken by a professional, because you and I aren't going to get into fashion shows because we're Wikipedians.
Some rewording is in order, I guess, but I can't do it right now. Daniel Case 06:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory criteria

As I've made clear, I think these proposed criteria are silly. But not only that, it's self-contradictory. First there's the no-nos:

An image of a living person is reasonably replaceable if that person: Makes regular, scheduled public appearances, or Frequently grants interviews in the news media or allows themselves to be photographed by professional photographers, or...

Emphasis added. If a person makes public appearances OR is frequently interviewed, his publicity photo is replaceable. Compare and contrast with:

An image of a living person may not be reasonably replaceable if that person: Makes limited or unscheduled public appearances only (therefore their appearance cannot be predicted), or Rarely grants media interviews or allows few, if any, photographs to be taken of themselves for professional purposes, or ...

Again, "or". Makes no sense. If any one of the six listed criteria for replaceability is met, the first part says the image is replaceable. Not "may be", there's no room for wiggle, anybody who makes regular appearances or gives interviews or has a frickin' address is replaceable. Period. This is then contradicted by the second part which implies that failure to meet any of the criteria might be grounds for irreplaceability.

Here's my proposal: Copyrighted photographs which are intended for promotional purposes may be fairly used to illustrate articles, as long as they are appropriately tagged with {{promophoto}}. You wanna see whether the community consensus would support that? VoiceOfReason 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we lost that battle. We need to write effective and enforceable guidelines for replaceability. I appreciate the input on the wording (I never thought what I originally put up would become final policy anyway; that's why it's a proposal) but we can't refight the war that got us here. Daniel Case 06:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll agree that we need effective and enforceable guidelines to comply with the policy... at least for now. I maintain that the policy should be changed and would appreciate a link to the discussion which achieved consensus that this should be made policy so I can marshal counterarguments for a proposed change. In the meantime, the guidelines should be written as liberally as possible while still conforming to the policy. The guideline's mandate is that a copyrighted image may only be fairly used if "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Adequately give the same information is flexible enough to allow for interpretation. What information is conveyed by a publicity photo? Not merely "this is how this person looks", not even necessarily "this is how this person looks" considering how heavily made-up such photos are. Publicity photos convey the information, "This is the way this person wants to be perceived in the public eye." No free equivalent could reasonably be created to adequately express this same information. Any replaceability guideline could certainly account for that. VoiceOfReason 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your change doesn't fix the problem. There are two blocks, one of disqualifying criteria, one of qualifying criteria, each with six separate elements. One of them needs to be or for all six, the other needs to be and for all six. VoiceOfReason 06:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been thinking more recently that it needs to be in the form of a table. There are two axes to balance here: likelihood that a quality, representative image can be created when the subject is available; and opportunity to take such an image. Some sort of sliding scale needs to be established. What if you have someone who doesn't make a lot of public appearances, and often unscheduled, but when they do has no objections to being photographed? And on the other end, a lot of celebrities are publicly visible, yet as the guidelines state not always easy for an amateur to photograph?

I'll be working on this later. Daniel Case 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps and scientific content

ON several occasions this "replaceable" tag has been put on maps concerning scientific and controversial matters, such as the Chernobyl catastrophe. It should appears clearly that such maps may not be replaced by a Wikipedian's drawing, which carries no legitimity whatsoever (in contrast with a map used in fair use from scientific sources, such as Nature or otherwise). Maybe someone following this policy here could add a subsection about such scientific images, which, by their very nature, needs to show their scientific origins. Claiming a Wikipedian can replace it by free content is only claiming that: - anybody can draw his map, and all truths are equivalents - Wikipedia is entitled to copy a map from a scientific source, and disguise its origins, claiming it is free content Both are not acceptable solutions. Please consider carefully the scientific value of such images. Free content is nice and very well, but probably not appropriate for such topics (except, of course, if what you need is just a drawing of a molecule, which any university student should be able to do, and which carries no controversial value). Cheers! Lapaz 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A user made map is no less legitemate than a user made article. As long as it's done acurately based on the source data and the sources are properly referenced such maps are just fine. Raw information is not copyrightable, so it's perfectly fine to make our own maps so long as the information they are based on is referenced, just like it is fine to use copyrighed text as source info for writing our own articles about the subject. --Sherool (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Wikipedia_talk%7EReplaceability_of_fair-use_images_dc6b.html"