Image talk:Seldon.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I doubt this is fair use. This is the impression of Hari Seldon of one particular artist. As such, it provides the reader of the article with absolutely no information about the book. The only goal it serves is to make articles look better, which can hardly be called 'fair use'.

I'm afraid I'd tend to agree. I was also going to ask if somebody could perhaps label which edition of the book it comes from, and maybe see if the artist is credited anywhere - it should really be captioned "Hari Seldon, as drawn by X"; or at least "An illustration of Hari Seldon from the 19xx edition of Foundation". But maybe we should just dump it altogether, for copyright reasons and the limited value it adds to the 'pedia. - IMSoP 14:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. It is merely one artist's interpretation, and has nothing to do with Asimov at all. I do not see that it adds any value to an article other than being a "pretty picture". I am removing it from the articles. -- Tarquin 19:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? The same thing could be said of any fictional character - obviously an article on a fictional character (Hari Seldon) benefits from having his likeness. It's just common sense (I don't see you removing the images from, for example, Gandalf). So does the work he is part of (Foundation series) albeit to a lesser extent. I'm reverting the removal. →Raul654 20:27, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the same could be said. But the image on Gandalf is rather more relevant, it is something seen throughout the film rather than a single piece of cover art. There is only one LOTR film, but there have been hundreds of editions of Foundation across the world. I am not the only person to object to this ludicrous picture, whether on grounds of legality and applicability of fair use, or simply on grounds of appropriateness. However I can't be bothered to edit war with you. Please reconsider your position and do what is right. -- Tarquin 08:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. What is the harm in having it? It's an *obvious* case of fair use; there's no question of the legality of it (read the copyright FAQ if you don't believe me; just for the record, I wrote it). So the question is - why the heck are you taking it out? It's common sense that the article is better (read - more informative) with a picture. Meanwhile, your objections seems to boil down to "it might not be legal" (false) and it's "just one artist's represetation" - which, as you conceeded, is true of any fictional character. →Raul654 08:19, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I support Raul. By the way, this image was used on the cover of at least one foreign edition (Polish) of Foundation. We also have pictures for e.g. Greek gods, and they also are nothing more than "just one artist's represetation". Should we remove them as well? I agree that the artist should be credited, though. Ausir 19:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Raul, I've read the copyright FAQ and it doesn't dispose of the question. Of the factors listed, some cut in favor of finding fair use here and some cut against. Would you elaborate on your reasoning? In particular, are there any judicial decisions about fair use of a book's cover art? I could see two different approaches to the substantiality factor -- the cover is one page among hundreds (the user has taken only a small portion of the original work), or the book contains two works, the text and the illustration (the user has taken the entirety of the original work). Neither approach is unreasonable on its face. JamesMLane 09:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that its presence removes from the article. I am once again disappointed by Wikipedians' focus on style over content. -- Tarquin

What does the image remove from the article? Even if in your opinion it adds nothing, how does it decrease the quality of the text? Ausir 14:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this is probably not how most people picture Seldon (I may be wrong, of course, and I concede that's a hard point to prove w.r.t. "most people") and therefore it adds a kind of preconception or opinion into the article. A textual equivalent might be stating something like "Seldon is something of a control freak" - unless explicitly stated in the text, it's a tough call whether this is fact or opinion. I know that's not a perfect analogy to the use of this picture, nor does it make any conclusive argument, but I think that's the sense in which this can actually detract from the text, not just fail to add to it.

Also (and I didn't read the FAQ, or much of the other writing on the matter, so I'm leaving myself open to comebacks here) isn't there debate about whether we should use anything under fair use, and therefore anything of questionable value that can't be placed under a genuinely Free licence is argued for removal? - IMSoP 20:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Speaking specifically to the legal issues - there is a group of Wikipedians who want to prohibit fair use. However, this is not policy. Our policy is that we give preferance to freely licensed materiel; in cases where no free material is available, we do allow fair use. →Raul654 23:28, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Even the makers of the GDFL don't object to fair use materials being used in a GDFL project, so this debate is mostly trolling. As for the image, the picture of Gandalf is not how I picture him, despite the movie. Both are fictional characters, and the only argument is the "most people" one. It's like saying that a cover illustration detracts people from the text of a book. Is there any accepted policy against adding portraits of fictional characters? Ausir 23:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I agree with Raul in principle, I have to say that I agree that the image portrayed is rather... blech! (an onomotopaeia!). MTTP: For religious fans that have their own image of Hari, (aka the man with a plan) the presence of the image amounts to idolatry; the idol image which either detracts from the dynamic symbolism that a conceptualism has over the literalism, or just plain interferes with our relationship with Hari. Besides, I could do much better. -SV

I've seen your work Steve, and I like it, but - I think our no-original-research policy forbids it. Get it published on the cover of one of the Foundation editions and then it could be considered. →Raul654 04:22, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

While I'm normally not persuaded by flattery, I am honored that such thing as my meager work be considered so liked and or likeable. However, I do doubt that foundation policy prohibits the inclusion of contributor works, and dont see how getting on the foundations letterhead will help, but Im not really interested in this particular subject matter anyway, aside from the conceptual conception of Hari; this debate being yet another example of how humans historically tend to psychoanalyse in the literal that which only has meaning in the symbolic. I will now reflect on my own words, and further reflect on that reflection. ") -SV 05:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what Tarquin said. An arbitrary cover among hundreds, where the others might look totally different, is not useful. Gzornenplatz 04:59, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Let's remove the image from Jesus Christ then. It's just one arbitrary picture among millions. Ausir 12:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ausir is exactly right - that's basically what this objection boils down to. I don't think this is the right page to be lodging the objection, since it applies to pretty much every fictional character's image. →Raul654 14:19, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but hes missing the point. Portrayals of Jesus are largeley homogenous, based on an agreed popular discussion on what Jesus did, or should look like. It may have nothing to do with reality, but well never know, and the image does not detract from the meaning which he is supposed to personify. Here the choice is between no representation, or a representation that was chosen by the publisher of a book. Did Asimov agree with this portrayal? If so, then there is hardly an argument against including it; unless one considers that Asimov's creation is no longer his own, and that despite the agreement of Asimov, the artists contribution to "Hari" should not compare with Asimov's contribution to Hari. Azimovs Hari is Hari - not this artists rather stale paint by the numbers representation. Maybe the solution would be to move it down a bit on the page.-SV 16:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you're drawing the line a bit differently than it should be. Our fictional articles make the distinction between canonical and non-canonical material all the time. If it's choosen by Asimov (or the publisher, or his estate, 'etc etc) then it's canonical. If it's published in a fan-zine, or done by a wikipedia contributor, it's non-canonical original research and should be excluded. That's the common sense way it's done elsewhere. I think by that standard, this objection doesn't really hold a lot of water. →Raul654 16:51, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think this picture would be good with a caption along the lines of "Hari Seldon as depicted on the cover of the 199x edition of Foundation (by Stephen Youll)." Andre 08:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)