Image talk:U2photo.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I tagged this image as not meeting the criteria for fair use. There is a free image available at the Wikimedia Commons here, so the promotional photo is replaceable. —ShadowHalo 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The image meets the criteria for fair use:

• U2-released promotional image
• Taken by Anton Corbijn, U2's official photographer - thus copyright owned by U2
• This photo (and others similar presumably from same session) appeared in many magazine's promitional interviews with the release of the 2004 album.
• It's low res - well, actually, it could be lower still, but that doesn't mean deletion.
• it illustrate's the subject being discussed - it is the only decent image in the article, including those provided by ShadowHalo which show almost nothing - and larry playing keyboards (only down it one song last year)

As for the assertion that "This image fails the fair use criteria since "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken" - that's rubbish. In theory, maybe, but which wikipedian is going to get it? Thus, it "cannot be taken". --Merbabu 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that a freely-licensed photograph can certainly be taken since it already has (like this one). —ShadowHalo 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I mentioned it above. Is the fact that it is unclear and unrepresentative of any importance to the issue? I think it is. --Merbabu 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't seem to be unclear and it certainly doesn't seem unrepresentative. In fact, it's probably more representative in that each member is play his respective instrument (except, obviously, for Bono). It also seems rather clear to me, especially since it can be shown in its full 1954x1728 resolution, unlike fair-use images which must be scaled down. Also, WP:FU#Policy states, "Always use a more free alternative if one is available." —ShadowHalo 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear - you can barely see the faces of two of the band members, even in the hi res version.

The fair use image is very clear – even if it was scaled down further. It is much clearer, particularly in that it doesn’t have to be clicked on twice.

It is unrepresentative – Larry Mullen is playing a keyboard f*s!!!!

But is is not an alternative. It’s does not illustrate the bad either clearly or representatively. The image shows the band, and is better quality at illustrating that.

I’ve mentioned all this in my post above. Please don’t ignore it. --Merbabu 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, is the clarity of the image even relevant here? "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." U2 are in no way in recluse (unlike the exceptions to removing fair use images, like J.D. Salinger). They make public appearances all the time at concerts, award shows, etc. A free equivalent could indeed be created. You asked which Wikipedian is going to get it. Well, U2 can be added to Wikipedia:Requested images. Regardless of who takes the picture, a picture can indeed be taken. So a promotional image fails the first fair use criterion. —ShadowHalo 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"is the clarity of the image even relevant here" - lol. are you serious? In that case why not just put a black box and say it is U2 in the dark. Clarities everything. What good is an unclear picture? As for the ability to take a photo, you are being completely unrealistic. Where do you propose someone takes a picture that is not copyright. The tour is just about over (or is it over already). A suitable free picture almost certainly cannot be found. Seriously, how likely do you think it is?? This whole thing smells of wikilawyering. It is a guideline: that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."--Merbabu 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. What I'm saying is that this image would fail the first fair use criterion even if there were no free image available (yet) since the criterion says "could be created". I propose that someone get a picture of U2 the next time they make a public appearance, whenever that may be. They've been nominated for a Grammy, so no doubt they'll appear there. Regardless, it is most certainly possible that someone take a picture of them. Because you're right: there are exceptions. But the exceptions are only when the subject of a picture is in recluse; for example, it's hard to take a picture of Osama bin Laden if he's hiding. However, this is not a guideline. It's a policy. You'll see so at the top of the WP:FUC page. —ShadowHalo 15:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

U2 are elusive - while not hiding in a cave, they don't go around posing for photos for wikipedians. THe tour's over and another tour might be 5 years away, in which case one has then gotta get front row seats. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia send a representative to the Grammys? This is ludicrous - the fact that there aren't decent free images (only the rubbish pics you offer) shows just hard it is. Your suggestion for "someone" to get a picture is just, I'm sorry to say, stupid, and is based on an unresonable and perfunctory application of rules. It's completely unrealistic. --Merbabu 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to pose for photos for Wikipedians. For example, the free pictures that I've shown here weren't (so far as I know) taken by Wikipedians; rather, some person took the picture and posted it on Flickr under a Creative Commons license. And even if they're no longer touring, they're still making public appearances; the Grammys is just the one I knew off-hand. And while they're still making public appearances, a free picture can still be taken. —ShadowHalo 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)