Image talk:BDR-101 01.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was to Delete the image.

[edit] Fair-use

I believe this meets the requirements of Wikipedia's Fair-use criteria on the grounds that while a free alternative may be possible to create (by someone with a digital camera, an area with proper lighting, and so forth), said alternative is not presently available on Wikipedia that I am aware of. If someone uploads a free alternative however, I'd be comfortable with this image being deleted. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP:FU doesn't require that a free image exist; it only requires that it be possible to produce a free image that could replace it. It clearly is possible to do so. It is against policy to keep a fair-use image until a free one is found to replace it; instead, replaceable fair-use images must be deleted, whether a free one is ever found or not. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying then is that every fair-use image be checked to see if there is the slightest possiability of there being a free alternative image availiable? That seems to be unreasonable considering the amount of effort that is involved. The image is here to help promote their product. If it is removed, there will be less interrest in the product, as it has been proven, more people will look at an article with pictures in it rather than one that has none. I say that until an image is made availiable to replace this one that it should remain and does not violate WP:FU. Sitava 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. That's what our policy says. It violates WP:FU to use a non-free image if it would be possible to create a free one. It's clearly possible here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Anything is possible. I'm more interested in if it's probable. Considering the optical drives cost $1,000 USD each, and the interest level isn't exactly high, I don't think it's probable at all that we'll see a GFDL image anytime soon. Besides, WP:IAR: the policy (as you are attempting to enforce it) is clearly wrong and needs to be ignored. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy is not "clearly wrong" (and citing IAR when you don't like a clear-cut policy really does nothing except prove that you have no point). There is no reason that we need this press photo to illustrate this; someone could just go to a store and take a picture of one. --Fastfission 22:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing clear cut about the policy except that it's application here is not good for the encyclopedia (WP:IAR is, BTW, correctly applied when one is using it for the betterment of the encyclopedia which I believe I was in the case above). The fact of the matter is this: getting people to get images to replace fair-use images will be an incredible pain in the ass. Deleting them before a suitable GFDL substitute is available will deprive encyclopedia readers of content we're legally able to use (it's not called "fair use" because it's illegal or anything). Now, I've made two points so far. The first one you somehow missed, I dearly hope you don't manage to overlook this second one. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stores are private property. Most stores that I have visited (context: Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States) appear to ban or at least strongly the use of cameras, claiming that amateurs who want to photograph the merchandise should purchase it first. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)