Image talk:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Replaceable fair use disputed per Quadell's assessment of Image:ZuleykaRivera.jpg. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we concentrate the discussions here: Image_talk:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg. --Abu Badali 12:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific to Ms. Ferrell: I have edited the Tami Farrell page so that the image is now being used in a way that is (in my opinion) fair use. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Image_talk:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg has been deleted so I (Herostratus) reproduce it here:

Replaceable fair use disputed per Quadell's assessment of Image:ZuleykaRivera.jpg-- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't discuss the award winning "event" enough to need an image. The event is mentioned, but not discussed. The event is important to the bio, but the information can be conveyed with text. The image is only being used illustrate how the person looks like, (besides recent unfortunate efforts like [1], [2] and [3]) . --Abu Badali 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)--Abu Badali 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the image down, to make it clear that the image illustrates the person in the event, and not the event itself. I think it fulfills FUC#1 now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe the article discusses the "event" lengthy enough to need an (unfree) image? This would a WP:FUC#8 case. --Abu Badali 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PageantUpdater, you seem to agree that an image showing the same person but not the same event would be a valid alternative. I'm affraid this means the image is not really being used to depict the event, but the person, what makes it replaceable. --Abu Badali 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood you... a fair-use image depicting the person would be useful - in combination with the fair use picture depicting the event. My dispute stands. -- PageantUpdater • talk | <font

---

I don't think that this image (we are back to discussing Tami Farrell) is replaceable, since the event is now in the past and I assume no unauthorized photes of this event were allowed to be taken. I also think that this image is important to the article, because it shows here "doing" the one thing - getting that crown - that makes her noteworthy at all. Even if this image were to be replaced, it would properly have to be replaced with a professional-quality shot of her in pageant clothes and makeup etc., since that is what she is notable for. A candid snapshot of her at the grocery store would not do. But it may well be impossible to get such a photo, the person holding the rights would have no reason to release those rights. So in my view this photo should be kept. Herostratus 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Herostratus here. The image is of the unique historic event and cannot be reasonably repeated. --Irpen 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Per Herostratus. The unique historic event presented is not recreatable. TheQuandry 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to agree that the image was unreplaceable if the article actually discussed some aspect of the image. It comes close when it mentions the crown, but ideally the article should really discuss the design or significance of the crown, or the sash, or her white dress, or something else that only this image can show. —Angr 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I think the use of this image is flawed

I don't understand why this article needs the image of the Miss getting the crown when almost no other Miss article seems to need this. Before the application of FUC#1, almost all Miss articles would have some random unfree image showing the lady in no particular circumstance, and the lack of an image of the crown was never an issue.

When these images where deleted as replaceable, an argument was used that, if the image shows the miss receiving the crown, then it's was being used to illustrate an event and not a person. But I have to disagree with that. These images had always been used just like any other unfree image to depict the Miss. After replaceability was questioned, the article's they where used in were changed to pretend (to ourselves) that the images we're about the events ([4], [5] and [6]). I tried to show the uploader that he was actually just pretending to himself herself that those images were not being used to illustrate the models, and for one moment, based on his her reply, I though it worked. But some weeks later, she she returned to the discussion saying the he she had actually "misunderstood" the question, what would mean the experiment did not took place. Also, even if this image was used to discuss the "crown getting event", it would be a FUC#8 violation, as the information "Miss X got the cronw" can be conveyed with (free) text only, and an unfree image would not be justified. --Abu Badali 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said at User talk:Angr#Image:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg. I do, however, think a valid "irreplaceable" claim can be made for such images if the article is expanded to discuss issues explicitly shown in the image, such as the design of the crown. —Angr 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Precedent isn't a good argument here. We still have a whole lot of articles using "fair use" images in ways that violate policy. —Angr 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter whether the article was later changed to make the image work? No. Why should it? In fact, that should be the aim, to improve articles in this way. And by the way, its "she" not "he". -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In think it matters because it shows that the original intent of using those images were not to depict an event, but to depict the person. And no, I don't think we should change articles so that unfree material would better fit on them. For the best interests of this free encyclopedia, we should be asking "Does article A badly needs an image of X?" instead of "What do I need to change in article A so that the unfree image X can be used." --Abu Badali 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the original intent of the image was to depict the person... don't you get that? I put the images there MONTHS AGO before any of this mess happened... it only recently became clear that they could not be used in that sense. However, the images are also important because they reflect the event, thus adding more information about the pageant (which should have been there anyway) to give context improves the article. We're still waiting for your reply at your RFC...? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with adding good, relevant information to an article to support an image. Expanding and improving articles is always good. —Angr 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In the general case, we should be careful not to let our affection for some particular unfree image influence our judgment on what's "relevant information" for a given article. --Abu Badali 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point? The information I added is highly releveant for the article and should have been added sooner. Thus, I reiterate, adding the information to make the image work is a good thing because it improves the article overall. Perhaps we should be talking about your general affection for deleting each and every unfree image withouth looking at the image individually and recognising that there are actually cases where an image may not be replaceable? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Affection or not, Abu, the image is clearly depicting a singular historical and unrepeatable event. It totally fulfills the criteria for fair use. In order to convery the same information, this image is only replacable by another fair use image. TheQuandry 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For that argument to hold water, the article would have to be rewritten to focus on the event itself and to discuss matters specifically illustrated by the photo. At the moment, it doesn't; the photo is doing nothing but showing what the woman looks like. —Angr 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The article discusses her wearing a white gown, and goes into detail about the crown she is being presented with. That is not "specifically illustrated by the photo"? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the image is of a historical, non-repeating event, which is discussed in the article. The image is used in the appropriate location (where the event would be expected to be replaced, not the person). Thus, in context, I believe the image to be non-replaceable and used appropriately. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This image was admitedly uploaded to be used to depict the person, and not the event. Accepting this image will expose Wikipedia to a very dangerous precendent. If someone uploads "crowning images" for all pageants, the will be again in the situation of little incentive to produce free image for the pageants bios. And it won't take long to we start seeing images of athletes receiving medals, or politicians in some special meeting, or actors in some special days, etc. ... We should take WP:FUC #8 into account here if we want to believe we're using this image to illustrate the "event". Does the "event" needs an image? If so, why nobody never though about it before the image was tagged for deletion as a replaceable living person image? --Abu Badali 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a legitimate concern. We should not use event-depicting photographs as a loophole. This requires careful balancing by the processing admin. Questions I ask myself include: Is the depicted event important in the article and worth illustrating? Is the image used in the same section as the event in question, and not at the top of the image or in an infobox? If this article had a high-quality, free photo of this person, would the article still benefit from having this image? In this case, I felt the image worthy of inclusion. Each similar image will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, however. And different admins may be more strict or less strict with this sort of thing, especially since this is a fairly new deletion tag. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think an important test is how the event the image depicts relates to the notability of the subject. I was thinking of this because someone tagged Image:Tara conner bikini.jpg as non-replacable basically because it depicted her modelling and as such could not be replaced. However, Conner's work as a model is not what made her notable... it was winning the pageant that made her notable. Applying this theory to the image of Tami Farrell, the image is extremely important because it depicts the very event that made her notable. Get my gist? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're simply describing the policy loophole that has just been opened. I need to ignore WP:FUC#8 to agree with your rationale. --Abu Badali 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The image does contribute significantly to the article. I really cannot understand your reasoning and your pigheadedness on this subject.-- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe the every Miss image article that lacks an image of the crown-receiving event (e.g. Tara Conner) is incomplete? --Abu Badali 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)