Image talk:JamieOliver-SchoolDinners.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 Image Criteria

I'd like to dispute the fair use tag. While I admit that people do take photographs of celebrities, to find someone who is located in such a way to take a photo of a specific celebrity and then upload said photo to Wikipedia is highly unreasonable and problematic. Having Wikipedia contributors stalk celebrities is definately not preferable (in my book) to using a "fair use" photograph.

I understand that there is an ongoing effort to delete these photos to compel users to attempt such a feat, however it is detrimental to the article to not have a photo. I think a better use of time by those who are applying these tags would be to contact the celebrity's press agent to request usage rights. I have sent an email to Jamie's web staff in hopes that they would be willing to provide images with applicable permissions, but I think the photo should stand until it can be reasonably replaced. In many instances, these articles are used to identify a celebrity, and, as humans, we recognize faces. Without at least one accompanying photo, the value of these articles decreases significantly. Jmdustin 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to "stalk" somebody to take a picture of him; presumably Oliver appears in public at speeches, cooking demonstrations, book signings, etc. I agree the best course of action would be to write his publicity people asking for an image, but that doesn't mean this photo should stay pending the result of that. There are many reasons we need to prune the fair-use images, and it's not the end of the world if this article has no picture for a while.

If you'd like to contact his people for an image, let me know and I can point you to a couple helpful links on here about what to ask. —Chowbok ☠ 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my previous post, I already have contacted his web staff and used the templates provided by Wikipedia. Thank you for your concern.

I've spent the last hour reading the ongoing argument about this and am really disappointed in users who would rather devalue an article by deleting photos than making the effort to help achieve the goal that they say they're interested in achieving. Where are the photos that you've taken to replace the ones you're asking to have deleted? How exactly would you suggest taking a photo of this particular celebrity for the site? Should I fly to England and check his schedule, then buy a ticket to an event that he will be speaking at (where I would likely not be allowed to bring a camera), stake out his restaurant in hopes that he doesn't get too disgruntled when, paparazzi-like, I snap a photo for the benefit of Wikipedians everywhere? I agree with others who have requested that the photos are instead tagged for replacement, rather than deletion. You catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. Jmdustin 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and images are a way to illustrate the articles. But the images aren't always necessary, and this one only illustrates what the person looks like. If a reader needs to know what a person looks like they can always find it on the web. --Oden 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Oden, but the "they can always find it on the web" argument holds no water with me. The majority of the information on Wikipedia can be found elsewhere on the web. An encyclopedia is a gathering of knowledge, and, in the case of people, an important aspect of that knowledge is what they look like. Jmdustin 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your "vinegar and honey" argument is that so far, experience has shown the contrary. I've seen easily-replaceable images that were tagged for months with the "please find a replacement for this" tag, and nothing was done about it. On the other hand, many of the images that were deleted under the "replaceable fair use" category were replaced within days. As long as there's already a picture up in the article, very few people will exert effort to find a new one (and the few who do get a lot of grief and reverts when replacing a fair use image with a free one, as I can tell you from personal experience). —Chowbok ☠ 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, While that tactic might not work on pages that are not actively being edited by a group of people, this particular page has a number of recent edits and people watching the page to reverse vandalism. So, why weren't we asked nicely to make the attempt -OR- why didn't you make the attempt yourself? You are saying that others are lazy and that you are getting a lot of grief for your attempts, but a resonable explanation and an attempt to improve (not destroy) would likely be greeted with thanks and praise, rather than the number of ongoing arguments and the bad taste being left in everyone's mouth.

Additionally, I still disagree (and so do quite a few other people, from the looks of it), with the idea that a fair use image of a celebrity can be reasonably replaced with a free use one. I also feel that by encouraging people to take these free use images of celebrities, you are supporting infringement of their right to have a personal life. Publicity photos are taken, and used, for the sole purpose of providing the public with images of the celebrity. These are taken without anyone having to walk up to a stranger while they are minding their own business and snapping a photo. It's just plain rude to subject anyone to this behavior and encouraging others to do so by deleting images that reasonably fall within the fair use guidelines is not something I would ever support. We can agree to strongly disagree. Jmdustin 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a minor point, but I strongly object to the statement that I'm saying people are "lazy". Nobody has time to do everything that needs to be done on Wikipedia, and we all set priorities for ourselves. As for taking pictures of celebrities; I don't think it's necessarily rude, if you ask first. Lots of famous people don't mind at all posing for photos. Anyway, there's nothing stopping them from releasing photos under the GFDL. By saying we should compromise our principles to avoid annoying celebrities seems to me overly deferential. —Chowbok ☠ 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, it's in dispute whether or not "our" principles would be compromised by this. The problem is Fair use criteria number 1, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information..." The word "could" is the problem, it's been argued over and over again. My POV is that "could" doesn't mean ever, someday, somehow, but instead "could" under reasonable circumstances. Simply stating your same argument over and over again, and calling it "our" principles doesn't really address the issue or solve the problem. This is making rules override common sense; something that is argued in court cases all the time. I understand that we're not going to agree on this point. However, creation is better than deletion and the time that is spent tagging and deleting these images could be better spent finding suitable replacements. I'm tired of arguing this point with you, since you don't ever respond to that portion of the argument. Delete the photo if you will, but this movement is causing a severe detriment to the site. It's disheartening and quite sad. I'm done. Jmdustin 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Which part of the argument do you say I'm not addressing—that I'm defining "could" too loosely, or that time is better spent finding replacements than deleting them? —Chowbok ☠ 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The time better spent argument. You've clearly defined your POV on the word "could." BTW, Jenolen has made a very good argument on Quadell's user talk page. There is clearly a flaw (misunderstanding) in the system.Jmdustin 23:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it depends on how important you consider the "free" part of "The Free Encyclopedia". If you view it as trivial and/or irrelevant to Wikipedia, then yes, my time is being wasted. If you think it's one of the most important things about this project, then fighting for it is definitely a worthwhile use of time. —Chowbok ☠ 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A) I've been over this and so have many others.. this falls within fair use. So the free argument is irrelevant. B) You seem to be getting mad. C) I'm stuck on the "encyclopedia" part myself. D) We're obviously never going to agree since you think my logic is flawed and I think yours is flawed. But I encourage you to have a nice day anyhow. And a happy holiday at that. Jmdustin 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A)As Wikipedia uses the terms, "fair use" and "free" are completely different concepts, with no overlap. "Free" in this case means "free to use as you wish", not "no charge". B) Not at all! Really. I'm sorry if I've come across that way; it was not intended. D) Actually, I think we both have decent logic, we're just starting from different premises. And a good day/happy holidays to you as well. —Chowbok ☠ 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to clearly fall within counter-example #8 at WP:FU. As such, I'm afraid it will have to be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And, just to continue to be argumentative, I would like to dispute counter-example #8 as being absolutely, 100% inane. Showing what something looks like is ALWAYS the point of a picture. Jmdustin 23:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to dispute policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)