Image talk:Mikko eloranta.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.

Shows the players face; was released for just this sort of useage; going to a game and getting a picture with the player not wearing a helmet is unlikely... Jenolen 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He is a person that exists outside of games and I'm pretty sure he doesn't wears the helmet all the time. --Abu Badali 14:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but now you've crossed over into very dangerous territory -- I should now follow him, a private citzen outside his normal place of business/public appearance (in a hockey arena), in order to grab a snapshop of him without helmet? This is clearly prohibited by law in many states that have personality rights laws, and borders on stalking. Do you see why, instead, photos such as this one are RELEASED TO THE MEDIA for fair non-commercial use? Also, I'm not going to do research for Wikipedia -- that's a no-no according to the five pillars and in that spirit, I'm certainly not going to take photos just for Wikipedia. Instead, I would argue that this is an entirely appropriate fair useage. Jenolen 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does encourages the creation of free image. --Abu Badali 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that link to a page about a speech someone gave. I would also appreciate a link to a page that is either an official policy or guideline of Wikipedia, where it says users are encouraged to go out and create original, royalty-free, no-licensing-issue photographs for Wikipedia. I have yet to find that page! Please let me know where that one is... Thanks! Jenolen 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. Let me knwo if you still need any help. Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I very much enjoyed the part that says Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images, but all user-created images must be released under a free license (such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license)... Due to personality rights laws here in the state of California, I am unable, ever, to create such an image of a well known person. (Here in California, they will always retain some rights to their image, even non-commercial uses.) Fair use, therefore, is not only an entirely appropriate solution in this case, it is the ONLY solution. I appreciate you clearing this up! Jenolen 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedians have the same problems you do. If you really believe you're incapable of producing a free image of a celebrity, you'll have to concentrate in other tasks in the project. We can't change a policy, nor make an special excepion, just because you happen to live is such state. --Abu Badali 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In the other side, I don't really think you're particulary unnable to relase an image of a person under a free licensing. Consider using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. It's accepted by Wikipedia, while it still says "Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above", which I think pretty much covers your concerns.

But anyway, this is not the place to discuss policy or law. If you don't have any reason to believe someone (luckier than you) could make an alternative image to replace this one, you should remove the disputed tag right away. Best regards, --Abu Badali 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, and here's a funny story, 28 different states here in the U.S. have 28 different laws about personality rights. Which is why, here in the U.S., there's this pretty well developed system of press and promotional photos, dependent on a system of fair use.

Gather round, kids, and let me tell you a story about promotional photos. See, people, such as, in this case, Mr. Eloranta, don't want to be harassed by photographers everywhere they go. Tends to get all Lohan-like - photographers tripping over each other, etc. So they sit down and agree to be photographed, with favorable lighting, by a professional photographer, and then release that photo to the media and public for non-commercial use. True! Wacky, but true! As long as the photos are fairly used under a reasonable "fair use" policy, these are the photos that all of the rights holders -- the person depicted, the photographer, and the organization issuing the photograph -- want to be distributed and used. But, apparently, these photos are now not "copy-left enough" to be included in Wikipedia. Weird, huh? I mean, these are the photos they want us to use... and Wikipedians, by the, uh, tens, are saying, "No more! No more of these well shot, nicely lit, professional looking and royalty free photos on OUR on-line encyclopedia! Sure, they may be fair for us to use, and enhance the experience for Wikipedia users, but what about the vaunted Wikipedia REUSER?? What if they actually have to make their own decision about whether or not to use these photos? We can't have that! Wikipedia photos must be free! Free! Free!" And so, these all-but-free photos -- photos that are, from a legal standpoint, barely distinguishable from the most liberal of GFDL interpretations -- are now the subject of a massive seek-and-delete campaign.

It's the kinda thing that makes you cry, just a little bit. But hey... I'm glad you're taking on the true problems facing Wikipedia. Lock-step adherence to poorly worded and contradictory policies led you here. I'll be interested to see what the status of promophotos is on Wikipedia a year from now. Jenolen 08:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored this talk page per discussion on my talk page. Metros232 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)