Image talk:Riya Book.png

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. A photograph is a photograph is a photograph, there is a free alternative available that supersedes any need for this one. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceability of fair use disputed

I don't think a Dabboo Ratnani calendar image (particularly one that contributed massively to the subject's modeling career, is replaceable, the image is used to describe the subject's modeling career, not how she looks like.

The event (i.e. this famous image from the famous calendar) is not alive, though both Ms. Sen and Mr. Ratnani are. It is much like the screenshots of movies used to describe an actors career. This is the most unbranded image from her modeling career. I do not think we should be putting images from her brand campaigns like Colgate or Limca, if there's an option. So, that do we replace?

first fair use criterion can't be used as a blanket regulation. When it comes to an event (i.e. a particular milepost in the subject's life or career) the image may be impossible to replace, as it becomes a historical document. There is ample consensus throughout Wikipedia of such exceptions of the first fair use criterion, mandated by the ninth fair use criterion. Please, also check, Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples.

One compromise, if any necessary, I can see is the use of {{promotional}} tag, instead of a {{fairuse}} tag. But, that may give rise to the question if a photographer's calendar, no matter how celebrated, can be accepted as a promotional.

Please, consider the fair use rationale (it got typos, sorry), the image description and the evidences put forward, before you start replacing the image with something that is not representative of her career. I can put more evidence forward, if required, for better leverage of the rationale. But, right now it doesn't seem necessary, as long as we follow the discursive policy of achieving consensus.

Finally, please note, the image was uploaded by me, and I look forward to contribute to the discussion. If possible, please, keep me posted. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image resolution

I reverted the file version back to the lower resolution. We don't need a higher resolution than it's necessary to identify the poster in the article (in the case we decide we really need the image in the article). --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies: I just though a slightly larger image (still not fit for commercial use) would show some more details of the famous photograph. I personally am partially visually impaired, as are a lot of other visitors to WP, I am sure. That is why I keep wishing for images a bit larger than a thumbnail. Sorry about that. Aditya Kabir 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable Fair Use

This image just leaves us with a photo of a living person and it's replaceable by a free image of the same person. Please see #1 on WP:FU and #8 on WP:FU#Counterexample.And Photo of a living model: replaceable.Though the image is used to describe the subject's modeling career, a free image can easily be found of the model.--NAHID 19:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How? Unless, of course, the uploader is a famous photographer who has taken a famous photograph of the subject which was published on a famous publication, and was quoted on a number of multiple sources. You may want to check how entertainers' career is depicted through the use of use of images, often fair use. Aditya Kabir 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article suggests she's still alive (under fair use), where it should be possible to contact her about a free image.Not fair use.--NAHID 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of a historical event, a career landmark or an iconic image you don't understand? Why keep parroting the same line over and over again? You have already mentioned the first fair use criterion three times - once through the template on the image page, and twice here. No law ever in the history in mankind has a blanket call, that is why lawyers make so much money, and that is why we have exceptions and rationales built into the system (not to mention the ignore all rules policy, an extreme that is not applicable here). Aditya Kabir 04:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I mentioned first fair use criterion on the image page. I mentioned WP:FU materials here because of the question of disputed. Everybody will do that if you don't understand. Reasons should be added.Again, this fails WP:FUC criterion #1 which states that fair use images can only be used when no free equivalent is available or could be created. --NAHID 20:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See below to find there's a way out of parroting a memorized rule again and again. Anyways, thanks for brining the image to my attention. Otherwise the article would not have the supporting stuff on the the image it has now. Aditya Kabir 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The rules are followed here. And parroting a memorized rule --- that's just "your comment"--NAHID 21:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• A free image of her modeling career can easily be found. The image fails all the WP:FUC criterias. Not fair use --NAHID 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Aditya Kabir 15:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

Please correct me if I am mistaken here. The claim is that this image is not replaceable because it is being used to show off her modeling and we can reasonably expect that there would be no replaceable images showing her in this role. That is, any replaceable image suitable to depicting her modeling would almost certainly also be copyrighted.

That's true. However, in order for us to use this image, we must explain why it is vital to the article to depict an image of her modeling. With the article as it is right now, there's simply no reason to do so. We aren't providing any critical commentary on the image itself. The image does not add to the article except to depict Riya Sen. If this is truly a career landmark, an iconic image, then we need to provide substantial critical commentary in the article itself. At the moment, we say "In both 2004 and 2005, she was featured in Dabboo Ratnani's annual calendar. In keeping with her image, the photographs featured her partially nude." This is insufficient to justify the use of this image. It would be reasonable to use a fair-use image if we had an entire section discussing that particular image. One and a half sentences, with no critical commentary, means the image does not add meaningfully to the article. As it stands, this image is simply being used to illustrate the article and as such, violates WP:FU. --Yamla 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And if someone plans to add a section for critical commentary on the image itself, please, make sure it's not original research. Make sure to point to reliable sources that confirm this image is notable. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been a major improvement to the article, at least as far as fair-use of this image is concerned. As the article stands now, I would not object to using this image as fair-use. It's not a whole section and so debateably we are stretching the fair-use of this image, but I think it's close enough now that I'd like to withdraw my objection. --Yamla 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly invalid fair use tag? I doubt.

Discussion at User talk:Angr#Image:Riya Book.png.

The image was going through a replaceable fair use dispute, which have not closed yet. I, the unloader, have made have made considerable arguments to validate its fair use, and have made changes to the article that uses the image to conform to Wikipedia principles. It uses a plain fair use license tag, with elaborate rationales, provided with readily verifiable external links (not a logo, promotional, book cover, album art, screen shot or any such specific fair use tag). How did it become an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the fair use criteria? The fair use dispute was about the first fair use criterion, not a clearly invalid fair use tag. Surely there must be mistake here. Aditya Kabir 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Post script

I have posted this argument, besides here, to:

• Wikipedia talk:Administrators
• Wikipedia talk:Fair use
• User talk:Angr
• User talk:Yamla

I hope someone responds, since I have no clue of dealing with speedy deletion tags. Please, someone tell me what to do. This is pretty unfair. Aditya Kabir 13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)