Image talk:Riya promo.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. --Robth^Talk 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputing Violation of First Fair Use Criterion

There are quite a few reason to dispute the replaceability notification:

It is a promotional picture of Indian actress/model Riya Sen from Apun Ka Choice, the same as the images of her mother Moonmoon Sen, uploaded in 11 February 2006 by Dwaipayanc, and sister Raima Sen, uploaded in 11 November 2005 by Pa7. Since it is stated that:

But, since, none of the other two images were tagged or their uploaders has been notified, it is only fair to ssume that the image in discussion is valid under the same set of considerations applied to these two.

In legal considerations precedence can rule over written codes. A with WP the precedence fares negatively against the written code. So, I rather hold that until and unless it is established that an image of the subject could be taken, not just as an presumption or hypothesis, the fair use image used under a promotional tag may stand.

Yes, it is agreed that an image of the subject could be taken. But, I have already pointed out in another discussion that such an event is fairly difficult in light of the bollywood culture, and unless someone takes that picture and uploads it, this image may have to do.

Besides, a picture taken in any circumstance may fail to protray the subject and the subject's nature as vividly as this image. Please, consider the sex symbol image, the pivot and the fulcrum of the subject's notability.

Please, understand that I do agree to WP image uploading policies. But, since I regard the image in consideration as "fair use" I decided to be bold and did it in good faith, too. Aditya Kabir 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

Editors are most welcome to remove the uploaded image from the database, though I'll still continue to hold my argument to have much validity:

1. The first use criterion should be apllied universally and impartially
2. The difficulty of arranging for a free se image should be considered and until and unless one is available, a fair use image may be allowed
3. Biopics should be aligned to the article (i.e. focus, notability, adding value to the information etc.)

I want to keep the dicussion alive deliberately. Please, understand that I mean no offence to the WP community, policies, editors and the effort put to keep it fair. - Aditya Kabir 14:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Rationale

1. The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
2. No free equivalent have been located for the subject, nor one could be created that would adequately give the same information.
3. The image is of low resolution, which does not interfere with commercial distribution of the image in higher-quality.
4. The image used for educational and informational purposes by Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization.
5. The image adds significantly to the article because it illustrates the subject of the article, Riya Sen illustrate the points in the subject's career that are discussed in the accompanying text.

[edit] Further Opinions (a bit more structured)

• Keep. As far as I am concerned, the impartiality argument falls flat. Doing something wrong does not mean we can do everything wrong. However, I fail to see how this image fails the first criterion, i.e. I don't think that "a free image that provides substantially the same information might reasonably be found or created". It might conceivably be found or created, but that is not the same thing. Calling up the lady for a photoshooting by an amateur is neither reasonable nor likely to succeed. Sending a horde of Wikirazzi to Calcutta with cameras, hoping to catch a good shot is equaly implausible.--Stephan Schulz 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't see how to read counter-example #8 without coming to the conclusion that this image is not acceptable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The image does not "merely show what she looks like", it illustrates her public and professional image. Moreover, it is at least taged as a promotional image, falling under Wikipedia:Publicity photos (although the source given is not really a good one). --Stephan Schulz 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Free image found at Commons:Image:Riyasen-alone.jpg. The present image has been orphaned. --Oden 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Side note: Wikipedia:Publicity photos is an essay, WP:FUC is policy. --Oden 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Oden. I think this image can be listed for deletion. Gamesmaster G-9 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that we have an acceptable free image, I agree.--Stephan Schulz 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Same here. We may remove the image from WP, like I said earlier. Now that we have a free image the reason for removal is even stronger. But, let me still raise a couple of points:

1. I see that Raima Sen's image has been tagged for deletion, but, what would happen to Moonmoon Sen's image?
2. Can I lend a hand in searching other suspect images that may be violating the first FUC? I am afraid that jumping into the fray right away will look like an act of vengence.
3. And, I still do not think that a flat image like the one from Commons represents the subject anywhere near the image in dispute.
4. Finally, I apologise if I sounded like I support the wrongs already done, and adding further wrong to the list. All I want to say that the 13 July 2006 threshold is not fair, as far as I understand. What is even more unfair is the Moonmoon Sen image (and a lot others, too), which I keep reminding in vain. Should I be sorry to ask for impartiality? - Aditya Kabir 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally try to apply our policy to all images equally. Yes, Moonmonn Sen's image should be treated the same way. If you would like to tag images as replaceable, then type {{subst:rfu}} on the image description page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.