Image talk:Rodneytom.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.

After further research, the image is copyrighted by the Washington State House of Representatives, an authorized representative of which granted permission for this use. It also qualifies under {{promophoto}}. VoiceOfReason 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since an editor has suggested that this image may not qualify as a fair use, I want to elaborate a bit more on the circumstances.

• This image was retrieved from the Washington State House of Representatives's website, where it constitutes the "official" House photo of Tom. It's a press kit photo, similar to Image:GregoirePicture.jpg or Image:Gov_Romney2HRes.jpg or any of the undoubtedly dozens of politician mugshots on Wikipedia.
• I believe that such images qualify under {{promophoto}}, and in fact many of the other examples are tagged the same way. They're not "repeatable" as they're studio shots that are typically designed by the subjects themselves to look professional.
• Nevertheless, I contacted the Washington House of Representatives by telephone, and after being shuttled around various offices by helpful staff employees, I found myself in contact with a person who asserted himself authorized to speak for the House on matters of copyright. I asked him about the copyright status of these images, and he stated that "we hold the copyrights, but go ahead and do what you want with them." Seeking to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I informed him that it was my intention to upload the image to Wikipedia and he gave specific approval for that usage.

I hope this answers any questions and makes clear that 1) a reasonable good faith effort has been made to secure permission of the copyright owner, and 2) even absent such permission this is a legitimate fair use. VoiceOfReason 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved this information to the talk page. Jenolen 11:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Who put this tag up? Isn't there a more productive way to utilize Wiki-time than this? The editor has already explained that the Washington House of Representatives has given permission for the photo to be used how we wish. Badagnani 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough. The image must be explicitly released under a free license by the copyright holder. ed g2s • talk 16:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons For Deletion

(The editor who placed this image in the {{replaceable fair use}} category should replace this text with a detailed rationale explaining the reasons this image should be deleted. Editors unable to provide such a rationale should remove the {{replaceable fair use}} categorization as soon as possible.)

The subject is an active politician, unless there are some special situation that cause him to never appear in public it seems reasonable to asume that a free licensed photo of him can be created, and if a fair use image can be replaced by a free licensed photo it fails Wikipedia's fair use criteria, wich merits removal from the article (and deletion if not "valid" use elsewhere), but the tag already explain all that. --Sherool (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• A free image could be created, sure. A free image that's a studio portrait which the subject has approved as a visual representation? Hardly. {{promophoto}} exists for a reason. This particular image is not "repeatable", this is an unequivocal fair use, and this whole debate is rather silly. If you disagree, by all means feel free to list this at IfD. I'm tempted to do so myself just to put the issue to bed once and for all. VoiceOfReason 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's all in the tag, no need to give a reason. ed g2s • talk 16:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this photo just simply free?

It's a work of the federal government, therefore it should be free, no? -- ChadScott 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, I mean the state government... -- ChadScott 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, unlike the federal government, state government productions are not automatically in the public domain. This is definitely a copyrighted image. But it's also a fair use. I'm flabbergasted that anybody could consider it anything but; if this isn't a fair use then {{promophoto}} is entirely meaningless. VoiceOfReason 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no question that it's fair use. The argument is that it's replaceable fair use. —Chowbok ☠ 22:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What does "replaceable" mean to you, Chowbok? Clearly, a pixel-perfect replacement couldn't be generated, so "replaceable" can't mean that without being entirely mooted. Would a candid photograph of Tom walking down the street be a "replacement" for a publicity photo? I submit not; a publicity photo is intended to fulfill a purpose which a candid photograph could not. Is this image replaceable because Tom is alive and in theory could be persuaded to sit for yet another studio shot, this time licensed under the GFDL? What if Tom refuses, because he's too busy, because he'd demand compensation for his time, or because he doesn't like Wikipedia and doesn't feel like playing along? Does a replaceable image become irreplaceable in these circumstances? If a competent artist could create a reasonable facsimile of the image, is the image now replaceable? If so, is it not the case that no image is irreplaceable? And if so, isn't {{promophoto}} completely moot?

If you're asserting that this image has copyright problems because it's "replaceable fair use", I think we're entitled to hear exactly what constitutes replaceability in your book. VoiceOfReason 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:REFU, which covers these issues. —Chowbok ☠ 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. WP:REFU is a proposed guideline, and knowing about it gave me the opportunity to opine before it's adopted as a guideline-in-fact. As I've made clear, I think it's perfectly ridiculous that the fact that Rodney Tom exists, is alive, and theoretically could be approached to ask him to kindly sit for a studio portrait suffices to make this image (or any of its cousins on Wikipedia) unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's hard to think of a less fair use than to use a publicity photo for its specific purpose. VoiceOfReason 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unquestionably fair use. The point is that it is replaceable fair use. —Chowbok ☠ 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here? Take it to Wikipedia talk:REFU. VoiceOfReason 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing the trees for the forest

• I think many have lost sight of the reason for having a copyright policy to begin with. We don't have rules just for the sake of having rules, we have rules because they serve a purpose. As near as I can tell, Wikipedia has policies regarding copyrighted content in order to 1) protect intellectual property owners against unfair infringement and 2) avoid legal liability for violating copyright. Neither rationale applies here; reprinting a publicity shot specifically intended to be reprinted could hardly be considered an unfair use, nor is any judicial authority likely to find that anybody has been injured by this use. I apologize if my tone is dancing on the edge of WP:CIVIL but again, I think this whole kerfuffle is silly. A crusade to purge Wikipedia of the undoubtedly hundreds of publicity stills that are used to illustrate articles on their subjects would make the encyclopedia measurably worse, while helping nobody. VoiceOfReason 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, neither of those reasons are why we have the policy. We have the policy because we are committed to being, as much as possible, a freely-redistributable encyclopedia. It's why all our text is licensed under the GFDL, instead of just "I give Wikipedia the right to post this text". —Chowbok ☠ 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If we're building it for what it can be rather than what it is, then Wikipedia is useless and we should just dismantle it now. - Stick Fig 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permission

Regarding the permission which has been granted, should the tag {{permission}} or {{norightsreserved}} be used? While the {{permission}} tag conveys that permission has been granted, the tag's statement that "This permission does not extend to third parties" is not necessary true. Shawnc 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)