Image talk:Sofia Rotaru.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] m:Copyright paranoia
reason of User:Chowbok's attack on the image (and hence the article it illustrates) is unclear to me. If he is able to contact the entertainer on the pic and arrange a free photo-session, he should do just that. This is a publicity image released by the SR's web-site exactly to promote her work. It fits the tag as per its very definition.
Pity that certain users choose to waste theirs and other people's time playing games of copyright experts. I have articles to write rather than spend time defending absolutely usable images from user:Chowbok. --Irpen 04:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Pity that certain users spend their time working to encumber what should be a freely-redistributable encyclopedia with unnecessary copyrighted photos, leaving others to have to do the grunt work of cleaning up their messes. —Chowbok ☠ 04:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss general principles of Wikipedia, go to WP:VPP for that. So far, fair-use images are accepted pending a certain number of restrictions. In particular, for this image, how do you plan to get a free one? It is a celebrity photo, there is no free equivalent. The dispute is therefore moot. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair use images are only acceptable if a free image could not be created. As this person is still alive, she could be contacted and asked for a freely-licensed photo, or a photo could be taken of her at a public appearance. —Chowbok ☠ 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is this supposed to be funny? Do you know how much celebs charge for their photos, even made by the best photographs? This is plain ridiculous. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've personally added dozens of free photos of celebrities to Wikipedia. The Beastie Boys management released a publicity photo under completely unrestricted terms, and they're a huge band. There's nothing ridiculous about it. —Chowbok ☠ 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it is proper to every artist, I gather. But in a general case, an artist can perfectly have only copyrighted photos, making free images impossible to obtain. Besides, why, when fairuse images are accepted on WP (with restrictions, but they're all met here) ? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- They're not all met here. In my opinion, this fails WP:FUC criterion #1 which states that fair use images can only be used when "[n]o free equivalent is available or could be created" (emphasis mine). As the article states, she has "feverish" concert activity and therefore any attendee could easily take a photograph of her. —Chowbok ☠ 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:FUC states: "As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?"". The answer is no, you cannot replace a portrait with some photo taken during a concert. It's not the same picture. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- They're not all met here. In my opinion, this fails WP:FUC criterion #1 which states that fair use images can only be used when "[n]o free equivalent is available or could be created" (emphasis mine). As the article states, she has "feverish" concert activity and therefore any attendee could easily take a photograph of her. —Chowbok ☠ 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it is proper to every artist, I gather. But in a general case, an artist can perfectly have only copyrighted photos, making free images impossible to obtain. Besides, why, when fairuse images are accepted on WP (with restrictions, but they're all met here) ? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've personally added dozens of free photos of celebrities to Wikipedia. The Beastie Boys management released a publicity photo under completely unrestricted terms, and they're a huge band. There's nothing ridiculous about it. —Chowbok ☠ 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is this supposed to be funny? Do you know how much celebs charge for their photos, even made by the best photographs? This is plain ridiculous. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair use images are only acceptable if a free image could not be created. As this person is still alive, she could be contacted and asked for a freely-licensed photo, or a photo could be taken of her at a public appearance. —Chowbok ☠ 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not see a point to discuss with you here the general principles of Wikipedia. I am well familiar with them. As I said above, if you can obtain a comparably good free image, just do that and replace this one in an article. So far, your contribution here comes down to an attempt of content removal. Using the images released by the entertainer for the very purpose of their publicity is exactly the usage publicity is supposed to be for. It does not endanger the Foundation in any way to the lawsuites. If you can do better than that, do it. So far, if this is left to you, the result would be the removal of the properly used image. You consider your time-wasting effort a "gruntwork of cleaning up my mess" but from aside it looks something else. Now, please write an article or two if you have time so spend on Wikipedia. --Irpen 04:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss general principles of Wikipedia, go to WP:VPP for that. So far, fair-use images are accepted pending a certain number of restrictions. In particular, for this image, how do you plan to get a free one? It is a celebrity photo, there is no free equivalent. The dispute is therefore moot. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
