Image talk:Tina Karol.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.

[edit] replaceability disputed

The image is of a world renowned entetainer, the pop-singer and a model. For such articles having a representative image of the subject is extremely important to the reader's being able to consume the article's content, that is to get the best possible idea of the article's subject. No comparable free image is available to the best of the uploader's knowledge.

Getting a shot from a stray Wikipedian meeting her in the street is extremely unlikely. Besides, the amateur quality image taken as she cares for her everyday business cannot substitute the professional quality image specifically released to give the viewers the best representation of the subject, especially when talking about professioanl entetainers whose appearance is very important in their public perception. --Irpen 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Quadell copy/pastes his challenges instead of discussing each image on the merit and uses a disparaging to opponents edit summaries as well (shows user's interest in actual discussion and good faith, doesn't it?) I will also give a previously preparred responce.

First, the Policy was recently rewritten by a narrow group of deletionists with no input from other Wikipedians. Second, even the current policy if interpreted in good faith does not forbid the image. My point exactly is that it is impossible to create a free image that would reasonably replace the current one because we are talking about the entetainer whose looks played an important role in her career and affect her fan-base. If a professional quality publicity image is replaced by a amateur image taken in the street, the article would be deprived of too much of its usefulness as the replacement amateur image would not in any reasonable way illustrate what the article is all about.

Generally, the problem is two-fold. How reasonable amount of effort would it take to get a replacement image and how reasonable is to expect that the image taken within a reasonable effort would reasonably provide the same adequate information to the reader? The word reasonable is defining here.

To the first question the answer is it depends. Taking an image of a notable building or church located in an area that we expect to be frequented by Wikipedia editors is withing a reasonable effort. At the same time taking an image of the top of Everest or of the back side of the Moon is in principle possible (Pay $$$ to Roskosmos and they will take you to space). These are two extreme case where it is easy to judge whether a free picture could reasonably be created. There are lots of territory between them and each case should be judged my its own merit. How likely is for a Wikipedian with a Camera to meet a particular person in conditions where one can make a good enough photoshot (note the words "good enough"). Suppose the person is accessible, like the subject is a regular college professor who walk in his university every day. Quite another case is when the subject lives quite an exclusive life (and not necessarily secluded one). Chances of meeting such person in conditions that may produce a reasonably acceptable photo are very unlikely.

Second question is how well would such a picture, if taken, illustrate the article. I guess for a professor or a writer such an amateur image as a replacement of a professional one, would not miss somethin critically important for the article's reader. In the end, how exactly such people look is of secondary importance. But what about the entetainers whose looks played an important role in making them notable. Does a PD mugshot of a celebrity caught drunk-driving provide an adequate information to the reader to understand the article? Of course it does not.

Of course getting the image subjects releasing their images for free would be the best solution. The proposal of organizing such campaign has been cleverly floated at Chowbok's RfC. Perhaps we will start getting more such approvals if this becomes an organized effort. However, for the cases where no such image is available, the fair use publicity images are irreplaceable. --Irpen 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• You make a good point, Irpen. Since she is a public entertainer her photo is important to understanding her appeal etc. (unlike, say, an author). And that it needs to be studio-quality photo rather than a candid snapshot makes sense too. There's no reason to believe that the subject will release one of her studio-quality photos into the public domain - why should she? I think a candid photo of her in concert would be OK, though; perhaps even better, since it shows her doing what makes her notable. However, its generally illegal to take photos at concerts without permission, which is understandably usually limited to professionals. All told, I believe that this image should be considered not necessarily reasonably replacaeble, and the ((replaceable fair use)) tag should be removed. (And I'm not a pushover on this - I've just gone through a half-dozen tagged images where I argued that they are replaceable.) Herostratus 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with the point that for someone who makes a living from their appearance a fair use image might be more relevant than for others. However this image only shows what she looks like, it lacks context (like a movie poster, advertisment, still from a movie or television performance or similar which would provide such a context). See for instance Image:Kate Moss Calvin Klein.jpg. It's a nice picture though, but in this context (or lack thereof) it is completely replaceable. --Oden 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You fail to address the point raised. That is replaceable with what? Is it within reasonable effort to find a replacement and what the replacement should be like? --Irpen 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The replacement is any other image that shows her without a relevant context. Context in this case: for a singer, for instance a poster advertising her products or services. This image does not provide context, if you look at it without reading the article it says nothing about her profession, it only shows what she looks like (which makes it a replaceable image). A poster would show her advertising her or someones products or services. An album cover would also do.

If it only serves to illustrate what the subject looks like it is a replaceable image, replaceable with any other image that shows what she looks like. --Oden 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really the same thing. And I agree, the policy was recently modified with no consensus from the majority of Wiki community. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the policy has been in place for over year, was endorsed by Jimbo and the board, and has been discussed ad nauseam. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)