Image talk:Werbowy.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.

Contents 1 Discussion from image page 2 disputed 3 Disputed 2 4 new rational

[edit] Discussion from image page

Taking pictures of supermodels is not that unlikely. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supermodels . --Abu Badali 19:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking a picture that would reasonably represent the subject well enough for the readers is very unlikely but if someone takes it, go ahead and replace the image. Until then, the tag is valid. --Irpen 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, it's not. You may want to learn WP:Fair use#Counterexamples#8 (that is a consequence of WP:FUC#1). --Abu Badali 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We have talk pages for threaded discussions. --Irpen 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disputed

Tagger, please explain how you suggest to replace the image. TIA, --Irpen 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like any other image of a living (free, public) person. Someone takes a picture in some opportunity and releases it under a free licensing (see WP:IUP#User-created images) OR someone contacts the copyright holder of an existing image and ask him to release it under a free licensing (see WP:COPYREQ).

But Irpen, as you tagged this image as disputed, you may have some reason to beleive it's not possible to create a free replacement for this image. I have to say I disagree with the argument that on the "Fair use rationale" that taking pictures of supermodels "is extremely unlikely". I, for one, have contacted photographers to release picures of some high-profile models, like Kate Moss, Gisele_Bundchen, and Michelle Alves. Best regards, --Abu Badali 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My experience is different. I did sent emails in the past to celebrity's web-sites about releasing the images under some kind of a free license and I never got any responce. I do agree that professional image released under such licence would make a good replacement. I do not see an amateur image taken in the street with the soapbox an acceptable alternative because such image would not illustrate the article in any reasonable way. Please contact the PR secretary of Werbowy yourself if you think you may have a better luck. Until then, the image is fully within the protections of the fair use clause of the US copyright law. --Irpen 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely within the protections of the fair use clause of the US copyright law. But not in accordance with the (badly named) Wikipedia policy on unfree material. --Abu Badali 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your personal view of the policy which is also flawed since the policy page has been mopstly edited by users who do not do much content creation and cannot understand well the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but perceive is rather as the social medium. --Irpen 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This image contributes significantly to the article about Werbowy by identifying the subject of the article. It also falls under the promotional fair use criterion, and as soon as a more free image comes up, one of the editors will make the swap.--Riurik ^(discuss) 05:37, 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)} 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Quadell copy/pastes his challenges instead of discussing each image on the merit (shows user's interest in actual discussion, 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)

I think that the image should be retained. She's a model; whatever notability she has is built around her looks, so an image is very important to the article. Getting a free picture of her in her modelling getup is probably impossible, all of those images are presumably tightly controlled and there is no reason to believe that the copyright holder of any of them would release it into the public domain - why would he? Herostratus 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an image on Flickr: Werbowy doing a photo shoot on a public street. Unfortunately it is licensed under CC-BY-NC, it needs to be PD, GFDL, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to be a free license. It also shows that this image is completely replaceable. --Oden 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You contradict yourself by exhibiting a inusable image. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point I am making is that the image is completely replaceable. The image I linked to is an example of that it should be possible to obtain a free image of the subject. --Oden 02:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"The image you linked to is not an adequate replacement even if it where free. --Irpen 02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed 2

Criterion 1 of the fair use criteria states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." [...] "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." Clearly the subject still exists so anyone could take a picture, making this image completely replaceable.

If you want to you can contact the photographer and ask permission for the photograph to be licensed under a free license (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission). However, the fact remains that the image is replaceable. --Oden 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether the image is considered replaceable depends on whether it is likely to expect that a free image that exists or could be taken would reasonably illustrate the article. This has been explained above in detail. --Irpen 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the counterexamples at WP:Fair use#Counterexamples is "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like". This image does only that, so it is replaceable in that aspect. The likelihood of whether a replacement could be found does matter if the subject is very reclusive (such as JD Salinger or Thomas Pynchon) or under house arrest (such as Aung San Suu Kyi). This is clearly not such a case, I even managed to find a Creative Commons image on Flickr which shows the subject out in public [1], so it is replaceable. --Oden 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only the image you found cannot be legally used, this or the similar image if existed or created would not be satisfactory in the case of the particular article. Each case is different from the other. We are talking about specific article to which the FU claim is written. --Irpen 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This image only serves to illustrate what the person looks like, so it is replaceable. Each case is different, but Wikipedia's policies must remain the same. --Oden 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The image illustrates not just how she looks like but that she looks beautiful and how exactly beautiful that was crucial for this person's career. It is possible to find another copyrighted image that would reasonably do the same but no way the amateur shot would be a reasonable replacement in such specific case. --Irpen 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If the image is being used to show that "she looks beautiful", then it's being used to illustrate "how she looks like". Also, the policy doesn't asks for an "amateur shot" to be used. It asks for a freely licensed image. --Abu Badali 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How she looks like is specifically relevant for her notability as she got notable in large part due to her looks. The info provided by an image is very significant for an article and no free image is available or could reasonably be created. --Irpen 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it. You mean that no free image could be created that would show how beautiful she looks like? What does the image licensing has to do with her aspect? (Sorry if I somehow misunderstood you). --Abu Badali 04:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I will quote User:Postdlf, an active participant of these discussions and also a copyright lawyer who said:[2]

"There are no categorically replaceable images. The only fair use images of living people that are in fact replaceable are those that "adequately provide the same information" that could reasonably be provided by a free alternative. This can't be determined without a consideration of the image content in relation to the use in the article." Postdlf 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoted by Irpen at 05:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a clear case of WikiLawyering. One editor's A few editors' opinions does do not override policy (unless that editor is Jimbo Wales). --Oden 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• --Oden 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' opinion does not overide policy but his ruling does. Second, the specific dispute about this image is being raised by several and not one user. One user's opinion about policy interpretation does not make such an interpretation an ultimate truth. --Irpen 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reasoable argument for why this image does not violate criterion #1 of WP:FUC? --Oden 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the #1 "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." (That is of course within the article's context.) as Fairuse claim is article specific. The case has been made that no free image can be created that would adequately give the essential information in the specific article. --Irpen 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The present image only serves to depict a living person, which could be replaced by any other such image. However, if the image depicted the subject in a way that could not be replaced (such as this image: Image:Kate Moss Calvin Klein.jpg) and was placed somwehere in the article where it would be in context then a fair use image would be permissible. The present image however is replaceable. --Oden 06:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be explained exactly by any such image. All other such images are copyrighted and knowing how rare it is for celebrities to release their images under free licenses, relying on exception here is unreasonable. It is explained above that it is not in the context of the particular article as a free image that would adequately give the same information in the article's context is unlikely to exist and unlikely to be produced. It has been explained to you ad naseum and your repeated questioning based on your flawed understanding of the policy (that also needs improvement) is not making your argument any stronger. --Irpen 06:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Policy does not distinguish images based on subtle quality differences or the likelihood of availability (unless the subject is a recluse). The present image only serves to depict a living person, which could be replaced by any other such image. It almost sounds like you own this article?
2. This is not the place to suggest changes in policy, only how to implement it.--Oden 06:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that my opinion about the policy's being in need of improvement is given as a side note. Policy does distinguish in the very phrase I sited above. See above "the same information" (quality difference may or may not matter depending on the difference and the context) implies that the image should be adeqaute for the specific article. "Could be created" implies that the possibility is realistic rather than hypothetical. See counterexamples above. --Irpen 06:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are completely ruling out the possibility that a free image could be created during the lifetime of this person? There isn't even the slightest chance for it? --Oden 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightest chance? See above about Moon. --Irpen 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that there is a possibility that a free image could be created. This image does not meet WP:FUC criterion #1. --Oden 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong as per above. Creation of the adequate free image as per policy crit #1 is unreasonable to expect ever to the best of my judgement.--Irpen 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to have a free image that's not quite as good, than a professional image which we can only use under the doctrine of fair use. After all, Wikipedia is not fundamentally about having a encyclopedia full of pretty pictures, it's about having a free encyclopedia. Keeping a fair use image when a free one could be created inhibits the creation and growth of free images. This is my interpretation of policy. --Oden 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole disputed is about the degree of importance of two claims that may (or may not) contradict. They are not mutually exclusive but the balance depends on the priority that is to be decided on a case by case basis. I gave my case above. --Irpen 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason free images are preferable is because such images can be distributed freely. Someone who wants to distribute Wikipedia on a CD/DVD for instance cannot charge any money if the content includes copyrighted material. This is why non-commercial images are also excluded.

The main goal is to create a free encyclopedia under the GFDL. Restricting the use of fair use images to a minimum and replacing them is therefore a high priority. --Oden 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, unless the fairuse images are banned, and this is not the case, their applicability is to be decided on a case by cases basis. Arguments in favor of free images are made and they are clear. Yes, they are preferable too, except in case that available or obtainalbe free image may not be adequate. --Irpen 09:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On a case-by-case basis, it seems obvious to me that someone could take a photograph of Ms. Werbowy that reveals her to be beautiful, and could release this photo under the GFDL. That's why I consider this particular image to be replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By another copyrighted image? Yes. By a free image, not reasonably likely. --Irpen 20:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. We have plenty of examples of free images that happen to reveal the model's beauty:

Ana Hickmann	Gianne Albertoni	Gisele Bundchen	Michelle Alves
Carina Beduschi	Ana Claudia Michels	Daniella Sarahyba	Xuxa

All images came from Flickr. --Abu Badali 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, that there are so few proves that the likelyhood of such image to be available is unreasonably low. In fact even among those the Xuxa image does not give the adequate information, as required by policies. Hypothetically, there may be a free image that would have required its author to go to the outer space to get it. Some people fly to space for their own money and make their own shots. The WP guidelines should be applied only with reasonable assumptions. If no matter how low the odds are, the adequate free image becomes available, the fairuse one gets deleted. --Irpen 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are more unfree images than free ones. The point was to show that, with some effort, we increase the number of free images available. Most of these images were not free by the time they were uploaded to Flickr. But after some tactfull talking, the authors agree to release them. Also, the point is also to show that being free doesn't imply being low quality. By the way, what's the "adequate information" information missing in the Xuxa's image? --Abu Badali 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy clerly states that it's examples,of how to replace fair use images:

For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

second the policy say that fair use aplies if we can recreate images that carries the same information.

We beleavethat we can't so we should retain the image.Wikipedia is not a goverment in the end the only thing that maters is if you have a concensus,a quic glance in the discussion seems your a minority.--Pixel ;-) 13:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new rational

In the new perspective,that she is alive or dead don't mater,This is to ilustreat her work.If her work consis of photos of her self is just a conicidence in our special situation.The image is not about seening her face,but too illustrate her work,for critical comentary.--Pixel ;-) 13:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.