Image talk:WotW pub.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] replaceable fair-use image
The detailed fair-use rationale does not adequately explain the necessity of this fair-use image in the particular article. RadioKirk (talk • contribs) claims: "while public domain images may exist for the subject of the article, none can be created that adequately illustrates the point(s) in the subject's career that (is/are) discussed in the accompanying text;". The accompanying text in the article does not make specific mention to either the scene portrayed, nor to how the actress appears in the particular scene. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Essentially, I feel this image does not "contribute significantly to the article" as required by WP:FUC#8. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your argument seems to have morphed from the incorrectly strict requirement of scene discussion and/or the nowhere-supported idea that illustration need be "crucial" to the more subjective "I feel this image does not 'contribute significantly…'". My rebuttal is the same: the image is a direct visual depiction of Spielberg's assessment of "how quickly [Fanning] understands the situation in a sequence, how quickly she sizes it up … and how she would really react in a real situation" in that her character is depicted herewith as profoundly disturbed (if not terrified) by what she sees, is about to see or is afraid she'll never see again. Absent a video file, the image does indeed "contribute significantly to the" accompanying text. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moved from User talk:pd THOR
Rather than restore the tag after considerable effort was made to so satisfy, why not write me with the reasons you believe this to still be replaceable? This image accompanies text specific to the film and is not used merely to identify; please explain. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did. And while I do appreciate the efforts you've made, I maintain my position. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have, virtually by force, become entirely familiar with WP:FUC; nothing therein suggests that text specific "to either the scene portrayed [or] to how the actress appears in the particular scene" is required, much less suggested. Your objection seems focused upon item #8 (the remainder are satisfied), which states that an image must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text"; the image within the article accompanies the text, "War director Steven Spielberg marveled at 'how quickly she understands the situation in a sequence, how quickly she sizes it up, measures it up and how she would really react in a real situation'". I maintain that your position is incorrectly—not just unnecessarily—strict. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- But how exactly does that passage of text relate the the use of the image? Spielberg didn't say anything about this given scene, or about how she particularly looked in any given scene; only that basically, she's really good. This image doesn't convey her ability to grasp the gravity of the fictional situation as it would personally relate to her in reality (what the text is saying), it shows her looking ... sad? worried? Great. But it doesn't give us any more insight into her acting than this image or this image does for those respective actors. To describe what Spielberg was referring requires watching actions and events. This can be accomplished by either the quote itself, or a video which can demonstrate these acting capabilities; an image doesn't do this, and can't.
The combination of text and image to satisfy fair use should be: "This is a fact. This image is crucial to illustrating this fact, and no free-use alternative could perform the same function." The utilization of this image amounts to: "She is an excellent actress because she can do [this]. This image clearly depicts what she looks like when she is acting." — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I reiterate, your position is incorrectly—not just unnecessarily—strict, as WP:FUC neither requires nor suggests that the text be exactly specific to the image. Quoting again, the relevant passage states that an image must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text"; Miss Fanning has a sufficiently prolific career that "relevant points or sections" need refer only to a film, not a specific scene therefrom. Simply put, the image illustrates the text, as required. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- But how exactly does that passage of text relate the the use of the image? Spielberg didn't say anything about this given scene, or about how she particularly looked in any given scene; only that basically, she's really good. This image doesn't convey her ability to grasp the gravity of the fictional situation as it would personally relate to her in reality (what the text is saying), it shows her looking ... sad? worried? Great. But it doesn't give us any more insight into her acting than this image or this image does for those respective actors. To describe what Spielberg was referring requires watching actions and events. This can be accomplished by either the quote itself, or a video which can demonstrate these acting capabilities; an image doesn't do this, and can't.
- I have, virtually by force, become entirely familiar with WP:FUC; nothing therein suggests that text specific "to either the scene portrayed [or] to how the actress appears in the particular scene" is required, much less suggested. Your objection seems focused upon item #8 (the remainder are satisfied), which states that an image must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text"; the image within the article accompanies the text, "War director Steven Spielberg marveled at 'how quickly she understands the situation in a sequence, how quickly she sizes it up, measures it up and how she would really react in a real situation'". I maintain that your position is incorrectly—not just unnecessarily—strict. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The criteria are met; please withdraw your tag. Thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, I don't feel that the image's use meets criteria; please feel free to dispute "my tag". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The image passes the FUC, it is used to provide critical commentary on the actresses career, she is portraying a fictional copyrighted character, perfectly valid fair use claim, non-replaceable, PDThor: If you can not fair use police properly, then don't do it! (PS: You have several replaceable images your self) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
