Image talk:Alessandra Mussolini.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Replaceable fair use disputed

This is a complicated case, please bear with me.

  1. This is the official photograph of the article subject as a member of the European Parliament. Being a politician is her primary reason for notability; she is a highly controversial politician, and this is her official photograph at her job. Unlike most other members of the EP, however, she also has two other reasons for notability, for notoriety, even. See below.
  2. The "fair use" nature of the photograph is a casuistry. The European Parliament allows anyone to use their photographs, for free. We don't need to claim fair use to be legally allowed to use it. We are using this photograph perfectly legally, and precisely the way it was intended to be used. The only reason we don't consider the EP license "free" is because other people who download this photo from Wikipedia aren't allowed to draw a moustache on it. That's not what "fair use" means.
  3. Possibly most important, however, is the fact that we have a real "fair use" photo on her Wikipedia article, Alessandra Mussolini. That is the cover of one of the two Playboy magazine issues she appeared on. Yes, this politician, this conservative, right-wing, some even say neo-fascist, politician, this grand-daughter of Benito Mussolini ... was a prominent and successful nude model. No fooling. I couldn't make this up if I tried.
That is true "fair use", in the sense that Playboy did not give the right to reprint that picture, but we are using it because it is irreplaceable, and there is just no equally valid substitute to illustrate her extremely notable and important appearances in Playboy than a picture of her on the cover of Playboy. But, she hasn't been a nude model for decades now, and while she doesn't exactly hide it - she can't really, Playboy is not some minor mag that no one saw - she doesn't advertise it either, and some of her supporters consider it embarassing. If we only have that image on her article, then it is Wikipedia:Undue weight, because, frankly, a picture like that really is worth 1000 words.
If someone can actually replace this image with another one, I won't mind that much. It is her official photo as a member of the EC, but when you come right down to it, it's not that great a photo, and it's just a picture of her in a suit, she's not signing some important document or shaking hands with some other important politician. But it is a very important balance to the other picture, which we have a real fair use justification for. Leaving the only picture of her on the article being a picture of her ... without a suit, shall we say ... would be compromising our neutral point of view. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Even though I prefer the second photo ;-) I agree with AnonEMouse's argument.
--Lou Crazy 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Important note AnonEMouse wrote: The European Parliament allows anyone to use their photographs, for free This is incorrect as far as I can see it is for non-commercial purpose only Copyright on EU Parliament site. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for why image for non-commercial use "will be deleted on sight". Jackaranga 04:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, thanks. That license has changed since I downloaded it, but I can't prove it, so I'm striking the second point, and giving up the argument on the other EP image I downloaded, and on the template in general. However I will keep disputing this one. I strongly feel we absolutely need this picture on Alessandra Mussolini due to the third point, per WP:IAR if nothing else. Having the only image on an article on an active politician, especially an active conservative politician, be a picture of that politician in ... negligee, say we say ... is just not WP:NPOV. I uploaded the other one, at the same time, by the way, and it's not replaceable; I got them both at the same time for this very reason. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:AnonEMouse)
My opinion is that it is probably not allowed at the reading of WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable images#12. But Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people gives some valid points as to why the image could be kept, and your explanation is detailed and specific, so probably it's ok. It definitely doesn't bother me personally anyway, you can remove the deletion tag. It could be said that in this case the image is irreplaceable: in order for this article to meet the NPOV policy you need either both or neither picture, and deleting valid material is not a solution. Perhaps it should be moved from the infobox and placed further down the page as is the case for many actor's articles. I think as a general rule when users can't agree (/are not sure ) it is best to keep. Jackaranga (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re-nomination

I failed to checked the history when I nominated, sorry. But, anyway, I'm confused about why this image is somehow special. Back when we accepted fair use for the lead photo in BLPs, an image such as this, would certainly be allowed. But, that practice has changed for sometime. For instance, pretty much all official photos of Canadian MPs have been deleted. The same goes for large swaths of others. Usually, the "exceptions" allow for a a photo of a BLP to illustrate something other than just the appearance. in this case, that would mean allowing the image in the "Political career" section. But, of course, there's nothing in the image that cries "politics". It's just a run-of-the-mill photo, that does nothing more than show what she looks like. Anways, she's a public figure, who presumably appears in public enough, for people to snap a photo of her. --Rob (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. My removal of the tag was procedural only, since a speedy had already been declined in the past. I did this out of respect for AnonEMouse, who is a (apparently) mostly retired highly respected editor. When this came up the last time, I searched for a free image and could only find this - unfortunately the photographer is Italian so I made a request here for assistance which hasn't been answered. If the image is nominated again it should probably go to IFD since the image is likely replaceable as you say, but it will give a chance for AnonEMouse's previous points to be considered. Regards - Kelly hi! 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)