Image talk:BambiWoods DebbieDoesDallas Wikipedia.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Replaceable fair use
This is a photo of a living person used only in the article about that person to illustrate that person. This is a replaceable use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, sorry. First, it's at least a photo of a reclusive person, that a team of professionals have tried hard to find and couldn't, so it's not possible to find a photo; in fact, it's debatable whether or not she is still a living person. Second, it illustrates her appearance in the single movie that made her notable, which is not merely used to illustrate her, and that can't possibly be a free image. So not replaceable. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good argument; the image isn't considered replaceable if she really can't be located. There is another problem with the image: the permissions text included in the image itself. The permission belongs on the image description page but not as part of the actual image. If that were cropped off, I would consider the entire issue settled. I can do the cropping and remove all the deletion tags (as the nominator) if that's agreeable to you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question - can we edit fair use images? After thinking about it, I imagine we could, the fair use permission would not be changed. But I don't think we should, for simple politeness reasons. While the image would, of course, look better without the disclaimer text, the original uploader was VCX pictures, the copyright holder, and wanted the permission text embedded. It would be kind of mean for us to take the image they offered and edit the disclaimer off of it. Unless they agree, of course. They haven't edited for a while, so probably won't respond to a message on their talk page, but they gave an email address: [1]. Want to send an email and ask them? Another alternative would be for us to get a different fair use image without involving them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was also thinking that we could just get a different (nonpornographic) screenshot and use that. Even cropping this image would be hard because of the logo in the top left. I think it's a bad precedent to use images that have logos and permission superimposed on them; it might encourage others to do the same. — Carl (CBM · talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBM (talk • contribs) 17:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
- "Nonpornographic"? There is nothing pornographic or erotic about this image. It's a head shot -- you can't even see if she has breasts! But if you meant "nonpornographic" in respect to the image's ultimate source, I doubt there are any verified images of her that do not come from one of the four movies she appeared in. (And if one did exist, using it would be considered Fair Use & take us back to square one in justifying the use of an image.) -- llywrch 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course this image is not pornographic. I meant that the different picture should also be nonpornographic; likely a different nonfree screenshot from a film. The difficulty is that when I made a quick search online most of the images were this one (sometimes cropped) or included nudity, so it would require someone to find the DVD and make a screenshot. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Er, now I see what you mean. Sorry. -- llywrch 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course this image is not pornographic. I meant that the different picture should also be nonpornographic; likely a different nonfree screenshot from a film. The difficulty is that when I made a quick search online most of the images were this one (sometimes cropped) or included nudity, so it would require someone to find the DVD and make a screenshot. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Nonpornographic"? There is nothing pornographic or erotic about this image. It's a head shot -- you can't even see if she has breasts! But if you meant "nonpornographic" in respect to the image's ultimate source, I doubt there are any verified images of her that do not come from one of the four movies she appeared in. (And if one did exist, using it would be considered Fair Use & take us back to square one in justifying the use of an image.) -- llywrch 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
