User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has been a good deal of controversy lately concerning images that are non-free and alleged to be "replaceable". Many don't understand the policy, and many others just don't like it. But even for those who understand and are willing to abide by this policy, there is disagreement as to which non-free images could replaced by a free image that could "reasonably be found or created" that would serve the same purpose and give the same information to the reader. One of the debates which has not yet been resolved concerns non-free photographs of groups of people, specifically musical bands. (The same might apply to other groups of people.) Here are my thoughts about this:

[edit] What I'm pretty sure about:

If the band has broken up, then no new photographs of the band can be created. I believe that non-free images of the band can be used (so long as they conform to all our fair use criteria).

If the band still exists, but the photo in question contains former members (or does not include new members), then the "replaceability" of the image depends on how it is used. If it is used to simply show the band, perhaps in the infobox or at the top of the article, then any photo of the band would serve that same purpose, even if the photo shows a different lineup. (Skip to "What I'm undecided on", below.) But if the photo is used in a section such as "The Johnson years: 1979 - 1983", and if that specific lineup is discussed in the same section where the image is used, then no new photo would adequately replace the image. You really have to check the articles in which the photo is used to be sure.

[edit] What I'm undecided on:

But what if neither of those conditions apply? What if it's just a promotional photo of a band that still exists? That's when it gets tricky. Some say that a new photo could reasonably be created to show the band-members, but others disagree.

On the one hand, it seems reasonable that someone could take a photo of the band. People take concert photos all the time, for instance. (In many venues this is not allowed, but people do anyway, and some venues do allow photography.) On the other hand, these photos almost never show the same information that a promotional photograph of the band would.

Although some promotional photos try to be artistic and abstract, most show what all the band members look like. It's usually a good enough photo that you could identify any of the band members. A typical concert photo (like the one at right) might show three out of four band members, with only one facing the camera, and that one so blurry he is barely recognizable. I'm convinced that a concert photo like the one I described would not adequately replace a promo photo that shows all four members recognizably.

Free, adequate photos of recognizable bands do exist, but they extremely rare. There is one for the Beatles here, although it's free because it was never subject to copyright. For most modern bands, the only way a free image could be found or created would be if the copyright-holder specifically released the photo under a free license. I've searched thoroughly on Wikipedia and the Commons, and I found amazingly few photos that have been released under a free license, that show a popular band of 3 or more people, and that show all band members well enough that they could be identified. (One examples is of the Sugababes, below.) This, despite the fact that there are approximately umpteen bajillion articles on musical bands on Wikipedia, most of them illustrated by promo photos.

So the first question, and the main question here, is: Is it reasonably possible that a member of the general public might take a photograph of an entire band together, where all members are recognizable? I'm going to call this The Big Question in this essay. I'd love to know the answer.

Another question might be: Is it adequate to use several free pictures of individual band members, instead of one picture of the entire band together? If so, the Big Question is moot, since it is much more likely to have separate images of the people involved. It's the same people, but some argue that the article is about the band, an entity that is more than the sum of the members. Would the Beatles article be adequate with free images of each member (taken at different points in their lives), and no image of the band together as a band? What if free images could only be found for three of the four Beatles? Would a non-free image of the band be acceptable? I would lean towards a "no" to all these questions, but some knowledgeable admins have disagreed.

Another question: Is it necessary in a band's article to have a photo that shows all band-members recognizably? I'd assert, for instance, that our article on Africa 70 (which had over 50 members at one time) does not have to show each member recognizably, so a promo-photo of this would not be usable. How about the Squirrel Nut Zippers, with eleven? More broadly, should considerations about FUC#8 -- "The material must contribute significantly to the article" -- factor in determinations about FUC#1 -- "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information"? (In other words, should a maybe-replaceable-but-maybe-not image be more usable if it is very important to the article, but not usable if it's only marginally important to the article?) I don't know about the philosophical question, but in my opinion, if the band's members are all listed in the article, then it's important enough to show them all.

Which brings me back to the Big Question. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, if you've read this far and have an opinion. But note that if your views are against the "replaceable fair use" policy in general, then they won't be very useful to me. I'm looking here at how to best apply the policy, not arguments against the policy.

[edit] Comments

• One problem I have with this discussion is that there seems to be an unstated assumption that the only way to obtain a free photo of a band is by taking a picture of them in concert. I think that we can get promo photos licensed under the GFDL if publicists realize that's the only way to get them into Wikipedia; of course, if we allow them in under fair-use terms, then there's no incentive for anyone to release them under any other license. —Chowbok ☠ 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I see where you (Chowbok) are going with this, but I'm not sure I like the implications. Let's say, hypothetically, that taking a picture of a band is not a practicable way to replace the photo; thus, the only way to replace it is to get it released. So someone goes to the band's publicity people, asks them to release something, and they say no. Then what? Is the photo only now irreplaceable? Do we now require proof that release has been unsuccessfully sought before permitting the upload of a fair use image? In other words, I think that taking this attitude would either result in excluding irreplaceable images or creating a very convoluted system for certifying their legitimacy. --Robth^Talk 01:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As I have said elsewhere, we need to look at the real-world practicality of this. "I think that we can get promo photos licensed under the GFDL if publicists realize that's the only way to get them into Wikipedia"? Uh, how many publicists do you know or deal with on a regular basis? They are not exactly losing sleep over their bands not having good pictures of themselves in Wikipedia, or having pics at all FTM. They usually have much more important things (to them) to worry about (in fact, I would bet they assume that any online pics of a band will be freely distributed on the Internet, and that's what they want because it relieves them of the responsibility). A band successful enough to have a publicist probably already meets our notability standards to begin with; in fact, if we frame this in terms of "it would be good for the band's promotional efforts" then we are making a mockery of every deletion debate where we asserted that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle (Particularly with bands ... see one such example here). That it may be useful in promoting up-and-coming bands that have already released the required CDs is true; however we cannot officially acknowledge this because we are about reflecting the world, not promoting it.

      As for only assuming you can get a picture of a band in concert, again, where else will you do it? First, it's representative because that's what most bands do. Offstage, you rarely would be so lucky in a chance meeting as to get all members of a band together for a picture, and I'm sure the last thing they want to do when they schlep off the bus into a hotel after "they've been ridin' sixteen hours, they just wish the trip was through" is wait while the bass player no one can stand anymore gets his fat, coked-up ass off the bus so some schmuck can take a picture of the band for the Internet. Believe me, I have seen bands — big ones — on the road up close. It would not be an ideal situation for creating images. Daniel Case 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• As for me, I'm leaning towards saying that most band photos would not be reasonably replaceable. Some of the distinctions will depend on how fine you want to cut things; can "bands" be dealt with as a lump? Looking back, it seems to me that I could have gotten great photos of the David Grisman Quintet or the Yonder Mountain Stringband in my time, had I thought of it, since their stage show consists of a bunch of guys standing onstage facing the audience in a decently lighted room. Someone who performs with flashy lights in a dark room, though--you're probably going to get something like the picture above. Are rock bands irreplaceable and bluegrass bands replaceable? Am I being silly to think that a decent concert photo of any band is possible? Are these silly distinctions to draw? I'm not sure. --Robth^Talk 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• The words "could be created that would adequately give the same information" are key. I'm limiting my comments to the situation: we have "fair use image" of "band" already uploaded and included on a page. Let's say I upload a Pink Floyd photo from 1993 with the current three members. I think that even in this case (as in your first two examples up at the top), the image is irreplacable as nobody will be able to get these three together for a band shot that would convey the same information. Promophotos often take place during special moments in time. Sometimes the band comes together, despite animosity/apathy, to sit for a picture in order to promote a greatest hits album. Sometimes the shot is taken during a concert, etc. In some cases, one of the members might be significantly different from one time to the next. For example, could you replace a fair use image of Def Leppard from the time when their drummer had both of his arms with a free one from post-accident Rick Allen? I say no, because the photo isn't conveying the same information (the guy lost an arm). This could apply to anything from specific poses, to background scenery, etc. I think that, if nothing else, a band photo should always show all of the members (or if discussing different time periods, then each photo should show the line up from that time). Each shot is specific to time and should be treated as such. Just my two cents. TheQuandry 05:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, as you type this the Pink Floyd article's lead image is one of the rare photos taken during the brief period in 1968 when both David Gilmour and Syd Barrett were in the band. The fair-use rationale correctly notes the irrepeatability of this moment in time. It was never going to be repeated even during Barrett's lifetime (save, maybe, if someone had had a camera at that moment during the Wish You Were Here sessions when he wandered into the studio) due to his reclusivity and (as Roger Waters once said) his desire not to see anyone from the time of his life prior to his breakdown.

    Now, it used to be easy to argue, even while John Lennon was still alive, that, say, you'd never get all four Beatles together for a picture. But in these days it is no longer so easy to assume that "the band broke up/And it looks like/They will never play again". It seems like every band gets back together when the money's right. I can't even assume that David Lee Roth and the other members of Van Halen will always hate each other (Or, FTM, Styx and Dennis DeYoung). Who knows? But in the meantime pictures of the classic VH lineup are, IMO, irreplaceable. Daniel Case 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• The most basic question: What information are we trying to convey by including a band photo in the article? – flamurai (t) 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a very interesting question. Is it the appearance of the individual bandmembers? The unified look of the whole, as their promoter wants them to be seen? The people as they actually are? Do they have to have their instruments? I honestly don't know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • After a little thinking, I believe that one of the main things that it must do is convey the image of the band. After all, bands are not just about the music they make. An article on The Beatles couldn't be considered complete without images of the band in their moptop haircuts and suits, and of their later psychadelic phase. If you happened to catch The White Stripes out for a jog in and one of them was wearing blue (*gasp*) sweatpants, that wouldn't be representative of their image. The point I'm trying to make is this is not merely about the individual band members' faces. Here are some more specific questions that should be addressed: – flamurai (t) 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      1. Must all band members' be recognizable by face?
      2. Must (should) it be a performance shot?
      3. Must the photo convey the band's "image"? (Should we respect the image the band tries to present, even if members don't maintain that image in their private lives?)
      4. Must it be from the period of the band's most widespread fame?
      5. In the case of bands with multiple creative periods, is a fair use photo acceptable to illustrate one of those periods even if there is a free-use photo from another?
      6. In the case of bands who went through roster changes, is a fair use photo acceptable to illustrate a specific set of members even if there is a free-use photo of another lineup?
• I have been to many concerts (Blood Brothers tommarow!), and have tried taking pictures. I have several pictures of My Chemical Romance, The Used, Saosin, Killswitch Engage, (among others) but none would even come close to encyclopedic. While we need pictures, getting pictures of bands is usually impossible (which means " the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it; ". Taking 3-5 pictures of individual members is also a poor idea. That's not a band, it's four pictures slopily pasted together. Dark jedi requiem 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've had no luck emailing band/lables/promo people asking for pictures. I've sent many emails and never recieved a responce. I know Chowbok did with Beastie Boys, but I don't think it's a common occurance. Dark jedi requiem 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, that's exactly what I would expect to happen. Any promo person who has enough time to consider your request is probably wondering, "why can't he just grab one off the Internet like everyone else does? What's it to him?"

And even if a band is willing, the label may not be ... and that counts for a lot ("Pictures? Given away for free? If we let this happen, next thing they'll be giving away music and we'll be ruined!"). Daniel Case 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Beastie Boys have specific political leanings that make them more likely to agree to let people have free images. But let's face it, most mainstream musicians are extremely particular about commercial use of their image. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a free image in every case, but I'd say you have about a 5% chance of getting them to agree. TheQuandry 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd have more luck with upcoming, younger bands who might have a better understanding of what Wikipedia is. In time, that will happen, I think.

But we need a solution for now. Daniel Case 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have commented on other pages, the vast majority of musicians I deal with, and I know dozens, will not release images under GFDL, nor should they be held hostage to do so in order to have an image here. There have already been terrible GFDL photos of musicians substituted on Wikipedia for press and promotional images, which the current interpretation of policy as you interpret it encourages. Tvccs 07:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two interpretations of WP:5P: One is that Wikipedia is a free content encylopedia in the sense than anyone can edit the text and reuse the text. The other is that everything is and should be free content. (This is a short-sighted view: What about the myriad of quotes included in articles use under fair use? How come no one is trying to eliminate those? How come editors don't have to state their rationale every time they use a direct quote?) However we also must take WP:NOT into account, and recognize that Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not some sort of political experiment to prove free content is viable. I get the sense from the fair use debate that there are free content zealots who don't accept this. They see WP as a common noun rather than a proper noun: it is a general entity that licenses its content under the GFDL, not a free, non-profit encyclopedia that anyone can edit. These people want a Wikipedia that someone could print and sell without changing a word or image. I believe we need to settle on a guideline to strike a balance between WP's goal to educate and its goal to be free content. – flamurai (t) 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Please, let's not turn this into yet another debate about the "replaceable fair use" policy in general. I'm looking here for comments on how best to apply the principle, not discussion on whether the policy is correct. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my criteria after some thought. A "quality" band photo must:

1. Present all members recognizably
2. Convey the band's public image
3. Be from the band's main period of creative output and fame
4. Include all primary members associated with the group

– flamurai (t) 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on this image? Tvccs 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

People clap at concerts! That's what I get out of it... – flamurai (t) 16:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)