Image talk:Riya Calendar.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fair use dispute

Rationale fails to explain why this image must be shown. While her appearance in the calendar appears to be notable for both article it is used in, why just talking about it without showing the image is required. There seems to be nothing special about this image other than it's use. I believe it is decorative to the article and does hamper on the commercial ability of the photographer because there is less of a reason to buy the calendar with the image here. MECU≈talk 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the above. Let me point out why:

• No image is ever really a must. Most books, and many websites, prefer to have none. But, Wikipedia accepts images as a fact of life.
• Was there ever anything special about any work of art other than how it looked? And, glamor photography has long been well accepted as an artform, right?
• If this extreme opinion about hampering commercial use of the photograph is valid, why can't we use another extreme opinion - this might actually increase its commercial value, as people may become interested to buy the original calendar for the real bigger picture, and 23 more pictures that come with it? (Please, don't get me wrong here - I am against advertisment in Wikipedia in all forms, though I happen to be an advertising professional myself)

Anyways, thanks for the kind endorsement that, notability of the image has been well established in both articles. Besides, I am under the impression that the tagger got have something to say in this. Well, I may be wrong. Aditya Kabir 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aditya Kabir. The article makes specific mention of the photograph, and understanding of what the image looks like and reactions to the image would be severely impaired without the image itself. It is not merely decorative because the article specifically talks about the image and the public's reactions to the image. The image significantly enhances the educational value of the article in a way that words could not. It is impossible to replace this image with a free equivalent. --Strangerer (Talk) 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia use of a low resolution scan of only one of a series of photos does not compromise any rights reserved by the copyright holder. The current usage is well in line with the four fair use factors codified by US copyright law. Whether the current usage is in line with Wikipedia policy is a wholly different question, but the assertion that it constitutes copyright infringement is plainly false. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A free alternative image of this model can easily be found.There are lot of free images of model are available in WP article.Though the image enhances some value of the article but it's possible to get a free picture of her and can be replaced.This image isn't fair use either.--NAHID 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A free alternative to a specific piece of photographic art? How? Aditya Kabir 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to all the people expressing their opinions on this page and particularly to User:^demon, who eventually decided to put forward a keep verdict. It goes on to say a lot about the immensely improbable method of developing an encyclopedia here. Yes, Wikipedia works, and it works without becoming a strict bureaucracy or a chaotic democracy. Don't they say that the faithful will always be rewarded? Thanks again. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)