Image talk:Twiggy promo.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Twiggy photograph was deleted earlier for being "replaceable fair use", I did not see the photograph, but I thought that its deletion under RFU was pretty farcical. On uploading this, I informally asked about this on IRC, and the users there supported this. This is an image of Twiggy from the height of her career in the 60s, it is of lower resolution than the original, and clearly sourced. Free alternatives were search for on Flickr and LoC, none were found. Read the second paragraph of the main article, clearly an old photograph like this is very much important to describe this article. Hahnchen 17:24, 20 January 2007) (UTC)
- Then put it next to the second paragraph to illustrate it. Pictures in infoboxes only show what the person looks like and must be freely licensed. —Angr 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like pretty pointless wikilawyering. If I moved the image out of the infobox, it somehow changes its fair use claim? It doesn't though does it. It may be in the infobox, but it's not just to arbitrarily show what the person looks like, instead it shows what the person looked like at the height of their influence and fame. - hahnchen 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use images have to be used in conjunction with critical commentary. There is no critical commentary in an infobox; the use there is purely decorative. —Angr 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've just shown you how it has been used in conjunction with critical commentary in the article. Yet you've settled on the trivial point of whether having it in the infobox makes any sort of difference. The image isn't just used to "decorate" the article. Since when were infoboxes considered separate articles? Why does removing the infobox change the claim to fair use in any way? - hahnchen 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Infoboxes aren't separate articles, but they are separated from any critical commentary in the article. I didn't say the infobox had to be removed, just that any image in it has to be a free one. —Angr 05:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- They're not separate from any critical commentary. In this case, it's used to illustrate the high point of her career. From your reasoning, it's impossible to have fair use images in any infobox, as it's only used as decorative devices within the infobox. This is clearly not the case. - hahnchen 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Infoboxes aren't separate articles, but they are separated from any critical commentary in the article. I didn't say the infobox had to be removed, just that any image in it has to be a free one. —Angr 05:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've just shown you how it has been used in conjunction with critical commentary in the article. Yet you've settled on the trivial point of whether having it in the infobox makes any sort of difference. The image isn't just used to "decorate" the article. Since when were infoboxes considered separate articles? Why does removing the infobox change the claim to fair use in any way? - hahnchen 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair use images have to be used in conjunction with critical commentary. There is no critical commentary in an infobox; the use there is purely decorative. —Angr 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like pretty pointless wikilawyering. If I moved the image out of the infobox, it somehow changes its fair use claim? It doesn't though does it. It may be in the infobox, but it's not just to arbitrarily show what the person looks like, instead it shows what the person looked like at the height of their influence and fame. - hahnchen 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion was overturned at deletion review. The image still needs to be properly sourced though. Nevermind, looks like source is established. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)laughmyassoff !
