Image talk:Zero 7.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This image is a replacement for the non-free promo image Image:Zero 7 promophoto.jpg. I'm copying the talk page of that (now deleted) image over to here, in case anyone wants to refer to it. Herostratus 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page of old image (Image:Zero 7 promophoto.jpg)

I do not believe a free image can be created, either now or anytime in the future. Fair use remains entirely appropriate in this case. Jenolen 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only could a fair use image be created, many already have been. Every photo here is freely-licensed. —Chowbok ☠ 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think the image can be obtained do it rather than teach others what to do. Maybe the user have tried and spent much effort on that. Do you know to the contrary. Please obtain the free image if you can. We will all thank you for your effort. --Irpen 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? You will? Because you have yet to thank me for the effort I've expended in obtaining 100+ free images so far. If this the image that will push me over the edge and get me thanked, that would be very cool, although odd. —Chowbok ☠ 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, for God's sake, will you not be convinced of some image's replacelability even after a dozen of free replacements are already found on the Internet? You're far for reasonable. Now you're being disruptive! Please, go back to the good editor you are. --Abu Badali 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid accusing other editors. Someone is indeed disruptive here. If you point me towards an acceptable free image somewhere on the internet, I will happily accept it. In the link above I don't see a single one that gives an acceptable representation of the duo. As such, I view it as an attempt to deplete Wikipedia of content thus undermining its goal to provide readers with the quality content, which we should also strive to be free when possible. --Irpen 11:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it forbids a non-free image if a free image could be created which would adequately convey the same information. john k 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, what's funny about that is, technically, ANYTHING is possible. I mean, Zero 7 COULD show up at my house tomorrow, with a camera, and it's POSSIBLE I could take a photo of them that would show them in as good a light as this promotional photo. Possible... but unlikely. Possible, too, I could get the two of them to agree to come together an pose for another photo -- assuming (and this is by way of example, only) that they're not on a Tears for Fears-like ten year stretch of not speaking to each other over creative differences. I mean, what if that were the case? What if the two band members didn't like each other? Am I supposed to tell them to get over it, and pose for a "free" photo, because of the demands of GFDL? This is the level of ridiculousness we're at these days.

It's obvious to me what the tagging factions want -- they want all promophotos deleted from Wikipedia, usually under some justification such as "to protect future re-users of Wikipedia who may not want to make a decision about their inclusion of fair use material." That's all it is... But if they proposed deleting all {{promophoto}}s from Wikipedia, there would be an outcry, and they'd "lose." I really think that it's become about that -- "winning" and "losing" -- from editors who aren't using, as their primary guiding concern, what's best for the entry in question. Very, very sad. I remain convinced that promophotos have a place in Wikipedia. Under the convoluted and poorly-worded current fair use criteria, you may be able to make a case for this image's deletion. But common sense says keep it. I vote for common sense. Jenolen 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're asking in the abstract, then I would answer that if a band has broken up, then a photo of the band is not replaceable. If they are still together, then it's replaceable. For this image, the debate is academic, since Chowbok helpfully found many free images of the band. And, as an aside, all {{promo}} images that are not of dead people or defunct bands are being listed for deletion, in accordance with our policies. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming obvious to me that when some people say "a free use image cannot be created", they really mean "we must have this picture because it's my favorite". You argued that one couldn't be created and I pointed you to around 50 that already have been, and you argue... what? That the lighting has to be perfect? Who here is the uncompromising one? —Chowbok ☠ 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "tagging faction". I personally think the current policy on fair use is overly harsh, and I'm opposed to it. But so what? I'm an admin and I agreed to enforce policy. I replaced the picture in the image with one of the Flikr pics, and will now delete this image. I'll copy the contents of this talk page over to the talk page of the new image, in case anyone wants to refer to it. Herostratus 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think the policy is overly harsh, why on earth are you spending your time enforcing it? Why not spend your time trying to get it changed? I'm an admin, and I have also agreed to enforce policy. But that doesn't imply any affirmative obligation to enforce policies I disagree with. Especially when interpretation of said policy is intensely disputed, as any read through of Wikipedia talk:Fair use will indicate. This kind of view of adminship seems like madness to me. We're not employees of the Wikipedia Foundation, and we have no positive obligation to do anything. john k 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not a great replacement for two reasons. 1) The quality of the photograph is horrible. 2) The photo in question shows neither Henry Binns NOR Sam Hardaker. Other than that... Jenolen 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as to number 1, quality is nice but not as important to the Foundation as is freeness. As to number 2, oops. There are several images at the Fliker address specified near the top of this discussion, but I don't know any of these people from Adam's off ox, so I just picked a generic concert pic... which is basically useless, but whatever. If anyone wants to go through the Flikr files and get a better one that they are able to caption correctly, that'd be good... BTW it looks like they have a gal singer, which seems odd since they are two-person group... Herostratus 04:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're a studio act; "DJ's plus", one might say, one of whom now sings. Great group, really. Sia Furler, a noted artist in her own right, often collaborates with them. Now, if someone can explain how this blurry, taken from 500 feet away photo in any way is a better illustration of Zero 7 than the previous, now-deleted photo. (Wait, don't bother.) As it currently stands, this conflict best illustrates what happens when "free" is made of much higher value than "actually illustrates the subject". I think the slider on that scale needs to be moved way back toward "actually illustrates the subject." "Free" absolutists are welcome to disagree, of course. Because this photo certainly is "free"... and a pretty good example of the adage, "you get what you pay for." And to go back to what I said at the top of this page: I still do not believe a "free" image can be created of notable performers, because they will ALWAYS retain some personality rights that must be dealt with. Which is why fair use was created in the first place... Jenolen 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)