I'm glad you responded.  I was not looking for an apology.  I realize the second part of the comment wasn't directed at me.  The first part seemed to be putting me in my place  when you could have written a note on my talk page.  Now that you've explained your position, I understand.  If you find any others that I've uploaded, it's not necessary to post anything on my talk page.  I understand what you're saying, although I disagree with one part of it regarding film publicity photos, which were mass-distributed, sometimes without registering for copyright.  We don't know which are free and which are not, so it's not something that can be pursued, and I wouldn't try to claim any specific image falls into that group.     I still see problems with the Blondie image.   For one, it doesn't show anything vital that the article couldn't do without.  They're all living people, one of whom isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and they're not doing anything.   It only shows what they look like.   If it was a significant moment and if the photo showed them doing something that could not be adequately described in prose,  I could understand.  Regardless of what brought them together, the photo itself gives nothing except to show what they look like.   Given the degree of thought you've given to the actress photos, I don't understand why you accept a fair rationale saying "they cannot be brought together because they live in three separate areas of the U.S." which is a false statement, contradicted by common sense - there are numerous ways they could be brought together - and by the very existence of the photo.  I'd accept a rationale that justified its use, but not that.  Still, you said you may even nominate it for deletion someday, but that it's not a priority, so you're obviously not completely convinced.  Anyway, I understand your viewpoint on the actress photos, so thank you for taking the time to convey your thoughts.  Regards.