Wikipedia talk:Replaceability of fair-use images/Archive 12/19/2006-1/10/2007

message: I like this policy suggestion as a clarification to existing policy. I don't feel the following statement is right: we are also equally committed to the goal of producing a quality encyclopedia. As much as I would like to believe this, I'm not sure it is supported by current policy. Maybe something along the lines of, we recognize that images are an important source of information on their subjects. I didn't see a specific mention of subjects who routinely appear in public, but in venues that don't allow photography. -Freekee 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is quoted directly from the preamble to the fair use criteria. As for your second concern, I had addressed the general legal climate concerning such photographs (the question had been raised about whether it's legal in Japan, for one) but not a specific situational context. Daniel Case 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts

message: In my opinion, there is major disagreement among wikipedians as to whether "fair use" representative images should be replaced with "free content/GFDL" generic images. While I have philosophical objections to replacing "fair use" representative images with "free content" representative ones, think that keeping "fair use" representative images clashes with the fourth pillar of the Wikimedia foundation: "free content".
However, I think that the current proposal takes no clear position on whether a "fair use" representative image should be replaced with a "free content" generic image or not. I think the proposal should take a clear position on this before it becomes policy.Librarylefty 11:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If freely licensed images already exist, they must be used in place of copyrighted images used under a "fair use" claim. That's already existing policy (Fair use policy says "Always use a more free alternative if one is available.... If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible.") and I don't think there is any major disagreement among Wikipedians on that point. The major disagreements as far as I can tell are (1) whether a particular free image is an adequate replacement for a currently used nonfree one (decided on a case-by-case basis), and (2) whether a nonfree image that could be replaced by a free one can be kept until such time as a free image is located or created (which was the de facto state of affairs until a month or so ago, even though policy has always said replaceable nonfree images may not be used, even when a free replacement is not yet available). —Angr 16:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Generic vs. Representative images

message: Since your questions and comments are good and thoughtful, I have decided not to merely intersperse mine but set them up separately.
Generally, the "reasonably replaceable" criteria are met for the sort of people mentioned as examples: politicians, academics and at least a few authors. People we generally have covered by free images already. Their usual habits are sort of the template.
How available is this information?
:Some people put it on their websites.
I personally never came across such information accidently except for concerns and book signings/readings.
:Googling might also reveal this sort of information, as it turns up a lot of event listings from local weeklies and such. You might not be able to go to an event, but perhaps someone closer to it could (See the underutilized WP:PMS, which probably needs a better-chosen shortcut (that one should probably instead go here).
Isn't this a problem since most public appearances are usually private and not open to the public ....
:Then they wouldn't be public appearances, would they?
... while events like concerts usually produce poor images?
:Usually they do (and not to say, they're usually not permitted except for all but accredited members of the media in attendance). But that's probably something I should deal with separately.
how do interviews by companies like Entertainment Weekly or CNN help wikipedians get a picture of the person?
:And interviews with The Podunk Weekly Shopper aren't media? The point is to establish that someone is a public person who does not shy away from public attention.
Aren't places of work usually restricted to professional visits only, if any?
:Depends on the type of workplace. You could probably walk up to the department offices at most colleges or universities, or (after passing reasonable security measures) to most elected officials' offices in democratic countries. Even if you absolutely couldn't get an appointment just to take a picture you're not going to get any money for, someone working in a known location can usually be approached outside their workplace (granted, as the "may not be" criteria suggests, if their usual workplace is a secure defense research lab, you may not be able to do that).
I can only see this applying to very few cases. Is a person seen shopping automatically makes a free image of the person "reasonably replaceable"?
:I have seen a few such pictures on blogs from chance encounters with mid-level celebrities on the streets of New York. The Teutul family of American Chopper fame are residents of my town, and I see Paul Sr. around occasionally and once ate in the same restaurant. I see he and his son are represented with free images, but maybe I should drop by their shop, say I'm from Wikipedia and could I get a picture of Mikey? I probably could. I would definitely say they go about their daily affairs in locations accessible to the public.
So if I quote an interview/article where the author says something as such, does that automatically make fair-use images of the person okay?
:In my book, yes. We'd sure accept that as sooth in an article.
I anticipate some arguing at image talk pages if it is adapted.
:Every new policy is going to generate some arguing. The idea is to settle as many of these issues beforehand as possible. Currently, none were and a few too many admins have been using personally-chosen standards for replaceability that were far too minimal. Daniel Case 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well thank you for your response. It helped me understand the proposal a lot better. I must admit embarrassment for that "public appearances" question, slipped my mind. ;) I'm now beginning to believe that this policy can work. Last issue I have is a possible future incident where a notable figure is going to fit a bullet from both categories, example "was spotted shopping" but "never does interviews". I think we need figure out (and state) how to deal with such a situation without it getting into a lengthy argument.  - Tutmosis 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: (Crossposted on image talk page in question):
Did someone remember to check the British Museum's site for information on whether a photograph taken within it may be reused on a commercial site?
Photography with flash and video recording is permitted in most galleries for private purposes only, using hand-held equipment. The diary for commercial photography is closed until further notice.
For the time being, IMO, this image cannot be considered reasonably replaceable. This image should stay in the article. Daniel Case 02:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the British Museum is irrelevant since the Shabtis are located in Brooklyn (which doesn't allow commercial photos) and Khartoum (which we don't know about although perhaps it's a bit too out of the way for most wikipedians to be considered resonably replacable) not in the British Museum. The British museum simply has a photograph of the shabti. At least that was my understanding... Nil Einne 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May not be reasonably replaceable

message: There is a major flaw in this current definition.
This system marks all images as replaceable if they are technically replaceable but not reasonably replaceble. If therefore an image could be freely taken in London, as I am running across in a current dispute, but the editors concerned do not live in london, apparently your rules say that it is a perfectly replaceable image, even though there's not a chance in heck that I'm going to be able to actually get there. It's unreasonable that I be asked to go get one.
There are british wikipedians, to be sure; However I cannot necesarrily contact them. If there is a system set up by which requests can be made for locals to go get such images, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask that the image be replaced. However, we should not be so illusioned so as to think that under the current system there is any chance that the image can be replaced. You may define replaceability however you please, however if we cannot replace it and there is little to no probability that someone who is a local will ever see the warning, let alone decide to take care of it, then by definition it is not replaceable. In my current situation, we did get a volunteer after all, however I cannot be sure that such a thing will happen in the future, and the "please replace this image" tag explicitly says that such images which are not soon replaced can be deleted outright.
Wikipedia would be far better served if its editors spent their time trying to fix problems they see, rather than composing guidelines for deleting the problem outright. These guidelines have no justification in existing unless you are also willing to set up a system for actually fixing the problems which concerned editors cannot fix themselves. Thanatosimii 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were "Thanatosimiipedia", then yes, you can justify what you say, because you can't go there ;-) But in Wikipedia, you don't need to do all the job yourself. I live in Argentina, and like editing Japanese articles. As you can imagine, I cannot travel to Japan to take a picture of some place or person by myself. So, I trust either japanese contributors in this Wikipedia, or the ones contributing at the Japanese Wikipedia, to offer us a free alternative. There is really no excuse for not having free alternatives for US and UK images, as a large number of wikipedians here are from either country. Put a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures and just wait. Wait and trust. -- ReyBrujo 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can justify what I say in normal wikipedia... Deletion is never superior to improvement, and unless the image itself qualifies for deletion for other resons, it isn't superior to keeping a thoroughly legal fair use claim. Having deletion ever as the solution for fair use images is counterproductive. Expend effort in improving, and integrating these photo request thingies into your banners instead of saying it will be deleted within a week! Thanatosimii 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also consider using the photograph matching service. Daniel Case 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also for good measure put  on the article talk (dunno if anytone is actively scanning those categories for photo targets, but hey, can't hurt). --Sherool (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical distance