Talk:Film still

message: The image :File:Derblaueengel.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Derblaueengel.jpg

message: It is technically true that if I wanted to replace the template  with  I should have then placed the tag right after the footnotes of the cited statements. (Plus the RS is only to be used after there has been an effort to verify the reliability of the sources) That was an error on my part. However, had User:Damiens.rf wanted to challenged whether these people were experts, he could have considered . The docs for  state it is to be used when the reliability of the cited material is in question (this condition was satisfied) and has already been challenged on the talk page (which technically it had been on the images for deletion page, but not on the talk page here). So after further thought I can sorta see the logic of using this tag, but still have a problem with the issues not being addressed on Talk.
I wonder if an alternative would have been had User:Damiens.rf had used . However, this even more strictly requires that issues be addressed on the Talk page (of the specific article presumably), and there be a reasonable doubt that the views of reliable sources are being misrepresented.  simply challenges the reliability of sources; {t1|POV-statement}} challenges how their views are represented, so this is probably a less good alternative. So this would not be a good choice!
 
So I think the best choice would have been to either stick with the  tag that was used, but ALSO address this on the Talk page (as the docs for that tag require)(best choice), OR use  (requesting expertise be established) (better to just not use the word 'expert'- see above).
However, User:Damiens.rf certainly had an obligation to make SOME attempt to verify the credibility of the sources which he manifestly failed to do.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates Redux & Expertise- Modest Concession 

message: A portrait photo of an actor posing for and looking into the camera is a "publicity photo," whether in costume (ie. :File:Rainer Ziegfeld.jpg) or not. A typical "production still" would be :File:Rainer-GoodEarth.jpg, appearing as a frame capture of a scene. 
The confusing part is that both types are used for publicity, except one more to promote the star, and the other more for the film. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity photo vs. production still 

message: So far, this is full of quotes. Also, the Copyright section is becoming dubious, as quotes do not fully answer URAA and full evidence of expired copyright, ineligible copyright, and active copyrights. I wonder if Copyright section is needed for this article. If it is needed, then let's bring in more experts of film stills and copyright. --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want an edit war, so I must discuss. Look at this article: it covers what the experts believe about copyrights. Nevertheless, URAA is not reflected. This article would mislead people into believing that older photos are out of copyright without substantial evidence. --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You agree that the section "covers what the experts believe about copyrights," but then you imply that their legal opinions "would mislead people." Sounds contradictory. In any case, URAA is irrelevant for older Hollywood and U.S. studio publicity photos. Because "publicity photos" have been covered by U.S. cases and scholars, and the article is mostly about those kinds of images, their legal status is necessary. If you have cites which will improve the section topic, simply add them.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Other countries have done publicity photos, as well, such as Zhou Xuan from China and other stars abroad, like John Gielgud. --George Ho (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs cleanup 

message: (Production) still and still photographer are both called "foto fija" in Spanish. You may want to insert a link to the Spanish Wikipedia article.--Lexicógrafo feliz (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish: Foto fija 

message: This article has no mention of publicity photographs of musical groups or artists. Is there a reason why the name of the article is Film still and not Publicity still? PascalHD (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of musical publicity photos?