File talk:Baby Gender Mentor box.jpg

message: This image is acceptable to use under Wikipedia's fair use policy:
#The image is used to show the logo of the product in question.
#No free alternative exists for a logo
#The image also shows the box packaging and is used to illustrate the article concerning the warranty for the product
#Judging from the article, the product appears to be discontinued.  Even if the product can still be bought, taking a picture of the product would be no more free than using this photo from the manufacturer.
#The image appears in only one article, Baby Gender Mentor, which already passed Wikipedia:Featured Article status with this image included.
In short, it is valid to use a photo of a product to illustrate the product in question.  19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: The company's website does indeed still offer the product for sale for $25 (and it costs $250 more if you want to process the results).  While a photograph of the box (which is basically a form of advertising) would be a derivative work, a photograph of the product itself (the blood testing equipment etc.) would be unreservedly free content.--Pharos 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you will read the article, it states that the product has been pulled.  Have you actually managed to buy the product off their website?  Plenty of defunct companies don't bother to pull down their website.  Besides, a photo of the product would still not show the logo, which is accomplished with the current photo.  This box logo is used in only one article, which made FA with this image included.  If there was a serious problem with this image, the article could not have made GA. Johntex\talk 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not necessarily saying that there's a problem with this image, because it is a valid goal to display the logo.  But it is misrepresenting the issue to say in the justification that a free photo of the the product itself would be impossible, because clearly it would be possible, and if one could be located it would be a valuable addition to the article.  No, I have not given them my credit card #,  but I if I wanted to I certainly could in the online form, and presumably the money would still disappear from my account.  Anyway, as far as I can tell, there is no clear source cited in the article that the product has been pulled, only that it has been removed from a secondary online store.--Pharos 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying your intent.  The reason I ask about whether you have tried to purchase the product directly from Acu-gen is that I have attemted to do so.  I tried to buy a kit in late 2006 and I tried again in early 2007.  Both times I got a message back that they were "out of stock".  Of course I can't put that into the article since it would be original research.  However, we do have a reliable source that says the company previously billed as the "exclusive supplier" is no longer selling it.  These 2 things together lead me to believe that it is no longer possible to buy this product.  Johntex\talk 23:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partially inaccurate fair use justification

message: The image is not a promotional image "released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit"1.  According to the terms of use of the website
: All content on this Web Site (...) are protected by United States and international copyright laws.  Any other use, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, republication, display or performance of the content of our Web Site is strictly prohibited.  Purchasing products or services from Acu-Gen does not confer any license or right under any copyright or trademark of Acu-Gen or any third party.
: Acu-Gen authorizes you to view, copy, download and print Acu-Gen documents (such as white papers, press releases, data sheets and FAQ) that are available on our Web Site, subject to the following conditions:
:* The documents may be used solely for noncommercial, informational purposes;
:* The documents may not be modified; and
:* Copyright, trademark and other proprietary notices may not be removed.
Clearly this means that content, unless it is "white papers, press releases, data sheets [or] FAQ" is not promotional material.  The tag should be changed to 
And on an unrelated note, the source of the image is not present.  The link given as a source is the terms of use, not a URI of a page which includes the image.  The image description page must have a source to the page which includes the image and, ideally, a link to the image itself.  (I like having the terms of use there, though, so that link should stay.)  Thank you, Iamunknown 00:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, the image is now off of the main page.  It should, however, be protected.  In the meantime I while do the change.  --Iamunknown 00:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source, however, is still unavailable.  --Iamunknown 00:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change image copyright tag