Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Publicity photos

message: I would suggest that an ammendment be proposed to the fair use policy that would clarify that promo photo's are reluctantly OK where no reasonable quality image may be obtained. This would hopefully have the effect of forcing discussion, since it would stand against the current issue, while contributing to the encyclopedia through valid discussion of wiki policy. Where the policy states that promo photos should be replaced where it is possible to obtain a free image, I would recommend adding that it should be a free image of reasonable/comparable resolution and/or quality or better.
I would further recommend participation in, and advertisement of the current rfc on this issue.
Then of course, there is the simple matter of discussion. The exact problem regarding promo photo's of celebrities and famous people needs to be clearly and concisely stated from the outset. The harm that the RFU deletion of such photo's does to the encylopedia must also be detailed. Following this, there should be a proposal (or set of proposals) for resolution of the issue either developed from discussion or simply as a shot in the dark. Finally, there needs to be discussion and advertisement of the page. While a worthy effort, it's my opinion that the page in its current form probably isn't everything that it should be. Crimsone 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: *# "Performers (and, perhaps more importantly, their publicity agents) and companies with products are more likely to grant free licenses to use their publicity photos if one reward for doing that that is a chance to get a high-quality image of their own choosing into Wikipedia, which is now one of the most-visited sites on the World Wide Web. Each time we use such an image on a fair use basis, we reduce their motivation to license the image freely."
This addition to the front page, which I have heard now many times, is in reality little more than pure poppycock, and the people who advocate this hypothetical whatever must have little or no dealing with the real media/celebrities/agencies in question.  I am truly tired of seeing this so-called rationale posited as a reason to deny fair use photographs.  I'd love to see a list of the actual previously fair use images for which the deletionist jihadi have actually gotten the same images released under a GFDL, versus the number of images now deleted.  If the ratio is less than 10-1, maybe even 100-1, I'd be amazed.  Prove it.  Tvccs 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also the exact rationale I've pointed to which essentially holds someone hostage to a GFDL license in order to get an image on Wikipedia, which is to my mind not far short of extortion. Tvccs 04:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would further add that were I a celebrity, I would NOT want to release a photo of myself under a GFDL license, simply because it would allow anyone to do dang near anything with it.  And without the celebrity's cooperation, it is unlikely in the extreme (at least for most people) that a photograph of similar quality to that which might be found in a press kit could be obtained.  Furthermore, time will have passed since the photograph was made, one might prefer a photograph of the person at a younger age.  I note that there is a free image for Lauren Bacall as a young woman.  But if there were only a "publicity photo," a picture of her as she appears today would not be an equal replacement.  (Though it would also be a welcome addition to the article.)Crypticfirefly 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free photo rationale 

message: Well, users still insist on going through and tagging publicity photos for deletion under RFU when they are not replaceable by definition, despite endless hours of discussion, despite attempts at refocusing efforts, despite attempts at trying to find middle ground. Is the only place left for us to get ArbCom? These users are still deleting photos contrary to consensus and contrary to policy.--Jeff 10:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If ArbCom is a way to potentially stop/reverse the present "policy", as well as add finality, is there any other choice?  Tvccs 11:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a lot of discussion on related pages about Jimbo Wales view, as he has again gotten into this subject, FYI.  See  and the related discussion.  Tvccs 12:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration? 

message: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Promotional Photo Advocacy resulted in keeping the debate, but not the wikiproject. Also, the participants are advised to discuss modifications to policy on the policy's talk page. Finally, please don't make copy/paste moves in the future. >Radiant< 10:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MFD note 

message: I'm proposing the creation of a project tamplate and put on top of this page.Wikipedia talk:Fair use.
I'm proposing something like that.And of course put on top of the old one.:)
:This template or project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair Use/Publicity photos, a project that aims to hold fair and open discussion on the use of promotional photographs on Wikipedia and prevent gratuitous deletions. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.
--Pierson's Puppeteer 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tamplate 

message: Not when we have comments like this peppering the Fair Use pages:
Quite, heaven forbid someone founding a project should lay down a set of immovable principles. You don't have to share our ideology, but you will have to abide by it, or start your own project. Complain all you like but our fair use policy isn't going to be anything but tightened for a long time to come. ed g2s • talk 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blow it up. Jihad!--Jeff 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we consider going to the media about this? We may be able to get a sympathetic ear from some other sites, including Digg and The Register. And we may have to here, because I have a feeling that this extremist interpretation of the rules would probably moderate itself with public scrutiny. - Stick Fig 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may possibly be considered a violation of WP:POINT.  --Yamla 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How ironic that statement is, in light of the fact that the recent extremist interpretation of Wikipedia policies and accompanying massive deletion (very often without discussion, and/or contrary to consensus) were in themselves a violation of the very guideline you cite.  Badagnani 22:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nowhere does it say "contacting the press" violates WP:POINT. We're not intentionally disrupting specific articles, we're bringing attention to an issue that we've gone through proper channels to solve previously and have run into dead ends for. - Stick Fig 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As they've said above, contacting others and spreading word outside of Wikipedia is, if at all, far less of a WP:Point violation than the original actions are themselves.--Jeff 22:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed a week or so ago el Reg linked to a forum post of yours on SA and used it to lampoon (rightfully so) Wikipedia's opposition to fair use. I'm not familiar with contacting the press (community or legitimate), what do we do?--Jeff 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you have to worry about "contacting the press."  We're already here.  Plenty of working media members contribute to Wikipedia.  Many of us like to write, even in our off hours... I just never expected I'd be wasting so much of my time writing arguments trying to convince people that Wikipedia's page about the Governor of Michigan (not my state, btw) should contain the official state portrait of the Governor of Michigan.  Anyhow, you can't stop the signal... Wikipedia is a marvelously self-correcting community, and the actions of a dedicated few, while admirable, will most likely not stand.  After all, there's many thousands of editors who want to contribute (and will likely contribute at least some fair use material), and only a few Chowboks.  Yes, this, too, shall pass ... Of course, if Wikipedia becomes "The Amateur Photo Encyclopedia", it may, horror of horrors, shrivel and die.  Gasp!  But, at least it will be dying "free."  For some reason, I'm put in the mind of New Hampshire's state motto... but maybe that's just me.  Jenolen  speak it! 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What about my proposal for a tamplate,and paste it on all the relevent pages.on the talk page of fair use policy thers the tamplate of the fair use wiki project.--Pierson's Puppeteer 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise? Yeah, right

message: It seems that User:Oden has retired from the site because he kept getting blocked for scanning through fair use images in a way that violated WP:STALK. I think we should watch out for other editors being overzealous like this. It supports our cause to show that some editors are stepping over boundaries to implement a controversial approach, because it could allow us to eventually argue for a more-balanced policy. - Stick Fig 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oden and overzealousness