Image talk:RDM2000BW.jpg

The result of the debate was deleted, img is replaceable. —Angr 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a publicity shot freely distributed to the press for use by the actor, much as the publicity shots being used in the Star Trek area depicting the actors as characters. I do not see why it cannot be used, especially as the actor himself prefers this image and provides it to the press. Response?

This is a copyrighted, "fair-use" image. Our fair-use policy states that we cannot use a fair-use image if a free image could reasonably be created. Since this actor is alive and active, a photo could be taken of him and released under a free license, or he could release one himself. —Chowbok ☠ 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your rationale is that actors and others want professional quality photos out there - not snapsnots, not paparazzi photos, especially for an item of record like Wikipedia. "Professional quality" means that the photographer will likely retain some rights to the photo, even as he/she realizes that it will be reproduced widely - much as studios retain rights to the publicity photos they distribute to the (even the paparazzi retain rights to their "snapshots") You cannot replace this professional quality photo with a snapshot; and any actor, indeed, any person who has a professional photo will find it nearly impossible to get the photographer to cede his or her full rights. No one's going to come after Wikipedia, no more than the New York Times or Rolling Stone if those publications ran the photo with an interview. Again, I ask, why do the Star Trek publicity photos get a pass while lots of useable images that have the same status get deleted? You'll have a real paucity of images on Wikipedia if you pursue this policy to its logical conclusion - under the current copyright regime, you'll find it very hard to run photos of actors that aren't publicity shots.

Well, actors need to make the choice. Either they need to release an image under terms that are compatible with our mission to provide a free encyclopedia, or live with our using less-than-professional-quality photos. They can't dictate both the photos we use and the terms we use them under. It has nothing to do with whether anyone is going to "come after" us; the point is that we are trying to be as freely-redistributable as is reasonably possible (a goal The New York Times and Rolling Stone do not share). I've explained the Star Trek thing before, but I'll try again; fair-use photos that display characters are acceptable, ones that display actors (at least currently living actors) or not. Does that make sense? If you want to point me to a specific image that you're thinking of, I'd be glad to explain why that one is still here (although the answer may very well be "because nobody's gotten to that one yet"). —Chowbok ☠ 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: who is "we?" I thought this was a collaborative effort; why does your opinion trump mine, or anyone else's, as long as the image is fair use? Better yet, why does one kind of fair use image impair Wikipedia's mission, and one not?

Addressing your points: first, you won't and can't force actors to do anything Wikipedia will just be a poorer information resource (remove the image, and folks will be required go offsite for the information they can't get from Wikipedia, perhaps even skip Wikipedia altogether.) And an actor cannot give away what he or she doesn't own: studios, paraparazzi, even amateurs often reserve rights in photos, and no actor is going to buy out a license just to accomodate Wikipedia's desire to ... what? Freely sell an image? (Why complain otherwise?) Let me know when Tom Cruise buys out a license to accomodate a Wikipedia contributor's desire to impose a new copyright regime on the world.

Second, these images do not impair Wikipedia's mission to provide free access to information no more than the copyrighted and trademarked Star Trek images impair its mission; the only reason to remove fair use images is because someone believes they'll impair the ability to realize revenue from Wikipedia. Frankly, the rationale is senseless - either it's fair use or it isn't, and it's hypocritical to remove one kind of fair use image and not remove the other "fair use" copyrighted photos of actors in character (frankly, Wikipedia faces far more problems from its use of copyrighted photos of "characters" you are allowing to remain on the site, all of which are potential legal liability quagmires should Viacom/CBS/Paramount or other major studios decide that they want licensing fees for their use - you absolutely cannot reproduce or distribute Wikipedia through commercial or noncommercial channels, as proposed in the GNU license, with those images in place.)

And why is this image of Billy Joel, clearly a comparable publicity shot, acceptable (see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Joel) and not the publicity image of the actor? Do music celebrities get a pass?

I'll try to address your points in order. Wikipedia is collaborative in most things, like most of the policies and nearly all the content, but not everything. Some policies are handed down by the Wikimedia foundation. Avoiding fair-use content as much as possible has long been a policy, although it wasn't really enforced until recently. I've tried to put together some background information here; I would encourage you to read that and to follow the links.

Contrary to your assertions, many celebrities have already given us images under free licenses. If they don't want to do that then we can use amateur pictures. Free redistribution is an important principle, and if it comes at the sacrifice of the prettiest possible pictures, then so be it.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on your second point. I don't think because we allow some fair use pictures we have to allow all of them. I honestly don't see how that follows.

The Billy Joel picture is just there because nobody had tagged it yet. We can't get rid of every replaceable fair-use image at once; there are thousands. It looks like somebody tagged it because of your comment, though.

Finally, can you please sign your posts? Use ~~~~ at the end of your message. —Chowbok ☠ 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So here's the end of the myth of Wikipedia as an open community: some pigs truly are more equal than others, and a few persons' fringe views on copyright govern content to the extent that it dilutes the quality of the information on Wikipedia. I'll remember that as I work in the library community and whenever I might have otherwise contributed to Wikipedia or linked to Wikipedia.

In any case, here's the point you refuse to address: by permitting the Star Trek images, and other publicity images of actors in character, to remain on Wikipedia, you (the royal you) have legally impaired your ability to provide freely available content: I assure you that the studios will act if they perceive that their copyrights and trademarks are being infringed in any way, or if Wikipedia begins to provide the content in ways that violate fair use. [For example, cease and desist letters from Universal are currently circulating concerning the use of Firefly/Serenity images on the web and otherwise.]

So, having already "impaired" Wikipedia's ability to provide "free" content, why not permit other images that impose no greater legal burden on Wikipedia? The only thing you accomplish by this purge is diluting the quality of the work, as compared to other references that use the better-quality information (and yes, images and graphics are information.)

Moreover, it is hypocritical to purge one fair use image, and not another, on the grounds you're citing. Fair use is fair use. There isn't "replaceable" fair use or "irreplaceable" fair use. And if you're trying to maintain Wikipedia as free information, the studio publicity images are a far greater threat to that goal than a generic publicity shot.

A far better policy would be to permit fair use images of all kinds until an image of equal quality is located under a free license. That, in my eyes, would be legitimate grounds for choosing one image over another image: but not grounds for deleting the only image that may be available, albeit under fair use.

Also, this kind of activity is precisely what dilutes fair use and threatens the ability of libraries and similar institutions to provide free access to otherwise copyrighted information. As I noted before, the only rational reason to try to force individuals to turn over licenses to content for a theoretically free access publication is if that publication anticipates using the content in a way that violates fair use - that is, realize revenue or some similar scheme. It gives fodder to those who are arguing for greater restrictions on fair use, or the elimination of fair use altogether.

As for actors granting licenses, when I do a casual review I don't see images licensed by the actors, but paraparazzi shots of inconsistent quality, often harvested from individuals' Flickr accounts, sometimes without permission.

Apropos this image: it is the image the actor provides when asked for an image of himself. He cannot license rights that he does not own, that is, he cannot give away the rights the photographer reserved when he created the image for the actor. However, it is freely available to media for precisely this purpose. It does not violate any copyright to post it here. It is fair use. And it is irreplaceable to the extent that the actor is no longer acting, does few public appearances, and this image is likely to be the last publicity photo he ever does. There is no good reason remove it, other than in pursuit of imposing one particular viewpoint on copyright, fair use, and licensing on the entire community, despite a difference in opinion on the validity of that opinion.

Finally, a last point: is Wikipedia about providing access to information, the best quality information, or it is all about imposing a particular copyright worldview? Dcs47 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)dcs47

Well, yeah, the views of the folks who started this project and are paying for everything do count for more than those of the volunteer editors who stop by and work on it. I don't see how that's so sinister that it deserves an Animal Farm analogy. I also think it's unfair to call the views "fringe" simply because you disagree with them. That seems unnecessarily inflammatory to me. The open-source/open-content initiatives have a respectable pedigree, and in the computer world open source is actually the mainstream view at this point, FWIW.

You're also acting as if this is some new thing. I agree that the enforcement is new, but a committment to the principles of freely-redistributable content dates back to the Five Pillars and Jimbo's statement of principles. You're free to disagree with it, but please don't act like this is some new policy decided on a lark, or that Wikipedia was suddenly hijacked by extremists.

I'm not "refusing" to address your point about the Star Trek pictures; I thought I did address it, but possibly I'm just missing your point. The goal isn't to eliminate fair use photos; it's to minimize the use of them. As I said before, I just don't see why because we allow some fair use photos, we have to allow all of them. You just keep repeating that, but you don't explain why. Wikipedia can be redistributed in chunks, you know. It's not binary. It's going to be impossible to provide freely-redistributable photos of Mr. Spock, but it isn't impossible to provide freely-redistributable photos of Robert Duncan McNeill; therefore we shouldn't use fair-use photos of the latter. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. How is it hypocritical to want to remove fair-use photos whenever possible?

Your point about "diluting" fair use makes absolutely no sense to me. By trying to avoid the use of fair use as much as possible, we're making fair use less likely to exist? How do you figure?

Yes, removing this image would be imposing one particular view of Wikipedia policy on the encyclopedia. So would keeping it. —Chowbok ☠ 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.