Image talk:Warren Moon playing football.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fair use dispute

• Image:Warren Moon playing football.jpg (history · last edit) from [1] ++aviper2k7++ 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fair use since it illustrates Moon's football career (which is over and thus the image is unrepeatable). It says as much on the page. I'm missing something here. Daniel Case 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A replacement image was used at the bottom, which doesn't qualify as fair use. I also uploaded Image:Moonfalk.jpg which should be used on both Warren Moon and Marshal Faulk pages. This image also does not include copyrighted NFL logos. I'm sorry if I'm wrong though, but fair use says it should only be used if no replacements can be made.++aviper2k7++ 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You should have listed this as {{fair use disputed}}, then. It should only be flagged as copyvio if it is claimed to be original or freely-licensed and is not.

And in any case, did you read what I said? Fair use is entirely justified for unrepeatable historical events, where no image can reasonably be created that would adequately convey the same information. The information that needs to be conveyed here is that Warren Moon was a star quarterback for the Houston Oilers, not that he plays video games. He is retired, he's not going to be playing for the Oilers (or anyone) again. A free-use image of him doing so cannot be recreated. The image of him playing Madden with Marshall Faulk is not representative of Moon's professional football career (the primary source of his notability) and does not adequately convey the same information (Note also that the image is used in an infobox devoted to statistical information from that football career). His face is not visible and this image is not being used to identify him as the free-use one is. The use of copyrighted NFL logos is unavoidable in taking such adequate and representative images of professional NFL football players during play (that's why this image is on the English Wikipedia and not the Commons) Fair use is not only justified here but practically mandated.

Yes, you are wrong. I can add more info to the fair use rationale (which I am really wondering if you read at all), but the image should be removed from its listing here and kept. Also see draft guidelines for replaceability of fair-use images. Daniel Case 16:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that tag existed, so sorry about that. I did not see a fair use tag to present an event in question. The current tag says, "To illustrate the object in question." This is not illustrating an object it's illustrating a person, and if you tag it as that, it would be against fair use because the person is already being portrayed in a free image.++aviper2k7++ 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The football picture is not being used to show what he looks like, but to illustrate his football career, which is an unrepeatable historical event since he is retired. The Madden picture can show what he looks like, and that's why it's better as a free-use image and used further down in the article under personal life. The two pictures are not serving the same purpose. Daniel Case 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Should I move this discussion to the image talk page instead and list fair use disputed?++aviper2k7++ 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do. Daniel Case 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.++aviper2k7++ 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you should have used the picture of Moon alone that I cropped out of that exact same image and put in the proper place in the article (I'll fix it). A similar crop of just Faulk is in that article. Using pictures of two people together to illustrate an article about either one of them when they are not notable as a duo is non-representative and should be discouraged (The CC licensing allows for such cropping ... that's why we don't allow the CC-ND license anymore).

Between flagging something as copyvio when it was really fair use disputed, and not scrolling down in the article to where you could easily find a replacement image, I think you were a little hasty here. Daniel Case 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I didn't look at the whole article, I looked up both their pages and uploaded the picture.++aviper2k7++ 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)