Talk:Linda Hamilton

Trivia

The trivia section seems to be largely taken from the IMDB bio: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000157/bio . Is that a copyright violation? AnonMoos 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

Chowbok keeps deleting the Sarah Connor picture from the Linda Hamilton page. There is never going to be a freely licensed replacement, as all images of Sarah Connor are owned by someone. This lack of a free equivalent is exactly why Fair Use exists. -- Geno Z Heinlein 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a picture of Sarah Connor on the Linda Hamilton page? That's what the Sarah Connor page is for.—Chowbok ☠ 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Connor is Hamilton's most notable role. It distinguishes her in a profound way from other actresses who have only played more conventional women's roles. I fail to see why some obscure reasoning should continue to compromise this entry. Fair use is allowed and makes sense here. Why do you keep reverting? -- Geno Z Heinlein 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because we should only use fair-use images when there's no chance we can get a free image of the subject. Rather than being "obscure resoning", this is a core Wikipedia policy. In this case, the article is about Linda Hamilton, and somebody could take a free picture of her, so we shouldn't use a fair-use image. I'm not convinced by your reasoning that it should be the Sarah Connor photo.—Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're not seriously suggesting that we have to have a Wikipedia user go out and take a picture of Linda Hamilton in order to have a picture on this page, are you? That's completely senseless; it's verging on harassment or stalking. Even if we say that the Sarah Connor picture is not needed, your plan is thoroughly impractical. If we were to follow your recommendation, we would never be able to show any fictional character from a movie on an actor's page, because every last one of those images is under copyright. I don't think we should be compromising the integrity of this page for the sole benefit of some corporation whose lawyers have twisted the legal system to benefit themselves.

Also, even the legal material you're citing authorizes this Fair Use: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" It can't. The Sarah Connor pic satisfies this test, therefore your reversions are not per Wikipedia policy, as you have claimed in your edit summary. A Sarah Connor picture is essential to this page. For a woman to play a role like Sarah Connor in T2 was unprecedented, and to use any other character or a paparazzi shot would be disingenuous, to say the very least. If I were Catholic, I would call it a lie of omission to not show Sarah Connor on this page. In fact, I am calling it a lie of omission. It's out-and-out deceptive to not show Sarah Connor here. -- Geno Z Heinlein 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation is incorrect. There are other means of gaining free photos of an actress without "stalking", and policy interpretation has generally held that indeed, fictional character portraits cannot be shows on actor pages on Wikipedia. Even if "[f]or a woman to play a role like Sarah Connor in T2 was unprecedented", which is questionable, it doesn't follow that we have to have the picture on here. That's what words are for.

Removing photo again per policy. Feel free to bring this to arbitration if you like, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.—Chowbok ☠ 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) I request that you please source the statement you made that, "... policy interpretation has generally held that indeed, fictional character portraits cannot be shows on actor pages on Wikipedia". Whose policy? Whose interpretation? Also, generally? That means there are exceptions; that means someone disagrees with you.

(2) You are not impartial. Your own page says that you work for Playboy Enterprises, a company that makes it's money from distribution of copyrighted images. I am asking you politely to stop changing any images on any pages for copyright or fair use reasons. -- Geno Z Heinlein 04:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's pretty funny, as I'm very much against current copyright law. If you look through my old blog entries you'll see I wrote extensively deploring the Eldred case, the Sonny Bono copyright act, the DMCA, etc. I'm a big fan of Larry Lessig and had everybody I know sign a petition supporting the Eldred act. My love for Negativland far predates my employment at Playboy. Anyway, this has less to do with copyright law and is more about Wikipedia policy.

I see you've filed for mediation, so as a gesture of good faith I will leave the image up until this is resolved.—Chowbok ☠ 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I appreciate that. But seriously, if you are against current copyright law -- I am also, I think the law is completely out of control, and would like to see the terms reduced to five years or so -- then why this ongoing anti-fair use campaign? I don't understand why it's not a no-brainer, goes-without-saying kind of issue to put characters on actors' pages. What actors do is portray characters. It seems really obvious to me that character pictures should be allowed on actors' pages.

The companies that make these movies wouldn't be able to make their billions if it weren't for the entire history and culture of humanity, not to mention a hierarchical society that sets up a few big producers and a lot of small consumers. They don't own the properties except in a limited legal sense, because the idea that any person or corporation creates anything completely on their own, forehead-of-Zeus style, is just a legal fiction. We're entitled to those pictures because we are part of the human society that enabled their creation. Fair use is just a specific legal expression of that idea.

I'm not being clever. I genuinely don't get your position, and looking at the pages you point to on these issues reveals huge amounts of -- forgive me, I see no other way to say it -- logic, none of which gives a sensible answer to why the Linda Hamilton page shouldn't have a picture of Linda Hamilton quite literally at work, doing her job. -- Geno Z Heinlein 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)