Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-06 Linda Hamilton
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | open |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | User:Geno and User:Chowbok |
| Mediator(s) | Pheonix15 |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]
Request details
Who are the involved parties?
What's going on?
Chowbok has a history of removing fair use images from many pages, even when the images are fully sensible content for those pages. He himself identifies the removed pictures as fair use. It seems as if Chowbok is following some kind of legal agenda rather than creating accurate and informative page entries.
I believe Chowbok cannot be objective in this issue, as he works for a company whose income is based on paid distribution of copyrighted images, Playboy Enterprises. (This is his own statement, from his personal page.)
The ongoing discussion is on the Linda Hamilton Talk Page.
What would you like to change about that?
I want Chowbok to cease all copyright or fair use image edits.
I would like someone involved in the administration of Wikipedia to confirm that it is not only acceptable, but sensible and reasonable, to post images of characters on actors' pages.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
- Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Linda Hamilton#Fair Use
- Case discussion will take place here
Discussion
Having viewed the discussion, including the picture of Sarah Connor in the Linda Hamilton may not be appropriate unless ther is a section devoted to her role as Sarah Connor. However, fair use images can be included in articles if there is no other free image that can be used. I would encourage both of you to read Wikipedia:Non-free content#Fair use law. I would like both of you to make an short statement to clarify details--Phoenix 15 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with your statement that "fair use images can be included in articles if there is no other free image that can be used". According to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#FUC1, the rule is that "[n]on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created" (emphasis mine). As a free image could be created of Linda Hamilton, a fair use image cannot be used, even if one is not currently available. This has been the justification for deleting thousands of fair use images in the last 10 months or so. In this case the image shouldn't be deleted, because a free image could not be created of Sarah Connor—but it has no place in the Hamilton article. The link you pointed to is less relevant, I believe, because that's simply talking about the law rather than Wikipedia policy, which is more strict. Note also that the page says that the fair use law applies "in addition to our other restrictions"; i.e., if it meets the criteria laid out in WP:FUC, then it must also be fair use according to the law. Since this does not meet our criteria in the first place, the law is irrelevant in this instance.—Chowbok ☠ 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to approach this. There has been talk of Wikipedia policy, but think that any interpretation of Wikipedia policy that compromises article content must be mistaken. Perhaps a preference for free license materials over fair use materials has been interpreted as a requirement. I guess a summary of my point of view would be:
- (1) Actors act; they portray characters.
- (2) It's sensible to show an actor doing their work on their page. We show mail carriers carrying mail. We show a teacher teaching. Why would we not show an actor acting? The reason an actor gets an entry is that they are notable for portraying characters. Why would we not show them doing exactly this?
- (3) No character images are are under a free license; all character images are copyrighted. This requires fair use and is the one of the reasons fair use doctrine exists.
- (Let me clarify: I am pro free license. I agree that free is preferable, but I believe that fair use materials are required in this particular case of actors' pages.)
- (4) If it is really Wikipedia policy that an image of a character cannot be used on the actor's page, then I guess I'm really asking for an explicit change in Wikipedia policy, based on (2) and (3), above.