Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Publicity photos

Welcome to the Talk page for Publicity Photo Advocacy. This is a new location for the page.

So what now

What do we do now? Up until this point, we haven't had much success. Personally, I think it's because we've all made attempts but not in a coordinated way that shows there really is reasonable and strong dissent to users deleting publicity photos. We've all made our efforts on individual images, but our protests were on the edge of recognizability. I like the idea of a petition. Should we just turn the front page into a petition? --Jeff 13:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are petitions effective tools? I'm not sure having one will actually affect anything. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's going to be difficult to change some people's minds on the fair use of celebrity pictures; most people don't understand the difference between a random picture of a celebrity, and a press-kit hand-out picture of a celebrity.

Instead, how about we focus first an issue that has really stuck in my craw -- the deletion of state goverment photos because they're not "copyleft" enough. The Rodney Tom / Jennifer Granholm type of photos... it seems absolutely ridiculous to go create a free/libre photo of every U.S. governor, when their Wikipedia page should, at the very least, contain their official state portrait.

Arguments people will have with this: Official state portraits remain under copyright of the state (in most states), if they're not willing to license them under the GFDL, we should go create a free image because Governors go out in public. (Add more...)

Counter-arguments: A "fair use" claim on official state portraits used on a non-profit on-line encyclopedia is of so little legal risk as to be de minimus; random Wikipedian photos are nowhere near the same quality as the official headshot; random Wikipedian photos do NOT come with a signed release form from the subject of the photo, and fail to address the subject's personality rights, which vary greatly from state to state; the photographic work of a state government, while legally different than that of the federal government, is morally equivalent, in that its work should be free to be distributed by residents of that state (In an extreme example, we could have only an Alaskan upload the Alaskan government photo, etc.)....

Thoughts, comments??

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Granholm example is one that points to how ridiculous this all is. To substitute a poorly-cropped US government photo on what is basically little more than a copyright technicality makes Wikipedia look like a joke, and does nothing to enhance the quality of Wikipedia. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Tvccs 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy

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)

Peace offering

I have an idea for a potential peace offering between everyone. Everyone's end goal, even mine, is that Wikipedia have freely licensed photos. The major disagreement between us editors is one side thinks everything should be deleted out of hand and the other doesn't want them deleted because quality is important.

What if we combined forces with those deleting images and refocused our efforts towards something that's actually productive? I mean those people that are actually going around deleting photos are dedicated folk that think they're doing a good thing. The problem is they're going about it the wrong way that pisses most everyone who contributed FU to wikipedia off. I think we could turn this sucker around maybe by cooperating.

What I mean is, I wish we could all agree to allow fair use publicity photos on Wikipedia, but start a Wikiproject effort to obtain publicity photos under a free license. Instead of hassling editors and just deleting their hard work, what if it was turned to something productive like actually trying to obtain the very image under a free license?

That way, we can keep the images as FU, but our Wikiproject, our combined effort and goal would go towards trying to get publicity photos from their authors under a free license. Certainly that idea does far more for wikipedia than just deleting publicity photos? --Jeff 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

personally, I would consider that to be a great solution to the issue Crimsone 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody could object to a centralized project dedicated to obtaining freely-licensed photos directly from their subjects. Bearcat also mentioned something similar here, although I don't know what ever came of that. I would be glad to help with such a project, and I have some experience with contacting people to obtain free images (so far I've gotten Carol Lay, Frans de Waal, and the Beastie Boys).

That said, I'm not going to stop tagging images because of a project like this. The very fact we're even talking about it is because of my and a few other editors' efforts in deleting the fair-use images. Were it not for that, all the signatories here would have happily lived with fair-use promo images forever. Besides, what incentive does anybody have to release a promotional photo under a free license if we're going to use the same image under fair-use terms if they refuse? —Chowbok ☠ 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing. The last time anybody came up to me and said "I represent a big and powerful organasation, and for that reason alone I request you jump through this hoop", I told them in no uncertain terms just where to put that hoop. I considered it incredibly rude and arrogant. I see no reason why any celebrity would think otherwise.

It's also worth considering that many of them are remarkably hard to contact (maybe try Britney Spears, Eminem, or Brad Pitt). They like it that way for obvious reasons - that is in fact the entire reason that they release promo pictures. It's all well and good asking them to enter into the "wiki spirit", but most of them really couldn't care less about the project. To them, deleting their promo photo isn't an incentive to release a free one, all for the sake of wikipedia - it's a reason for them to avoid the place entirely seperated by a rather large bargepole. Sure, some may be ok, but the majority will not be. In the mean time, wikipedia just gets ridiculed over the whole issue, the quality of an articles appearence (and so the article itself) reduces, people become put off the them (low quality images tend to be used by low quality publications - it's a perfectly normal assertion to make when you're only a casual browser)...

On the whole, what's the problem anyway? Properly tagged promophotos can quite simply be excluded from any future fork or distribution. Improperly tagged images get deleted anyway. Fair use exists for exactly this reason. In the mean time, we have a fair use policy that says that promo photos can be used, though should be replaced when an image of reasonable quality becomes available, and yet we have yourself and a few others tagging them all, and from my own personal view it appears as though they are viewed as some kind evil that should be completely wiped out at all costs, even where no replacements are available - and I cannot find the line of policy that advocates that action.

There is quite clearly significant opposition the this RFU tagging spree as demonstrated by the RfC (many support, many don't), and so quite clearly there isn't any real consensus as such, and thus there are two strong opposing views on the issue. It's fair to say then that discussion is needed, and I'm glad to see your comments here. It worries me though that you appear very hard set against fair-use images at all, and unwilling to even discuss a compromise solution. I wouldn't go as far as to fail to assume good faith - I believe that you are honestly doing what you think to be the right thing. However, a number of people don't hold the same view, and I personally don't see your immovable and unshaking stance as particularly being of the wiki spirit in this issue.

In terms of your actions bringing the issue to the spotlight and starting to get something done about it, you are only to be commended, and should be rightly proud of your achievement. However, I don't feel the "my way or the highway" approach has ever been a founding principle (or a desireable working methodology) of wikipedia. Crimsone 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To make it a little easier to follow the conversation (hopefully), I'll address your points paragraph-for-paragraph.

Well, yeah, we don't want to put it that way. "We're Wikipedia and we're the future, so give us an image under our terms or be obsoleted!" would definitely be counter-productive. But the letters at WP:ERP don't have that tone at all (they do have other problems, like being too confusing, although I'm not sure that's avoidable).

It's true that people like Britney Spears or Madonna are hard to contact, but who says we have to contact them directly? Anyone that big has a publicity firm that handles things like this for them, and the publicists certainly aren't hard to contact. In fact, ideally we should be making contacts with publicists, so that we can kill several birds with one stone. If we could get one major publicist to understand these issues, we could get dozens of pictures right there.

The problem is, again, that it's better to have a picture the fork can use than a picture only we can use. Don't forget, "fork" doesn't just mean answers.com; we're also talking about other language Wikipedias as well as possible commercial Wikipedia projects (like selling DVD-ROMs of "1.0").

Not to sound arrogant, but this is one of those policies that is above consensus. There are a few such policies handed down by the Wikimedia foundation that we have to follow, despite community opinion. Usually, it's not a big deal, because most people agree with those policies anyway, such as NPOV, GFDL licensing of text, no libelous content, etc. But even if that wasn't the case—if, suddenly, a majority of editors wanted to throw out NPOV—these policies would still remain in place. Their servers, their project, they get to set the baseline rules. And this is one of them. It's not true that I'm against "all" fair-use images, and any look through my edit history will confirm this (right now I'm cleaning out the obsolete {{fairuse}} tag; any image you see that I've edited with "removing from generic fair use cat" is an image that I specifically thing is acceptable fair use. I would have marked it for deletion otherwise).

Again, it's not "my way or the highway", it's "abide by Wikipedia policies or the highway", which is a fair description of Wikipedia works and always has. —Chowbok ☠ 02:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you say is fair comment Chowbok, and I'd certainly neither desire nor try to argue with it. However, coming back to the issue of policy, I don't see where you're reading it from. What I am seeing in the policy is that promo photo's are allowed under fair use, until such time as a reasonable replacement is available. Were I wishing to replace a washing machine, I wouldn't throw the old one out thinking that "another one is available because they are around". Instead, I'd wait until I could afford one, buy it, get it home, and only then throw out my previous washing machine. As far as I can see, this is what the policy has to say about promo photo's. Indeed, the very fact that the policy on fair use has a specific section allowing promo photo's under fair use implies that it is against deleting them all from wiki were they cannot yet be replaced.

In terms of the project compromise, the project would go trough wiki completely, article by article, attempting to obtain free images for each involved article. Once an image were obtained (through whatever the source), it would replace the image. Of course, it may not eliminate them from wiki instantly, but wiki is a work in progress and will be for some time to come - it's not as though it's likely to hurt if it takes a little longer to do. In fact, it will be of benefit to the encyclopedia, with less contributors loosing their hard work in a flash, less ill feeling, less incivility, less controversy and drama, and less external ridicule. By contrast, the articles would still look good, there's be much more good an positive feeling about it all, and there would be some very productive work onging to improve the encyclopedia. I honestly can see no problem with this approach. To better it still - in terms of new and additional promo photo's, it could be made the sole responsibility of the project (upon a users request) to upload them, which would result in all promophoto's being correctly tagged and noted. I can think (as I even already have above) of a number of good reasons in favour of this approach to the issue, and honestly can't see a real problem with it.

I am, however, not convinced that any policy is above concensus, except where the policy is endorced by Arbcom, or wherethe policy is ordered by the foundation. Even in these cases, it is only policy parts that are above consensus, and the existance of the policy itself, not the entire wording of it. I know of no policy personally entirely written with editing expressly forbidden by either party. Crimsone 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy is Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #1: we can only use a fair use image if "[n]o free equivalent is available or could be created" (emphasis mine). That's where we're getting this.

Trust me, people will be no less upset if their image is deleted because a free image is already there. I've replaced several fair-use photos with free ones and people were just as livid, and started edit-wars besides. Very few people are going to want to put up with that. Clearing the decks beforehand, so to speak, will open up contributions to editors who are willing and able to provide free images but don't have my patience for conflict and attacks. —Chowbok ☠ 04:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I would have no argument at all if a free one were already there (provided it was of a reasonable or comparable quality. The "could be created" line though is open to a lot of interpretation, depending on who looks at it. For example, how can you know if a free image can be created unless the subject of the image is first asked? If the subject says no, then can one be created? Possibly, but the chances of it happening any time soon are slim. I don't really see how clearing the decks beforehand would be in line with policy in that scenario. Of course, a project dedicated to finding replacements for promo-images would indeed open those same opportunities to contributors, especially if the project has consensus backing. This would of course eliminate all the problems that ensue from the current approach too. The project would become one of those few important entities on wiki that you usually have no call to argue with if they are merely replacing a fair photo with a free one - provided it was of similar or reasonable quality. Crimsone 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to advocate for free photos, Chowbok, go right ahead. The template suggested on one of the pages does a thousand times more to serve the purpose than the wholesale deletion of promotional images. I will be damned before I hold an artist hostage for a GFDL photo in this current climate, and the promophotos are usually of much better quality for good reason. And it's absurd the way the present photos are under attack, and some of the attitudes expressed on the subject. It's counter productive and a waste of time and energy. To not have a picture on a page like Cindy Crawford's is a joke, just like the bust of Woody Allen. It's pathetic. Tvccs 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How is anyone being "held hostage"? That's absurd hyperbole. Celebrities aren't obligated to give us pictures under a free license; and we aren't obligated to provide pictures that violate our core principles. —Chowbok ☠ 02:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

They are held hostage if they are told the only way they get a picture on Wikipedia, which is often the most read page about their careers, is to be willing to offer one under the terms of a GFDL which makes them give up all rights and control as to how it's used for the rest of their lives. That's hardly "absurd hyperbole" for an artist or celebrity, it's Wikipedia "policy" as a select few are hellbent on enforcing it. Tvccs 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We're kinda going in circles on this (considering also our conversations on my RFC). I don't share your odd reverence for celebrities nor your disdain for our committment to free content, so I'm not sure how constructive any further conversation will be. You seem to be saying that since we're big, celebrities have a right to dictate to us the terms under which we can print their photos. I think this is nonsense. If they want their preferred photos on our site, then they have to provide said images under our terms. You'll never convince me that's unreasonable. Let me set up a metaphor: say Jay Leno said that henceforth he would only allow guests on his show if they were wearing red dresses. Of course, nobody's obligated to appear on his show, but if they want to, those are the rules. Is Leno within his rights to set a rule like that, or would you argue that since The Tonight Show is the most-watched late night show in the U.S., celebrities should have the right to appear on it while retaining full control over their appearance? —Chowbok ☠ 04:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Three minor points - I have no objection to free photos if they are available and have supported the "help us find a free image" template, but I respect the rights of persons to control the distribution and use of their own images in public forums including Wikipedia. I don't support the complusion mentality, and find it collusive - I'm a "celebrity" myself. As far as free content goes, I've added a ton of my own effort, as I spend my time adding, rather than deleting. And as for "Jay Leno's red dresses", as someone who works professionally in the business, a) Jay's not stupid enough, b) his producer isn't, and c) If he ever did it, NBC would kick him off the show for being an unreasonable idiot, and every media outlet in the country, as well as 95+ percent of the general public, would lambaste him for same. What's amazing, yet again, is that you would support such a childish and egomaniacal example of said attitude, one you in fact came up with to illustrate your thinking. I really need to send "Jimbo" the above comment and see if he supports that one - if so, the asylum is indeed lost to the inmates. How old are you anyway? Tvccs 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Tvccs, the red dress thing was supposed to be a thought experiment. It can't be that hard! There's no point in arguing that "NBC would kick him off the show". Please, make an effort. You can do best. --Abu Badali 16:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali, you seem to miss the point. Jay Leno doing that would be a stupid idea just as making celebraties give us press photos of them for free is stupid. Chowbok seemed to hit on that pretty well, even if she didn't intend to. Most celebraties aren't going to care if their photo is on wikipedia anyway. Everyone also needs to take into consideration about this whole thing the five pillars. I know we must make it as free as possible, but we must make it as accurate as possible as well. I'm pretty sure everyone in this debate wishes it was just that easy to have celebraties give us free photos, but that isn't the reality of the situation. We unfortunatly NEED to use fair-use photos because it makes wikipedia much more accurate. Just parading through and deleting photo after photo because they aren't free isn't adding anything to wikipedia, its taking away from our accuracy. We all need to strive for free photos, but until a free photo just as accurate as the fair-use photo is found we need to keep the fair-use photo. Acidskater 17:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't make up the "thought experiment" in this instance - I use hypotheticals every day. I stand by my above reply, as the example provided is actually quite illustrative of the "thinking" behind some of the present free image jihadi, and shows how ill-conceived it really is. Some of you deletionist folks are going to end up being a little more famous soon because of this kind of "thinking". Whether you like the publicity forthcoming, you'll have to decide for yourselves. Tvccs 11:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent)

Well I missed alot of talk while I was away. I must say I'm extremely disappointed though. Deletion efforts of publicity photos of living people is inconsistent with policy. Starting a Wikiproject whose goal it is to obtain publicity photos under free license offers a great potential boon to Wikipedia, but so far I don't know why you're not willing to change tact and move towards something that accomplishes something rather than something that doesn't.--Jeff 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. I'm happy to see you proposing your project, and I'd like to help however I can. Are you no longer interested? Was your goal really to actively seek out photo replacements, or just to stop me? It seems like every "compromise" you've offered has boiled down to "you stop what you're doing right now". —Chowbok ☠ 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you misunderstood. My proposal is to allow publicity photos but instead of deleting them and finding craptastic replacements, our efforts would go towards trying to get them released under free licenses. We would pick a group of images, say photos of governor's, and then spend our time contacting them in some way way to try to get them released under a free license. we could have form letter templates to make it easy and we would change categories after we've exhausted the space we worked on. The reason I like this much more is because it improves quality, will result in more than a few good freely licensed photos and allow publicty photos on Wikipedia, consistant with current policy anyway.--Jeff 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How is that inconsistent with our current policy? We already allow publicity photos if they're released under free licenses. What's stopping you from doing that right now? —Chowbok ☠ 18:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to refocus your efforts away from deleting and towards something productive, while allowing those publicity photos that are here to remain and new ones to come.--Jeff 18:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Your "compromise" is I stop what I'm doing, and do what you want me to do instead. Gotcha. —Chowbok ☠ 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the non-compromise is I keep bitching about what you're doing and do nothing while still vying for you to stop deleting stuff and possibly going to Arbitration, YES it's a compromise.--Jeff 18:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand the meaning of the word "compromise". Anyway, I'm very disappointed that you weren't really serious about this. I thought you were trying to set up some sort of centralized project for getting people to release publicity photos under free licenses, which we could all work together. Instead, it looks like you were just trying to find busywork for me so I'll stop doing what's annoying you. I'm sorry I actually took your initial proposal seriously and responded to it thoughtfully. I won't make that mistake again. —Chowbok ☠ 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"If they want their preferred photos on our site, then they have to provide said images under our terms. You'll never convince me that's unreasonable." That statement right there seems to me to be against everything that wikipedia strives to become and I'm surprised no one noticed that or commented about it. As for your whole metaphor that went along with it, Jay Leno would most likely lose his show and become completely criticized by the public. I never thought of wikipedia as our site, I think of it as everyone's site. This project would do a whole lot for the wikipedia community and you seem to not really care. I try to assume good faith, but your motives seem not to better the site for everyone but to make it your site. I see no drawbacks in this project and fully support it as much I can. Acidskater 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, how is it "against everything that wikipedia strives to become" to require that contributions to Wikipedia actualy comply with Wikipedia's rules? If you want to add something to Wikipedia you are absolutely required to do so on the project's terms. --Sherool (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For one, we need fair-use photos to make wikipedia as accurate as possible. I wish we could get freely licensed photos for every fair-use photo we have that is just as accurate, but that just isn't possible. One of the main things about the statement that I think is againt what wikipedia is supposed to be is that it isn't our site, it's everyones site, but that isn't what is being discussed. I understand why people are against fair-use photos, but if we can legally make wikipedia more accurate then we should do it. Acidskater 15:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

contest speedy

The given reason (by a user voting on MfD in favour of deletion) for the speedy tag is that it's a cut and past move during an MfD discussion. Quite simply, this is may possibly (or not) be the case, but as evidenced that it's re-direct exists at it's previous location (though now at a reverted diff), there's no underhandedness involved, and the page no longer resides at its original location. It was in fact moved in response to MfD comments. While I wouldn't advocate the moving of a page currently undergoing an XfD discussion, I most certainly would say that there is nothing underhand about the move - it was listed in the discussion, and the redirect remains. I would quite reasonably assume that the person that moved the page did so in the expectation that failing the MfD would result in the deletion of both this page and its redirect, and so I can really see no justifyable reason for tagging it in such a way.

Indeed, the user tagging this page with the speedy template, shortly before it was tagged, in fact reverted said redirect (and thus, whether intentional or not) made the whole thing look like a rather underhanded attempt to avoid a possible deletion. The only possible result of these actions (ie, the reverts and the speedy) are that the improvements and useful discussion made to this page and it's talk resulting from the MfD would be lost regardless of whether the MfD were survived or not.

These actions have now, in fact, muddied the whole situation, and therefore I would respectfully request that the page being discussed for deletion is reverted to its redirect version until the end of the MfD, in order to correctly identify the both this and the re-direct page itself at the end of discussion, and so that the MfD can continue to be discussed on the basis of the current state of the page rather than on the basis of an old version that is no longer relevant to this pages intent. I note also that the main MfD page itself states that page moves often solve the issue, and put forward that the method of this particular move was little more than a mistake or oversight (ie, simply not thinking about it first).Crimsone 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Crimsone 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If the MfD supports a move, then it gets moved. If it supports a delete, then this should be deleted as well. You're not supposed to move pages during XfDs. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated votes (my own included) did support a move. Either way, I see no justifiable reason for this page to be speedied. I also understand that pages are not supposed to be moved during XfD's, ave I have inticated in my contestation.

Would you advocate instead that the situation be remedied by copying both of these pages back over onto the wikiproject page with a message at the top saying that a move has been agreed, and attempted, but wasn't allowed until the end of the discussion? That would be the only true and fair way of doing it, and would of course require admin assistance for a history merge folowed by an obstructed bage move. Crimsone 02:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We would do this even if I was supporting keep. We wait till the end of the MfD, that's all. It's no different from any other article or page that gets moved during an XfD. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment, but still there are substantive changes to both the page and it's talk that are relevant to the current state of the MfD, whereas the old version is not. A vote on the old version would not be representative of a vote on the actual page (ie, this one), nor would the state of the (old) page represent the best efforts and intent of the current.

A further solution may be to delete the old page in its entirity and move this one into it's place. That would of course interfere with the earlier MfD votes though. By far the simplest, fairest and least complex solution would be simply to revert back to that redirect and leave things as they stood all day. Of course, that would be up to the admin that deals with this. It's a lot of positive and good work to be delted on a controvesial issue that alreadyy has accusations of discussion blocking though. (and especially as discusiison - the intended purpose of the page, has actually started here too). 'tis all I'm really wanting (and needing) to say. (ie: deletion of this page biased the MfD and looses positive and potentially valuable contributions) Crimsone 03:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to get bogged down in process and adhere to rules nonsensically. There's speedy deletion for article moved during deletion discussions so that people don't hide their articles to keep them from getting deleted--in this case, the article was moved to respond to the legitimate complaint, raised and essentially agreed to before the filing of the deletion, that was only underscored by the emerging consensus that the page was not appropriate as a Wikiproject. Rather than waiting for the bureaucratic wheels to grind, we got the page off of its objectionable real estate in order to get on with what we feel is an important discussion.

If your objection really is not to this discussion being framed as a Wikiproject, but to us having this discussion at all, then you should go ahead with your attempt to get this page speedily deleted. I must say, though--the anti-fair use argument always comes back to the importance of creating an encyclopedia that is "free as in freedom." What kind of "freedom" is it that forbids people from getting together to discuss their very slightly different vision of what freedom means? It seems like the irony is getting a little overripe. Nareek 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The original deletion notice was removed when that page was made into a redirect and was not placed on the new page. This has nothing to do with my support or lack of support for this proposition. This is pretty normal when someone moves a page during an XfD. If you want to read into this something that is not there, then go ahead. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you object then to copying the deletion notice over to this page, and editing the old page to remove content, replacing it with an instruction to follow a link to this one (or of course to add the notice to this page and make the old one a redirect again? Crimsone 04:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that the main rationale given for the MfD was that because this is an advocacy issue, it shouldn't be a Wikiproject (which the other page was labelled as). This redirect addresses that issue, and therefore shouldn't be deleted using only that reason as justification. Also, I suspect that anyone who supports the deletion of this page at the same time as the original page, is trying to stifle discussion of this issue. I think this issue should continue to be discussed so long as wikipedians who disagree with the current policy wish to discuss it and try to get support for a policy change.Librarylefty 04:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Chowbok

Chowbok wrote: "That said, I'm not going to stop tagging images because of a project like this. The very fact we're even talking about it is because of my and a few other editors' efforts in deleting the fair-use images. Were it not for that, all the signatories here would have happily lived with fair-use promo images forever. Besides, what incentive does anybody have to release a promotional photo under a free license if we're going to use the same image under fair-use terms if they refuse? —Chowbok ☠ 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)"

The problem is that people have been deleting fair use promo images that have been freely released to the public. These are photos where the copyright holder has distributed these images without making anyone buy them, and with a guarantee by the coypright holder that no one will be sued for use of these images. The idea that these images are not "copyleft" enough, or not "free" enough is ridiculous. As far as the use of these images goes, the fact that they are proprietary doesn't mean anything, because the copyright holder is allowing them to be used in the same manner as non-proprietary photos. Wikipedia gains nothing from not using such photos, it merely gives satisfaction to certain editors that the holders of these proprietary photos were snubbed.Librarylefty 04:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not why I'm doing it, anyway. Seems like a strange motivation to me. I don't think promotional photos are released with the understanding that their subjects have irrevocably released all rights to them; I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to request removal of the image from sites they disapprove of. Note also that your argument is in direct contradiction with tvccs's above. —Chowbok ☠ 04:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that subjects do not irrevocably release all rights to them; however, it is generally accepted that subjects of publicity photos agree not to sue any individual or organization for the use of those photos. The fact, however unlikely, that they may change their mind at some point in the future, should not be reason for Wikipedia not to use these photos. And if the subject of a photo placed on Wikipedia decides they have a problem with it being there, it can be removed from Wikipedia at that point. These photos shouldn't have to be removed beforehand.Librarylefty 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why we argue for the use of promotional photos as fair use, rather than arguing (as one could) that there is an implicit license for promotional photos that is very similar to the explicit license of the GFDL. In other words, when someone sends out a promotional photo, they are implicitly saying, "Go ahead and use this however you like; this will help our goal of publicizing the photo subject." I don't know that it's ever happened, but someone could theoretically claim that they've revoked this implicit license. But that wouldn't help you in court against a fair use claim; once you've sent out a picture as a promotional photo, establishing that the economic purpose of that photo is to get publicity for its subject, there's no way in the world that a court is going to say that it's not fair use for anyone to use that photo in any way one could ever imagine an encyclopedia using it.

So there really is no practical difference between a GFDL photo and a promotional photo in terms of use; to eliminate promotional photos in the hopes that someday they might be replaced by GFDL photos seems like mere ideological axe-grinding at the expense of the encyclopedia. Nareek 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

About the "Immediate Goals of advocates"

One of the "immediate goals" is the "Cessation of the the deletion of fair use publicity photos untill such time as a resolution to the issue has been agreed upon". Would the "advocates" also support the cessation of new uploads of fair use publicity photos untill a resolution is agreed? --Abu Badali 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From my own personal opinion, and I would hope that of any other right-minded person, would be that the cessasion of new uploads of publicity photo's should also cease untill a resolution/solution is hammered out - but not one without the other. Such a goal would have my strongest support (thankyou for bringing it up :) ) Crimsone 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would get behind that certainly, but im not sure how it could be enforced. as it is right now, i don't think promotional is an option for a photo being uploaded..--Jeff 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that Orphanbot would be able to prod-tag images tagged as promophoto and uploaded after this date (or a date of agreement) untill told otherwise. I would further imagine that it would be possible to tag them manually. Obviously, it would require a talk page message delivered to affected uploaders in order to explain what's going on, which is most easily done by bot.

You are indeed correct the promophoto's must be manually tagged. Crimsone 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider supporting it as soon as all of my deleted images, and those of others, are completely restored and the proper policy pages(s) marked and clarified to stop other people from wasting needless hours of work only to have it deleted. I have a funny feeling the deletion squad won't go along with that suggestion, however. I'd love to be proven wrong. Tvccs 04:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider supporting it as soon as the image upload template gets rid of the "Invalid Fair Use" category that automatically traps every new promotional image as marked for deletion. How can that be possible, when a fair use claim requires ANALYSIS of the material in question? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - such automatic tagging would indeed stand against the main page of the fair use policy, which DOES allow for promotional images in at least some circumstances. Crimsone 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jenolen that there is a problem with the Invalid Fair Use tag being applied to promotional images, since they comply with the "fair use" clause in US copyright law. However, the "invalid Fair Use" tag suggests that they somehow violate said "Fair Use Clause", which they do not. What they do is violate Wikipedia policy. What's needed is a different tag that indicates that these photos contravene Wikipedia policy. That way, if people disagree with these photos being tagged for deletion, they will recognize that this is a Wikipedia policy dispute, and not a legal dispute.Librarylefty 13:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Free photo rationale

• 1. "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)

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)

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)

Arbitration?

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)

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)

There is now a lot of discussion on related pages about Jimbo Wales view, as he has again gotten into this subject, FYI. See [1] and the related discussion. Tvccs 12:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

MFD note

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)

tamplate

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)

Compromise? Yeah, right

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)

Clearly we're not getting anywhere. What do you think we should do, guys? - Stick Fig 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Blow it up. Jihad!--Jeff 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

This may possibly be considered a violation of WP:POINT. --Yamla 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oden and overzealousness

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)

May 2007 situation

Hello, it's nearly a year since the july 2006 storm, so what is the situation now? Is it possible to upload sourced, justified promotionnal material or not yet or never? --Marc Lacoste 09:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not likely. The rationale against using Publicity Photos is silly. Because someone may someday be able to snap a shot of a celeb or politician in public, therefore summarily delete any photo that exists now. Applied consistently, this rationale should be used to delete all kinds of photos: company logos, patches, maps, etc. since after all, someone may someday create a free, GFDL alternative from scratch. It's really taking away from -Wiki the encyclopedia- and turning it into -Wiki the Richard Stallman extremist of FREEDOM- project.

Or here's a question: how are promo photos of fictional characters OK in the article on the character, but verboten in the article on the actor? It's hard to see how "freedom" is really the issue at hand; how is it free if it's the character but not the actor? Fair use? Ah, but we aren't talking about fair use, we're talking about XXXTREME FREEDOM.

Yawn. Some of these guys could use a vacation. --shift6 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)