Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam

Lucy Merriam[edit]

Reason: I'm not certain what makes a good portrait of a child (is it any different from a good portrait of an adult?) but this one looks pretty good, and I believe we have no featured images of child celebrities. Another nice image submitted by the copyright holder (in this case, the subject's mother, which also deals with any potential privacy issues- if her mother's happy for us to have it, I don't think anyone's going to object on those grounds...)
Articles this image appears in: Lucy Merriam
Creator: Work for hire created by a family photographer, owned by Lisa Merriam

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak oppose~~ Good composition but IMO the DOF is way too shallow and thus not much is sharp --Muhammad(talk) 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Diliff. I don't feel quite strongly to support it though. --Muhammad(talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Support with Dismay~~ It's a beautiful photo, but I really pity the poor girl. Statisticly, as a child actor, she doesn't have the slightest chance for ever having a normal life. I mean look at the pose, it's normally used for female adult actresses to arouse viewers. No i'm not a pervert. I am not convinced as to how appropriate this photo is. Nezzadar ☎ 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pose that has been used sexually, yes, but I certainly wouldn't call it a sexual pose. I have no real opinion on the whole ethics of child stars (in fact, check my contributions list) but I don't think that's something that should affect our judgement of this picture. J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but everything everyone does is based on some combination of the subjective and objective, with neither ever being 100% dominant. This happens to be a case where the subjective pops up and screams "WTF!" Usually, when my mind screams at me, I listen. Nezzadar ☎ 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also disagree that it's an inherently sexual pose. But you're right, everyone's opinion is subjective, and prior associations and experiences affect our judgements. It's fine to listen to your 'intuition', but when you recognise that you're letting it make decisions regarding objective criteria, then it's probably time to take a step backwards and re-think. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Apart from a compositional faux pas (IMO) with slightly too much space on the left side of the frame, I think it's a pretty good portrait. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - makeup:age ratio is more than a little disturbing. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I'm not convinced there is any makeup- there's no mascara, eyeshadow or eyeliner, and any foundation is very light- there may be a little blush/glitter, but I'm not convinced. Secondly, I'm really not seeing that as a valid reason to oppose. On publicity shots like this, almost everyone wears makeup, even if it's just a little foundation. Further, she's a model/actress- at that age, I can imagine that most of the impetus to hire will be based on how the child looks- if a dash of makeup (it's not a lot, at all- if there is any, it's very natural-looking and light) adds to that, so be it. Again, to echo what I said above, we should not be sitting here making judgements about how we don't like the fact that child stars exist, we should be sitting here judging whether this image meets our FP guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll support although I see the blur in her right arm. I don't know how difficult is to get a better picture of the subject released to wikipedia. My main purpose is to compensate for those oppositions sustained in age-sexual elements. I want to say that that pose isn't sexual at all. It is just the classical S-shaped pose that makes female figure pleasant (very subtle in this case). I would like to say also (although it shouldn't be a topic of discussion for this FP candidacy) that sexual awareness is developed in childhood at early ages (just let us remember our own games with the pretty neighbor of the next house) and this girl, for sure, must have some precocity (which I don't think it is implied by the picture at all) if we see the type of activities in which is involved. Let's not be ashamed of sexuality if we see it, it is part of human nature. Let's not be prejudiced (or at least not in a so trivial way). I don't think it should be the point in which it should be analyzed this picture. Franklin.vp 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Franklin VP. I want to say that I really don't think that the oppose votes hold any weight at all. For a child actor, we would expect to see light make-up, and this increases, rather than decreases the EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Edit - Support withdrawn until licensing concerns are resolved. Edit 2. Remove strike, sourcing issues appear to have been resolved. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, there is no licensing concern. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Sourcing and Licensing concerns for these images (semi-OT)

~~Licensing~~ Sourcing concern. The licensing/authorship here is the same as on a couple of other recent celeb noms, and those raised some I believe unresolved issues - see here and here, as well as this discussion on the talkpage. Fortunately on those two previous noms, one was resolved with the actual photographer before being promoted, the second failed two noms so effectively avoided the problem. I believe the issue is potentially even more serious here, given that at least in the other two noms they were adults. On this one, essentially the image page is saying that this 7yo child owns the photo and has granted us permission to use it. I doubt that is legal, and it's probably not correct. As I commented on the talkpage discussion, the OTRS seems to be "perhaps doing a less than outstanding job." As is and until things improve in this area (with no comment on this actual image itself) I have a feeling we should not be nominating/promoting images with this licensing/sourcing. --jjron (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, the image page says that the mother (Lisa) owns the image, not Lucy, the 7 year old girl. Also, I'm not sure whether the first two links you provided show any unresolved issues. The first one refers to an issue relating to 'work for hire' photography as it stands in the UK (where Mick implies such arrangements are uncommon), not the US. The second one doesn't seem to contain any licensing issue discussion at all - only compositional issues. I understand the need to be comfortable that it's all legal and above board, but are we going to question every commercial image that passes through FPC? What happened to AGF in this situation? ;-) You might as well question that I'm the original photographer/owner of my images too! I'm not saying we should accept everything at people's word, but surely we have to have good reason to suspect something wrong before we pursue it? I just don't see anything obviously wrong with the licensing at face value. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the image page says (and I would go so far as to say that those reading otherwise are doing significantly "less than an outstanding job" themselves (and how difficult is it to read the difference between "Lisa Merriam" and "Lucy Merriam", compared with dealing with a lot of people who are genuinely upset, geniunely confused and genuinely and legitimately clueless about how our encyclopedia works, but who, frequently, genuinely want to help out? We already force them to jump through hoops, and every day I'm forced to request more information on photographs where I know no more information will be forthcoming- I've lost many potential FPC noms in that way. But I digress).) the image belongs to Lisa, not Lucy. I mentioned this in my nomination statement. The exact wording of the email is this- "I own the copyright to the photograph of Lucy Merriam attached. This photograph was taken by our family photography as work for hire. I am offering it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. I am offering it for use with the entry for Lucy Merriam". A link was provided to the article, and it was signed by Lisa, and sent from her commercial address (upon checking the article on Lucy, we already discuss her mother's career- everything adds up). Word for word, this was an almost perfect submission email- a rare beast. What else do you want? J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you cared to read the talkpage discussion I linked to I feel Mick's main concern (and really my concern here) is that the photographer is correctly attributed (and that is also where the second image was discussed FWIW). The comments there are really far more pertinent than what appeared in the noms themselves. I find it amusing (?) that people that get up in arms about having their own images attributed to them correctly have no qualms that other people's aren't :-). Lucy/Lisa, my apologies for not being up on this kid's family tree, but not really relevant to attributing the creator of the image. I should have better titled my comment as Sourcing concern or even Author concern, but expect that would be more likely to be overlooked (have now changed it since it's garnered some feedback). --jjron (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough, I see your point now. I did read the talk page discussion too, but I think the problem was that you didn't actually state what you felt the problem was with this image. You gave two example noms as if they were the primary discussions and that confused things because I found little discussion of the issues in them, and you certainly made no mention of attribution of the photographer. Anyway, I see your point, I actually missed the fact that the photographer was not credited. However, I think this is an interesting scenario. The photographer did not release the image under CC-BY-SA but he did (according to the source) hand over the rights to the image as a 'work-for-hire'. Then the owner of the image released the image under CC-BY-SA. So I'm not sure that the photographer needs to be attributed in this instance. The CC-BY-SA 3.0 license says "Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" - The key words being or licensor. In this case, it is the mother, not the author. It might even be part of the agreement with the mother that he remain anonymous. Who knows? The point is, my understanding is that it is licensed and sourced correctly. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And for the record, I don't get up in arms about correct attribution (and I particularly wouldn't if I sold my rights as a work-for-hire) as I'm not that vain and I don't get any work by word of mouth, but I do get a bit up in arms over commercial re-use of my images - commercial entities profit from my photos without any compensation, basically. That's a completely different kettle of fish. What I'd be really happy with is non-commercial licensing on Wikipedia. I'd have no qualms then. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thought I had seen you comment on your talkpage that you didn't mind people using various images as long as they attributed you... However I think there's others that take it more seriously than you. Just to try to clarify and state my opinions here simply per a request on my talkpage. The actual licensing and legality of these images may be fine – I’ve noted before that that is really not an area of knowledge or interest of mine; I don’t know for sure and it may vary depending on country of origin, but I’ll let others determine that. The beauty of the Wynter nom was that Mick did contact the photographer and he agreed with the licensing; for these others it's more grey. However what concerns me more are the morals of these cases (and that's where the other two fit into the same category, regardless of where they're from). Morally I have a problem with someone claiming authorship for something that is not their own work, or someone else claiming it as such for them. That is the case with these images, where the subject (or the subject’s mother) is listed in the author field when we know it’s not true, and for some there's even less clarification than here. Of course different people have different moral values and evidently many don't object to this regardless. Others need to decide for themselves, but they should be aware of the issue. However personally I am unlikely to ever support an image with a known inaccurate author. I'd actually be happier if it was sourced using the current author information, and the author put in as 'unknown', although I'd obviously be happier still if we could actually credit the creators. :-) --jjron (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this is a great portrait of children in light of the pose, facial expression, and general technical quality (sharpness, light etc). I also feel uncomfortable with the photo due to the similar opinion presented by Nezzadar. Although Wikipedia is not censored, we should protect subjected people especially "children" from all kind of weird people like paedophiles. The photo reminds me of Luis Carrole's child photography...--Caspian blue 12:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long discussion on protection of the child

- How are you protecting this child by opposing? She's already on TV for god's sake! Besides which, there is a big difference between assaulting a child and looking at a clothed photo of a child (even if with evil thoughts). We live in such a sad world where people think that a photo like this is creating victims of paedophiles. *Sigh*. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The purposes of our "Featured pictures" are to appreciate fine images and to generate more attention to them. So I believe opposing opinions here would decrease the said possibility. Unfortunately, we live in such the sad world.--Caspian blue 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, no harm will come to the girl if there were to be more attention given to the image, because viewing an image with intent is not the same thing as assaulting the girl in the image. And I don't want it to appear to be a personal attack, because it isn't, but it is people with your mindset that go some way to perpetuating the myth that there is a paedophile waiting to steal kiddies around every corner. There are kids in playgrounds in virtually every city and town in the world and the vast majority have no untoward contact from paedophiles, so how is displaying a child on the front page of Wikipedia going to cause paedophiles to assault her? It's a ridiculously paranoid idea IMO. In any case, as you already stated, Wikipedia is not censored and it is not our moral responsibility to protect people (beyond our legal responsibility, of course). It is the parent's responsibility, and we should simply trust that they are doing that in their own way. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, you're making personal attacks by your own admission which is surely unpleasant. I don't appreciate your mindset like "I'm always right and should be right" and your persistence for people with different views to yield to your view. The photo of the subject does not depict kids in playgrounds and we're talking about the photo. Please do not exaggerate for your POV.--Caspian blue 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I made it clear that it was not a personal attack on yourself, just the ideas that are perpetuated by a myth, which you happen to be buying into. Yes, you're right, the photo doesn't depict kids in playgrounds but I never claimed it did. You have completely ignored the main point and concentrated on irrelevant things like kids in playgrounds. The child in this photo will not be adversely affected by paedophiles as a result of being featured here. Fact. That is not exaggerated POV. Believing that you're somehow protecting a child by opposing the photo is exaggerated POV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why I am wasting my time talking with you, ha? You are the one coming up irrelevant examples to compare with the photo in question and forgetting the main point. You attacked me with the "one of perpetuaters of the myth, so I take offense. No excuse necessary for what you said.--Caspian blue 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine, you're obviously not going to accept my point. We'll agree to disagree. But if you're offended by my assertion that you and others are perpetuating a myth, then so be it. End of discussion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WHAT!!! Luis Carrole's child photography?? I thought I was a pervert for imagining the naked shape of my girlfriend while totally dressed. What is it what people are seeing in this picture? That fold on her dress is not her breast. I am probably getting old and my libido is not as sharp as before. I don't know what is more pitiful, a child that already have a well defined plan in life, a work, parents that care about her or people worrying if this is a bad thing and getting nervous because a little girl is looking straight at them. I am sorry but I get too envious when I see people with a better sexual imagination than me. Franklin.vp 13:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I say "Good morning/afternoon/evening" (depending on where you're) to your manhood or what...? :-p Caspian blue 14:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As much as I enjoy starting horrible monsters and setting them loose on the unsuspecting populous, I think this is getting a bit nasty. Let's not jump down each others' throats. Please? Nezzadar ☎ 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Changing my vote late in the game after reading what everyone has said. It's not because of the appropriateness, but of the photo itself. It's a nice publicity shot... until you zoom in. Then it starts having flaws. I agree with Muhammad on this. Nezzadar ☎ 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that it is a common portraiture technique to use a shallow depth of field to accentuate the features. As long as the eyes are in focus, it's not usually as important that everything else is in perfect focus. A portrait is also not intended to be viewed as closely either, as we take in the overall scene rather than scan the image for detail. We can't apply our standards for landscape photography to portraiture IMO, just as we don't expect everything to be in perfect focus for macro photography (If that were the case, Muhammad would have a lot less FPs!). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that shallow DOF may be used and eyes shud be in focus but the focus in this image missed the eyes and instead, part of the right(her left) portion of the hair is sharper. --Muhammad(talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think her left eye is in focus though. Downsample it to the resolution you upload your images to and you would probably struggle to find any part of her face significantly out of focus. Sorry, I'm not singling your photos out, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to find slight focus issues when viewing the photo at the original high res, and as I said above, I think composition and expression is of more importance to portraiture than perfect focus because we typically view portraits as a whole at a suitable viewing distance, and don't scan for detail at 100% size as we often do for macro or landscape photography. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I did view a downsampled version, at 1200px. The flaws I mention are still easily visible though at that res as well. Point taken about composition > focus and vote modified accordingly. --Muhammad(talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long discussion on protection of the child continued

Comment: I think we're getting off-topic here. The "OMG PROTECT THE CHILDREN" rubbish is irrelevent (go and nomination some of my articles for deletion if you're so concerned...) as, whether we like it or not, the kid's notable, and we have a perfectly legitimate image that has even been endorsed by her mother. The concerns about the licensing are legitimate, but, as has been explained by myself and others, misplaced. The real debate here is about the quality of the image- I feel my position is well summed up by Diliff directly above. So, can we please get back on topic? J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful to see that you disparage the concerns over how the image is conveyed as "rubbish". (I think the assessment and whole personal attacks suit for the label) Even as excluding the factor, the image does not meet the quality to become FP as pointed out by many. The notability is not questioned, so please don't bring in the non-existent dispute.--Caspian blue 15:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the subject is extremely important. Do we cover her? Yes. Then a picture of her that meets our criteria should be promoted. Would you also oppose the article reaching FA status for the same reasons? We "must protect her"? Again, you may want to take your preaching to one of my FAs. If you wouldn't oppose a FAC on those grounds, why oppose a FPC on those grounds? J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So did I question about the notability of the child actor? You're not only missing the point but also distorting my comments. You rather seems to try to take a free ride over the notability of the child actor. My oppose comment is combined with unsatisfaction with the quality of the picture, so please be reminded of it. Here is not the place for bragging your FA which are totally irrelevant of tthe picture. Please show me some logical and mature attitude.--Caspian blue 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You're actually quite an interesting person, it would seem. If you want to oppose based on technical details, so be it, but please shut up about (and, preferably, strike) the paedophile nonsense. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, not as much as you. I enjoyed your nonsensical bragging over your FA and the unfit comparison though. I should've been reminded that you've been overzealous over any celebrity images obtained by OTRS to FPC in the past. I would highly appreciate if "you shut up for now" and the intimidation. My comment is not the first one over the concern as Nezzadar and Xavexgoem's expressed their uneasiness over the very young child's pose and makeup.--Caspian blue 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination, and the lengthy, hot air discussion in it, is a prime example of why I left FPC quite some time ago, and only occasionally visit anymore. GET TO THE POINT, people! (To be more precise: I'm mostly addressing this to Caspian...) Does this have the EV, does it have the technical quality to be a FP? Greetings from lurkerland, --Janke

Support The portrait stands on it's technical merits. To much controversy about the subject, ignoring it's a child actress it's still a technically good high resolution portrait. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: decent technical quality and composition, high EV. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. EV is not that high. Her brief article doesn't have a single reference and it seems debatable if she even meets WP:ENTERTAINER. According to IMDB, she's been in a few episodes of a soap opera and was a supporting actress in a kid's movie. We're not talking Shirley Temple here. Plus the weird pose doesn't make for a compelling image, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the article exists, I think it's pretty safe to assume that a portrait of the subject automatically has EV. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be a strong case for taking the article to AfD, per the arguments you've given Kaldari. I don't agree about a lack of EV, however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article us put up for AfD, closing of this nomination will be delayed until the outcome. Continue voting, ignoring article issues (as it can't pass without being in an article anyway). Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that should be rephrased as "If there is anyone here today who knows of any reason why this article, and this image, should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace."... I don't see why it's productive to wait indefinitely for someone to decide to put it up for AfD... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have until such time as the image is due to close. If the article's not up for AfD by then, then it can be presumed notable. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per nom. Fine expression, middling composition (per example at right). Looking over this discussion today, it's interesting to compare the time stamps versus the nomination that immediately followed. Could it be possible that running a female nude shortly afterward might have thrown this discussion off kilter? If so, any disruption was entirely unintentional. Durova³³⁹ 04:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh My... I actually had not made that association. Besides, I stirred the hornet's nest (completely unintentionally) with my comment before you posted that image. I think I am going to have to take a look at those arguments again with this in mind. You filthy perverts! LOL... Nezzadar ☎ 06:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lucy Merriam.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god this mess is over. Ha ha ha. Wow. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]