File talk:Mount House, Monken Hadley.jpg

Replaceable fair use

The argument that a freely licensed equivalent cannot be created because the house is located on private property obscured from public view seems a little thin to me. It seems possible for someone to obtain permission to enter to grounds for the purpose a taking a photograph of the house. The fact that someone named Alan Magnus took the photo found on the website given as the source for the means that it's not only possible for Magnus himself (if he's still living) to upload the file to Commons or Fickr or some other website under a Commons-compatible free license of his choosing, but also possible for someone else to take a similar photo. The house is still standing and is said to be one of the principle buildings of St Martha's Senior School, so somebody associated with the school (a teacher or student perhaps) could take a picture of the house freely license it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In response to the additional information added about NFCI, no one is expecting someone to trespass on private private property to take a photo of this house, but this is not some remotely located residence of a well known recluse trying to hide from the media/public. It's a building, apparently of some historical importance, which currently exists and which is located on the grounds of a currently operating school. It seems possible that some one connected to the school in some way could take a photo and freely license it. It also seems possible that someone could obtain permission of the school to enter the grounds and perhaps take a photograph of the building just as the photographer of the non-free image seems to have done. NFCC#1 does not limit itself to the uploader being able to create a non-free image; it has been interpreted to mean that if anyone at anytime could possibly create a non-free image, then replaceable fair use applies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are correct then we would have no non-free images of anything that currently exists as everything that exists can in theory be photographed by someone. The guidance deals specifically with this circumstance and we have it because we are not required to negotiate special access to private property. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that to a certain extent, but it is possible as explained at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder for the copyright holder of an image to be contacted and asked about freely licensing their image, so it does not necessarily have to be the uploader of file who creates the freely licensed version of it. It also is possible for a student or someone connected to the school to take a picture of this house, and freely license it. If this house is regularly accessed since it's still being used as part of the school, then a free equivalent is possible. If the building no longer existed or no student, teacher, staff member, etc. could get near it, then I could see how a non-free is needed. If that's the case, then use the non-free. From the "St. Martha's Welcome Video" at st-marthas.co.uk/videos/, it seems like students, staff, etc. do have access to the house. These days smart/cell phones with cameras are quite common even among students, so it's possible that one of them could take a photo, isn't it? File:St Martha's Convent.JPG is a freely licensed photo on Commons of St. Martha's Convent which is listed as "St Martha's Convent (the Mount House) with Attached Stable Block" in Grade I and II* listed buildings in Barnet. This looks like the same building (only from a different perspective), but even if it isn't it sort of shows that a freely licensed equivalent is possible to create, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the same house but misnamed. I have changed the pic and the non-free one can be deleted. The other point will have to wait for another time. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If by "misnamed" you mean in the file's description, then you can just go to the Commons page and correct the information. If, however, you mean the file's name, then you can request that it be re-named as explained in c:COM:RENAME. I don't mind doing that. Is "Mount House, Monken Hadley" a better choice for the file's name? Just post your suggestions at c:File talk:St Martha's Convent.JPG. Anyway, glad a free image could be found; fwiw, its licensing seems acceptable to me and it doesn't seem to have come from anywhere online, so I don't think it's at risk of being deleted from Commons. Since the non-free is now an orphan, it will likely be speedily deleted. This means the talk page will also be speedily deleted per WP:G8. So, if you wish to discuss these issues further, it's probably better to do so at somewhere like WT:NFCC. I'll add {{G8-exempt}} to this page so that admin who deletes the file notices this discussion. They can then decide whether it's worth saving or not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Mount House is the more correct name I think but there's no need to change the file name. I am aware of the uploader's work and sure it is his own work. So everything's correct now. I don't believe the substantive point has been resolved but am happy to leave it at this. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and willingness to discuss things. BTW, since the file being used is now freely licensed, I think it can also be used on St Martha's Senior School. It's also probably OK to upload a non-free version of the school's logo (see here or here) for use in the article's infobox. The logo itself may even be OK per {{PD-USonly}}, but not sure if it's OK for Commons as c:Template:PD-textlogo because the UK has a pretty low TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)