File talk:Nigel Hawthorne photo.jpg

Fair use discussion[edit]

A Free alternative does exist at [1]. Rama (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed free replacement is a line drawn cartoon produced by the admin who proposed this image for deletion. It does not satisfy the requirements of the encyclopaedia. It does not even closely resemble the actor in question.

(Above is copied verbatim here for convenience from the di-replaceable fair use disputed tag, which was posted by User:Elen of the Roads)

The above is irrelevant. File:Manson Eurockeenes.jpg is not as good as [2], yet we do not feel free to snatch copyrighted material. There are numerous examples of drawings and paintings being used to illustrate contemporary personalities; that this particular one would not be a good one should only incite production of Free alternatives, it does not legitimate snatching copyrighted material any more in the case of a photograph. Rama (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-example you provided is in fact another photograph, not a drawing. –xeno^talk 19:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is a photograph.

You are giving two arguments:

1) replacement image is a drawing -- there are numerous counter-examples where hand-drawn images are used in articles.

2) replacement is of poor quality -- there are numerous counter-examples (this one for instance) where Free images of poor quality in articles. Rama (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a qualitative difference between replacing with a free photograph that hasn't been retouched, airbrushed, botoxed or whatever, and replacing with a drawing of any old guy who bears a passing resemblance to the subject. And stop using the word "snatching".--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there is not. If Free drawings is sometimes admissible, which they are, then a Free drawing can always be made, and Fair Use images are never admissible as a way to simply cheat and grab, snatch, steal, whatever you prefer, the copyrighted works of others. Fair use is only admissible when the very image is being discussed as the subject of the article or one of its parts, and not simply to conveniently avoid doing work.

Fair Use is like a right of citation, but for images. If we did with right of citation what you propose to do with Fair Use, our articles would consist mostly of copy-pasted Britanicca articles, just because they existed before ours, or were better written. Rama (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I initiated an RFC on this line of argument here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. –xeno^talk 00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings can be ok. Just look at Oral sex. If drawings are no good then the images in that article should be replaces with photographs. --MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]