File talk:Ringo Brown.jpg

	This file is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles
File	This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This file was nominated at Wikipedia:Files for discussion on 19 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Deletion of image[edit]

this image is not replacable beacuse it's the only one of its kind as it is a screenshot.

I don't think that the image should be deleted. I think that there is enough explanation of what it is there for and the summary box provides enough information on the image --5 albert square (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image is replaceable, see User talk:Sarah#Your edits to Ringo Brown and WP:FAIRUSE. Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is a photograph of an actor ok for an image of a fictional character? I think not. Anemone Projectors 11:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actor would be dressed for the part (fictional character), so it isn't impossible to get a free photo. Bidgee (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way when I edited the page with my edit summary "not orphaned" I was definitely removing the orphaned tag not a replaceability one! I didn't get an edit conflict warning, so that was weird. Anemone Projectors 12:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they're dressed for the part doesn't make them a fictional character. Aren't they only a character when they're on the screen or at least filming actual scenes and in character? If you can get on set while they're filming and get a photo then I'll let you off. Anemone Projectors 12:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, it doesn't matter if they are acting or not. At the end of the day the image is replaceable (Key part of the Fair-use is if it is replaceable then it shouldn't be uploaded). Bidgee (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not acting then it's just a picture of a person not a fictional character. I think that only a copyrighted image can be a fictional character, I'm not even sure that a set photo of the actor portraying the character would be the same because what makes it a fictional character is all the stuff that goes into putting them on the screen. Anemone Projectors 12:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF! If the actor/actress is dressed as fictional character, then they are not an fictional character? I just suggest you rethink and read WP:FAIRUSE. Bidgee (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the content guideline on non-free content. I am just giving my opinion. If I'm wrong then sobeit, but if it's not possible to get on set and get a picture of the actor dressed as the character then the image is not replaceable. In the UK they don't let anyone on set during filming. Anemone Projectors 12:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted. I'd suggest those making these ludicrous claims, actually try and get on the set of Neighbours, take a photo of Sam Clark. It would still be Sam Clark doing his day job though, a screen shot is taken from the work of fiction, not someone at work. I think some are confusing reality and fiction.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous claims? Your comment makes no sense, a photo of Sam Clark on set (in character) or screenshot have the same value but one would be free and the other isn't free. Bidgee (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taking a visit to the set then? When do you think the new image will be up?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--- A picture of an actor dressed up as the character is not a picture of the fictional character. The character is "alive" or exists only in the context of the performance. There is more to a character than makeup and clothes. Facial expressions, gestures, interactions with other characters on the set are only there during the performance. The filmed performance is copyrighted so any still image extracted from that performance is also copyrighted. Using that still in an article about the character is fair use and is not replaceable. This is normal practice and usage for almost all other character articles in Wiki. I know that that is not sufficient justification for doing the wrong thing, but this practice is so overwhelming done that I fail to see how this image would be an exception. See also Current cast of Neighbours and the linked to character articles. As a side issue, the image is incorrectly named - it is of the fictional character, not the actor and should be named as such. 174.22.136.174 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't be copyrighted since Australia has a freedom of panorama (in terms of photography), if I was videotaping the "performance" it would be a copyright violation as the script is copyrighted. Bidgee (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that since two administrators disagree about this issue, that the final determination to keep or delete be done by someone else. 174.22.136.174 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are all forgetting is that some editors don't live in Australia, seeings as you two haven't popped down to the set yet, how do you know all you say, I just see theoretic reply after reply, but no tried and tested outcome for this. Like with Pirates of the Caribbean, the Neighbours set isn't there for the public to just have a jolly on down, whenever they like. If the image is deleted, would you atleast try to get one? (You could use it for Sam Clark's article.)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it would be a shame if someone claims to be able to get a picture from the set and then doesn't attempt to, so I hope they at least try. If they are unable to, I think they should concede that it isn't possible and allow this image (if deleted) to be restored. Anemone Projectors 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline to delete image[edit]

I've declined the deletion because of a simple reason — we have a free image of Johnny Depp, but we use a nonfree screenshot to portray him in the infobox of Captain Jack Sparrow, which is a featured article. If such an image is used in a featured article infobox, it can't be impossible to use this image within policy. I see no difference between the usage at the Sparrow article and at the Brown article. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Jack Sparrow is completely different to Ringo Brown since the filming of Pirates of the Caribbean was a closed set where as Neighbors isn't totally (IE: filming in Oaks Court is open and in view of the public). Therefore your closing is flawed as this image is replaceable but Captain Jack Sparrow is not. Bidgee (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also per the policy at WP:NFC

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Bidgee (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see this as possible to be created. Please take this to FFD if you believe that it should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for rejecting deletion is specious. Johnny Depp looks decidely different to Jack Sparrow, just as he looks decidely different to Willy Wonka because he's in costume for those characters. This image, which is somewhat ironically named for the actor and not the character, is simply a head-shot without any costume that prevents it from being replaceable. The head of the actor "in costume" and in his street clothes looks identical. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]