Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 24
April 24
- File:Sabrewing Rhaegal.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marc Lacoste (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
I understand that the normal sequence of events, in the case of a file that deserves discussion, is to hold the discussion first, and then, if the consensus is for deletion, to do the deletion at the end of the discussion. I'm carrying out the sequence in reverse for what I believe are good reasons. The copyright holder has contacted Wikimedia requesting that this image be removed. ticket:2019042410002213 While it may be that our editorial argument supporting an exception to copyright policy will prevail, if that happens the image can be restored and I think it would be a better course of action to remove the image while this discussion takes place.
I do appreciate the awkwardness of carrying on a discussion about an image when the image is not viewable within Wikipedia, but that's not much of a problem as the image in question can be found here.
At the risk of sounding like I'm getting on a soapbox, I am fully supportive of the concept of fair use in some situations. In the case of a logo, or an album cover, the image is not replaceable by definition. In the case of the logo, it is the entire point that the logo is the unique expression of an image associated with the organization. Without fair use, we'd have almost no logos, because most organizations, understandably, want to retain intellectual control of their logo. (Obviously, a few do permit and acceptably free license). The fair use exception where we use a low enough resolution so that the image is unlikely to be useful to people who would choose to use it inappropriately, but with sufficient resolution that it serves as identification for the article, is a great example of a solution that fits the needs of both parties.
However, I've noticed that we sometimes try to stretch fair use to situations where we think it would be nice to have a photo but we don't happen to have a free one. In this particular case, a corporation has an substantial resources to the creation of an object and is arranged for high quality images. They, understandably, would like to retain control of how and when those images are displayed. This is not analogous to a company logo. It is quite plausible that a company would accept that that logo to be used in an article about the organization, while wanting control over images of its products. I don't think the argument that the product has not been released (presumably explaining why Wikipedia editors could not take a photo of an operation) qualifies as an argument that we can use their photo under fair use provisions. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
