File talk:1938 coat designed by Elsa Schiaparelli and Jean Cocteau.jpg

I honestly fail to see why this image should be deleted for any other reason beyond someone managing to produce a better image of this garment to replace it. When that happens - replace away by all means. Good luck with finding a replacement, by the way.

I think the reasoning detailed in the fair-use rationale for the description is solid and well reasoned. It is necessary to the article to be able to show a visual example of Schiaparelli's fashion designs, particularly those produced in collaboration with other artists. As is explained, almost all these artist collaborations are now in museum collections.

Functional/wearable clothing is generally not considered to fall under copyright laws in the same way that toys or other popular culture material does - otherwise, by this rationale, we would all owe Levis royalties for EVERY single image we take showing someone wearing Levis jeans. This coat was made to be a functional garment, despite the presence of artistic elements in its design. It is not, strictly speaking, a "work of art", having only become one further down the line. If we declare that a functional garment counts as a work of art, then by this reasoning, we need to purge the entirety of Wikipedia of every image that shows someone wearing designer clothing or even anything where the designer can be identified.

The only reason I didn't upload this image to Commons is because I am not absolutely 100% sure that the Cocteau embroidery wouldn't be considered a legitimate piece of art in itself - even though it is actually a reinterpretation of Cocteau's artwork by both the fashion designer AND the embroiderer who interpreted it into a design. I played safe by uploading it as a fair use image.

Apart from the image of Schiaparelli herself, wearing clothing that is not the most representative example of her work, there are no other illustrations of Schiaparelli's fashions in this article. Her artist collaborations were extremely important and you cannot talk about them seriously without at least one illustration to show the work in question. As has been explained, the quality of this image is not good enough for commercial use.

These are the reasons why I do not think it would be appropriate to delete this image, and why its use in the article is acceptable under a fair-use rationale. It may not be the best quality image, but it is the best possible image that can be secured at this point in time of something that is representative, distinctive, and significant to the designer's oeuvre. Mabalu (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition - looking at the WP:FREER questions:

"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" - NO, as explained above.
"Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" - I do not believe so. Although the text does say "A long evening coat featured two profiles facing each other, creating the optical illusion of a vase of roses," this does not really explain precisely HOW the two profiles form the vase of roses, and is in fact something that NEEDS an illustration in order to explain how the optical phenomenon occurs, and how it was incorporated into the garment. Otherwise, it sounds pretty nonsensical - you need to see a picture to fully understand how such an illusion occurs. Mabalu (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FREER is not about a completely free version but about one which is more free than this one. Pictures like this need two copyright tags, one for the artwork depicted and one for the photograph, but the photographer didn't provide any copyright tag for the photograph. {{Photo of art}} can be used for filling in two copyright tags.

Utilitarian objects are ineligible for copyright in the United States where Wikipedia is hosted, but I do not know whether decorations on clothing is seen as something utilitarian or not. I'd guess that it varies from country to country (utilitarian in South Korea, not utilitarian in the United States). Utilitarian objects are eligible for copyright in some countries, and French courts have ruled photographs of furniture to be infringing the copyright to the furniture. If you wish to upload the file to Commons, you would also have to check what the source country's copyright law says. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photograph myself so I'm the photographer in question. I didn't realise that uploading my own picture required me to release it formally too, which I thought would go without saying. It does seem a shame not to be able to illustrate at least one example of the fashion designs in an article that discusses the work at great length... Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the copyright tag from {{Non-free fair use in|image has rationale=yes}} to {{Photo of art|some free licence|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{Non-free fair use in|image has rationale=yes}}}}, then it would be possible to keep the image. Remember to replace the part 'some free image' with a template for a licence, for example {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]