File talk:Bjorn-Andresen-The-Boy-Cover-by-David-Bailey-1970.jpg

In general a fair use is a fair use if the image and its use is limited to a controlled set of articles. If you feel that the use of this image in four articles:

The photographer
The author of the book
The subject of the photograph
The book itself

is outside our fair use rationale, please justify this before tagging the image for deletion

I have removed your flag for deletion pending further comments (the banner said it could be removed if the concerns were addressed, and I believe they already were). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before re-flagging for deletion editors should note that, while by no means definitive as a rationale for keeping, the image has been replaced previously by one of lower size and resolution, and that this has proved satisfactory after inspection.

Since the deletion asserted that it ought to be used in one article, about the book per se, I suggest that this aspect is discussed here or in one of the copyright discussion fora, and the outcome be placed here. Flagging the article for deletion seems extreme. The better answer would be to remove it from all articles where it is considered to be excessive use. Nonetheless I argue for use in the four articles above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fair use rationale scheme changed between this image being created initially and today. I have thus added an individual fair use rationale for each of the four uses I feel appropriate. I think this template's use may be new, not that this is important.

Please look at each use of the image separately when discussing any consideration for deletion. I believe that is the correct manner of handling such things now all four templates are in place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the rationales for David Bailey (photographer), where it wasn't being used anyway, and for Björn Andrésen, where it was being used in the infobox to show what he looks like, rather than in connection with any critical commentary on the book, as required by the license tag. +An gr 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you and have replaced the rationales you deleted. If you feel they should be removed again please form a consensus to do so. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on the use of non-free images of living people already has consensus. +An gr 18:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. And disagree with your unilateral action. Your user page shows that you are a campaigner against Fair Use images, thus, however hard I assume good faith, I find it extremely hard to achieve it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My user page and my personal opinions have nothing to do with it. (If I were following my personal opinions rather than policy, I would have removed it from all articles where it's used and deleted it as a blatant copyvio; but I didn't do that.) Wikipedia policy is quite clear on how nonfree images may be used. This image is policy-compliant in the article on the book. It's more questionably policy-compliant in the article on the author, but at least the article does discuss the book. Use in the article on the model might be policy-compliant in a section discussing the significance of the book cover to the model's life; it's definitely policy-noncompliant as the identifying photo in the infobox. As for the article about the photographer, rationales have to explain how the image is being used in each article; since the image isn't being used in that article, the rationale cannot do that. +An gr 19:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]