File talk:Charmayne James and Scamper.jpg

File is not replaceable because a) the horse is dead and b) the event depicted was a unique occurrence that cannot be replicated. Further, an image of James riding Scamper definitely cannot be replicated. There are a few images of just Scamper without James in them we could use (though most of the photos that come up of a bay horse standing alone are actually of Clayton, the clone -- notice different markings), but I think that this is analogous to the images at Secretariat (horse) where we have images of Ron Turcotte riding the horse and Penny Chenery in the winner's circle, which passed FAC as fair use depicting a unique historical event, even though Chenery and Turcotte are both still living. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument related to the photos of Secretariat needs to be careful of WP:OTHERIMAGE. Comparing the non-free use of seemingly similar images in different articles is not always clear cut. For example, the primary image of the Secratariat article is just of the horse itself whereas the other non-free images are incorporated into the body of the article near the article content they are intended to support. Moreover, just becasue they are being used does not automatically mean that their use is non-free content use policy compliant. As for the article about Turcotte, the image being used for identification purposes is a freely licensed (at least claimed to be freely licensed) from Commons, not a non-free image, and there are no non-free images of Secretariat or Turcotte included. I am not very knowledgable about horses, so I did not notice a difference between Clayton and Scamper; however, if a non-free image is to be used to identify the horse sans rider, then the middle image in the link you provided on the file's page seems much more suitable to serve that role. This file then could be moved to Scamper#The bridleless win if it is actually the photo taken by Springer since that is where it is contextually relevant. The non-free use rationale should then be tweaked to reflect this new use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historic, represents the essence of the article, no free images available to replace it, clearly passes fair-use criteria for inclusion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) WP:ITSHISTORIC is another argument that can be tricky. Is this a case where the photo is historic or the event being depicted is historic? The file is being used in two different articles. Which of the two does it represent the essenece of? As I posted on the file's page, WP:NFCC#1 does not really permit the use of non-free images for idenitifying still living individuals except in certain cases, such as the ones laid out in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. FWIW, the file has been since moved by Hammersoft from the infobox of Charmayne James to body of the article near the relevant article content. It seems reasonable to expect that since James is still living that a freely licenesed equivalent to identify her can be created or found. It also might be possible that she holds the copyright on images of both herself and the horse, which she might be willing to release under a free license. I am not sure if any attempt was made by file's uploader to contact her, but that might be an option worth considering. There are examples of how such requests can be worded at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission as well as how the permission needs to be worded at WP:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the image on Charmayne James to the appropriate section where it belongs. This is an historic event, and the image qualifies under WP:NFCC for use in the section where it is used. It is not appropriate in the lead infobox as a means of identification of Charmayne James as it fails under WP:NFCC #1, and identification purposes is meaningless as you can not see her face with any resolution sufficient to support such purpose. Someone should contact James as she has several images of herself on her website, and certainly many celebrities have given us press release level quality photos for their respective articles here. The image is acceptable in Scamper (horse), as the horse is dead, unless a free license image of that horse is located. Using Clayton as a proxy isn't proper, as Clayon, even though a clone, isn't Scamper. Even genetically identical twins have differences in appearance. If we had no picture whatsoever of Scamper (free license or non-free license) then using an image of Clayton with an appropriate caption indicating that Clayton is a clone might be acceptable. But, not here, not with a non-free image available. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hammersoft. My above reply to Atsme was apparently being added while you were adding yours, so some of the things in it have been somewhat addressed. I agree with you about the image being used in the infobox for the James' article. I am also willing to go along with moving the file to the body of the article, but I am still have some concerns as to whether the file is really needed in both sections about the "brideless win". The one in Scamper goes into much more detail about the photo itself and a hatnote could be added to the James' article to direct the reader there where they can see the image. At the same time, as I posted above in my reply to Montanabw, a different (better?) non-free image of Scamper could be used in the main infobox for identification purposes, and this image could be moved to the relevant section of the Scamper article. Does this seem like a workable option? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Ok, I agree with the idea to have the image only on Scamper, but not with moving it out of the infobox of Scamper to the relevant section. Reasoning; we'd end up with two non-free images on Scamper instead of one. We can leverage one to fulfill both purposes. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was my concern about NFCC#3a, and something I slowly realized the more I thought about it. I think pursuing a free image is probably best thing to do not only for this case, but for the project overall. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objection now to the rfu tag I added to the file's page being removed since the NFCC#1 issue seems to have been sufficiantly addressed. It now seems to be a question as to how and where the file should be used per NFCC#8. Therefore, I am removing the relevant templates from the file's page. If this needs to be done by an admin, then please re-add them and I will post a note of the file's page stating that the template is no longer applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the move, per Hammersoft's rationale. I am also glad to see it remain in Scamper's article. It really is the best photo of him doing what he did best. And yes, I think the bridleless win was pretty unique, you don't see people doing barrel racing without bridles at the NFR and certainly not winning. There is, I suppose, an argument for uploading the image of the horse only, so long as we can keep the bridleless win photo and no one complains that we have two FU images in the article on Scamper. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you removed the part about using a different image to identify Scamper from your above post. To answer your question, the NFCCP (WP:NFCC#7) only state that a non-free file must be used in at least one article, and (WP:NFCC#3a) that we should try to minimize non-free file use as much as possible. This does not preclude using the same file in multiple articles or multiple files in the same article as long as the non-free use for each is in accordance with the NFCCP. In this case, an image of only the horse and the image of the event would be serving to separate encyclopedic purposes (in my opinion), so having two might be acceptable. The respective non-free use rationales, however, should be worded accordingly to reflect the specifics of each use.

As for the other part of your post, it matters more as to what reliable sources are saying than what we may personally think about the image as explained in WP:SCENE and WP:ITSHISTORIC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that bit got deleted, I think I accidentally made a null edit. I put it back now. Per Dawn's comments below, it clearly was a unique and remarkable event, as the sources in the articles indicate as well as the ones listed below. Montanabw^(talk) 16:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious as to why that bit was removed was removed, but no big deal. You and dawnleelynn obviously are quite knowledgable about the subject matter. Do you think Ms. James' will respond to an email request for a freely licensed image or her or Scamper? A free image of either could be used as the primary means of identification in the relevant article as well as other articles which might be related to either of the two. Hammersoft's latest post was one of the concerns I had about WP:NFCC#3a and we really should try to minimize non-free use as much as we can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, hi, I'm the original creator of the Charmayne James article, and the editor who majorly expanded the Scamper article. Yes, it's important to cite reliable sources as to what makes the event the image is a photograph of so historic or is such a great moment in rodeo history. Here are some very reliable sources that should do that: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I'm sure many more can be added if necessary. Charmayne was just inducted into the ProRodeo Hall of Fame on August 5, 2017. Now she and Scamper are both in that hall of fame together. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely use FU images for deceased animals, it can be complicated to explain OTRS to people. But James may be someone who could be approached for her own image. We will look into it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]