Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Alavigneheather.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was to Delete the image. Photograph served as ornamentation. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a need for this photo? We already have Image:Avrillavignex.jpg which is free to describe the subject at hand, we don't need another one just for the filmography section. Yonatan ^talk 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This was already brought under the RFU before and it wasn't deleted. A free image displaying both Avril and her film career is not readily available.

Promotional photo of Avril Lavigne, who was the voice for the character Heather the possum, for the movie Over the Hedge. [1][2]

Fair use for Avril Lavigne

The image Image:Alavigneheather.PNG is being linked here; though the picture is originally copyright, I CyberGhostface believe this image is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It is a copy of a photograph released and intended by Dreamworks for promotional distribution;
2. No free or public domain images have been located for this purpose. While public domain images may exist for the subject of the article, none has been located that is recent, nor do they adequately illustrate the points in the subject's career that are discussed in the accompanying text;
3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the film; and
4. The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the subject or her work in any way.

The picture shows Avril Lavigne with her movie countepart, demonstrating her movie career. As said movie counterpart is clearly fictional, I don't think a free image of Avril Lavigne posing with a computer generated possum would be possible to find.--CyberGhostface 17:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary for an encyclopedia to include a photograph of Avril Lavigne holding a possum? —Chowbok 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you even see Over the Hedge?--CyberGhostface 21:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but I saw The Jungle Book, and I still don't think we need a picture of Phil Harris dancing with Baloo. —Chowbok 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture is good because it shows Avril with one of her film characters. No, its not suitable for the main image, but for the filmography section its suitable. And if there was an official picture that showed Phil Harris with Baloo (and not some fan picture) I think it would be good for his article. Arguing whether or not you think a picture from one of Avril's major film debuts serves the article is pointless: The whole reason why its nominated was because it 'illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created.' And what I'm trying to say is, while a free image of Avril could be found (and has), one demonstrating her along with her role in her first film is not. --CyberGhostface 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A marginal case. I can see both sides on this. I think it would be fair use to have a non-free pic of the possum character, alone. But having one with her as well? I dunno. I suppose you could say it's not being used to show what she looks like, but it appears (to me) to be serving a decorative function, and not an informative function. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Quadell. There's no particular reason why the text "Avril Lavigne was the voice of the opossum in Over the Hedge" is insufficient. This image tells us nothing. howcheng {chat} 18:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Its still representative of her film career, which as of now, is just a list of titles. Its not violating any rules. Furthermore, the main complaint was that there was a free equivalent...which there isn't. Also, if you're we going to use this logic, couldn't all of the pictures on wikipedia be removed as they could easily be explained in the text?–--CyberGhostface 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, as you are probably aware, pictures can supply a great impact and add to people's understanding of some topic greater than words alone (the whole "picture is worth a thousand words" thing). For example, we can talk about how Demi Moore appeared nude and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair, but the whole impact of it is lessened without the image. Likewise, a discussion of Billy Ripken and his baseball card suffers without a picture of it. But in the case of this image, what does it tell us? Nothing, really. One possible way this image would be admissible is if, for example, the movie character was designed to look like her, in which case an image juxtaposing the two would help readers see it. Does this make sense to you? howcheng {chat} 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I still think that the image, while not necessarily essential to the article, does add to it.--CyberGhostface 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it adds to it -- it makes it prettier, which is a decorative purpose. As such, it fails WP:FUC criterion #8. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.