Image talk:Ross Perot.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rationale for 'rfu' tag on main image page

  • Free alternative depicting the person in question is available on Wikipedia: Image:Perot.jpg
  • Person is a living person and thus a picture could still be taken of this individual even if said image was not available
  • Cover is used to depict the person and is not used for critical commentary on the cover nor the article

It is my opinion that this image fails WP:FUC, particularly criteria #1 under policy (free equivalent available) which can be used for the same encylopaedic purpose, and is an example like WP:FAIR#Unacceptable_images example 7, where a non-iconic copyrighted image is used to depict a person.

It is not my intent to be obstructionist! May I suggest a cropping of the free image already available, which would be licensed the same as the original image, to include in the presidential election articles, to depict Mr. Perot? Skybunny 06:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Perot.jpg is a blurry image that shows its subject in recent times. Ross Perot is best known for his runs in 1992 and 1996 for President. No other free images can be found that were taken during this time. This situation is similar to Adlai Stevenson. A rationale is given and I think this image's uses are acceptable.--Southern Texas 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAIR also states:

If the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it it may be appropriate; see the Demi Moore article.--Southern Texas 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC also states:

Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

A recent image with bad quality cannot serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this image. I believe I have demonstrated how the image is acceptable and I ask the nominator to remove the template. There are many time magazine covers on wikipedia and it has been determined that these are acceptable.--Southern Texas 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)