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

I believe this image qualifies as fair-use on Wikipedia as promotional material fort he following reasons:

• The image was posted on Stephen A. Smith's website with the intent to promote him. Its use on Wikipedia does not conflict, and if anything supports, this purpose.
• The image is extremely clear and well-licensed. Most other images of Stephen A. Smith would be from copyrighted television appearances. This makes a clear, usable. image of him hard to obtain.
• Most images that show up in a web search are ESPN profiles and images provided as headers to webstories, all of which have equal or greater copyright protection than this image. The remainder are pictures of him at events, and using them is infeasible because it would require the permission of the photographer, which is not apparent, Stephen A. Smith, which is also not apparent, and possibly the organization holding the event or other entities.
• This image in no way infringes upon the rights of Stephen A. Smith, nor Jim Rome (partially pictured on the side).
• This image, which is promotional material, is property of Stephen A. Smith, as indicated on the bottom of the webpage. If he has any objections to its use on Wikipedia, he can simply request its removal.

:*This is about as clear-cut as WP:NFCC#1 gets. Stephen A. is a living, public person who makes frequent public appearances. Photographs of such people are almost always considered replaceable.

:*That aside, there's no indication that the image is promotional. It seems to me, the image is the site's content, not part of any promotional material.

:*Again, he's a fairly prominent sportswriter and television personality. They make a lot of public appearances. I don't think the "it's hard to get a picture of him" argument holds any water. Mosmof (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't the whole point of the site to promote him though? If I see an ad in the paper, isn't any image used in the ad promoting the product? Couldn't the same be said of an image on a promotional website? The webstie advertises his Twitter, booking him as a speaker and his paid podcasts. It advertises events (which are not often free to attend) that their product will be the centerpiece of. Doesn't an image provided for the purpose of identifying a product (in this case Stephen A. Smith) on a site advertising services that must be paid for that utilize said product, qualify as promotional material? Atari2 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, the website is in large part promotional, but its main focus seems to be to house his content. Which is to say, the website itself is a commercial product. And again, this discussion is pretty academic because of Wikipedia's policies on images of living people. Mosmof (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, but when you go to Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law, especially in the context of Salinger v. Random House Inc., it meets the test. He's not trying to sell the image, nor keep it private, and is in fact making it readily available, meaning it has no effect on the work's value. Wikipedia is making no attempt to sell the work, and is a free, non-profit encyclopedia, so it's not in violation of the purpose or character. He has long since released it, the portion is less than 1/3 of the original size, so the amount and substantiality qualifications are met. It meets proffessional guidlines as well, as these types of in-studio images are often used by other sources, often for-profit sources at that, to identify writers. The section on Fair use on the itnernet also seems to fit this case. Even if this truly is just a sample of his content, he did provide it to the public. How is this use any different on Wikipedia? Neither fashion earns anybody any money, neither fashion the Wikipedia article also describes and in a way advertises his works. Considering that the Wikipedia page itself The only difference I can see is about three clicks... Atari2 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. It appears somebody already replaced the image with a public domain one. I guess the debate ends here.Atari2 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.