On 12/4/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Justin Cormack wrote:
No, it has been accepted but not enforced. It has always been agreed that we dont accept fair use images when we can have free ones.
But "can have" is, I think, being interpreted in a way which is far from universally accepted. Was it really intended all along that we "can have" a free image when all that that means is that someone, somewhere, could track down a person and take a photograph under a free license, regardless of how hard the person is to track down or how much stalking one would have to do to get the photograph?
That's not what's being enforced here. If someone is a noted recluse and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image passes FUC #1. On the other hand, if someone makes weekly appearances in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a non-free image of him.
It's much like the "reasonable person" standard in law: is it possible that a [[reasonable person]] can make or find a free-license picture of this? If yes, then any non-free image of it fails FUC #1.