On 12/4/06, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)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.
--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]