On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
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.
If we don't *have* a free image of someone, why should we not use a non-free image? This is the bit I don't get. Yes, by all means, someone should go out and photograph Mr John C Popular Esquire. But until they've done that, why deprive ourselves of the fair use image?
If it's just about motivating someone to go and do it, isn't that a separate problem?
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.
Paparazzi are reasonable people now?
Steve