geni wrote:
On 5/5/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
"PR photo" implies non-free licencing, which means that it's not acceptable on Commons, our free media repo. So in this case, and in others, no image *is* better.
I assumed that people were releasing them under a free licence (it might be a logical course of action for politicians although not so much for celebrities).
Actually, you would have thought that any given celebrity of any rank or stripe would rather that there was a freely-available high-quality controlled-source picture being used for them than an opportunistic snap taken during some sweaty ruck at a premiere with inadequate lighting and extraneous limbs intruding from strange angles...or maybe a paparazzi-style "candid" image of them in some embarrassing pose.
Obviously we wouldn't necessarily use the latter if it proved too salacious but if it were the best available free-licence picture you'd likely be able to build some sort of reasonable argument...
HTH HAND