On 5/5/06, Rob Church <robchur(a)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
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: