Matt Brown wrote:
One thing that I think is needed is to have as policy
that if a free
image can be found to replace a fair use image, then the fair use
image can be disposed of. I've experienced a number of times
situations where users have strenuously resisted getting rid of a fair
use image they like when a free one comes along. Some situations,
indeed, when users have replaced an existing, free image with a fair
use one because they find, e.g., an official publicity shot more
'professional' than a photograph by a Wikipedian.
In general, I think it would be a good guideline. However, I think the
quality of the replacement does need to be considered, though the issue
should not be professionalism as such. Rather, in some cases it's more
the question of "can we confidently say that this blurry photo is
'Subject X'?" If the subject of the free image is clearly identifiable
and there are no reasons to doubt its provenance, then by all means the
fair use one should go.
For example, there is one user that is using scans of
auto magazine
covers to illustrate articles about the magazine cover's subject. I
think that is beyond the scope of fair use. It's one thing to use a
Motor Trend cover to illustrate the [[Motor Trend]] article; another
to use it to illustrate an article about a car that happened to be on
the cover that month.
Indeed. At whatever point we manage to organize a serious cleanup of
fair use images, there are two matters to address. One is the presence
of images where the fair use claim is simply bogus. The other is the
whether the use in any given article is actually fair. *Every use* must
be considered separately; the fact that one may be acceptable means very
little when you've moved to an article about a different subject.
--Michael Snow