Wikipedia:deletion Review Log 2014 December 3

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing administrator is inactive for now. The article's topic is a living person, so I could not request an uncontroversial undeletion at WP:REFUND. Therefore, I need the deletion of the image reviewed. The living person has been inactive after he appeared on the television series, Step by Step. He should qualify under WP:NFC as retired child actor, so a non-free image of him in television should be undeleted. I may have received notice about an orphaned nonfree image, but I didn't do anything about it because of complicated, inconvenient rules of copyright. Now I would like to hear thoughts about this. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep deleted. We cannot use screenshots from television programs outside the article about that television program, unless the screenshot is directly commented on in the article text. Stifle ( talk) 11:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Stifle, what about screenshots used to identify deceased people? -- George Ho ( talk) 11:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Screenshots of dead people, or people where it's otherwise totally nuts to suggest it might be possible to get a freely licensed picture of them, could be discussed, as to whether it's the best choice to not infringe on potential commercial value. But that's not the case here (going by the article). Wily D 12:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse - if there was some age-sensitive discussion of his appearence, we might be able to talk about using NFC to use an old image. But there's not, so we can't. Wily D 12:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Am I right in thinking Josh Byrne's the little chap on the left in File:Step by step tv show cast.jpg?— S Marshall T/ C 12:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, that is he. (I linked the file for you.) -- George Ho ( talk) 13:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks, George. Since we already have a fair use photo on Wikipedia that depicts Josh, can we use that instead?— S Marshall T/ C 14:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Probably not; it's the same problem - all representations of the "artwork" Step by Step or the fictional character are copyrighted, and unlikely to be freely licensed, so we can generally invoke fair use. Not all photos of a person are unlikely to be freely licensed (e.g., you could just take one yourself). So it's much harder to invoke fair use. Wily D 16:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Garden-variety NFCC enforcement. "Retired child actor" has never been recognized as sufficient to justify an NFC exemption, and cannot be plausibly be squared with the governing WMF policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
How would a contemporary photo of this actor, assuming for the moment that gaining such would be feasible, serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this one or one similar to it? Or is it assumed there are 17-year-old freely-licensed ones floating around somewhere? — Cryptic 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply
- Well that depends on what you think the "encyclopedic purpose" is? This is an article about the person, not about the show, so presumably it's not to show exactly how he looked at one particular age between 7 and 14. If it's to give an impression of what he looks like, as far as I know people generally don't change drastically and non-understandably as they age, indeed he will have changed as he aged between 7 and 14, we don't need a whole string of pictures to understand that. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 10:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply
"For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." The question at hand is if this actor's notability in large part rested on his visual appearance. If we have sources that describe him as a child or refer to his appearance in a significant way (or indicating that's why he got the job) then we can use the image, otherwise we can't. Got any such sources? Hobit ( talk) 16:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

LA Times, Bryan Times. That's all I found. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

While I personally think that we should treat things like this as a reason to use non-free material, that's not what our policies state. The sources aren't enough to meet our policies. So Endorse Hobit ( talk) 05:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Josh Byrne Brendan Lambert Step by Step.jpg – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is a publicity photo, not a screenshot, although I used actors' and characters' name in the file name. Fortunately, it's not used by Getty Images. The administrator who deleted it is inactive. It is of a living person who retired from acting before the series Step by Step ended. It would look as if it might represent a character; it doesn't. It's just an ordinary publicity studio photo meant to promote an actor as an actor, not a character, during his days of that show. George Ho ( talk) 18:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@ WilyD, S Marshall, Stifle: Any thoughts? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
How would it differ to the comments above? It's still non-free, there is still the possibility that a free image could be taken and there is no real discussion of how he looks which would require an age sensitive image. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Same principle applies. If the guy is alive, and not like, serving 20 consecutive sentences in a prison where he's the only inmate, you're going to have to find or create a free picture. Exceptions apply where it's really necessary to have that particular picture, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Wily D 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Garden-variety NFCC enforcement. "Retired child actor" has never been recognized as sufficient to justify an NFC exemption, and cannot be plausibly be squared with the governing WMF policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In which article was this used? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Josh Byrne article, Stefan2. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Endorse, replaceable fair use. Stifle ( talk) 09:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.