File talk:My muse Amanda looking great in the frames I designed for her.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.
The result was to delete the image.
 | This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
On my talk page the anonymous contributor who challenged this image wrote: "I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia.".
I disagree.
I can't help noticing that the challenger hasn't suggested this free text equivalent. The original Google Glass design was controversial, seen as ugly by many. The custom-designed model shown here looks much more like high-end conventional glasses. Some commentators thought they were much more attractive than the original design.
This is clearly a judgment call, a judgment that absolutely has to be made by viewing the image.
In addition these glasses were supposed to have been particular designed for Ms Rosenberg. A judgment as to whether they suited Ms Rosenberg has to be made by viewing the image. Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The text currently in the article ("Rosenberg didn't only promote Google Glass, from behind the scenes -- she served as a model for the glasses, starring in promotional videos, and having a designer develop a more fashionable version of the glasses that she said were specifically inspired by her") adequately expresses the idea conveyed by the non-free image. Historically, Wikipedia has been very reluctant to use fair use images to illustrate living people, for whom a free image can be created, unless such an image is a "unique historic image" (see Template:Non-free historic image), which I do not believe this image is, though I am unclear if this is what you are arguing. I do not disagree with you, though, that whether to include this image is a judgment call. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Non-free images are only permitted in certain circumstances, and this case does not qualify. The event can easily be described using prose alone. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.
