Image[edit]

Can we update the image to the 2020 version? Since the original screenshot is in poor quality?Triosdeity (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One alternative would be like most of the Lord of The Rings character pages, and group all images together in whatever section is most relevant for adaptations. No one portrayal would be the representative in the summary box. I only use Lord of the Rings as an example as they're both novel series that have had several varied and unrelated media portrayals.184.83.192.15 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved all three portrayals of Paul into the infobox, is that better? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, it seems to clutter the infobox and I don't know why the change is necessary. With literary characters we typically use the first or most definitive representation as the main infobox image. I've never seen a gallery used in this way in this kind of article, though technically I don't think it violates the MOS or the template instructions. And Triosdeity, who objected to the current longstanding image, has been blocked indefinitely. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 18:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So because 1 user doesn't like it then it should be reverted? And I think the photos should be of them in-character, not random captures of the actors out and about. Miss HollyJ (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not it at all. First, per WP:NFCC a non-free image cannot be used in an article if a free equivalent is available. The policy also has a minimal use element, meaning you can get away with one non-free image that has some representational value, but you can't, in this case, use copyrighted screenshots of all three portrayals. As far as replacing the main image, anyone is welcome to open a discussion about that here. I would argue, though, that the current, long-standing image represents a distinctive (and probably the most recognizable) version of the character, while the available images of Alec Newman and Timothée Chalamet in the role don't look much different than the actors out and about.— TAnthonyTalk 05:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TAnthony This feels like your own personal opinion. The 2020 film is already becoming more impactful than the 1984 film ever was (The 1984 film did not even have any "distinction" or "definitiveness" - it was ultimately a low rated cult film). To provide one supporting piece of evidence, the first film made $30 million in the box office whereas the 2021 film has made over 10 times that about (394mil). I stand in solidarity with HollyJ and InfiniteNexus that the lead image should be changed. Kuhnaims (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity, I'd like to note that Triosdeity and Kuhnaims were both sockpuppets of the same blocked editor.— TAnthonyTalk 14:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TeamEquestria: I'm reopening this discussion per your recent edits to change the main infobox image.— TAnthonyTalk 00:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems straightforward. Google "Paul Atreides" and we see 10,000 images from the 2021 movie, including many drawings and fan art, and only a few from the 1984 movie...and even fewer from the TV mini-series. The movie is likely to be the "definitive" image for Paul Atreides from now on, in the same way the Lord of the Rings movies provide the "definitive" images for the characters from the books. It's also closer to the description of the character from the book, who was fifteen years old. The actor in the 2021 movie looks like a teenager; the other two actors do not. TeamEquestria (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like no one else has any input at this time. I'm fine with your image, but I have a few comments that may inform potential future discussions about changing infobox images in this and related articles:
  1. The Lynch film image has been the definitive representation of Paul Atreides for almost 40 years, the Villenueve film has existed for three.
  2. Google search results don't really mean much in this case. The Lynch film was pre-internet, so all coverage was in print and anything found online is either archival or retrospective. Countless news and entertainment websites and blogs have covered the Villenueve film at every stage of production, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
  3. The Lord of the Rings live action film images are definitive because they are the only representations aside from the old animated films. And even then, the LotR character articles don't appear to use any infobox images at all, but do have representations from the animated and live action films in the Adaptations section, ordered chronologically. I'm assuming that's because they are literary characters first and there are no/few readily available illustrations, which is sort of a weird but there must have been some consensus somewhere.
Anyway, I'll restore your new image, thanks for the discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 14:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a year later, I beg to reopen the discussion. It's not fair to only include one actor's image, especially if he is the most famous one; all the more reason to preserve other two. 59.184.166.178 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're suggesting we show images of all three portrayers in character? The issue with that is that it violates WP:NFCC. Screencaps and promo images of actors in character are copyrighted and non-free; Wikipedia has strict guidelines and limits on the use of non-free images. We have to choose one non-free image, usually for the infobox, and more would be considered decorative and not essential in illustrating the topic of the article. You'll notice we do have images of all three performers from WikiPedia Commons, which means the rights to use them have been released to Wikipedia so they are free to use without restriction. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 15:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image removal[edit]

Since this edit by Only in death removing the current infobox image has been reverted by myself and two other editors, and restored twice so far by Only in death, it should be discussed here to prevent edit warring. Only in death's original edit summary is Not a valid use for non-free material per WP:NFCC. This is an article about the character, not a particular film's depiction of the character where Chalamet's specific visual asthetic might add value. Fails NFCC on contextual significance (and others). Edit summary replies thus far have been [1], [2] and [3]. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 21:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this policy isn't being enforced for the other Dune character articles. Regardless, seeing as Paul is the main character of the series, I feel having an infobox image would be appropriate. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, find a free picture to use and put it there. Commons probably has many pictures of the various actors who have played him in media, however this article is about the literary character, not the film character, which barely merits two lines in the entire article, so there is absolutely no way a copyright still from the latest film satisfies our WP:NFCC criteria. If the article were entirely about the latest film's depiction, or even substantially, the argument it adds to the article's understanding might come close. But it isnt is it. Having an infobox image for the sake of an image isnt a get out for NFCC - you still need to demonstrate why the picture selected satisfies all the criteria for non-free use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Any image of the character, regardless of medium, would satisfy NFCC as long as a non-free equivalent isn't available, in which case the image would still satisfy NFCC in a lower section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is frankly an idiotic interpretation of the policy and would justify *any* use of non-free media. Your disingenous omission of 'or could be created' speaks volumes. Lack of free media itself is not by itself a reason to use non-free media, if a free version could be created. You can pick up a pen and create a free depiction of Paul Atreides at any time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Only in death reported by User:InfiniteNexus (Result: ). InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can the image be restored until this is resolved, per WP:STATUSQUO? Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've requested at ANEW. It's unfortunate that some admins are willing to allow users to go against consensus by exploiting 3RR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have no idea what you're doing anymore. You've reverted dozens of users already and it's clear nobody agrees with your interpretation of that policy. You're not very consistent with your argument and it seems you're only here to disrupt the article for your own personal amusement. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, if we are going with a non-free lead image, which it can be argued is allowed if there is consensus, it should be Kyle M since he was first. We don't have to have an image of the fictional character in the lead or elsewhere in the article per WP:OTHERCONTENT (that essay is an essay), but examples like Hannibal Lecter, Aragorn, Willy Wonka and Han Solo exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't necessarily have to be the first, just the most notable (which is still open to debate). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd argue that the Kyle M portrayal has been subject to, and received, comment much longer than the others [4][5][6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, naturally. Villeneuve's film didn't exist in 2011. Reverse-recentism? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION-ness? There may be some WP:ILIKEIT-aspect as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention an image alternative, there is page 317, 345, 473, in The illustrated Dune (1978), by John Schoenherr. These are also non-free. He did the leadimage at Vladimir Harkonnen. Not unlike Stellan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the infobox image[edit]

Does placing File:Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides (Dune 2021).jpg — a non-free image of an actor's portrayal of the subject of this article — in the infobox violate WP:NFCC?

There already exists an overwhelming consensus on this matter (that it is not a violation), but the sole editor who disagreed edit-warred to have the image removed from the infobox. Unfortunately, all but one admin at ANEW effectively endorsed this removal on a technicality, so I am starting this RfC to resolve this matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely true, but at the moment a non-free image of Chalomet doesn't hit NFCC8 in any way. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So ... maybe we should fix it the easier way? Deleting it is the only option if the argument is that it never could satisfy FUC 8.
    (BTW, his last name is spelled Chalamet (see above)). Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that I was correct, for the reasons I've given above, and I'd do exactly the same next time as well. However, if the consensus is that we can ignore NFCC8 to put a pointless image in the article, perhaps we need an RfC on that particular part of NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and if we're going to misuse a non-free image in the infobox, that image should fairly obviously be McLachlan, though that's a separate discussion. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best thing to do would be to put an illustration of Paul on the infobox, then let both McLachlan's and Chamalet's images be put down in the "In other media" section, if that serves as a compromise. WuTang94 (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to come around about halfway to the position that launched this whole thing.
The real issue is the one at the top of this RfC. The FUC are not implicated by it, at least not directly. It is: Where a fictional character, meriting a standalone article, originating in a still-copyrighted literary work that has been adapted for recorded visual media, what is the best image to use in the infobox?
There are a lot of factors that go into this, and I will save discussion of them for the NFC thread Gråbergs started. But most relevant here, I think, is that, yes, we can't say that Chalamet's portrayal is the defining one. It is at the moment, I agree, but will it always be? There's some recentism involved here.
So I asked myself, how does Herbert describe him?. This Screenrant piece accurately sums up the description we get in the novel's first chapter: black-haired, green-eyed, an oval face with strong bones.
That easily excludes Alec Newman as a portrayal matching that. But while MacLachlan and Chalamet do have the dark hair, they wear it differently, and neither has green eyes.
I think, then, we might want to illustrate the infobox with a free image based on that description. There is some fan art in the Commons category; but I do think that we could do better, especially with AI, as long as (as I've said before) we don't show (or show much of) anything unique to the book and covered by its copyright. Maybe with a desert background. Anyone want to give it a try? Daniel Case (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chalamet actually does have green eyes. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO! He has the eyes of the Ibad! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm likely to oppose any fan-art suggested. Fan-art has, in general, no WP-relevance. We're not interested in artistic expressions of the general netizen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the editors at the Spanish and Polish Wikipedias disagree (of course in the former case it's because they allow no fair-use media; I don't know if plwiki has a corresponding policy, though). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted some paid-for art (I assume) in the thread above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, when comments on this Rfc dies down a bit, I think we should ask for a closure at WP:RFCL and see where that leaves us. If the closure is "Yes, you can have a non-free leadimage if you want", we can get into what image, non-free or free, in a new thread/Rfc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox images of TV and film characters are usually non-free for obvious reasons and I don't think anyone is claiming they should be otherwise. The reason I'm (fighting a losing battle) opposing this, is because it's not only about the character from that one very recent film, and there is little reference to them or their appearance in the article, which NFCC8 requires. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have long treated this as a de facto whitelist item, where the text in the article specific to the image wouldn't be necessary. There are, I think, many images of generally unremarkable yet copyrighted book covers that have no sourced commentary in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? Where does NFCC#8 say anything about referring to their appearance in the article? On my screen, NFCC#8 reads:

    Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

    That's all it says.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, usually, when a non-free image is somewhere other than the infobox, it's accepted that to satisfy FUC 8 there needs to be reliably sourced non-trivial commentary on that particular image in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, another of Wikipedia's lovely undocumented rules.  :)—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's documented: See WP:NFC#CS, further down the same page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't say there needs to be reliably sourced non-trivial coverage of the image. It says reliably-sourced non-trivial coverage of the image is one of the ways NFCC#8 can be met, and that's not the same thing at all.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I think it should make a distinction between infobox/lead use and non-infobox/non-lead use ... in the latter case I have never seen anyone successfully argue that FUC 8 was met without some sort of accompanying text. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From experience at DRV, I expect the fair use maximalists won't accept any other ways to pass NFCC#8 expect the ones specifically listed in the policy, so we would get to a situation where people think there must be content about that image in the article. The way forward should likely be to have a RFC to clarify NFCC#8 because as this discussion shows, it's written broadly enough to drive a truck through.—S Marshall T/C 13:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC8 hasn't changed for 16 years, and it is there precisely to stop people plastering articles with non-free images where they aren't absolutely needed - the latter being the important word. Minimal use should mean precisely that, or NFCC isn't being met anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's extremely unlikely that NFCC#8 would be changed because of its links to Foundation policy. I'm not proposing to change the wording. I'm considering starting a discussion about how the community should interpret the wording that's already there.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are also now at the point, as I've asserted more than once in this RfC, where AI images can fill in some of the gap that NFCC 8 covers. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would absolutely oppose using any art we generate ourselves, through AI or through more traditional means. It feels rather pointless imo to illustrate a subject with an image that is not produced out of the subject's literary or cinematic history. In my view, we might as well be searching through the thousands of public domain portrait paintings we have for someone who fits the same description, and we obviously wouldn't do that. If we cannot agree on whether TO have an image in the infobox, we can simply not have one. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've used this one ... we're using it right now on another page, in fact
    We have used freely licensed fan art, including very recently this image of Atreides, in many situations (and this is more common on other-language wikis, as I've noted above). The question is not where the image originates, it's "can a free image reasonably communicate the same information"? In this case, it is the appearance of a character that is reasonably communicated by renditions like this that can be done under a free license (since naturally occurring human facial features cannot be copyrighted, and I don't see any attire here that matches anything specific to the franchise). Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not equate an internal page with an article, and other-language wikis have their own best practices on a variety of things that we don't mirror because we have our own set of practices. The origin of a fanart image is less a nonfree consideration for me and more a matter of encyclopedic value. Like, why should I take this image as an authoritative representation of this subject? Even if it is an attempt at interpreting the features as described in the original work, why should we grant this particular interpretation authority simply on the basis that it is nonfree?
    If illustrating the character is central to communicating and identifying the subject, then an image from the production or the illustrated printed works would meet NFCC. If no free image exists and it is felt that the nonfree images do not pass the rationale muster, then we use none. "Can a free image reasonably communicate the same information", I feel like it only can if it's an image that is closely associated with the subject, its works, or other tradition surrounding the subject. Otherwise, as I said, it's no functionally different to me than looking for a painting of a historical figure who happens to meet the description. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Like, why should I take this image as an authoritative representation of this subject?" Because you recognize that you're not the main character and that determination is a matter of consensus among at least several editors? Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more of a rhetorical I and more from the viewpoint of a (or, if you will, my) capacity as a reader of the encyclopedia. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were pretty clearly using that phrase in the context of their argument, not indicating their word is law. ARZ100 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - Per reasons outlined prior, personally struggle to understand reasoning regarding failure to meet criteria #8. There's substantial sourced material discussing the performances in the film adaptions so photos of the characters as portrayed clearly adds useful contextual aid to understand visually what is being discussed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While, as I have previously indicated, I have no objection to the use of Chalamet's likeness under FUC 8 if consensus favors it, it is incorrect legally (and therefore for our policy) to say that "no free image is possible", even fan art such as the image I posted above.

Commons itself has a page about this, which has sections noting the limitations on literary copyright in asserting visual depictions are derivative works, and that faces, real or not, cannot be copyrighted.

The former says, in relevant part:

The legal situation can get much more complicated where the fan art drawing is a representation based solely on the descriptive text of a literary work such as a novel. Although the novel's author will have literary copyright in the actual words used, the US courts, in particular, have been rather reluctant to uphold broad copyright protection for characters within the novel. Although literary characters are clearly creative, they are often seen by the courts as being no more than abstract ideas that are too generic to attract independent copyright protection ... The courts in England have been even more reluctant to accept character copyrights based on literary works, and the general view is that English law does not recognise the concept of copyright in literary fictional characters at all.

The latter adds "Movie-derived fan art often includes drawings of an actor in character. There is no copyright in an individual's likeness, e.g. in their natural facial features, and if the fan art drawing is a wholly new creative representation showing the actor’s natural likeness plus some non-creative allusion to the original work, it can be accepted."

So, even a drawing or AI image that is recognizably of Chalamet or McLachlan could be accepted as long as it doesn't show anything that is unique to the book or movie's copyright (i.e. a recognizable portion of those black water-retention suits). I have gone to the lengths I have to say this because I think that all things being told, a freely-licensed depiction might be the ideal solution here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's eliminate the fan art part of this discussion now. Copyright is not the issue there. Fan art is akin to editor POV, it is one random person/artist's depiction of a character or fictional element, and from a creative standpoint is not a definitive depiction of a fictional topic for Wikipedia purposes.— TAnthonyTalk 19:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then you can't say that McLachlan or Chalamet are "definitive" depictions, either. And in the absence of a definitive depiction, policy and indeed the five pillars strongly compel the use of a free image, whatever its source, so long as it can be agreed to depict the character as the text of the novel describes him.
Last night, for reasons entirely unrelated to this discussion, I chanced across the Daisy Buchanan article. We have her (a character from a single work, not used in any other original works) represented by a still of Lois Wilson from the 1926 silent film version.
Now, this is hardly the definitive Daisy ... few of us have bothered to seek out that first film version, and I'd say that if I remember correctly Daisy is described as blonde, at least by implication, hence Mia Farrow and Carey Mulligan taking the part in the two more recent adaptations. But, it's a free image, so we seem to have used it in the infobox (it's also the earliest visualization, which seems to count for some people). Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get in the weeds over MacLachlan vs. Chalamet right now, what I mean is that official adaptations of a work may vary, but they can be considered representative of the work because they are universally recognized as such. I can draw a dark-haired twink in a wetsuit, but no one would or should consider that a representation of Paul Atreides that is appropriate to illustrate an encylopedia entry, despite my excellent art skills and familiarity with the topic.— TAnthonyTalk 20:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories