The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. The legal case wasn't about the content of the image, but the use of the image itself. Seeing the image does not help in understanding the dispute between Alba & Playboy - therefore the image in this use fails NFCC#8 NtheP (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playboy 0603.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fool156 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image of a living person. Editors at Jessica Alba suggest it meets NFCC but there's no clear discussion of this specific cover shot/image, and there's plenty of free images of the actress already. MASEM (t) 03:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the reasons expressed by me and other editors at Talk:Jessica Alba#Non-free image. Does not contribute substantially to readers' understanding of an event that does not need an image to be explained. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:NFCC#8 concerns, but the nomination is flawed: her being alive is irrelevant. The image was not being used to illustrate Alba's appearance, it was being used to illustrate the cover's appearance. The problem is that an illustration of the cover isn't necessary.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Playboy 0603.jpg. Opinions of editors stating that this is not necessary run against the WP:NFCI 1 & 9 guideline, which identifies the kind of usage of this image in the article as acceptable use. Illustrating the cover's appearance is precisely what makes the image contextually relevant, given that the cover is subject of critical commentary by reliable sources as described in the article. Diego Moya (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NFCI would apply if the image itself was the target of the discussion. If Alba had been objecting to the details of the pose, her juxtaposition to a particular piece of text, or something similar, that would be a fairly strong argument. She objected simply to the fact of her appearance without her permission.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, are we talking about the same article? The one I'm reading discusses the image with sentences like "On the cover of the March 2006 issue, Playboy magazine named Alba among its 25 Sexiest Celebrities, and the Sex Star of the Year" and "Alba was involved in litigation against Playboy for its use of her image (from a promotional shot for Into the Blue) without her consent, which she contends gave the appearance that she was featured in the issue in a "nude pictorial". I agree that having this discussion in the article is a strong argument for keeping the image. Diego Moya (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no discussion of the visual nature of the picture, just that a picture was used without her consent. You don't need to see the cover to understand the cover was subject of legal problems. On the other hand, if (for some reason) Playboy digitally manipulated the photo to alter Alba's image which Alba took issue with, that would be a possible reason to use the image (though that's not full assurance). --MASEM (t) 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not a requirement of the WP:NFCC. You'd be rewriting policy by applying stricter criteria than what was agreed by consensus when drafting the guideline. What matters is that a reliable source has made significant commentary about the cover, as People.com reported. Nevertheless, even if it's not required, the article does discuss the visual nature of the cover: it says that the cover "gave the appearance that she was featured in the issue in a "nude pictorial". A reader couldn't asses that appearance without the image. Diego Moya (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFCC1,3,8. and WP:NFC#UUI1,9. Werieth (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how do you think the image "fails" those linked policies? Several editors have advanced detailed arguments of why the image doesn't fail them, and this discussion is not a vote. Diego Moya (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is nothing specific about the image that is being discussed, any similar photo of Alba in a bikini or even text stating that she was photographed in said suit would be sufficient (As long as it is noted that the pose is suggestive). 3) We really dont need a non-free pic of a living person and should keep the usage of non-free to as little as possible. 8) There is nothing in the text is tied to the contents of the photo, rather the issue is the usage of her image in a publication that she doesnt support, and that has a negative connotation. The second part of 8 Yes having the image helps, but excluding the image isnt detrimental to understanding the article about Alba (yeah it makes one paragraph easier to understand but not the topic as a whole). UUI#1 This is just a picture of a living person in a bathing suite and can be replaced with a similar image. UUI#9 This is a magazine cover and other than the fact that the person was on it, the contents of the image itself are under discussion. Thus it's sole purpose is to illustrate that the BLP was in fact on the cover of said magazine. Do I need to go into further detail? Werieth (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. To address your points: 1) yes, there is something specific about the image about the image, and it has been discussed by Playboy.com; read the article to find it, or my comments below. UUI#1 the picture cannot be replaced, as other images similar were not published as the cover of issue #603 of Playboy. Yes, the "sole purpose" of this image is to illustrate that the BLP was in fact on the cover of said magazine, depicting the exact image that appeared on it; given that this purpose is listed as an acceptable use by the guideline under the current circumstances, there's no problem with keeping the image. Diego Moya (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly satisfies all criteria of NFCC, including #8, which seem to be the only one in debate. That criteria boils down strictly to opinion. My opinion has been clearly explained and supported here and here as to how the image increases the readers understanding of image, (public image section) the image, (the image her is question), imagery (of the subject's status as a sex symbol), the issue of the image (controversy and lawsuit surrounding use) and the subject herself (who the article is about). Also, clearly explained is how removing the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of these concepts, and hence why the image should be kept. - thewolfchild 22:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (note: I also feel this proposal is premature. Discussion should continue at NFCR)[reply]
  • Too late. Already archived, and there is no need to make a concurrent discussion about the same image. Doing so otherwise would be forum shopping, which is strictly discouraged. Well, you can explain again, but I guess you don't want to. --George Ho (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We already have free images of Jessica Alba, and I don't think adding details about her bathing suit or bikini would make this image irreplaceable. Text is free enough to make this image replaceable. Also, people already understand her appearance in Playboy magazine without this image. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just "about her appearance in Playboy". There's more to it than that. And, yes, there are other free images, but the issues and discussion within the article are both centered around and directly about this image. As I've said, this is a conflict of opinion. There is no clear violation of any policy. And, beyond that, policies are not cast in stone, they are simply guidelines. The purpose of NFCC is to protect WP. WP doesn't need to be protected from this image. It hasn't for well over 7 years now. Deleting this image does nothing to help the project, but it does take away from the article, (a GA) and therefore diminishes the project (yes, only a tiny bit, but where does it end?) - thewolfchild 23:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC policy is mandated by the Foundation, and thus, along with BLP, is one of the few policies enforced stronger with little wiggle room when there are clear violations. And as for the image, while the fact that there was a legal tussle between Alba and Playboy due to her appearing on the issue's cover, one does not need to see that specific cover image to understand that. You need a discussion about the visual issues around the cover, such as the case over at O. J. Simpson murder case where we can justify the Time and Newsweek covers to show the media bias in reporting, which the visual aid helps. Here, it simply isn't needed. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As per WP:NFCC, "Rationale"; "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law."

- You guys are going over-board here. The only reason to seek deletion thru NFCC to protect the project from legal exposure. So, the real question here is, does this image create a potential for legal exposure? The violation of NFCC#8, (the only real debatable issue here) is tenuous at best. The only way to establish this criteria has been violated, it seems, is to have a few more opinions that say 'yes' than 'no'. Hardly a reason to try to strictly enforce this policy here. And;

• As per WP:BURO, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies."

- Enough is enough. You're pushing a policy that doesn't even need to be pushed, to delete an image that doesn't need to be deleted. The 'deleters' here are focusing on non-specific minutia and taking arguments out context, while deliberately evading the straight-forward reasons that have been provided by the 'keepers', that clearly support the need to keep this image. This is all quite officious. - thewolfchild 01:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, part of NFCC is to minimize legal exposure, but first and foremost is to promote the use of free content over non-free and minimize non-free where it is not required. See m:Resolution:Licensing_policy. The NFCC#8 violation is much more cut-and-dried than most other NFCC#8 issues that come up; it is a non-free of a living person (which is near universally unallowed) and you have nothing in the text that supports the need to see the cover in question to understand there was a legal aspects. These are core fundamentals parts of policy, and a textbook case where it should have been flat-out removed. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a textbook case for removing an image, how is it that it's listed as an acceptable use at NFCI#9? The requirements that you list here and above at your 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC) comment are not part of the NFC policy; and the general principles of promoting free content are balanced by NFC with the need to build an encyclopedia, so the discussion of the image in reliable sources is what makes the use acceptable by NFC (and thus different from other images of living people). Diego Moya (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing it listed as acceptable? Werieth (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are looking at Unacceptable uses for images, #9 - "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." --MASEM (t) 21:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion in the guideline is #9 at Wikipedia:NFCI#Images, "Images that are themselves subject of commentary", which is listed under "Acceptable use". The footnote of #1 clarifies that cover art used this way does not implicitly satisfies the branding and identification needs, but is accepted provided that "the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article".

The image is not being used to identify Jessica Alba, so "unacceptable use #9" does not apply (i.e. it's not used "to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover", but the cover itself). Arguments made at this discussion about possible alternate presentations of Jessica Alba are missing the point; this and no other image is the one under discussion in the article. Diego Moya (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that constitutes commentary on the image itself. Take a look at ...Baby_One_More_Time#Synopsis or Virgin Killer not only is the fact that the images are discussed but the contents of said images are discussed by sources. The discussion (critical commentary) is what is lacking in this case, Yes the Alba's image was used, but the contents of the image are not discussed, just where the image was used. Werieth (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me why it so unacceptable to have the image of a cover, in an article discussing that very same cover, but it is acceptable to have other articles contain magazine covers (with images of living people) in articles such as;

• W (magazine) magazine cover on the Gisele Bundchen page, and vice-versa,
• the cover picturing Babette March on the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue,
• the cover picturing Ryan Gosling on the GQ,
• the multiple covers featuring photos of multiple living people on the Vogue (magazine) page,
• Maxim (magazine),
• Stuff (magazine),
• Forbes,
• Vanity Fair (magazine),
• In Touch Weekly,
• OK!,

And many, many other articles found on the List_of_magazines_in_the_United_States. Where either it is acceptable for magazine covers portraying living people to be found on article pages, or there are countless other policy infractions you will have to devote your time to, along with this so-called one. Perhaps all the user here voting "delete" can form a maintenance sub-group that can go through the entire list, to determine if the image use is (somehow) acceptable, or else address the multitude of NFCC infractions where editors were apparently too lazy to search out images of just the magazine headers or covers with images of dead people, and simply stuck the current image on instead. Good luck. - thewolfchild 22:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • A representative cover of a magazine as an identifying image for a magazine is well in line. In this specific case, since the image is being used to illustrate the magazine, the fact that a photo of a living person may be on the cover is not an issue - that argument is NFCC#1, in that there is no way to have an equivalent free replacement for the identifying look for a magazine. In the this of this image, as KWW has pointed out, the NFCC#1 issue is secondary but even then, NFC#UUI 9 disallows the use of magazine covers to illustrate a topic that is not the magazine unless the cover image itself is the subject of critical discussion. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Playboy is mentioned three times in the article body - it's hardly very significant. I don't see how this satisfies the guidelines, as it's really just a picture of Alba with some text. The fact that it's a GA isn't relevant, as several GAs have had images that have been deleted (read: The Simpsons episodes). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of the deletion of this specific image, should be suspended, and the file should remain in place, until the broader issue of the widespread usage of magazine cover image files containing pictures of living people has been addressed. - thewolfchild 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably fine for the articles on the magazine. I oppose having them in articles of living people where it is clearly not discussed critically, though. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thewolfchild, You should realize that the a non-free magazine in a BLP, is far different than having a BLP included in a non-free image of a cover on the article about the publication. In some cases that would prevent us from displaying any covers on the magazine article. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt a reason to include this file. Werieth (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case where there is a magazine cover on the Gisele Bundchen page. That is a BLP, not a page about the magazine. (Don't get confused with the "vice-versa"). Also, why the need for the full cover, when simply a description would apparently suffice? (as you are advocating for here). There are examples of this at Men's Health (magazine) and the Robb Report. Or, as I mentioned, simply using the logo, as seen with the Time (magazine) or HGTV pages. Or, even still, using older/vintage covers like the Redbook or Playboy pages?

For a policy that is supposed to be so tight and restrictive, ("this image must go!"), it's loose in many other areas. Perhaps because it's not as tight as you claim. And, whatever personal reason you have for wanting to delete this image, it doesn't really need to go. The reasons for keeping it are satisfactory enough for doing just that. So keep it, and let it continue to enhance the article and serve it's readers, just as it has been doing for almost a decade, without incident. (and btw, wp:ose is a reason to not delete it) - thewolfchild 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image on Gisele Bundchen was out of policy as well; it was never supposed to be there, and there was no NFUR for using the image there. Fixed now. This is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep argument--sometimes the "other stuff" is just as out of policy as the stuff under debate. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for characterizing my whole position as a "WP:OSE argument", and then focusing solely on that, while completely disregarding everything else I have said. I think it is a dis-service to the project when a handful of myopic admins and editors become so entrenched in pushing their POV, regardless of how subjective and arbitrary it is, that they will cut any corners necessary to do so. The Bundchen page aside, there are other issues involved here that necessitates the suspension of this specific deletion, until the broader picture has been made clear and addressed appropriately. - thewolfchild 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The main argument that I see here is that it doesn't pass NFCC 1, 3, and 8 and NFC#UUI 1 and 9, so I will address those concerns.
  • NFCC 1: No free equivalent There is no free equivalent that is going to display the image that the lawsuit was filed for. There may be many free pictures of her, I'm sure, in a bikini but none will be the one discussed. It won't be on the cover which caused the lawsuit. This is it. This is the Exhibit A of the suit.
  • NFCC 3: Minimal use The image is used once and only once. It is a reduced file size, etc. The entire cover is shown but then the cover is what concerned Alba enough to file a lawsuit. I suppose it could be cropped so as not to display the left and right sides of the cover where her body is not in the shot but that's the only concession I can see that could be made here.
  • NFCC 8: Contextual significance It's significant in the context here because there is a paragraph about the lawsuit that the image caused. It's relevant to the text. Some have said that we could just say that "Alba was shown in a bikini" but that wouldn't give the reader enough info. It wouldn't answer questions that may come to the reader's mind like "Was she posed seductively? Was the bikini especially small?" Without the image, the reader is less informed about what it actually looked like. With the image, the reader can make their own determinations about the image. It gives them a better understanding. A picture is worth 1000 words after all.
  • NFC#UUI 1: A different photo which is free would not be a replacement for this image because it would not be in the same bikini and would not show the reader how it was displayed on the cover. There might be a similar free image of Alba but I don't think we'll ever see a free image A) of her B) in that bikini C) in that pose.
  • NFC#UUI 9: Here we come back to context: ...if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article... It is the subject of sourced discussion and it is right along side that discussion.
• So, it is for these reasons that I feel the image should be kept and kept in the article right next to the discussion of it. Dismas|^(talk) 06:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for another reason, within the article, it states;

Alba was involved in litigation against Playboy for its use of her image (from a promotional shot for Into the Blue) without her consent, which she contends gave the appearance that she was featured in the issue in a "nude pictorial".

It's the core of the issue - appearance. Playboy didn't just put the words "Jessica Alba with a bikini" on the cover, they used her photo to give an certain appearance (or misrepresentation). Likewise, Alba wasn't upset because the cover had the title "Jessica Alba interview and maybe some nude pics", she was upset because the photo on the cover did that instead. The issue here is based on perception, and no written description can adequately provide the reader with an idea of what exactly that cover looked like. The readers need to visualize it for themselves, to make their judgment about the perceptions created by the cover. By simply writing "woman in bikini", you are taking away the intangibles that led to Alba`s reaction. To try and add more of a description, would be crafting your own perception of the cover. That could create a bias issue. Ultimately, the incident is notable, and should be included in the article, and, to preserve WP`BLP policy, the picture should also be included to keep the article neutral, factual, cited and balanced. - thewolfchild 01:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to WP:NFCC#8: this particular photo is not needed to fully understand the Jessica Alba article. That article does mention this issue of Playboy, and does mention that the image used was a promotional shot for Into the Blue. But seeing the cover does not help the reader understand that paragraph any better than seeing the actual (copyrighted) list of Playboy's "25 Sexiest Celebrities" would help understand that she was in it; the text description alone is sufficient. In an article on Jessica Alba's appearance in Playboy, I would consider the use valid, but such an article would be deleted as non-notable. As used in Jessica Alba, it's a violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again we have personal opinion that this "is not needed" against previous consensus in policy that "Images that are themselves subject of commentary" are acceptable use (WP:NFCI#9). We have an article that describes Jessica Alba's appearance in Playboy, it's the section "Public image" of Jessica Alba. It's absurd to tie WP:NFCC#8 to the global article topic superseding the actual paragraph providing context to the image when there's no specific article. You got it backwards: if Jessica Alba's appearance in Playboy existed as an independent article then we *could* move the image there and link it from here per WP:NFC#UUI#6; but since there's no better place to move it, this one is the point at Wikipedia where the image is shown it its right context. Diego (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about "helping the reader understand" the issue, but giving the reader the opportunity to understand it on their own, without some written description telling them how it should be perceived. There was such a significant difference in the perception of her appearance on the cover between Alba and Playboy, that it led to a lawsuit. How can one written description allow the reader to fully understand how Alba saw this cover, as opposed to the way Playboy saw it? It can't.

Also, this is no different than the use of the image of the Time magazine cover, that controversially featured OJ Simpson, on the O.J. Simpson murder case page. The use of that non-free image, of a living person, was approved. I don't recall anyone arguing; "hey, all we need to do is write that one image was darker than the other...". Not only is this a case of where OSE applies, but even more so, because the factual difference between the two OJ images is pretty straight-forward, whereas this issue is based on perception of appearance and therefore this image is absolutely needed, and completely satisfies all NFCC. - thewolfchild 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.