Talk:Ivan Brandon

Consensus discussion on Infobox photo

Againdemonproductions reverted the Infobox photo, which I had previously cropped. I personally prefer cropping the "bust" for the Infobox, because I think focusing on the upper body or head makes a nicer portrait. Againdemonproductions feels otherwise. Since this is an aesthetic issue, I'd like to have a consensus discussion on this. Thoughts? Bust or Full Shot? Nightscream (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bust, as per above. Nightscream (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• A few things pop immediately:
  1. {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} implies that the image is free to use. That means that either User:Againdemonproductions took the picture and released it for unfettered use as long as they are attribured as the original author of the image, or Againdemonproductions found t listed elsewhere under the same restrictions. The latter is likely since Againdemonproductions attributes the image to "Kristyn Ferretti".
  2. The image is linked back to a flickr page - [1] - posted by Ivan Brandon but not listing someone else as the photographer. That page dies indicate "Some rights reserved" which points to cc 2.0. Essentially the same as the licensing tag, but withhold the use of the image for commercial purposes. This put it in conflict in two ways with Againdemonproductions upload - different author and more restrictive use ability. Closest licensing tag would be {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}}.
  3. Based on Brandon&furl=555P5zfBP4qc_ctjQfHx=QfL4fH56OFZnhFvZFD this] which was found as a result of a Google search of "Againdemon Productions", Againdemonproductions looks to be in a conflict of interests since it looks like either Mr. Brandon or one of his employees is editing content on this page and to "safe guarding" File:Ivan-wiki.jpg.
  4. The image that Ivan-wiki.jpg, File:IvanBrandon11.15.08ByLuigiNovi.jpg, is currently up on Commons as freely useable on Wikipedia. It is sourced and licensed, and it provides a visual reference to what Mr. Brandon looks like. Since it does not appear that Mr. Brandon's appearance has changed in the 11 months between images, and since how he looks is intrinsically linked to his notability, there seems very, very little reason for the image to have been changed. Looking at point 3 though, the appearance that the subject of the article has an issue with the free-use image currently on Commons and has decided to have it changed.

That does leave some questions that should be answered: Againdemonproductions link to AGAINDEMON Productions and Mr. Brandon. The issues with the use of the 2008 photo. And if those issues arise from how the 2008 photo was taken.

Have I missed anything?

- J Greb (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We will need to receive a desperate OTRS release permitting commercial use for File:Ivan-wiki.jpg since the linked source says non-commercial. Alternatively, the license can be updated on flickr. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#For images. –xeno^talk 12:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Brandon indicated that he did not like my photo, and since I always strive to respect subject's feelings on this matter, in part since I'm not a professional photographer, I asked if he could find another. At first he wanted to supply a grainy black and white photo from a book jacket, but I didn't think that was a very good choice for an encyclopedia article. When Againdemonproductions supplied the current color photo, I assumed it was Mr. Brandon's photo, and that he himself supplied it. Even though the color is less vivid and the quality a bit grainer than the one I took, I had no objections to it, other than a preference for the "bust cropping". That's my two cents. Nightscream (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the con-picture is the better one to use, just IMO - because we at least know who took it. I can respect that the subject does not want it to be used though, which is fine. The alternative picture, we don't know who took it, and if there is a COI then we're better off not using that one either. Until that can be settled, maybe no image at all would be the best thing to do. BOZ (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on what looks better aesthetically in terms of cropping, but there have been cases before where subjects complained about an image we were using and since we couldn't find a 'neutral' middle ground, we opted to no photo. –xeno^talk 12:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My colleague Nightscream asked me to join the discussion. I think the bust works better aesthetically, but the longer shot does a good job of illustrating the subject. I would stick with one of these photos — it's one thing for a subject to complain that an image shows him in some unusual or unnatural circumstance, like his leg in a cast, or drunk at a party. I don't believe simple vanity, however, trumps encyclopedic or journalistic needs. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate and thank Nightscream for their image contribution I can understand why the subject might feel it is unflattering. It looks like he's tired, sweaty, and when cropped it almost looks like a mugshot! See also Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 27#"Unflattering" photos?. –xeno^talk 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the need to confirm copyright/permission information on Again's photo, but I don't see who COI comes into play. If we have permission to use that photo, where is there a conflict of interest? Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The discrepency about the ability to use the image for comercial purposes may be a stumbling block. Keep in mind the prefered types of image are those that are fully free. Againdemonproductions' upload traces back to an image that lacks that and from Wikipedia's perspective and editor cannot change the restrictions of an image found elsewhere. Hence the friction on that point.

As for CoI... As Xeno points out we try to take a polite and respectful stance with requests from the subjects of biography articles. But there is a difference between a request to change or remove an image and actually editing the article to remove or replace it. For the most part Againdemonproductions' edits have only been with regard to this article and have been on the minor side. But they are still something that get a closer look since Againdemonproductions for all appearances is directly tied to the subject of the article. Changing the image feels like a step toward taking direct control of the content of the article and molding it to the subject's liking.

- J Greb (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which all things being equal, would be wrong, but if the edit in question also has the quality of being a sound one, then the COI aspect is moot. So I guess the question is, can AgainDemon provide some type of documentation or permission or something? Would that qualify as free enough? If so, would the full shot or bust shot be better? Or could he supply a free image that he likes? Nightscream (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, CoI isn't moot even if the edits are sound, it just means they won't be reverted out of hand. Most times that is going to cover removal of unsourced - or unsourceable - material or items that buck WP:BLP. Once it verges into dictating sourced or reasonable content, the edits are as likely to be undone as with BLP violations. As far as the image goes, and it does fall under "reasonable content", a request to change it should have been made along with pointing to a better/preferable image. Not directly uploading the image and inserting it. We may wind up, if the flickr page is updated or ORTS is obtained, in the same place but the process used was wrong and that really needs to be underscored so that it isn't repeated. - J Greb (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so what do we do now? Againdemonproductions' account has now been blocked for violating the username policy, but he can still choose a different one. What do we do as far as the photograph? Nightscream (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd revert to the far earlier bust portrait. It has clear provenance, depicts the subject, (recentism or historicity of appearance is a secondary matter, when all superseding factors, like legal clearance, are equal), and will avoid the problems of a single purpose account with a likely conflict of interest objecting. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)