Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Lucy Merriam

Lucy Merriam

Child actress Lucy Merriam

Reason: This image is no longer used in any articles. Its article was deleted per this discussion.
Articles this image appears in: none
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam
Nominator: Makeemlighter (talk)

Delist — Makeemlighter (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. No other choice really, since it now fails the most important of the criteria. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep assuming it stays in Child modelling or another suitable article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. That's a shame. Hopefully we'll be able to use this again some day. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation I guess I will never figure out the shades of gray used in using non-free content. The picture’s licensing page mentions “Work for hire taken by a family photographer, work owned by Lisa Merriam” and The Official Web Site of Lucy Merriam has a big splash across this picture stating “All Rights Reserved. Do Not Copy; Do Not RePost.” Yet we used it and made it a Featured Picture. Is this because as long as the adults responsible for this young actress can exploit Wikipedia to their (and hers) advantage, then non-free content with oodles of copyright claims is OK? Someone explain this one to me, please. BTW, captivating pic. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple explanation is that the owner/author can put whatever restrictions they like on the photo, but if they have released it elsewhere (Wikipedia) under a free license like CC-BY-SA (which they have, there is an OTRS ticket), anyone can choose to use it under that less restrictive license. Once it's been released, it can't be taken back. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I was the one who handled the OTRS ticket- Merriam's mother, who paid the photographer in question to take the photo and owns the rights to the photo, released it under the Creative Commons license. As such, yes, elsewhere it may have various watermarks, but we are, and anyone else is, perfectly entitled to use it under the CC license. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well then… Keep. I would prefer to keep the picture on Commons in order to permanently cement the fact that once done, people really do have the right, per the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, “to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work”—even if they don’t like it that her article isn’t here anymore. But maybe that’s just me? Talk about trying to have it both ways… BTW, captivating pic. Greg L (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean here. This vote is for keeping or delisting the image as a Featured Picture. Regardless of the outcome, the image will remain on commons. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I didn’t understand that. That’s good news as I don’t much appreciate the “have it both ways” tactic they’re trying. Don’t care isn’t a germane or helpful option so I’ll simply strike. However, like Milburn, I think it’s a shame as it is still an outstanding portrait of a child. IMO, it ought really to stay as an FP. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can't be a FP on the English Wikipedia as it has to illustrate an artile to qualify. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I understand you correctly, it seems to me an unnecessary exercise to vote whether or not to delist this picture if the rules say doing so must be done. It seems a bit like voting against Castro in a Cuban vote: “Sorry, that was the wrong vote.” Greg L (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Because we have a bureaucracy to uphold, and because this process often highlights improvements that can be made to salvage a FP. In this case, IMO we can't really reinstate the article, but we still have to follow process. You're welcome to vote however you like, but you have to follow up your vote with legitimate reasons. If you can't explain why the image should remain a FP even though there's no article, then your vote may be dismissed by the closer, but we'll give you the opportunity nonetheless. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A good argument against *Wikipedia-style bureaucracy* from me? I’m not that good. Well then, Castro has been bery bery good to me. ;·) Greg L (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Further to Diliffs previous comment, it is theoretically possible that you would find that the image fits well in another article, such as Blond or similar, which would than give a valid reason to vote for keep... --Elekhh (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WOW I always thought it was spelt "blonde" - you learn something new every day... Gazhiley (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It is. :-) From the article: "Writers of English either use the spellings interchangeably or continue to distinguish between the masculine blond and the feminine blonde." Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
        There is an alternate version according to which blond is an adjective and blonde a noun, each referring to either gender. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah I didn't really read the article tbh - just looked for pictures of pretty blonde ladies... :-D Gazhiley (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist insufficient EV. --Elekhh (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless someone can crowbar it into another article... Gazhiley (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn't this picture be relevant on her page at Emma Lavery, which is the page for the character she played on All My Children? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since some people seem to prefer to keep this, let me suggest finding a use for it in child actor or child modeling. This is just a neutral suggestion, not an expression of opinion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change in status quo. Not a bad idea, Whiskey. It seems a better solution than letting this picture loosing FP status. I’ve never before seen a photograph quite like this. I added it to our Child modeling article, where I think it enhances the article quite well. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I think that's where it fits best, maybe even better than the original article, given the very unnatural feel of the image. --Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it has a suitable home. --Avenue (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Avenue. Greg L (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hooray! ~~Remember to change the captions.~~ J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, I've changed them. J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avenue Gazhiley (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Maedin\^talk 07:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]