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. — ξ^xplicit 00:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

Having totally rewritten this article, R. H. Quaytman, in the last couple of weeks, I have searched online for a free amateur photo of this artist. You would think it's out there since she has become a major artist, who teaches and gives lots of presentations, but I have not been able to find any usable images. This image is by an amateur and extracted from a video. I'm confident it is fair use because it is a small low resolution sample, used for an educational and critical article, which cannot reduce the commercial value of the original.--Nixie9✉ 01:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable with a free one, you could take one of her yourself for example. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• That could be said about a large majority of images, depending on the degree of effort one is willing to exert. In copyright law, fair use in this type of case is primarily concerned with any reduction in the property rights and value of the copyright holder. I think my claim that there is no potential reduction of value justifies the use: this copy is not a substitute for the original, and does not diminish its commercial value, if any existed. No one is harmed, no damages could be cited, and courts have always allowed such non profit use. The use in a critical article seals the deal beyond reproach.--Nixie9✉ 03:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted as per March 23, 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution that WP does not allow the fair use claim for "material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. " (my emphasis) so as the subject of this image is living and it is possible for someone to take a picture and release it with a free licence the use of a copyrighted one fails the replaceability criteria. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 10:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Under that same resolution, it says to replace the EDP (minimal - as I have done, and exempted under local law, as is the case here) content with free content when it becomes available. I propose to do just that - I will keep looking for free content, or take such a photo myself if the opportunity arises. In the meantime, I believe the fair use and Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) permits the content to remain temporarily at least. --Nixie9✉ 16:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.