File talk:Charmayne James and Scamper.jpg

File is not replaceable because a) the horse is dead and b) the event depicted was a unique occurrence that cannot be replicated. Further, an image of James riding Scamper definitely cannot be replicated. There are a few images of just Scamper without James in them we could use (though most of the photos that come up of a bay horse standing alone are actually of Clayton, the clone -- notice different markings), but I think that this is analogous to the images at Secretariat (horse) where we have images of Ron Turcotte riding the horse and Penny Chenery in the winner's circle, which passed FAC as fair use depicting a unique historical event, even though Chenery and Turcotte are both still living. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument related to the photos of Secretariat needs to be careful of

WP:OTHERIMAGE. Comparing the non-free use of seemingly similar images in different articles is not always clear cut. For example, the primary image of the Secratariat article is just of the horse itself whereas the other non-free images are incorporated into the body of the article near the article content they are intended to support. Moreover, just becasue they are being used does not automatically mean that their use is non-free content use policy compliant. As for the article about Turcotte, the image being used for identification purposes is a freely licensed (at least claimed to be freely licensed) from Commons, not a non-free image, and there are no non-free images of Secretariat or Turcotte included. I am not very knowledgable about horses, so I did not notice a difference between Clayton and Scamper; however, if a non-free image is to be used to identify the horse sans rider, then the middle image in the link you provided on the file's page seems much more suitable to serve that role. This file then could be moved to Scamper#The bridleless win if it is actually the photo taken by Springer since that is where it is contextually relevant. The non-free use rationale should then be tweaked to reflect this new use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - historic, represents the essence of the article, no free images available to replace it, clearly passes fair-use criteria for inclusion. Atsme📞📧 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (
  WP:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've moved the image on

WP:NFCC #1, and identification purposes is meaningless as you can not see her face with any resolution sufficient to support such purpose. Someone should contact James as she has several images of herself on her website, and certainly many celebrities have given us press release level quality photos for their respective articles here. The image is acceptable in Scamper (horse), as the horse is dead, unless a free license image of that horse is located. Using Clayton as a proxy isn't proper, as Clayon, even though a clone, isn't Scamper. Even genetically identical twins have differences in appearance. If we had no picture whatsoever of Scamper (free license or non-free license) then using an image of Clayton with an appropriate caption indicating that Clayton is a clone might be acceptable. But, not here, not with a non-free image available. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks
hatnote could be added to the James' article to direct the reader there where they can see the image. At the same time, as I posted above in my reply to Montanabw, a different (better?) non-free image of Scamper could be used in the main infobox for identification purposes, and this image could be moved to the relevant section of the Scamper article. Does this seem like a workable option? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm. Ok, I agree with the idea to have the image only on Scamper, but not with moving it out of the infobox of Scamper to the relevant section. Reasoning; we'd end up with two non-free images on Scamper instead of one. We can leverage one to fulfill both purposes. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my concern about NFCC#3a, and something I slowly realized the more I thought about it. I think pursuing a free image is probably best thing to do not only for this case, but for the project overall. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection now to the rfu tag I added to the file's page being removed since the NFCC#1 issue seems to have been sufficiantly addressed. It now seems to be a question as to how and where the file should be used per NFCC#8. Therefore, I am removing the relevant templates from the file's page. If this needs to be done by an admin, then please re-add them and I will post a note of the file's page stating that the template is no longer applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the move, per Hammersoft's rationale. I am also glad to see it remain in Scamper's article. It really is the best photo of him doing what he did best. And yes, I think the bridleless win was pretty unique, you don't see people doing barrel racing without bridles at the NFR and certainly not winning. There is, I suppose, an argument for uploading the image of the horse only, so long as we can keep the bridleless win photo and no one complains that we have two FU images in the article on Scamper. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you removed the part about using a different image to identify Scamper from your above post. To answer your question, the NFCCP (
  WP:NFCC#3a
  ) that we should try to minimize non-free file use as much as possible. This does not preclude using the same file in multiple articles or multiple files in the same article as long as the non-free use for each is in accordance with the NFCCP. In this case, an image of only the horse and the image of the event would be serving to separate encyclopedic purposes (in my opinion), so having two might be acceptable. The respective non-free use rationales, however, should be worded accordingly to reflect the specifics of each use.

As for the other part of your post, it matters more as to what reliable sources are saying than what we may personally think about the image as explained in

WP:ITSHISTORIC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure why that bit got deleted, I think I accidentally made a null edit. I put it back now. Per Dawn's comments below, it clearly was a unique and remarkable event, as the sources in the articles indicate as well as the ones listed below. Montanabw (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious as to why that bit was removed was removed, but no big deal. You and

WP:NFCC#3a and we really should try to minimize non-free use as much as we can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh yes, hi, I'm the original creator of the Charmayne James article, and the editor who majorly expanded the Scamper article. Yes, it's important to cite reliable sources as to what makes the event the image is a photograph of so historic or is such a great moment in rodeo history. Here are some very reliable sources that should do that: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I'm sure many more can be added if necessary. Charmayne was just inducted into the ProRodeo Hall of Fame on August 5, 2017. Now she and Scamper are both in that hall of fame together. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely use FU images for deceased animals, it can be complicated to explain OTRS to people. But James may be someone who could be approached for her own image. We will look into it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]