File talk:Armand Assante - publicity.JPG

All of the reasons given with the deletion tag are incorrect:

• It does not state that the photo was taken by a newspaper, and would have made no difference in any case;
• It does not state that the photo was not copyrighted, and states the exact opposite.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The other information box says that such photos are not traditionally copyright. Your assumption that this particular photograph is not copyrighted is just that - an assumption. The ebay article states "This was a work/file photo for a major Denver area Newspaper" - not that it was a generally released - ok maybe not taken by the paper but the ebay article says it was for a specific paper. Additionally, as a living person, copyrighted photos are always deemed to be replacement with non copyright ones.noq (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Per NFCC #1, this image should qualify as being an acceptable fair use image. I don't think editors are expected to become paparazzi to help improve a WP bio.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To quote that criteria: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". Note the bit after the comma. noq (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I referred to paparazzi. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying your different version of the criteria should apply rather than the actual criteria? noq (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless the person is a known recluse, we can expect that a free image of a living person can be taken. That concept is verbatim in the Foundation's resolution. Do we need to be paparazzi-like to get it? That only depends on how desperately you need to get the photo; usually it's just being smart about a person's media appearances and not that you have to stalk them. (We do expect that editors follow all local laws in trying to get free images, hence why if the person is a known recluse, we're not going to make editors break trespassing laws to get it). --MASEM (t) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)