Talk:Vivien Cardone

Untitled

Where is the source on the "Walk Two Moons" role? - Cg-realms 04:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: rem nonfree image of living person, per WP:NFC

I understood why User:Ward3001 removed reference to the image under WP:NFC, because the young actress in question is still alive and the screenshot in question is non-free. However I reverted the edit because, as per WP:NFC, an exception is made when "a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career" for "individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance." Since Vivien's career has pretty much stalled since Everwood, it is likely that a free image of Vivien now (should one manage to be taken) after puberty would not fufill the same purpose as one of the girl as a child in her signature role. - Cg-realms (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

You are wrong on three counts. First, you don't know that her career has stalled permanently. Actors frequently revive their careers after periods of inactivity. Secondly, there could be (and probably are) thousands of free photos of her from pre-puberty years. Just because you don't have access to them doesn't mean they don't exist. And finally, the article is not about her signature role (which is subject to change); it is a bio article about Cardone. Add it to a page about her signature role, but not here.

You have created a contrived rationale that could apply to almost any living person. For example, one could argue that Actor X's photo taken in front of the World Trade Center falls under fair use because the WTC no longer exists. Your reasoning is grossly strained. Ward3001 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your WTC photo argument is a straw man. The World Trade Center has no reflection on Actor X himself. If the actress in question takes on another notable role in the future, than my age argument does not apply and the image should be removed. In the meantime, her career is stalled, persumably no suitable picture exists, and the photo in question serves as an adequate visual representation of the person in question. If my argument applies to almost any living person, yours most certainly does. Under your interpretation, any living person fails to meet the notability requirement since they could conceivably become notable for something else later on. If the free images that serve the same purpose are so common, I invite you to find one and add it to this article. I'm not going to revert the edit, since there's no point in an editing war, but it doesn't make sense to focus so much effort on removing content when no stakeholder had any problem with the status quo on the basis of an overly rigid interpretation of WP:NFC. - Cg-realms (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I appreciate your avoiding an edit war. Nonetheless, I continue to strongly disagree with your rationale. She is too young to know whether her career has stalled forever. But my primary argument is that there very likely are free images of her from every time period in her acting career. It might be a different matter if she were 75 years old today and had no acting career since 1939. Then it might be possible to argue that free images probably do not exist. She's too young to jump to that conclusion, however. Regarding your "invitation" for me to find a free image, I am not the person who wishes to add an image to the article. Just as editors who add information must find their own sources, likewise editors who wish to add images have the responsibility to find free images. My lack of desire to find a free image has no bearing on fair use. And the "stakeholder" I am most concerned about in this particular situation is the legal protection of Wikipedia, not the desires of individual editors. Copyright laws are real, and Wikipedia is really liable for copyright violation. The easy availability of copyrighted images on the internet does not protect Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)