File talk:RickStill.jpg

Re: delete note on IMDB copyright is claimed by © 2014 Eric Lee Huffman. Scream!! (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at it, is the pic even of who it says (Rick Still)? IMDB hasn't a pic of him. Scream!! (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

[1] Rick Still recently removed all his photos from IMDB in order to create a drama that UFO Phil is a real person. Very funny schtick, but RW shouldn't go along with hoaxes. Leuders (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Eric Lee Huffman...ha! I didn't see that, it must be brand new. Still is up to his tricks. Leuders (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I predict that the next to disappear will be this one Leuders (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So, what about the copyvio claim? It's all rather confusing. I've never heard of any of these names Rick, Phil or Eric. Scream!! (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

See UFO Phil. There is no copyvio issue, it's a fake controversy. Basically, Rick Still (the actor who plays UFO Phil) does a schtick where he denies that the actor plays the character. He's trying to remove all evidence from the web like his imdb entry before he purged it. Scroll down to "Personal Details" where it says "Alternate Names: Phil Hill | UFO Phil". Leuders (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

FU rationale

Notes for reference: a Fair Use (FU) rationale is a legal defence, not a magic ability to violate copyright law. It's assessed on whether it causes harm to the copyright owner and if so whether that is offset by the free speech of comment and criticism. In the first respect (whether it causes harm to the copyright owner), the FU defence is aided by a degraded resolution - hence movie posters on WP are thumbnail sized and stored at thumbnail size only. However, part of the point here is that you need the hi-res image to compare and contrast the individual - otherwise you're being deceitful by offering a low grade image of a bald guy, comparing it to another low grade image of a bald guy and saying they're the same person (cf. every "crisis actor" conspiracy theory of the last few years). Secondly, a major problem is that the copyright owner isn't the same as the person being criticised or reviewed (criticism and review being part of the FU rationale, and would otherwise be satisfied here) - so hosting the image could unfairly cause problems for the copyright holder even though they are not under the FU-approved scrutiny. To get a stronger FU rationale, one would need to at the very least demonstrate that no free alternative is available (not easy), and or show that the copyright holder is complicit in censoring the free speech of comment and criticism. It may also be worthwhile to take note of Wikipedia's precedent for this subject. I would suggest at the very least replacing this with a low resolution thumbnail - approximately the resolution of the article thumb as a compromise solution, and see from there. ^pathetic 14:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

delete, we don't need it.

There is a wikimedia commons image of the person on the page. No need for this one. Deleting per owner request. ħuman 01:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA images are of "UFO Phil" - the intent behind hosting this one, which isn't available elsewhere, is to demonstrate that UFO Phil is actually a known actor, contrary to claims. ^postate 08:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Like Armondikov said. Leuders (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DELETE the image of the guy in the black and white suit because the image is copyrighted and he is not the subject of your article. Keep the other image of UFO Phil because he is the subject. ^{— Unsigned, by: BobRicePhoto / talk / contribs}