File talk:ShahRukhKhan MadameTussauds.jpg

Is this image in compliance with WN:IUP?

Madame Tussauds' statement on copyright: The copyright in the material contained in this website and any Madame Tussauds trade marks and brands included in that material belongs to Madame Tussauds. Any person may copy any part of this material from this website, subject to the following conditions: the material may be used only for that person's own personal use for non-commercial purposes; the copies must retain any copyright or other intellectual property notices contained in the original material; the products, technology or processes described in this website may be the subject of other intellectual property rights reserved by Madame Tussauds or by other third parties. No licence is granted in respect of those intellectual property rights; images, trade marks and brands displayed on this site are protected by copyright, trade mark and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced or appropriated in any manner without written permission of their respective owner(s). Source --SVTCobra 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See bottom.
 * No if person is alive, yes if person is dead. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but can you clarify please. Which person needs to be alive? a) Photographer b) Subject of photo (which in this case is a wax figure of a living person, Shah Rukh Khan), or c) Madame Tussauds (which is the copyright owner and a company named after a dead but real person, Marie Tussaud)? --SVTCobra 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * oh that makes things more complicated. It would be the subject, but I don't know about a wax figure. My instict would say yes[its okay], but I'm not sure. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems OK to me.  Thunderhead  ►  23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the picture is of the wax figure. However, it would be very hard (cough impossible) to get a free photo that is equivelent in context of photo (him being measurred), so I think it'd be okay. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We could of course, contact them.  Thunderhead  ►  23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is of the wax figure here is a whole series (which is where the photo came from) that shows them working on the figure. --SVTCobra 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I am not the one who uploaded it. I actually suspect it is a violation of the new policies. Not sure if that was clear. I am not sure how to tag images for review (other than this talk page). --SVTCobra 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS I will submit that these are pictures of "King Khan" being measured for the figure, rather than them working on the wax figure, but I figure the same copyright applies to the image either way. (wow these full size .bmp files take forever to load). --SVTCobra 00:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is not used in an article or has no intentions of being used in one, it should be deleted. DragonFire1024 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is used in Bollywood star unveiled at Madame Tussauds and I have also addressed the image in that talk page (almost 11 hours ago). --SVTCobra 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I am being a huge pain in the ass because of the length of this discussion. All I am looking for is: a) is this type of image ok under fair-use (considering the new policies) and b) how should I efficiently address such images (flags or tags) if I encounter problem images in the future. --SVTCobra 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know...Personally I think that the policy id destroying Wikinews just like so. I mean if we go through this with every new image, then there won't be any left. But i still don't have a clear answer.... DragonFire1024 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)