File:Arkhipova.jpg

Irina Arkhipova in 1966.

Source: http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/050/699.htm

This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the subject in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arkhipova.jpg true

I think the key here is to be reasonable. Madame Arkhipova is 83 and retired. She looks nothing like she did in her prime -- and remember, the work that really made her notable had all taken place by, let us say, the late 1980s. Which takes us to the Wikipedia policy guideline -- guideline -- that disallows fair use for "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph." Now, that's a perfectly sensible position with which I have no problem in many cases. However, there are exceptions. We do need fair-use images for Kim Jong Il: I doubt he'd allow you or me the chance to snap a picture. We have a couple of free images of Roger Ebert that he was kind enough to provide himself, but given that he basically has no jaw now, I think users would be better served by fair use images of the earlier Ebert, if we didn't have the current images. With Arkhipova, again: do users want to see a little old lady in who knows what condition, or are they better served by seeing a radiant soloist in her prime? On balance, and considering all the issues involved, I think the rationale is solid enough.