Ok Wikidude...since you're playing semantics, let's really talk semantics.
Answer these questions:
1. How is TA's picture a depiction of a bodybuilder? What is the criteria of that picture that makes it suitable as description of a bodybuilder? Couldn't it also be a picture of a swimmer or a jogger or a male model (being serious)? What in that picture qualifies it to be a description of a bodybuilder?
Bodybuilding is a hobby AND a profession. Meaning that men and women compete and get paid to be bodybuilders. Now is a professional or amateur a more accurate depiction of bodybuilder?
Lets look into that a little further...Consensus reality Wikidude, thats how humans function. By that I mean that if we look up a description of a red ball on Wikipedia we should see a picture of a red ball. Now some people are colorblind but they are in the minority. If enough people look at the red ball and conclude that it fits their definition of a red ball the picture stays...if it looks blue to the majority of people it would be changed. Correct? Remember that Wikidude, because Wikipedia.org, being "open source", is the very definition of consensus reality.
Now being a policeman is a profession AND a hobby. People are paid to be policemen but citizens are also capable, legally, of being able to stop, investigate, detain and arrest other citizens, they are allowed to shoot and kill in self-defense. This is a right and though not widely practiced it exists in law.
NOW, if people look up Policeman on Wikipedia would they expect to see a picture of a professional policeman or the guy in the policeman's outfit from the Village people? Funny right, but what if that guy had made several dozen citizens arrests. He would legally fit the definition of a policeman according to you, right? But we aren't going to find his pic are we? No, because the majority of the population has a preconceived idea of what a policeman is. And it's not him.
Here is where we come full circle Wikidude.
You have to present verifiable proof. Employed as, taxed as, paid as, legally recognized as............get what I'm saying?
TA does not fit the generally conceived idea of a bodybuilder. He does not have a verifiable past to indicate that he is a bodybuilder. All he has done is presented you with a picture of himself. He has won NO sanctioned bbing competitions nor has he been paid (making him a professional) to participate in a sanctioned bbing production. There are no videos or witness statements of him engaging in the act of bodybuilding (whatever that is). He has no credibility to describe himself as a bodybuilder nor proof to back it up. And his physique does not speak for itself. He could have arrived at his level of muscularity and bodyfat by playing tennis, or swimming or rock-climbing. His picture, without reasonable reference, is simply an artistic statement without merit.
This, of course, is the problem with trying to define anything...so thats why we have governing bodies that sanction events. We the people grant the government the ability to allow us to legally create corporation for a specific purpose, like the NFL, that allow for a uniform code to be established as to what makes a professional football player. It adds credibility and legality to the sport, event, competition or pagent.
We, the people, all agree and it becomes binding. While I like to play tag football on the weekends, sadly it DOES NOT make me a football player.
We all agree in bodybuilding as well. Now...how would one gain credibility as a bodybuilder? He/she would have participated in a LEGALLY SANCTIONED event. This is how IRS would characterize it for taxing purposes if you put down "Bodybuilder" as your occupation. You would have to PROVE it...and that is how you would, by citing an affiliation to a legal corporation that engages in bodybuilding. There are specific organizations that we legally allow to produce and "define" what it means to be a bodybuilder for us. That's how life works Wikidude and thats where a "bodybuilding" picture should come from.
Now, who is the most famous BB'er in the world..the general consensus...of course its Arnold. Are his pictures acceptable, of course, are they copyright free? Unknown, you would have to do the research...that is your job, right? Cant find any? But what about Eugene Sandow? He is widely recognized as the father of modern bodybuilding and I know his pictures fall within the "fair-use" category as he lived last century and so did his photographers. Wouldn't his picture, by normal logic, be the more appropriate?
So let's clear the BS and answer the question Wikidude:
1. How is TA's picture a depiction of a bodybuilder?
