Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PicassoPainting

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2010 at 05:39:05 (UTC)

Original - Oil on canvas, 1907

Reason: The size, quality, usage on articles, including lead image on many pages, and renown of the painter I think speak for themselves. No glare, no noise, no dark or blurry areas, just paint on canvass.
Articles in which this image appears: History of painting · Pablo Picasso · Museum of Modern Art · El Greco · Modern art · Les Demoiselles d'Avignon · Picasso's African Period · Opening of the Fifth Seal · Art of El Greco · Posthumous fame of El Greco · 20th century art · Western painting · 20th century Western painting
FP category for this image: Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Painted by Pablo Picasso, upload by Olpl

Support as nominator --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really my favorite style of art, but this copy is really good. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was a little concerned about copyright, but there is a very well-researched proof that it is out of copyright in America. Barring any new evidence to the contrary, I support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have raised another potential copyright issue on the image's talk page. This is interesting- the last thing we need is to promote a picture that later turns out to be non-free... J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap! ...Though I do agree. If worst comes to worst maybe we could suspend the nomination until we find out for sure (it seems they're citing laws across continents, that's gotta be a good sign</sarcasm>), but {{PD-art-US}}, which is used on this file, seems to clearly show where Wikipedia's legal and ethical sympathies lie as far as artwork copyright and sharing law, if only it ended there. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No no, I agree- if it's been published prior to 1923, it's PD, as far as Wikipedia (not necessarily Commons) is concerned. However, the issues are, firstly, whether it has been published, and secondly, exactly what was published. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the talk page they're not sure of whose definition of "published" they should go on either. Maybe we should just suspend this until, oh.. April 8, 2043 when there can be no argument of PD? xD --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until copyright concerns are settled conclusively. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Copyright needs to be settled beyond any doubt. Also does it need cropped to remove the shadows of the painting on the wall? It seems to be not a crop of the painting but you can see the shadow of the canvas... little unsure about that. — raeky T 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree it needs a crop just to remove the shadow of the canvas. -- Jack?! 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer to avoid such crops: This shows the full painting. Crops have a strong tendency to cut out parts of the painting. A better solution would be to mask the painting, surrounding it with white. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended While we try to get to the bottom of this copyright issue ONCE AND FOR ALL. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally satisfied concerning the copyright issue. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't understand why we're not unsuspending this. Is something else missing? Just in case that this is what it is: If it looks like we can't figure out whether this is copyvio or not, we should probably terminate this nomination (to be on the side of caution), without prejudice as to whether the file should also be deleted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of our knowledge, this painting is in the public domain, as it fulfills the condition of being published before 1923. I have emailed Mike Godwin for his advice. Ty 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I think I'm just going to just withdraw my push for this, but you guys do as please. I just thought I found a nice, feature-able picture, wasn't expecting a whole possible legal struggle and I can understand the estate's wish to milk a copyright out of this for as long as they can and get as much money from this world-famous image as they can, I'd probably want to do the same if I were in their position, not that I'm endorsing greed or its consequences. ;-) --I'ḏ ♥One 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought emailing Mike Godwin would be the best option. As far as I'm concerned, if he says it's public domain, it is, and it's not our problem any more, meaning we can reopen/restart the nom. If he says it isn't, then, as far as we're concerned, it isn't, and the image should be nominated for deletion. Simple. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Mike Godwin is the best option, if it is PD it's going to need a crop to get rid of the shadow on the wall. — raeky T 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I heard back from Mike Godwin on 26 July wanting some some clarification about the issue, which I sent him. I emailed him on 3 August to see if there was any progress, but haven't heard since. Ty 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be following the updates I guess. --I'ḏ ♥One 05:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-nominate once the copyright issues are settled. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]