Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grande Arche: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
move hat down: that bit was still relevant regarding the merits of this FPC |
You can't leave your bit making a claim but remove my bit questioning your claim. See my message on Crisco's talk page- it's really not appropriate for us to be edit warring over this. |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_120 US FOP] applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. --<small>[[User:Elekhh|ELEKHH]]<sup>[[User talk:Elekhh|T]]</sup></small> 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
::This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_120 US FOP] applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. --<small>[[User:Elekhh|ELEKHH]]<sup>[[User talk:Elekhh|T]]</sup></small> 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::Does that extend to a building in Paris though? If copyright status is OK (and I hope that it is), I'm afraid that I'm going to '''oppose''' as the EV isn't strong here - from having visited this building, it's key features are that it's really, really big, and that its the centrepiece of the entire La Défense precinct. This image doesn't illustrate either point well as the fountains dominate the composition. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::Does that extend to a building in Paris though? If copyright status is OK (and I hope that it is), I'm afraid that I'm going to '''oppose''' as the EV isn't strong here - from having visited this building, it's key features are that it's really, really big, and that its the centrepiece of the entire La Défense precinct. This image doesn't illustrate either point well as the fountains dominate the composition. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
:::: It can be hosted on en.wiki, but you should not use it if you're in France. Note that the deletion request has been now withdrawn. Otherwise agree with your critique about limited EV. --<small>[[User:Elekhh|ELEKHH]]<sup>[[User talk:Elekhh|T]]</sup></small> 01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::: It can be hosted on en.wiki, but you should not use it if you're in France. Note that the deletion request has been now withdrawn. Otherwise agree with your critique about limited EV. --<small>[[User:Elekhh|ELEKHH]]<sup>[[User talk:Elekhh|T]]</sup></small> 01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::Thank you for that clarification. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::::Thank you for that clarification. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
::::::Elekhh: Why do you believe that this can be hosted on enwp? Do you have a link to a discussion which concluded that we ignore FOP laws? [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 09:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
::::::Elekhh: Why do you believe that this can be hosted on enwp? Do you have a link to a discussion which concluded that we ignore FOP laws? [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 09:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::::On the contrary, we observe FOP laws. But unlike Commons, which requires a free license both for the US and the country of origin of the photography, en.wiki does not have such a policy, and per [[Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights]] "Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law" and "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." It is current practice to host images on en.wiki if they are compliant with our policy but not with the more stringent policy of Commons. There is also a specific tag on the file warning users that "This file will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2059 and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons until that date, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States". --<small>[[User:Elekhh|ELEKHH]]<sup>[[User talk:Elekhh|T]]</sup></small> 09:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::::::On the contrary, we observe FOP laws. But unlike Commons, which requires a free license both for the US and the country of origin of the photography, en.wiki does not have such a policy, and per [[Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights]] "Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law" and "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." It is current practice to host images on en.wiki if they are compliant with our policy but not with the more stringent policy of Commons. There is also a specific tag on the file warning users that "This file will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2059 and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons until that date, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States". --<small>[[User:Elekhh|ELEKHH]]<sup>[[User talk:Elekhh|T]]</sup></small> 09:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:20, 27 August 2013
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013 at 18:38:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and high quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Grande Arche, Johan Otto von Spreckelsen, La Défense
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- User:Atoma
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Copyright violation. No Freedom of Panorama in France, US doesn't recognise FOP for statues or monuments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so US FOP applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. --ELEKHHT 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Does that extend to a building in Paris though? If copyright status is OK (and I hope that it is), I'm afraid that I'm going to oppose as the EV isn't strong here - from having visited this building, it's key features are that it's really, really big, and that its the centrepiece of the entire La Défense precinct. This image doesn't illustrate either point well as the fountains dominate the composition. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so US FOP applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. --ELEKHHT 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaks to a wider issue. Please bring it to the village pump. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|