Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/FOUREFFIGIES

FOUREFFIGIES[edit]

Currently only in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but that will change. Created by User:Mcauburn. This image shows a longevity span and the changing of UK coinage and money around the throne.

Nominate and support. - Joe I 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 153x162 pixels?! ~MDD 46 96 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use == ineligible. Leonardo 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it fair use(sorry, a noob when it comes to images). If it's cause it's currency wouldn't this fall into the same catagory? Joe I 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is only fair use if British currency designs are not in the public domain (which they may be; I don't know). US currency designs are in the public domain, as are all other works of the US government. Fair use is basically the usage of a copyrighted image to demonstrate what is in the image. (Read more at WP:FAIR; I'm no great shakes at descriptions.) —Cuivi é nen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 04:07 UTC
Oppose on size, good concept though. The image probably shouldnt be fair use. It was taken from a gov't site. It doesnt matter what the subject is, but who took it. If I took a picture of money and put it under copyright, then it would be a copyrighted photo. -Ravedave 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even if it was from a government website, UK government material isn't in the public domain like it is in the US. See Crown copyright. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've heard all. What if the images were taken from 4 different coin images, where Crown copyright applies, edited & combined by a user with an external app, and reuploaded. The finished product could then be claimed by whatever copyright the user wishes? Joe I 12:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. This would be copyright infringement. At best, you could use it with the "fair use" tag but it would still be ineligible as a FP. --dm ^(talk) 01:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to size, license, etc. But great concept. bcasterline t 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ineligible license and way too small. --dm ^(talk) 01:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thnx ya'll. I've removed it from the list. Joe I 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]