Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Da Tung and Xi'an Bao Bao, replica of Shang Dynasty wine pitcher, China, c. 1200-1100 BC - Portland, Oregon - DSC01124.jpg
Da Tung and Xi'an Bao Bao[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 15:08:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- High Resolution in good Relevance.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Da Tung and Xi'an Bao Bao
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
- Creator
- Unknown (Uploaded by Daderot)
- Support as nominator – Telex80 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like asking this, but are we okay as to copyright with this? I thought that at least most of the US lacked Freedom of Panorama, but the case feels a little more ambiguous than most - based off of an out of copyright original, anonymous, owned by the city... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 17:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- The anon claim is air. The city gov certainly knows who the creator is. Geoffroi 00:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- In the U.S., any photograph taken on public property or of (a subject on) public property is fair game, unless it's been published in a copyrighted medium. European laws may be more restrictive, as Google's 'Street View' found out in Germany – where Datenschutz (information privacy) law is strict with regard to people's faces. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Sca: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama is what I'm worried about. If it's not unique compared to the original wine pitcher, then we're fine, but... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 02:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the panorama rule, which seems minor and obscure. But I see the target article is stub-ish and sketchy, which leads one to question EV. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Freedom of Panorama is not a minor issue for photos of artworks nor even (e.g. in France) for photos of modern buildings. I agree that this image seems to be problematic with respect to that issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the panorama rule, which seems minor and obscure. But I see the target article is stub-ish and sketchy, which leads one to question EV. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Sca: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama is what I'm worried about. If it's not unique compared to the original wine pitcher, then we're fine, but... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 02:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- In the U.S., any photograph taken on public property or of (a subject on) public property is fair game, unless it's been published in a copyrighted medium. European laws may be more restrictive, as Google's 'Street View' found out in Germany – where Datenschutz (information privacy) law is strict with regard to people's faces. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- The background is too busy. Shallower depth of field would have helped. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Before this closes, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/ could use more participation. If the FP nomination looked likely to pass, I'd think we should put it on hold while we wait for the outcome of the deletion discussion, but I don't think that's going to be relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Not promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
