Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandsculpting, Frankston, Vic jjron, 21.01.2009.jpg

Sandsculpting[edit]

Reason: Long ago we had an FP of sandcastles that was sadly delisted for various issues. I think this is a worthy successor. Good quality, high interest, good composition for a busy scene. I particularly like how the Sand art and play article is illustrated in this picture by having the sand children playing to create the sand art dinosaurs.
Articles this image appears in: Sand art and play, Sand festival
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Possible copyright violation. According to the Australian Copyright Act of 1968, freedom of panomama only applies to sculptures permanently situated in a public place. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlikely, given sandsculptures aren't permanent for obvious reasons. I don't know a lot about legalities, but for what it's worth they certainly stated no restrictions on photography or use of said photos in any way at the festival (and I did look to see). MER-C may know more if he drifts by. Presumably a photo of a sandcastle on the beach would also be a copyvio in this case, unless I built it myself? Anyway, if you want to see if you can get it deleted, go ahead. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an interesting nuance from the Commons page: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." --jjron (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's a fairly sensible interpretation. It doesn't seem to be about how long the work will 'last', it's just about whether the intention was to move it to a non-public location during the life of the work, and that is clearly not possible for a sand sculpture. That said, how do you confirm intentions after the event, short of asking the artist (and even then, one can be disingenuous about the original intentions if it wasn't explicitly stated at the time of public presentation)? It might be obvious in this case, but it leaves the line drawn rather ambiguously for other works. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, you guys have convinced me. The interpretation given above seems plausible, although I have to say it's anyone's guess as to how the law might actually get interpreted if the sculpture were to object. Changing to neutral for now. Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure that there is any danger of the sculpture objecting. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth I agree with the analysis however I'm not actualy aware of caselaw for this or related stuff like ice sculptures and the situation seems somewhat unclear.©Geni 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending the copyright issue. DEFINITELY featured quality image, the only question is the copyright status (obviously I oppose if it's not a free image). What an odd little gap in copyright law, not a permanent statue but a statue nonetheless. Because it's not permanent is there a chance the original artist cannot claim copyright (and thus this image, freely released by the photographer, is free?) Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe there are any laws saying that a work has to still exist in order to claim copyright over derivatives. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again pending the copyright issue. I love this picture, it's a fantastic medium and the picture really conveys the fun that you get from seeing these along the beach. Hope we can resolve the copyright issue. Silvestra (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this should just be passed regardless, it is a very shaky copyright claim --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Doesn't seem like a copyright breach to me, and has a good composition and illustrates the articles well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it will pass the copyright issues just fine, and it looks great. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this maybe a bit underexposed? Or is the sand just more yellow than I am used to? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sand varies in colour. And it's hard to know for sure, sand is a bit like snow, it can be hard to get right and it comes up differently depending on how the sun hits it, etc. The photos I took there even show considerable variation. For the record, in this case I tried to match the sand colour to the colours on an 'official' promotional brochure for the festival by Frankston City that I picked up at the time, assuming they would have tried to get it right. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per "Good sand sculpture sand is somewhat dirty, having silt and clay that helps lock the irregular shaped sand grains together.". So it is probably just darker sand. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sandsculpting, Frankston, Vic jjron, 21.01.2009.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 01:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]