Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girl reading about moon landing

Washington Post the day after moon landing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 00:20:10 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality. It was featured on Commons and Turkish wikipedia. It shows someone reactions after the moon landing and how big a deal it was.
Articles in which this image appears: Apollo 11, The Washington Post, Apollo 11 in popular culture
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator: Jack Weir (1928-2005)

Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment, simply because I can't see why I should be supporting it, I can't see that it shows what you have said at all. To me it doesn't show 'how big a deal it was'. The girls face is expressionless, to me it's just a girl reading a paper. JFitch (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per JFitch. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think since its a little girl she probably didnt know the importance of it back then. But how the newspaper front page talks about the moon landing shows one of the newspapers across the world that reported on it. Also for someone to photograph their daughter holding a newspaper about the event shows people want to remember about what happen that day. Spongie555 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it doesn't show their reaction. The only reaction is as J Fitch is a rather blank expression. Also IMO there's no way of knowing this was taken at the time... This could easily be a staged photo with a replica newspaper... So for those reasons ~~I'm Out~~ I mean I Oppose... gazhiley.co.uk 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if we're using this to illustrate Apollo 11, The Washington Post, or Apollo 11 in popular culture we lose our de minimis exemption on the newspaper copyright. If we used it to illustrate reading or 1969 we would be fine as the content focus would not be primarily on the newspaper itself. If I remember correctly, the Washington Post was very anal about registering and renewing their copyrights (back when that was required). Kaldari (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Kaldari. Copyright status is very questionable. We have plenty of other things that could illustrate any of those subjects that are free of copyright. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the uploader of the picture it is a picture of the uploaders grandma taken by their grandfather. It is in public domian but i dont know about the copyright on newspaper. If it was promoted on Commons and Turkish wikipedia i think they didnt know if it has copyright on newspaper Spongie555 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this photo very interesting. It shows that the Moon landing was a big deal for everybody young and old alike. --I'ḏ ♥One 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible. WaPo issues have had their copyright renewed since January 1951 per [1]. There's no way we can include that whole front page of the newspaper. It looks like nobody on the Commons nomination even brought up that point. I think I am going to have to start a deletion request on it. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may close it if its ineligible Spongie555 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be wrong. The Commons DR is leaning towards keep. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Jfitch. I like the idea, but this particular image really doesn't illustrate the significance of the moon landing. The copyright issues, on the other hand, strike me as ridiculous -- it is not plausible that even at full resolution this image would be considered a copyright violation of the Washington Post's front page. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]