Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mark Rutte

Mark Rutte[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 12:07:16 (UTC)

Reason: A compelling and very high quality photograph used prominently in three important articles. We have a number of good shots of the subject, but this is the one used on the English Wikipedia. Hopefully this will be a welcome alternative to the usual stuffy studio shots of politicians.
Articles in which this image appears: Mark Rutte, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, Dutch general election, 2010
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Nick van Ormondt

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of license and OTRS.

Comment Is OTRS necessary in this case? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not read Dutch, but I gather that the source page states that they may be freely used. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google translation: "These photographs can be used royalty-free entry: Photographer Nick Ormondt" Something may be getting lost in the google translation, but that doesn't seem to say the exact same thing as the license indicated on the file description page. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would tend to agree, for professional shots like this we usually lean towards requesting OTRS, we don't know if their statement means public domain, or a more restrictive non-commercial intent. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've tagged it as requiring OTRS, the FPC nom should probably be suspended until that is resolved. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I really consider that hasty- the first step would be to contact a Dutch speaker... If that translation is accurate, "royalty free use" with attribution would, so far as I can judge, be the same as the license with which the image is currently tagged. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Then those e-mails would be valid to send to the otrs e-mail to get it established... still going to need a otrs ticket... unless the guy actually explicitly lists the licence the images are under on his website. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have requested human translation of the permissions statement. (first active-looking user from Wikipedia:Translators_available#Dutch-to-English). Jujutacular ^T · C 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Human translation: "Deze foto's kunnen rechtenvrij gebruikt worden bij vermelding: Fotograaf Nick van Ormondt" - "These photos can be used free of rights with notice: Fotograaf Nick van Ormondt". --effeietsanders 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not explicit enough, we still need OTRS. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you believe that's not explicit enough? Sounds like enough to me... J Milburn (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Doesn't sound strong enough to qualify as a full release to public domain... Public domain doesn't require attribution, and the wording isn't sufficient to list under a CC license, clarification is necessary. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OTRS is needed if you want to confirm identity. In this case, it is totally clear that the statement is made by the VVD (it is on their website), so OTRS just for the sake of it doesn't make sense. It is indeed not a PD-statement, but under Dutch copyright law it is nearly impossible to release a photo without giving attribution to the author, so this is about the free-est you can get under these circumstances. It is very much alike CC-BY, but not the exact license indeed. However, the acceptance requirements are not limited to PD and CC-licenses, but it is about the concept of free content - this image clearly fits that requirement, you can do whatever you want with it, as long as you attribute. That is more free than most of Wikipedia. --effeietsanders 13:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Completely agree- Raeky, no one is claiming that this is PD, and there are other acceptable licenses than just CC. Note what is actually said on the image page. People can use this freely provided we attribute the author- that's free enough for us. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seems everyone is in agreement that the release on the website is sufficient to justify a release for commercial use, which was my concern that it didn't explicitly state commercial use was allowed, so I'll withdraw my concern. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support High quality portrait. I'm satisfied with the license issue. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A technically good portrait that is a little different then traditional bland composition. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support pending license clarification. Good quality and more interesting than the standard staged pollie photo. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not seeing what needs clarifying. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Refer to above discussion. The metadata of the image also contains a copyright notice which I don't believe was discussed above, but until we get some Dutchy that can translate it, it's not entirely clear what it says (none of the online translators could do a decent job of it). You deal with this stuff more than me, so I'll take your word for it, but it seems the standards for this stuff bend and sway. --jjron (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Dutch speaker has already translated it. Anyone is free to use it without need for royalties. I can't see how this could be construed as non-free. I'd be inclined to say that anyone arguing against this is just being incredibly paranoid. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Better get me to a medical centre, cos I must be blind as well as paranoid. I can't see where "copie recht bevindt zich te allen tijde bij nick van ormondt tenzij anders afgesroken" has been translated. Anyway, I'm just bemused at why some images such as the Josh Sundquist one undergo witch-hunts, and others don't. --jjron (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "Human translation: "Deze foto's kunnen rechtenvrij gebruikt worden bij vermelding: Fotograaf Nick van Ormondt" - "These photos can be used free of rights with notice: Fotograaf Nick van Ormondt". --effeietsanders 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)"- from the collapsed box above. Where have you taken your other quote from? The quote translated there is displayed prominently on the page in question. And yes, there's a massive difference between someone uploading a picture found on another website and saying "it's mine, feel free to use it" and us finding pictures on a website where there is already an explicit release... J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The image metadata, as I clearly said in my first reply (under Copyright holder). Where has that been translated? I know the other translation was there so didn't need it again. FWIW 'finding' photos on a website that say they're free always strikes me as highly questionable, as who's to say that website hasn't lifted them from elsewhere. It happens regularly with our images that they're improperly reused. That's one of the reasons I mainly only support Wikipedian generated content. It's like WM just close their eyes and go lalala - they believe any random website claiming to own the copyright, but don't believe it when someone quite convincingly posts here claiming to be the subject and copyright holder and gives us free release. Weird... --jjron (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the website of the main Dutch political party, posting posed shots of said party's leader. Who else are they going to belong to? What it says in the meta-data is close to irrelevant, but, anyways, I have again requested a translation. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little surprised by showed extremism (I think the sentence "That's one of the reasons I mainly only support Wikipedian generated content" tells enough) but lets try to recap everything once more. I am not sure where you found the sentence, especially since there are spelling mistakes in it. I have not been able to locate that particular text - although I do not suspect that you just made it up. But ignoring those mistakes, "copie recht bevindt zich te allen tijde bij nick van ormondt tenzij anders afgesroken" just means what is the legal situation: "Copyright lies at all times with Nick van Ormondt unless agreed otherwise". Well, that is just a general provision, and doesn't exclude the plausible explanation that either VVD acquired the copyright (and agreed otherwise) either agreed on a license with the terms as published on their website. The VVD is a major political party, and very well aware of copyright situations. When we trust the judgment of amateur Wikipedians, I must say I would find it striking and shocking that we do not trust the judgment of such a legally supported organization. If there is a risk at all, that lies with the VVD, who has made arrangements with the photographer. I hope this discussion is now finally finished, because imho this is all very sound and clear. So to recap: The photo is found on a website of an organization which most likely owns the rights, the websites states a very clear release statement under an acceptable condition. There is no reason to believe that they would not be allowed to make such a statement. --effeietsanders 11:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's in the meta data, and the reason we have such "extremism" is because we don't want to get Wikimedia sued if we put this on the front page, likewise we don't want some T-Shirt manufacture who puts this guys face on a t-shirt to get sued if he uses this picture. All of that has to be 100% legally allowed for us to accept it. Thats why we're being careful. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it is just about being afraid of getting sued, the statement by VVD was sufficient - especially considering how the image is publicized. When someone prints it on a T-shirt, I think personality rights are more of an issue. I have seen much cafefulness, and am careful myself as well, but this is just going over the top - I do not say that in general we should not be careful. --effeietsanders 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Heh. Just to note. In this nomination I've been labelled as both paranoid and an extremist. A paranoid extremist I suppose... --jjron (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You were labelled neither. Your position was labelled extremist (not you) and I was talking about copyright paranoia, something very specific. For what it's worth, I'm someone who deals with an awful lot of copyright issues, and someone who normally falls on the conservative side of things. No offence was meant by what I said, and I strongly assume no offence was meant by effeietsanders. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great portrait. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 08:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 (6?) S -> Promoted File:Mark Rutte-6.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]