Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Millennium Park[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I received commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive2 on images that I will need help understanding how to address so that I can renominate this article at FAC. Because of the extensive image issues, I am posting this review at both WP:PR and WP:PPR where image experts can also provide feedback on what I need to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment  Resolved File:Crown_Fountain_Spouting.jpg is a copyright violation and TonyTheTiger knows very well it is, per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Crown Fountain. — raekyT 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move this file to WP and claim fair use? Alternatively, should I swap it out for File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG which would mean that there is one less image being used under a fair use rationale although there would be redundancy? Finally, is it possible to file a valid fair use claim for this subject within this article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:Crown_Fountain_Spouting.jpg is better than File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG, so I would support replacing it with it. I also think there is possibly enough justification for it's use on Millennium Park since that is the park the structure is in. Yes you should upload it to WP, and request File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG be deleted, make the necessary fair-use claims on the image page and place it in Crown Fountain and Millennium Park, is my opinion. As suggested below, if I'm wrong on it being able to be used on Millennium Park, then one of the images that doesn't show the face picture on it would be acceptable as well. — raekyT 10:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the image in both articles with File:Crown Fountain spouting.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG will automatically get deleted as a FU not in use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should of known that that image had no justification for Fountain, which is vastly already over illustrated with images. I removed it from there. — raekyT 22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the image was next to text discussing it, but I do not object. I assume you consider this issue resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I even see resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
  •  Resolved File:Millennium Park within Grant Park map.GIF - Tracing is not sufficient originality to generate a new copyright. GFDL/CC-BY-SA license is not appropriate.
    • Personally, I don't think this image is needed, especially if it is going to cause problems. The other map is much better anyways.
    • GFDL portion of license has been removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We mean you need to delete the image because it's a copyright violation, what was the copyright of the thing you traced? Theres freely available maps that you could use and base it off of, I would suggest the Map part of graphics lab, but thats chronically dead. Maybe shoot a question off to Matthewedwards on his user page see if he can make you a free map to replace this with. — raekyT 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You try using http://www.openstreetmap.org/ ? — raekyT 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone swapped in an old OSM map I made a year ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Marking this resolved then, and no offense, but it did have a sorta-ms-paint-esque quality to it. — raekyT 23:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg - Not low resolution, no specific rationale, GFDL/CC license is inappropriate (misleading) - an image cannot be freely licensed if it's a derivative of an unfree work.
    • There's not much we can do for this one. An image of Cloud Gate isn't possible in this article, sadly.
    • As I applied the original rationale to this image back in 2006 I'd like to know how to deal situations like this one correctly. In my edits I tried to make it clear that the sculpture is copyrighted and its representation in this image is non-free; however, the photographer does still have some rights over the image and he/she has indicated that they are prepared to license those rights using GFDL/CC. This is important if anyone did want to try to clear the image for re-use as they would have to consider the rights of both the sculptor and the photographer.—Jeremy (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question, when a photographer takes a photo of a copyrighted 3d work, they're essentially breaking copyright law, they do not have legal rights to use that image the same as any of their other images. Therefore a non-free copyright tag must be used here to indicate the photo and/or contents of the photo are copyrighted and can't be freely used. On wikipedia we require, generally, a non-free work to have been previously published, but a freely licensed image of a copyrighted 3d work is differently and we treat the whole work as copyrighted and non-free here. Non-free licensed trump it in that case. — raekyT 23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed it from Anish Kapoor, per non-free media policies it shouldn't be used there since a link to the work's page is sufficient with a text description of the work. It's use in Millennium Park is questionable, but stronger then Anish Kapoor. I'd be more tempted to tempt the copyright hounds with it in Millennium Park than Anish Kapoor where it's clearly against rules. Same questionable copyright is for Crown Fountain image too, it MAY not be possible to use both of these images, I would probably solicit someone FAR more knowledgeable (and ideally fair) on fair-use images to verify that. — raekyT 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pavilion projects.JPG - No author/copyright holder attributed (NFCC#10A); no specific rationale (NFCC#10C); what is the significant contribution? (NFCC#8). Эlcobbola talk 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see an author now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added FUR for Millennium Park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to vote this image be removed from the page, it's not a notable, or well known artwork for the park, like Cloud Gate and Crown Fountain which are two things you immediately think of when you think of the park, this sculpture is not and to justify that it adds significantly to the understanding of the article is unlikely. — raekyT 23:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I kind of agree with you. However, I can not get the WP:FT guys to let me take this out of the topic. My argument that the topic is about permanent features (expanded to include the annual series, Grant Park Music Festival). However, the topic people consider it on almost equal footing with the other features in terms of being a topic article. Thus, I included it in the same manner in this summary main article for the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll just remove it as a 3rd party as a pure copyright violation of the NFCC#8 policy, let them argue against that. ;-) — raekyT 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done, provided no one wants to edit war against that, we could mark this resolved too. — raekyT 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no problem with it. I would like to reduce the prominence of this article within the topic, but have to try to make the article a summary of the FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Does that make all image issues resolved?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • As long as noone tries to add this image back, then yes. — raekyT 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll attempt to fix some of these image problems tomorrow. --TorsodogTalk 06:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I am closing this PR per TonyTheTiger's request on my talk page - glad to see all the issues are resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment certain image issues remain unresolved (note request to comment despite closure):
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Millennium_Park/archive1&oldid=1142589901"