It isn't good for illustrating the bird species, as there is much of a bird of another species on it, which is distracting and it may be a problem to know which bird is meant
It isn't good for illustratig the style of the artist as the artistic work is broken by cropping it this ugly way.
Reason:
the bird of the other species in the other candidate picture is distracting, therefore I changed the original, so that only one species is visible. -- Kersti (talk)
Comment I don't understand your vote. If the scope would be "Drawing of John Gerrard Keulemans (1842–1912) concerning Pachyramphus albogriseus" or "historical drawing concerning Pachyramphus albogriseus" I would understand, as ist is no longer the original - But as the scope I have chosen - see headline and don't change the skope! - is "Pachyramphus albogriseus", I would prefer mine, as it illustrates the bird much better. --Kersti (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is twofold: the bird and illustration. If you are right for the bird, you distorted the picture. That said without controversy because I am very appreciative of the work you have done, and I know the time you spent there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The skope is the bird, not the illustration itself or the scientific illustration type John Gerrard Keulemans produced in his time. And I didn't "distort" the picture I made a new picture using elements of the old one.--Kersti (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's a good try, the picture is nice seen in miniature (or thumb), but I'm really disturbed by those areas when the drawing is seen from near, and I prefer the original one. :/ Totodu74 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any information/knowledge more specific? It's possible that a late-19th century work could still be copyrighted, depending on how long the author (architect) lived. cmadler (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this kind of fundamentalistic approach seems ridiculous, if not disruptive, to me. Many ancient buildings in Europe have been rebuilt during the nineteenth century (so often the wrong way, hélas) and, in some cases, architects were certainly involved. Does that mean that the work of those architects is copyrighteable? I very much doubt and imagine the most strict official defender of French copyrights openly laughing at the present case... BTW, what about the little house at right? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Archaeodontosaurus's comments, I understood (or misunderstood) that the upper level was a new construction in the 19th century (e.g., adding a second floor), not that it was a repair/reconstruction job. If it was some sort of repair or reconstruction, it's possible that the visible new original content was so minimal as to be irrelevant from a photo copyright position. cmadler (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The threshold for originality in copyright is high in France. I agree with Alvesgaspar's comment above. See my recent post on the VP/C. Yann (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- A tough decision, I guess! I have chosen this version because this is supposed to be the main facade of the building (see the crosses on top). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alvesgaspar's comment about the sides of the building. I consider these images equally good, and I think an image of the main facade is preferable. Also, I inquired at COM:VPC about whether the reconstruction might be copyrightable (relevant, since Russia has no FOP). It does appear based on descriptions from available sources that, at least at the level of the whole building, it is not a new copyrightable work, although some of the new detail work might be. cmadler (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe building looks rather tiny to me on this image (like on many others). The architecture fails to reflect the enormous size, so the image must feature a scale. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
