Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg

File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2012 at 16:55:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by Benh - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support High quality of an unusual view of an usual monument.--Jebulon (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support makes you want to see even more of the tower with this treatment; the detail is nice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for nom. I'm biased, but I like the details. Otherwise a very common shot, I agree ;) - Benh (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I'd like to see the exif data, but good anyway. Isn't it the third floor? It says fourth. --Kadellar (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to be vandalism. Thank you for noticing, because I did not... now will place the page on my watch list. - Benh (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support When will you do the whole tower at this quality ? --Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Question -- Are you sure this lighting is not copyrighted? Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

detail shots are not copyrighted, the whole Eiffel Tower would be --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• How aren't they? A detail of the cover to an album would still be copyrighted Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• The FOP issue is recurrent over here. To make it short: they dismantled the old -non copyrighted- lighting and made a new one (I need to see what it actually brought) and claimed copyright over it. I wonder how this would stand in court against a good lawyer. There's also a "citation right" which allows one to show part of a copyrighted material under fair use. Mostly vague concepts which infinite understanding IMO (of course I'm all but a lawyer...). I knew this when I upload this pic, and I added a warning notice, which has been removed since, so I thought it was settled. - Benh (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• To make it short, there is a copyright claim about patents and mark on the lightning i.e. BULLSHIT they intimidate people with industrial property and claims intellectual property about it. Only case in court was about a special lightning show with dynamic lightning. Of course to be sure it would need to be tested in court and backed up with jurisprudence but we don't have that so we don't need to invent something until a court say so. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Yann (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture