Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DirkvdM baracoa cabin.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:DirkvdM baracoa cabin.jpg - not featured[edit]
Info created, uploaded and nominated by DirkvdM
Support DirkvdM 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose nothing special, rather low res. Lycaon 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)- Support This picture tells me about the living conditions of a particular place and time. Arquitecture, building material, surrondings, vegetation, etc. --Tomascastelazo 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support - ditto to Tomascastelazo - MPF 00:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose — Agree with Lycaon, unless it is a very special & unique picture, low-res is not a problem for FP. Indon 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Olegivvit 10:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, pretty but unexciting subject and photo. TheBernFiles 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I would support except for low res since higher res is available. -- KenWalker 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't like the composition at all, cabin is obstructed, weird shadow in the lower right corner. A step back and left would probably have been a better vantage point. Oh yeah, and what's the deal with uploading crippleware?--Dschwen 07:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Crippleware? Hadn't heard of that term. This is not it, though, because I want my photos to be for free - for non-commercial use, that is. Since that is not allowed here, I was suggested this alternative. I don't like it, but don't have much of a choice. The basic idea is that if someone is to make money with a photograph, the photographer should be the first to benefit from it. I love the notion of freeware, but then it should be completely free. Pretty much what you say, but for me that also includes 'free of commercial gain'. Still, commecial websites are already using my photographs, so they don't consider them crippled, it seems. DirkvdM 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say you are wrong in several assumptions. IMO
- 1. People go to Commons for free files. If they were inclined to buy something, they'd looked elsewhere in first place. They'll either use the file for free even in low res, or find something else.
- 2. CC-BY-SA and especially FDL are unsuitable for majority of serious commercial/advertising usage. Serious photo buyer would usually need different licence. Photo users who don't care about licences usualy also don't need quality, and if they need higher image size, they would simply upscale your photo, even with the degradation!
- I sell some of my photos here with stock agencies (see eg. Image:Tea leaves steeping in a zhong čaj 05.jpg), the photos here under free license and there under royalty-free license are the same resolution, and IMO presence on Commons don't affect the sales at all. --Wikimol 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Crippleware? Hadn't heard of that term. This is not it, though, because I want my photos to be for free - for non-commercial use, that is. Since that is not allowed here, I was suggested this alternative. I don't like it, but don't have much of a choice. The basic idea is that if someone is to make money with a photograph, the photographer should be the first to benefit from it. I love the notion of freeware, but then it should be completely free. Pretty much what you say, but for me that also includes 'free of commercial gain'. Still, commecial websites are already using my photographs, so they don't consider them crippled, it seems. DirkvdM 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - uploading downscaled versions is not the practice which should be promoted by FP. --Wikimol 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- apart from the discussion above: I think it is not that great a picture! sorry! -- Boereck 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose great picture, but where is the subject? --Queryzo 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above, plus rather dull composition -LadyofHats 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
