Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg

Image:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg, featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh
•  Info I finally got this picture undeleted (see here). As I said before, there is a case law which basically states that a picture of a copyrighted material and its bigger surrounding environnement doesn't violate copyrights. This issue was debated as well on french wikipedia and conclusion was the same. I let the previous votes for information, below. Benh 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Benh 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Discussion of some related legal issues is taking place at Commons talk:Licensing#Template:FoP-France. --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I didn't notice the ghost legs at first. --JaGa 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --che 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour 06:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support great colour, composition and mood --Simonizer 09:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support good --Richard Bartz 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Oppose People ghosting way too disturbing (dangling feet), and it's also tilted clockwise. Dori | Talk 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any tilt. Can you point the "litigious area", I just want to correct if there's an error, no argument here :). Maybe you are talking about the not horizontal line of the building in the back ? Because this is caused by the projection used (equirectangular here). Benh 18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's a very slight tilt or appearance of tilt from that building in the background (with GIMP I measured it at 0.26 degrees :), it's the ghosts that bother me the most though as they're numerous and throughout the picture. Dori | Talk 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Since the legal issues are all worked out. --Digon3 ^talk 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Beyond silence 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Les fantômes me gênent un peu aussi. Est-ce qu'il y a un moyen facile de les éliminer? (back to English, uf) Also, the building is not razor sharp as it should: the worst part is at far right. Sorry to go against the concensus (and also against Benh who is doing an excellent job, hope he will be soon ready to join MOP) but I'm used to the perfect pano buildings of Dilif. Indeed there is a tilt but it is minor Alvesgaspar 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Une comparaison pas très juste ;) Actually, I felt into serious photography after having seen a Sydney harbour pano of Diliff. About my picture,I feel it's still sharp on right, so I'm a bit surprised ?? Maybe I'll try to get another shot of this with my new lens and at a more appropriate time. Hopefully, this will fix the issues mentionned above. Thanks for your encouraging comment by the way ! Benh 18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 Info I also think this is very good, and would definitely support were it not for the possible copyright issues. I hope we can sort those out to prove that images like this are definitely OK. --MichaelMaggs 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support I'm not a specialist in international or national copyright laws, but I can hardly believe that there could be a problem here. Despite the slightly disturbing 'ghosts', I think this image is FP worthy. -- MJJR 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 20:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very good job. --LucaG 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Fabulous! -- Slaunger 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great panoramic picture - Ceridwen 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Great! But, what about freedom of panorama in France? --Mihael Simonic 08:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg (for information only)

Click on the blue triangle on the right to show disscussion

•  Info created by User:Benh - uploaded by User:Benh - nominated by --Luc Viatour 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice indeed but what about FOP and copyrights? Lycaon 07:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bien dommage vraiment belle photo pourtant! --Luc Viatour 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Support From the past experience, I think the Louvre Pyramid by nightime is copyrighted, but not if it is an integrating part of a bigger picture, which represents another subject -- the Louvre museum in this case. --Atoma 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, as for the Eiffel tower night lights, the image rights to the pyramid are owned by the architect, and afaik, one needs to pay a fee to be able to use commercially any photo where it is the subject (I believe personal use is tolerated). Since wikimedia wants to allow commercial use and the pyramid is arguably a central subject of the photo, I'm not sure how legal this is. But then, you also need to add the fact that wikimedia is legally a US project and this is French law... Big mess. --Nattfodd 08:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional  Support If the copyright issues are unequivocally resolved. Lycaon 07:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional  Support Ack Lycaon --Nattfodd 08:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Here, there should not be violation of copyright. The court of Cassation settled a similar case (sorry it's in french) where artists sued post-card makers for selling pictures which represented their artwork. But their artwork were located in a public place and considered as being part of the surrounding environnement. Since the post cards gave most of the frame to the environnement surrounding the artwork, it was stated that there were not copvio. I think this is similar to the subject photographed here, as Atoma said. This time, this picture should not be deleted ;) - Benh 09:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • That doesn't apply here, as the copyright work (the pyramid) is fundamental to the image.--MichaelMaggs 21:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • here is a citation from the link I give.

Mais attendu qu’ayant relevé que, telle que figurant dans les vues en cause, l'oeuvre de MM. X... et Z... se fondait dans l'ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d'appel en a exactement déduit qu'une telle présentation de l'oeuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité, résidant dans la représentation de la place, de sorte qu'elle ne réalisait pas la communication de cette oeuvre au public ; d'où il suit que le moyen n'est fondé en aucune de ses branches

This says that the copyrighted elements blend into the surrounding environment and is only a part of it, and that the picture in question doesn't give a representation of the elements (I guess in the sense "focus") to the public (hope I translate well enough). Since my picture has the whole surrounding in it, I believe it can be used on commons. Benh 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I hope it doesn't get deleted. If this issue is resolved my conditional evidently drops. Lycaon 10:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support A bit more dof would be nice but very good photo indeed. Freedom to share 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional  Support Ack Lycaon. --Digon3 ^talk 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Seeder 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, another recent French building that will have to go. France has no Freedom of Panorama, so this is unfortunately a copyvio. The pyramid is a main subject, and is not simply incidental --MichaelMaggs 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here I have to disagree. It is the main subject, yes and no. It's in the middle, yes, but one could argue that if you want to take the whole courtyard of the museum of Louvre, it will be hard not to have the pyramid on the picture... We didn't choose it to be right in the middle. Also, it doesn't take the most space of the frame. We have to be careful with the law, and when we can, we must use it for us too. The link I provided above takes you to the text of a "case law" which is similar. If you can, you may have a look at it (it's in french, and a french hard to understand though.) Benh 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)