Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catrinas 2011.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Catrinas 2011.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2011 at 05:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Comment Photography is a medium, a window, a go between... Just about nothing that a photographer photographs is his "own work" in the strict sense of being the creator of the object photographed and the photographer of the object at the same time. While this combination is possible, statistically speaking is a rarity. A photographer captures reality according to his vision, constructs the image from several elements most likely created by someone else, man, nature, God or whatever. He does this by choosing the spatial arrangements of the objects photographed, uses technique to enhance, diminish the importance of objects, to create proportion or relationship, to isolate from the environment or to integrate to other dissimilar elements, etc., etc. In a few words, a photograph is constructed with elements, and it is the result of certain cualitative and cuantitavive values. Cuantitative values are the technical aspects, exposure, depth of field, movement control. Cualitative values are a different animal altogether, for they are culturally given, as aesthetics for example, and certain traits like color, texture, volume etc., have an appeal of different degree to different people, and are part of the cualitative aspects that influence the perception of the image. So, in this particular case, and 99.9999999999999999% of my photography, I am just a medium that chooses how much or how little to show, and my success or failure depends on my decision with regards to technique and my own perception of aesthetis, and my own cultural capital, and or knowledge or ignorance of the subject matter, which incidetally also plays a part to the observer of the image when it comes to deciding whether the image works or not. Taste is also the product of cultural capital. So, in this particular case, the objects photographed are an extraction of a larger context and reality and no, they are not my own work. My own work is a set of desicions that brings the collection of objects to the two dimensional plane called photography.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, too much english (I can't understand). Are you the author of the figures? Aren't you?. If you are the author, I can promove it--Miguel Bugallo 18:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose
Español: (missing text)
Lo siento, es una cuestión de principios. Los mismos principios que hacen que mis fotos estén en el dominio público son los que provocan que rechace sus fotos. No puedo, por principios, por convicciones, aprobar esta imagen, aunque la imagen me gusta. Es una postura personal, posiblemente exclusivamente mía, pero no tengo la obligación de ser igual, lo siento. Lo siento, si la próxima imagen tiene otro motivo, podré votar a favor, no es una cuestión personal, son creencias que están por encima hasta de las votaciones de Commons, aunque basadas en la legislación española, que es la legislación que conozco. Debo votar en contra de lo que parece un copyvio por el mismo motivo por el que mis fotos están en el dominio público. Aún saltándome normas de la comunidad, lo seguiré haciendo. Es una postura personal que entiendo consecuente, no es nada personal, lo haré siempre: Entienda que es algo así como parte de mi identidad, lo siento --Miguel Bugallo 22:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Por cierto, creo que voy a arriesgarme a ser bloqueado y a componer alguna imagen a partir de alguna foto suya. Expondré proximamente en su página de discusión cual es la foto. No podrá pedir usted el borrado de la misma sin solicitar el borrado de la imagen original. No me gusta el cinismo--Miguel Bugallo 22:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31215974@N00/6274120699/in/photostream--Miguel Bugallo 00:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Lmbuga i.e. making a photograph of a building (respecting the freedom of panorama) and nominating as a FPC it does not mean that you have to be the architect of that building. Making a photograph of a monument and proposing it as a FPC it is meaning that the monument is build by you.. If Tomascastelazo or anybody of us makes an image that is not violates copyright issues (ie FOP) can present the photo here.. For me the most important is the image to has some EV.. Ggia (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Ggia, I think that with a translator I will can understand you. I don't understand nothing.--Miguel Bugallo 03:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Paolostefano1412 (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yann (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Unless we get additional info about the copyright of the depicted figures, I think this is a clear {{Derivative}}. However, this issue is a recurring one with Tomascastelazo which I have discussed with him several times, so I won't vote against this nomination nor propose the deletion. Regards. --Dodo (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This argument is transcending the ridiculous and the old, to say the least. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of images in Wikipedia Commons that have to do with artcrafts. Ceramics, clothing, decorative items, bread, wedding cakes, easter eggs, etc., etc., that could under the logic presented here for deletion, be candidates for deletion. Seldom does a photographer is the creator of the subject matter of his photographs. Photography records many aspects of life and culture. What does an encyclopedia study? Life, things, culture! Photography in this case is a tool that enhances the value of information! To photograph these items is to bring culture into the eyes and minds of people that would otherwise not be in contact with such items... I´ve never been to Egypt, but I have an idea of what Egypt is like through photography! If someone has never heard of Catrinas in Mexico, well, guess what, through this image they just found out! Support or oppose the image based on its cultural value, its technical execution or its aesthetic value. If someone wants to nominate for deletion under whatever reasons fancies them, do it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Commons:Derivative works. Colin (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I've decided to strike that reason for I think it is no longer as clear as I first thought. Compare this with the earlier featured File:Catrinas 2.jpg. That picture had a high-quality subject and was an excellent photograph. The subjects in this photograph aren't nearly as well made (indeed, their lack of artistic originality may deny them copyright and so save the image from deletion). The actual photograph is ok, a QI, but not feature level. The flash has over exposed the whitest faces, the white paper in the hats and that the bride is carrying, leading to a loss of detail. I don't mind the busy crowd of the image, though the blue next to the wedding dress is distracting. Overall, there's nothing saying "wow" that makes me think this rises above a QI. Colin (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As interesting as the image is, as the figures were not made by the photographer, I have no choice but to oppose on the grounds that this image is, IMO, a derivative. Should the copyright holder of the figure give permission for this particular photograph to be licensed appropriately, I would change my vote. Nice photo, Tomascastelazo. Earthsound (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I believe that these votes should not be considered valid. Here we vote for the photograph. If the photograph is violating copyright issues it should be proposed for delete.. not voting against here. When you opposing an image you give a review to the photographer to make it better as it is mentioned in the FPC rules:
"A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above."
Ggia (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ggia, you are entitled to your opinion but please do not strike out other people's comments. Colin (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These comments violate the FPC rules. By the way, it is not my image, I didn't vote anything for this image. Ggia (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ggia, stop striking through other people's comments. We take your opinion that you regard those comments as irrelevant or somehow breaking some FPC rule, but you must not change other people's text in any way. Colin (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is bewildering! The precedent that this would establish is that every single item, buildings, artcraft, ceramic, stained glass, sculptures, easter eggs, wedding cakes, textiles, etc., etc., etc., and just about any particular form of cultural expression that finds its way into any type of object would not be elegible for FP!!! 99.999% of photographs depict items or things that were not created by the photographer who took and uploaded the pictures. And one more thing, if anyone believes that this is derivative work, then nominate for deletion! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tomascastelazo, FPC is not the place to demonstrate about how unfair copyright law is. Go read Commons:Derivative works and if you are not happy with what it says, discuss that on the guideline talk page, not here. Colin (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the rules that an image cannot be nominated when it is a derivative work? If you want to apply a rule like that you can propose a new rule. Not using opposing vote to other's images! Making an image of a building (repsecting FOP) and nominating here it is the same issue.. nobody complains that the photographer is not the architect of the building! Ggia (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image violates the artist's copyright and so is not free for us to use. It has now been nominated for deletion. Buildings do not have the same issue. Read Commons:Derivative works. Colin (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this image will be deleted after you speedy deletion requestion.. the image will be deleted and it will not be available here as FPC. In this cases opposing.. this candidate will not help the faster deletion of this image. I removed your votes. Don't use FPC with opposing, supporting deletion requests etc. Ggia (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour and the issue of striking through other people's comments has now been reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Colin (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you like study a little bit the rules and see how FPC works. Ggia (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the rules remind us (should we need reminding) "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images". This image is not free. It cannot become a FP and will be deleted. Colin (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Perhaps it is time for the FPC criteria to explicitly state that the image must meet the content-related policies and guidelines. The featured-*** criteria on Wikipedia do this already. When articles are judged on Wikipedia's FAC, reviewers aren't just interested in the quality of the prose and comprehensiveness, etc., but also in whether the policies and guidelines are fully met. Whether this is stated explicitly in our criteria or is just completely obvious, we look like a bunch of fools if we promote to featured status an image that fails basic copyright checks. Colin (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment @ Colin: you look like a fool also when you state that the image is not free. You are passing judgement on something you evidently have not the most remote idea. Since you categorically state that the image is not free, then provide the evidence. Don´t "suspect" and then move on suspision. It violates the sound principle of innocent until proven guilty. I will not bother to argue in the DR page anymore on these stupid DR requests. Arguing against stupidity is useless.
    • @ Ggia, thanks! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info No user has the right to strike the vote of another user except in the specific cases identified in the rules: socks and users not untitled to vote. I have reverted Ggia edit, as it was a clear abuse. This has nothing to do with the matter under discussion and the argument that the image is a copyvio, which is ridiculous imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment My edit clearly was not an abuse. These votes are not for the image itself.. but for copyright issues. What is this? If we want an image to be deleted we spam with opposing votes if this is nominated for FPC, QC etc? Ggia (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I find the composition spoiled by the back rows of figurines which are only just visible. (Regarding the copyright, I believe the best place to discuss that is in a DR. Suspected copyvio should not be the reason for an oppose vote. The vote will only matter if the DR is closed as a keep, and in that case, an oppose based on copyvio will look pretty silly. Nevertheless I don't think those votes should be struck by other users.) --99of9 (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Check this out: here is the oppose vote of Colin 18:19, 24 October 2011 [1] and the "speedy deletion" request which turned to DR is here 09:16, 26 October 2011 [2] (two days later). Colin proposed the image for deletion after my comment and my struck of the vote @ 08:01, 26 October 2011 [3]. My question is this one: can somebody oppose for copyvio reasons before proposing the image for Deletion? Is it here the appropriate place for opposing to an image because "may-be", "it is suspected" copyvio? Ggia (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm grown up enough to accept when I get things wrong. The copyright issue wasn't as straightforward as I assumed and there's a precedent with these characters Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Catrinas 2.jpg, which was only saved from deletion because the image page notes that they are on permanent display in a public place (where Mexican copyright law gives FOP rights, but the UK for example would not) -- that image was regarded as derivative of a copyrightable work. That previous image's deletion discussion was complicated by it already being a featured picture, which is why it is important to get these things right prior to featuring. IMO, where doubts were raised, the nomination should be suspended until deletion review takes place and I should have created the deletion request immediately. Colin (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment DR takes 7 days (or thereabouts), FPC takes 10, so I don't think we really need a suspension process, and it's not really a huge deal if something gets featured for a few days with a big DR tag on it. It's easier to just keep the two processes separate, by not letting votes in one affect votes in the other. --99of9 (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Catrinas_2011.jpg&oldid=61905470"