Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High Performance RAM

High Performance RAM

Reason: A high quality image of DDR2 computer memory with a second module added for aesthetic purposes. It has very high encyclopedic value for people with and without knowledge of computer hardware.
Articles this image appears in: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/DDR2
Creator: victorrocha

Support as nominator Victorrocha (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Just want to check something before I full support: are we going to have any problems with having the company logo on that RAM? I wouldn't think so, but, you know, copyright is mad, so... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There shouldn't be any problems concerning copyright with this image because it's not being used for reasons of profit. The only way this image will be used for is for educational purposes. If anyone can help with this I would greatly appreciate it. I'll be happy to add another version with the logo removed if it would put the issue to rest. victorrocha (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.6.185 (talk) [reply]
  - If you are talking about fair-use, then that's not enough for Commons.--Svetovid (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Only if the logo thing is cleared. Other than that very nice picture. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 01:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad, harsh, direct-flash lighting, not acceptable for such a common object. Also the white background is too artificial. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. A no-wow shot that could be done better. --Janke | Talk 06:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh, very harsh. Dengero (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral The heatsinks are distracting and cover the ICs. Good picture of this particular model, but not for DDR in general. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My intentions were to make a picture of a High Performance RAM module. There is already a clear picture of a standard module of DDR2 RAM that shows every component but I doubt it would have made for a more interesting pic.victorrocha (talk) 9:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Fair enough. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the removed logo? OK what is the deal here. It's a picture of corsair memory, and corsair memory has a corsair logo. They don't make the memory without the logo. Why the heck would you remove it? This is so lame seriously who did that ;_; This is like photoshopping out the blemish on that super rare gillion dollar baseball card because it was ugly. Come on people, use your brains. :D\=< (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The logo was removed to prevent issues with copyright. I did some researching and it is in fair use to use the version with the logo. I put the one with the logo removed to have people make their own decision on which they like best for wikipedia (as an encyclopedic image). victorrocha (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.6.185 (talk) [reply]
  - It shouldn't be. According to this Commons guide, utilitarian objects (like this) are not copyrightable. The presence of a logo on it is just incidental and does not affect the copyright status of the entire image. Now, if the photograph were of only the logo (or possibly even if the logo were the subject), it would be subject to copyright, but since it's of the RAM as a whole, that is not the case. IANAL, so don't hold me to it, but I'm fairly sure that the logo does not need to be removed. Thegreenj 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Commons page doesn't even mention trademark protection, which I think is the real concern with using the Corsair logo, not copyright. Here is a discussion of trademarks and photography. IANAL and I am not offering an opinion. -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well we're not just cutting things out of the encyclopedia to satisfy some law... if it can't be considered in its completely uncensored form, then as far as I'm concerned it's ineligible for FP. :D\=< (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The lighting could be better (softer) and the arrangement shouldn't be an unmotivated heap. How about showing it more from teh side so that we get an idea how the heat sinks are clipped on. --Dschwen 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose non special product photography. Conveys nothing beyond what caption says, and looks like anything in a computer catalog. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh lighting loses details in the shadows. I'm sure that the PCB material is not that dark as well. The composition is not sufficiently illustrative and consider something to give the image a sense of scale - Peripitus (Talk) 12:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The material is fairly dark it's just a bit lighter than you see here. I tried making the board stand out more than it is but it does not reflect very well. victorrocha (talk) 9:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Support original (oppose edit), I think it's well done and I don't really see any lighting problems. Crisp, professional, etc. gren グレン 03:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit crassic!^[talk] 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]