Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tribute in Light

Tribute in Light

I always felt that this image was moving in a "gone but not forgotten" way. This photo appears in the article Tribute in Light.

Nominate and support. TomStar81 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support this but I'm afraid that I believe anything involving lights at night its actually copyrighted by the owner/designer of the lights. For example one can have a picture of the statue of liberty or the Eiffel tower in the day but can't have one at night when the lights are one. Sorry. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats crap. I far as I can tell its up to the guy who took the photo to decide what he or she wants to show. Furthermore this is a public display, like for everyone to see. The dude(s) runnin this thing could no more stop people from phtographing it and doing with it as they please than they could charge admission to people for looking at the sky. --129.108.96.224 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap?? WP:FAITH please read this. They can stop people from photographing it and posting it on a public place like wikipedia. They could also stop someone from taking a photograph for financial gain. I'm afraid I can't find a WP source stating the situation with architechtural lighting at night, however at DeviantArt a website in a similar legal position its prohibited. I'm 99% sure thats also the case here. There was an enormous discussion about whether a photograph of the Eiffel Tower could be allowed for this reason. Please check this out Eiffel Tower Copyright Information --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settle down, lets not turn this into an edit war. I see both sides of the coin here, but I do not think the picture is in violation of any copyright issues with regard to the FPC. This photograph is in the public domain since it was taken by a sailor or employee or the United States Navy. Since the image comes from the commons I do believe that if it were in any violation of copyright laws those guys would have been all over it, especially considering that it has been there for over a year. Lastly, while the light arrangement may be copyrighted the paris photo page you have linked to states (and I quote): "copyright could not be claimed over images including a copyrighted building if the photograph encompassed a larger area". I take that to mean that an exception could be made if the image was to be taken as part of greater scene involving the city, and this photo has a rather sizable chunk of NYC in with the lights. TomStar81 23:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then seeing as it doesn't seem to be an issue I give this a precautious Support unless its found that the FPC states it isn't ok which I don't think is the case in light of whats been discussed. However with regards to the paris situation further reading has shown that despite the court ruling discused in the previous link, it remains ambigious as to whether it is or isn't copyrighted. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe the copyright issues with the Eiffel Tower are due to the peculiarities of French law and don't apply here. This is a stunning, historical photograph. --dm ^(talk) 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many JPEG compression artifacts throughout the sky. howch e ng {chat} 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Howcheng. In addition, there are much better images of the twin light tributes than this. -- AJ24 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice concept, I like the clouds, but the image is too grainy and blurry.--Enano275 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all oppose. I too have seen several better images of this. --Nebular110 06:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose grainyChildzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong with CP status, but it is grainy and low detail despite the size. HighInBC 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pretty cool... but the image quality isn't so great. It reminds me of flak in the clouds, for some reason. gren グレン 11:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't care a lot for grain, but blur is really noticeable. Ericd 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I almost nominated this myself but it was far too grainy and artifacted for a featured picture. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I've seen better images of the Tribute. This one doesn't seem clear enough. sikander 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]