Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Burj Khalifa

Burj Khalifa edit

Reason: Very good quality and resolution, adds encyclopedic value to the article.
Articles in which this image appears: Burj Khalifa
Creator: Nepenthes

Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this one. franklin 14:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, image must be considered non-free. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yeah, it's a shame there's no FOP in Dubai. Also CA and motion blur near the bottom. --Zoo Fari 02:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So technically speaking, we can't have one image of this building hosted on the site? upstate NYer 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you could upload locally or not but that image is going to end up on COM:DR soon. According to my experience at DR, they take FOP seriously. --Zoo Fari 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! I got completely lost. Can you provide the meaning of the acronyms so I can learn what interesting thing is happening with Dubai? Thanks franklin 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Panorama, a pet peeve subject. --Zoo Fari 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another threatened FP: File:Bnf 20070218.jpg. Elekhh (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one hopefully will be saved by the "incidental inclusion" recourse. But no idea how a huge thing like this can be included incidentally in some picture. Crazy copyrighted world. franklin 06:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the wheels are in motion to get these deleted. A single image of the building could be uploaded locally under a claim of fair use, but, naturally, it would have to meet all of our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wouldn't, if I understand the law and our policies correctly. The copyright in this case only applies to the building, not to the photograph. Thus, some of the NFCC would apply and some wouldn't. Obviously there wouldn't be a prior publication requirement (NFCC #4), but since the only possible infringing commercial use would be a poster of the building, it would make sense for these kinds of photographs for the resolution maximum to be higher than normal (to put it another way, the only thing enforceable by the NFCC is the resolution of the display of the building, not that of the image as a whole). Someday we're going to need an actual FOP policy, but it would be extremely complex because the rules are different in every country. A WMF directive would be useful. Chick Bowen 02:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we'd need a specific policy (which wouldn't be that great) was if we started trying to make distinctions like this. The image is of a non-free object, and so must be considered non-free itself- it's just the same as images of contemporary artwork- in countries with no freedom of panorama, it's exactly the same law. Thus, the images should be treated no differently. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very good resolution and quality. Strong EV also. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for suspension - The image, along with a hundred others, has been nominated for deletion here. --Zoo Fari 22:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I´m sorry, I voted to quick. But it should be able to be a featured picture; the building and the photo are both magnific. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So are many non-free images from all over the web and beyond... J Milburn (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending results of deletion nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File has been deleted. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]