Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hills of Kurdistan Province

Hills of Kurdistan Province

version#2

Edit A

Landscape in Kurdistan Province of Iran, near Sanandaj. This photo was taken by Kourosh Anbari. I emailed him asking for permission to use the photo and he agreed and sent me a version of the photo with high resolution (see his photo gallery: http://www.chawshar.panjare.org/). This beautiful image, demonstrates the landscape of Kurdistan province very well, which is mostly mountainous and covered with scattered jungles.

• Nominate and support. - Marmoulak 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Mardavich 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support #1 From the first moment I saw this photo, about few months ago, I put it on Iran and Kurdistan Province article because I knew it deserves more. I've been searching for a higher resolution for FP nomination and here it is. thanks for the higher resolution Marmoulak. To the technical part, this lovely photo has a great qulity, a great mix of colors of a great landscape. Very good encyclopedic value because it describes Kurdistan Hills and ofcourse, Hills of Iran in general. Perfectly taken at spring, and thanks again. Arad 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I still prefer #1 over the edit. #1 is truly Number 1.

• Comment. Edit A is a less-saturated, but still very saturated, alternative, with better color balance and less "burntness" IMHO. –Outʀiggʀ 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose,
  1. too ambigious of a filename (where is this landscape taken at) Duplicates should be deleted. --Cat out 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. It is a copyvio apperantly based on above comment and this link.
     • Did "Kourosh Anbari" agree to release it with a free license?
• Support The colours look a bit un-natural - it's obviously been 'enhanced', but it'll do until a better one comes along. Would it be possible to ask the photographer to get hold of the original exposure that doesn't look like the whole landscape has been anfaledby saddam - or was that by design?
  1. • If so why are the images still (c)'ed?
     • As it is, image is a copyvio and can be deleted in seven days.
  2. Also this is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ir kurdistan.jpg --Cat out 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  --Cat out 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  This is the email I sent him: I was wondering if you would allow the use of this photo taken by you under creative common license similar to these ones:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Esfahan.jpg

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sio_se_pol.jpg.

  His answer:

دوست عزیز!

از نظر من هیچ ایرادی نداره که عکسی که گذاشتید در ویکی‌پدیا باشه.ولی اگر لطف کنید و ویرایش جدید همان عکس را آنجا بگذارید بسیار سپاس‌گزار خواهم شد.من برای شما ویرایش جدید با کیفیت بهتر می‌فرستم و آدرس فتوبلاگم را هم می‌توانید داشته باشید تا از آن استفاده کنید. با احترام کورش عنبری

Translation: I see no problem with the use this photo in wikipedia. I am sending you a high resolution version of photo, you can also use other photos on my website.

His email address is: anbari@panjare.org (Marmoulak 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

He has to explicity state what license the images are released under. Permission isn't good enough. Furthermore his website should not be conflicting this desicion (with (c)'s). The implications of the free licenses should also be explained to him. --Cat out 00:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the type of license in my email to him and he agreed, as simple as that. The license reserves some rights and the photographer will be credited if the photo be used outside wikipedia. Your objection base on copyvio is unacceptable and the photo, as mentioned already, was take from a landscape in Kurdistan Province, near the city of Sanandaj. (Marmoulak 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Why is the website seen as "conflicting"? It's a different image, with a size not available on the website, lacking a copyright declaration that obviously hasn't just been cropped off. They're two different things, so they don't conflict. Not to mention that a copyright tag on the website does not, in itself, contradict CC (IANACL). –Outʀiggʀ 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously This size is not available on the website because I asked for a higher resolution version and he sent it to me. The photos on his website have that copyright tag to prevent others from taking credit for the photos. He has no problem with the photos being used if he is credited as the photographer. (Marmoulak 01:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

see the content of email here

He has to explicitly state the license and remove the (c) notice from his website. We can't have license conflicts. Images can and will be deleted in the absence of this.

"Ir Kurdistan" is a large area (assuming it ment to referance to "Iraninan kurdistan") and a vaigue deffinition. Thats like saying "Un Florida". Is it not posible to identify the location with greater detail? Do the hills have a name?

--Cat out 01:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for saying that he must remove the copyright notice from his website. He does retain the copyright; releasing something under a Free licence does not mean disclaiming copyright. He is also free to release the same content under multiple licences; the licencee is free to use any they prefer.

It is the case, however, that we need to be sure that the photographer has understood and agreed to the GFDL. TSP 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He can't retain "copyrights". He can retain "ownership" (and he can do this conditionaly with licenses like GNU or cc rather than PD) so (c) is a license conflict. He can tag them with whatever license he agrees to. --Cat out 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The author can use different license for the same material, please state a law or policy to prove your claim. Nevertheless, the photo that has the (c) tag is a different version and is different from this one. Marmoulak 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Both images are practicaly the same. It's just that the ones on wikipedia are slighly larger... That's not something creative enough to be considered something new so old copyright still applies. Normaly such a thing would be deleted in seven days. (c) means the image is copyrighted and is not in any way free. You can't use someone elses image on wikipedia unless it is either under {{fairuse}} or the creator follows this procedure. See Wikipedia:Copyrights (and linked pages). Issue has been discussed to death there.

I am actualy doing you a favor, I could have simply left the image alone had I not been in awe of it and it would be deleted eventualy.

--Cat out 05:30, 12 September 2006

Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states, if "you own the copyright to the material you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever."

I talked to the author through Yahoo Messenger and reminded him that the version that I have uploaded on wikipedia under 'cc' license can be use by anyone and will remain under this license forever. According to him this image is free as long as the author is credited. Of course the author can "republish and relicense the photo in any way he likes", ie. licensing it under (c) on his website. Marmoulak 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I told you, thats not good enough. Please do not argue as this is the procedure folowed on all images retrieved from the web. Your word, while I trust it, does not satisfy the procedure. Free license allows the creator or anyone to republish in any way they like. For the images to stay with a free license we need a written permision explicitly stateting the license. This should be sent to permissions@wikimedia.org. Furthermore you really want to avoid license conflicts. He can simply state that images are avalible with a free license on his website for instance on the bottom of the page (this would make your and my life easier). All this is basicaly to avoid something like this and not to violate authors copyrights. --Cat out 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that this version of the image (high resolution) is not retrieved or retrievable from web, all the versions around the web are low resolution ones. Mr. Anbari sent the high-resolution version to my email. -- Marmoulak 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You still need to resolve this issue with permissions@wikimedia.org . My oppose is an official one. No copyvio can be a featured picture. --Cat out 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this image is definitely not a copyvio and doesnt need any additional written permissions, to prevent any problems I asked Kuresh Anbari to sent an email allowing the use of this image under 'cc' to permissions@wikimedia.org and he did:

Hi,

I allow the use of the following image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hills_south_west_of_Sanandaj_near_the_village_of_Kilaneh.jpg

under creative commons license, in Wikipedia as long as my name is credited as the author.

Regards,

Kuresh Anbari,

-- Marmoulak 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image was and will be a copyvio until permissions@wikimedia.org says otherwise. Note that the actual copyvio process (7 day deletion) is not being observed as I am looking the other way... --Cat out 05:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cat, there is no ambiguity in 'Kurdistan Province' as there is only one Kurdistan Province and that is a province in Iran. As I mentioned earlier this landscape is an area near Sanandaj. According Mr. Anbari, This an area located in the south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kealaneh.(Marmoulak 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

I dont see it in the filename... Should be someting like File:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kealaneh. Still the copyright issue stands. --Cat out 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the filename. Marmoulak 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I adjusted my objection accordingly. --Cat out 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The steps taken satisfy the copyright requirements of wikipedia. The same image in different size can have seperate licenses. And the same image can have multiple licenses. And once released the CC the author can claim anything he likes and it does not nullify the CC declaration. HighInBC 13:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The copyright criteria wont be satisfied until permissions@wikimedia.org says so.

The same image in different size can have seperate licenses, this is true. Not because of size differences, but because the author released either one with a different license. CC would apply to both since the images are too similar (actualy identical)

You can have multiple licenses but it will cause problems. Full copyright and CC license conflict each other (The two licenses are the opposite of eachother). This will be very problematic on the long run. Every image on authors webpage is tagged with a (c). This is rather unusual for a person who can easily release images under CC yet be overprotective with (c) tags. Does the author understand that I can copy this image in any way I please for any purpose?

Cleanest way is that the author present the multiple licenses and disclaimer on his webpage. This not only verifies the authors intent but also serves as a future referance. If author is really releasing the images under CC, there shouldn't be a problem doing this.

--Cat out 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first, when an assurance of CC declaration is made, we assume good faith on that until evidence is provided to the contrary, we don't wait for permissions@ to give us the go ahead. Also you seem to be confusing (c) with 'All rights reserved'. When you put something into the creative commons you still hold the copyright, you have just given permission for it to be used. Also, if someone releases an image to CC and then later shows a contradictory license, it is still CC. CC cannot be taken back. HighInBC 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support --alidoostzadeh 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support any version. Per Arad. While all of you discuss copyright issues, I'll go ahead and laud this superb photograph. Nauticashades 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support third rendition. This image is beautifully surreal. --S0uj1r0 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice vivid photo with acceptable quality. --WikiSlasher 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for Edit A; Oppose all others. "Edit A" is the only version that approaches reality in color saturation, though it too is a bit overdone. AFAIK, none of these images appears on any article, though. -- Moondigger 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: the one that appears on the Iran article is a fourth version, Image:Ir_kurdistan.jpg. "Edit A" shown above is the best version, though. -- Moondigger 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I think Edit A is the best of these, although the top one is not bad either.

AndonicO 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first two clearly have color problems; the third looks realistic but we don't really have any way of knowing how far off it actually is.--ragesoss 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

if you had actually looked at the photographer's website you would know that this photo was taken by a professional photographer and there are also several photos from the same landscape:

http://static.flickr.com/34/124256307_62d25b9626.jpg?v=0

http://www2.flickr.com/photos/kureshanbari/124220236/

http://chawshar.panjare.org/index.php?showimage=31

Just because this photo is beautifull doesnt mean it is fake!!. - Marmoulak 21:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, it looks like a lame screen-saver Aye-Aye 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose all versions Oversaturated even in Edit A, sky/clouds are flat as though they've been heavily de-noised, weird smudging on mountains, foreground is grainy. Also there are some patches under the trees to the right (middle-ground) which look as though they've been badly cloned, although that could be my imagination. Certainly not featured-quality anyway, IMHO. --Yummifruitbat 23:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above, particularly Yummifruitbat. --Fir0002 02:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Thinking about this image then looking at others on the photographer's website, the images of this location look almost like false-colour IR photos, particularly this one. Has anyone asked the photographer if the 'Ir' in Ir_kurdistan.jpg really did stand for Iran? --Yummifruitbat 03:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Ir stands for infrared, but someone could ask the photographer. --WikiSlasher 03:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I named the photo Ir_Kurdistan when I uploaded it, not the photographer. This photo is not an infrared photography and I dont know what you mean by false-colour but I have visited Kurdistan Province and this picture reminds me of the landscape of the province, I clearly remember the scattered jungles and the pink colored trees. - Marmoulak 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That settles it then. --WikiSlasher 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think that this picture has a very good quality. It also shows a very beautiful part of Iran that may interest many Wikipedians. Wikilo12 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The colours look a bit un-natural - it's obviously been 'enhanced', but it'll do until a better one comes along. Would it be possible to ask the photographer to get hold of the original exposure that doesn't look like the whole landscape has been anfaled - or was that by design?
  • What do you mean by anfaled? That thing redirects to al-Anfal Campaign which doesn't make any sense. --WikiSlasher 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it is a referance to the gas attack in Iraq ruining nature as well as people which really has nothing to do with Iran. --Cat out 13:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh.jpg