Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Holocaust Memorial at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco

The Holocaust Memorial at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco edit

Reason: High resolutin, high EV, great symbolism.
Articles this image appears in: Holocaust Memorial at California Palace of the Legion of Honor;California Palace of the Legion of Honor;George Segal (artist);List of Holocaust memorials and museums
Creator: mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly due to Freedom of panorama issues - this statue was dedicated/unveiled post 1978 in the US and therefore it is not covered by freedom of panorama, even if installed in a public place. As such this image must be considered a derivative work. Surprised it wasn't picked up on during its commons FP nomination. Mfield (Oi!) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Please also see here--Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bold claim to say I am wrong so definitely. That discussion is about a different image, and concerns the text on a plaque not this image of the statues themselves. Someone else in that discussion also mentions FOP on the statues themselves. I do not believe I am wrong at all, I regularly tag a lot of US statues on commons and have a good understanding of FOP in the US. Please read Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States which covers artwork. Please point me to a discussion about the image we are actually discussing if there has been one. Mfield (Oi!) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here As you could see this particular Memorial was not found in the registry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, have we an equivilent of {{PD-US-1978-89}} on the English Wikipedia? I've done a lot of image work here and a considerable amount on Commons, and I believe I have never come across that... J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, I am not the right person to respond your question. The nominated image was the first one I've ever taken of any statue at all. I had no idea that it could be copyrighed, before the other image from the same Memorial was nominated to get deleted. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that discussion is about the other image of the plaque of text. Text is not copyrightable in the US. This image we are discussing is of the statues themselves. That is a completely different issue. Mfield (Oi!) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the link I provided? Have you seen that statement :

":::I checked the registry. There are 17 titles "Holocaust Memorial", but this one in California was not one of them, so this should be free. Probably even the sculpture that Bastique had linked to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)" ?[reply]
(highlighted by me)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However that doesn't rule out the posibility that the thing was published with a copyright notice. If it was then it's still under copyright even if not registered.©Geni 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than a months ago I contacted San Francisco art commission (the owner of the Memorial) to find out, if the Memorial is copyrighted, and who is the copyright holder. Up to know they were not able to figure that out. I'm 100% sure that, if the artist were alive, he would have not minded the image kept, and I am 100 % sure that whoever( if anybody) holds the copyrights for that memorial will not mind it either.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not even getting into the mess above, I support the nomination on it's technical merits, although I caution about the sunburst, as it is not professional and would not fit in most situations. Here though, it works well. Nezzadar (speak) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the suburst, regardless of copyright. It doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, even if it is aesthetically pleasing. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a sunburst. It calls crepuscular rays and those rays are very much encyclopedic on their own. There is also solar coronae that is slightly overexposed. It is not reflection from my lens. It is all natural phenomenon. IMO in that particular image the rays and coronae add greatly to the symbolism of the place. The only standing man is in the light, the bodies are in the shadow. The standing man still has some hope. The rays gently touching the bodies picking up the souls of innocent victims. I could have taken a "normal" good quality image of the Memorial, but IMO the place is so special that the image should be somehow special too. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. FOP issues aside, I don't think this is a good picture at all. The subject is not well framed. The lighting is uneven. The crepuscular rays distract heavily from the subject. Mbz1's interpretation that they give hope reminds me of this recent nomination. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said the rays are giving hope, and I do not think your edit summary was polite. IMO it would have been much better to simply say "oppose". Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too much sun. In the picture the sun is the main character. The memorial just seems to be there incidentally. also it is hard to know if relevant parts of the memorial are being cut off the photo. What is at the right of it? I mean, I am not asking, it is the picture the one that should say. Franklin.vp 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really belive I would have cut off the relevant parts of the Memorial? There's nothing to the right.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wihdraw my nomination--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]