Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arirang

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN

Arirang Festival, Pyongyang

Unfree image, inlined:

Image:Spectacular Arirang.jpg

From North Korea, photo taken by David Astley. This is something different from the status-quo of featured articles. It can be compared to an olympic opening ceremony, except with invites for only one nation. --The festival is an annual two month massive event which would be ridiculous (and compleatly unfeasable) anywhere else in the world. I think it will catch peoples interest.

Nominate and support. - Colle| |Talk-- 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, but comment: This is a significant image. But it will be interesting to see how the voting will go, taking the rather small size (800 px wide) into consideration... --Janke | Talk 09:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The personal site of the photographer (http://www.xyzasia.com) uses a CC non-derivs license, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The site on which the North Korea photos are placed has no license information. ed g2s • talk 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not acceptable? I am willing to try to contact Astley via email, is there certain wikipedia legal process for doing that?--Colle| |Talk-- 19:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia requires freedom of use beyond Wikipedia, CC-ND prohibits the creation of derivative works. ed g2s • talk 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, why does wikipedia have a template for no deriviative works. And why is it important to be able to modify the image? What exactly should I be asking from the guy?--Colle| |Talk-- 09:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming that this is legally okay and Jimbo's house won't get nuked. It really is an amazing image - combining beauty with significance, and, when you think about it, shock factor. 86.135.200.146 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (changed vote) assuming copyright is worked out. Oppose-too low quality, and other problems.... great scene, though. gren グレン 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The legal problems with the image alone are enough to scuttle the image but even without that issue oppose due to image being noticeably slanted so it looks like camera view is on an odd angle. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, way too small, especially for the depicted subject. --Dschwen 11:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) Derivative works must be allowed. Otherwise this is at best fair use, which means that it doesn't qualify for featured picture status. Colle, please contact the photographer and ask them to release the photo under another license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Licenses which limit derivative works or commercial use are not allowed on Wikipedia. 2) The resolution is too low for featured picture status. I realize that given the political situation, it's good to have any photos at all from North Korea; however, we can still do better than this. Maybe we should ship Diliff over there, but only after he has photographed every other corner of the planet. ;-) --Eloquence * 12:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, voting here should not concern the legal status of the image. If an alternative license is not found, the image will be deleted anyway (or at least ineligible to be promoted). Reasons for opposition should be on the FP-worthiness of the image. ed g2s • talk 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have uploaded a larger version, and the photographer has stated they can be labeled 'Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike2.5.'--Colle| |Talk-- 19:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If you had paid attention to what I wrote above, you would know that non-commercial only licenses are as impermissible on Wikipedia as those which forbid derivative works. I have addressed the issue with these specific licenses in some greater detail here. The only Creative Commons licensing options which would be acceptable are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.--Eloquence* 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The licence allows derivative works [1]. I think the photographer does not mind commercial use, and doesn't mind derivative works, but does not want commercial use of derivative works. That is reasonable, isn't it?--Colle| |Talk-- 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Needless to say, as ed g2s has stated, this is not the place to discuss legality.

Reasonable or not, non-commerial conditions are incompatible with Wikipedia and unless the photographer waives that condition, this image must be deleted. See Eloquence's link. Wikipedia is licensed under the GDFL overall and everything here must be under a compatible licence at least as free as the GDFL or the project would end up in a hopeless tragedy of the anticommons. Also, I do not know where the idea came from that licence issues are inappropriate for this discussion — promoting an unlicensed image and including it in our galleries could land the project in liabilities by invalidating our fair use claims. I should say mentioning the hazard here before the image gets promoted is a good thing to do, whether or not it'll eventually be deleted anyway. Please refrain from smalling-out this comment. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove nomination. As clarification has been received on the license and like it or not, ~~CC-ND~~CC-NC is not a valid license for Wikipedia. This should now be taken to an IfD, or a fair use claim should be stated, either way the picture is ineligible for FP status. ed g2s • talk 21:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author has agreed to allow derivative works! Both the author and myself would love to share this stunning image with the greater community. Also, could you please give me the link to the WP policies that cover this? (sorry, I just can't find them) Thanks, --Colle| |Talk-- 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Template:Noncommercial and the linked to mailing list post from Wikipedia's GodKing.--Eloquence * 09:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I meant NC, not ND (corrected above). Still ineligible. ed g2s • talk 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the larger image is still too small for its subject. I have changed my previous comment re licensing discussions back to its normal size — ~~my request that you refrain from smalling it out must have escaped your attention~~. For policy, there is info at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags ~ Veledan • Talk 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment No need to be a dick, I didn't touch your comment. I don't see where those policies apply, this licence is not on the chart.--Colle| |Talk-- 22:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    - Apologies, it was ed g2s who smalled out my comment ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support provided the license will be OK - the image page still has the CC-BY-ND tag. The new size is just enough for a FP... BTW, that second example on the image page made me go "oooh-uh-argh-hmmm"... --Janke | Talk 07:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, That banner of the gun in the backgound --cards help up by 20,000 kids.--Colle| |Talk-- 07:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The license still says "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5", so the image may be deleted soon... --Janke | Talk 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we try to get this resolved with the author? This is a fantastic image, and I would give my full support because of the uniqueness and rarity of the subject.--Zambaretzu 12:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's really unfortunate that the discussion here remained bogged down by the license issue. this is really a breathtaking photo, considering the context. i had never before seen such a stunning photo of the notorious mass games. Appleby 00:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]