Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Mad Scientist

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2011 at 23:05:13 (UTC)

Reason: Insanely high EV, professional drawing, nice and clear. Featured at commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Superman (animated short)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator: Fleischer Studios

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since this video is available on numerous commercial DVDs (including a high quality remastered version) and on iTunes, shouldn't we expect at least DVD resolution (720 x 576 pixels)? Or at least something closer to our upload limit (if full DVD resolution makes the file too large)? Kaldari (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is currently a deletion discussion on commons concerning our interpretation of authorised derivative works that have fallen into the public domain, with potential implications for the Max Fleisher superman cartoons. Ajbpearce (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't Featured at Commons, but it was selected as "media of the day" a few weeks ago. MOTD doesn't have to be featured. Also per Kaldari, if better quality versions are available, we should look into getting those. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my goof, sorry. As for the better quality, anyone have the DVDs? They sort of aren't available where I live. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Superman#Copyright issues and some of the articles it cites, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that this film is in the public domain. Two years ago Judge Larson seems to have reaffirmed that the character of Superman is under copyright and that new films using the character need to be individually renegotiated with the family that owns that copyright (the only reason their most recent claim was denied was that they had previously negotiated the rights). Some aspects of the case are still pending but there seems no basic doubt of ownership of the character. So I see no reason why a preexisting movie would not be subject to the same standard: the copyright for the film as such and for the character are two separate things, the latter still held by the family. Chick Bowen 04:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Chick Bowen Dusty777 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]