Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiffel tower nuit

Eiffel Tower, Night edit

Eiffel Tower, 11:08 on the 18th of June 2006

Same, cropped.

Well kids, let's hope this one makes up for last time. Presently in the Paris article. Authour is myself. Made for Wiki.

Nominate and support. - THEPROMENADER 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I find the statues in the extreme forefront a bit 'busy' - but hesitate to clone them out. Let's hear some other opinions on this first before getting fancy. --ThePromenader 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Do you have the necessary permission, so that this isn't a copyright violation of the lighting display? See Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright. The photo doesn't really 'encompass a larger area'. Davepape 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First and foremost, the picture is published here under a non-commercial license for non-commercial use, so already there are no profits or commercial gains to claim, and the SNTE states clearly that it is only commercial use they want to "control". That aside, the tower takes less than 25% of the image with lots of scenery and movement around. --ThePromenader 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The creative commons licence does say you are able "to make commercial use of the work" as long as the author is attributed and the licence is referenced. At least, thats how I read into it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then the person wishing to make commercial use of the image will have to seek permission to do so. This in no way concerns the image's presence here in Wikipedia. --ThePromenader 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. It was made quite clear to me when I inquired about licensing issues prior to posting my images here that Wiki use is considered commercial use, for the purposes of Wiki print editions and other 'future projects.' All images used on Wikipedia must be licensed for free commercial use. This one is not, despite what the image licensing section might say, and should be marked for fast deletion. --moondigger 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have licensed this photo for free commercial use. It is extremely doubtful that that any reglementations apply to this image because a) as noted above, the tower is not the only object in the photo, and b) in no way will Wiki be using this image as a keynote image of a profitable venture; at best it will be but one small photo among thousands. If it will make the disgruntled happy we can append a "please note that some rules may apply should it be used as a central element for large-scale profitable ends" note to the photo summary, and let it be the end of this. --ThePromenader 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do not have the authority to commercially license nighttime images of the tower, even if you made the photograph, as the light display is copyrighted by another entity. It does not matter that there are things other than the tower in the photo, since it is obvious that the tower is the primary subject and dominates the image. It is unfortunate that this is the case, as yours is a very nice photo. But that is the way it is, and your insistence that copyright law does not apply to this image is without justification. It does not matter whether the image of the tower will be used for "large-scale profitable ends," -- only that Wiki requires free commercial licensing, and such licensing is not compatible with this image. The image should be removed lest it cause Wikipedia (and the foundation) legal problems. -- moondigger 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I really think this is much ado about nothing. I'll get in touch with the SNTE myself tomorrow and see what they have to say on the matter. If they say no I will remove it myself. --ThePromenader 00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I hope you are correct. However, I was told (when I inquired about licensing) that Wikipedia and the Wiki Foundation do not want any images that are licensed Wiki-only or no-derivs. Period. So even if you get permission form SNTE for publication on Wiki, Wiki may reject it anyway. Good luck. -- moondigger 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Getting permission for Wikipedia alone will be insufficent. The images must be free for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, by any person, in any medium, and at any size. --Gmaxwell 00:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Right on all counts except the size - rather, you forgot a detail: the photo will be never be any 'bigger', in any good quality, than the size it is published. Also, submitting fair use material is perfectly acceptable to Wiki as stipulated in the just-aforelinked page. If permission I need, it will be for Wiki only, and this is all that's neccessary. The photo will have to appear under a fair use license and accompanied by the permission in that case. --ThePromenader 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This will almost certainly fail under Fair Use policy... it fails to meet several of the criteria. -- moondigger 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, I took this image for Wiki, but now it's just becoming a big headache. I don't have the time to debate on the mays or nays of the existence of perhaps infringements, so even before I contact anyone to ask anything, it would be kind if someone suggest a Wiki place where people more experienced with this sort of problem can examine this image and give concrete answers and conditions to meet. --ThePromenader 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can understand your frustration. It's a good picture, but unfortunately there's this controversial copyright situation in France concerning the illumination of the tower. See also Wikipedia:Public domain. Lupo 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the tip, sir. Not so much frustration as "unexpected annoyance" - was my gift to Wiki (and an aid to a 'featured article' drive) - no loss, but it spoils the fun for sure. --ThePromenader 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Wait a sec, can someone please explain this to me:
        "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."
        ... this is the license appended to copyright-free pictures, with a clause allowing for 'maybe' circumstances. Is it this the simple answer to this question? Thanks for any advice. --ThePromenader 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe it refers to the fact that some legal scholars think that current copyright law makes it impossible for one to dedicate anything to the public domain any more (Jessica Litman has written about this - see http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/read.htm#FN106), rather than being about possible but unknown legal entanglements like SNTE claiming control of the image of the Eiffel Tower. Davepape 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay. All I can do is contact the SNTE about this. Most probably the best that will come out of this is their waivering by writ any 'rights' they may or may not have on this photo - and this, more than likely, on the condition of its present size, if use can't be controlled here. This would seem most logical, but I have yet to hear any professional advice on the intricicies of Wiki legislation. Isn't there a 'lawyer' page for questions like this? Again, I don't want to spend too much time on this, it's already gone overboard. --ThePromenader 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Update - after having spoken with the SNTE and shown them the image in question, they have absolutely no problem at all with the picture's presence here, nor with its eventual use in a printed version of Wikipedia. I have yet to have a written answer but this will soon be forthcoming. --ThePromenader 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        As I pointed out above, we will not accept the image if it is not permitted for any use or modification (commercial or otherwise), by any person (not just Wikipedia), at any time (the grant must be perpetual), without outside obligation beyond attribution, and in any form (i.e. I should be able to sell tshirts with the image). If these criteria are not met, then the image is not free content. Because they have been so aggressive in the past protecting images of the tower, we will need to be quite sure that they understand that they are agreeing to these terms. --Gmaxwell 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I would love to know who 'we' is, so that 'we' may speak directly on this matter. Anyhow, they are quite up to date about the conditions imposed on all images published on Wiki. --ThePromenader 20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your claim at the top "First and foremost, the picture is published here under a non-commercial license for non-commercial use" shows that you do not understand what we require on Wikipedia and what the license you've released your work under permits. I'm concerned that you may be misrepresenting Wikipedia to the SNTE. I love your photograph, but it seems very likely that you are confused. I see you also claim that we will permit this image as fair use, but that is incorrect as this image would not meet our fair use criteria and in any case we will never feature a fair use photograph. You've also claimed that permission for use exclusive to Wikipedia is good enough, but this is also not true[1]. I am not trying to be mean to you, so please do not respond with hostility. --Gmaxwell 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I most am certainly not confused, and I still would like to know what qualifies your use of 'we' - my questioning this is not hostility. I am most certainly not misrepresenting anything - I made it quite clear to the SNTE that they must waive all rights to this photo as it is published here, or I must ask that it be withdrawn from Wikipedia. --ThePromenader 21:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'We' as in the collective components of Wikipedia and Wikimedia that handle these matters on a frequent basis, and we as in the standing policy and practice on Wikipedia. In any case, on reconsideration, we probably could make a reasonable fair use claim, but it would preclude the image from being featured and would be the least desirable outcome. So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying... That I could take this image, print it on tshirts, open a shop in Paris selling them, not pay anyone for the privledge, and SNTE would not protest? --Gmaxwell 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that I do not agree with your use of 'we' : ) As for the t-shirt question, although it is off the mark for several reasons, I can only answer again that I have yet to have a written reply. The situation is simple, and this: there is a photo here on Wiki that the SNTE may claim rights to - should they decide not to, they must stipulate this in writing. This done, all can do what they may with the photo present here - but I severly doubt that, at its present size, that any t-shirts will be made. --ThePromenader 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think one can copyright a building under U.S. law (and thus on the Wikimedia servers). It boggles the mind that this is possible in other countries. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html - "an architectural work that is embodied in a building" is eligible for copyright. Not that that applies here - SNTE doesn't claim copyright on the building per se, but on the new lighting display, as a work of art. --Davepape 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The lighting is indeed copyrighted, but the biggest problem is that the SNTE gives no clear indication for what and how. They have given written permission to publish here, but this was not enough - by phone they were in complete agreement but I am still waiting for them to return the wiki "copyright permission" mail template I sent them last week. Wiki seems a little more concerned about this than they are : ) But rules is rules. --ThePromenader 18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, I didn't realise that. How can we have GFDL or PD pictures of recently constructed buildings or sculpture then? This makes things quite difficult. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case 't'aint the buiding, but the lights. Yes, very bothersome to leave such an obstructive rule in the middle of such a busy intersection without leaving any indication of how it is applied... it makes pedestrians like us run around it and wave our hands in the air to unanswered shouts of 'what? where? how? why?' --ThePromenader 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've spoken with the SNTE Monday and they looked at the photo. They have absolutely no problem with it appearing here or in any (Wiki) commercial publication, especially at the size it is, but are spending their sweet time sending the writ they agreed to send. I'm probably getting it and the other commercial documentation I asked for by land mail. Cheers. --ThePromenader 07:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Stunning. I wish it was bigger, though technically it is within the guidelines. --Pharaoh Hound 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful!... Magnifique! Endroit 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, and oddly similar to the image I nominated below... Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful EamonnPKeane 11:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to meet standards for FP. Alphachimp ^talk 07:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if France doesn't mind then I don't. --Golbez 08:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a great photograph Cab02 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support If copyright issues don't conflict, full support, a stunning image. However, if copyright conflicts, then it is changed to Oppose and Delete. However, reading the full argument above shows me that the picture will be legal in a matter of time, so once it is, I give FULL SUPPORT. --Chancellor Alt 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
Update - Bad news, maybe. After not getting my template back, I gave the SNTE a call - they said they had "already given permission" but obviously misunderstood the conditions, as today they tell me (and insist) that a "copyright - SETE – illuminations Pierre Bideau" must appear under the photo. As I the authour have freed all rights, but a third-party hasn't, Wiki doesn't have much documentation on what sort of permission needed or available in these conditions. This is becoming a real headache so I am forwarding the matter to WP:CP - so this image may be deleted. You will see soon enough the results of any decision. --ThePromenader 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold it a second - aren't the above conditions the equiivilent of an {{cc-by-1.0}} attribution license? I would much appreciate any advice on this. --ThePromenader 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - it seems the above is true. I have sent a new letter to the SNTE, and again am awaiting a reply. --ThePromenader 07:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can certainly accept a requirement for attribution, so long as it isn't excessively strict. (I.e. it can't force us to credit in the article when our standard location for attribution is on the image pages). I'm very hopeful. Thank you for all your work. --Gmaxwell 13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gmaxwell, thank you for your thank you, in fact it makes it all seem worthwhile, but I must ask again that you desist in your usage of 'we', as this denotes a superior kabal-esque position that you absolutely do not have! I would be only too pleased to base my respect on the wisdom you contribute, and already for that you have my thanks. --ThePromenader 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We" = "the Wikipedia community". Get over yourself, TP. Nice pic! Stevage 09:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I'm still in negociations with the SNTE. They don't seem to want to free the photo for commercal use. As a last-ditch effort I have asked them if there was a set of publication conditions they would set on the photo here - but this doesn't look promising. THEPROMENADER 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I'm getting a bit tired of these people witholding a yea or nay on the matter out of their doubt that this image will be used for some sort of commercial venture. At its present size this would be very difficult, but they don't seem to understand that. I'll give it the week for a reply, but my patience is pretty well at an end. I do have one last question though - since the entire purpose of this image here is for the free information/illustration for the greater public: what are the chances of this image being published as a "free use" pic ? THEPROMENADER 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It actually doesn't matter what the chances are, however small they might be. Licensing is not based on the odds of something happening. I chafed at the idea that my images would be available for commercial use by any entity just because I wanted to give them to Wikipedia for use there. But it was made quite clear to me that if I would have any problem whatsoever with finding any of them used for any purpose by any entity anywhere in the world, I should not bother uploading them. The SNTE will probably not grant such permission. -- Moondigger 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the reply. "The chances of" was just a reflection of my not having extensively researched the question. I'll try to find some time to have a look around for an answer this weekend. I don't have much hope for the SNTE either. If anyone has any advice on "free use" I'd much appreciate it. THEPROMENADER 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update After asking for a copyright review of this image, I've just been informed on my Talk page that this is much ado about nothing. Any other views on this would be welcome. THEPROMENADER 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, and there is commentary here as well. Goodnight all and thanks for the help. THEPROMENADER 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your desire for the copyright issues to go away does not make them actually go away. The SNTE controls all commercial usage of the light display. Unless they grant permission to publish this image under a license acceptable to Wiki (meaning, free for everyone, anywhere, for any use) it can't be used. Just because somebody thinks it's too restrictive to be real does not mean it isn't real. -- Moondigger 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's stay rational in this - there are no dreams or desires at work here, so address the question directly please. One of the two contributors above say a such copyright would never stand (or doesn't exist) under US law (Wiki's publishing base). This does seem reasonable, but I have asked for some sort of solid evidence or other case example supporting this. Based on this logic, it does seem difficult for Wiki to hope to avoid copyrights for the laws of every country, on the content of all photos uploaded, especially when such copyrights don't apply in US law (see also the Wiki disclaimer). This would also explain why there exists no such legislation here - the only copyright restrictions existing are for a photo itself. The closest I could find was {{Template:Statue}}.
      Please also be reminded also that the above questions were asked where copyright questions are treated. All the same, I'm still looking for a clear, factual and referenced answer, and the above are the closest I've had so far. THEPROMENADER 09:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Son of Update - this is really looking to be much ado about nothing. Not only is the 'image content' copyright claim not applicable in US law, the same copyright claim where it is registered here in France may only be exercised if the use of the image "causes excess trouble" to the owner of the object photographed. Still waiting for a final word on this, and will post a conclusion with references when I do. THEPROMENADER 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image is fairly small and has lots of blown-out parts. Not worth all the thouble. Although I like the rays on the top of the tower this pic needs to have a) way higher res b) HDR/Exposure blending. Then we might start talking about copyright issues. --Dschwen 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Dschwen. Iola k ana|^T 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the way I see this (and please correct me if I'm wrong) as it is the only way this iamge can be used on Wikipedia is as a fairuse image, which it unarguably qualifies as since the main subject of the image (which ironically disqualifies it from free licensing) is the tower and it's lighting display so if it can be agreed that this is the case then it's perfectly acceptable for use in an article but unacceptable under the FP Criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're completely right - so far. If you've read around the discussions on this on this you'd see that the 'fair use' angle is just a speculative safeguard - to date no-one has found any stipulation at all in US copyright laws pertaining to a building's lighting, or even lighting as a visual work of art, but still looking. So to finalise: if we (myself and those kind enough to help clarify this) do find a protective clause, the photo is usable under 'fair use', but if not, a 'fair use' license will not be necessary. If anyone would like to help comb through this you can find the complete list (in all the site) of possible US copyright coverage here - the clause indicated is that covering pictures of architecture - this at least is quite clear. ThePromenader 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Copyright status is absolutely unkown and current status falls back to fair use which is unuseable for featured picture. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it. First off, this picture was not even being judged until copyright issues are sorted out, so it isn't even question of declaring 'not accepted'. Secondly, I suggest a re-reading of my last comment - the 'fair use' license is needed only if there is a US copyright law protecting such lighting, and to date no such coverage nor clause or even definition of such coverage has been found. ThePromenader 23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenader, you can re-nominate any time. It pretty useless leaving this open until you get the copyright figured out. All if it's doing is wasting space. Thygard did the right thing. -Ravedave 00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Removing it from 'suspended nominations' didn't seem the right thing to do, but true that this has taken up space long enough. At least I don't have to be so stressed out about it because it's here. All the same, please take into consideration my comments. ThePromenader 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]