Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider

Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider edit

Too small, slight discolouration, copyrighted image, available on Commons as well as here, non-remarkable. ~~Also has a generic filename.~~ Good point, I was mistaken.

Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ (see below), but suggest nominating for speedy deletion if it's violating copyright. Also, doesn't meet resolution requirements. -- moondigger 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, it is copywrighted and therefore ineligible for FP, but as the holder of the (c) has allowed the use of the image provided the source is cited, it does not need to be deleted from Wikipedia (but it could be as it also exists on Commons) --Glaurung 06:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The copyright is fine ATM, the terms fall in line with GFDL or the acceptable CC licenses. The filename is not as generic as you think as it's based on the aircraft's model name if I remember correctly and the coloration is an example of the distance it was shot at. PPGMD 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the case, the site whats every downstream user to obtain permission. --Gmaxwell 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nobody is concerned about the FP minimum resolution requirements? When I began participating here a few months ago, I was led to believe that even photos that just met the requirements -- i.e., 1000 pixels on a side -- would likely be voted against no matter how nice the image was. In fact, I remember seeing a few oppose votes on FP nominations for just that reason ("...nice image but only just meets resolution requirements; would support a bigger version..."). Now people seem unconcerned when an otherwise ordinary image falls well short of 1000 pixels. (By "ordinary" I mean something that is without major technical flaws but lacking in "wow" factor, such as this one.) This isn't sour grapes... I'm genuinely curious. -- moondigger 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For a current example, see the Mexican Wolf nomination near the top of the current FPC list. Diliff changed his "Neutral" to "Support" after the photographer replaced her 1000 pixel image (meets resolution requirements) with a larger one. I know I've seen other similar situations in the past... yet this image and others currently nominated for delisting are below 1000 pixels, and few people seem to think it's a good reason to delist. (Note: I understand that any of the criteria can be ignored if something else about the image is so outstanding as to merit doing so; it's just that I honestly don't see anything that spectacular about many of these images.) -- moondigger 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist (and delete): The site wants *every single user* of the image to obtain permission for their images, thus the image does not meet our minimum standards for free content. --Gmaxwell 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images meets the copyright standards of wikipedia, it's copyright, and given for free use so long as the site is attributed, which is allowed per the Wikipedia copyright policy and is in line with GFDL and the acceptable CC licenses. PPGMD 01:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and possibly delete. The licensing tag placed on the image page is invalid according to the terms on the originating site, which says: "all images and parts thereof are the property of the originator -- copyright the White Planes picture co. - permission to use must be obtained." No documentation of permission exists on the image page, though it claims permission was obtained. The claim is not sufficient without an actual statement to that effect. Furthermore, whoever uploaded it to commons also removed a www.whiteplanes.com watermark from the image prior to doing so. Was permission to alter the image obtained? At minimum this requires more investigation, and the required licensing terms should be made clear to the copyright holder as is being done for the Eiffel Tower image. We can't just assume that because the tag on the image page is compatible with Wiki licensing requirements that the original image is compatible with the tag. By that reasoning anybody could upload any image they find anywhere and put a compatible licensing tag on the image page, whether that license is acceptable to the copyright holder or not. -- Moondigger 10:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh the uploader got permission to use them, and got none watermarked images from the photographer after the uploads were nearly deleted. The uploader knows the photographer, the aviation community is gather small in the US, even smaller in countries like the UK. Please at least try to at least contact the uploader before making accusations like that. PPGMD 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is documented... where? I am also curious about whether the copyright owner is aware that a free license on Wikipedia must also equal free commercial licensing everywhere and without restrictions on derivative works. -- Moondigger 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I'd rather have a picture showing the front side of the glider.Nnfolz 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move this one to the suspended section until the copyright issues have been resolved. Raven4x4x 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright permission for Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2b glider being launched at Lasham Airfield in UK.jpg edit

Keep Firstly it is good that this discussion group finally contacted me. I originally posted the image after getting specific permission for the use of this image (and another) on Wikipedia from the owner, Neil Lawson. I have reproduced the request that I made to him by e-mail in May 2005 and his response.

Neil There is a free on-line encyclopaedia called Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page The article on gliding lacks a couple of good photos eg of a winch launch and a competition finish. (There are sexier gliders than a Blanik.) However they are fussy about taking photos unless there is clear evidence that the owner has given permission. Would you be interested in two of your photos being used? The photos as they are on your web site showing the copyright details would be good publicity for you (as well as gliding in general). The caption would also include a credit to Whiteplanes.com. They need not be very large. I could reduce them to any size that you specify, so no work would be needed from you.

Hi John, I'd be all for that, thanks for the suggestion... wow! do they need some of those pictures replacing... the "Modern Aerobatic Glider" shot is just phenomenally dull! How about you try and tempt them with the attached. Same for the "Touring Motorglider". And anything else they're stuck for - it's in our own interest really. If you're in touch with them, I'd be happy to supply images as long as there are credits. I could supply versions without the copyright strap, no problem. I'd also be happy to do any re-sizing. How about the attached to replace W280022? Slightly more dynamic. Cheers Neil the White Planes picture co

Unfortunately Neil was killed at Husbands Bosworth while photographing a glider in Aug 2005 [1] If you really insist, I could get further clarification from his friends who manage his estate including his photo library, but I think his intention was very clear. He was a remarkably generous man who was happy for his images to be used to promote the sport of gliding.

The file name is the one that Neil used. I have no problem with it being renamed. If the images supplied by Neil are thought to be small or discoloured, then they should be replaced, but only when better images become available. (I believe that the small white streak is a vapour trail.) Whether it is a remarkable photo is a matter of opinion, but the bend on the wings alone is impressive in my view. Please contact me again if this discussion threatens the use of Neil's images on Wikipedia.

Would Moondigger kindly suggest some way of proving that copyright permission has been obtained apart from a physical signature? Neil was the person who removed his own watermark and I resent implications that I might have broken his trust.

~~I also note that the proposal to remove this image was made by a 14 year-old.~~ JMcC 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Please do not bring my age in to a discussion such as this, where it is not (or should not) be a factor in deciding whether the image is good enough to represent Wikipedia's best work. I would ask that you remove that line (and this one), or at least strike it out using <s> </s> tags. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that permission to use an image on wikipedia is not sufficient, at least for FP. Do they not require the image to be available for any commercial enterprise that chooses to use the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Say1988 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 August 2006

Your request for permission only stated "However they are fussy about taking photos unless there is clear evidence that the owner has given permission." but you need to make it clear that the image must be released for any third party use. I'm not sure who the copyright of the images belongs to now, but I imagine whoever inherited the company (his family?). If this image is to stay, another request must be made, making in explicitly clear that the image needs to be freely licensed. ed g2s • talk 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that after conversation with the person who manages Neil's estate that there is no objection to the photograph being used by any third party provided that the whiteplanes picture company is credited. JMcC 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An email would be best. ed g2s • talk 01:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reply that I got. "Hi John, I’m quite happy for this, but I’m a little unsure about allowing ‘any third party’ to use the images where the usage may be commercial – I don’t think that others should be profiting from these images. Is there any way of allowing this with the exception of commercial usage?" JMcC 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a noncommercial-use-only image and not allowable on Wikipedia. ~~Delist~~ and I will have the image deleted from Commons as well. howch e ng {chat} 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, Thanks. There is no way that use of these images can be restricted to educational or non-profit purposes. The standard copyright box attached to images is clear about this. Neil viewed the photos as promoting both his business and gliding and wasn’t worried at the time (see below).

John, Ok, no problem. I think it’s a shame that wikipedia can’t make the distinction, but hey-ho! Feel free to continue using these images for this purpose. I think in an earlier email you mentioned whiteplanes.co.uk – please make sure that the credits are www.whiteplanes.com! JMcC 08:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I hadn't gotten the ball rolling on deletion yet, so we're all good. howch e ng {chat} 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for delisting was sidetracked by copyright issue. Delist discussion goes here.