Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NYPD Ford Crown Victoria

NYPD Ford Crown Victoria edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 05:07:40 (UTC)

Original – A Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor car of the New York City Police Department

Reason: large clear image, in multiple articles, good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Police vehicles in the United States and Canada, Police car, Police transport, Law enforcement, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, Ford Crown Victoria, Law enforcement in the United States, New York City Police Department, United States
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator: Cezary Piwowarski [[1]]

Support as nominator --Pine^talk 05:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This photo has been in some articles for more time than other articles, but I'm not expecting anyone to remove this image from enough of these articles to make a significant difference in EV. Pine^talk 05:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good photo but not very striking. Plus it's arguable that the design schemes of police cars may as a whole be subject to copyright even if none of the individual elements would be. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being striking is not a requirement for Featured Pictures; please see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Regarding your concern about copyright, wouldn't it be illegal to take photos of lots and lots of vehicles if that was the case? Pine^talk 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". That's what the FPC say. While I find this to be an effective illustration, certainly enough to be a quality image on Commons, I don't find it compelling. It's just an NYPD car on the street. That's all it wants to tell me, and all it can.

I see others have clarified for you that I did not mean the design of the car itself—as one of the few people on Wikipedia who seems to fully understand our fair use policy, I'm fully aware of the "useful articles" distinction—but what is called the livery of the vehicle (I knew there was a word for it!). Yes, I'm also aware that most of the other elements save the department shield are simple geometric shapes and strings of text that do not constitute a full sentence. However ... consider that this free image I took later became the basis for this copyrighted magazine cover even though the latter arguably has less claim to any individually copyrighted elements. And arguably, painting a police car this way makes it a three-dimensional public work.

But, since there seems to be no U.S. copyright case law I can yet find on the copyright status of vehicle livery with a mix of copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements (French law may be stricter), I won't push this any further. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - See also [[2]] Pine^talk 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly on technical grounds. There is a post blocking the tyre of the car and the background is rather busy. Legal considerations are that it may need to have it's license plate blurred as it is still on the road and the design scheme mentioned above. Most cars, if they have a plain paint job, probably don't apply. However, a specific paint design may be copyrightable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand how an elaborate paint job might be copyrightable. However, if paint jobs on police cars are copyrightable, it seems to me that the absurd result is that no photos of police cars would be permitted on Wikipedia. The same would go for uniforms of many kinds of private and government workers. Although I'm not a lawyer, I would think that the design is not sufficiently creative to qualify for copyright protection. Pine^talk 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - About the copyright. The painting is constituted of a blue line and some text, like POLICE (it would be PD-Textlogo, below the threshold of originality) and a logo, which is de minimis. I don't think based on those elements the composition in itself is copyrightable. If you don't share those views, you're free to open a DR in Commons, to settle the matter. --Dereckson (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a note that I've also requested comments about the copyright from administrators Moonriddengirl and J Milburn. If others would also like to express views please feel free. Pine^talk 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that I said "may". My oppose is mainly for the technical issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for clarifying. Since there seems to be concern about the copyright I think that it's reasonable to try to get a definitive resolution. I understand why there is concern although my feeling is that in this particular case the paint job isn't copyrightable. Pine^talk 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Aside from the logo, I agree. As noted by Dereckson, in this particular case the logo is probably de minimis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Failing any definitive (and unlikely) evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest all further votes should simply focus on the image and not concern themselves with the copyright mumbo-jumbo. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Short answer: It's fine. Long answer: IANAL. That said, I think it's alright. Obviously, the car itself is not copyrightable, while the logo is. The paint-job, theoretically, could be. The logo is quite clearly de minimis, and so its inclusion is fine. The paint-job isn't, but it seems simple enough that it would be PD anyway. (To pre-empt, freedom of panorama does not apply here at all.) If there are any issues that could come up here, it is the inclusion of the numberplate, not copyright. There will also presumably be laws about misrepresenting the police (y'know, implying endorsement, suggesting that you are a police officer, that sort of thing) but providing that this is used appropriately in context, that shouldn't be a problem. J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not gonna argue the EV here, but there's too many distracting elements (post in front of car, very busy background) for it to be a FP. Clegs (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]