Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nude protest

Nude protest

Reason

I think the image is artistic and utilizing nudity as a mean of protest

Articles this image appears in

Public nudity, Nudity and protest, Nudity

Creator

Jaume Ventura

• Support as nominator --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Among other issues, its too small. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the large amount of high resolution nude images on the internet (okay, so they're not in protest...) it needs to be above 1000px.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small. Mostlyharmless (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Close per other voters and they come back. Muhammad(talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why speedy close, though? And what do you mean "and they come back"? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close and delete file I've deactivated the image. Copyright violation.[1] Durova^Charge! 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hosted on Commons; I've deleted. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you sure it is a violation? The Flickr user who released the image on a CC-BY-CA licence is the same photographer as on the website you cite. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you sure the Flickr user is the same person? The image appears on the home page of the photographer's own website with a notice placing it under full copyright. If someone would like to contact him and file an OTRS ticket I'll be glad to undelete. Durova^Charge! 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Well no, I'm not positive it is the same person, but can anyone be 100% sure about the identity of someone on the internet? As I said, the Flickr user does appear to be the same photographer, as the Flickr page actually links to the personal site and mentions the photographer by name... This doesn't mean that someone out there didn't just create the user to impersonate the actual photographer, of course, but given the number of contributions to Flickr by the user, it would have to be a pretty elaborate ruse. And likewise, who is to say that someone didn't create the personal site to impersonate the Flickr user? Really, there is no proof either way, but in this case I'd say the simplest explanation is the correct one: he just licensed the image differently on Flickr, either deliberately or accidentally. This is common and certainly not a problem legally. But why shoot first and ask questions later? There was no need to delete it on sight without any attempt at verification. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing nom per the concern raised regarding size of the image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to suggest you could suspend it and contact the photographer to ask if he would be willing to provide a higher res image, which is what often happens. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted --Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)