Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg

File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 21:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
•  Info The Dyker Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, is known for its residents' elaborate Christmas lights displays ("Dyker Lights"). All by me. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Great job! Having tried (and failed) to shoot some much less elaborate X-mas lights, I know how bleeping hard it is to get them in focus. However, I think File:Dyker Lights (62281).jpg is much better. It has a more coherent composition, good lines and the contrast between a sparkly tree on the left and a dark normal one on the right plus no cars. Just my opinion, let's see what the rest of the gang thinks. --cart-Talk 21:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree great job with a tough subject. My Christmas light photos always have the lights blurry. Of the two mentioned. I'll think on which I think is best. PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @W.carter and PumpkinSky: Thanks. I took a lot of pictures that night and only uploaded the ones I like, so would be happy to swap out the nomination if we see support for it. The reason I have a weak preference for this one is just that I find it cleaner, and prefer the composition from the street rather than from the sidewalk. No cars would be ideal, sure, but given how crowded it gets there I'd have to take the picture in broad daylight to get a remotely head-on shot with no cars. I was just happy for a short break in traffic so I could move my tripod where I wanted it, without the dark blur of people in front for this one. :) I also like this one for the intensity of color, despite the house itself being obscured. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't like the third one at all. While I am still undecided about the first two, I lean toward the one currently at FPC, this one, because of the reasons you mention. PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support While I could support both of the first two, I keep coming back to a slight preference for this one, so I'm casting my support for it. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - I would support cart's preferred photo, too, and I'm not sure which one I like better. I don't think the 3rd one is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per my oft-restated belief that Christmas-lighting displays in the U.S. (and quite a few other countries) are not covered under FoP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: I opened discussions in several fora about this and haven't seen much of an argument that the lighting arrangements themselves are copyrightable. As someone else put it, they are typically just following the form of the structures that are already there. Toys, characters, sculptures, etc. sure, but they aren't here. Aside from that, if it's an FoP issue, it should be deleted, and if it's deleted the FPC fails regardless of supports/opposes. On the other hand, opposes here don't actually do anything to resolve the FoP matter. Or am I misunderstanding your intention? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I saw one of your discussions. "[J]ust following the form of the structures that are already there" is not by itself enough, IMO, to keep a Christmas lighting display under the threshoold of originality for purposes of U.S. copyright law. Someone putting up those lights still has choices as to what color to use, what type of lights, and how to space them. I consider those creative choices analogous to the ones that sculptors are presumed to have made regarding how their work will look from certain angles, in certain light, and in context to their surroundings that render all photographs of those sculptures derivative works, at least in the U.S.

Technically, yes, a DR would be the better way to deal with this, but when I do so I would like to include all the relevant images, and there are a lot of them. For now it's just easier to bring this up everytime someone nominates an image of Christmas lighting or someone in costume as a copyrighted character. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: , very nice photo ! Sharp and delighting. Concerning the FoP, as you say you haven't seen much of an argument that the lighting arrangements themselves are copyrightable, see the Eiffel_Tower#Illumination_copyright. No idea if it's the same in the US, although Daniel Case may be right here -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Basile Morin: Thanks. To be clear, though, my response to Daniel's vote above is less about arguing whether or not there is an FoP problem here, and more that I would like to see Daniel support or oppose based on the merits of the photo, and to use proper channels to deal with a FoP issue (even leaving a comment here about a DR, if it comes to that). I don't like the idea of saying a whole category of images cannot go through FPC because someday there could be a DR and maybe the community will support deleting it. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Eiffel was a special 100th anniversary display, undoubtedly professionally done. Can anyone show us one single documented case of a Christmas display in America actually being copyrighted? PumpkinSky talk 19:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• @PumpkinSky: , you can't make business with a photo by night of the Eiffel Tower, at any time, without paying copyright fees to the SETE company. This document is in French https://lesjuristesparis.fr/featured-2/a-t-on-vraiment-le-droit-de-photographier-la-tour-eiffel/ but you can translate and it clearly says that -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Basile Morin That's in France. I was asking about America, where this FPC was taken. PumpkinSky talk 12:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places