Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Natalie close-up in front of the Eiffel Tower.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Natalie close-up in front of the Eiffel Tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2009 at 20:07:34

  •  Info photographed, uploaded, and nominated by Diti — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment See the bid on eBay. ;) →Diti the penguin — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support →Diti the penguin — 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose background does not help. Picture does not illustrate the fursuit very well. Plus the design of the fursuit is very likely copyrighted. --Dschwen (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Yes, I kind of knew that background would not please, but I only had my 70-300mm telephoto lens (a friend of mine got luckier ;). I have a lot of photos which would illustrate the whole fursuit better, but this is a close-up (so we can see, for example, the little holes composing the eyes and allow the fursuiter to see). And for the copyright status, as for the reason File:Anthrocon_2007 Disabled fursuiter in parade.jpg was undeleted, the photo's licensing status is independent of the design of the fursuit (I read big parts of the Copyright Act with GreenReaper (talk · contribs) for figuring it out). →Diti the penguin — 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That surprises me. De minimis certainly won't apply, neither will FOP. The reasons given in the undelete seem a bit fishy. Fursuit is original enough, and the license applying is for the photograph, not for the design what does that mean? The designer will have copyright on the design, just taking a picture will not get around it. The photographer cannot relicense the design of the suit. With your train of thought FOP would not be necessary at all for example. That is just wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, here's why I think fursuit photographs are fine copyright-wise:
    • Copyright law makes a distinction between designs and works of art. Designs have fewer protections, especially when they form part of a useful article. A fursuit design is precisely what the name suggests - a design embodied in a useful article of apparel.
    • The presence of a proposal for the Design Piracy Prohibition Act suggests apparel is not comprehensively covered by current copyright law.
    • I can't speak for other areas of fashion, but there is a very strong implied license regarding the use of fursuit designs for photography. In almost all cases, these costumes are commissioned for specific owners who have a character in mind, and it is understood by all parties that they are made to be seen, photographed, and reproduced in audiovisual recordings, like a sports mascot. I've published hundreds of photos and there are hundreds like me. No designer has complained, nor would I expect them to.
    • At least one major fursuiting company specifically addresses the right to make copies of the design - they consider it to be held by the owner of the costume (and not by the person rendering the artwork), even though they themselves recognize the need for art and suggest artists for this purpose. Some creators even go to the extent of arranging photoshoots for fursuits which they created.
    • To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, no fursuit designer has submitted or intends to submit their work to the Copyright Office. Submission is required within two years for designs embodied in a useful article. It is also not common for artists to require creators to place a design notice on a fursuit.
    • It's just silly. Without the right to take photographs, you would have no good way to (say) auction the work to others over the Internet, as is typically done. GreenReaper (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately It's just silly is not a compelling legal argument. Furthermore I disgaree about your interpretation of the fur figure as design instead of artwork. What if it had been a Mikey Mouse suit? --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the suit would have represented the current Mickey Mouse design, I think Commons couldn't have been able to host a photo of it, because Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character. Yet, licensing of this file is perfectly fine, as I am the photographer. Commons just doesn't accept most of the files which would not be free enough to be used safely. Per GreenReaper (talk · contribs) above, a fursuit differs from a mascot or any other copyrighted character, by the fact that fursuits are meant to be photographed since the beginning because their owners wear them for that reason. Perhaps the Walt Disney Company could sue us for that —and we even don't know, we consider them as derivative works but maybe they accept it—, but a fursuiter couldn't. Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit, but not the photographer. →Diti the penguin — 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nintendo could sue the owner of this Lucario fursuit this is simply not true. It is up to the photographer to make sure he doesn't wrongly relicense copyrighted artwork. I'm assuming the fursuit maker has licensed the design from Nintendo. Otherwise the make could be sued by Nintendo. But I fail to see a scenario where the wearer could be sued (last time I checked bad taste wasn't illegal (not even in france)). --Dschwen (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like this one! --Aktron (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Somehow it's funny but plush and steel hardly fits together - wanna say the dominating tower in the background is a bit disturbing. The copyright thing should be doublechecked. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose due composition: distracting background. Adambro (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting background. —kallerna™ 12:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting background.--SKvalen (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think that is a great picture ! --Garfieldairlines (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination As it seems that that kind of background doesn't fall within FP requirements. I'll nominate several photos in the future, but their background are part of the scene and cannot be removed ; while —I knew I should have thought about it!— this photo could have been taken without the Eiffel Tower behind the fursuiter.

For the copyright status, unless you want to delete the whole Category:Fursuits, I believe we could assume that a fursuiter want their fursuit to be photographed. Anyone is warmly encouraged to discuss about it (I'll keep this page in my watchlist). →Diti the penguin — 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether these guys want to be photographed is completely irrelevant for the purpose of determining the copyright status. And neither is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid argument. --Dschwen (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you can explain me why my argument isn't valid, then? Fursuits does somehow have an unique use within the furry fandom (hence, the photos in this category can be taken as a whole), while mascots and cosplay costumes depend on the case. De we really need an OTRS permission for photos of fursuits? If so, please tell me, so I'll send one for every picture in which Natalie appear. I just —personally— think that is nonsense (COM:DM can't apply because each of the seven main fursuits is the subject of the photo), but I can do it. →Diti the penguin — 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. →Diti the penguin — 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Natalie_close-up_in_front_of_the_Eiffel_Tower.jpg&oldid=18086529"