Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Burj Khalifa.jpg

Burj Khalifa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2013 at 06:01:44 (UTC)

Reason: high resolution perfectly centered picture
Articles in which this image appears: Burj Khalifa
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Donaldytong

Support as nominator --Benison talk with me 06:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Base is awesome, but blown highlights and loss of focus near the top throws me off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The subject of this image is protected by copyright and the country of origin does not have freedom of panorama. The English Wikipedia does not have a consistent position on this issue, and, until it does, we have no business promoting these images. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue with FOP (none in Dubai) noted, and as such this image has been nominated for deletion. After all, works after 1990 are still copyrighted in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks guys. Excellent teamwork again to derail an FPC based on misleading copyright assertions as previously. The copyright of this image is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and surely the DR will be dismissed. If you disagree with the policy, please raise your concerns where appropriate. --ELEKHH^T 11:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - After reviewing it appears I was mistaken about this building's status in the US. Will be withdrawing the nomination there. My oppose here was not based on the copyright status. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Elekhh, once again, you are doing your best to belittle legitimate concerns with vague assertions. I do not disagree with the policy, there is no policy. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Photographs of buildings from publicly accessible viewpoints should NOT be disallowed on the grounds that the view can be copyrighted (obviously they can be disallowed for other copyright reasons). The concept of doing so is nonsensical, and Wikipedia should not play any part in supporting such a ludicrous idea. 86.171.174.156 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        When has copyright law ever had a rational foundation? Please take discussion of copyright issues elsewhere. Colin°^Talk 22:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Expecting the top to be in focus or to have the same sharpness as the rest (bearing in mind any vertical-perspective correction and lenses being less sharp at the edge) is not fair imo. Deletion issues should be raised elsewhere and any FP nomination suspended meanwhile (this one's deletion is now withdrawn). This is not a forum for discussing copyright issues. Colin°^Talk 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free images cannot be promoted to featured picture status, so whether this image is freely licensed is definitely a discussion we must have. I am going to oppose this image being promoted while our policy remains as ambiguous as it is, and I implore anyone else with any respect for the "free" part of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to do the same. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can establish, in the appropriate forum, that this image is non-free then there is no need for any discussion here. I fully agree with you that we should only celebrate truly free images, though last time that got suggested at WP:FP it got shot down. I also appreciate that often licence issues are only discovered at FP. But discussion of file licence issues do not belong on this page. -- Colin°^Talk 18:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It didn't get shot down. Another user made baseless assertions, and then, for reasons not clear to me, my comments were hidden. Images of this building were deleted from Commons a few years ago- note that this one is uploaded locally to avoid deletion there. There simply isn't a (consistent) policy about these images on the English Wikipedia- I can't "establish" that, as I can't prove a negative. Until there is one, this should not be promoted. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You misunderstand. I was referring to the GFDL proposal. I don't see what the lack of consistency on en:wp policy has to do with FP. Go fix en:wp policy. We can always remove FP status from any wrongly promoted images. Colin°^Talk 21:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If we can "always remove FP status from any wrongly promoted images", why have criteria at all? J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the confused comments above about governing copyright law, just would like to clarify: Wikipedia has a clear policy on copyright that states "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." Further clarification is provided in the guideline Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights that states "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries.". That is all very clear IMO. Commons has a different policy, but that is independent of Wikipedia, and the two should not be confused. --ELEKHH^T 22:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide evidence that this can be released under a free license in the United States? Do you have any evidence that the US is quite happy to ignore local laws concerning FOP when dealing with photographs of recent works of architecture abroad? (While you're at it, you may wish to nominate all "free" images of recent sculptures for deletion. Of course, that has nothing to do with this nomination, but may go a good way to show how committed you are to this policy you insist exists...) J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called Lex loci protectionis, that "means that the copyright laws of the source country have no relevance in deciding about copyright infringement in the United States.". The recent deletion of images of Claes Oldenburg sculptures taken in Germany makes it clear that German FOP is disregarded under US law. If you're keen to have sculpture images deleted prior to community resolution of their specific copyright issues, please go to Commons where these images are stored. Please be aware that your persistent mixing-up of Wikipedia and Commons, sculptures and architecture, FPC and village pump, is increasingly disruptive. --ELEKHH^T 13:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have never once muddled Commons policy and the English Wikipedia policy, and nor have I suggested any change in policy. Perhaps you have been muddling me with other people. Your self-righteous assertions remain as disruptive as they ever were. (Oh, and please, if you want to talk about disruption, go and do it somewhere else, I suppose. That's what we do, isn't it? Insist that anyone talking about things we don't want go and do it somewhere else?) I am more than a little bit done with this- my oppose remains, but I will not be commenting any further. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the image authorDonaldtong (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a boring central composition, but the only true one for this object. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support '''Johncy''' (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to echo the above, short of doing some massive corrections there is just no way to keep the the entire field of view in focus at any given time when the subject stretches over a long horizontal or vertical distance from the photographer. This is a well framed photograph that manages to get the whole building in while maintaining a high image quality with no blown highlights so this gets my support. Cat-five t c ---- 02:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No blown highlights"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are specular highlights (sunshine on glass). Simply impossible to avoid the sun reflecting off glass somewhere on this building unless you take the side in shadow or take it at night. It's a "my eyes are hurting; I'm going blind" level of brightness. This is Dubai, not Glasgow. Colin°^Talk 09:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the issues of photographing in 37 degree temperatures with very little cloud cover. I live and work in Indonesia, right? I can get bad highlights off a matte surface if the sun gets hot enough. I just find it funny that one would say "no blown highlights" for this picture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco I know you are experienced and understand, and I agree the comment isn't accurate. But FP reviews get read by lots of people trying to determine how to vote and what makes a good image. I just wanted to clarify that specular highlights of the sun cannot be expected to be in range of an 8-bit JPG. Colin°^Talk 13:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Agree about the technical limitations (though I still stand by my position as the bands about 2/3rds of the way up are a little disturbing) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492:, I think you know what I meant and what I probably should in retrospect, which was that there were no blown highlights outside of what any picture of a building shot in sunshine would have. It was my fault for being ambiguous in my comment but it should have been pretty clear what I meant by my comment. As Colin mentioned, any picture of any building shot in sunlight is going to have glare which will show as being blown but that's hardly the same as any other possible source of blown highlights, mainly glare doesn't necessarily detract from the image (although it can) but other blown highlights seem to almost always detract from the image quality if not the EV. Cat-five t c ---- 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the glare "not detracting from the image" (can't even make out the shape of the windows in some places). A bit more cloud cover, or a less heated day, may have been desirable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've thoroughly reviewed the concerns raised above about the copyright status of this image, and I do not think it is a legitimate reason to oppose this nomination. The image is properly hosted on the English Wikipedia in full accordance with Wikipedia policy and U.S. copyright law, and it has a free license as required by the featured picture criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Burj Khalifa.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]