Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/It's A Wonderful Life

It's A Wonderful Life

Reason: As far as I know, there are no FPs that are stills of 20th century films (much less a well-known one such as this one). The still conveys the mood of the film. Besides, teacher says that every time a FPC gets promoted, an angel gets his wings...
Articles this image appears in: James Stewart (actor), Donna Reed, It's a Wonderful Life.
Creator: Presumably, Frank Capra (1946)

Support as nominator — Spikebrennan 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those of you cousios about the copyright claim (and that's going to be everyone, most likely) the entire rational for this FPC is set out in the section Ownership and copyright issues.

I would summarize that discussion as follows: The film appears to have fallen into the public domain under U.S. copyright law because somebody blew a deadline to file a renewal. Some have asserted that certain aspects of the film are still subject to copyright, but it doesn't appear that those arguments would apply to a still image from the film. Spikebrennan 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support on premise that the images are, in fact, in the Public Domain. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image fails criteria no. 1, 2 and 3.--Svetovid 11:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Film stills bring up various problems; the technical standards are completely different, leading to Svetovid's points above, and indeed, the composition is entirely different as well. If this is an iconic shot, it's because it reminds us of the film, not because it is particularly interesting or well-composed in itself. It is, in fact, deliberately soft-focused, which makes sense in the context of the film but not so much as a stand-alone image. So I oppose this one, and if film still are regularly nominated there may need to be some discussion of them as a group. Chick Bowen 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points. I've opened a discussion on the talk page. See here Spikebrennan 04:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Technical quality too low. --Janke | Talk 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a Better quality screenshot could be made from a high quality reproduction of this movie, although the quality is not bad considering it is only 88 kb @ 1024x768 Bleh999 13:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If for no other reason (and a number of good points have been raised already), there are JPEG artifacts present, such as by the man's thumb. We could have a better version of this exact same image. Zakolantern 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]