Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Мала Река.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Мала Река.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 12:59:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)- Support very special, almost mysterious mood. Works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment Bad license: Wikimedia Commons does not allow NC-only licenses. Please clarify that this picture is published under a proper license, otherwise the picture will be deleted! --Code (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- The license is acceptable per Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing, as the NC license is followed by a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. INeverCry 17:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: This doesn't look like multi-licensing to me. It seems more that the user wanted NC-only but didn't find a fitting license tag so he used the BY-SA. It doesn't make any sense to use CC BY-NC and CC BY-SA at the same time. Look at the custom license tag: He doesn't write that one can use the picture under BY-SA or BY-NC. According to the custom license tag choosing BY-NC is the only way to properly use the picture. Additionally the EXIF says "All Rights Reserved". At least the user should clarify that both licenses apply. --Code (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, why would anybody dual-license something with CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-NC? That doesn't make sense to me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care for multi-licensing either, and I would end it if I could, but it's part of Commons policy. If someone were to use this file for commercial gain, the author would have no legal recourse at all as long as the commercial use attributed him correctly and used CC-BY-SA-4.0. Commons:Multi-licensing gives the full policy on this. INeverCry 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: I strongly disagree with that. If you want to use the work, you have to make sure you have a valid license. Ambiguities will be borne by the person who wants to use the photo, not by the photographer. Petrovskyz writes in his custom license tag that he has "published this media under the terms of the license CC BY-NC 4.0". Nothing else. He doesn't state he published the work "under both CC BY-NC 4.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0" what would be very easy for him to add. It would be very easy for him to clarify that both licenses apply. As long as he doesn't we have to assume that he wanted to publish the picture under BY-NC only. I do not understand why we should accept his unclear licensing informations. It is very noteworthy that he does not participate on this discussion. --Code (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm with you Code (I don't like to see GFDL/NC/ND licenses on Commons at all), but it looks like he may be complying with the letter of the policy. We can ask a few of the local copyright specialists what their take is on this. @Jameslwoodward: @Clindberg: @Stefan2: If you guys have time, can you take a look at this? Should he make his personal licensing template clearer? Is the included CC-BY-SA-4.0 below it sufficient? Thanks in advance. INeverCry 23:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Licensing is fine; licensing under both CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-SA makes perfect sense (you can use it in noncommercial derivative works without a license being forced on yours, or commercial derivative works licensed CC-BY-SA). It would be better if both tags were under the "Licensing" header, and of course using {{Multi-license}} before both would help too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- D'oh! I could've sworn I'd seen a "SA" in the "NC"-license box. Thanks for pointing that out, it does indeed make perfect sense. --El Grafo (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not wowed by this, especially the harsh lighting in the foliage at top left. INeverCry 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)- Support - Yes, some of the lighting is very harsh when viewed at full size, but at full-page size, the lights and darks are well balanced, and I find this a beautiful, painterly composition. My decision to support this isn't even close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Busy background and not really that exceptional composition-wise. Also the blown areas. Was an ND filter used here? Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
