Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ring tailed lemur portrait.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ring tailed lemur portrait.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 23:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Not a traditional encyclopaedic animal portrait by any means, for obvious reasons. However, IMHO it is an attractive "character" shot in which the shallow DoF emphasises the lemur's eyes, its hiding behind the posts implies a natural wariness, and I also really like the colours and overall composition. I think it could add visual impact to an article on Lemurs, or Zoos. Taken at Whipsnade Zoo, UK. All by me, -- Baresi F (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Baresi F (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)- Support cute! --Hubertl 23:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 00:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Succeeds on terms defined above. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I've been to Whipsnade Zoo. The lemurs are quite tame and visitors get to wander through the enclosure and the staff encourage them to mingle about with food treats. They aren't particularly wary. So honestly this is as easy to photograph as one's cat. I disagree that it would be particularly useful for an article on the animal (where's the "ring tail" for a start, and we don't tend to use zoo photos for animal articles if it can be helped) nor particularly useful for an article on zoos (only some wooden post is visible). We have so many photos of these animals in zoos that they are sub-categorised by zoo name! I think a zoo photo needs to be really special, rather than just cute, for they are naturally photogenic. A zoo offers the possibility for family photos with babies, and IMO the most characteristic and endearing pose I saw there was Lemurs sun worshiping like File:Lemurs sunning.jpg, which according to the WP article is normal behaviour in the wild too. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)- Oppose Sorry, I don't think the fact that it's hiding behind some post is helping the photo. The quality is really nice though. — Julian H.✈ 13:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the support and constructive comments. With regards to usefulness, funnily enough this image was used by a number of local news outlets to illustrate their articles on new baby Lemurs at Whipsnade Zoo last year, e.g. here. No attribution, though :( --Baresi F (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't deny it is cute! Do you think they got it from Commons or did you post it to Flickr/Facebook? I seem to recall they had a social media page/group that looked very much like a request for free photos for them to use for their own publicity. I wonder if ZSL supplied your photo to the newspapers. You know, the reason my Flickr album isn't on Commons is I was told I could not release the photos with a free licence that permitted commercial use, unless I paid a fee (basically an hourly rate to take commercial photos at the zoo). Since they are a charity, I was minded to honour that, but increasingly I'm tempted to ignore it since they don't seem to have much respect for photographers. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- They may have got it from Flickr, but as I'm so lazy and never tag anything they might have had a hard job finding it. I've just checked and the only two (auto) tags on it are "animal" and "outdoor"! It was explored on there, though, and it is titled "Ring-tailed lemur", so could be. I can usually tell from the attribution as to whether it was from Flickr or Commons, but as they weren't polite enough to do any I'm stumped :) I did put it on FB, but only in a private album, I think. Yeah, pretty much every zoo I've ever been to has a similar "no commercial use" policy. I'm no legal expert, but most of them seem pretty wooly, and I can't imagine they would ever be enforced for an image taken by an amateur and released under a free licence. Then again, if said image went viral and someone in their commercial dept smelled money, who knows? --Baresi F (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm increasingly sceptical about viral photos. I mean, did the Weasel/Woodpecker guy get paid for all the news photos, never mind all the social media and parody photos. So I suspect if ZSL ever complained that they saw no money from a viral photo taken in their zoo, my response would be "You and me both". Commons won't delete your zoo photos, regardless of any contract terms, because the contract is between you and ZSL so doesn't affect anyone else. The best you can hope for is a courtesy deletion should the lawyers come knocking. Btw, do you realise that Facebook rights-grab your photos for eternity. Flickr's terms are quite reasonable but Facebook is collecting billions, if not trillions, of rights to photos to do whatever they like with, even if you leave, and you can forget about attribution never mind share-alike. -- Colin (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- If you love to make fotos from a zoo, Baresi F, come to Vienna, the Tiergarten Schönbrunn supports everyone, who wants to make fotos. Without any restrictions, you can work with tripods or not, just as you like. They only ask to be additionally mentioned as Tiergarten Schönbrunn. --Hubertl 23:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm increasingly sceptical about viral photos. I mean, did the Weasel/Woodpecker guy get paid for all the news photos, never mind all the social media and parody photos. So I suspect if ZSL ever complained that they saw no money from a viral photo taken in their zoo, my response would be "You and me both". Commons won't delete your zoo photos, regardless of any contract terms, because the contract is between you and ZSL so doesn't affect anyone else. The best you can hope for is a courtesy deletion should the lawyers come knocking. Btw, do you realise that Facebook rights-grab your photos for eternity. Flickr's terms are quite reasonable but Facebook is collecting billions, if not trillions, of rights to photos to do whatever they like with, even if you leave, and you can forget about attribution never mind share-alike. -- Colin (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- They may have got it from Flickr, but as I'm so lazy and never tag anything they might have had a hard job finding it. I've just checked and the only two (auto) tags on it are "animal" and "outdoor"! It was explored on there, though, and it is titled "Ring-tailed lemur", so could be. I can usually tell from the attribution as to whether it was from Flickr or Commons, but as they weren't polite enough to do any I'm stumped :) I did put it on FB, but only in a private album, I think. Yeah, pretty much every zoo I've ever been to has a similar "no commercial use" policy. I'm no legal expert, but most of them seem pretty wooly, and I can't imagine they would ever be enforced for an image taken by an amateur and released under a free licence. Then again, if said image went viral and someone in their commercial dept smelled money, who knows? --Baresi F (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't deny it is cute! Do you think they got it from Commons or did you post it to Flickr/Facebook? I seem to recall they had a social media page/group that looked very much like a request for free photos for them to use for their own publicity. I wonder if ZSL supplied your photo to the newspapers. You know, the reason my Flickr album isn't on Commons is I was told I could not release the photos with a free licence that permitted commercial use, unless I paid a fee (basically an hourly rate to take commercial photos at the zoo). Since they are a charity, I was minded to honour that, but increasingly I'm tempted to ignore it since they don't seem to have much respect for photographers. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose very nice but a bit too much of the wood IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as per others. Yann (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
