Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vitra Design Museum nachts1.jpg

File:Vitra Design Museum nachts1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 06:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Vitra Design Museum nachts1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vitra Design Museum nachts1.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Question Is the remarkable scaffolding a regular part of the building or is it there due to "real" construction work? The latter case would be unfortunate for the FP quality of an architecture shot despites the aim is a documentation of the construction process of the building as it is the case on this FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is due to construction work, but (1) this has like you already mentioned a worth of documentation (2) this is not really disturbing IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --XRay ^talk 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Question is it a copyright violation? I mean the photo of "Louis Kahn". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm afraid I must second Alchemist-hp: temporarily shown, too big for DM. It's posible to blur out the photo (instead of deleting the whole file), but this would ruin the composition far below FP requirements. --A.Savin 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I was sure this is to handle just as an accessory part. But I'll resolve it by discussing this issue with my advocate. I'll reply contemporary. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I don't want to spoil this nomination for the DR. Will be deleted if the rational is accepted. JKadavoor Jee 15:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose until question about copyvio is resolved --Vamps (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment This image is no copyvio. The photpography of Kahn just about 10 % of the image size so it is covered by the German law § 57 UrhG (copyright law) as so called "Beiwerk". It is obvious that the main subject shown in this image is the building and not the photography. All buildings in Germany can be photographed from public space, even art work. So we have definitly no copyvio here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've answered on the DR page. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support The poster in the foreground, adds to be overall appeal of the image --115.114.191.92 07:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) invalid voting. Please login first. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose From my current research we have a serious copyvio problem here. I asked the German copyvio experts for further help. I will change to neutral or weak oppose if everything is fine with the image. To the image: Not a brilliant one: As already mentioned the scaffolding is disturbing and the large photography in front of the building distracts from the architecture of the building. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Your "reserch" is based on a non juristic book with a disputable conclusion made by yourself. I guess an advocate which is involved day to day with this questions is more authentic than any self-appointed "copyvio expert". In fact this smells very strong to be a revenge-contra for this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No personal accusation please - probably I should ask some admins for help. I am free in my opinion and on the time I express it. During my research on the copyvio I looked serveral times on your photo and saw new aspectcs I did not really like on your photo - e.g. the distraction of symmetry by the large photo in front - what's the problem with that? Please respect my opinion. One aspect of my oppose was already mentioned five days before - so keep calm. IMHO the copyvio problem should be resolved in consensus with the community. I guess your lawyer decided rather technically than considering your motive. This is not only a judicial problem but a photographic question. The photograph in front of the building surely belongs to the motive. But please let's discuss it on the appropriate place. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
      • please do not discuss on two pages for the same stuff, I didn't accuse anybody here, so stay calm and do not assume my advocate wouldn't know the arguable image. I asked intrinsic for this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Sorry, forgot to login earlier --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks, A.Savin and Jkadavoor for their useful hints. I've striked every copyvio statement, because here is the wrong place to discuss it. I also dismissed my opposing vote and decided for the future to ignore that user. Nonetheless the kind how Taxiarchos228 verbally tackled me here and on different discussion pages was far from being OK and I will not forget it easily. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --.InfiniteHiveMind. (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: x support, x oppose, x neutral → not featured. /JKadavoor Jee 05:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Iifar, that is a conditional oppose; so no need to count if the file will be kept. And if deleted, no need to count any. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. JKadavoor Jee 05:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)