Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/US Supreme Court oral arguments sketch

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

US Supreme Court oral arguments sketch, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2020 at 09:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Waxman for petitioner
    Waxman for petitioner
  • Chemerinsky for respondent
    Chemerinsky for respondent
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Groups (although I feel like Non-photographic media/Others might be more appropriate, so if the community prefers this gallery, please say so)
  •  Info created by Arthur Lien - uploaded by MrClog - nominated by MrClog -- MrClog (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It seems like my whole desciption is gone(?). Essentially, these are as far as I know the only court sketches we have from the US Supreme Court, made by one of the three court sketchers left. Although one is just short of the 2 megapixel requirement, I don't think those few extra pixels would add much more detail. -- MrClog (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Gallery fixed. --Cart (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment They are a bit small, but if it's the full and original resolution that is shown here, I suppose it could be OK. There are small paintings and drawings in the world, after all. I'd be interested to hear more about that. Another thing, though: the metadata shows this copyright text: "©2019 Arthur Lien. No usage without prior consent. All rights reserved." I'd also be interested to hear how this connects with the Commons licensing. An image with restrictions is less useful than a freely licensed one.--Peulle (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is prior consent - it is given in the OTRS ticket. I don't view "All rights reserved" as having any legal difference from "Some rights reserved" when coming from the author; in both cases, the author technically still reserves all rights, but may choose to license any of them as they see fit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peulle: The copyright notice in the metadata is pretty common among artist that digitise their works, because it makes it easier to proof their case in court when there's a copyvio. However, Arthur Lien released these two under a CC-BY-SA license and confirmed this via OTRS, and he presumably didn't change the metadata. There is - I believe - a version with a higher resolution (not sure what the difference in pixels is), although Arthur chose to keep that one in case someone wants the highest resolution - so they'd still need to pay him. The resolution right now is still good and it's unlikely we'll (possibly ever) get a SCOTUS sketch in a similar or higher resolution. --MrClog (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, if this is a case of images of reduced resolution having been uploaded to Commons rather than the full resolution versions, I'm afraid I'm going to have to  Oppose as a matter of principle.--Peulle (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peulle: Actually, it appears we do not have a reduced res version. If you look at the webstore, the best download they sell is 865 x 1225px, and ours is better than that. I suppose he uses the higher resolution version like this one if someone purchases a printed version. --MrClog (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair enough, I suppose, so I'll remain  Neutral on this one. Just so I'm being clear for the future: if someone out there has a high resolution image, then uploads a lower resolution of that image to Commons and keeps the higher one for themselves, I will never support it as an FP.--Peulle (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/US_Supreme_Court_oral_arguments_sketch&oldid=421351969"