Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alpamayo.jpg

Alpamayo

I think this image has a fascinating composition, especially the way the rough lines at the top contrast with the soft snow layers.

Nominate and support. - Circeus 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. It's already a Featured Picture on Commons. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-13 02:03
- Bleh, I didn't even notice that Circeus 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - JPM | 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Stunning. --Lordkinbote 07:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice, especially how the climbers look really tiny and you can still see their tracks. --Dschwen 17:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice. Mikeo 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support my new background :) --Lewk_of_Serthic 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose License on the source page says SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS! as well as a number of other unacceptable terms. --Gmaxwell 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gray area as noted here. I've had the same concern before. I believe that in most cases, if the photographer is contacted directly, they are happy to grant permission. Maybe that should be done in this case? --MattWright (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? I see "Restrictions: There are no usage restrictions for this photo" and "Usage: Royalty free, no restrictions." - JPM | 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it is a gray area. What you saw is what the photographer put as the restrictions when the file was uploaded (I believe). However, the site itself has a license which you can see by clicking the View License Agreement link that is directly under the picture itself. --MattWright (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get you. The image is on commons, so it should be automatically available for use a featured picture as far as copyright is concerned. I also donotsee that sentencen either at the commons page({{CopyrightedFreeUse}}) not at the original page (On the contrary, I read "Royalty free, no restrictions" and "There are no usage restrictions for this photo.") Circeus 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "View image license" just underneath the image on the source page and you will see that. Possibly the image shouldn't be on commons. 84.9.223.82 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The bit in capitals that says NO SELLING is the overall license for the website where people can upload and display their photos. The bit that says 'Free usage, no restrictions' is the photographer's own comment he placed when uploading it. This makes the license a bit ambiguous even though it's pretty sure the photographer's intention was to release it free. I've done a bit of digging and the same chap has published excellent photos on about 30 websites, some of which have completely free licences, so if no one has done it in the meantime, I'll mail him when I get home this evening and verify (1) we can have the photo and (2) which license he'd prefer ~ Veledan • Talk 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the license on the image page supercedes the other one in this matter. - JPM | 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. You may ignore license problems discussed above. The stock.xchng debate has been had a dealt with (see here). The user explicitly states the image is restriction and royalty free. GMaxwell: you may want to withdraw or change your vote as a result. ed g2s • talk 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Licence In case anyone has any remaining doubts, the photographer has replied to my email and confirmed we can use the image without any restrictions whatsoever ~ Veledan • Talk 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Use? But what about unlimited redistribution, derivative works, etc? We don't allow mere 'with permission' on Wikipedia outside of fair use. The word 'use' is often used by people who mean you can display this on your website. Did you send him one of our boilerplate permissions emails? --Gmaxwell 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No I didn't; I wasn't aware of them. Sorry for the ambiguity in my summation - the photographer confirmed that the picture is free of restrictions as opposed to just giving us permission. Anyway, see the link provided by ed g2s - it turns out my email asking for confirmation of the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} was unnecessary in any case ~ Veledan • Talk 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kessa Ligerro 07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magic! - Adrian Pingstone 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! Calderwood 07:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive--Looper5920 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and stunning. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would feel somewhat neutral towards this if it wasn't for the sense of scale offered by the mountaineers hiking it. Great image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great picture--Colle||Talk-- 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find this boring. Have seen many just like it. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid image. Illustrates mountain, climbing, glacier, avalanche, etc. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, crisp, good contrast, and a powerful sense of scale. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good for FP standards; now what would suit my fantasies is — more individuals, but not too much, and a closer resolution of the individuals, but this is enough is great. It is all about the scale. Anyone play America's Army's map Mountain Pass? It's the same feeling and more. It's almost like what you would see on one of those self-esteem posters, with a big caption like "ACHIEVE" or "RISK", etc. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great photo. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing picture. The presence of the humans actually enhances the picture because it helps to give a sense of scale; without them, I might think this thing was smaller than it really is. Ohh, the inadequacies of the human mind to comprehend something so alien to it. I do think there is a little bit of color washout or white glow around the edges of the snowy peak, but not enough to drop me down to Neutral, and anyway, it's very hard to get a good picture of a white reflective surface like that. --Cyde Weys 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good image, sharp at (2272x1704, 1466 KB) resolution and the people give it more interest and proper scale. It would a fine featured picture.--Dakota ~ ° 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, striking image. I can imagine it being displayed on a number of other articles as well. --BillC 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. New wallpaper. Mark ^{your words} 19:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cold and impressive. - Darwinek 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Alpamayo.jpg Raven4x4x 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]