Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/La Catrina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] La Catrina

Original
Original
Reason
Great picture!
Proposed caption
La Catrina – In Mexican folk culture, the Catrina, popularized by Jose Guadalupe Posada, is the skeleton of a high society woman and one of the most popular figures of the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico.
Articles this image appears in
Day of the Dead, Catrina
Creator
Tomascastelazo
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very intriguing image! nice DOF. de Bivort 18:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Nice!--Mbz1 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Eyecatching, sharp, good "wow". --Janke | Talk 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Now that's one hell of a picture ! Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support high quality picture of an interesting subject, lots of enyclopaedic value. --Aqwis 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Are the sculptures depicted here protected by copyright? How large are these sculptures? Spikebrennan 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The description in the image summary says they are about 38cm (15in) tall (does anyone read these things?). I'm not sure what the copyright concerns would be - could you elaborate? --jjron 06:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • 2-dimensional photographs of 3-dimensional objects, such as sculptures, are never under the same copyright as that of the sculpture (unless the sculptor photographs his own work). If that weren't the case, we would have to delist several dozen photos from Featured. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-03 17:17Z
      • Sorry, but I don't think that's right. A 2D photo of a 3D sculpture is a derivative work of the sculpture. The sculptor has the exclusive right to authorize derivatives of his work. A photo of a copyrighted sculpture can thus be published only with the consent of the owner of the copyright on the sculpture. So, are these figurines copyrighted? If so, did the creator consent to the photos being published under a free license? Lupo 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I get the impression - and I could be entirely wrong - that these are simply the type of thing that you would just purchase pretty cheaply at a local market or something, and thus would not have a named sculptor or anything like that. If that is the case, how do you deal with the copyright concerns you raise? Brian makes a good point about photos of other sculptures too; it's my experience that most public sculptures make no mention of copyright on or about them - do we take that as meaning that since we're not told otherwise it's fine to freely photograph them and publish that work? --jjron 06:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I have the same understanding, that these are folk art that are widely available in Mexico, perhaps not always of this quality of workmanship but often close. I've seen some cool things people have brought back. I guess it would help if the creator could give us some context for the photo. If this was any kind of formal exhibit, e.g. with named artists, perhaps a contest, I would consider the copyright issues to have merit. If it's just a local/communal display, perhaps even product for sale, I'm less concerned, even though in principle it's the same issue. --Dhartung | Talk 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, provided the copyright is worked out. (I was thinking the exact same thing as Spikebrennan but it's such a great shot I was going to feign ignorance and vote support unconditionally until I saw his comment...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • 2-dimensional photographs of 3-dimensional objects, such as sculptures, are never under the same copyright as that of the sculpture (unless the sculptor photographs his own work). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-03 17:17Z
      • Disagree. See above. Lupo 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, one of the best FPC's I've seen in a while... tiZom(2¢) 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per Spikebrennan. Copyright must be worked out, and would be nice to give a sense of scale in the caption.--HereToHelp 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • 2-dimensional photographs of 3-dimensional objects, such as sculptures, are never under the same copyright as that of the sculpture (unless the sculptor photographs his own work). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-03 17:17Z
      • Disagree. See above. Lupo 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, Brian, if what you're saying is that if a sculpture is protected by copyright then a photograph of that sculpture can conceivably be an infringement of the copyright, then I agree. I had posted some photographs of Cloud Gate (a public sculpture in Chicago) and they were removed from Wikipedia for this reason. Spikebrennan 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commons candidacy. MER-C 02:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Stunning and eyecatching image! 24.184.103.209 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Wwcsig 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. If the copyright is good enough for commons, it's good enough here. Also fantastic shot --ffroth 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there necessarily _is_ a copyright problem; but I don't think we can just take commons's word for it. Spikebrennan 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This is an excellent image. -- The Anome 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone should remove the noise in the bg --Fir0002 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question What kind of material are these made from? This is the sort of thing art folks always want to know. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Fascinating and Chilling simultaneously... Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportThis is a beautiful photograph that represents something many english speakers may not know much about Alex Barrow 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely eye-catching. 8thstar 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see the following comment on the Commons nomination of this image, regarding the copyright issue:

Comment According to the Wiki Commons page on Mexican law, literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases... VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places. Assuming this was taken in a public place, it's perfectly legal except that the source needs to be cited. Of course, if you got permission from the owners it's a different story. Please correct this or delete the image, it's a wonderful picture but not worth getting Wikimedia sued. Calibas 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Although the copyright issue needs to be looked into first, this picture is very encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This picture was taken at the Museo de la Ciudad (City Museum) in Leon, Guanajuato. It was part of an exhibit that did not mention authors of artwork exhibited. It wa an exhibit of the Day of the Dead celebration. --tomascastelazo 17:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving down to resolve uncertain copyright status, or at least until commons clears this. MER-C 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleared on commons → Promoted Image:Catrinas 2.jpg MER-C 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)