Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Info created by Rembrandt van Rijn - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova -- Durova (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Durova (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Question any way to remove the little white spots ? Ianare (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. With historic paintings, though, I tend to leave that in because it accurately represents the way the paint has behaved over time. Durova (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Reflections. Lycaon (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)- Oppose This picture is copyrighted (see the copyright page on the site Geheugen van Nederland [1]) and protected by the Dutch laws: Auteurswet 1912 and Databankwet 1999. -- MJJR (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you link to the laws themselves? I checked with three Dutch Wikimedians in advance of uploading to see whether Dutch law had any exception to the standard practice on derivative works of two dimensional artwork. This is a digitization of a two dimensional painting over three centuries old. It isn't uncommon for museums to assert spurious copyright claims that have no basis in law. If you say Dutch law supports this, we ought to know where and update our summary of Dutch copyrights. Durova (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever Dutch law says on the matter will quite soon be irrelevant, since consensus seems to be to follow the 'position' taken by the WMF and to allow such images on Commons even if local law forbids it. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd certainly delete the image if local law places it under copyright. The relevant law in this instance has been researched extensively in advance. If you know of a law this violates, please provide specifics. Durova (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever Dutch law says on the matter will quite soon be irrelevant, since consensus seems to be to follow the 'position' taken by the WMF and to allow such images on Commons even if local law forbids it. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you link to the laws themselves? I checked with three Dutch Wikimedians in advance of uploading to see whether Dutch law had any exception to the standard practice on derivative works of two dimensional artwork. This is a digitization of a two dimensional painting over three centuries old. It isn't uncommon for museums to assert spurious copyright claims that have no basis in law. If you say Dutch law supports this, we ought to know where and update our summary of Dutch copyrights. Durova (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Barabas (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alvaro qc (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Reflections. Канопус Киля (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support I can't see any reflections. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ditto to Daniel. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Reflections and problematic copyright. --Karelj (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lifeless colors, reflections. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
