Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2011 census of India sticker

2011 census of India sticker
Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2011 at 07:07:25 (UTC)


 * Reason:Meets all FP criteria. Also, this Indian census was the second largest census till date, and since this is the only picture in the article mentioned below, it adds enormous encyclopedic value to it.
 * Articles in which this image appears:2011 census of India
 * FP category for this image:Other
 * Creator:
 * ALT caption:A sticker pasted at a house to mark it "counted" in the 2011 census of India. More than 500 million similar stickers were printed and pasted at houses to mark them as "counted".


 * Support as nominator --Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an odd but interesting concept. I don't think we have any FPs of censuses at all (redistricting, yes).  But why take this with flash?  This is on the outside of the door, right?  So it seems like you could do the same thing with natural lighting, and perhaps not have such an incredibly shallow depth-of-field.  Also, the angle of the composition is a little too casual for me; if it were taken straight-on in relation to the door, then the jaunty angle of the sticker itself would actually be more apparent.  Oppose as-is. Chick Bowen 01:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no natural lighting possible for this shot (atleast in my area) because all the doors are bounded by two walls. Trust me, I took this picture at 18:34 (IST) in the summer (in Delhi), meaning there was more than enough sunlight in the area (sun doesn't set till 19:45 in summers here!). Also, the actual sticker is the size of 6.25cm2, therefore the flash was compulsory (two walls bounding, no sunlight on door, ssuch a small sticker). Regarding the angle, there was only one inches space between the sticker and the wall so my DSLR could not fit. Anyway, I tried to fix the picture, anyone who can improve on it, you are more than welcome Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not just ask a neighbour for permission to take a picture of their sticker (assuming they are still up)?
 * Nah, they are all down, and trust me, the sticker outside this house was in the best condition. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can seee that even this sticker has come out (a bit) from the top. Also, comparing the two pics, I believe that the retouched one stands a chance, not the Original. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Agree that the retouched image is better, but it seems to be too bright, especially with the background as is; a version without a background (e.g. .png) may be okay, but I'm not sure. -- Crisco 1492 (Talk) 10:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ALT4 is much better, but it seems a little blurred. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose – I agree that picture is encyclopedic in many senses, but I also think that this kind of brightness is not suitable. I suggest you to approach Graphic Lab, maybe they can help you, if it goes well then I'll shift to support, regards. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   12:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I agree with Crisco 1492 that the image is too bright. Also, the background does nothing to help it. Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry to be a bore, but there is no freedom of panorama in India for works of this sort, meaning that, unless the design of this sticker is in the public domain for whatever reason, the retouched pictures 2, 3 and 4 are non-free derivative works, and the first two almost certainly are too. J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear you are correct. In other words, yet more time and effort completely wasted helping out Wikipedia. I cannot imagine that any official from the country of India would ever take issue with using an image of the sticker in an article... it would take a Wikipedian to do that. JBarta (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone would object to it being used on Wikipedia, but if someone was selling high resolution posters of the image (as would be their right if the license as currently written is correct) then it's conceivable that someone would get annoyed. The Wikimedia Foundation has made a commitment to free content, and this is by no means something we should be glossing over at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that India does, in fact, have some of the most liberal FOP laws in the world, I have trouble imagining the government making such a claim. Chick Bowen 18:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Commons, two dimensional works of art fall under FOP if permanent. How permanent would it have to be? Two weeks seems a little short. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sculptures and architecture are covered, "paintings, drawings, [and] photographs" are not. I think it's pretty clear which category a printed sticker falls under. Added to the fact this is clearly not permanent, and it's pretty clear that we cannot release photos of these stickers under whatever license we please, whether or not we think the Indian government is going to start prosecuting. A free work is not one that we're not going to get sued for using, it's one we (and others) are explicitly allowed to use and modify, even commercially, without having to pay. This is non-negotiable. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, not an artistic work. Sorry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The design on the sticker is an artistic work, it's just not one of the artistic works covered by Indian FOP laws. 10:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this, works created by the government of India are copyrighted for 60 years. I suppose a picture of a door in an article about doors that happened to have the sticker on it would probably be OK. A picture of the sticker in an article about the sticker (more or less) would be a gross violation of India's copyright law, not to mention Wikimedia's core principles. This all reminds me of a quote from an old book about an immigrant to the US... "Rules are for when the brains gives out." JBarta (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the copyright laws for governmental works of India applies here more than FOP. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that the design was copyrighted; the whole point of FOP is that you are able to take pictures of copyrighted artworks. Without a FOP, we would only be able to use the image if the design was public domain, as I said in my original comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But FOP would apply only when the sticker is incidental to the image, not to a photograph of just the sticker, right? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If FOP applied, it would apply to a photo of the sticker. For comparison, there is freedom of panorama for statues in the UK, so I can go and take pictures of newly erected statues in town centers all I want, whether the subject is the statue itself or its inclusion is incidental. I think you're thinking of another issue, de minimis, whereby copyrighted elements can be included incidentially in photographs even if there is no freedom of panorama. For instance, if a picture is taken of a person, but there happens to be a copyrighted painting in the background, the picture could still be released under a free license. If we then cropped it down to show just the background painting, however, the image would have to be treated as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Thanks for setting me right. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright question Government of India material is copyright protected, and stickers and promtional material aren't excluded. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, looks like it's already being addressed above. I was going to nominate this for deletion when I saw a link to this discussion, so commented without reading! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should go ahead and nominate it. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)