Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Curlew - natures pics.jpg

Curlew
Another terrific image, sharp, well composed and shows great detail of the bird - what more could you want?
 * Nominate and Support --Fir0002 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment More source info, for one thing. I checked the site and I coudl not find anything on it that indicates that the images are under a ShareAlike 2.5 license.  If the photographer released it under that license in the eamil, could you copy it to the discussion page? Hbdragon88 08:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From the front page of their web site, in the first paragraph: "We consider each image to be in the Public Domain with the proviso that their use conform to the general spirit of the rules governing Attribution-ShareALike 2.5 as described by Creative Commons in their summary deed." I have copied this statement into the image description. -- Moondigger 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense, since PD means you can't put any restrictions on it. Maybe someone should suggest they simplify the statement one way or the other (PD or CC-BY-SA). --Davepape 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I sent them an e-mail requesting clarification of their licensing terms. Their response indicated that they wanted their images used in compliance with CC-BY-SA 2.5.  The ambiguity of the statement on their webpage notwithstanding, the license Fir0002 applied to the image is correct. -- Moondigger 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand on that a bit... they do seem to be a bit confused, as they equate "public domain" with "CC-BY-SA 2.5." But the terms they require are equivalent to CC-BY-SA 2.5, so I believe the license Fir0002 specified is valid. -- Moondigger 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that suggested to Al that a CC license might be more suitable than public domain, since it "ensures" attribution. He then asked for my opinion about the new language on his web site, and I said what has been identified above. Also, technically, all current images on his site (until he adds a new gallery) were already released into the public domain, so I suggested that he make that clearer on his web site... eg. galleries 1-x are PD, and galleries x+1 onward are CC. Maybe I'll go check my email to see if he responded. Also, Fir, hit FPC with too many bird pics at once and people will stop supporting them!! I was going to put up some Gannets next but I think we're good for birds right now. :-) Outriggr 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent photo. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-24 01:22
 * Support. Excellent depiction of the animal. (And Outriggr is right about too many similar pictures at once. People start comparing them to each other). -- Tewy  19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Purty. - echidnae 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The bird is too far to the left. Jam01 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok. Sometimes it is deliberate to place the subject on the side of the image opposite the direction toward which it faces.  It provides a space into which that subject looks dliao 2006 August 30 06:19 UTC.
 * Support. Lovely. --Nebular110 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent pic, particularly the composition - Adrian Pingstone 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)