Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Danny Lee Wynter

Danny Lee Wynter

 * Reason:High quality, emotive portrait. An excellent example of how our submissions system should work- though an image was not even actively requested, Wynter was happy to contact us with this photograph to be released under a free license.
 * Articles this image appears in:Danny Lee Wynter
 * Creator: Publicity photo supplied by Wynter himself. Johan Persson

--jjron (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Awesome. Glad to see some other celebrity realize the intelligence of what I believe Plácido Domingo was the first to do. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We do get a good few, but there's also a lot of junk at the OTRS address, plus people not jumping through the necessary hoops (clarifying license and their claim on the image; that sort of thing). It's pretty tedious working through it all, but it's good when you get an image like this! J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Kudos to smart celebrities who understand free licensing. Durova  308 21:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. A high quality portrait. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support f2.8 on a full frame camera is leaving one eye out of focus. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - insufficient DOF and JPEG artifacts with the eye a little blocky. Not an oppose, but can't bring myself to support. MER-C 08:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Essentially for the DOF issues, although I think it's aesthetically very good, so I'm glad an oppose won't mean it won't be used on wikipedia. Terri G (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think the DOF issue is significant in this case. The level of detail is excellent and the aesthetics are obviously quite good. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions Do we know that Wynter owns the copyright of this image, and if not whether the photographer released this under a free license? I'm not sure Winter should be credited in the "Author" field on the image page, in any case. --mikaultalk 22:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wynter did not say who the photographer was. However, he is the copyright holder- this is a work for hire. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, you don't normally see WFH agreements in the UK. I've heard of similar arrangements but they're quite the exception and copyright usually resides with a company, not an individual. Even then I'd expect the moral right of attribution to be retained by the photographer, not the copyright holder. --mikaultalk 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, I step down- I'm certainly not a lawyer! This is a publicity photo that Wynter uses as he wishes, and he contacted us and said he was releasing it- am I wrong to assume good faith? J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Me neither! I don't wish to cast aspersions on the actions of the contributor but it is quite possible that he doesn't understand the nature of his license to use the image. I may well be completely wrong but we do need to be careful with this sort of thing, especially with FPs. FWIW the EXIF data reveals the author to be Johan Persson, a stage & screen specialist. I've dropped him an email. I still think, whatever the fact of the matter, he should be credited as author. --mikaultalk 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that, obviously. J Milburn (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply received from the photographer; he has no objection (as I suspceted) but very much appreciated being informed of the upload here. Assuming we want to encourage more of this kind of work, it's essential we properly credit the photographer (and not the license holder) as author. I've amended the image description page accordingly; further comments at talk page. --mikaultalk 21:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could forward your email to permissions@wikimedia.org, along with a link to the image, that would be great- that way, we have evidence of release from the copyright holder and the photographer, meaning there are no potential copyright issues in the future. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --mikaultalk 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support The framing's a little weird, cropped quite long and tall for some reason, but still a very nice capture. --mikaultalk 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This sort of model shot has an aesthetic maybe a little different to what we're used to, but it's still quite usable in an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 22:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)