Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eduard Spelterini Pyramids

Eduard Spelterini Pyramids
Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2012 at 13:02:05 (UTC)
 * Reason:A historic view of the Giza pyramids area, and a good example of Eduard Spelterini's work and of the aerial photography's beginning
 * Articles in which this image appears:Eduard Spelterini, Aerial photography, Great Pyramid of Giza
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/History/Others
 * Creator:Eduard Spelterini


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fortunately can be retaken now in color, mediocre details at full view. Brandmeistertalk  16:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The largest EV isn't, of course, in the article of Giza pyramids, but on the article Eduard Spelterini, and in illustrating early aerial photography. Tomer T (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Dusty 777 01:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can be retaken now. The real EV would be in the pyramids, but the surrounding land, which has changed a lot, I gather. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From my perspective what the image captures is unique. The scene's changed since 1904, and we really ought to be analysing this as a historical image. I was going to support his. However, the image's copyright status is completely incorrect. The image as I understand it was not in the public domain on 1 January 1996 by life+70, so the file is incorrectly tagged. Nor was it published before 1923. Unless Switzerland did or does apply some special rule for photographs based on their creation date, the file ought to be deleted by my reckoning. Even if there is a way to save it, I oppose this until it it is correctly tagged. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Question I would like to support this but can someone respond to Grandiose's comments about copyright? Pine✉ 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Grandiose is completely mistaken, this work is completely out of copyright. Or, if you think this would be Egyptian copyright law, commons:Commons:Licensing makes it clear that no copyright can be maintained here. I see no other mechanism of copyright appearing, since they went out of copyright in Switzerland in the 80s. If people aren't aware, commons:Commons:Licensing will instantly resolve most issues of this sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.168.94 (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I missed the specialised tag given as part of the PD-1996 template explaining the position. Less on the patronisation though, please. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support after discussion above. Pine✉ 03:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)