Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Epcot Scenery.JPG

The Scenery of Epcot Theme Park, Walt Disney World, Florida
[[Image:Epcot Scenery.jhgl Um, isn't it a condition of entry that photographs taken in these theme parks are to be used for non-commercial purposes only? (I know HK Disneyland imposes this restriction, I see no reason why this shouldn't be different). [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 11#File:Epcot_Scenery.JPG|Nominated for deletion]]. MER-C 04:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Miramar93 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Excessive blown highlights (40%+ of Spaceship Earth is blown). On a compositional note, a monorail train would have been nice. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - would be great except for the blown highlights. Kaldari (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose blown whites. Durova Charge! 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that. And morally speaking, is that right? I'd like to see a source first. What makes this commercial? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 08:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an adhesion contract, which you'll find on the back of the ticket or a noticeboard near the entrance (in other words, you're not likely to notice it if you aren't looking for it). Example: . A public domain work can be used for commercial purposes, so it's not allowed. What else would you expect from the mafiaa? MER-C 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The photographer broke their contract with the theme park, but that does not in any way affect the licensing or legal status of the image. Kaldari (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral blown highlights, too much contrast.  tempo di valse  [☎]  00:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

--~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)