Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grande Arche

Grande Arche
Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013  at 18:38:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:High EV and high quality
 * Articles in which this image appears:Grande Arche, Johan Otto von Spreckelsen, La Défense
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:User:Atoma


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Copyright violation. No Freedom of Panorama in France, US doesn't recognise FOP for statues or monuments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so US FOP applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. -- ELEKHHT 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that extend to a building in Paris though? If copyright status is OK (and I hope that it is), I'm afraid that I'm going to oppose as the EV isn't strong here - from having visited this building, it's key features are that it's really, really big, and that its the centrepiece of the entire La Défense precinct. This image doesn't illustrate either point well as the fountains dominate the composition. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It can be hosted on en.wiki, but you should not use it if you're in France. Note that the deletion request has been now withdrawn. Otherwise agree with your critique about limited EV. -- ELEKHHT 01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Elekhh: Why do you believe that this can be hosted on enwp? Do you have a link to a discussion which concluded that we ignore FOP laws? J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, we observe FOP laws. But unlike Commons, which requires a free license both for the US and the country of origin of the photography, en.wiki does not have such a policy, and per Non-U.S. copyrights "Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law" and "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." It is current practice to host images on en.wiki if they are compliant with our policy but not with the more stringent policy of Commons. There is also a specific tag on the file warning users that "This file will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2059 and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons until that date, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States". -- ELEKHHT 09:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is horrible inconsistency, though. We have a featured picture of the Angel of the North- a copyrighted statue which may be freely photographed in the UK, where it stands, but not in the US. We can't have it both ways. Either we observe only US law (and so have no free images of statues, and only of buildings) or we observe local laws. Commons does the latter. Enwp has no clear consensus on which we're doing. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What is consistent in all this is that images with some copyright restrictions can be accepted if no more free alternative is possible and it is essential for supporting the educational scope of the article. Hence the over 300K images with non-free use rationale. The image you linked to does not infringe US law as it does not claim to be free in the US (it is tagged stating that it may not be free in the US) and its use on Wikipedia is non-commercial. What is inconsistent with is Wikipedia's aim of only hosting free images. But I think not showing it would only undermine the educational aim, and would be silly given that such images are all over the web.
 * In the case of 20th century architecture in France, other Wikipedias also reached a consensus that such images shall be locally hosted. The de.wiki hosts images of the Grande Arche as free under German FOP law while fr.wiki hosts images of the Arche based on community consensus to exempt such images from their free content policy. -- ELEKHHT 06:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "What is consistent in all this is that images with some copyright restrictions can be accepted if no more free alternative is possible and it is essential for supporting the educational scope of the article." That's what the NFCC are all about. The image you linked to does not infringe US law as it does not claim to be free in the US (it is tagged stating that it may not be free in the US) and its use on Wikipedia is non-commercial." Sure, we can use non-free images, but we should not be listing these non-free images as "free" and promoting them to FP status. That's the problem. We as a project need to work out what we're doing here, because right now, it's a free-for-all. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think is "free-for-all". But we have to deal with the reality of inconsistencies between various national copyright laws, which means that there will often be countries in which some images are not free for commercial use. This Grande Arche image is perfectly free in the US, UK, Australia, India, China, Germany, Brazil and many more countries that do have Freedom of Panorama provisions for images of architecture. I don't see why it should not be eligible for FP. If you wish to raise the question of FP eligibility of all 20th century sculptures, I think that discussion belongs elsewhere. -- ELEKHHT 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, as this discussion is now about a wider issue than just this candidate, perhaps discussion could be moved to WP:VP/P (Village pump/policy)? For the record, if this is free under US FOP laws, current consensus is that it is free enough. If we disagree with this consensus, a doomed FPC nom is not the place to discuss it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "For the record, if this is free under US FOP laws, current consensus is that it is free enough." How sure are you of that? What about those images not free under US FOP laws but which are free in their country of origin, like the images at Angel of the North? That's my point. We seem to have an inconsistency here- that's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to change policy, I'm just pointing out that we don't seem to have a policy. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Elekhh's claim that this image "can be hosted on en.wiki" is without foundation. Our policies on this matter, unlike the policies on Commons, are inconsistent and/or absent. If you wish to refute my claim, please provide a link to a policy page which makes the English Wikipedia's stance on FOP clear. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Already did (in that collapsed part), you just need to chill down and read. Also for civility's sake please try avoid offending me by making unsubstantiated claims. I suggest we stop this discussion here, take a break, and re-convene at a more appropriate forum (village pump, FPC talk page), as suggested earlier. -- ELEKHHT 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-U.S. copyrights, the page you linked, says nothing about FOP. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not realise that even if you follow from there "Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law" there is still no direct link to § 120 (linked in my very first comment on this page), which is the US version of "Freedom of Panorama" for buildings. -- ELEKHHT 13:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you so keen to have this argument here? I could offer a response, but that's just going to lead to this thread being collapsed as well. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)