Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kyndra Miller Rotunda

Kyndra Miller Rotunda
Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 13:14:49 (UTC)
 * Reason:A professionally produced photo of a notable individual received through our photo submission system. The original is File:Kyndra Miller Rotunda.jpg, if anyone wants to try to recrop. (Concerning the watermark, Rotunda assured me that the rights had transferred to her upon her payment, a simple work-for-hire- I'd be inclined to believe her. Not only is this likely, but she is a law professor...) Plenty of emotion, this shot really helps the article by adding a face to the name in a way that some formal portraits do not.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kyndra Miller Rotunda
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Glamour Photography. Property of Kyndra Miller Rotunda.


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Finally, a really excellent portrait. Moreover some of the subject matter (an Army JAG officer) is interesting. Too bad so much of the article has to be devoted to a sexual harassment lawsuit. That makes me wonder if Ms. Rotunda would enjoy being the subject of so much public interest for a day. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was her who sent it to me- she implied she'd read the article, and seemed happy enough with it. She was certainly happy enough to donate the image! J Milburn 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Greg L (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I support her getting attention for a day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (*smile*) That was my take too. But we finally have a portrait that is pretty much flawless in every respect. Though I voted “support,” I still have a latent concern about notability. Is that a legitimate issue here? Greg L (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If she's notable enough to have an article, she's notable enough to have a featured picture. She seems to pretty clearly pass our notability guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Greg L (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspended per nom's request pending licensing check. --jjron (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question The source does say Glamour Shots, does the OTRS include full permission from Glamour Shots for copyright release? Since it's a professional studio they hold the copyright of the image, see ? — raeky ( talk 04:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please suspend the nomination while I look into this. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Email sent to Glamour Shots. Fingers crossed. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be worth asking if this has been airbrushed too - it certainly gives me that impression. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the crop's a bit awkward - if the copyright is OK, is there a possibility the watermark could be cloned out rather than cropped (or assuming it's legit, they may even be able to provide one without the watermark). --jjron (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to suspect that the copyright release from them requires the watermark to remain. This is a professional studio, they make their $ by selling you copies of the pictures, not by letting you make your own. I also suspect it's rather difficult to get them to part with the copyright. As for airbrushing, I do think that's a standard technique for this studio, they sorta specialize in it. — raeky ( talk 17:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true. When I buy commercial photography services, I pay extra to buy ownership of license rights, otherwise you end up inevitably going back to the photographer and get killed for reproductions in brochures and media. Photography is a competitive business and many commercial photographers are hungry enough to take you up on the offer. BTW, for killer portraits, Quicksilver Studios across the border in Idaho does some stunning work. At their home page, navigate to “Seniors” → “Featured Galleries” → “Raves.” Greg L (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

- I'm going to presume from the image's disappearance that this failed the licensing check. Pity. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)