Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nicholas Kratzer

Nicholas Kratzer
Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 11:25:09 (UTC)
 * Reason:Very high quality reproduction of a very fine portrait in the typical style of the time. Note that I am nominating this for its EV as a portrait, not for its EV as a painting- that said, it's clear that the entire painting is there, and the colours look accurate. Already featured on Commons.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Nicholas Kratzer, List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger, Exhibition of National Portraits
 * FP category for this image:People/Others
 * Creator:Unknown, after Hans Holbein the Younger.


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Although this is one of the images that has a museum suing over it's upload here... — raeky  T  12:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Ha! Good luck to them trying to claim rights to a 500-year-old painting. I wonder what type of paint was used on this and what kind of canvass it was painted on, it seems very opaque and you can't really see the texture of whatever it was painted on, I guess it could just be on a smaller scale than real life. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not claiming copyright to the painting but the digital file they created of it, which is copyrighted under UK law but NOT US law. That is the crux of the lawsuit. Read more here. — raeky  T  17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is not -- and has never been -- a lawsuit. There's a recent update on the issue here. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is rather unpleasant and complex, but it is not, as of yet, our concern. The Foundation is happy that these images are public domain, so it should not have any baring on this FPC. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some US author wrote a book and mentioned some rich dude who took issue with the facts. So he sued—in England—because two books had been sold there mail order. The American didn’t bother showing up so the UK judge issued a default verdict in favor of the plaintive that included, as part of the remedy, a decree that all copies of the book throughout the world and in America be tracked down and destroyed. The American author’s response was more or less “Really? Really??? You and what army? Bite me.” Greg L (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I can see a lot of JPG artifacts in the darker area (eg the subject's clothes) –- the quality of the fine detail is not as good I would like it to be. Also, why does the border bend inwards on the right side? I'm not sure whether the painting is actually like this, or if this is a result of the reproduction method. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to pester, but I can't see artifacts, and the detail looks excellent to me. Could you be more specific? J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a close look at 100% resolution at the areas of his coat immediately above the letter and astronomical instrument on the table. The texture is very odd, in the manner of JPG artifacts. However, on reflection (and after looking at some of the other recently accepted FPs that we have) I think my original oppose vote was a bit harsh: the picture is not perfect in my opinion, but I'll agree that the detail is relatively good. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support One reason: The museum threatened legal action to User:Dcoetzee over this. Oh, BTW (to be all PC because I respect authority and embrace diversity and all that): the picture has lots of EV and looks nice. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Noodle snacks (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- George Chernilevsky  talk 09:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)