Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sign painting

Sign painting
Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2012 at 03:24:48 (UTC)
 * Reason:Okay, this is one of those slightly left-field noms that some may like and some may not. As the article notes, sign painting as a craft has almost disappeared, with most signs now being done via computer generated machinery. I thought I was lucky not just to catch a traditional hand-painted sign in the process of being created, showing how they build up the sign, painting on the undercoat, outline, background, etc, but to also actually capture the sign-painters at work, with their paint buckets and equipment, safety gear, and so on. Not only was this article unillustrated, I had to create a new category for this on Commons. Good technicals, nice colours, and high EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Sign painting
 * FP category for this image:Not really sure; maybe it's one of those oddball Featured pictures/Other ones. Could be squeezed into Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, though it's not really about the artwork.
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Would just like to point out that following this nomination someone has sneakily nommed this for deletion on Commons without bothering to comment on it here. Perhaps someone else can decide whether to leave the nom open and vote away as usual, or suspend it pending resolution. It doesn't worry me either way, but I know some (many) people won't vote once they see that deletion warning, especially when they don't know how it came about. So I figured I better comment on it. If it is left open, then please do ignore it in how and whether you vote (and I realise that is easier said than done). --jjron (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the decision on whether or not to feature should be independent of the investigation of its copyright status. That is why I did not bring it up here.  Would you have preferred me to derail conversation here?  Please don't cast aspersions on my temperament ("sneakily"). --99of9 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as anyone clicks to view fullsize they see the big deletion warning. Bammo, waste of time, ignore. It may not be derailing conversation here, it's totally stifling it. If you've got no idea what's going on, why would you bother voting? Or if you did vote, why would you give it fair consideration? You wouldn't. That's pretty obvious. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure that the decision on whether to feature should be independent of its copyright status at all. We regularly suspend noms based on clarifying these kinds of questions. I have no particular authority on Commons but I suspect that 99of9 may be right that it's a bit too derivative to avoid infringing copyright...  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an idea, but why not contact the hotel to ask who the sign painters are, and ask if they would be happy to allow the unfinished sign to be used on Commons with a CC license? It's not going to rip their work off given that it's unfinished (and is presumably commissioned for that particular hotel anyway), and we could even include the name of the artists doing the work to give them a little 'inadvertent' plug. Win-win situation, potentially. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a wild guess, but I'm gonna punt that the artists are Walldogs.net, and I reckon they're getting an 'inadvertent' plug as it is. FWIW, can you copyright such an incomplete image? A portion of an incomplete image at that? At what point does copyright kick in? As soon as they look at the wall? As soon as they start the undercoat? Seems kind of like an abortion debate, and I'm not sure we should kowtow to overly officious interpretations of silly laws. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, any 'unique' artistic design, whether complete or incomplete, breathtakingly beautiful or ridiculously bad, is automatically copyrighted the moment it is created. There is no interpretation in this context, because I don't believe you have to justify what it is or its purpose, you just have to show that you created it. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and re bowing and scraping to these businesses for their permission to take a photograph out in the city streets, it aint gonna happen. As it is I'm already donating my time, efforts, etc, etc, to create and upload these images. I'm not wasting more time and energy going to businesses on bended knee begging for the right to take a photo out in public. If other people find their motivation in getting these things deleted, then that's their right, even if I don't really understand them, and I don't really care. It's Wikipedia users that ultimately miss out. --jjron (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down. You'd probably appreciate the care that we take to avoid infringing copyright if you were on the receiving end of it. Besides, you're missing the point. There's no law stopping you from taking a photo out in public. There are laws to stop exploitation of copyrighted works, and we're forced to release our images under commercial licenses so it makes it particularly difficult to justify publishing copyrighted images when we allow them to be reused commercially. If you're upset with that license, then you should direct your ire at Wikimedia rather than those who enforce agreed rules. I've tried to argue for non-commercial licenses before, but the Free Content movement tends towards ideological and doesn't seem to be interested in giving any ground to pragmatism. Anyway, I digress... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, for the sake of clarification, I should say that I know that even a non-commercial license wouldn't necessarily avoid breaking copyright on this kind of image, but it would probably appease the copyright holder knowing that at least it could not be exploited by a commercial entity. Still, you have a point, an unfinished work is not going to be exploited commercially regardless, is it? But it's not for us to second guess the copyright holder. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Clearly this has been trashed and won't be given a fair shot. Thanks. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about we suspend for now? I just emailed Walldogs (the sign painters) asking for permission. If they agree, I can't see any problem. I've never done an OTRS before, which I assume is the best way to make it 'official' but if they agree, I guess we can cross that bridge. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Most likely, the copyright is owned by whoever the advertiser is (or I suppose it would be a derivative work). I don't think Walldogs would be legally able to give permission for us to use it. I suspect this would be turned down by the OTRS volunteer even if Walldogs 'gave permission'. Jujutacular (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, a close-up of a painter would possibly be a more engaging picture and the artwork becomes less significant and heavily cropped, possibly to the point where copyright is not an issue. If you take the nominated image, then cut-out from top-left (x=606, y=1162, w=400, h=600). I think that is a much better picture, though obviously a bit small for FP. However, if the deletion review goes against the whole image, I would like to know if such a crop would be OK and we'd still have something useful to illustrate the article. Colin°Talk 18:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That would likely be absolutely useless. Particularly an attempt to crop this one. But the copyright claim is nonsense. 31.54.171.96 (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspended pending resolution of deletion nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: File has been kept. I've taken liberty to reset the timer. --115.67.65.39 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I did not last time because of the discussion above. But I really like this. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, novel idea, nice execution. Jujutacular (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. No complaints. Dusty 777 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The call on the deletion nomination was the right one; if there are no practical grounds for a copyright claim, there's no need to invent a theoretical case for one. Chick Bowen 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you bring it up, I'll chime in. It seems to me that the closure was made because the discussion had gone stale, not because any legally sound consensus had been reached. The only promising suggestion (that de minimis and threshold of originality might work in concert) was never reviewed by counsel, and no attempt was made to contact any of the potential copyright holders to see if by granting permission for the reproduction, they might be willing to turn the whole thing into a non-issue (note that obtaining permission doesn't automatically imply that we needed it, simply that we were being courteous). At this stage, I don't think we've effectively clarified anything. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never known Fastily to close a discussion simply because it had "gone stale"; he has often closed discussions as delete when there was no call for deletion other than the nominator (as is often necessary at Commons, where there is little participation). Also, David Iliff contacted the sign painter months ago and got no response, probably because most sign painters would be unlikely to concern themselves with copyright and wouldn't have a clear idea of whether they own it and are extending a license to the client or the client owns it. Finally, I think the conclusion was clear: this is a partial, fragmentary rendering of the design, and thus it's impossible to imagine a serious copyright claim. Anyway, I think we've had quite enough of this question. You're right--I brought it up, and now regret doing so. Chick Bowen 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality photo with strong EV. In relation to the above, the default on Commons image deletion discussions where copyright is an issue seems to be to delete the image, so if it was kept it can be assumed to be judged to have been OK, especially given the experience of the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Excellent EV. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Mediran  talk 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

--King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)