Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Street Art

Elisabethmarkt Muenchen Graffiti

 * Reason:A great image of Graffiti, it shows the size of images that can be made and how it is a true artform.
 * Articles this image appears in:Elisabethmarkt Graffiti
 * Creator:Oliver Raupach


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Ch ild zy  ( Talk 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say creator and selbst gemacht (own work) does this mean you are the Graffiti artist? If not then we have a problem here... --Dschwen 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, if the person that took the photo releases it then there is no problem. It is graffiti, nobody owns any rights towards the work anyway -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a discussion about graffiti and copyright and here are German laws on freedom of panorama. What could you make of it?--Svetovid 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Strong oppose upon reconsideration I'm not convinced that using the image isn't copyright infringement, unless we have the permission of the graffiti artist him/herself. Even if there are no legal ramifications from using this image, posting it without the painter's consent doesn't reflect the ideals of WP. At least that's my perspective. SingCal 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean that information wants to be free and we need to get it into the hands of everyone at no cost? Copyright goes against wiki ideals, it's just something we have to deal with since people with guns and lawyers don't agree with us --⁪frotht 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

mikaultalk 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Please see Fair use: As a recent artwork with clear authorship, wikipedia might be entitled to Fair Use licensing of this image under "images illustrative of a particular technique". Regardless of any (unfounded) assumptions we might make about the legality of the original artwork, and despite it being a photographic reproduction, it must be assumed to have legitimate authorship and therefore subject to copyright the same as any other artwork. Fair Use might be ok for wikipedia in general but it is not a permissible license for featured picture submissions under the current criteria. I move we suspend this nomination at the very least, until the license situation is properly resolved. mikaultalk 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Encyclopedic and excellent quality reproduction. Bleh999 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose at 100%, the image is not crisp. I understand that the medium (presumably spray paint) doesn't give a crisp edge, but I am not talking about that. Look at the texture on the wall. There seems to be focus issues.-Andrew c 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original Support withdrawn It's in focus, I think. As it's rather large (10MP) and not sharpened, it looks "soft" at 100%. This is more the fault of the Wikipedia image display defaults: images aren't scalable, so there's no happy medium between 800x600 preview – where you see little to no detail – and full resolution, where you can't see the wood for the trees. While downsampling and sharpening would work, you lose the benefit of high resolution and spoil the image for possible print use in the future. I've uploaded a ds version anyway, so you can see what it might look like in print. (All) that said, whereas I really like the illustration, the copyright situation is unclear (per SingCal) & I'd need clarifiaction before supporting.
 * Conditional support downsampled provided copyright is resolved. Also, do you think the nudity is sufficient to disqualify it from the Main Page. (Yes, I know, an image can be featured but withheld a Main Page appearance.) I don't mind, but someone else might.--HereToHelp 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no copyright issues.. this photo is just a picture of a wall, the wall happens to have a FP worthy design on it. The artist does not own the wall thus does not own the picture. There is no copyright tag on the wall so the picture has not been copyright protected. You can look at it a million ways but at the end of the day lets finish with the semantics and accept that there is nothing wrong with it from a copyvio point of view -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a picture of a picture, not just a wall... Just so you know, a ©-mark is not necessary. Copyright is automatic when an image is made public. However, if there is no author's name or signature, then we don't know who the © belongs to.
 * I've just reverted my reconsidered support for this. As a photo of a recent artwork, the best we can hope for is Fair Use, which makes it ineligible for FP. I'd also like to point out that it is signed... mikaultalk 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But from a legal point of view is graffiti entilted to copyright protection. Now im no lawyer but id think not tbh. -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's illegal graffiti, probably not. But I look at the intense, painstaking detail of the painting and I think it wasn't a rush job. I feel like the artist had permission to use the space, either from a business owner or as part of an exhibition similar to the one that Wooster Collective sponsored. In either of those cases, intellectual copyright holds and we don't have permission to use the image. And I think these scenarios are likely enough that promoting this to FP would be irresponsible. SingCal 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP is not censored. So nudity shouldn't matter. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know it isn't and it shouldn't. Just wanted to make sure nobody else disagreed.--HereToHelp 03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Mikaul. I move to suspend the nomination as well, with the understanding that I would likely be in support of this candidate if not for the copyright issues. SingCal 07:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't the owner of the wall have the rights? Shoeshirt 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, authorship is everything. It's yer intellectual property, innit? mikaultalk 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But if am using your property without your permission as a component of the art, then wouldn't that make a difference? If I took your paint and your canvas and made a picture without permission, or if I stole a camera and took a picture and it was recovered, wouldn't the owner of the medium have the rights? Not basing this on anything, it would just seem to make sense. Shoeshirt 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting Shoeshirt 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but again, that discussion only applies if the graffiti is created illegally, and as I've said, I think that there is ample evidence to support that it was created legitimately. Even if the building's owner has since removed it, the artist still holds intellectual copyright on visual representations of the work, including images, until he or she decides to release them. SingCal 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, unless there is a specific prior agreement to the contrary, ownership of the medium (camera, film, canvas, wall) employed to create an intellectual work is secondary to ownership of the content within that medium. Hence you may own a book but not the ideas printed in it, or a music CD but not the songs written for it. If I use your camera and take a photo with it, it's your camera and my photo, whether I took it with your permission or not; they're entirely distinct entities. mikaultalk 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to summarize, since there's often confusion around this idea: If you were to spray-paint a tuxedo on a statue, the resulting art (yes, it's art and copyrightable, even when illegal) is a derivative work. Copyright is held by both the street artist and the statue's artist. However, when you put a mural on a wall, the wall is typically considered a canvas of sorts, which has no copyright standing. The art, therefore is not a derivative and stands on its own. Ownership of the material on which the art is painted does not convey copyright. For example, if Picasso had stopped to draw a picture on a paper that someone gave to him to autograph, that picture that he drew is his work, and the person who owns the paper has no standing to claim copyright controls over it. The visceral sense that we get that an artist who uses someone else's property for their art must be sacrificing control is appropriate, legally, only in terms of disposing of the art. When it comes to reproduction, copyright law makes no allowance for ownership of the media. Note: 1) I am not a lawyer, this is just a summary of what I have researched myself 2) I'm discussing U.S. law due to Wikipedia's hosting location. German law may differ. -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspended due to uncertain copyright status. MER-C 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose conditionally - should the artist authorize the image's release under a free license, then I would support this image. Its focus is not even, but that's a factor of the size of the wall, I believe. The composition and lighting are excellent. The art itself is stunning, and clearly topical if somewhat adolescent. Has anyone tried to contact the artist? -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been 3 months since the nom was suspended, and there's been no progress on addressing the image's status. I couldn't find a clearly explained WP policy on suspended nominations, but as so much time has passed I move to close as no consensus due to inactivity and the inconclusive voting results thus far. SingCal 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

'''because of copyright issues. Can be renominated when they are resolved. --Nautica Shad e  s ''' 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)