Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 17, 2017

Development of Grand Theft Auto V TFA image
I would like to add File:Rockstar North building, shot from hill.jpg to this scheduled TFA. It is a high-resolution, non-copyrighted work available in the Commons. All ok? (Pinging coordinators ) CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 13:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also pinging David Levy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * CR 4 ZE, I can't see any objection to the PD image being in the article. You will note that I haven't put an image in the TFA blurb since any really key image will be copyright, and those in the article, although relevant there, don't really illustrate the game or its development directly enough for the blurb. But I don't think that's what you're suggesting anyway. If it is, I don't think it's appropriate, but I'll put in in if the other pingees disagree. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image is suitable for inclusion in the article, but not in the TFA blurb (for the reasons cited). —David Levy 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My query was more regarding the blurb, not the article. It was my hope that we could get a relevant free image for the blurb so as to attract more readers to the page. My thought was that File:Rockstar North building, shot from hill.jpg would be suitable, but I understand the argument that it isn't. I've scoured Flickr many times to try and flag down an appropriate image. File:Grand Theft Auto V advertisement.jpg would have been perfect as it is freely licensed, but my understanding of Freedom of Panorama is that it cannot be freely copied to the Commons. In any case, the article will run without an image, which is fine, but I've done my very best to locate one to no avail. All video game TFA's seem to run into a similar problem. Regardless, thanks for the input, guys. Cheers. CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 05:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue arises with works of fiction in general, but it affects video games particularly often because they're created behind closed doors and known mainly for their contents, not the people involved in their production.
 * The best solution is for publishers to release materials under free licenses. It's understandable that most are reluctant to do so, but exceptions do exist.  —David Levy 05:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)