Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Deutschherrnbruecke am fruehen Abend-20110310.jpg

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Deutschherrnbruecke am fruehen Abend-20110310.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 22:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankfurt on the Main: Panorama of the city as seen from the Deutschherrnbruecke (Teutonic Knights Bridge) in the early evening
Panorama of 4 images taken with Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM at f8, stitched with PanoramaStudio 2 Pro
Support -- Mylius (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion it's quite hard to make Frankfurt look good :). --99of9 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpg has the same perspective as this one, and is already a FP.--Snaevar (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Colors and framing are different. --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough for an FP, but nothing more than that.--Snaevar (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 license permitted? --JovianEye (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... My understand is that non-commercial restrictions were disallowed on Commons. Steven Walling 08:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this CC-By-NC-ND license is usable - as long as at least one allowed license, here the GDFL 1.2, is used. One allowed free license allows for every other license, even if the other license(s) is / are as much restricted as possible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise, WB and above all the overly restrictive (though valid as it is GFDL too) license. W.S. 09:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:the view is bad--Coekon (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose License. Yann (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support License! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and dynamics. Иван (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not worth the non-free license. This is nice, but it's not sufficiently hard to take that I would consider it necessary to accept a less than completely free file. Steven Walling 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven Walling: do you know the free license FAL ? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, but I do not agree with the smorgasbord of licensing approach. In the Americas the FAL is almost entirely unknown and untested legally. Almost everyone here intending to use the image who would show up and see the NC clause in the CC license would be discouraged from reuse, and I find it to be on shaky ground to say one license does not permit commercial reuse while the other does. Legal freedoms are not a buffet to pick and choose from: you either have the right to do something commercially or not. Steven Walling 02:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Steven Walling--shizhao (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]