Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:O Garrafão.jpg

File:O Garrafão.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2017 at 11:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by KarlaFPaiva - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Big problem...there's a watermark in the lower left that says this is a copyrighted photo. So why is it on Commons with a free license? PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the Guidelines: "No advertisements, signatures, or other watermarks in image. Copyright/authorship information of all images should be located on the image's description page and should not interfere with content of the image.".--Peulle (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copyright violations qualify for speedy deletion. PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - PumpkinSky, a copyright watermark does not mean it is a copyright violation. Especially since the name in the watermark matches the uploader, as well as the EXIF author data: "Karla Paiva". I don't think you mean to suggest this is a stolen photograph/copyright violation because it is clearly not. Karla Paiva has also not given up their copyrights, they have simply licensed their work under CC-BY-SA-4.0, which maintains their ownership of it but is sufficiently free for use on Commons. seb26 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't suggesting it was stolen at all. I did think there was license conflict though, but I stand corrected. Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 13:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, no worries, I see more of what you meant now. seb26 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @PumpkinSky and Seb26: According to the Facebook profile, she really is the author and probably she didn't pay attention to the license of his images. It seems the watermark is just a credit sample. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        (Edit conflict) Yes, it was clear from the three info pieces, watermark/uploader name/EXIF name, that they are the author of the work. I don't think it's necessary to link to that facebook profile. User:KarlaFPaiva is a regular contributor already on Commons. @KarlaFPaiva: would you be able to upload a new version of this photo that excludes the watermark? So that it can be considered for featured status. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I agree it now appears that way to me, so I've removed the "strong" from my oppose, but the watermark is not allowed, per the FPC rules. PumpkinSky talk 14:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Seb26: I don't think she's a regular contributor on Commons. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Replied on user talk page. seb26 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info @PumpkinSky, Seb26, and Daphne Lantier: Digital watermark removed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: Creative Commons licenses forbid the removal of such watermarks unless you have the permission of the author. You should revert your change, it's a copyright violation. --Code (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: Would a crop possible? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I revert back to the original version and uploaded a version with another aspect ratio. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note (PumpkinSky and others) to say that unless an image is in the public domain (due to age, being taking by US government employee, or put there with a CC0 declaration for examples) all the images on Commons are "copyright". Indeed, you cannot offer a "free licence" unless you are the copyright owner. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPC and WLE will not consider an image with watermarks. So this is not eligible unless the author themselves provide a version without watermark. J e e 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 10:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Crop without watermark. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. J e e 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Even without the watermark, this doesn't quite make the cut for me. It's soft in too many places, which the processor seems to have attempted to correct with sharpening. The colors ... well, they remind me a lot of some of the pictures I took at Teotihuacan after Wikimania 2015, where I think I tried to make the same adjustments as were made here but I'm not really happy with how they turned out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 10:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]