Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turret Arch through North Window.jpg

File:Turret Arch through North Window.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Utah
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 00:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Daphne Lantier 00:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 01:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Der Wolf im Wald: I prefer the composition of File:Turret Arch through North Window (crop).jpg and would have nominated it here if you hadn't. Would you be willing to offer it as an alternative? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Ikan Kekek! I added it below. :-) Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Opposing both versions: The faces of the two people on the left seem to have been purposely blurred.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have no permission to publish their faces. Besides I do not know their identities, so unfortunately I can not ask for permission now. Therefore I have blurred their faces for legal reasons. -- Wolf im Wald 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version edit

Info This is a cropped version of the image above. -- Wolf im Wald 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks to Wolf im Wald for making this wonderful photo and offering it as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I definitely prefer this version. --Code (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version too. Daphne Lantier 05:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Ermell (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Windows 2. --cart-Talk 08:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clever shot. Charles (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot the face blurring. Charles (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Now Charles (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support PumpkinSky talk 10:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The faces of the two people on the left seem to have been purposely blurred. That kind of editing is a hard line for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have no permission to publish their faces. Besides I do not know their identities, so unfortunately I can not ask for permission now. Therefore I have blurred their faces for legal reasons. -- Wolf im Wald 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf im Wald, there are no "legal reasons" to blur their faces. The law in the US permits photos of identifiable people to be taken and published and we have many thousands of such images on Commons. Nor is their, imo, any moral reason to do so as your image does not harm anyone's reputation. Consider my own photo of a railway station which contains hundreds of identifiable people. I do not wish to support this image while the people are blurred: they are in the photo and should be displayed properly and their presence gives scale to the subject. There's even a series in The Guardian newspaper called "That's me in the picture" where subjects celebrate their appearance in some famous photo, and often they were not aware the photo was taken, never mind were asked permission. A national park has people in it. Let's be happy about that rather than blur it out. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know their nationality. In Germany, we have a different legal situation. Indeed German law allows you to publish images with recognizable people on it but only if there are at least 5 or 10 people on the image. If there are less than 5 people on the image it can quickly become a problem for the photographer. Maybe the people are Germans and I uploaded the image from Germany. I think in this case they could take me to court (in Germany). If I would be an US-citizen and the people on the image too, I would agree with your opinion. But this is a very popular location for tourists from all over the world and the legal situation of my country does not allow this, as far as I know. Do you understand my situation? Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 11:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the same opinion of Colin; this was a public place and people must be aware that images are taken in such places. As long as the people are not the subject (just caught on camera by coincidence), the photographer cannot be blamed. Cropping them out would be acceptable, but censoring images crosses the line IMO.--Peulle (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf im Wald, why on Earth would they take you to court? No reasonable person could have an expectation of privacy in these wide-open spaces, and they are not depicted doing anything unusual or sexual. Are you afraid they'd want payment? Next time, maybe you should ask the people for permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per Peulle. That ruins this great picture. --Hockei (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe it would be better to clone the two people out of the image completely. Daphne Lantier 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Peulle,Hockei and Daphne Lantier --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'LivioAndronico, did you ask Wolf im Wald permission to clone out the people? If not, then that's really disrespectful to alter his photo and especially to alter it while it is an FPC. To be honest, I'd prefer to see the people but without the blur, unless those people are friends of the photographer and have asked to be made unidentifiable. The US has no issues with photographing people in public places, and in fact there's a good chance they'll be happy to see their photos on Wiki in this case. It gives a sense of scale. Such a significant change requires pinging all previous voters, not just those who objected to the blurred faces (which I do also). I think you should consider reverting and asking first. -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Colin I warned him, anyway I do not think that's your problem. And why ask if you believe, wrongly, to be right? Besides, the photo is here and visible to everyone. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me the people were an important part of the composition and I'm considering changing my vote to oppose now. But first I'd like to hear if Wolf im Wald agrees with the editing done by LivioAndronico2013. The blurred faces were no big deal and I find it quite respectful to blur them regardless what the legal situation in the U.S. or elsewhere is. --Code (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the people were quite recognizable despite a bit of blurring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change per Commons:Overwriting existing files. This official guideline requires you to ask first, not just tell them afterwards you've made significant alterations to their photo while it was their nomination at FPC. If Wolf im Wald is happy with the edit he can restore it, though I caution that really he then needs to ping everyone who has voted here. Livio, you know full well that photographers here can generally do a better job making edits to their raw files than anyone else can with the JPG. This is Wolf im Wald's photo and you should respect that. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the version with the people because they are a good scale for the size of the arch and they improve the composition in my opinion. I blurred them moderately not to hurt the picture. I think they are not clearly recognizable but they are blurred so moderately that you only can realize that in full view if you look out for their faces. Therefore I think the current version is a good compromise between these aspects. -- Wolf im Wald 11:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solely for registering my opposition to face blurring. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is better framing. As for the faces, having been involved in a similar dispute here over the appearance of identifiable people I photographed in a public place in the UK without their consent ... I defer to Wolf here. Had I been the one taking the picture, I wouldn't have blurred the faces out; indeed they are well smaller than a thumbprint (the standard we always used in journalism for when you have to identify someone, or crop them out). But ... there's no requirement under American law that you do this, which means equally that there's no requirement that you leave them unblurred. All we need to do is categorize it appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have put them both in Intentionally blurred human faces. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clone the people out !--Jebulon (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon and others disturbed by the blurred faces.--Milseburg (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 23:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support EDIT: supporting the new version. -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Charlesjsharp, Peulle, Hockei, KennyOMG, Jebulon, Milseburg, Pofka: I decided to upload a new version without the blurred faces now. Thanks for your review! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Then you have my vote - everything else about this photo is clearly FP. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The version with faces! It is a great view and those people give it scale plus a little human touch. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me now. I do not know the legal situation in America. In Germany the people would be ok as an secondary accessory I think. --Milseburg (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#Utah

The chosen alternative is: File:Turret Arch through North Window (crop).jpg