Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:12 Abu'l Hasan Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC.jpg

File:12 Abu'l Hasan Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 08:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Abu'l Hasan - uploaded by Eugene a - nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ - Sorry, but to my understanding, this photo should be deleted from Commons. See the "rights statement" here: "Copyright with museum". And if you click "terms of use", you'll see that only non-commercial use is allowed without special permission: "To request images and rights for commercial use, please contact reprorights@si.edu. To request images and rights for the press, please contact pressasia@si.edu. For full legal details, please see the Smithsonian’s terms of use for digital assets." Since Commons uses a Creative Commons Copyleft that enables free commercial or non-commercial use with credit, these terms are not compatible with this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered by {{PD-ART}}. The WMF's position is "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". These sites try to be greedy with their licensing, but Commons offers them the middle-finger salute. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see something different. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - INeverCry, thanks for talking me through that. I guess more knowledgeable legal minds than I have examined U.S. laws and casework and determined that a lawsuit by the Smithsonian wouldn't be successful. That being the case: Judging the photo on its merits, it is unsurprisingly an excellent photo, and this is a beautiful Mughal painting in very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek that is in many museums, wannabe "copyright". If this is from 1620 no question about legal right. Wondering how can museums etc are allowed to put such "copyright notice". Its not legal, but i saw many. --Mile (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright is on the photograph, not the artwork itself. Art photography is a real skill, as we all know. The question of whether the copyright has the force of law is the one I don't know the answer to, but haven't some art photographers sued on the basis that their work was being used without any kind of royalties or even credit being given? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The biggest threatened lawsuit Commons has encountered was from the NPG London (see User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage). WMF backed up Derrick and said they didn't consider Sweat of the brow an acceptable policy and were confident a suit by the NPG would be unsuccessful in the US. This came after a mass transfer of NPG images by Derrick, who is based in the bay area. A British citizen or company might not have fared so well against the NPG. lNeverCry 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media