I couldn't decide which of these to nominate, so I'll let you decide which is the best. I've put them in order of my preference, (1=most preferred), and others can as well. The winner will then be put in appropriate articles, such as at snowflake or snow. - BRIAN0918 04:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nominate and support. Order of preference: 1, 2, 3. - BRIAN0918 04:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support! Any of them! Slight preference to #1, but this would be unjust to the other ones. License is not perfect but acceptable, and I think we can add them to snowflake or snow anytime -- Chris 73Talk 04:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Support all of them. I favor 1 the most. -- AllyUnion(talk) 06:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support -Perfection. Favor #1.--Deglr6328 06:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support all, favor 1. Junes 09:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support, beautiful. I find the pattern of #1 most striking. Mgm|(talk) 11:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
As with the Z Machine image below, "Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license". This is a gallery of the best Wikipedia has to offer, best not to have images we can't even offer people. Cancel nomination. ed g2s • talk 17:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That comment is just a suggestion, not policy (as you note at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#GFDL only). It doesn't say that images used with permission are not appropriate candidates (as it does say for fair use images), nor does it say that images must be PD or GDFL. I see no reason not to include it. We've gotten permission to use these images throughout all of Wikipedia, and anyone else can by contacting the original source. If we were to deny featured picture status to images such as this which have the proper permission, that would wipe out the possibility of any photos which require specialized equipment, such as rapid-shutter, micro-photography, or imaging done in the non-visible parts of the spectrum. The only reason we have space images (such as from Hubble) is because we are lucky that the U.S. Government releases them into the public domain, when they could easily restrict them, as they have done with the Z Machine image. You stated that it is "best not to have images we can't even offer people." But, I don't see anywhere on this page (or at Wikipedia:Featured pictures) where such a guarantee is claimed. Keep nomination. -- BRIAN0918 17:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured pictures states that some fair use is tolerated, so an image used with permission should unquestionably be allowed featured picture status. -- BRIAN0918 18:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support. I prefer no. 3. →mathx314(talk)(email) 23:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support snowflake #1 and snowflake #3. Sandover 07:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nomination inappropriate, GFDL or PD only images, sorry. Nice images. James F.(talk) 21:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured pictures states that some fair use is tolerated, so you'd allow allegedly fair use images but deny images which actually have permission??? -- BRIAN0918 22:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
W:FP specifically says: "While we tolerate some degree of fair use, a simple image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use), and showcasing other people's work without their permission may be considered unfair." This is suggesting that it is better to have permission than to not, and since some fair use is tolerated, images with permission should be tolerated more. -- BRIAN0918 22:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
An explanation of what it means, with my helpful additions in red for clarity:
Images listed here (i.e., all Featured Pictures) should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. While we tolerate some degree of fair use (in Wikipedia as a whole, a simple image gallery (e.g., erm, the list of Featured Pictures) is of limited educational value (read:none) (a requirement for fair use , so Featured Pictures are by definition not suitable to include Fair Use images), and showcasing other people's work without their permission (e.g., the list of Featured Pictures) may be considered unfair and we're not that kind of organisation, so we don't do it.
I hope that this can help you clear up some doubts.
I'm more confused than ever. My understanding of the wording is much simpler, so I'll go with that. You seem to be turning their "shoulds" and "mights" into "musts". I just sent an email to the copyright holder asking for GFDL or CC-by-SA licensing. -- BRIAN0918 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to the license, this is not a fair-use image, rather Wikipedia has permission to use this image. I think the license is between fair-use and PD/GFDL, not perfect but not a reason for objection either. Many thanks to User:Brian0918 for getting permission to use the images freely and legally on Wikipedia. -- Chris 73Talk 03:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Support all three. The wording of the notice on the FP page seems to indicate that fair use isn't allowed for FPs simply because it might get Wikipedia into legal trouble, which is not an issue here as far as I can tell. Creative commons and free-use pics come up all the time, and I don't recall any objections to those on the basis that they are neither FDL nor public domain. This seems to be a case where written policy has not kept up with actual practice. - RedWordSmith 08:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Please discuss this policy hereed g2s • talk 11:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support Impressive. Flakes like that can only be made in the lab under low pressure conditions. Also the photography is unbelievable; I would expect to see serious prism effects and thin film optical distortion on such a small object. Somehow the photographer avoided this! -Casito 05:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Object. All beautiful, but a I think a free license is needed. — Matt Crypto 16:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These images cannot be promoted and should not have been uploaded as their copyright tags are deprecated following rulings by Jimbo last year. See talk. Unless the author agrees to license them suitably, they will be archived. ed g2s • talk 00:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Inappropriate nomination. Archived. ed g2s • talk 19:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)