Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/KC Stadium at night

KC Stadium at night

Reason: I feel that this picture meets all the featured picture criteria. It is a well taken photo that adds to the articles it is used in and, personally, I find it stiring and think it deserves to be featured.
Articles this image appears in: Hull FC & Hull City A.F.C.
Creator: Yorkshire Forward

Support as nominator — ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone confirm the suitability of this image's licence, please?
Pstuart84 Talk 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I have left a note on the user who uploaded it's talk page. I'll look into it though. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be me being mega dim but I can't actually find the picture on the website - the link definitely works but I have no idea what it's used for on the site... ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No license. http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/www/imagebank.asp has no mention of usage restrictions or otherwise. ed g2s • talk 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Copyright: If you want to re-use or reproduce the publications or information provided by Yorkshire Forward from a request under the Freedom of Information Act (for example, commercially or for circulation to third parties) you may need to apply for a copyright licence." [1] Chris H 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dusty, maybe even a stray hair, and the lights are blurred and blown.--Here T oHelp 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the blown flood light isn't ideal. Is there anything that can be done about that? ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination due to incorrect license. ed g2s • talk 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved an email from the website operators saying "All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free." - I have no idea what licence, specifically, this would transfer to but it sounds like the image is fair game. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's the

wrong interpretation of "free". MER-C 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Er, if they are "copyright free" then we can use them. He didn't say "copyrighted but cost free". ed g2s • talk 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to clarify that the image is copyright free, and to see if they have a higher resolution version of the picture. Hopefully the copyright issue will be cleared up soon. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - just had an email confirming all the images in the image bank could be used for comercial purposes and to make derivative works. So that's the copyright issue cleared up I think. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you forward that e-mail to the permissions queu of meta:OTRS? I think it's permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Mak (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission has been approved. Yonatan ^talk 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: a great picture that really stands out. --
TFoxton 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose Blown highlights, doesn't even show that much of the stadium. ~ trialsanderrors 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive photograph highlighting one of the most visually impressive stadiums in the UK. The contrast between the stadium's looks, and the unattractive surroundings, impresses me somewhat. NeilSenna 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor, oversharpened scan of a nice enough, high definition pic. Would look miles better either downsampled to 2000px or (ideally) re-scanned. mikaul^talk 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per mikaul. ^8thstar 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]