Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Che

Che Guevara

Reason: Easily one of the most iconic photos of the 20th century. The technical specs are less than ideal, but the photo itself has arguably become more widely recognized than the man. I'm surprised it's not already featured.
Articles this image appears in: Che Guevara
Creator: Alberto Korda

Support as nominator Matt Deres (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Never heard of him but- the pirate bay? :D\=< (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could we get a better scan? Durova^Charge! 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Iconic picture of Che, and the highest quality version of this picture I've seen; but saturated and aged. Still, it's not like sufficient technology for a better photo existed at the time. --Extr3me (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19.jpg, from 50 years earlier... By 1960 pretty much every development in modern photography save the digital camera had been made. Not to say this isn't a worthy photo given its historical significance, but you should be aware that technology for better images was very much available at the time (and, indeed, there are much higher-resolution pictures of Che, and in colour, just not with the significance of this one). TSP (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last time i checked, this image is copyrighted, which was why I couldn't display a similar version of it on my userpage. :) ^8thstar 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request This image has been recently uploaded and tagged as PD, and it seems that the reasoning is correct (the uploader cited the actual law). I just created this PD tag for Cuba, which is correct to the best of my knowledge (see the text of the law on the talk page). I think the reason this hasn't been nominated is there's been a lot of uncertainty regarding the state of the law in Cuba previously. But can people double-check this reasoning and confirm that this was published in Cuba, not in compliance with US formalities? I don't know how important the photographer was before this photo (i.e. how likely he would have been to have done this). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is also present as Image:CheHigh.jpg, with a very different (and nonfree!) license attached. According to Che Guevara (photo), the photographer sued for copyright infringement in 2000, which makes the copyright status even more murky. I am planning to nominate this image on WP:PUI after I get a chance to research and write a very detailed nomination. I think it would be prudent to postpone this nomination until the correct license is established. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That fact on the photo page isn't right; the case settled before trial, and there was a moral rights claim that was probably stronger than the copyright claim. See [1]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course an out of court settlement can't be used as evidence for anything, especially when it's for a small amount of compensation, since a prudent lawyer might recommend settling even if there is only a low chance of losing the actual suit. But I think it's worthwhile to settle the license question in a forum dedicated to that sort of thing, rather than here. If the image is actually under a free license, that would be great, but it seems unlikely to me, given the explicitly stated desire of the artist/family to control its use. If they had believed it is freely licensed, presumably they would not have pursued the lawsuit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm This is not at all what I was expecting, but it does solve my question as to why the nommed image had no pages linking to it (except the Che Guevara article itself) and why it hadn't at least been nominated before. Based on what's been said here, it seems unlikely to me that the copyright issues will be resolved in a reasonable amount of time, so I suppose the nomination should be considered withdrawn and then re-nominated if usage rights permit. Sorry folks; I should have more thoroughly checked the image history on this one. Matt Deres (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are these the highest-quality versions we can get? This image shows Korda with what looks like a high-res poster-sized original, with a good dynamic range, which suggests that the image is not really this small or this washed-out; we just need to find a better copy of it (which would have no more or less legal issues than this). TSP (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per licensing concerns.