Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wanderer above the Sea of Fog

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2012 at 19:49:28 (UTC)

Reason: This painting was not promoted in 2006 due to some technical problems. Since then, those problems have been fixed. From what I have seen while looking over some art history things, the colors are now true to the original painting. This is one of the great paintings of the romantic era and it the painter's most famous work. (He is an FA.)
Articles in which this image appears: Wanderer above the Sea of Fog, Romanticism, Caspar David Friedrich, German art
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Caspar David Friedrich uploaded by Commons:User:Cybershot800i

Support as nominator --Guerillero | My Talk 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TCO (Reviews needed) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not particularly happy about having the source listed as "Unknown". Technically this may be out of copyright, but I'd be happier if we had some idea who did the reproduction, especially if it's actually from the Kunsthalle Hamburg. Would also give a bit more confidence that the colours are right this time. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The painting is 100% out of copyright worldwide. Even if you use the strictest copyright I know of (100 PMA), the copyright would have expired in 1940. I asked the uploader if they did the scan. I hope they get back to me. --Guerillero | My Talk 08:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I realise the painting itself is out of copyright, but the reproduction could be copyrighted, e.g., by the photographer. I'm not sure on the technicalities of that, or whether it varies from country to country. J Milburn may be able to advise. Regardless, knowing the source is good. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikimedia doesn't follow that convention, if the original 2D art is out of copyright, any faithful reproduction of, according to US law, can't be copyrighted. Wikimedia follows this law, and does NOT accept copyright claims, like in the UK, where they grant copyright to the digitizer. There is PLENTY of examples around to testify to this wiki-wide policy, see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute and all the relevant pages at Commons for this event. So to put it simply, if the painting is out of copyright, as the case here, then this image is 100% public domain as far as wikipedia and wikimedia is concerned. — raeky t 13:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. A difference between US and British copyright laws which has lead to issues in the past; however, policy is indeed that this is PD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This image most certainly is PD, as far as the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, but having completely unknown sourcing is not a good thing. I would support as soon as the sourcing issue was resolved. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, TinEye didn't help find the original source. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done per this diff, the uploader made the reproduction of the painting. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good reproduction. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Concerns raised seem to have been dealt with. Colours appear to be right this time. --jjron (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV. --Elekhh (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Caspar David Friedrich 032.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]