Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fly-Angel.jpg

Angel of the North[edit]

An impressive photograph by Dwclarke of Anthony Gormley's most famous creation, the Angel of the North. I particularly like the primary coloured contrast created between the sculpture, the grass and the sky - it reminds me a little of the XP wallpaper "Bliss". The figure also illustrates the size of the sculpture well without being intrusive. The image has gained a lot of praise on the peer review, which can be found here. The image currently appears as the main image at Angel of the North, although probably ought to be on the Anthony Gormley page as well.

Nominate and support. - Bob talk 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose (provisional). Is there a version of the pic where the "body" isn't so much in silhouette? The wings are well-lit by sunlight, so it feels like there should be an angle where the body is as well-lit. If someone will state that this is the best we can hope for, without significant re-positioning of the camera, I will switch to Support as I do like the composition of this photo, only let down by the time of day the photographer was there. --Billpg 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the original photographer uploaded the image and has not edited since, so it is probably unlikely. I think part of the problem is that the texture of the body casts its own shadows over the rest from this angle, so a variant is unlikely. Bob talk 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per nom. This reminds me a lot of the Windows "Bliss". nice photo and good composition. i prefer the original. Arad 02:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License issue - the statue is recent (1994), making this (and the other photos of it) more likely Fair Use than CC-able. --Davepape 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this statue is in England, which was freedom of panorama for statues as well as buildings. There is no licensing problem here. howch e ng {chat} 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay - that's great to hear. --Davepape 13:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Here I go again with over-saturation concerns (the colors in the original are truly over the top I feel), but in peer review I produced Edit 1. I'll support whichever. Furthermore, the notion, regardless of law, that one cannot distribute a picture of a sculpture displayed in public is absurd.) –Outriggr § 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Under US copyright law, statues and other 3D artworks can be copyrighted. See Commons:Derivative works for more information. howch e ng {chat} 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get that, but it is absurd to imagine that a huge outdoor public sculpture cannot have its picture distributed. I mean, when will property law require us to poke out our eyes after viewing a copyrighted work? A reasonable man would understand that if he constructs an extremely visible, non-private work of art, people can take pictures of it and do anything with them. </derail> –Outriggr § 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look at it this way: if I create a 2D artwork and hang it in a store window or put it on a billboard for public display, it's copyrighted. Why should my 3D artwork, which could require a lot of effort to sculpt, be any less protected? howch e ng {chat} 03:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - By putting artwork in a public space (different to hanging in a store window) such as a park, you're basically giving it to the public (morally, if not legally). The design of the artwork is a different story - if someone copied the design and tried to sell replicas, that would be completely different to merely photographing it. Perhaps the artwork has already been purchased for the park, in which case the creator would not have rights to the physical sculpture anymore anyway, only copyright to the design, I assume. Regardless, a photo of artwork in a park will not detract from the ability to sell it or further derivative artwork. The publicity from photographs of it will only add to that ability, if anything. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        To be clear, I don't disagree at all. I was just playing devil's advocate. :) howch e ng {chat} 16:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the human at the base to give it a sense of proportion that would otherwise be lost. HighInBC 14:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per nomination and HighInBC. I absolutely love this picture. Nauticashades 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This sh... tuff is like the Total Perspective Vortex. Vitriol 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - am I looking at the right image? way small. --Deglr6328 07:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thumbnail, try clicking it :P Vitriol 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice image, good composition, lighting, interesting subject --rogerd 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Duh, yea, I did, what's your beef? --rogerd 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)~~ [reply]

You inserted your support in between Delgr6328's comment and Vitriol's, so it appeared as though it was directed at you, but it wasn't. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) you are right, my bad, I have refactored to fix it --rogerd 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support strange and beautiful Calibas 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Severely uneven polarization, "body" of statue in shadow. A better image of this subject shouldn't be difficult to obtain. -- Moondigger 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fly-Angel.jpg -- Moondigger 03:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]