Image talk:Chicago Spire.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This image is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain pages that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the WikiProject Skyscrapers project page for more information. |
[edit] Replaceability
As the buildingis under construction, someone can just take a picture of it. Once construction is done, someone can take another picture. Etc. So we don't need to use this image, because we can take our own. There must be at least one wikipedian photographer in Chicago. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dispute
The foundation is under construction. The image on the main page does not exist to show whether a building is there or not, or to show a foundation, it exists to show the design of the building. Until the building reaches some sort of measurable height (maybe 10ish stories), the design can be shown using any free image. Until that time, all images are copyrighted by the architect, of which we have permission to use on Wikipedia (and, yes, I'm aware its still copyrighted, even with permission). Chupper 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The image is used in the main infobox at the top of the article, not lower down where the design is discussed. There is already another nonfree image used to illustrate the design. It would be possible to write a valid rationale for putting this image lower down, removing the other nonfree image, and replacing the infobox image with a free one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is another nonfree image used to illustrate a much earlier design, not the newest design - please read the fair use carefully. Does Wikipedia policy state anything regarding where nonfree images should be placed? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I might not be aware of this. It is just my understanding that placement isn't an issue with non-free content... Chupper 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, the role of the image in the article is an important factor in deciding whether or not the image is replaceable. For example, you can't use an image of a magazine cover just to illustrate what a living person looks like. You can use it in a section about how that particular magazine cover was widely discussed when it came out (e.g. Demi Moore). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- We'll have to see what an admin says re: the topic. I feel the site image in the infobox does nothing for the article and would only benefit the gallery or construction sections. If an admin will allow the image to be used where it has always been (at least until at least part of the building has been constructed), then lets put the copyrighted image back in the infobox. Otherwise, I'll use the old render in the infobox. Chupper 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Silly discussion. Of course there's no free equivalent and won't be until the building is constructed. The building is unbuilt. It's equally silly to argue that a photograph of a notable work of architecture does not add substantially to an understanding of the article. This is a textbook case of permissible free use. Once the building is built it will be a textbook case of replaceability. This discussion should not be had here on a proposal to delete specific images. Architects' renderings of buildings proposed or under construction is a common issue and should not be hashed out on a case by case basis. Wikidemo 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The use in the article has changed substantially since the tags were placed. Originally the image was in main infobox of th article, a replaceable use. Now it's lower down. I agree that this use in the design section is fine - only an architect's rendering illustrates the architect's design. Also, the term "silly" isn't particularly helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- For the record I still feel, based off my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, that the use of the copyrighted image in the infobox (at the top of the article) is fair use and does not violate the first criteria of non-free content. We'll wait for an admin to decide whether or not it should be deleted and hopefully he or she will comment on the location issue that CBM has brought up. Chupper 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and I'm closing this debate with a decision that the image is not replaceable, since the building does not exist at this time. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
