Support as nominator --WPPilot 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I appreciate that this photo cannot be retaken, but I'm not sure if that justifies the quality. Also, the depictions of the woodpecker might not be small enough to be considered a
de minimis use. Jujutaculartalk11:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)reply
In my opinion there isn't a copyright issue, the picture is clearly of Walter Lantz and hes the focus of the photo not the painting on the wall. For portrait shots of artists with their work in the background it seems fairly run-of-the-mill and due to the size and quality of the photograph you couldn't isolate a high quality version of the painting anyway. But irregardless of that, I too agree it's not good enough for a FP, so Oppose on those grounds. — raekyt20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --WPPilot 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I appreciate that this photo cannot be retaken, but I'm not sure if that justifies the quality. Also, the depictions of the woodpecker might not be small enough to be considered a
de minimis use. Jujutaculartalk11:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)reply
In my opinion there isn't a copyright issue, the picture is clearly of Walter Lantz and hes the focus of the photo not the painting on the wall. For portrait shots of artists with their work in the background it seems fairly run-of-the-mill and due to the size and quality of the photograph you couldn't isolate a high quality version of the painting anyway. But irregardless of that, I too agree it's not good enough for a FP, so Oppose on those grounds. — raekyt20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)reply