Talk:Tobias and the Angel (Filippino Lippi)

Copyright violation

The text is a blatant copyright violation (and a plagiarism) of the NGA's text at https://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg7/gg7-370.html.

I have removed it. The editor is wrong to say in a comment that "US state" websites are necessarily in the public domain. Not all the material on .GOV domains are public domain and material from the NGA plainly is not. In this case the text carries a copyright symbol.

Ordinarily I should have been happy to spend a few minutes supplying some remarks, but I am afraid to say that my recent experience (and that of my colleagues) with a group of editors at Wikipedia in the Visual Arts has been very far indeed from satisfactory. I can understand that sometimes one is confronted with (shall we say) rogue editors, but when these editors are supported in their excesses by the community (even by its administrators), then all goodwill is lost.

I am truly sorry to have to say this. 64.9.157.242 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, just in case there's any doubt as to who had this first: this archived version from 2006 of the NGA page pre-dates the creation of our article. 64.9.157.242, do you want to be a bit more specific about your recent negative experiences here? The WP:Teahouse might perhaps be a good venue to ask for others to take a look at what has happened. Without some sort of hint of what the problem(s) might have been, it's not really possible to make any suggestion as to how things might be improved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see how it goes and edit here when my pique has dissipated somewhat. As I say, I understand that sometimes you come across across editors who are frankly misguided, for lack of a better word. But we do know of one such who nevertheless is actively supported by an administrator, and that is galling. Unless you have the skin of a rhinoceros and the patience of an angel, you don't want to come back.

I will give the editors here a couple of days to get their act together and then edit myself. Let's see what happens then. 64.9.157.242 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our editors will have a problem relying only on the internet, because the only source of any real substance about the painting is the web page that was copy-pasted. There's some material about two conflicting theories about why these paintings were executed in the first place, but precious little about the painting itself. The Lippi catalogue raisonné is very expensive, as is the relevant NGA catalogue. When I get home a couple of months hence I might have a go at checking out institution copies, but these sort of books tend to have long waiting lists. A certain class of editor, of which I am not one, could have a field day on close paraphrasing and so on with the luckless editors forced to work with a single source here (which is indeed not satisfactory). I'll look back and attempt a rescue job as needed. Recourse to an art-stub template might be an idea. This is to be a Wikipedia Featured picture I gather. More like an NGA Featured Picture I would say ... 207.207.22.49 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg7/gg7-370.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]