Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaeopteryx
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
From the People who brought you Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Compsognathus & many many more, comes Archaeopteryx, hopefully the next Featured Dinosaur! Seriously though, this is another great article from the Wikiproject Dino team & it has come a long way in the last month or so & I'm proud to be able to nominate it. It has 34 inline ciations & many more references. It is informative, thourough & easy to read. It has pictures to boot & is one of my pet projects. But enough about my opinion, I'll just let you make your opinion up on your own... Thanks a bunch! 
-- Spawn Man 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a contributor and helper. I feel the article is as comprehensive as it can be and the prose is good. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support: it is comprehensive, well illustrated, well referenced and well written. ArthurWeasley 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The article is good but lacks information on the ecology/lifestyle of the birdie in question. While this is some cases speculative it is at least speculation by the people actually studying it. For example, there has been debate as to whether Archaeopteryx was a ground living or a climber, or both. What it actually was is a separate question to what it evolved from or hiow flight evolved. More importantly the islands that it lived on around are well described, being semi arid with little ground cover, so its unlikely it was principally a glider from trees. I think it needs a bit of this type of information before I can support. I have been collecting info on just this so I will try and add it myself, if you like. I'm just sort of swamped, which is why I haven't done it yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well if you can do it, that would be great, but we'd prefer to have no guessing in the article unless it's cited. A quick reference to your point in the Paleobiology section would be great if it's referenced, but I don't know if the other guys have any books on the subject - maybe why it would be better if you would be able to do it or lend us the book or something. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- My last FA had 60 refs, so I understand the importance of refs! That's why its taking me some time. I'll try and do it this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds great. We can go over it once you've added it to make sure it's all polished & acceptable. Thanks SS... :) Spawn Man 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support now that the section on paleoecology is added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support: I gotta say, you guys do excellent articles. Very thorough, yet not overly verbose, grade-"A"vian work! The only suggestion I have is in the summery section in the taxobox, where the "see text" line could be changed to a quick-link within the article ([Archaeopteryx#Summary|see below]) just to make things more accessible. Just a little quirk that isn't required; you have my support regardless. Nall 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support, kiind words & for the great suggestion. I've made a link in the taxo box now. :) Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - in the lead the article compared the size to a magpie - that name refers to about 20 different birds which is confusing for the "international" reader, could we have a more specific comparison (the exact magpie species) or just mention the wingspan and length in the lead. Second, the taxobox says that the article is about Archaeopteryx lithographica, but the lead says that there are 11 species identified so far. Is it an article about the genus or the species? If it is an article about the whole genus then it could use a list of the accepted species. I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition. --Peta 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree about the magpie. Will tweak to reduce ambiguity. The article refers to 11 specimens (as opposed to species) which are 11 individual fossils not species. Now that you've pointed it out maybe fossils is a better term here. Spawny? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So is there just a single accepted species currently? --Peta 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree we should make it plain in the text that there is only one recognized species. ArthurWeasley 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, why are you looking at me Cas? I only write the articles... ;) Erm, not quite sure what to do here, but I know the article is about the genus, not the species as the article is Archaeopteryx, not Archie lithographica. Other than that, I'll leave it to the people who can tinker around with that sort of thing as I'm not that experienced, sorry guys... Peta - "I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition" - The article already has a paleobiology section? Erm, maybe you were refering to the environment section that's going to be added by sunbird? Never mind though... :) Thanks for your comments... Spawn Man 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So is there just a single accepted species currently? --Peta 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I believe there may be copyright issues with the photos of the Oxford University Museum reconstruction. This is essentially a sculpture, and would be assumed under copyright, unless it is very old.--Pharos 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is the first time we have come across this argument at FAC, though there are ten prior Featured dinosaur articles which use images of fossils and life reconstructions. Drawings and paintings of fossils are certainly protected under copyright law (as long as they are not copyright-expired) because they are an artistic interpretation of what the specimen looked like. Casts and moulds of fossil bones require no artistic skill (only excellent technical ability in reproducing the fossils faithfully), and the assembly of moulds of fossils is based on scientific evidence, not artistic effort (though artistic licence may come into play with less well-preserved genera, such as Protoavis). The feathers on Archaeopteryx are preserved in the fossil record; the sculptor is basing his or her work on actual fossils. Another sculptor who created an Archaeopteryx sculpture based on the same fossils and who ended up creating a very similar model would not be infringing on copyright because both artists based their work on the same fossils, which themselves are not under copyright protection. A photograph of a cast, mould, or sculpture of fossils is a derivative work. But the work it is derived from, unless artistic licence used to great extent, is a technical representation (a rigorous skeletal reconstruction), not a work of creative art. The only portion of the model which is clearly, undisputedly artistic in nature (based entirely on artistic interpretation) is the coloring of the feathers, since the coloring has not been preserved on any specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that some image copyrights may have been dealt with poorly in the past. I think it is clear that any sculpture involves significant artistic talent and license. Look, if Madame Tussauds makes a realistic waxwork of Queen Elizabeth, one based on photographs providing far more definite background info than that available for a fossil species, is not that sculpture copyrightable? It is a strange idea that a 3-D sculpture would be less creative than a 2-D drawing.--Pharos 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This analogy appears sensible, but it is not apt: for this to be a good analogy, Madame Tussauds would have to base their reconstruction on moulds of Queen Elizabeth's skeleton, something they probably will not do. Reconstructions of dinosaurs are based on moulds of the bones and preserved fossil evidence. Skeletal drawings are artistic interpretations of the bones, not castings and impressions of actual fossils. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- But this is a sculpture, not a casting. I think you're tripping off of the idea of "artistic" work. Copyrights don't just apply in an art gallery — the same copyright falls on creative scientific work. This type of reconstruction require myriad real human decisions, that could never be automated. That constitutes real serious creative work.--Pharos 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, you've convinced me; this is indeed a sculpture, not a casting, so your point seems correct. As such, this issue deserves attention. I cannot find information on when this piece was created, and it seems likely to me this sculpture was created after 1922. There are indications Australian law allows "sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship that are on permanent public display (in a public place or in premises open to the public) may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner"[1][2] but I didn't find much about U.S. copyrights on derivative works (where Wikimedia's servers are located) or U.K. derivative works laws (where the sculpture is held) for sculptures which are on permanant public display. I must then assume a "fair use in.." rationale might be more appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- But this is a sculpture, not a casting. I think you're tripping off of the idea of "artistic" work. Copyrights don't just apply in an art gallery — the same copyright falls on creative scientific work. This type of reconstruction require myriad real human decisions, that could never be automated. That constitutes real serious creative work.--Pharos 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- This analogy appears sensible, but it is not apt: for this to be a good analogy, Madame Tussauds would have to base their reconstruction on moulds of Queen Elizabeth's skeleton, something they probably will not do. Reconstructions of dinosaurs are based on moulds of the bones and preserved fossil evidence. Skeletal drawings are artistic interpretations of the bones, not castings and impressions of actual fossils. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Came back today to this rather unusual discussion. Yes they are sculptures. However they have been donated for use of the museum. The question is, does the museum permit photographs of those sculptures? If the answer is yes, then that is a form of free use liscencing as the museum has allowed you to take pictures of the art work. If the answer was no, then the images would count as illegally aquired images & would not be allowed to be shown anywhere else. I know for a fact that in most cases the museum in which the sculptures where taken does allow photos for this kind of display & therefore have waved their copyrights. Plus, many other examples of this go on throughout Wikipedia & unless a huge overhaul is made, it will continue to do so. So I hope this answers your concerns, but no, these are legal & there is no need for you to worry Firsfron... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Allowing picture-taking in the museum is not carte blanche for allowing unlimited numbers of freely-distributed copies of those photos to proliferate on multiple web sites, some of which (Wikipedia) are non-profit while others (some Wikipedia mirrors and data-scraping sites) are for-profit entities. I think perhaps a fair use rationale should be established for these images, especially when considering these images would appear in a Featured Article: no copyvio (or perceived copyvio) should make it through FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that some image copyrights may have been dealt with poorly in the past. I think it is clear that any sculpture involves significant artistic talent and license. Look, if Madame Tussauds makes a realistic waxwork of Queen Elizabeth, one based on photographs providing far more definite background info than that available for a fossil species, is not that sculpture copyrightable? It is a strange idea that a 3-D sculpture would be less creative than a 2-D drawing.--Pharos 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would be the case if it was an oil painting or the like (which is why you're not allowed to take photos in galleries) But if a mueseum makes public their sculptures, then it is allowed to be reproduced to an extent. A possible resolution would simply be for someone to go to the mueseum & say "Hey, is it okay if I put 1 or 2 of these on wikipedia? Thanks"... They are not fair use, as the photographer created the photograph & it is not entirely of the sculpture or work. Let's face it though, when someone donates a scuplture to a public place, they know it's going to be photographed. What about street sculptures that have been recently added to streets? Are they under copyright too? No, the reproduction of the exact same sculpture is illegal, but taking a photo of it is not. Taking a photo & saying it is your sculpture is, but giving credit to the artist is not. And besides, I've seen this argument before on here & I'm making the same points which they were... Spawn Man 05:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, this whole debate is silly. If I take a photograph of a sculpture, it doesn't matter how old the sculpture is or who made it. My photograph of it constitutes a brand new work and is copyrightable to me not the sculptor. Here is what our very own Featured Article Director has to say on the subject (from Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ):
- This is the first time we have come across this argument at FAC, though there are ten prior Featured dinosaur articles which use images of fossils and life reconstructions. Drawings and paintings of fossils are certainly protected under copyright law (as long as they are not copyright-expired) because they are an artistic interpretation of what the specimen looked like. Casts and moulds of fossil bones require no artistic skill (only excellent technical ability in reproducing the fossils faithfully), and the assembly of moulds of fossils is based on scientific evidence, not artistic effort (though artistic licence may come into play with less well-preserved genera, such as Protoavis). The feathers on Archaeopteryx are preserved in the fossil record; the sculptor is basing his or her work on actual fossils. Another sculptor who created an Archaeopteryx sculpture based on the same fossils and who ended up creating a very similar model would not be infringing on copyright because both artists based their work on the same fossils, which themselves are not under copyright protection. A photograph of a cast, mould, or sculpture of fossils is a derivative work. But the work it is derived from, unless artistic licence used to great extent, is a technical representation (a rigorous skeletal reconstruction), not a work of creative art. The only portion of the model which is clearly, undisputedly artistic in nature (based entirely on artistic interpretation) is the coloring of the feathers, since the coloring has not been preserved on any specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted.
- So there should be no problem whatsoever with the photos of the life reproductions, provided the photographers have released the images under free licenses. And the casts? Those aren't art; those are things that were found in the earth and dug up. — Brian (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A little further reading down that page, and it seems that the case isn't quite as clear-cut, but it appears that the laws of the UK do follow the "photo of 3D object on public display is new piece of art" argument, so we should be OK here. — Brian (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's quite clear this work required as much creative input as any art piece. The "freedom of panorama" in most counties applies only to the outdoors; it is broader in the UK but the legal wording is a bit unclear. At first I was skeptical, but after a fair amount of research at Artlaw, I believe that UK freedom of panorama does indeed apply to all permanent 3-D exhibits in galleries and museums (even those that charge admission, apparently). I'm very glad to have learned of this, as it could apply very broadly in the UK, to artistic works as well as scientific ones. Therefore, I drop my objection to the photos in this article, assuming that the archaeopteryx model was on permanent exhibition. Please note, however, that almost no other country (maybe Austria) has freedom of panorama laws that liberal.--Pharos 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Brian, Pharos, and Spawn Man. Brian, I really appreciate your clearing this up with the link to the FAQ. This is very good to know (and I don't think the discussion was at all silly), and may prove helpful with later Dinosaur FA Candidacies. User:Ballista took many of our photos of dinosaur life sculptures in UK museums, and although we always thought there was no problem using them, it's good to know we really can. That is a huge relief. Last night, I attempted to add a fair use rationale to the first picture, when I discovered it had been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons, which obviously doesn't allow Fair Use images. The image would have been deleted as a copyvio; it could have been moved back to en.wikipedia, but this is much better. Anyway, thanks everyone for the input. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's quite clear this work required as much creative input as any art piece. The "freedom of panorama" in most counties applies only to the outdoors; it is broader in the UK but the legal wording is a bit unclear. At first I was skeptical, but after a fair amount of research at Artlaw, I believe that UK freedom of panorama does indeed apply to all permanent 3-D exhibits in galleries and museums (even those that charge admission, apparently). I'm very glad to have learned of this, as it could apply very broadly in the UK, to artistic works as well as scientific ones. Therefore, I drop my objection to the photos in this article, assuming that the archaeopteryx model was on permanent exhibition. Please note, however, that almost no other country (maybe Austria) has freedom of panorama laws that liberal.--Pharos 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A little further reading down that page, and it seems that the case isn't quite as clear-cut, but it appears that the laws of the UK do follow the "photo of 3D object on public display is new piece of art" argument, so we should be OK here. — Brian (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- So there should be no problem whatsoever with the photos of the life reproductions, provided the photographers have released the images under free licenses. And the casts? Those aren't art; those are things that were found in the earth and dug up. — Brian (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah ha! I knew I was right, even if my wording was a bit off... :) Spawn Man 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, as it happens you were wrong. If this model was being exhibited in any country other than the UK, the image would not be free. Please keep that in mind.--Pharos 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was talking about the UK (Erm, yes... of course I was...), so therefore I am right. ;) God, no need to nit pick on who's right & wrong Pharos... Gosh! :) Spawn Man 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just trying to discourage you from considering all stuff in museums PD. No ones-upmanship intended, I assure you :)--Pharos 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was talking about the UK (Erm, yes... of course I was...), so therefore I am right. ;) God, no need to nit pick on who's right & wrong Pharos... Gosh! :) Spawn Man 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, as it happens you were wrong. If this model was being exhibited in any country other than the UK, the image would not be free. Please keep that in mind.--Pharos 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a contributor and helper. I didn't want to support until individuals from both WP:Birds and WP:Dinosaurs had worked on the article and added their input. Now that that has happened, I feel comfortable supporting. This is one of the longest dinosaur articles, and it appears to me that all the important details have been covered: each of the specimens is discussed, there's a synonomy section which discusses the taxonomic mess, the Hoyle and Protoavis controversies are touched upon (but not given undue weight). I cannot judge the prose, as I'm too familiar with the text, so I will leave that to be judged by someone else. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support yet another good article on prehistoric animals (since this isn't technically a dinosaur...) igordebraga ≠ 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! All birds are dinosaurs; just not all dinosaurs are birds. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- God, not this debate again - I had enough of it during the Dinosaur FAC... ;) Spawn Man 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! All birds are dinosaurs; just not all dinosaurs are birds. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.