Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/John Bydell - Engraving from the Goodly Primer

John Bydell - Allegorical engraving of time.

Reason: A bizarre little 16th-century engraving, that's very encyclopedic for the sections of the article on time dealing with its mythological and allegorical uses. Delightfully grotesque, and perfect for a Halloween PotD. Spelling is modernised in the caption.
Articles this image appears in: Time
Creator: John Bydell

Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose it's nothing special but in particular, not very sharp either, perhaps up the contrast and sharpen a bit because at the moment, it looks like a photocopy rather than a proper high res scan

Um... that's how 16th century engravings look. Perhaps I'm missing something? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An engraving on what? It's black and white and at 100%, you can see artifacts and sharpness issues caused by poor reproduction. What was the original media? I've seen heaps of engravings, never any that were originally perfectly black and white. Capital photographer (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reproduction. If you seriously think that 16th century engravings are the sort of things you can just put directly on a scanner... =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, granted a flatbed may not be the best choice. I've worked in digital preservation for the National Library of Australia and methods do exist to digitally copy just about anything. One of the FP criteria is accuracy and I am wondering how this reproduction was created? Would recreation be a better description and ae there any images showing the original? Capital photographer (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the publisher of the book it got taken from =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a Photocopy/scan of an image from a book. Capital photographer (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that would be the usual interpretation of "Source: English Woodcuts 1480-1535 by Edward Hodnett, Oxford University Press, 1973" in the image's information =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very evasive. Is it a scan or photocopy? Looks like a scan OF a photocopy to me. And how was it reproduced in the book, was it a sketch, in which case how accurate is this? What is the value in uploading a drawing from a book from 1973? It's not like it's a copy of the actual original, rather a poor replication in a book which has being replicated again and uploaded. Furthermore, this book was published in 1973 by Oxford University Press, copyright? The original engraving may be old and in the PD but the book and a copy in the book would be protected by copyright.Capital photographer (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being evasive because I don't know. I'm sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. I assumed because you were the nominator and the creator listed isn't a user that you created/scanned/uploaded, I was silly not to check the creator details on commons which shows another person. Big concern is my research indicates this image comes from a 1973 reprint of a book first published in the 1935. I don't know about UK Copyright law, but the book would still be copyrighted. Depending on how this image/replica was created for the book, it too may still be copyrighted even if it's an image of something from the 1500s. The creator is listed as John Bydell, the book's from 1935 originally and this from the 1975 edition. If the copyright is for the life of the author +70 years, then this is probably a copyrighted image. Capital photographer (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember it copyright does expire 70 years after the death of the author, but this would also apply to the individual woodcut so you're probably OK. Time3000 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but many classical pieces of music that are too old for copyright are still not free of copyright, with performances protected by copyright. Hence, this is not the original engraving but copy of it, a new image created in the 1930s or 1970s. Capital photographer (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's unlikely that this crosses the threshold of originality. I have no clue how this applies to British copyright, but a google search turns up some references to a similar limit. It's the same reason I can't handwrite a copy of The Odyssey and call it my original work. On the other hand, a musical performance is an interpretation of the original. To make another comparison, if I take a head-on photograph of the Mona Lisa with front-lighting, it's not eligable for copyright. If I take steal the Mona Lisa, bring it to a studio, and take a photograph from an angle with dramatic lighting, it would be eligable for copyright. Thegreenj 05:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]