Miscellaneous desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 21

Copyright status of BirdingASIA?

Hey, does anybody know what the copyright status of BirdingASIA is? The reason I'm asking is this article, which has quite a few images of Moluccan birds that I'd like to extract and upload to Commons. AryKun (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it says "Content may be subject to copyright" you would have to contact the author. Wikipedia editors may require evidence of this to allow use of those images. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buttons and mirror images

The pre-1769 image here has the buttons of whatever type of coat or jacket this is on the right. Page 29 of this book (archive.org version) has a mirror image of the same painting. For a Scottish 1760s painter, can we assume that the buttons tell us that the image on Wikipedia is correct, or should we assume it is the opposite? (These are the only two publications of this painting that I am aware of). —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled to find a reliable source, but this article says that buttons on the right has been a constant for male clothing for centuries.

American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680-1820 has a lengthy chapter about 17th and 18th century buttons, but if there is any discussion about left or right buttoning, it must be on the pages which are missing from the preview. However, all the illustrations show buttons on the right. Alansplodge (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is good to see confirmation that this didn't change every decade or so in the past. I think I'll just assume he was right handed and that the version I use in his article Alexander Buchan (artist) is correct. —Kusma (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is probably a self-portrait (said to be such on p. 27 of Cook's Voyages and Peoples of the Pacific^[1]), the artist may have painted what he saw in a mirror, in which case the physical painting has a mirror-image orientation. --Lambiam 11:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is a bit mysterious, and this is both the only portrait showing him and (if a self portrait) his only work in oils. Probably all the buttons really tell us is that the artist is shown holding the palette in his left hand. —Kusma (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first version cited—from Cook's Voyages and the Peopls of the Pacific edited by Hugh Cobbe—the painting is credited on page 30 "Reproduced by courtesy of the owner, Professor C.M.D. Crowder". The second version is from a British Museum publication Captain Cook and the South Pacific, where the painting is credited on page 51 (PDF page 53) as "Courtesy Professor Christopher Crowder", presumably the same person. If this professor is still alive, he would seem to be the best source to tell us which version actually matches the painting. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He obtained his D.Phil. in 1953,^[2] which, considering that the D.Phil. trajectory for history rarely takes less than six years, would make him, if alive today, almost certainly a centenarian. --Lambiam 07:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, he died in 2011, aged 88. See In memory of Prof. Emeritus Christopher Crowder. Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the late Professor Christopher Crowder was affiliated (at different times) with both The Queen's University (of Belfast) and Queen's University (at Kingston). --Lambiam 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the obituary above and that of Merton College, Oxford were written by his widow, who has presumably inherited at least some of his effects. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His widow too is since deceased, but I've emailed his oldest daughter, who replied, "The painter faces right in the original." --Lambiam 12:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, excellent idea! Now I'm curious where the painting is... In any case Christopher Crowder would be worth an article. (He appears to be a distant relation of the painter, compare this family tree; I've emailed the author of that family tree to ask for sources). —Kusma (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And could that be a self-portrait on the wall behind him (forming a self-portrait-portrait)? If the information given is correct, it can't be, but it looks very similar. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, but (original research alert) I got my hands on a higher resolution colour version (not published anywhere as far as I know, so difficult to argue for fair use) where the artist seems to have blue eyes, while the portrait in the top right corner has darker eyes. Perhaps a sibling? —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the colour image is in the public domain and can be uploaded to the Commons. --Lambiam 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... if the original painting is in the public domain, but as it was first published in 1979, it may be protected by copyright. See c:Commons:Hirtle chart. (Yes, I know that this seems insane. But that is how PD/non-PD decisions on Wikipedia are made during GA and especially FA nominations). —Kusma (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A greyscale photo was published in 1979, but the painting was never published. --Lambiam 21:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kusma, where were you able to locate the higher resolution colour version you have and where is it possible to get a copy? 2001:56A:7434:2D00:2D9F:A11C:8B30:B48E (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"faces right"? Does that mean "the right of the person pictured" or "the viewer's right"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will normally be interpreted as the viewer's right.^[3] --Lambiam 20:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your search was for a portrait that faces right. The statement above was that "the painter faces right in the original." Those seem to me to say different things. I guess it's just one more way that I am not "normal". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]