Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The Thankful Poor/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image review

[edit]

(t · c) buidhe 03:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I can find new images for those paintings as well as of Tanner in the online archive of the book by Sewell and Mosby (page 121 for The Thankful Poor). However, image quality does not appear to be higher and I am not sure if these images are in the public domain. GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the current versions are the highest quality available, that's that. Ideally we can document publication before 1926 for all these paintings to eliminate any doubt about copyright. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the original Tanner photograph with a different one that cites the book it was published in on Commons. Hopefully, that's one image out of the way. GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the licensing for the new Tanner photograph looks good. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to use the image of The Thankful Poor provided by the official ArtBridges website? GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no 3-d aspect so {{PD-Art}} applies. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with WikiMedia Commons policy. Do I just replace the existing Thankful Poor image with the one downloaded from Art Bridges and change licensing and attribution? I'm not sure how this solves the publication date problem. GeneralPoxter (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should overwrite the image with a higher quality version by clicking "Upload a new version of this file". It is better to use higher quality images if possible, although that doesn't help us in terms of documenting the copyright status. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Unfortunately, the source image on the website only seems to be 1080x847 resolution. Sad! GeneralPoxter (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm pretty sure that the paintings are public domain—even if they weren't published before 1926, it is unlikely that all the copyright registration formalities were complied with—but for FAC image reviews it has to be documented. (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would this source be considered sufficient publication information? It appears to have been uploaded on September 15, 2014, and it's a photograph so PD-Art applies? However, the website says it's for news media use only, so I'm not sure if using it in the article is permissible. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar vein, I was wondering whether just taking images from the Sewell & Mosby book would be permissible as well by PD-Art? Images will not be in high resolution, but at least publication information would be known. GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, all reproductions of the painting have the same copyright status, so we should use the highest resolution available. The problem is trying to show that the painting is not copyrighted: i.e. first published before 1926, first published without a copyright license, etc. (see Hirtle chart). (t · c) buidhe 18:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the painting creation date on the Art Bridges website count as a publication date? GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a publication date, but what counts most for copyright in the US is the *first* publication date, which was clearly earlier No, the painting creation date does not count as publication. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: As far as I know, the painting exists as a single work, and reproductions of the work are predominantly photographs taken many years later. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how many years later? What is the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The earliest image reproduction I can find is in the 1991 catalog from the book by Sewell and Mosby (archive linked above). GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, if that's the case it won't be out of copyright until 2048 according to Hirtle chart. Are you sure there's no previous publication? (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking through the Sewell and Mosby book, but I can't find the details on where their images of The Thankful Poor and The Banjo Lesson came from. Unless someone happens to have archives of even older books, I guess this is about as old as we can get :( GeneralPoxter (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I searched google books pre-1989 and had luck. The painting has been reproduced in 1970, 1971, and 1978 at least the first two times without a copyright license so if you document these publications on the Commons description page and use {{PD-US-no notice}}, it should be OK. I didn't look for pre-1989 publications of The Banjo Lesson but that will also be necessary. Also I found this 1981 article[1] which maybe useful in expanding the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NVM I did it. This 1969 Ebony article ("The Art of Henry O. Tanner". Ebony. 24 (12). Johnson Publishing Company: 60–65. October 1969. ISSN 0012-9011.) reproduces other paintings by Tanner: Head of a Jew, The Annunciation, Portrait of the Artist's Mother, and Daniel in the Lions' Den, all without copyright notices. (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woah buidhe, you (and that source) are a lifesaver! Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; I was busy dealing with outside work :( Anyways, thanks for taking care of all the image problems! I was befuddled most of the time and a step behind everyone else, since copyright policy has always been quite confusing for me (I didn't seem to improve much since the copyvio issue for The Mellow Pad's image). Hopefully, I'll be able to help more in future cases now that I see how it should be taken care of. GeneralPoxter (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

[edit]
  • Alexander-Minter, Rae (2005) — checked all refs, looks good
  • Cotter, Holland (November 6, 2014) —ditto
  • Pinder 1997 —ditto

(t · c) buidhe 23:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/The_Thankful_Poor/archive1&oldid=1020232823"