Talk:Dresden Triptych

Influence
I dont think this sect is going anywhere; prob best to just merge within description. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate to lose that image there, but agree. I've hit a wall temporarily, and have a few more bits to read before coming back to it later. I think maybe one more section to add but have to re-read Ward first - can't remember whether he says anything different or only repetition of what's already there. Victoria (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have regiged so we can keep the image ;). Very impressed with what your doing with the article; its a joy to watch. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re the Annunciation, there are similar doves in Ghent, and remember that Dresden was mentioned quite a few times in the sources for that work. 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just found that in Ward. Adding. I suppose I should read Pacht too . Victoria (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The crop of Catherine is too long, and of Michael too short. Might reload there. Also not finding a good high res repro sittable for close crops; searching. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I kind of like it, is a little different. But up to you. Wouldn't mind a closer view of the Madonna on the throne w/ the canopy & we could move the st.michael w/ donor to the donor section. But I'm not bothered - getting the images right always take a bit of time and this is such a beautiful piece, well .... it'll take us forever.  Victoria (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RE pics, made a bunch of crops last night but not uploaded them. I'll wait to see how much text we'll have & then decide. Re the short description section, not sure what to put there. Ideas? Victoria (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the high res; thinking...Ceoil (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. I'll get back to it later. Maybe did too much in the past few days and now have hit a wall. Victoria (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Church
As with other van Eyck depictions of churches, the space has not been been identified with any known building, and instead seems to be an idealised architectural space.
 * There is some generic info on this in Madonna in the Church, I mean that describes van Eyck's general approach. Worth reproducing here? Its left hanging as is. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I already thought of doing that. I've just read the source and it supports paintings (plural) and in fact mentions this piece, so I'll copy what we already have from the other, and add the new bit. Victoria (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And done. Victoria (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks. Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Format
I don't like that section - I think I've shoved in too much, but might be losing perspective. I wasn't going to do much about the frames, but on a second reading they seemed important because they had a protective function, so I stuffed it in there and added the inscriptions there too. I think the long inscription in the note is overkill, but I suppose educational in that shows how densely the frame was inscribed. Anyway, all of these words to say I need some feedback. Victoria (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've messed about with it somewhat. Tempted to move the long inscription back into the main text. Thinking....Ceoil (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two more from the wings, equally long. Haven't copied them out yet. Thinking too. I might mess around with a text box later today and see how that looks. I think its a lot of untranslated lettering to plop into the text. Victoria (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with either in the notes or in the article body; but if we have script, we should include. I was messing around this morning with various crops of the sig; none of the repros available are high res enough that we could use them. I gave up in disgust, and I'm afraid swearing. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried capturing the sig and gave up too. Question though - can we use an image of the frame? I can probably capture some of the frame w/ the inscriptions, which I'd prefer to a textbox, and then I'll copy out the rest of the inscriptions and put in the notes. I think. Victoria (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stricktly speaking, the pd-old licence doesnt cover frames, but I think we have a good case here; its hard to convey the work without showing the actual frame, espically given that there are basically three frames here, one in timber, two (x3!) in paint. In fairness. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've experiment x 3, img & two text boxes. you'll find in history. Choose which you think works well. The frame img is a little crooked - I tried tweaking but without much success. Could probably try again. I prefer the frame (if we can get a good crop) with the inscription text in the notes. Victoria (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Smith, 146
No idea where this came from, although, ahem, it was probably me that introduced it. Smith, not an easy name to be narrowing down to an individual. But the statement it supports is banal, will have to replace. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll search history and other articles. Sounds familiar to me. Will report back. Victoria (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Mazone
With a great deal of difficulty and twisting of arms to get behind a paywall into an academic database I found this annunciation. It's quite pretty and the floor tiling, the edging on Mary's dress, look somewhat van Eyckian. Only problem: it has faint watermarks. So I haven't bothered to upload in case they're too unsightly. Input? Victoria (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Am reading into this, but not gotten to it yet; basically Im looking for a 2nd source to help identify. Its certainly very pretty, with van Eyckian touches, but very Italian too; a nice contrast. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - definitely very Italian (and pretty). I wanted to use an image for the Giovanni Mazone page because I was thinking I'd DYK - that's why I asked. But probably better not to use this because of the watermarks. I found this for that page, but is it considered 3D? Victoria (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Inscriptions
The full inscriptions of the St. Michael and Catherine frames are in Dhanens, but I haven't bothered to copy out - they're quite long and for some reason she hasn't identified the source. Do we need them or is it okay as is w/ only the full inscription from the center panel frame? Victoria (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't bothered eh? Thats not like you! I'd suggest including; if we dont have a translation I'd put it in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ince hall

 * Workshop, but strikingly similar, seems to be after (ie a variant of) the Lucca Madonna. Searching. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten this one. Dhanens or Pacht write about it. Can find if you need. A bit later. Victoria (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have an hour, and a half. After that I'm calling Fram. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Threats! Might take a little longer. I think this one of the one that Pacht said looked like Mary had been stuffed into a carrying case. It's definitely one that he mentions the copious amount of red. She's much larger than the Mary in this triptych. Victoria (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Im guessing he was thinking of the Lucca Madonna which seems much less sucessful, and exactly, condenced. Ceoil (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. But I will look it up right now. Where are you thinking of putting this? We could pull the one I added last night - was only an experiment - but I wanted to try to get one with the frames. Victoria (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dhanens writes about this (says not van Eyck, has an "apocrophal inscription"). Interestingly in the pages just before she writes about the Annunciation diptych that's almost the same of as the annunciation here. She says attribution is questionable. Now I'm just getting confused. Victoria (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Follower or workshop, probably after a design or lost origional. I would like to work in but have only scraps so far. Ceoil (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot, I looked in Pacht. He mentions it briefly in the pages I have - says it fits in the evolution of JvE's changing style. In this case she's placed in a domestic setting, and Pacht pairs w/ Chancelor Rolin which isn't really obviously set in a church. It's pretty & would be nice to work in. Victoria (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't know where to work in until I establish (any) relationship. I'm seeing it duscussed a lot, but not in relation to Dresden yet. Was just an idea. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Checked (both) Wards & found ... nothing. I'll check Jstor, but might not have any luck. Victoria (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing is slightly more than what I've found. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we eke out a caption: Pacht says it fall squarely in the evolution of changing perspective; Dhanens that it's an imitation, but was long attributed to van Eyck. Surely we can a sentence out of that. Victoria (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more in terms of the similar colour scheme, vanishing points and receeding patters. Looking still. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take it down until you find. Victoria (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have something - a pretty detailed conparison, bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

unravishing modesty
Some phrase. I break down each time I read it. Too good. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. It is good. I couldn't resist using it. Victoria (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Rapondi
Parking this here, interesting:. Victoria (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found a review of the book linked above and have added a note re the Rapondi family (who turns out were bankers to the Burgundian dukes for generations) just to clarify that Dhanens' speculation is based on some sort of validity and because of the conflicting theories re the Rapondi and the Giustinani families. They were both important Italian families w/ ties to Bruges. I've tweaked the section a bit too because Dhanens hedges there. If the Rapondis then the donor would have been betrothed or married to Catherine - who was the Rapondi. Victoria (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I took this down,, because I'm in a massive tidying phase and it's now in the article and so finished, but decided best to leave. Or something. Overexplaining again. Victoria (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria, I sort of left the Donor section to you as I was working on the closed view, the apparation aspect, and that. If you have sources pls add. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, it's in the article and finished and not needed here, and that's why I removed this, but then realized that the edit summary seemed a bit snarky which wasn't the intention. Victoria (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Grand. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have found a bit more on the donor...digesting. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Iconography
I think the statement "The rich and complex iconography and symbolic meaning attached to the many objects seem overall to highlight the co-existence of the spiritual and material worlds." falls flat in that its not really backed up. Its undoubtly true, well its characteristic, but I'm searching through the sources, but not finding much to back it up *for this work*. Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I copied some from somewhere (??) Madonna in the Church (will check history) maybe .. and not sure it works here. I'd like to re-read Ward too. Working a bit slowly today. Will check sources, but don't have a problem trimming. I think what's important to highlight in this section is that JvE changed the way he embedded symbolism - that's a point I would like to keep. Victoria (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt be opposed to removing or lessening the centrality. Ceoil (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me a moment. WP keeps going down, but I want to reread Jacobs and Ward, and maybe even pull up Harbison and try to balance. I know in my mind where I'm going with it. I think. Victoria (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This point from Ward I think is important:


 * And Jacobs says repeatedly dispersed about that the triptych shows symbols of the heavenly with images of the earthly, and she repeatedly compares it to the Ghent. So I think these are worth mentioning. I've trimmed a bit, moved some bits of sentences, checked the sources, and at this point it can either be rewritten or deleted. Victoria (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It came up at review, so after thinking about it, I'm thinking about putting the frames section back with the description and moving the iconography down lower (as it is in the Crucifixion and if we don't like it, we can switch around again or chop the iconography section. Victoria (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)




 * I agree with remerging and will do. Re disguised symbolism, as its not so much evident here, I'm gonna remove it from this article. As a concept it seems to be open to debate anyway in more recent literature. In fact it might make a pretty revealing section in the bio page, if you up for it sometime...we have sort of been dodging that ;) Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have been undecided about this remerging but wondering "what would the famously unsentimental, brutal, grand standing, bastard Riggr do". Ok, have been gutting and preping for a re-merge. Bear with me. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hasn't been easy to decide where to place that section. Looks fine to me now. Victoria (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Behold. So it is written so shall it be done. Tks Victoria. This was the last niggling thing for me; apart from the comma abuse I really should have been aware of because of all that business before. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour of merging the frames sect, though I'd favour placing it at the end of the descp. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've come across some new sources recently for Early Netherlandish painting and discussion about frames was intriguing. I think the frames are absolutely integral to the work and in a sense what I see in the paintings - or in this case the triptych - is an inverse of a miniature where the margins serve to be decorative and the text didactic. The frames for this work in particular are so densely inscribed with biblical verses that it's really impossible to believe that van Eyck didn't intend them to complete the work so I'd prefer to give the frames their own section as part of the overall description of the piece. I think we're agreeing with each other? Victoria (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Donor
In the best tradition of working on van Eyck FACs I've missed the inlines (jokingly referred to as snark) that has in the past strewn about to keep us on track. Lo and behold, an imitator has shown up and I've taken that person's advice and moved the donor section up. I like it that way - seems to fit well after the provenance - so I'm leaving it as is, but won't have a problem with yet another rearranging if it seems wrong. Victoria (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Frame
While the frame is the original oak frame (how cool is that?) and thus old enough to be out of copyright, because it is a 3-D work, photographs of it are not automatically free under US law. US law holds that photos of free 2-D art works are automatically free (as taking a photo of a flat artwork is not a creative act), but photos of 3-D works are not free (even if the work itself is no longer copyrighted) because there is a creative aspect to the photo. Thus, photos of this painting and its frame have to be freely licensed by the photographer. That is why the current lead image File:Jan van Eyck - Triptych of Mary and Child, St. Michael, and the Catherine - Google Art Project.jpg from Google Art Project has had a non-free frame template added on Commons.

I found a freely licensed photograph on Flickr which I uploaded on Commons here and show with the current lead image in the gallery below, and see several possible solutions.


 * 1) Use the freely licensed version (II) as the lead image - the colors are slightly yellower and the photo is not quite as sharp as the current lead, so this may not be as good (perhaps the image can be cleaned up - I rotated it and cropped it but did not adjust levels, etc.)
 * 2) Use a cropped (no frame) version of the current lead image (I) as the lead image to show the figures clearly and use the freely licensed image to illustrate the frame and paintings in the "frames" section
 * 3) I think an argument could be made that the view of the frame in the current lead image (I) is the same view anyone would get of the frame if they took a good photo of the 2-D painting. I will also someone more knowledgeable than I on licenses to weigh in on this. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment on third option: Flat scans of coins have been considered copyright vios at Commons before (see here), so I don't think the Google version would be acceptable under that reasoning. 1 and 2 are brilliant (didn't even think to look on Flickr, as it's usually useless with the topics I deal with), though naturally the final decision belongs to the main editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ruhrfisch for helping to sort this out. My initial reaction is this:
 * The tag on the File:Jan van Eyck - Triptych of Mary and Child, St. Michael, and the Catherine - Google Art Project.jpg says: "This image contains nonessential decorative elements such as a frame that are not known to be public domain or available under a free license." I understand that the image isn't free in the US because it's 3D, but I'd challenge that the frame isn't essential to the piece. The painting and frames constitute a single integrated piece with separate elements juxtaposed to create a single unity. The prayers inscribed on the frame were meant to explain and accompany the images to create a whole.
 * Thanks for finding (II). It has a couple of issues, but in my mind the most important is that Jan van Eyck's signature carved into the innermost molding in front of the tiled floor on the central panel isn't visible, and because this is one of only two works he signed, and the single religious piece he signed, I think that bit is important to have. The other obvious issue is quality of the photo. I've played with it a bit and will some more, but haven't been able to erase the light shadow (if that's what it's called) on the top right of the Catherine panel. But I've submit (II) to the graphics lab. Perhaps they can sharpen a bit and remove the light shadow.
 * I have managed to create what appears to be a flat version with some cropping of (I) which I've added below as (III). Is that a possible option? (I'm not crazy about it, but willing to explore all options).
 * We'll wait until your point number 3 above has been fully explored.

For now, I'll leave this until we have all possible solutions on the table, then Ceoil and I will decide how to go forward. Thanks again!. Victoria (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - if we use the Flickr image as the lead, can we use an image such as File:Dresden triptych center panel.jpg and File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame.jpg (which are flat) in the article sections so as show close ups of the frame and of Catherine who is blurry in the free image?
 * I've tested in this version with those two images in the text and (II) below in the lead. Is that a version that would pass? Victoria (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not sure - perhaps we should ask who uploaded the Google Art image on Commons and added the non-free frame template there. My gut reaction is that the frame is an integral part of the work and we should have as good a photo of it and the paintings as possible, but the law may be against me on this. A useful rule of thumb is, if it can cast a shadow, it is considered 3-D. Still waiting on the Commons user I asked (he is usually not around on weekends). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Ruhrfisch asked me to offer a comment. The conversation above is quite good, but I'm not sure the issue is fully understood. Be careful with wording, as three dimensional (i.e., having length, width and height - however slight) is the actual legal consideration, not “flat” (i.e., generally being level on the horizon). File:Dresden triptych center panel.jpg and File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame.jpg, for example, are in fact not two dimensional, as the frame is visible in its entirety or in part. The issue of dimension is one of originality (in the US, a mere prohibition on copying). The presence of engraving, embossing, beveled edges, etc. (i.e., three-dimensional features) allows an author of a derivative to add something original. Indeed, this is the issue mentioned by Crisco 1492 related to coins. In File:Dresden triptych center panel.jpg, for example, note the highlight in the lower right of the frame. Note also how the lighting highlights the embossed text along the perimeter in both images. These are unique elements (original to the photographer, not present in the existing frame) which would be expected to allow the derivative photograph to be copyrightable.
 * Thanks. I don't think there's a hurry and would prefer to wait to get it right. The changes made yesterday can always be undone. Victoria (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Option one (I) above is valid, but I disagree with two (II) and three (III). As explained above, the proposed cropped "flat" image has not resolved the issue as rather large portions of the 3D frame have been retained. Regarding III, consider, for example, the millions (if not billions) of photographs of the Statue of Liberty. Within that sample, undoubtedly many are all but identical. Nevertheless, copyright would not be expected to be denied to the photographers on that basis. Alternatively, imagine of the chaos (legally, as in disorder) that would ensue if the mere ability of an author to replicate the work of another was grounds, in and of itself, to void the latter's copyright. Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the detailed and clear explanation. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the belated response. Thanks for the explanation (I'd looked at Faberge egg in the interim and realized about the shadow); I've removed all the non-free images with frames. It's an unfortunate situation, but there it is. Huge thanks, too, to  for finding the replacement on Flickr which we'll have to use for the lead. I've made a number of file uploads here on en WP during the course of working on this page, all with keep local tags, and I'll need an admin to delete those for me. As soon as I'm able, I'll post the list of files. Victoria (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can delete them for you. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ruhrfisch. I'll post tomorrow or the next day or when I get around to it. There's no hurry. I'll be out for another day or so at the least. Victoria (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys for putting so much effort and thought into this. (I) is not ideal but I can live with it fine, while also searching around for a better quality freely licensed version. I would be in favour of retaining this for now as the lead image. Re the crops - condisering the article goes into depth on the inscriptions and timber and so on, would one or FU crops (of portios of the frame only) be acceptable? I mean if the rational was explicitly saying how the portion shown relates to the article text, and is of educational use. Other wise I think the article may be slightly blunt. Anyways...I appreciate the situation we are faced with, such as it is. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see File:Jan van Eyck - Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister - Dresdner Flügelaltar - 1437.jpg has been much improved since I last looked, with work from a few people. The image has the advantage over the old lead pic in that the wings are folded more at an angle, while one of the hinges is pronounced and plainly visiable; giving a better impression of what a triptych actually is. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's what I get for not watchlisting this page (thought I did, but...). The new images look almost perfect. I'm still a little concerned with File:Dresden Triptych Detail Archangel Michael with Donor.jpg and File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame 1.jpg which seem to retain some of the wooden frame. We can keep the frame, but we'd have to crop from (II) below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Damn...just when I though we'd gottent away it.... Anyway, they are very narrow strips in those crops - there are three frames along each panel's border - one actual and two painted imitations. But that's no big deal either way; the reasoning behind showing those two is to display the finery and (then) fashionable clobber of the saints; the borders in those contexts is neither here nor there. I would say however that the focus here is now becoming too, on this page, strict; if small slivers on the pics are felt to leave discomfort, say compared to album articles or any pop culture page thats been fac, then...given all the depth the article gives to the frames....I think a good case for Fair Use can be made, it would certinly benifit the reader to be able to see the form of script used. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of would be de minimis, though I'd like a third opinion on if its too much or not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Crisco if it seemed I was there letting my fustrations out on you. I know you are very helpful, clued in and trying to get us over the line in a way that we would be happy with. Hold please. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Crisco do you have an opinion in regards to writing a fair use for the small bits of frame being used? I could measure the circumference of the frames: each panel with triple molded frames surrounding it completely and then measure the very small amount used and figure the percentage. Seems like a lot of work, but will do that if it's what you need. Off the top of my head, we're talking only a few inches of a portion of frame from two of the three inner panels. What exactly do we need to do here to keep some part of the frame? And if we can't, then please tell us outright and we can decide whether to continue or not. My personal preference is to give it up and not bother to pass FAC, but it's up to whatever Ceoil wants. Victoria (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Add: fair use rationale added to File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame 1.jpg and File:Dresden Triptych Detail Archangel Michael with Donor.jpg. If these are insufficient, then let's let the FAC delegates know and have the review archived. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a combo image version of File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame 1.jpg from the free Google Art painting and the free Flickr frame photo. Just added it to the gallery - is it good enough? If not, I support fair use. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ruhrfisch! (ahem once again). Looks good to me. Re FU, I'm thinking about a blanket rationalle that could be used for 15th century art in general. Its seems to me its either that that is accepted or, editors in that area might as well go home. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, still catching up here after a few days out. The total perimeter is 236 cm (this from dimensions in one of the sources) and each frame is about 5 cm wide. We're using about 3 in, (1.5 in on each side of the length, and a tiny width, on the Michael panel; and much less on the Catherine panel. I haven't a clue what the percentage is, but seems very low. Anyway, I'll leave it a bit longer until Crisco responds, but am inclined to either pull the images or the FAC. I do appreciate what you're doing Ruhrfisch - but the Catherine panel from the Flickr image is the blurriest and for an FA about a piece of art as lovely as this? I think we'd do better without the images or without the star. Victoria (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't understand why it's okay to put images say in Whaam! that are current, when these are half a millenium old. But I'll let it go now. Victoria (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly made the composite to see what it would look like (and found that compared to the Google Art crop it looks like crap). I have added my support to the FAC, and specifically said I support Fair Use for the two images still showing bits of frame. They cannot be on Commons AND fair use, so will have to be moved here. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS Anyone mind if I delete the chimera composite - it is awful and no one will ever use it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS I will leave the image on WP until the FAC is resolved one way or the other. The images in Whaam! are almost all Fair Use. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for taking so long (I must be going senile, because I swear I watchlisted this again)... I think for most of the cropped images we have now a claim of de minimis would be acceptable (as the frames make up much less than 20% of the image proper, and are not reproduced in whole) which would allow it to be used freely. Ruhrfisch's chimera... is that Dresden triptych Catherine and frame 1.jpg? It looks acceptable to me as well, and that would much more difficult to claim is not free (just worried about accuracy, though I'm sure Victoria and Ceoil have that taken care of). Just a note regarding fair use: the rationales have to be for local uploads (on Wikipedia itself) and not Commons; Commons does not allow fair use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually put some thought into writing those and now they're gone. I can't edit commons. Do I have to re-crop, re-upload, and re-add the fair use here on en wiki? If so will take a few days. Please give me a little break here and provide exact guidance. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I think this would fall under de minimis in terms of copyrightable material and thus I don't think FU is necessary. Should consensus be otherwise, however, fair use images should be uploaded locally, on Wikipedia: fair use on Commons is supposed to be speedily deleted, which is why I removed the rationale from the file pages (didn't want you to lose the crops too). As for how to upload to Wikipedia:

Though this image may be subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:
 * 1) Use the "upload file" link.
 * 2) Choose how you want to upload it. I suggest using the plain form, as we are not using the standard templates.
 * 3) Select the file from your computer (as standard at Commons)
 * 4) Select a file name
 * 5) Enter your fair use rationale in the empty box (included below)
 * 6) Enter Non-free fair use under it
 * 7) Save and upload
 * Your fair-use rationale was "==Rationale for use in Dresden Triptych==
 * 1) It is an historically significant photograph of an original c. 1437 wooden picture, and extremely rare
 * 2) It is being used for informational purposes in a section of the article because the frame is an integral part of the work of art. It is being used in particular to illustrate the triple molded frame made as a protective device for the portable altarpiece, and shows a small amount of the molding cropped from the center panel. The juxtaposition of the image of St. Catherine with the frame is how the piece of art was meant to be seen.
 * 3) There is no possibility of obtaining a release, because the copyright holder, if there is one, is unknown.
 * 4) The image is not high resolution, and copies made from it will not be high quality.
 * 5) It is widely available, and has no monetary value that would be affected by our use of it."


 * Which is quite well written, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do know how to do that! I simply needed to know if the images had to be reuploaded here. The answer appears to be yes. I cannot do it immediately, but will as soon as I'm able. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread your post. Yes, all fair-use images must be hosted locally (though I still think de minimis could reasonably apply, if you want to take the perhaps safer route its still good) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Crisco, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and at this point I really don't care any more. When I feel better, when I'm not ill, and when I'm not as stressed as i am at the moment, I'll get back here and try to figure it out. I really need to be gone for a few days; I think it's okay for us to be hosting those images as they are for a few more days. If not, then delete them and delete from the article and I'll take care of the situation when I can. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, a couple more days won't hurt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done this and I hope correctly. Will update the FAC. Victoria (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I plan to contact Google and see if they might freely license the gorgeous hi-res image they have. Can't hurt to try (and their motto is not to be evil, so if I tell them it would be very good to freely license it, who knows?). Do NOT wait for this for the FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep...it would be so sweet. I'm very touched ye guys are going to so much trouble. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dresden Triptych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330231905/http://skd-online-collection.skd.museum/de/contents/showArtist?id=277870 to http://skd-online-collection.skd.museum/de/contents/showArtist?id=277870

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)