Talk:HMS Otranto/GA1

GA Review
Please Note. The dates and information for the 1909, 1910 voyages of the Otranto do not tally with the ticket of my Grandfather, Robert Love who sailed for Sydney on 21 January 1910, by which time we are told the ship had done two runs to Australia and was cruising the Mediterranean Sea, to return to the Australia run in 1911. I doubt that even a new steamship could do two such runs since its launch in July, 1909. Greg McGuire, Otranto Descendent, Sydney Australia. Ref; Passenger Contract Ticket No.127, Orient Line, 17th Jan 1910. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.227.144 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC) :''This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Otranto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(Moving this discussion outside the confines of the review box) The key thing for me is that the IWM charges for commercial use of all its images, which means that they hold the copyright, regardless of the identity of the photographer and any gov't service. Oscar Parkes himself was a RN doctor, but I don't know if he was officially assigned to take photos or not. He was the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships for a time so he could well have been taking photos for his own purposes before donating his collection, possibly including photos that he didn't take, to the IWM. I'm quite comfortable in believing that his donation included all rights to his photos. As for the ones that he may have purchased, without knowing the photographer's identity we can never know what the true situation is. They could well be somebody's weekend snap or an official photo for which the documentation has been lost. And with that ambiguity, I'm not comfortable in a strict interpretation that says we cannot use any IWM photo that lacks documentation that it was taken by an official photographer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IWM charges for commercial use of all of its images, even where it doesn't own the copyright - with photos that are unambiguously PD. That's what I meant in saying that their licensing description isn't helpful, because it doesn't allow us to draw conclusions about what the actual copyright status of the image is. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that any assumptions (as distinct from known facts) about the authorship or donation status of a particular image should be noted on the image page. Otherwise, anyone coming across the image would assume it is entirely ok. That was my original point, and based on Nikki's comments, I think I'm entirely justified sticking to it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Passing, well done as usual. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)