Template:Did you know nominations/Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom

Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom



 * ... that Theodore Roosevelt attacked Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom (pictured) for "wild absurdities"?
 * Reviewed: Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes, BWV 40

Created/expanded by Chiswick Chap (talk). Self nom at 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Length, date (created in November, but expanded 5x on Dec 7th), hook is great & well-sourced. Wonderful photo, but image licensing tag needs clarification re: public domain (see red notice on photo mainpage). No copyvio otherwise. Should be good to go once image gets cleared up. Cdtew (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Done, published in the USA before 1923 so it's PD-US. (BTW created in my userspace so it's new not expanded.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I think I spoke too soon. Something needs to be done about the (pictured) reference needs to be more artful.  Perhaps there's a better way to say that the picture came from the article? Cdtew (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that Theodore Roosevelt attacked Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom for "wild absurdities" like camouflaged roseate spoonbills (pictured)?
 * How about ALT2: ... that Theodore Roosevelt attacked Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom for "wild absurdities" like the book's depiction of "camouflaged" roseate spoonbills (pictured)? Cdtew (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone knowledgeable about images check this one out? It's lovely and I'm sure it's PD, but I'd like to be sure all boxes have been ticked before using. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Need an image expert to confirm that this is licensed and/or public domain such that it can appear on Wikipedia's main page. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Image copyright note If it was an unpublished work (never shown), then its copyright (in the U.S.) has expired (life of the author + 70 years for works from authors who died before 1942.) If the work was unpublished, then its copyright expired in 1991 because he died in 1921. Generally, for published works (in the U.S.) before 1923, they are in the public domain due to copyright expiration, with some caveats. If he created and published the work from his New Hampshire studio, then the Western States special case exception for works published between 1 July 1909 through 1978 does not apply. The question to ask is: from where did he first publish (show) the work? In the U.S.? Overseas? If that data is unknown, it can likely (i.e., not assuredly) be assumed that its publication (showing) location was New Hampshire, barring information to the contrary, and its copyright has expired. I'd check with Sotheby's to see what data they have. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is of a painting that was published in a book in the U.S. in 1909, and by an American artist who died in 1921. My understanding is that either fact is sufficient for it to be clearly public domain, and thus allowable (given the license) for DYK on the Wikipedia main page. Correct? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Any U.S. work published or copyrighted in the U.S. prior to 1922 has reached the end of its U.S. copyright protection, even where all possible renewals were filed. On 1995-12-31, rights for 1920 U.S. works entered PD &mdash; then a 75-yr max term limit. Beginning in 1923, the 1998 legislation extended durations of all then-valid rights for an additional 20 years. On 1996-1-1, URAA kicked in to revive status for works subject to URAA. As an aside, in the case of a U.S. book-published-image of a U.S. artwork, if the subject of the image (the painting, here) is the only thing represented in the image, then it is known as an "underlying work", so one looks to the artist's copyright first to determine expiration, then to the book's date. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Based on the above, image is clearly in public domain and is properly licensed, so there should be no further issues there. Given the problem with the original hook, and that ALT2 is clearer than ALT1, I've struck the others and left ALT2 as the hook to be used when this is promoted. The rest of the approval is per Cdtew's original review above. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)