User talk:Centpacrr/Archive2

Commemorative rubber stamps
Several of the covers, like this, this, and this show a red commemorative stamp with a picture of the Zeppelin, and the name and date of the flight. The copyright status of this stamp and therefore of the image as a whole is going to depend on whose work that was. If it was the German post office, then fine - the stamp is in the public domain, and therefore the overall image of the cover is as well. If the stamp was designed and applied by Deutsche Zeppelin-Reederei, it's a different story. The stamp will be under copyright until 70 years after the death of the person who created the image. If some successor entity owns DZR's intellectual property (maybe Lufthansa?), then they will remain the licencee of the work until it passes into the public domain. If there is no successor, then the rights would normally have reverted to the artist. Do you know, or have any way of finding out, whether these stamps are the work of the post office or DZR?

Logos
Image:Hindenburg Olympiafahrt 1936.jpg carries a company logo (Karl Guhl) - and worse - the Olympic rings. The former is covered by copyright unless the designer of the logo died before 1938, the latter is protected by trademark and an international charter.

The copyright on the Olympic rings appears to have just expired, since their designer, Pierre de Coubertin, died in 1937. We could therefore use PD-US, along with Trademark if this were the only problem. However, the presence of the other company logo means that unless we can verify who the designer was and when they died (and it's not inconceivable that they're still alive), the best we can hope for is claiming fair use - I'll come back to this topic if necessary, but your edits to Image:1934 "Graf Zeppelin" South America Schedule.jpg suggest to me that you've already got the hang of this.

Personal message
Image:Graf Zeppelin First North American Flight 1928.jpg is the reverse of a postcard and has a personal message reproduced in it. This message is subject to copyright, and possibly belongs to the person who wrote it or to their estate (ie - if they're still alive, they still own it. If they died after 1937, their estate owns it. If they died prior to 1937, it's now in the public domain. If you have details of the provenance of this postcard, it may actually be possible to work out which of these situations applies; there's a ten-year window between the date the postcard was written and the date before which "author plus 70" copyrights run out.

If we can't find out when the author died, we could always just blur out the handwritten text, or reduce the overall size of the image to render the text illegible. In theory, invoking fair use would be another option, but in practice, would be a hard thing to justify, since one of the criteria is that another image cannot be readily substituted for this one; and we have a variety of images that illustrate mail carried by Zeppelin.

Nazi symbols
Any image, such as Image:Graf Zeppelin II 1938.jpg that contain the Nazi swastika need to carry the disclaimer tag Nazi symbol to remind users of restrictions that may apply in their own countries to republishing the image.

Other images
I was only hoping to get through the covers today, but since I have a little more time - brief notes on other images that we can discuss in more detail later if necessary:


 * Image:DLZ 127 Graf Zeppelin Fabric.jpg - copyright belongs to you; licence completely appropriate - same rationale as for the girder section above.
 * Image:Graf Zeppelin 3 Reichsmark 1930.jpg - Public domain and should be tagged PD-GermanGov
 * Image:Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei flag.jpg and Image:Zeppelin_Passenger_Pins.jpg are subject to copyright and can only be used with fair use rationales and the Non-free logo tag. The former also needs the Nazi disclaimer, of course...

We're getting there! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Deutchlandfahrt leaflet 1936.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Deutchlandfahrt leaflet 1936.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rlandmann (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See discussion about the leaflet in the section immediately above. It is clearly in the Public Domain. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Apparently this is the view of the conosciente as well. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

I think all German stamps are public domain
I spotted the tag on the propaganda poster above and it might be public domain if it is treated as an official work of the then German government. However I am no way an expert, so it is worth checking with the Commons people.

I am more sure that all German stamps are public domain:
 * Commons talk
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cover_DE_1936_Hinden-800px.jpg
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Germany
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Briefmarken#Deutschland
 * German official works are public domain: Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz.

The ones on the covers before 1945 would be "PD-German Empire", but whether the cover designs or any artistic stickers on them fall into another category I would not like to guess.

I must say I do like those uploaded postal covers and it would be a shame to loose their use here. -84user (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The covers and pc/ppcs will be back. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

Changes in copyright tags
Just to help explain why some people are seeing your changing image tags from PD to CC-BY as problematic - it's because the latter licence is more restrictive than the former.

When you contributed images under the former, you actually divested yourself of all your rights whatsoever to the image (ie, no rights reserved). Under the latter, you are reserving the right to be identified as the creator of the image.

The thing is, you had already "signed away" this right - just changing an image tag doesn't suddenly bring it back.

At the end of the day, it's no big deal. As I indicated a little while ago, it's actually unknown whether it's even possible to give away the right to be identified as the creator of a work.

Because this issue seems to be connected to your concerns about image captions, I'll mention that the right to be identified as the creator of a work does not include the right to say how you are identified. Wikipedia identifies creators of images automatically on the image description page that notes the uploader and the date and time of the upload. You cannot insist on anything beyond that - you have explicitly given that right away.

As far as the captions go - I think other editors have already pointed you to the Captioning guideline that states that Wikipedia does not include credits in photo captions, and the Image use policy that states that watermarks or embedded credits are inappropriate for images on Wikipedia.

A bit of explanation on the latter issue - the problem with watermarks or embedded credits is that their presence could deter the free re-use of the image. People are pretty much trained to see such a thing and equate it to a copyright image that they can't use. In fact, under the GFDL or CC-BY licences, they would be well within their rights to take the image, crop the credit out, and then republish their altered version (as long as they said somewhere where the original had come from). But the embedded credit makes it look like they're not free to do that, which is why Wikipedia doesn't allow such captions/watermarks.

As a community, we're trying to create an encyclopedia where anyone can feel free to take and reuse any of the text and and of the images in whatever way they wish to. Do you share that vision? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem upset that I let Rlandmann know there is a discussion about you changing the licence on some of the images you uploaded. Though I did discuss some images earlier with you, I did not want to get involved directly in the recent discussion itself, so I just let Rlandmann know about it so he could respond if he felt it was appropriate to do so. I think Rlandmann has clearly told you about the policy in simple and correct terms. I suspect you have made the image licence changes because you did not like the way Wikipedia deals with the PD images that you originally uploaded the way you would like, but that is the price you pay for contributing. If you don't like a policy then maybe Wikipedia is not for you, but with your apparent knowledge that would be a pity, so try to work with the policy and guidelines and you will be a happy constructive contributor. Perhaps you need to root around a bit more to understand certain rules before you get involved in a way that may not be to your liking rather than find out later that some contribution you made cannot be changed easily. Keep up the good work. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know I have added comments to the discussion about you changing the licence on some images. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake please stop going on and on and on, repeating the same thing. I can read, thanks. There is no need as this issue is finished. ww2censor (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Airmails of the United States
Having started Airmails of the United States the other day in preparation for uploading a major revision of airmail, I posted some info about starting the new page on this talk page aimed slightly at you because of you previously posting unverified and unsourced information into articles. If you need advise on how to do the references, though I did offer this info before, please ask. However, to avoid wasting your time, or duplicating your effort, I suggest you concentrate your efforts on the new page because all the old airmail page will be overwritten soon. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am currently on vacation in Maine so do not have my various Postal History collections with me, however references to virtually everything in the sections I wrote on US Air Mail (which were moved over from the general Air Mail article) can be found in the American Air Mail Catalogue (AAMS, 6th ed. 1998) which is already sourced (but I will add more references to it) and/or from contemporary news articles (mostly in the New York Times) all of which I have and was planning to add when I returned from my vacation. I have been collecting, researching, and writing about pre War US domestic, PAA, and Zeppelin Aero Postal History for a very long time and you can be sure that I am extremely careful about the accuracy of the historical details. I have a great deal more that I intend to add in the months ahead which will also be illustrated by a good many more covers and other relevant artifacts from my extensive files and collections on these subjects. To avoid further confusion, I will also delete the US Air Mail section that I wrote from the general Air Mail article as it is now duplicated here. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I suggest you look at the franking article you linked to in the lead; my edit accurately states the facts without error. Removing my edit now makes the article inaccurate and misleading. While philatelists may use the term franked this is not the original and proper meaning. And, why do you still refuse to use citations properly when I have pointed you to the proper way? ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I cannot agree with your interpretation of the the definition of the postal usage (at least in the United States) of the term "franking" as being limited only to mail sent that is sent free of charge. This is just not the case.


 * The American Heritage Dictionary, for instance, defines the word as follows:


 * tr.v. franked, frank·ing, franks
 * 1. To put an official mark on (a piece of mail) so that it can be sent free of charge.
 * 2. To send (mail) free of charge.
 * 3. To place a stamp or mark on (a piece of mail) to show the payment of postage.
 * 4, To enable (a person) to come and go freely.


 * The Universal Postal Union also clearly seems to interpret "franking" to include any kind postage stamp, marking, device, printed label, or code applied to mail the purpose of which is to indicate the payment of postage. See, for instance, the 2005 UPU document entitled Feedback from the Standards Board on Switzerland Congress proposal 25.115.1 on characteristics of postage stamps and postal prepayment or franking impressions.  Universal Postal Union Document POC C1 SB PEG 2005.2–Doc 10.


 * The language you suggest ("...the appropriate air mail postal rate had been paid and complied with the air mail postal regulations in force at the time.") implies that only the mails transported by air for which postal fees have been paid would qualify as "Air Mail." This is clearly misleading as any free franked mails such as "official business" (or "penalty"), Congressional, soldier's ("V Mail"), USPOD/USPS, and any other mails when serviced by air on the same basis as fee paid Air Mail also has to qualify and be considered as "Air Mail" as well. The wording you substituted would seem to exclude any such free mails while my original wording explicitly includes both free and fee paid mails.


 * I admit that I am unaware if there is a difference in usage of the term "franking" in Commonwealth countries as opposed to the United States, although the UPU document seems to agree with the interpretation of "franking" as including markings representing both the "free" and "postage paid" states. As the article relates to US Air Mail, however, even if the term is used differently in Commonwealth countries, as I understand Wikipedia style and policy, the US interpretation would prevail about a subject primarily relating to the United States. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Boy, you work late into the night! Please read the franking article you linked to first, then possibly modify the language a bit to include the free of charge mail you refer to, but what you had does not work with the article as it is now. My adding complied with the air mail postal regulations in force at the time is intended to encompass other possible mail possibilities; perhaps change "and" to "and/or". Franked mail is, technically paid, by the government from one department to another but this is too technical for the punter. US franking is derived from the British system anyway, but I never hear non-philatelists use the term for sticking stamps on mail. The primary use of franking is for free mail and placing of stamps is not a common usage to non-philatelists, so there is no need to confuse them with inaccurate terms, remember KISS. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the UPU document I referenced which clearly interprets "franking" as an appropriate term to use for fee paid mail, but I will consider some alternate language tomorrow. (The language complied with the air mail postal regulations in force at the time seems to me to be just too vague, nonspecific, and open to interpretation to be a useful substitute.)


 * In my experience, the term "franking" referring to fee paid postage is not only not particularly esoteric usage, it is clearly not limited to only philatelists. For instance a "franking machine" (a term for which Google returns almost 72,000 hits) is a very common business machine millions of which are in everyday use world wide to apply paid postage to business mail. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I have done my best, although apparently to not much avail, to explain exactly why I chose -- and think it worth defending -- the word "franked" (see above) to refer to the appropriate free and/or fee paid postal markings on Air Mail. In my experience, I have found this to be a well understood term in general usage to refer to any and all such postal markings, impressions, stamps, labels, and/or other devices applied to mails to indicated that an item can be accepted and postally serviced either because it qualifies for service without charge (free or privileged franking) or that the appropriate fees have been paid (ie postally franked).
 * As requested, I have provided many sources and references to support this as it conforms to both published dictionary definitions and is a term in general and wide spread use in business and commerce to describe the application of paid postage (see "franking machine" above) and also by the Universal Postal Union. I honestly and sincerely believe that the full meaning of the non-technical term "franking" is well understood by the general public and not only by philatelists, but perhaps I am overestimating the readership of Wikipedia. It would seem the issue in this instance lies in an apparent misunderstanding that the broad term "franking" means the same thing and the modified terms "free franking" and "franking privilege" which, I believe, they do not.
 * I admit that I struggle with the apparent view of the Wikipedia community that "form" and "lowest common denominator" are sometimes considered more important than content, context, accuracy, and conciseness, so I guess that I will have these issues from time to time. But as i said before I am on vacation in Maine and have other things to do right now. I have made my case and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree that "franking" does not mean the same thing as "free franking"/"franking privilege." I used the term "franked" because it is exactly the word that fit the meaning that I intended to convey. As a resolution to this issue, however, I have removed "franked" and rewritten the phrase so that now reads "....posted utilizing any class of Air Mail service." It doesn't say precisely what I mean, but I think it is close enough for the readers of the article to grasp the concept I had in mind. I hope this meets with your approval. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Your rewrite is pretty good now and I will not revert that. It avoids the problem issue I raised but trying to bamboozle me with references does not impress me or convince me when you kept wikilinking to a franking word that does not confirm the concept you were trying to convey. You just kept insisting on linking to a wrong word, but now we can move on. I know full well the philatelic meaning of franked and I also know the traditional meaning per the franking article. Enjoy the rest of the vacation and we will cooperate later. I have some questions about your sources. ww2censor (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I guess that I am more confused now than before. While I am constantly entreated to provide "references and sources" for what I contributed to Wikipedia articles, when I do the same to provide third party support for my contentions on the definitions and usages of "franking" you are apparently contending that this constitutes an unconvincing and unimpressive attempt to bamboozle. Is there not a disconnect here somewhere?
 * As you were troubled with the wikilinking to the franking article I removed it and linked instead to what seemed to me to be a well researched third party source on a reliable site ("Linn's Stamp News"). Perhaps one of the problems is that the Wikipedia franking article is itself deficient, incomplete, and misleading and needs to be addressed. (Perhaps this is a project I will tackle later when I am back home and have access to my reference library.) As deficient as it may be now, however, it still does refer to franking as more than just "free" or "privilege" franking. One of the four links on the page is to a Royal Mail site which reads in part: Franking customers benefit from special prices, so that franked mail will cost less than standard stamps. For any items of franked mail that have been surcharged, because there is not enough postage on the envelope, we aim to charge you – and not your customer – for the difference. The UPU also uses franking to refer to fee paid mail, etc, but I have said all of this before.
 * In the event of future discussions between us on other topics, if you find my use of third party sources and references as a means to support my positions to be "unconvincing" and "unimpressive" please inform me what types of materials or information would be an acceptable alternative so that I can be prepared to engage in a meaningful discussion. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
 * For goodness sake please stop going on and on and on, repeating the same thing. I can read, thanks. There is no need as this issue is finished. ww2censor (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response which I will take to mean that the use of verifiable third party sources and references actually is acceptable. I will deal with the inadequacies, inaccuracies, and lack of sourcing of the current franking article (which has only five references -- one of which I placed there, and one which is a broken link) when I get the chance.
 * BTW I see that your userpage says that you are a Macintosh professional. I have personally been using Apple computers exclusively since 1981 (my first machine was an Apple IIe) and I did a good deal of product testing for the late Jef Raskin, the original developer of the Macintosh, in the 1980s. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Image:60-lb Welsh Pear Rail SVRR 1856.jpg
Can you please describe where this image comes from? Did you take a photo of the rail and add the text? Thank you. --NE2 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I created the image in its entirely. The sample of rail shown is in my personal collection. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC))
 * OK, thank you. You might want to create a new one of just the rail, since the text belongs in a caption. --NE2 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The image with text is part of a larger illustration that I created for my web exhibit about this sample of rail on my Central Pacific Railroad site and which I then cropped out this portion to be used in the SVRR Wikipedia article. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC))
 * That being the case, you need either to include a note on your website saying that the image is available under a free licence (GFDL, CC-BY, or another compatible copyleft licence) or just send an email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] stating that you are the copyright holder of the image on that website and that you are releasing it under a free licence. An OTRS volunteer will then generate a ticket number for you to place on the image description page telling the world that the image is indeed free to use, reuse, and alter. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:BMR Sample.jpg
Hi again Centpacrr. This image is lacking source data - where did it come from? Is it a sample prepared by a US Federal Government agency (you're claiming PS-USGov)? Or is it the work of "Alexander Enterprises" (whoever they are)? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * USPS produced sample. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC))


 * And where did it come from? If it was a USPS website, we need the URL. If you scanned it yourself, you need to say that it was a USPS sample that you scanned yourself.
 * But this brings up two other issues - didn't USPS intellectual property cease to be US Government property when it became a separate agency in the late 1970s (hence why US stamps can be and are protected by copyright after that time - cf Non-free USGov-USPS_stamp)?
 * And regardless of who created it, it doesn't appear to contain any copyrightable elements, making it PD-ineligible, regardless of the source of the image (which still needs to be accurately stated). --Rlandmann (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And thanks too for fixing Image:Cancelled Congressional Frank.jpg‎. Could you take care of Image:Penalty Franking.jpg‎ too? It's clearly in the same category of images as the other two. We're getting there! :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also fixed the missing reference to the D-LZ129 First 1937 SA Flight on the Hinderburg page. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes I saw that - many thanks on both counts. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Another tag!
Hi again Centpacrr - just wondering whether you would please update the tag on this image as PD-ineligible (since it appears to contain no creative work), or even add PD-ineligible plus a GFDL or CC-BY tag if you want to make it explicit that you won't be asserting that the sweat of your brow in scanning it gives you any copyright ownership over the image! (Not that you could in the United States anyway, but this is an international project)

I noticed that you used the latter approach in another image - I think it's a great idea. The more explicit we can be about licencing on Wikipedia, the more useful these images will be.

Have you decided yet whether to update the copyright permission on your website or whether to get an OTRS ticket for Image:60-lb Welsh Pear Rail SVRR 1856.jpg? It really needs to be sorted out, because as it stands, it's absolutely run-of-the-mill fodder for Potentially Unfree Images, where it would be automatically deleted if neither of those options were put in place. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the content tag to the 1832 Cartlinge letter image, but I am unclear as to what the issue might be with the SVRR rail image which was created entirely by me and illustrates a piece of 1856 iron "pear" rail in my collection.(Centpacrr (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC))


 * The problem with the SVRR image is that the owner of cprr.org has very strict copyright terms and conditions, and as things stand, we only have your word that you and he are one-and-the-same.
 * So the issue isn't one of licencing, it's one of verification, since the image has previously been published under an incompatible licence (actually, one that hardly could be any less compatible!). You can read the policy here.
 * Unfortunately, we get a large number of photos every day that people download from some website or the other, and then re-upload to Wikipedia, selecting a PD or GFDL tag from the menu as they go, even though they have no right to do so. At present, the SVRR image is indistinguishable from any of these copyvios.
 * Normally, I'd recommend changing the notice on the external site, but since the rest of the site has such stringent copyright conditions (heh - as stringent as Wikipedia's copyleft conditions??), I think in this instance, it would be much simpler for you to simply send an email to the OTRS team from a cprr.org address asserting your ownership of the material and confirming your release of it under CC-BY. They'll either then tag the image for you, or give you a number to tag it with yourself.
 * If you've uploaded any other photos also published at cprr.org, or on any other website with similarly stringent conditions, it may be expedient to forward through permissions for those at the same time. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just decided to make and upload a new version Image:60-lb Welsh Pear Rail SVRR 1856.jpg that includes both the cross section and side view of the rail. This new image does not appear on my CPRR.org site.(Centpacrr (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
 * A better solution still! It's a much nicer image :) Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some PD images now
Please, sir, may I have some more? Tags that is :)

Image:Pacific_RR_Bond_SF_1865.jpeg and Image:Atlantic & Pacific RR Bond 1880.jpeg appear to be PD-US since they were published prior to 1923. (Unfortunately, we can't use PD-Old, because we don't know who did the beautiful engravings in either case, so we can't be sure that they've been dead for 100 years - the length of time some countries preserve an author's copyright after their death, although they've probably been dead for 70 years - the length of time that most countries use)

And now our old friend Image:Deutchlandfahrt leaflet 1936.jpg. If you feel sure that this was an official work of the German government, then please go ahead and tag it PD-GermanGov and let's move on. I admit that I still have lingering doubts about this one; but at the end of the day, you're making the assertion, not me! :)

Thanks for continuing to work with me on these. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those two - you seem to have missed Image:Atlantic & Pacific RR Bond 1880.jpeg this one? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Panama stock certificate
Another day, another image! I hope it's OK for me to keep gradually working through these with you - I'm hoping that this is a more user-friendly process than the system of automated/templated messages you've been exposed to in the past. If it gets too tedious, please let me know and I'll give it a rest for a while; but my objective is to get all the images you've uploaded tagged "beyond reproach" as quickly as possible so that you shouldn't have any more problems with people querying them in the future.

Today we have Image:PanamaRR Stock 1871.jpg, the content of which looks to me like PD-US since it was published before 1923. I'd say "Ineligible" but for the decorative border motif at the left-hand-side of the image. Thanks --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A trickier one
Hi Centpacrr -

We don't seem to have a source or an author for Image:Weltrundfahrt Map 1929.jpg. Because anyone could draw a map that conveys the same information, it won't qualify as fair use, since it fails the "replaceability" criterion. Do you know who drew it and where and when it was published? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A recreation adapted (in part) from a German language paperback pamphlet called Mit 'Graf Zeppelin' Um Die Welt: Ein Bild-Buch by Max Geisenheyer. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC))


 * OK, so do you have some reason to believe that Geisenheyer was dead by the end of 1937? And how does this image differ from the one in his book? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the spelling of his name in the article. With that extra information, I was able to find that the online catalogue for the University of Potsdam's library gives his dates as 1884-1961, meaning that his drawing won't enter the public domain until 2032. Do you have (or can you create) a replacement image available under a free licence? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can come up with although I doubt that it was Geisenheyner (who was a writer) who actually created the map himself. This may take a little time.(Centpacrr (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes - I agree that in all likelihood it was not Geisenheyner himself who drew the picture, but in the end, it doesn't make much difference whether it was Geisenheyner (whose copyright we know hasn't expired) or an anonymous contributor (whose copyright we can't verify one way or the other). On the other hand, I'm regularly amazed at what polymaths many people of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were; given your fields of interest and expertise, I'm sure you know what I mean!


 * I'll therefore delete the image as unfree. I've scratched together a replacement that we can use in the meantime until you come up with something else (I think the one I've created looks a little incongruously modern in the context of the article, but it's better than nothing!) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That one is fine. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

List of postal services abroad
Centpacrr - I posted a question here about list inclusion criteria. Any thoughts??--Mike Cline (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response posted there. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Minor edits
I happened to notice that you seldom classify your edit as "minor edits" when they really are, such as this one. Perhaps you might check out Minor edits as it helps other editors determine if reviewing an edit is worthwhile or not, especially when we have other things to do. In fact I notice that some edits I make and don't term minor should really be described as such. No need to reply; just a friendly suggestion. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ensemble Cast, The High and the Mighty
Centpacrr, please look at the article for Prairie Home Companion, all your reasons apply to this movie as well. Editor, Deamon138 agrees with me as well that P.H.C. is a more suitable movie then the High and the Mighty. 142.161.183.193 (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Some.Canadian.IP.Address


 * Please see the earlier discussion of this matter regarding The High and the Mighty as a film which helped establish this genre as a popular and commercially successful means of motion picture story telling by its tightly intertwining the lives and stories of 22 characters into a single event. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Okay, I'll accept your revert, I don't want to turn into a flame war or anything. 142.161.181.192 (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Some.Canadian.IP.Address


 * No problem. I am not saying the PHC is not a good example, just that THATM was one of the key first films that established the ensemble cast as a successful and popular genre of film making. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Name of the Union Pacific
Have you come across anything that definitely establishes why Congress named it "Union Pacific" in 1862? --NE2 18:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1862 Pacific Railroad Act provided that 152 individuals (all specified by name) "...together with five commissioners to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, and all persons who shall or may be associated with them, and their successors, are hereby created and erected into a corporate and politic in deed and in law, by the name, style, and title of The Union Pacific Railroad Company, and by that name shall have perpetual succession..." to build a railroad from the "western border of Iowa" to meet with (or form a "union") at "...the western boundary of the Territory of Nevada, there to meet and connect with the line of the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California" which had already been incorporated in California on June 28, 1861. I would presume, therefore, that the name "Union Pacific" was chosen because this union with the CPRR would complete the Pacific railroad authorized by the 1862 Act to be built over the middle (or "central") of the five routes designated in 1854 to be explored and surveyed by the War Department. (The name "Central Pacific" was already taken, of course.) (Centpacrr (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
 * That was my assumption (also the fact that all the eastern branches would unite at or east of the 100th parallel), but I can't find anything definite. This book discusses it without coming to a conclusion. I was hoping there would be something in the Congressional Record, but it seems to have been decided by the Committee on the Pacific Railroad. --NE2 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that "Union" may also have been chosen to represent the the coast-to-coast joining by rail of United States itself as the nation was frequently called simply "The Union" at the time. (See my transcription of REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH Including a Minority Report & Proposed Pacific Railroad Acts 34th Congress, 1st Session 1856) (Centpacrr (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Alternately, it could have been used to distinguish it from a proposed southern (Confederate) route. --NE2 06:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only had the South seceded many months before the passage of the 1862 Act, but the chief proponent for a Southern route had been Jefferson Davis both while United States Secretary of War (1853-57) in the Pierce Administration during which he supervised the massive five route Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean and later as a U.S. Senator from Mississippi prior to that State's secession on January 9, 1861. I doubt that when the UP was being formed and chartered in 1862, that the Congress was worrying about the construction of any future Southern route, nor was the CSA in any fiscal position to consider building one either. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Plane talk
I hear what you're saying Centpacrr, but disagree with some of your conclusions.

The central flaw in your argument (as I see it) is that you neglect to account for the fact that the word "aircraft" is regularly used in English to refer specifically to a fixed-wing aircraft. Therefore, I (and it seems, most of the other editors regularly contributing aircraft content here) feel quite comfortable using the word "aircraft" when describing a fixed-wing machine, as long as there's no apparent risk of the subject being confused for a helicopter or some other flying machine.

Any house style is artificial and arbitrary. As a published author, you should know that. Similarly, you should know that while you can, of course, submit a manuscript however you like, you should expect that any publishing house concerned with maintaining its own style will edit your submission to meet that style. In this respect, the only difference here on Wikipedia is that instead of an editor-in-chief to satisfy, you have a consensus of your peers to satisfy. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no particular problem with using "aircraft" for "airplane" when the meaning is clear from the context, but that also really is just not always going to be the case. In those circumstances I will always select whatever word or words that I feel will most accurately communicate what I mean relate. Guidelines are important, of course, but they should also be just that -- guidelines -- with the understanding that there will be circumstances which will override them. I still say that blind adherence to arbitrary matters of "style" over substance no matter what is ultimately counterproductive. The goal should always be accuracy first, and that is how I have approached my writing for more than forty years. I am sure that I will be (and have been) enlightened by my Wikipedia peers, but I am sure that from time to time I will be able to enlighten some of them as well. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Image:PH composite.jpg
Can you provide more context for what is depicted in this image? That would provide more value to readers I think than the current caption and would make it seem more relevant to the article. I do disagree with your conception of it as a "title" image though because someone has to scroll all the way down to see what the hotel looks like and it wouldn't be suitable for an infobox. It shows aspects of the hotel's history but doesn't really show the hotel itself. Why not move the pic that shows what the hotel looks like now up to the top? -- Broken Sphere Msg me 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am planning on making some major revisions and additions to this article to include materials from my on-line illustrated history of both Palace Hotels. The title image that I created represents elements from both. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I was hoping for something that showed the actual buildings, if that's possible.
 * If your planned image additions are now public domain or you plan to license them free use, I suggest setting up a Commons account and uploading them directly to Commons.  Broken Sphere Msg me 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That will depend on how the article develops. I also have a Commons account.(Centpacrr (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

I see no reason we can't take two images, one of each hotel, and place them side-by-side. There are templates like double image that will do this automatically. --NE2 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both images are already there in the appropriate places.(Centpacrr (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I'd think the appropriate place would be at the top of the article; the article is about a building, not a teacup. --NE2 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added new image of Palace Hotel, Monadnock Building, and Lotta's Fountain to top and moved the PH composite down to renovation section. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

First Transcontinental Airmail Service
I get the sense that you're a fan of early postal marks. This question is tangential to that interest, so maybe you have an angle on an answer... I found a photograph online dated August 9, 1920, purporting to show the Oakland, California terminus of the first coast-to-coast airmail service, with Eddie Rickenbacker and Bert Acosta sharing piloting duties. Other places around the web seem to think the first official airmail delivery ended in San Francisco a week earlier in late July, as long as one ignores the mailbag carried across the country in 1911. Oh, and we're ignoring the start of regularly scheduled airmail in 1924. So... what was this 1920 photo celebrating? Was it simply a promotional photo intended to show Oakland in a good light? Was Oakland just a refueling stop or a convenience stop? Was the photo opportunity set to mark the return flight back east? Lots of conflicting info out there... Thanks in advance for looking into it. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The designated terminus of the USPOD transcontinental air mail when scheduled service opened on September 8, 1920, was Crissy Field, the Army airfield located at the Presidio of San Francisco. (See also, and ). The route was laid out in July and August by Rickenbacker and Acosta , however I am now unclear as to the arrival date of the first experimental flight which landed at Durant Field in Oakland (of which Rickenbacker was VP and business partner with its developer, Rex Clifford Durant, the son of founder of General Motors) for which I have found references to three different dates: August 9, August 20, and August 28. I have updated my entry about this in Airmails of the United States (including a link to the wonderful image you found), and will now see if I can pin down the actual date in August when the Acosta flight arrived. Thanks for your question. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the sleuthing. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you know? nomination
I figured I'd run this (nominated at Template talk:Did you know) by you to make sure that it's not misleading (I tried to avoid confusion with the various companies being known as "Union Pacific" but not actually being part of that company). Does it look good to you? --NE2 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...that the Central Branch of the first U.S. trancontinental railroad was left with a hanging end at Waterville, Kansas when the Eastern Division was rerouted to serve Denver?


 * Stuart Daggett, describes this on page 231 of his book entitled RAILROAD REORGANIZATION (Harvard University, 1908) this way: "The Central Branch Union Pacific had been designed to join with the Kansas Pacific, but had been left without western connection when this latter road had failed to meet the Union Pacific at the hundredth meridian." (Centpacrr (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Two issues with that: it's anachronistic, since the KP wasn't the KP yet, and it's a bit confusing if you don't realize that the various "Union Pacific" companies were independent. --NE2 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "First Transcontinental Railroad" was really just the grade from Council Bluffs to Sacramento (UPRR & CPRR main lines) and the WPRR (acquired by the CPRR) from Sacramento to Alameda as it was opened in 1869. I don't think the CBUP can therefore be properly described as "..the Central Branch of the first U.S. trancontinental railroad..." to which, although planned, it never even connected. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Good point. Would it be accurate to say "the Central Branch of the network created by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862"? --NE2 00:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The language used in §9 the Act is "...hereby authorized to construct..." so I would phrase it as "...the Central Branch of the rail lines authorized to be built by and under the provisions of the Pacific Railway Act of 1862." (Centpacrr (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I changed it to "...the Central Branch of the system described by the Pacific Railway Act..." - any objections? --NE2 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest (in order of preference) "authorized" or "designated" or "defined" if you only want to use one word, otherwise I think the longer language I suggested above more completely and accurately defines the relationship between the roads. I hope this is helpful. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Lindbergh and the Patrician
Hi again Centpacrr. Today, my journey through the list of missing aircraft brought me to the Keystone Patrician - an intriguing "footnote" in the history of air transport. I was interested to learn of Lindbergh's role in promoting this machine, but have only a short article from Air Classics to go on. Since I know of your interest in the man, I wondered if you had the time and inclination and might take a look to see if there's anything you can add about his involvement? Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't know anything about Lindbergh's connection with this airplane. The only tangential association I can think of off hand between Lindbergh and Keystone could be with his good friend Capt. Basil Rowe's Keystone Pathfinder, the Santa Maria, which he used as the flagship of his West Indian Aerial Express "fleet" running between Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Ironically this tri-motor was the same one in which, when named the American Legion, US Navy pilots Noel Davis and Stanton Wooster were killed during a full fuel load takeoff test in Langly, VA, while preparing to compete for the Orteig Prize the Lindbergh won with the flight to Paris. Rowe acquired the biplane after it had been rebuilt at Keystone's Bristol, PA, plant. The special airmail that Lindbergh carried in the Spirit of St. Louis between Santo Domingo, Port-au-Prince, and Havana in February, 1928, was done so at Rowe's behest. I don't know, however, if Lindbergh ever personally flew Rowe's Pathfinder. (Rowe sold WIAE to Pan American Airways a short time later and went on to become PAA's chief pilot.) (Centpacrr (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Many thanks anyway! --Rlandmann (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:1947 Red Wings Roster.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:1947 Red Wings Roster.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Birgitte SB  01:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Illustration digitally created by me (the uploader) by rearranging elements of text scanned from a noncopyrighted printed list of names. Possible "non-free" tag removed. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I suspect that the text you scanned was copyrighted and that you do not have the legal ability to release a derivative of the scan as public domain. The information itself is probably noncopyrightable, but you scanned a text rather than simply transcribing information.  But the discussion should take place at  Possibly unfree images where I will copy this.-- Birgitte  SB  02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Watermark tag on DLZ129 spar
Please do not keep removing the watermark tag on Image:DLZ129 spar.jpg the image has credits in the image. Please read Image use policy which states that user-created images should not have credits in the image. The tag should remain until a version without credits is uploaded. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The language of the referenced policy seems only to be advisory ("should not") as opposed to mandatory ("shall not") and meant to relate solely to potential confusion with respect to "hampering" of permission to use the image for which I have released the image as noted in the licensing. The legend is an integral part of the image and is only for the purpose of indicating in what collection the artifact is contained. It is there in the event this image is used elsewhere outside of Wikipedia without a reference as to where it came from. For this reason I do not intend to replace it with a version that does not include this essential information. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

That's OK - I've just rolled back to an earlier version of the file without the watermark. (If you hadn't previously uploaded one, I would have just cropped out the watermark and re-uploaded the cropped version, which I am able to do under the terms of the licence that you licenced this file to Wikipedia under). The rationale for actively discouraging watermarked images is because it is felt that such watermarks suggest (incorrectly) that people are not free to re-use the image. If the image is used outside Wikipedia without a reference as to where it came from, it is being used illegally. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seufzer (Centpacrr (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Image:SColfax_statue.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SColfax_statue.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally took this digital photograph of the statue of Vice President Colfax in August, 2003, and uploaded it to Wikipedia in January, 2007. What case are you making that it should be deleted? I don't understand what you mean by "no freedom of panorama in us" or why whatever that is constitutes a problem. I also do not know exactly when the statue was erected (although I believe that it is within the last 25 years), but I don't remotely see what difference that would possibly make. The statue is located at the AMTRAK station in Colfax, CA, a town in the Sierras on the origianl CPRR railroad grade between Sacramento and Reno named after this American politician who was also involved in promoting the construction of the First Transcontinental Railroad next to which it stands. The image is linked to three appropriate pages on Wikipedia that relate to VP Colfax, the town named after him, and the railroad station there. What exactly is your issue with this image which has been on Wikipedia for almost two years? (Centpacrr (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
 * The issue is that the sculptor holds the copyright to his artwork. In the US, there is no "freedom of panorama", which in some countries allows photographers to be able to freely use photos of art in public places. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain then, please, how this image is different than those on Wikipedia of other examples of public statuary such as the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial or National World War II Memorial erected more recently which have not been challenged as potentially violative of alleged "freedom of panorama" copyright issues. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I just noticed this discussion over at WP:IMD and thought I'd take a moment to answer a couple of your questions. By now, you've probably become aware through the course of the discussion that a photo of a work of art (regardless of where it's displayed) is prima facie a derivative work, with the copyright retained by the original artist, not the person who took the photo. However, the laws of some countries specifically overrule this with a concept known as freedom of panorama in cases where a work is publicly displayed. The United States is not one of these countries.

As to why the age of the statue is important, it's because copyright eventually expires. In the United States, this generally happens 70 years after the death of the artist. If you're right about the age of this statue, it's obviously impossible for the artist to have been dead for 70 years yet.

However, if you can show that the statue was in fact erected prior to 1978, it becomes a little more complicated and it's possible that it isn't protected by copyright. A useful first step in determining this may be for you to contact Amtrak and inquire as to the copyright status of the work. I hope this has answered your questions – please let me know if I can be of any further help. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and the useful information, but in this case I believe that I am just going to let my image of this public statue fade away much the way Mr. Colfax himself did when he was denied a second term as Vice President in 1872 owing to his involvement in the Crédit Mobilier unpleasantness. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

US Airways 1549
This sentence has been removed. It was previously moved, and can still be found, in the aftermath section. This sentence does not belong in the introduction to the article... it is minutiae. The introduction is a place for broad information about the incident, not the insurance disposition of the plane. Thanks.
 * "The almost ten year old airplane (N106US, c/n 1044) was written off.  "

US Airways 1549
Funning humor got delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made no other "contributions" to Wikipedia except posting and reposting this "joke" -- and then even creating a Wikipedia page for it. This is an encyclopedia site, not a comedy or personal one. If you want to post jokes, etc, find a site that supports that or register you own domain and create one on your own server. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Do you think I'm being too pedantic here?
At Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 23 I nominated some categories for renaming, for example Category:Southern Pacific Railroad to Southern Pacific Transportation Company. What do you think? Is it wrong to say that the Central Pacific Railroad/Railway was part of the Southern Pacific Railroad? --NE2 19:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure the import of renaming categories so I don't know how to answer your question. While there was close association in ownership and management between the two companies, the CPRR was nonetheless a leased line of the former (beginning in 1885) but still retained it own corporate identity into the mid 20th century even though the name no longer appeared on any rolling stock. (See also "Central Pacific Railroad and Leased Lines: Official List of Officers, Stations, Agents; Table of Distances, Etc., Etc." General Auditor's Office, San Francisco, 1884. H.S. Crocker & Co.) I hope this is useful. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Read the lease carefully - the Southern Pacific Company, not the Southern Pacific Railroad, leased the Central Pacific Railroad. (It leased the Southern Pacific Railroad at the same time, which, like the CPRR, remained a non-operating subsidiary.) (The SPC later gave way to the SPTC in 1969.) --NE2 20:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right you are. There were a lot of "sharp tactics" involved in those deals back then -- not that there aren't any today. ;) (It's been awhile since I read the leases.) Anyway, I hope the document from my site was useful. Best. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Cryptic!
I see that some of the excellent edits you've been doing on Flight 1549 have the comment mladj. Could you tell us what this means? All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. mladj=minor language adjustment. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Aha! But it's hardly standard usage, is it (even on WP)? If it is, I'll happily adopt it—but not otherwise. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rescue: the tugboat did not arrive until 4:30 after all the occupants had been rescued
The tugboat mentioned is actually a Former Coast Guard Buoy Tender named the LT Michael P. Murphy. In the pictures its up beside the cockpit on the right hand side of the aircraft. It is the only personal boat to respond. My accout is posted on my web site at http://www.ussnewyork.com/wordpress/?p=223 with pictures and is as follows

Miracle on the Hudson January 15th, 2009 Filed under: New York Metro — skoen @ 11:57 pm I was warming up my boat, the M/V LT Michael P. Murphy, today at Linclon Harbor Yacht Club, getting it ready for the big freeze tomorrow when I heard a call on the radio “Airplane down in the North River”. I’m figuring a Cessna or the like and I put it full ahead and head out into the river to see if it’s near me. I look to the North and I see a tail sticking out of the water, a big tail, 757 possibly. The aircraft is about a mile away so it takes me a few minutes to get on site. As I approach there are 4 NY Water Way ferries maneuvering to pick up survivors who are both on the wing and in rafts. I have a 46 ft Ex USCG Buoy Tender with a white angled stripe on the side which is low to the water so I pull up beside the cockpit on the right side of the AC and slide aft to pick up victims.

There are 2 men standing on the wing in waist deep water, one is trying to keep the raft from floating away by holding onto the emergency exit and the rafts rope. He is not trying to get on the raft but just protecting the 14 people that are. They look cold wet and shaken. He looks worse. I maneuver back to the wing but I am reluctant to keep my engine in gear in case someone goes in the water, so I have one of the ferries pin me to the side of the aircraft so I can grab the closest man and pull him on board. He says “Thank You” and “Please help the others” and climbs aboard the ferry to get warm. Its difficult for me because I am the only one on my boat, I have to run from the pilothouse to maneuver then aft to assist rescue. As more assets arrive everything is moving up and down with the waves and it gets a little rough.

At this point the ferry and my boat have twisted around and people are getting on his rescue ladder, which is kind of like a cargo net. I abandon my boat and climb aboard the ferry to assist. The hero with the rope finally jumps into the water and slithers aboard the raft. Everyone on board says “him first” so he tries to climb up the ladder. At this point he is extremely hypothermic, his limbs are shaking and he needs help. I climb down beside him and start pulling him up, first by the arms, then the belt. Finally he gets topside. I stay on the net and keep pulling the others up. The raft is moving in and out, I am more worried about someone else going in the water so I let go and wait for the ferry captain to gently nudge us back in. The Coast Guard is on the other side of the raft so it’s now a choice, Warm Ferry with a climb or another raft with a motor. My hands are so cold they quit working and are just claws, but that works in this situation.

As the last victim climbs up I loose my glasses, I can see them below me on the net, I figure, just payment for 150 lives and climb up.

Scott Koen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for passing along that fascinating first hand account. At the time I posted the comment, the only tugboat about which I had been able to find any then documented report ("One Tugboat's Race to the Rescue" The New York TIMES Cityroom Blog, January 16, 2009) was one called the CO which according to the TIMES account, had come up from Governor's Island and arrived on the scene about 4:30 pm after all the passengers had already been rescued. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Reference to your boat and a link to your account has been added to the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)_

New mailplane article
Hi again Centpacrr

Just thought I'd give you a "heads up" to a new article on the Ryan M-1, since I know that it touches on a couple of your areas of expertise. :)

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added an image of Charles Lindbergh and his Ryan B-1 Brougham (NX4215) from my collection of original Lindberghiana photographs. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Many thanks! I really hate to bring this up, but I'm a little concerned about the copyright status of that photo. Do you know who took it and/or when and where it was first published? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know in how many publications that it may have appeared because I scanned it from an original period photographic print in my collection of Linberghiana. The print is marked only as a Ryan Co. publicity photo taken and distributed to the media for that purpose in 1927. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, this means Wikipedia almost certainly can't use it. If it was first published in the United States between 1923 and 1978, in the normal course of events, it will enter the public domain after 95 years (but see below for exceptions). This photo can't have been taken earlier than 1927, meaning that (assuming that it was published at all during this time), the earliest it can enter the public domain is 2022.
 * On the other hand, if the photo remained unpublished, its entry into the public domain depends on whether it was the work of a private photographer (and Ryan just bought a print, that you now own), or if it was a work for hire carried out by a Ryan employee or contractor. If the former, it will enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death (which is why I asked if you knew who took the photo). If the intellectual property belonged to Ryan or the identity of the photographer cannot be established, copyright will last for 120 years from the date the photo was taken, and it will enter the public domain in 2047.
 * There are three ways that I can immediately think of that this may now be in the public domain:
 * 1. We can find out who the photographer was and can establish that she or he died before 1939
 * 2. We can establish that the copyright was allowed to lapse when it came up for renewal 28 years after first publication (1955?)
 * 3. We can establish the first publication of the photo and show that it was published without a copyright notice.
 * Failing that, unfortunately, it will have to go.
 * Needless to say I'm embarrassed that I have to say this after you kindly agreed to contribute to an article that I invited you to! :( --Rlandmann (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. I've tagged the image as needing both source and license data. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the 1927 Ryan publicity photograph with an original digital "watercolor" illustration based on the scene in the photograph. This is now a derivative work that I created and to which I own the copyright. You are welcome to add it to your Ryan M-1 article if you care to. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
 * You can certainly release your derivative work under whatever license you choose, but it doesn't get us around the fundamental problem that the work you've based it on is almost certainly protected by copyright at present. (In other words, anyone seeking to re-use the work would need to adhere to the terms of your licence and obtain a licence from the copyright holder of the original image). Take a look at our article on derivative works, in particular the section on "When does derivative-work liability exist?". This image still embodies a substantial amount of the underlying work. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had previously read the derivative work article and we apparently interpret derivative-work liability differently. My digitally created "watercolor" image is my own original colorized artistic interpretation of the scene depicted in this publicity photograph which is, I believe, sufficiently different to be an copyrightable in and of itself. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm not questioning that your "remixed" version constitutes a derivative work and that the copyright protecting your additions to the work belongs to you to license as you please (although it's debatable whether they include sufficient originality to be copyrightable, but I'm not arguing the point).
 * 17 U.S.C. § 106 provides: "...the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work..." Only the owner of the copyright in the original image can authorize derivative works based upon the image, and you haven't obtained that permission.
 * The law provides exceptions, however, when the derivative work is fundamentally repurposed ("transformed"). Parody is the traditional example of this and in recent years, material archived by search engines has become another. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page
I happened to notice that your talk page has become very very long and you might want to set up automatic archiving. This is possible by using one of MiszaBot's bots. You could paste the following template into the top of your talk page. Further instructions are available at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo in order to understand the variable settings. You might also want to add an archive box to the main talk page. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you took my advise. I took the liberty of adding an archive box for you, ready for the bot to do its work which it does every 3-7 days. Add more pages as you need them in the same format - remove if not happy. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I would advise against using such a big file as 250k, up to 100k is reasonable and loads in a reasonable time, maybe 150k, but it's up to you. ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that MiszaBot did its first run but for some reason, possibly because no initial page had been created, it archived into oblivion. I have created 2 archive pages and put the archived contents there for you. When I set mine up I had already done some manual archiving so there was already an archive 1 page to continue on from. I don't see any reason why the bot should not deal with it properly from now on but I will observe it from here on the next run it makes in about 8 days time. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC))