Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/My Man Jeeves

My Man Jeeves
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015  at 02:39:35 (UTC)
 * Reason:A good depiction of a classic literary character.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Jeeves, My Man Jeeves, P. G. Wodehouse, P. G. Wodehouse bibliography
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Literary_illustrations
 * Creator:Uncredited; restored by Adam Cuerden


 * Support either as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support original or alt - I might consider cutting away the spine, but either one works for me. Classic butler image and story. Very high EV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Think the spine balances Jeeves in the image a little better, but, ideally, I'd have scanned the bookjacket itself. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, especially if it comes off. But beggars can't be choosers. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 *  Support  - I've added this to two of the articles recently, both now Featured. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Jobas (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not happy that this image is freely licensed in the eyes of the WMF while the spine remains. Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag and Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag are both clear that the legal precedent relied upon applies only to two-dimensional works, going so far as to say that coins are not eligible. I am not comfortable with the claim that this is a two-dimensional work of art at the present time. Unless Bonhams (or the copyright holder of the photograph) has released this image, I am not happy that this is free. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have considered that a de minimus inclusion. In effect, it's merely a minor horizontal compression at the left hand side, with a darkening gradient. Particularly in this case, that is such a minor difference from a true 2-D scan of the paper bookcover as to make no difference, as with the stained glass example listed on those pages.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if de minimis applies in this case, not least because it's relying on case law. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really want to pretend to be one. Without seeing a policy page or statement from someone representing the WMF, I feel quite strongly that we should be erring on the side of caution in unclear cases. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's actually more minor of a 3D element than in most stained glass windows, which are explicitly allowed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Explicitly allowed "[a]s long as the surface is not noticeably curved", which is what's going on here. Again, I don't think this specific case is actually covered by our guidelines, and I do not think that we should be pushing the limits by promoting images of unclear status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that this is exactly the kind of thing that having Jimbo around is really useful for. I've asked him here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's probably worth pointing out: The way that the book is presented pretty much guarantees it was a straight, purely mechanical reproduction. Compare the spine on File:Charles_Kingley_-_1899_Westward_Ho!_cover_2_-_Original.tif - that's just a straight "book set on scanner, scanned" image, and shows pretty much exactly the same effects on the spine. Surely there has to be some artistic decision to grant copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Under US law, yes. Personally, I think the scan itself (as opposed to the cover) is below the TOO; it's a simple scan, not a photograph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears Jimbo is in agreement with this. If he's not worried, I don't think we should be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo says that "it looks very much to [him] like someone just jammed the book on a scanner and pushed the button. So no new copyright would arise from that, for sure". I cautiously agree with this. I see that a Commons policy page explicitly states that "The scan / photocopy itself, as a purely mechanical and non-creative act, cannot create any new copyright for the person who did the scanning. Such an image lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more. That rule applies internationally and, on Commons, is normally taken for granted." I suppose this means that there are at least some differences between scans and photographs (for example, a photograph of this book cover would be copyrightable, as per Godwin's advice concerning photographs of coins). Do you agree with this? If so, the remaining question is whether this is a scan or a photograph. Is there some way we can tell? Metadata, perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go back to the Original, since I've actually removed a couple signs it's a scan when restoring it. First of all, note the two parallel vertical green lines - most easily seen in his hair. That is typical of an older scanner. See "Sharp / Focused streaks" and "Blurry / Unfocused streaks" at http://www.hackworth.co/hints-tips-for-optimum-contex-scanning-2/ for examples. I'd probably say the latter, but it doesn't matter.
 * Secondly, look at the car on the left. A dirty mark on it can be seen, going past the edge of the book. I can't see any way to make that and have it focused on a camera lens, but a bit of grime on a flatbed scanner's bed will do that.
 * Thirdly, scanners have low depth of field, and the lighting trails off quickly as it's produced at the scanner. Note how, on the left hand side, it gets darker quite suddenly, and also gets a lot of artifacting. That's typical for a scanner.
 * Fourthly, this doesn't show any signs of tilt or perspective distortions so far as I can tell. That would be possible with a camera, but it would require a very perfect positioning. It's trivial, however, with a flatbed scanner.
 * I think the first and second points on that list are pretty much smoking guns. I honestly can't see how they would happen with a camera. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very thorough, thank you. I have struck my oppose; feel free to collapse this discussion. (I will think further on supporting. I do think it's a great candidate, and I'd love to see more vintage book covers, but I'm still bothered by the spine for reasons other than copyright.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I could see cropping a bit off the left. Could you consider using CSS image crop to show a proposed crop? I could set up a simplified version if that'd help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - FWIW..., not perfect, but an idea perhaps.--Godot13 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer that to the current one, to be honest. If I was writing the article, I'd favour that. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * + Looks pretty good to me too. I suppose, then, the decision is: actually crop it, or use CSS crop in articles, to keep that more readily linked? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the css cropped version were to go in the articles, I think the first question needs to be which one is the FPC nom- the original or hard-cropped Alt. I understand the scanner versus photograph, it may be "cleaner" (re 2-D vs. 3-D) to just crop it, IMO, but it's not a deal-breaker. As is, I do get a little distracted trying to see around the spine of the book, but it is purely an aesthetic issue to me. --Godot13 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support either, frankly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the "hard-cropped" image. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would support a hard-cropped version. I've enjoyed a few Jeeves novels and think this artwork captures him well enough. I think the spine adds nothing.  Julia\talk  18:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt uploaded. If it's a matter of artistic preference, I don't mind doing this. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ALT (crop) - Looks good!--Godot13 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either I prefer the original as the crop shifts Jeeves off-centre a little and does us out of the front of the car on the left (what is going on in the back seat there? Girl attacked by shark-dog hybrid?); I didn't want to put "support original" though, as if any of my adoring entourage turn up and sycophantically parrot my opinion we could split the vote and end up with neither picture (luckily my posse is mostly imaginary, but let me tell you it is a real problem on Bellepedia). Belle (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either - SchroCat (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 02:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The cropped version has 2 more supports than the original. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)