Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Phineas Gage

Phineas Gage Cased Daguerreotype
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018  at 18:42:19 (UTC)
 * Reason:After much work (documented on the file talk page) I believe this is now the finest quality hi-res version of this unique historical image available anywhere. Although it's only 811 × 952 pixels I have previously nominated another image under similar circumstances, which is now a Featured Picture.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Phineas Gage (Well worth a read!)
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:nagualdesign

As it was demonstrated on the image talk page that (downsampled) and 2 (cropped) are derived from the same original, they can be considered the same work (assuming cropping and downsampling doesn't involve originality). Of course, minus the frame the image would be a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work of art, which would also be regarded as Public Domain for Wikimedia's purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator – nagualdesign 18:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I am Ok with a 1500px exception, it is historic + high EV, I like to support but have two reservations. 1- nom image is derived from a 436×504 pixel original, FP criterion 2 says "if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired." Are there any indications why a higher resolution is not realistic? (for example, does the OTRS email say anything, do we know how/where the original photograph is maintained at the university, is it in public display, etc.) 2- regarding the talk page discussion , what is the source of this: high res upper body image? can it be uploaded to Commons with a copyright tag? Bammesk (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC) . . . Sidenote: we also have this image:  high resolution but not sharp. Bammesk (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I made an exhaustive search to find a larger image and the best I could find was this. As I discussed on the image file talk page it's undoubtedly a crop of the original photograph by Jack and Beverly Wilgus. No, I have not contacted anybody by email looking for a higher resolution source, I only looked online. According to the file description the original daguerreotype now resides at the Warren Anatomical Museum, Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. I have no idea whether it's on public display. Although I haven't uploaded the original headshot used to make this image I did upload this, which is also used in the article. There are no hi-res images of the entire thing available, aside from this one. nagualdesign 01:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently we have an OTRS email/permission to use this low resolution image. The nominated image is also derived from this higher resolution version, so we need to know whether or not the higher resolution image can be licensed/uploaded on Commons. The permission section of this page says the copyright holder has sent Wikipedia an email, perhaps the content of the email can clarify things. Bammesk (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you're saying. My assumption was that since the high resolution image is undoubtedly from the same source it would be permissible under the same licensing conditions. Or rather, that using it as part of the enlarged image would be permissible. I've posted a request at the OTRS Noticeboard. You'll have to forgive my ignorance with this sort of thing. nagualdesign</b></b> 05:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the ticket does not address resolution or any other file.  — Jeff G. ツ 05:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I explained at the file talk page, the hi-res, cropped source image has the same provenance as the low-res, complete source image. They are undoubtedly one and the same, but one of them has been cropped and the other reduced in scale. So where does this leave us? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps uploader could shed some light on this? I have also reached out via email.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 07:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Creative Commons' view is that the licensing of a low-resolution work under a CC licence also grants that same licence to higher resolution copies of the same work. We'll probably have to check whether CC was explicitly specified in the OTRS permission. That said, I don't think the "no higher resolution could realistically be acquired" clause can be considered satisfied without someone asking the Warren Anatomical Museum to determine if taking a new photograph is possible. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness for that! I was beginning to think the image would have to be deleted. I'll look into emailing the Warren Anatomical Museum. Whether they say yes or no, we're still going to end up with a good result. Thanks, . <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've written an email to Dominic Hall, the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Paul_012, Nagualdesign: That's a misreading of "same work". The word "work" refers to an image-file, not the physical daguerreotype, or the process of creating an image-file. In reading both and, a CC license for A can be applied to B only if transforming A to B requires no application of expressive or original choices. In our case, the fine details of 2 cannot be created from 1 unless one applies expressive or original choices. Therefore 2 is a separate and distinct work in comparison to 1. The license for 1 doesn't apply to 2. An example: a license granting commercial use of a 100x100 pixel scaled-down less-detailed version of an image does not grant permission to profit from a 10000x10000 pixel more-detailed original version of the image. Bammesk (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what the FAQ page says. What I read is that a CC license given to a scaled-down image will also apply to the original from which it was created, as long as no originality was involved in the scaling-down process. This was the subject of a bit of drama back when CC released the FAQ.
 * Your last sentence settles it. Image 2 is in public domain . I support the nom if image 2 is uploaded to Commons and tagged. In case the original wasn't published/distributed before 1923, then these tags should work:, . BTW the museum doesn't allow photography . Sidenote: What I read in and  is that a CC license given to image-X will also apply to any image which is created from image-X, as long as no originality was involved in the creation process. It no longer matters for this nom though, with image 2 being in public domain. Bammesk (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't honestly say I understand everything written in the above 3 comments, but it sounds like were okay, right? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if someone else uploads the cropped, hi-res image and provides the proper licensing details, since I've been wandering through a few minefields recently and I haven't got the nerve to face another at the moment. Thank you in advance. By the way, I haven't heard back from the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum, although I did suggest that he might contact the Commons directly and provided him with an email address, so he may have done that. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 05:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)