Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos

Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg
Firstly, this is a very grey area and my thoughts are just that; although I obviously suspect (and hope) I'm correct, I don't represent that I "truly" am.

The shadows themselves are not so much the issue; their presence is merely a litmus test of sorts in the determination of whether the object is 3D. It is. As such, I don't think PD-Art is supported.

A similar question came up for Stigand, which has images from the Bayeux Tapestry - a similar (i.e. flat) 3D object. I bring it up to, hopefully, contrast an important distinction - that being between: The former, which was the case for Image:Stigand.jpg, is, I think, fine for PD-Art, as the 3D object itself (tapestry) is not being depicted - merely an illustration thereon. In the case of Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg, however, it is clear that the 3D object (scroll) is being depicted. It would take some very creative cropping to remedy that and, given the portion of the scroll the article wishes to emphasize, I don't suspect it could be done.
 * an image of an illustration on an object; and
 * an image of an object on which an illustration appears.

The greyness is present given that the object is flat (almost 2D) and U.S. case law (e.g. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) has established that "sweat of the brow" is not sufficient creative input to generate a new copyright (although, frankly, I think this would absolutely be copyrighted in the UK - but that's not germane to this discussion). Whether and to what degree that decision translates to 3D works is the million dollar question. Ultimately, I advise against PD-Art (or any PD claim) for this image merely because there exists, I think, reasonable uncertainty and I'd prefer to take the perhaps conservative approach of not risking misinformation. Your mileage may vary. Эlcobbola talk 15:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When the scroll is rolled up, it is a 3D object. But when it's unrolled, and a small portion of it is viewed, the viewed part is flat in normal use. This particular image is of a small part of the scroll, which would be flat in normal use. I did a bit more research on this, and it's not like this sort of image is that unusual in Wikipedia. There are several other instances of using PD-art for papyri in Wikipedia commons (e.g., Image:Oxyrhynchus papyrus with Euclid's Elements.jpg, Image:Ac papyrus.jpg); there's even a category devoted to Oxyrhynchus papyri in Commons (commons:Category:Oxyrhynchus papyri), with other illustrations derived from the photographs in question. So I don't see a problem here. Eubulides (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)