Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Statue of Liberty/archive1

Resolved image issues
Moved from FAC page Эlcobbola  talk 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per criterion three:
 * File:Nancy Reagan reopens Statue of Liberty 1986.jpg - Source is a link directly to the image. Where can we verify government authorship?
 * File:Novum Eboracum.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not acceptable.
 * File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg - Needs a verifiable source.
 * File:Statueofliberty.JPG - Needs a verifiable source. Is GaMeRuInEr just the uploader (as currently stated), or actually the author?
 * File:Emma Lazarus plaque.jpg - Needs a secondary license template for the plaque. There are two works here: the plaque and photo thereof. (Although not the correct license here, see PD-art-70-3d for the concept when working with 3D derivatives, like this plaque).  Эlcobbola  talk 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Working on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the first one, I have emailed the Reagan Library to confirm government authorship. I seem to remember, Elcobbola, that you helped me out with hurrying this through OTRS in a similar situation with Antonin Scalia, hope you will do so again.  I await their response.  On the second, I've added Library of Congress source info which confirms government authorship.  The third, I've added a link to the page for this painting at the Museum of the City of New York.  The fourth, I have swapped out for an image lacking the source problem.  The last one I have commented out, as I cannot yet confirm that the person who made the plaque died more than 70 years ago, I need more sources on that.  I will let you know directly once the Reagan Library responds.  It's summer, the guy might be on vacation :o--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the first one, you don't necessarily need to go so far as an OTRS ticket; a page from the library's site that says "all photos herein are PD", or that credits this as "NPS photo", or something analogous would be perfectly sufficient. The raw link just doesn't tell us anything.  OTRS is, of course, fine too - I'm always happy to expedite tickets.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if this is enough for the Reagan shot. On the Reagan Library site the picture came from, the first link to the photographs section says, "Photographs and Audiovisual Holdings –Inventories of the Library’s audiovisual holdings and select public domain photographs." I could be wrong, but from that I believe that the few photos in that section of the site (out of a full 1.5 million) are public domain...including the Nancy Reagan shot. OptimumPx (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Source - Wehwalt, the inventory of the WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHIC OFFICE COLLECTION is here, the photo is listed in the 1986 file on page 1787, its picture #10 on that roll.:
 * Roll # C35943 (01)
 * Color/BW Color
 * Date 7/4/1986
 * Photographer Fitz-Patrick
 * Photo Numbers 4-36
 * Location Statue of Liberty
 * Geographic Reference New York, New York
 * Personal Reference Nancy Reagan
 * Keywords waving, Statue of Liberty
 * Events Trip to New York, Visit to Statue of Liberty


 * You can adapt most of this into the citation.
 * For the source, I'd say something like "This image is available from the Reagan Library under the ID C35943-10
 * Kirk (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thank you.  I haven't heard back from the Reagan library, so doubly good.  I wonder if there is info on the shot of Reagan giving a speech on Governors Island with Nancy standing by and the statue in the background.  Fitz-Patrick was a White House Photographer.  I will modify the picture description when I am less tired.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it would belong to one of the very few sections on that page which doesn't make an explicit comment regarding copyright status. I'm willing to assume that "photographs taken by White House Photographers" indeed means federal authorship, however.  Stricken accordingly.  Эlcobbola  talk 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: File:1971 airmail stamp C80.jpg - Incorrectly licensed. The USPS routinely uses graphics created by non-federal employees (like when Norm gets the $0.02).  Indeed, the federal government may receive and hold transferred copyrights (USC 17 § 105).  This stamp is not PD by virtue of authorship, but by virtue of publication before 1977 without copyright notice (note that stamps from after 1 January 1978 are copyrighted ).  Эlcobbola  talk 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the tag on the image. If I can suggest, Elcobbola, it may be wise to start a discussion on the template  as it says that it does not apply to US postage stamps since 1978.  That carries an implication that it does apply to postage stamps before then.  It is confusing and I see that most postage stamps are mistagged, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it does apply to some. The assumption with all licenses, however, is that uploaders will actually read and understand the conditions (e.g. PD-USGov says only "a work of the United States Federal Government", which is in no way equivalent to "acquired from a federal source"), but I don't disagree that a wording tweak could be helpful.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the distinction You have to see if a USPS (or USPOD) employee designed the stamp or whether it was outsourced and purchased.  As there was no notice, either way it is PD, it is just a question of the proper tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment File:Indian princess and Columbia.jpg - so this claims the author is, yet this is PD because the author has been dead 70 years? Ghosts edit Wikipedia, do they?  Please scrutinize images.  This is a photo of a 3D work, so Bridgeman doesn't apply; who is the sculptor and who is the photographer? What are dates?  Эlcobbola  talk 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the information. It's actually not a 3D work, but a fresco painted by Constantino Brumidi who was hired to paint frescos in the Capitol Building in the first place because he could create that 3D look so well.  From the source of the photograph it doesn't give a photo credit (unlike most of the other photos used) only giving the room number that the painting is in (H-144, hearing room for the House Committee on Appropriations).  This leads me to believe that it's a government owned shot, both from the lack of any credit from the government to anyone else, and to it's location in an area of the Capitol that visitors aren't allowed to.  I've edited the information on the photograph accordingly. OptimumPx (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is 2D, it had me worried too, Elcobbola when I saw it, but I doublechecked. I asked Connormah to upload it because he is better than me at getting images from pdfs.  Brumidi was a Federal employee (of the Department of War, a civilian) when he painted these frescos and he has been dead well over seventy years.  It is a faithful reproduction of a work of art which is PD on those two grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good artistry and old eyes. Thank you both for the correction.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment File:LionDeBelfort.jpg - Derivative work; should be attributed and licensed accordingly. Эlcobbola  talk 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a PD-OLD tag and explained in the file description that as Bartholdi died in 1904, it's out of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suppose, for that matter, that should be done for File:Statue-de-la-liberte-new-york.jpg, File:Statue of Liberty frontal 2.jpg, File:Nancy Reagan reopens Statue of Liberty 1986.jpg and File:Johnsonliberty.jpg as well.  The fun never ends with images.   Эlcobbola  talk 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me a minute to figure out what you meant, then I laughed hysterically. I will do it, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. Interestingly, Bartholdi applied for and was granted a copyright for the design in 1876.  I have the number and all that if need be.  The designer of the pedestal, Richard Morris Hunt, applied for both a patent and a copyright for the pedestal in 1885, he got them.  As he died in 1895, any copyright would have expired in 1965.  I can add that too, if you like?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Works with registered copyrights, whether published or unpublished, are treated as published works when determining copyright term (see the Cornell chart and commons:Template:PD-1923 - whoever redirected PD-1923 to PD-US here on en.wiki didn't know what they were doing), so you should actually be using PD-1923 (the Commons version, of course), not a PMA license. Licenses for the pedestal would be wise, too.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a special wing of the WikiAsylum for those who were driven mad by images. OK, I'll go whole hog on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This entered the realm of pedantic crossing of Ts and dotting of Is long ago. Rest easy knowing that the images won't be going anywhere, I suppose.  Perhaps a holiday in lovely Afghanistan is in order - no copyright law and not party to related international treaties.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)