Talk:Hubertine Heijermans

References needed to establish Notability

Moving some discussion points from my Talk page:

• There is no problem with citations in other languages; after all, the one I found is in French. But the article does need references, not least because it is a biography of a living person. And I am sceptical about whether Ms Heijermans meets the notability criteria for artists, which is another reason for seeking references. Perhaps criterion #4 is the best bet, and I thought the Museum van Bommel van Dam might support that, but her works are not listed under "Highlights uit de Collectie" on their website. So I do urge you to seek out references that can meet the criteria, if possible.
• (...) what the article needs is references to establish the subject's notability. The footnotes that have been added are references to the existence of various institutions and people, but do not attest to the subject of the article or demonstrate her notability. For example, there is no point in referencing Singapore as a country; nobody doubts it exists, the issue is whether Ms Heijermans' exhibition there was notable (critical reviews in newspapers for example?)

AllyD (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At http://www.st-triphon.ch/hubertine/Photogravure_Heliogravures/Photogravure_Heliogravures.html is a photograph reproduced form printed material, the source would be useful. Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

• And in particular the slide show of press cuttings there. Capturing these images, especially of signed articles, should help. For this, it would be good to have more context, however, on where these newspapers are from (which are local, national etc). AllyD (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What does it all mean?

Currently:

Many self-portraits and portraits of actresses or ‘Haute-Couture’ models of Dior, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Yves Saint Laurent, like Isabelle Adjani, Emmanuelle Béart, Carla Bruni or of Swiss Circus Knie. Her painting Géraldine equestrian acrobate added to the celebration of Circus Knie's 200 year existence in Rapperswil.

I'm mystified. What does it actually mean? It could be all sorts of things; imaginably:

In 2008, Heijermans said that over the years she had contemplated the creation of Many self-portraits and portraits of actresses or ‘Haute-Couture’ models of Dior, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Yves Saint Laurent, like Isabelle Adjani, Emmanuelle Béart, Carla Bruni or of Swiss Circus Knie, but that in the end she had made none of these. Money raised from the sale of Her painting Géraldine equestrian acrobate added to the celebration of Circus Knie's 200 year existence in Rapperswil when she donated 90% of this to the Circus.

Look in the source? There's none specified. There was a "reference". Here's what it said:

Swiss Circus Knie. Her painting Géraldine equestrian acrobate added to the celebration of their 200 year existence in Rapperswil.

This of course was no reference at all, which is why I deleted it (as well as other pseudo-references). -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Still much work required on this article. However it seems now plenty of source to establish notability at least. Although most sources are not in English so hard work translating. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The published, reliable sources may be in Dutch, French, Italian, German -- even Russian or Chinese. They don't have to be on the web. But they must exist and be cited. And the article should not include digressions (even sourced digressions) about other artists. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the issue is being able to translate the various none English source to find out if they cover the articles text. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography

The history of this article shows that it was created by Paldopaldino and augmented by Kalaharih.

Here, here, here, and here, Paldopaldino claims that a work by Heijermans is Paldopaldino's own work.

Here, Kalaharih claims that a work by Heijermans is Kalaharih's own work.

Unless there's a faulty description in one or more files uploaded to Commons, Paldopaldino = Kalaharih = Heijermans and this article is an autobiography. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hoary, Only now I read the question about Paldopaldino, Kalaharih and Hubertine Heijermans. I answered that question earlier today. But Paldopaldino is a real person, and the one who wrote and send the article in french. I just gave him a Cd with pictures and the permission he could use it. Why on earth people think he is the creator or owner of the artworks? I explained about his profession as a steward, and him originating from the Italian part of Switzerland. Wikipedia was for me unknown territory and I very much anticipated throwing myself in. Just consider for a second that today I also read about that OTHER AUTO biography, where publicity is overwhelming. You even answered with having to treat all THAT your weekend would be gone! I feel like a midget, in the middle of this on just 1 day. Forgive me for saying, that I do better see why answers are short. Yet to me it is essential to be considered dead honest and I do need some of your time. Especially about the fact that there are no books about oilpainting technique (the ancient way), where words and influence of an Annigoni filled a real void. When a Maestro (Master artistpainter) shows you, when he considers a map with drawings there is as little reference of that moment as the moment I describe meeting Nils Tellander and marrying him. Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple things first. You ask: Why on earth people think [Paldopaldino] is the creator or owner of the artworks?

Above, I wrote: Here, here, here, and here, Paldopaldino claims that a work by Heijermans is Paldopaldino's own work. Let's take the first of these, Ollon Fountain 'Le Cotterd' Etching 1981.jpg. Paldopaldino claims that it is his "Own work", and he describes himself as "the copyright holder of this work". First, the only person whose work this is is Heijermans. (Yes, Paldopaldino may buy a work by Heijermans and the work would thereby become his; but such physical/legal possession is clearly irrelevant in this context.) And Heijermans would normally be the copyright holder of the work that she created. So Paldopaldino states that he has the rights to the work that only its creator would be expected to have. It's safe to infer that Paldopaldino is Heijermans.

However, both of Paldopaldino's assertions (that this is his own work, and that he's the copyright holder) appear to be wrong.

(For interested third parties: When Kalaharih says today I also read about that OTHER AUTO biography, where publicity is overwhelming she's referring to the hagiography Richard Fitzwilliams, to whose dreadfulness Ipigott alerted me on my talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest it's very easy to be confused in this issue - as I am. Normally 'own work' on an Wiki uploaded image means you(the uploader) took the photo; but in this case you are saying 'own work' means you made the painting, print or artwork? So easy to get confused for sure. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing. However, I believe that the important information about Wikimedia Commons is available in each of the major languages of western Europe (certainly in Dutch, Italian, etc) and one can of course look at existing files of comparable works and see what has been done there. ¶ Rich Farmbrough has explained what the artist (not the photographer) should do next. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

About copyright issues

Here I'm, my name on wiki is Paldopaldino, my real name Paolo Portmann. I'm the author of the article about Hubertine Heijermans. I also uploaded the few pictures that I have received from the artist, madame Hubertine Heijermans. The copy rights issues were very confusing. So I've uploaded the pictures as public domain, everyone can use this picture. My question is: if I upload a picture of a drawing, does it mean that I'm also the owner of the drawing? I just thought that I'm the owner of the picture and not of the drawing. But it seems that I did a mistake! It was not my intention and I'm very sorry for all trouble I have caused. Can someone give me a hint how I can proceed ? Do I have to upload the pictures again and change the copyrights? Which category of copyright? Thanks for your help Paldopaldino (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK it is very simple really. The copyright of the pictures belongs to the artist, unles they have specifically passed the copyright to someone else. If the artist wishes to release the images under Wikipedia licenses, they may do so. In this case it may be wise for the artist to look at this page and confirm who they are to the WikiMedia Foundation by email. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC).