Talk:Kvinneakt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

• http://portlandpublicart.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/it-just-doesnt-get-any-better-than-this/ (I don't believe blogs can be used, even in EL section?)
• http://collections.si.edu/search/results.jsp?q=record_ID:siris_ari_324196
• http://www.museumofthecity.org/exhibit/sculpture-and-statues-history-portland-oregon-through-its-art
• http://www.artsusa.org/networks/public_art_network/conference_archive/2003/archive_2003_016.asp
• http://wweek.com/portland/article-11326-dr_know.html
• http://www.brunerfoundation.org/rba/pdfs/1989/03_chapter2-Portland.PDF (pg. 61)

--Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Page is at 1000 bytes (prose). Getting there.. tedder (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am still searching for detailed description(s) of the sculpture, size dimensions, features, construction, etc. This will help flesh out the article, as will additional historical context. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Article is now well beyond the minimum DYK requirements, but its eligibility expires Sunday morning, May 13, at 7:51 a.m. I don't plan to nominate it, because as a contributor (albeit, only minor) to the article, I might be required to review another DYK nomination (the quid pro quo, or QPQ, rule at DYK), and I don't have time for that right now (or time to think up a good hook). However, anyone who didn't contribute to the article can nominate it and not be subject to the reviewing requirement. This exemption is mentioned under rule 5 of the QPQ page ("New nominators ..... are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article."). SJ Morg (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I have avoided DYK for a while because I find the QPQ rule obnoxious. I understand its purpose, but there are just some things I choose not to do as a volunteer. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio?

What makes the image of the sculpture useable on Wikipedia? Photos of three-dimensional works in the United States are usually no-nos on Wikipedia because U.S. copyright law does not include freedom of panorama for statues, even those in public places. Is this statue an exception for some reason? I ran into this problem myself a few years ago when I uploaded a photo of the Vera Katz statue along the Eastbank Esplanade. It was later removed by an editor more familiar than I with U.S. copyright law. The right to copy a statue, even in a two-dimensional image, generally belongs to the sculptor. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with copyright laws and doubt this work is an exception to the rules. My apologies for uploading images to Commons that perhaps should not have been. I merely did a search at Flickr for images I believed were licensed for inclusion. I also thought perhaps images of public art were appropriate for Wikipedia and Commons. Please feel free to take proper actions to address this issue. I will stick to uploading images that I have taken of buildings, scenery, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that an article about a piece of art may include an image of the piece of art, but as fair use, see specifically Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images point 9. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of optimism that an artist who lives in the Pacific Northwest will be happy to donate rights to Wikipedia/the world so we don't have to do the NFCC thing. tedder (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

In case all of the images recently uploaded to Commons are removed for violating copyright rules, I'd like to point out that I included in the EL section links to both the sculpture and the "Expose Yourself to Art" poster. Users are directed to images hosted by Museum of the City and the City of Portland. This morning I took additional pictures of the sculpture as well as the street plaque. I am assuming I cannot uploaded images of the sculpture, but are images of the plaque identifying the title and author of the work appropriate? This would at least provide one image for the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that images of the plaque would be fine, as far as copyright is concerned. User:Aboutmovies can probably answer this question more confidently than I. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: Added image of the plaque, which at least provides the article with one image even though it is not of the work itself. Current status: There are currently seven additional images at Commons, which may or may not be appropriate for inclusion. One is marked for deletion. The author of the work has not been contacted and at this moment I do not intend to request permission. The article is listed at GAN. Much thanks to all project members who offered a helping hand--I love getting an article listed at GAN after just two days of the article's creation! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When?

"Century of Action, a project of the Oregon Women's History Consortium, used the sculpture to promote women's suffrage by placing a 'Votes for Women' sash across her chest as part of the organization's 'Sash Project' ". - Would it be helpful to add the year to this sentence? This sash doesn't seem to be the same sash mentioned in the sentence about the "Congratulations". Or, if the two sashes are the same, could that be made more clear? Finetooth (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)