Talk:The Young Men's Magazine

Reprints?

Have these been reprinted at all? Any talk of the Musee doing a facsimile edition perhaps? LadyofShalott 20:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, would it be fair use to use the picture here? I had read "handwriteen mini-books", but it is much more effective to see the photo! LadyofShalott 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would LOVE to have that in the hook for the DYK. I've asked Moonriddengirl to come by here, so let's make the place look nice. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We can lift this, right? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid it probably isn't usable. It seems like it's owned by Agence France-Presse, and point 7 of WP:NFC#UUI says we can't use press agency photos unless the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary (an inherently notable image). Are there any other pictures of the book around that aren't being claimed by press agencies? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi MRG--did you look at the other link, from an ol' book? (Not that I know how to pluck that out of the book...) This one says "Sotheby's"--is that better? Where the image on this page comes from is not clear, though the text is lifted from a Sotheby's page. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, surely a screen shot taken from that book should be ok, right? It'd really be ideal though to have an image with some sort of scaling object. LadyofShalott 04:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you could make a much stronger NFC case for one of those. It's quite possible that the book is public domain, but I haven't been able to figure out the first date of publication. It was reprinted in 1965. And I'm not sure if the facsimile was included in the original, so knowing the first date of publication wouldn't be definitive anyway. The downside with the Sotheby's is that there's no information on the origin of the image, but I think it would probably be okay to just provide Sotheby's as the source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous flowers.

Some of our fair use rules make no sense to me. If the only way to have a photo for an article is to have a fair use one, then for the bar to be higher for press agency photos than for Sotheby's seems ludicrous. Fair use should be fair use. What's the difference except that the photo that conveys more information about the subject can't be used here because of a silly rule? (This is not a rant directed at you, MRG; it's just a general rant.) LadyofShalott 00:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

's okay. I don't take it personally. :D I didn't actually contribute to those rules, but I would imagine it's to do with considering point 4 of the Fair Use law of the US: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Press agencies sell the rights to use their pictures. Sotheby's has no economic interest in the picture it published; its interest was in the item depicted. The press agency may be able to make a much better case that we are impacting the potential market for their copyrighted work than Sotheby's. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Price discrepancy

So, the Dutch article says an even £690k, but the BBC says £690,850. Shouldn't the article give the more exact price? LadyofShalott 20:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, I guess. I'll change that. Miereneuker! Drmies (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hah! You count on it! LadyofShalott 07:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Publications, editions, etc.

In a catalogue of Bernard Quaritch: this. Imagine having bought that! Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Partial facsimile in the museum of the Bronte Society: [1]

Contents

• Captain Tree, "The Frenchman's Journal." 4. August 1830. Azim 120.