- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elizabeth Read
Portrait of Elizabeth Read, c. 1853
- ... that a portrait of English prostitute Elizabeth Read (pictured) is said to allude to the social mobility enjoyed by convicts in colonial Australia? Source: National Portrait Gallery: "Elizabeth’s portrait alludes to a broader, intricate historical realm: demographics, patterns of settlement, the convict diaspora and colonial social mobility."
- Reviewed: Cerrado mouse
Created by HappyWaldo (talk). Self-nominated at 10:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
- Hello HappyWaldo. I'll be undertaking a review of your submission. So let's start off with the image from the NPG. Does this use of their photograph qualify for exemption under "section 40 of the Copyright Act 1968 (as amended)" ? I couldn't tell, since I don't have a copy of that legislation. Perhaps you can provide. If not exempt, it looks permission to reproduce NPG images of old portraits is forthcoming with an application. Did you go that route? So let me know about this image, and we'll get to the matter of the article itself. Gulbenk (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. The creator of the painting is unknown and certainly would have died before 1 January 1955, which means any copyright would have expired. See the licensing section at Commons. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- HappyWaldo I have no problem with the age of the portrait, it's the age and source of the photograph of that portrait that I'm concerned about. It appears that you copied a photograph from the National Portrait Gallery, which is much more recent than 1955. The NPG has a few restrictions on the use of their images, starting with this: "The image/s must not be cropped or altered in any way, and no text overlaid. If your preferred design incorporates any alterations or overwriting, a proof must be submitted to the Rights and Permissions officer for approval before publication." This image has been cropped from the NPG original. If the portrait was on display (which it isn't) and you walked in and took a photo of it, no problem. But when we use an image taken by the NPG, we have to abide by their rules. They own the photograph. We can bring in a third party, much more experienced with copyright issues than I am, if you like. They may not see a problem. If we can get past this one issue, the rest is good to go. Gulbenk (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've uploaded hundreds of such images from Australian museums and galleries to Commons over the course of a decade, including the National Portrait Gallery, and never had a single issue. That's plenty of time for at least someone to raise a quibble. And of course many, many other users have done the same. The evidence is all over Commons. My guess is that because it's purely of the work itself, it would be absurd to claim some kind of ownership. The cited license says near the bottom, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Having resolved the issue of the graphic, the rest of the review is pretty straight forward. Article was created and submitted within the required time, length is sufficient, no issues with direct passages taken from the source material (outside of quotes), hook conforms to the text which conforms to the reference, hook is interesting enough, QPQ has been performed. Good to go. Gulbenk (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
