Vigartjam

AfC notification: Draft:Jean Vigoureux has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jean Vigoureux. Thanks! Rusalkii (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Vigartjam! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Public Domain, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good to know you like the edit

I was very glad to get your message at my talk page to let me know that you like the edit/rewrite I did for the Vigoureux page. I may yet have some info to add, so I will watch developments at the draft page. I hope clearance of copyright re images soon clears the log jam. I have not much had to deal with that, as I mostly do work on 19th-century artists. Onward!Stevensaylor (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A painting by Vigoureux with some interesting info

I wonder if you have seen this Vigoureux painting at eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/154427398096?hash=item23f49717d0:g:yKwAAOSwOqBgd4Sb

It is titled on the back (in the artist's handwriting?) "Young Couple" (a self-portrait, with Fanny seen from the back?) and has the artist's address, 3783 Lavell Drive, Los Angeles. If you go to Google maps for that address and enter Street View, you can see the house quite clearly.Stevensaylor (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes sir, I’ve seen that painting and I was so delighted to see it in color because I only had a black and white photo and didn’t even know its title. I also did that Google search (great minds think alike lol) and the area still looks beautiful! Vigartjam (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A female nude by Vigoureux from 1933

I wonder if you have seen this painting: https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/vigoureux-jean-h-xx-clarence-1933-huile-sur-d2685098db

A female nude, said to be signed by Vigoureux and dated 1933 (the year of his exhibition with his father at the Salon de l’Essor at Dijon), auctioned in France in 2013. Was Clarence just a model, or something more in Vigoureux's life? A tantalizing clue from the past... Stevensaylor (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, thank you so much for telling me about this painting. I had never seen it before in my life. It’s remarkable because I’ve only ever seen one female nude by Jean, and it’s unsigned. It’s a beautiful painting and I’m so happy someone has it in their collection.Vigartjam (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Vigoureux Buddha painting to be deleted, copyright issue (rights reside with you?)

I've gotten a notice saying that the Vigoureux painting of the seated Buddha with broken arm is set to be deleted. I own the actual painting, and I uploaded the image file; but since the artist did not die more than 70 years ago, it seems that copyright for reproduction resides with the artist's estate. I think that is you, right? So, if you would like to keep that image up at wikimedia, so that it can be part of the article, you are the one who can do that (using the same process, I presume, that you are pursuing now with the Vigoureux images you have uploaded). If you go to the page and the file is already gone, let me know and I can email you a (probably better) jpg that you can upload to wikimedia yourself. The file with deletion notice is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Vigoureux--seated_buddha--for_wikimedia.jpg Onward! Stevensaylor (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Stevensaylor yes, the reason my relatives’s drawings were originally in the doghouse is because I filled out the information incorrectly. I learned the hard way that the summary box refers to the underlying work, not to me as the uploader. I also had a long and hard learning curve about copyright. I read different articles and looked at the Public Domain Hirtle Chart several times. So I learned that the 28 Drawings was copyrighted in 1943, and the copyright expired in 1971 and was not renewed. So that has a license called [PD-US-not renewed]. Then the other drawings were never copyrighted, but they were published according to Commons legal definition of published, which means they were on display at shows, galleries, etc. And so that has a license called [PD-US-no notice]. With regards to the Army photo of Jean, I’m speaking to the VRT team and trying to get permission for that. The administrator who originally nominated me for deletion said that I can use the license that has the word heirs tacked on [Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs] which means “the heirs of the creator of this work hereby publish it under the following license,” but I still need to get permissions from the COM:VRT confirmation via email. I hope you don’t mind if I go to your (excellent!) photo page, change the author, source and license and then put in a ticket to the VRT team and ask for permissions. I think that’s the correct procedure and I hope it works out since I think it’s essential to the article. Vigartjam (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Stevensaylor, OK, here’s what I’ve done. I changed source to Vigoureux Family Archive (but I’m not sure if that applies to this case since you own the painting) and I’ve changed author to the template for Jean Vigoureux, which a very nice person on Wikimedia made for me. First I made the license the Cc- heirs thing, and then I realized that probably doesn’t apply here. The Hirtle Chart says that for “Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.”, if it was between 1927-1977, and the conditions are: Published without a copyright notice, then the copyright term is: “None. In the Public Domain due to failure to comply with required formalities.” So, I put the [PD-US-no notice] tag on the file. If you write back to that confirmation thing and let them know that I made the changes, then I don’t think you’ll be deleted and you won’t have to ask for permission. That’s because the painting was in Public Domain when you purchased it. Commons will only allow photos that are freely licensed or in the Public Domain. According to their own Chart, this work is in the Public Domain. Vigartjam (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I realized that as the inheritor and curator of this one artist, my source is the Vigoureux Family Archive. Your source, however, as an art collector, is your own collection. Therefore, I changed your source to: The Steven Saylor Collection. What do you think?Vigartjam (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)