Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Raven 42
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2013 at 02:47:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- Painting serving as an example of James Dietz's work. High resolution. I'm no particular expert on technical quality, so I'll leave that to the rest of you, but to my amateur eye, I see no blatant flaws in the scan. Work is provided under a free license by the U.S. National Guard.
- Articles in which this image appears
- James Dietz
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- PMathew42
- Support as nominator --I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion of just who owns the rights to this image and how and why the US National Guard has released it and the need to OTRS this file to verify the art is being properly licensed. The artist still retains the original copyright as the artist unless this was a work for hire. Also, the painting depicts the squadron Raven 42 but is not the title of the work. The title of the painting is "The Battle of Salman Pak".
- I am not prepared to support the image itself as a feature image. As most of us will surely not be familiar with the artist, how can the average editor decide if this is a good example to use? They do all appear to be quite busy in their style, but I would question why this image is even on Commons. Is it merely because it was on Flickr? Is there a release disclaimer or ownership statement to refer to?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also note that on the article James Dietz there is another image that does appear to be a copyright violation for speedy deletion unless the original uploader (a volunteer at the library) can demonstrate that tis is within their right to release to CC license. Artwork must be looked at closely and I don't think either images have been vetted for use on Wikipedia accurately.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- According to the National Guard website where this artwork is hosted, the title of the work seems to be Raven 42. Where are you finding this other title? The issue with copyright is understandable. The painting appears to be a part of something called The National Guard Heritage Series. There is a statement here that says the following:
If you are a member of the general public, you can order Heritage Prints, Presidential Prints, or State Mission Prints by email. The prints are free, but there is a limit on how many you can order.
- (Also, the high-res version is available directly on the National Guard website), but I agree that it's best to get a very clear statement of ownership. I'll send out a few e-mails and see if I can a get a response soon. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The title I refer to is from this: [1] The Kentucky National Guard blog. The caption for this painting there, reads: "The Battle of Salman Pak, a National Guard Heritage painting by James Dietz, is now on display at the Maj. Gen. Richard L. Frymire Emergency Operations Center at Boone National Guard Center in Frankfort."--Mark Miller (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, there is a fairly clear statement of release here:
All of the following images are cleared for public release and may be re-used without permission.
- I've sent a message to the contact e-mail on the gallery page, but it sounds like the creators of these works are not the copyright owners based on a statement like this one. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Jethro...that is NOT what that page you linked to says. In fact it is NOT the paintings that has that disclaimer at all but this page [2] for National Guard photos. Free does not mean free of copyright, it just means you can order a free copy.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. Sorry, the URL doesn't update on the gallery website like I thought it did (because it uses frames). This page contains the statement. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I noticed that after I posted and edit conflicted with you when I tried to update that information. It is the main "Home' page for the site and the disclaimer is strictly for photographic images from that page (the one you were able to now link...I couldn't figure it out).--Mark Miller (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. Sorry, the URL doesn't update on the gallery website like I thought it did (because it uses frames). This page contains the statement. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Jethro...that is NOT what that page you linked to says. In fact it is NOT the paintings that has that disclaimer at all but this page [2] for National Guard photos. Free does not mean free of copyright, it just means you can order a free copy.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, to address the concern about EV on James Dietz's article alone, I think the image would work well in Military art, though I will hold off on posting it there until we get this copyright situation figured out. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- According to the National Guard website where this artwork is hosted, the title of the work seems to be Raven 42. Where are you finding this other title? The issue with copyright is understandable. The painting appears to be a part of something called The National Guard Heritage Series. There is a statement here that says the following:
- I also note that on the article James Dietz there is another image that does appear to be a copyright violation for speedy deletion unless the original uploader (a volunteer at the library) can demonstrate that tis is within their right to release to CC license. Artwork must be looked at closely and I don't think either images have been vetted for use on Wikipedia accurately.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am not prepared to support the image itself as a feature image. As most of us will surely not be familiar with the artist, how can the average editor decide if this is a good example to use? They do all appear to be quite busy in their style, but I would question why this image is even on Commons. Is it merely because it was on Flickr? Is there a release disclaimer or ownership statement to refer to?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just got off the phone with Mr. Deitz's publisher. According to him, none of the works they represent are of a free license. This painting was created before they represented the artist and have asked for an e-mail be sent to them in this regard to forward to Mr. Deitz in order to determine if this was a "Work for hire". Remember that simply being commissioned does not create conditions for WFH. It must be a written declaration from both parties that agree to the arrangement. Thanks Jethro.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, thank you for taking the time to contact the publisher. I haven't gotten a response from the National Guard folks. Perhaps it would be better to withdraw this nomination until this gets sorted out? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll leave that up to you, but perhaps now that we have a direct line to the artist the information will come quickly and if it is indeed correctly uploaded by the Copyright holder then there is no reason for the hold. Lets give it a day and see what happens. I am sending the e-mail now and will e-mail you a copy.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, thank you for taking the time to contact the publisher. I haven't gotten a response from the National Guard folks. Perhaps it would be better to withdraw this nomination until this gets sorted out? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Withdrawn — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)