Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Manganese, Minnesota/archive1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Dank in topic TFA blurb
TFA blurb
editManganese is a ghost town and former mining community in the U.S. state of Minnesota that was inhabited between 1912 and 1960. Built in Crow Wing County on the Cuyuna Iron Range about 2 miles (3.2 km) north of Trommald, Minnesota, it was named after the mineral found near the town. The Trommald Formation beneath the town and the adjacent Emily District constitute the main ore-producing unit of the North Range district of the Cuyuna Iron Range and the largest resource of manganese in the United States. At its peak around 1919, Manganese had two hotels, a bank, two grocery stores, a barbershop, a show hall, and a two-room school, and housed a population of nearly 600. After World War I, the population of Manganese went into steady decline as mining operations shut down; the community was abandoned, and in 1961 the town was formally dissolved. In 2017 some of the land was redeveloped for primitive campsites. (Full article...)
Comments and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Image review
edit- How do you know that the File:School Teacher Anna Dugan and Manganese Minnesota Depot.jpg was "First published May 8th, 1985 in the Brainerd Dispatch"? And if so, how do you know the newspaper was not copyrighted?
- This is one of four original photos of Manganese held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network. It was used in the article "Manganese Revisted" by the Brainerd Dispatch, published on May 8th, 1985. Regrettably, there is no current online access to this particular article. However, even if the article is copyrighted by the Brainerd Dispatch, the photo is not. It should be noted that the photo is of low resolution from a digital capture and enlargement of the published photo. It can be stated definitively that the photo is pre-1930, but it cannot be demonstrated that it was pre-1923 and in the public domain. The photographer is unknown. However, if the photograph is post-1923, the copyright would still be held by the photographer even if deceased. It is not known how the original photo was acquired by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, but the copyright was not transferred from the photographer. I have uploaded this file directly to Wikipedia under the terms of fair use.
- OK, the fair use claim seems reasonable here. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is one of four original photos of Manganese held by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network. It was used in the article "Manganese Revisted" by the Brainerd Dispatch, published on May 8th, 1985. Regrettably, there is no current online access to this particular article. However, even if the article is copyrighted by the Brainerd Dispatch, the photo is not. It should be noted that the photo is of low resolution from a digital capture and enlargement of the published photo. It can be stated definitively that the photo is pre-1930, but it cannot be demonstrated that it was pre-1923 and in the public domain. The photographer is unknown. However, if the photograph is post-1923, the copyright would still be held by the photographer even if deceased. It is not known how the original photo was acquired by the Cuyuna Iron Range Heritage Network, but the copyright was not transferred from the photographer. I have uploaded this file directly to Wikipedia under the terms of fair use.
- File:Manganese State Bank Postal Cover and Cancellation 1920.jpg: Was this work published before 1926 according to the legal definition? Then it does not matter who scanned it.
- Thank you for the enlightenment; now I understand. The legal definition states, "generally publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public." Applying that definition, then the image was published before 1926 (when it was post-marked on August 9th, 1920). Consequently, the photo of the image by Jim Forte is not a creative act and does not impart copyright since the image lacks originality, and the original item is old enough to be in the public domain by virtue of it's age. I have changed the license tag for the image to reflect this.
- OK, looks good. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the enlightenment; now I understand. The legal definition states, "generally publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public." Applying that definition, then the image was published before 1926 (when it was post-marked on August 9th, 1920). Consequently, the photo of the image by Jim Forte is not a creative act and does not impart copyright since the image lacks originality, and the original item is old enough to be in the public domain by virtue of it's age. I have changed the license tag for the image to reflect this.
- File:Cuyuna.jpg and File:Stratigraphy of the main units of the Cuyuna North range.png how do I verify that the copyright holder released under a free license?
- You but have to click on the link to the article in the Canadian Minerologist: https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol32/CM32_589.pdf. The authors are specifically cited, but they are publishing on behalf of the Minnesota Geological Survey. All works of the Minnesota Geological Survey are in the public domain, with the appropriate copyright tag here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags.
- OK, I understand what you're trying to say here, but is there any way I can confirm that this particular image has been released to public domain by MGS? Right now it's not clear to me whether MGS released all images that they have copyright to or just some of them. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the MGS and am awaiting a response with regard to this graphic. DrGregMN (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC) DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Minnesota Geological Survey responded with a similar free use graphic. The previous graphic has been replaced with this. The problem is that the graphic is longer than the previous one. I've compressed the image as much as possible while trying to keep the text legible. I hope this is acceptable. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, but there should either be a way for any reader to confirm that this paper and/or this specific image is in the public domain, or else you should forward the email to OTRS and allow them to verify the permissions. Although some charts are too simple to be copyrighted, this one is not. (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done! DrGregMN (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can comfirm that Barb Lusardi of the MGS has responded to Ticket #2021081710009512, the figure permission request for this image, releasing it into the public domain with the request that the source (MGS) be cited wherever it is used. I expect the permission summary for this image to be updated shortly. DrGregMN (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done! DrGregMN (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, but there should either be a way for any reader to confirm that this paper and/or this specific image is in the public domain, or else you should forward the email to OTRS and allow them to verify the permissions. Although some charts are too simple to be copyrighted, this one is not. (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Minnesota Geological Survey responded with a similar free use graphic. The previous graphic has been replaced with this. The problem is that the graphic is longer than the previous one. I've compressed the image as much as possible while trying to keep the text legible. I hope this is acceptable. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the MGS and am awaiting a response with regard to this graphic. DrGregMN (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC) DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I understand what you're trying to say here, but is there any way I can confirm that this particular image has been released to public domain by MGS? Right now it's not clear to me whether MGS released all images that they have copyright to or just some of them. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- The permissions by Aaron Hautala, administrator of the website Cuyuna.com requesting attribution, can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Permission_part_1.jpg and here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Permission_part_2.jpg. The permissions should be sufficient. If they are not, I can ask the photographer if he would be willing to upload this image to a creative commons photo sharing site.
- OK, I've asked another editor about this as I'm unsure. You had no way of knowing this but WP:OTRS is the preferred way to show that images are released by their copyright holder. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that the statement doesn't make it clear what type of license (if any) the photograph is to be released under, [1] In order to use this photo I think you would have to follow the steps at Commons in order to make sure that it's freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I will ask the photographer if he is willing to upload to a creative commons photo sharing site. Stay tuned. DrGregMN (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the photographer. He has refused to upload the image to a creative commons photo sharing site, stating "I can't offer full rights to my photography to the world at large." Understandable. I respect copyright, but sometimes it can be a real pain. However, it makes no sense to me why the Wikimedia Commons would have a license tag for "attribution" when you have the necessary permissions to use the image if everything needs to be "feely licensed": the license tag for attribution should be removed from the Wikimedia Commons if it can't be used. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that copyright is a pain, but what can we do? We risk legal prosecution if we are careless here. Concerning the attribution tag, it says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.". This is basically the free licence. If the photographer disagrees with this, the tag was placed by mistake, if I understand the case correctly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm on top of it. I have replaced this with a different image. DrGregMN (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that copyright is a pain, but what can we do? We risk legal prosecution if we are careless here. Concerning the attribution tag, it says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.". This is basically the free licence. If the photographer disagrees with this, the tag was placed by mistake, if I understand the case correctly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have contacted the photographer. He has refused to upload the image to a creative commons photo sharing site, stating "I can't offer full rights to my photography to the world at large." Understandable. I respect copyright, but sometimes it can be a real pain. However, it makes no sense to me why the Wikimedia Commons would have a license tag for "attribution" when you have the necessary permissions to use the image if everything needs to be "feely licensed": the license tag for attribution should be removed from the Wikimedia Commons if it can't be used. DrGregMN (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I will ask the photographer if he is willing to upload to a creative commons photo sharing site. Stay tuned. DrGregMN (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that the statement doesn't make it clear what type of license (if any) the photograph is to be released under, [1] In order to use this photo I think you would have to follow the steps at Commons in order to make sure that it's freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I've asked another editor about this as I'm unsure. You had no way of knowing this but WP:OTRS is the preferred way to show that images are released by their copyright holder. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You but have to click on the link to the article in the Canadian Minerologist: https://rruff.info/doclib/cm/vol32/CM32_589.pdf. The authors are specifically cited, but they are publishing on behalf of the Minnesota Geological Survey. All works of the Minnesota Geological Survey are in the public domain, with the appropriate copyright tag here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags.
- Other image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Buidhe! Hopefully I have satisfactorily addressed all your comments! DrGregMN (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Buidhe for taking the time to tweak the page images as well. DrGregMN (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Buidhe! Hopefully I have satisfactorily addressed all your comments! DrGregMN (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
