This file is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This file is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What exactly are the terms of copyright for this picture. If Iinterpret things correctly, then this image remains under copyright until 2038? (i.e. life of author plus 100 years, as stated in the copyright statement currently attached to the image).
--24.141.72.121 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Absolutely right. I think this can be claimed as pd 1923, or in a couple of years life+70 - but not life + 100 years. Can someone fix this please. Megapixie 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have updated the commons tag to PD-US (1923) - but someone with sysop powers will need to update the tag on this. Megapixie 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I question the claim of 2000 feet altitude- even though the photographer added it to the bottom of the image, I don't think it washes against geometric evidence.
First of all, the highest point of land in San Francisco, mount Davidson, is ~927 feet. The south of twin peaks is 922 feet; as noted in the caption, twin peaks lies directly in line with Market street.
Second, the horizon line of the ocean's surface is not continuously visible. One would expect the horizon line to vanish into rising terrain at some point, but the point of land that eclipses the ocean's horizon - the north end of Grand View park - stands no more than ~500 feet, according to USGS topographic quadrangles of the city.
Obviously, the line of sight from the camera to the horizon will be inclined, but it would seem to me that if the camera was at 2000 feet, then the ocean horizon should remain visible above the tops of twin peaks (or approach them closely). I don't presume to guess how far the horizon would be visible from 2000 feet, but I'm quite sure such height would have placed Grand View park well below the horizon in the image. It is to be noticed that visibility was excellent on the day of photography, which can be difficult on San Francisco afternoons.
I would be curious to see a professional analysis of this....
24.34.141.111 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
According to the description, the camera was attached to a kite, which is how it attained that altitude. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
[Ron Klein], who shot a modern day version of this scene using a replica camera from a helicopter in 2006, notes that the image appears to have been taken at around 1000 feet rather than the marked 2000 feet. The 2006 image can be viewed on his site. Beechhouse (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Even 1000 feet is too high. The is about 50 stories above street level as indicated by the horizon – using the 15-story Merchants Exchange Building on California Street as reference. If the average floor level is 12 feet apart (total height 180 feet), that would make 600 feet above street level.
