The following is an archived discussion of Alan McNicoll's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Alan McNicoll edit
- ... that after a 46 year career in the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll (pictured) was appointed as Australia's first ambassador to Turkey?
- Reviewed: Kazunori Nozawa
Created by Abraham, B.S. (talk). Self nominated at 05:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, hook is short enough and properly sourced. Article appears to be suitable and good to go. Only problem is possibly with image licensing, that that is not certain. Montanabw(talk) 08:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Image may have to be omitted from DYK due to possibly being non-PD in USA, and also copyright notice in Au source also suggests that Au retains a copyright. Can't use a Fair Use image at DYK. May need to add fair use rationale to image due to USA licensing issues.I could be mistaken, however and welcome further discussion. Montanabw(talk) 08:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Image is PD in Australia and the US. A definitive date is not given by the National Archives listing, by one can see in the image that McNicoll is at this point ranked commander and has two medal ribbons on his chest (one being the George Medal). The rank and medals would suggest that it was taken after 1943. However, the absence of further medal ribbons that would have been awarded to McNicoll for his service in the Second World War would suggest that the image was taken before 1946. Based on the above, my guess would be that the image was taken while McNicoll was serving in the Navy Office in Melbourne during 1944–45. As the photograph was taken in Australian prior to 1945, it would have been in the public domain in Australia in 1996 and thus in the public domain in the US. Not sure what you mean about "copyright notice in Au source", though? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not in USA according to the tags on the photo page. If you can't get it accepted in Commons, then it has to have a fair use rationale to use on en.wiki (which is easy to do) One nation's PD designation doesn't automatically equate to the other. Normally US-pd is prior to 1923 or, in some cases published prior to 1978 in a publication with NO copyright notice (possible here). At the source given [1], the page states "You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must declare your Intention to Publish." Then the "intent to publish" link says this, which indirectly implies that it could be PD, but also says you have to ask them. My humble opinion is that you have two options: 1) Just pull the image from the DYK and I can approve it now, or 2) Do the thing about intent to publish and get permission via OTRS to clarify that it IS PD-Australia, and I can then see if the PD-US is any kind of a barrier for you. In the meantime, you can add a fair use rationale to the image and it will be perfectly fine to stay in the article, but DYK cannot use fair use images. Am I making any sense at all here? I just want to be sure we are in the clear on this. Montanabw(talk) 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I completely understand what you are saying, but I do believe the image is in the public domain. The piece you cite is standard legal garb incoporated into every online file the National Library has listed (see these art pieces from the late 1700s as an example [2]). I do not know a single museum with online listings that does not include such a notice. However, per Australian law, all Australian "Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright" (see [3]). This photograph was taken in the mid-1940s, and is therefore in the public domain in Australia. Furthermore, as I deduced that the image was taken between 1944 and 1945, it means that the copyright pertaining to this photograph would have expired by 1996 which per US copyright law would place the file in the public domain in the US (see the US section on the Template:PD-Australia). That said, if it is easier then I will withdraw the photo from this nomination. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Montanabw, you may want to read copywrong. A claim of copyright is not always valid; in this case, the Australian law has spoken. As for the URAA, if this was taken before 1946 then it should be PD in the US too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I completely understand what you are saying, but I do believe the image is in the public domain. The piece you cite is standard legal garb incoporated into every online file the National Library has listed (see these art pieces from the late 1700s as an example [2]). I do not know a single museum with online listings that does not include such a notice. However, per Australian law, all Australian "Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright" (see [3]). This photograph was taken in the mid-1940s, and is therefore in the public domain in Australia. Furthermore, as I deduced that the image was taken between 1944 and 1945, it means that the copyright pertaining to this photograph would have expired by 1996 which per US copyright law would place the file in the public domain in the US (see the US section on the Template:PD-Australia). That said, if it is easier then I will withdraw the photo from this nomination. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not in USA according to the tags on the photo page. If you can't get it accepted in Commons, then it has to have a fair use rationale to use on en.wiki (which is easy to do) One nation's PD designation doesn't automatically equate to the other. Normally US-pd is prior to 1923 or, in some cases published prior to 1978 in a publication with NO copyright notice (possible here). At the source given [1], the page states "You may save or print this image for research and study. If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must declare your Intention to Publish." Then the "intent to publish" link says this, which indirectly implies that it could be PD, but also says you have to ask them. My humble opinion is that you have two options: 1) Just pull the image from the DYK and I can approve it now, or 2) Do the thing about intent to publish and get permission via OTRS to clarify that it IS PD-Australia, and I can then see if the PD-US is any kind of a barrier for you. In the meantime, you can add a fair use rationale to the image and it will be perfectly fine to stay in the article, but DYK cannot use fair use images. Am I making any sense at all here? I just want to be sure we are in the clear on this. Montanabw(talk) 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and AGF on the photo, I think the case is pretty convincing that it is PD for Au, not sure if that includes USA, but if anyone else spots a problem before it goes to the main page, I'm sure we'll all hear about it. I'll approve. Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)