I think this article's in good shape - just finished adding some more sources and clarifications. One note - the peer reviewer of the article suggested a legacy section, which I chose not to do simply because the legacy can be summed up in a sentence or two. If reviewers here disagree with that assessment, one could certainly be added in. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Geraldk (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I switched the Citation template to cite encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing that out, hadn't known not to mix them. Appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries. How many founding fathers of Maryland are you aiming for? I have a number of Maryland ancestors which would be cool to see done well... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
As many as I have time for. It helps being in relatively close proximity to the University of Maryland libraries for sources. Anyone in particular I should add to my list? Geraldk (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You might like to wikilink Parliament to a more specific article.
Career and rise to wealth in Maryland:
"If he hoped to find a greater level of religious tolerance in Maryland than he had experienced in England, he was to be sorely disappointed" sounds a bit odd.
No need to repeat wikilinks, such as James II and Glorious Revolution.
"15 year old" hyphenate?
Overall: there were quite a few typos I fixed but may have missed some - please check through. Also, why was he called "the Settler"? When did that come about? Majorlytalk 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've addressed all of the comments. Aghagurty is a red link, unfortunately, and I think it will remain so for a while. I desperately tried to find an alternate name that had a wikipedia article, but to no avail. The gaelic variant did a number of the search engine - it was kind of entertaining. I have added a little bit to the lead concerning the use of 'the Settler' after his name. The only explanation I found was in Hoffman, who claims it was used to differentiate him from his descendents of the same name. However, Hoffman does not mention whether Carroll himself used it in his own lifetime or when it began to be used. I did not specifically mention his son and grandson's name, because I think it would make that first sentence of the lead unwieldy. Let me know what you think on that. Will also do another thorough copy-edit in the next hour or two. Geraldk (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"English Catholics. was As a result" Could you double check whether this is just a typo left over from a cut and paste, or perhaps something else is wrong here?
"to an associate of his,an associate of Charles Calvert," here too. TwilligToves (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ack! Yeah, those were both from cutting and pasting between Word and Wiki. Thanks for catching them. Here I try to fix a confusing paragraph and it ends up even more confusing... Geraldk (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, 1a. The prose isn't bad on a sentence level, but the article suffers from a lack of clarity and organization in many places. It almost feels like things were chopped up and moved around at times without consideration for the surrounding text. "He and "his" are bandied about in confusing ways when multiple men are being discussed. This requires more than a surface copyedit—it needs substantial revision, probably by someone unfamiliar with the text. I became confused reading the text at times; for example:
The entire first paragraph in "Career and rise to wealth in Maryland" is a muddled mess. You say Carroll was to be disappointed with the tolerance for Catholics, then move into tensions, then the economy, then more tensions.. but you never actually get around to following up on the opening of the paragraph.
"During the rebellion, Carroll was recovering from the "hard seasoning" often experienced by immigrants to the new world whose bodies were acclimatizing to local conditions." This is kind of hanging out there with no obvious purpose. It doesn't seem related to anything else you've been discussing. Are you implying that he was unable to act against the rebellion because of his physical condition? This requires clarity.
"The money he accumulated through this and other means was used among other things to begin making loans, and after 1713 he became the largest mortgage lender in the colony, in addition to personal loans he made." Oof. This behemoth conveys many things, some of them more than once.
"His case may have been undermined as well when he came to the defense of his nephew, who had raised a toast to the Catholic James Stuart." The placement of this sentence is such that we have no idea who "he" is; the last "he" named was Hart, and he had taken a "case" to the legislature. Surely you don't mean Hart?
"His eldest son Henry had died a year before" Again, the last person you name is Hart. Hart's son died? But the following text confuses the issue even more.
comment - Ref 11 is broken. ceranthor 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through again, and had a friend go through, to try to modify it for clarity. Take a look and let me know what you think. I paid special attention to those portions where multiple actors made it difficult to keep the he's straight. Thanks for your review and comments. Geraldk (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Support, I think it's ready now. Good work on this! --Laser brain(talk) 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. I hope you don't mind, but instead of posting a list here, I took a swing at some prose tweaks myself. The intermediate edit summaries give rationales for each of those, by the way; feel free to disagree with any change I've made. I like the way this article is written, though I'm positive others would find it verbose. I'd normally be one of them, but the wordiness occassionally works to the article's advantage. It's probably still worth giving it a pass to eliminate some of the more flimsily-justifiable redundancies, but overall this is very nice work. All the best, SteveT • C 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the read-through, and for the support. I'll do a pass specifically looking for redundancy. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose on image concerns:
File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg is an American painting. Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this. Accordingly, the painting comes under US law, which is primarily based on publication rather than life of author. Creation is not publishment. As far as I can tell, this painting was not published (i.e. no copies were sold or given to the public or for display), remaining in private collections until it ended up in the Maryland Historical Society. It was then published on p. 60 of Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland (1999), supplied by the courtesy of said society. Under the interpretations of Hirtle at Cornell, works published "From 1 March 1989 through 2002" and "Created before 1978 and first published in this period" are copyrighted for "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry [70 years after the death of author] or 31 December 2047". Unless proof of publishment is given, this work is still copyrighted under US law.
Can anyone check if this painting appeared in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937 (Libraries holding this book)? If yes, on which page and is there a copyright notice in the front pages of the book? Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a concensus that it is very likely this painting has lapsed into public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Other images are verifiably in the public domain. A note for all editors: please check on the background and information provided for the images before using them in the articles (the ones here were very lacking). Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid the issue isn't that I didn't check but that you've gotten into public domain law that I was apparently unaware of. I will follow the discussion of the Benedict Calvert picture, and will look into the Charles Carroll picture. Please clarify for me on the Charles Carroll image - I've been under the impression for a couple years that any photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art was covered by the copyright of the original work, as it describes in the tag:
This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).
Is this no longer true? Geraldk (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The PD-Art tag applies to photographs and scans of public domain artwork. The position is that photos and scans (as reproductions) of paintings, which are in public domain, are effectively in public domain as well. Therefore, photographers or scanners cannot claim to have copyright over such reproductions. PD-Art does not apply to the paintings themselves. In effect, if a painting is not in public domain, photos and scans of it cannot be covered by PD-Art. Jappalang (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't an artwork enter the public domain 70 years after the death of its author? This painting is from the early 18th century, Kuhn was dead long before that 70 year limit. Geraldk (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Not for US works. US works are based primarily on publishing date. Most other countries follow a 50- or 70-year pma (after death of author). When a US work is first published after 2002 (or created after 1977), then it follows a 70 year pma. Ref: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
But this was painted in the early 1700s. With paintings, aren't they 'published' when they are painted? So the copyright would have expired long, long ago. The fact that it was re-printed in a book should have no bearing on its copyright, since that reprinting is a copy of a two-dimensional work. Geraldk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Creation: "A work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work."
Publication: "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
A painting that exists on its own is not published until "copies" of it are made available to the public. Creation is not publication. Note that the reprinting in books constitute "making copies available to the public"; hence publishing. Jappalang (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Except that it defines copy as "“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it's using the word copy not to refer to a xerox copy of it but to the original object. Geraldk (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The object itself is a copy of the work, but publications requires "copies of a work" (plural). Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Public domain: "Furthermore, the publication must have had the consent of the author/creator or copyright holder of the work." The artist has been dead for hundreds of years. There is no possibility that the author of the book got his approval before publication. Therefore, doesn't that mean that the publication of the image in Prince of Ireland, Planters of Maryland does not constitute publication under U.S. copyright law, and therefore that the work is considered unpublished and is in the public domain because its author died long before 1939? Geraldk (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyrights of an author can be transferred, either through law or estates. In this case, the Maryland Historical Society has the copyrights (Kühn surrendered his to the Carroll family, who transferred it to the Society on donation), which is why the painting was published in Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland by the society's courtesy and permission. It would be more helpful to check if the painting was published in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am working on that, and have been communicating with the Maryland Historical Society to get permission as an alternative. I'm out of town, and have had limited access to computers, so it's going slowly. I am simply trying to understand your interpretation of the copyright law, which I believe to be a misinterpretation. It seems fundamentally ridiculous to me that a 300 year old painting could be under a current copyright, and worry that if your opposition on this nomination, and I assume opposition to other articles on similar grounds, is based on an overzealous interpretation of the law, it could be detrimental to my work and the work of other editors. Geraldk (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but Jappalang's statement that "Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this" is problematic from a historical perspective, which therefore makes me wonder about his follow-up statement that "Accordingly, the painting comes under US law." He may be entirely correct in his conclusion, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that the painter was a British subject and never a US citizen, that there was no US for decades after his death, and that there was no such thing as being "naturalised as an American" at the time. These points may be irrelevant to the copyright status of the painting, but I mention them in case this information is helpful. Cheers! —KevinMyers 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Geraldk, please take a look at Circular 15a (underlined portions for emphasis):
Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978: Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case will copyright in a work of this sort expire before December 31, 2002, and if the work is published before that date the term will extend another 45 years, through the end of 2047.
There is no misinterpretation. On Janurary 1, 1978, all works not published or copyrighted but created before then are given 25 years of copyright protection. Hence the 70-year pma ruling called forth by the 1976 law (which was supposed to take effect on January 1, 1978) is superseded for these works.
Kevin, I think you are correct in that there is no America at that time (hence "naturalised as an American" would be wrong), but as the painting is first published in the US, the US copyright laws apply here. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Do painted copies of a painting count as publication? Geraldk (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, because wikipedia image policy is about as comprehensible as quantum physics, in what way should I ask the MHS to release the painting? Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Painted copies, as in reproductions like those sold on artnet? If those copies are legally authorised and are given to be exhibited or sold to anyone, then yes, the painting has been published in the year the first copy (excluding the original) was distributed. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Basically, an affirmation that the painting has lapsed or they release it into the public domain and that anyone can freely make copies or derivative works of it for any purpose. Alternatively, as the copyright holders, they can license the work under Creative Commons by 3.0 or sharealike (meaning anyone can do the same as with the previous, but they have to attribute the copyright holder). Their intent to do so must be clear. Ref: commons:Commons:OTRS. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This image is certainly public domain. The rule for unpublished works is life of the author plus 70 years or 120 years after creation for anonymous works.Rmhermen (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No, as stated above, the pma rules apply post-2003. When the law came into effect on 1 January 1978, all unpublished works that have not been published at that time are copyrighted for 25 years and if published during 1978 and 2002 gains further copyright protection. It is on 1 January 2003 that we can use the 120 years for unpublished works guideline to gauge if works still unpublished from that date on are in public domain. Also take note that the Cornell site follows the law, "1978 to 1 March 1989/From 1 March 1989 through 2002" ... "Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period/Created before 1978 and first published in this period" ... "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Jappalang - are you really saying that 300 year old paintings are copyrighted in the US? I'm afraid I just can't take that at face value. As far as I can tell, any possible claim of copyright for the painting expired before 1855, and the paintings from before 1789 were never subject to US copyright law, because the US did not exist when they were created. From the circular 15a you previously quoted - "Works already in the public domain cannot be protected under the 1976 law or under the amendments of 1992 and 1998. The Act provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason." Smallbones (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"Works already in the public domain" applies to works published before 1923 and those published from 1923 to 1978 that did not follow copyright requirements; they have passed into the public domain before 1978 and are unaffected. Circular 15a applies to unpublished work before 1978: "all works in this category (Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection.) are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection." There is no lapse. US copyright law before 1978 considers first publishing not death of author. As such, on 1 January 1978, unpublished works are not considered to have lapsed into public domain yet just because their author died 70 years ago—they are given at least 25 years of protection. Jappalang (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Fiddle-faddle. You've already said that the consensus at Commons was that it is in the public domain. To repeat the Cornell website info:
"Type of Work Copyright Term What was in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2009
Unpublished works Life of the author + 70 years Works from authors who died before 1939"
I don't know what point you are trying to make here with your completely novel theory, but please take it to a forum on copyright questions. It is inappropriate here. Smallbones (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say the concensus at Commons for this painting of Charles Carroll is in the public domain? You are mistaking laws as retroactive. 1978 laws would not apply to a time in 1945; otherwise there would be cries of complaint that a 1945 copyright registered work (whose author died in 1874) would be in public domain, which is not true. Again, Cornell's interpretation already abides by this law, otherwise there would not be their "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry [70 years after the death of author] or 31 December 2047" for works published between 1978 and 2002, which you have conveniently overlooked. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll start a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where you can argue your completely novel theory that 300 year old paintings can be protected by US copyright laws. Let's please leave this FAC review out of it for the time being. If you can get agreement there (!) then you can always come back and ask for the FA on this (and on every other FA with 300 year old paintings in it) to be reviewed based on your theory. Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Right now, the images are the holdup for this FAC to be closed. I've read the discussion at WP:Media copyright questions, which seems to be a rehash of the arguments already here. Would this image qualify for fair use (assuming it is not PD)? If so, the easiest way to resolve this problem may be to add a fair-use rationale. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus isn't determined by number of !votes, however, especially when this concerns a legal matter. Karanacs (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair use is an acceptable solution, as a rationale of "identification of a long-deceased subject who is the focus of critical commentary and has no visual representation except for this portrait" (or such) would be valid. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead with fair use if you'd like, but I've asked User:Rlevse to make a note at commons that the issue has been discussed and File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg found to be in the public domain, as he did for File:Benedict Calvert.jpg - it's really the same issue, 300 year old copyrights are just not possible in practice. I think it's time to move on and accept that this will never be an issue for any 300 year old artwork. Smallbones (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) It's now confirmed at Commons that this is public domain. Can we please move on? Smallbones (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
COI and thus moral Support - I am CoI'd from really participating even though this is a borederline but an interesting CoI of mine. Regardless, I would say that I would support it and make some minor suggestions, but I could not do so directly in clean conscience. I did want to say that I feel that the above image concerns are a false interpretation of law, especially with the law being based on death of the artist unlike UK law. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Well written prose, properly footnoted, good background material and well structured. And I hope nobody minds if I say that I like the pictures. Smallbones (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Linking issues et al.. But the prose looks generally OK.
Why are "France" and "England" linked? See MOSLINK.
the only Catholic signatory to, not signer of, I think.
"he had moved to London"—unless London, Ontario is suddenly within the realms of possibility, "London" should not generally be linked.
"George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore"—It's linked just above (although piped there, and I wonder why not the full term first, and no link second time). Tony(talk) 03:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.