Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hatshepsut/archive1

Hatshepsut

Self-nom. The article is over the 18th dynasty Egyptian ruler, Hatshepsut. The article has been reviewed, at my request by otherss so it has undre gone a peer review. If featured this article will become Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt's example article. -JCarriker 21:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Hatshepsut.jpg is claimed under GFDL. However, the source is stated as being a cropped scan of a book cover. The two statements are not compatible: if it's from a book cover, it can only be used as "fair use" unless the original artist/current copyright holder released the cover artwork under the GFDL.
  2. The image Image:Punt.jpg is claimed as "no commercial use". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  3. The image Image:Hatshepsut in Civ4.jpg is claimed as fair use. However, I don't think it can be used under fair use in any article except one on Civilization IV.
  • In general, there is no reason to use "fair use" images in this article. Since the subject is over 3500 years old, there should be no shortage of out-of-copyright images. --Carnildo 22:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your thoroughness and intentions in the first picture you are mistaken it is not a scan of a book cover, but a digital picture taken and edited by me. It have the idea, and I it was given to me by theresa knott I belive, that you cannot copyright a picture of a picture. Since the picture on wikipedia was taken by me and altered by me it should be able to be realease under the GFDL. I did not upload the Punt image or add it to the article, if you believe it to be a violation of policy please remove it. As for the Civ4 image, it is certainly fair use in the Hatshepsut article since the section is on her influence in pop culture, per her inclusion in Civ4.- JCarriker 03:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

A digital picture of what? In terms of copyright law, there is no difference between a "slavishly accurate" picture of a book cover and a scan of a book cover: they both are ineligable for copyright. The copyright status of the original remains, and the copy is considered a derivative work. If the license terms of the original do not permit derivative works, then the copy is what is known as a "copyright violation".

I've removed Image:Punt.jpg from the article and tagged it for speedy deletion.

As for the Civ 4 image, the section is on Hatshepsut's portrayal in pop culture. A screenshot from Civ 4 isn't really a portrayal of her in popular culture: she isn't the subject of the game. --Carnildo 06:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's not really a slavishly accurate copy, the top of the picture was rounded- I squared off the top by extending the background. I respect your opinion but I have been told such adaptations were acceptable by others. Perhaps a picture of the entire book cover would pass for fair-use? I disagree on the Civ4 pic, civfanatics.com pre-release info uses the same pic and Hatshepsut is still not the subject of the game. -JCarriker 06:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the book cover, I see no reason why any fair use image should be included in this article. There are over 3400 years worth of non-copyrighted images of Hatshepsut: let's use some of them. Your modifications to the original image may be under GFDL, but if my understanding is correct, you can't distribute them under any grounds except fair use until the copyright on the original expires.
• As for Civ 4, just because someone else is breaking the law doesn't mean we should. --Carnildo 07:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I can change the notice on the lead pic if you want; my point on the second pic is that I don't think they would do it if it were against the law, and I think they'd be caught quickly if it were since the site is known to the games creators. Please remeber the pics are released to promote the game and are expect to be distributed on the internet. If you insist I can try to contact the company for guidence on their policy it. -JCarriker 07:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should be using "fair use" images at all in this article. --Carnildo 18:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's very difficult finding good images of her that aren't fair use. Most of the scholarship done on Hatshepsut has been done since the 1920s. There just aren't alot of photos taken of her statuary before then, and many of those that were are highly POV such as including only the stautaury where she is wearing the false beard, and even then they aren't readily available. I respect your opinion, but with all do repect: I've been looking for good pics for the Hatshepsut article for over a year- you have been doing so only for a few days; if there were other pictures of the same quality I would have used them. -JCarriker 18:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Question: In childhood, Hatshepsut was favored by the Temple of Karnak over her two brothers, neither of whom surviced into adulthood. Am I right in assuming she was favored as pretender to the throne? If so, this sentences should be clarified. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Writing about ancient figures can be somewhat problematic; the short answer is that all we really know is that she was favored by the temple over all of her siblings. Biographers like Eveyln Wells would likely say that they did favor her as a pretender; while Joyce Tydelsely would likely tell you that she was just the court favorite.- JCarriker 03:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Suggestion: it would be really good to have some documentation of the change in perception of her over the course of the last century or so. Perhaps contrast how some work like the 1911 Britannica handled some aspects of her life vs. how the same aspects are handled by a recent scholar? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'd like to suggest that Carnildo, as an exercise, attempt to collect a dozen non-free non-fair use images for any one personage or event from more than a few centuries ago. I have not tried to submit Battle of Chalons for FAC consideration for this very reason. I think that Jay has done a good job, considering that handicap. -- llywrch 01:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support but the image issue should be addressed. Most pressingly, the image tag on the top image should be changed, probably to {{Bookcover}}. Are there no two-dimensional depictions of Hatshepsut, perhaps from a wall painting? Photographs of ancient two-dimensional artwork are immune from copyright under current US law, I believe. Anyway -- if an article can be featured without an image, surely it can be featured without a non-FU image. -- Visviva 15:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Photographs of two-dimensional works are immune from copyright if and only if they are "slavishly accurate" reproductions. --Carnildo 19:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakly support. A bit more detail would be nice, eg on military aspects. And it's slightly disconcerting that the article doesn't note her original tomb was KV20. Rd232 17:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. IANAL, but my opinion is that a non-creative photograph of ancient Egyptian art had its copyright expire long long ago. At the very least, however, it is fair use, which is acceptable. --Peter Kirby 09:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right. You aren't a lawyer. Any photograph or other two-dimensional reproduction of a three-dimensional work is creative, and thus copyrighted. --Carnildo 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Carnildo, just for clarification, do you have a legal background? There's no indication of it in the brief biographical remarks on your user page. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • No formal legal background, but after several years of following IP-related issues, I've got a fairly good grasp of the basics. --Carnildo 06:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I was under the impression that Violetriga [1]closed this nomination as a failed FAC. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the support; just seeking clarification. -JCarriker 04:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)