Talk:Ernest Spybuck

Suggestions

Suggestion: Early life needs to first state when he was born, before you discuss the context of his birth, Sadads (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadads asked me to chime in, so here I am. The article's on the short side: it really needs a larger lead that more thoroughly details what's in the article (see WP:LEAD), although I think it needs more body content anyhow. There's very little mention of his later life, or more about how his career evolved... why don't we know exactly when he died? I'll see if any of the databases I have access to could provide more info.

Also conspicuously lacking: images! I see the NMAI has an index of his work: [1]. I'm not quite sure of the copyright status. If these images weren't published, they still fall under copyright for the next few years until the author's body of work passes into public domain due to age... if they were published before 1923, they're already free to use. Since the article says they were used as illustrations, it shouldn't be too hard to find ones that can be used with some digging. For example, since the plate in book was first published no later than 1921, it should be able to be used.

I'll provide more comments when possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the commet, David. I know it is a little thin, Sadads was encouraging me to get this article out of my sandbox and on WP so that the collaboration can begin. I'm still waiting for more books to come in that I have reserved.

I do have a 1921 monograph that Harrington published with 8 or more Spybuck's paintings. NMAI has 27 or more that were collected in that early period, but I'm not sure what that means in terms of copyright. I'm hoping folks will admit that it's all government-owned and public domain.

Other thoughts on the article: I'm thinking of putting in a section that lists the books his paintings have appeared, another section that lists the major exhbitions that have featured his work, and another that lists collections that have his work.Taoboy49 (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

excellent, i don't know if NMAI has followed the lead of SAAM- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/US-UK/Smithsonian American Art Museum Rules (not yet life of artist + 70 years); i also found this NATIVE AMERICAN ART online course material here that mentions him [2], might be something for the style section. Accotink2 talk

artist format examples Arthur Amiotte; James Auchiah; R. C. Gorman; featured Caspar David Friedrich Accotink2 talk 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am putting through a request for good digital images of Spybuck and a couple of his paintings to our Photo Archivist right now. Not sure how long it will take to come through. One thing we need to be careful about is the sensitivity issues. Native Americans might object to the portrayal of sacred ceremonies that appear in some of Spybuck's paintings.Taoboy49 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

i noticed that the 1921 monograph is missing the illustrations (google books version, surprising) other public domain works i have seen have engraved illustrations in the text, which you could save as a doc and upload to wikicommons. i wonder if there is a hard copy to scan? Accotink2 talk 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I just added an image to the infobox, but extra text is showing up. Any help to fix it would be appreciated.Taoboy49 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

i added gallery, wow those images are pretty sharp, i note that the library of congress has a scan online, but has a fold in the middle Accotink2 talk 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom

I nominated the article for DYK at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_September_2 , any commentary on the hook would be appreciated, Sadads (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the nomination, Sadads. I just added some more material that brings the article up to a state that doesn't embarrass me. There are still some tweeks that I'd like to do over the next week or so.

One question: I tried to do a Wiki link to Frank Day, a Maida artist, but it gets referred to an article on a politician named Frank A. Day. Is there a way to turn this into a red link? He is mentioned in the Maida article.Taoboy49 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the DYK, You will likely have at least 5-6 days before the article will come up for being on the front page, so you still have time to improve. Its just important to get the process rolling, that way you don't miss the 5 day nomination window (This one was close needed to be in the next 18 hours or so).

The best thing to do would to create a brief stub on him with a ref or two explaining his importance at Frank Day (artist), that way there is something that someone else can build off of in the future, Sadads (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK is going up on the 9th (see Template:Did you know/Queue), Sadads (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I did quite a bit of editing today, and I have some questions about what to do next:

1. I'm not comfortable with redirects yet, and the article needs redirection from Earnest Spybuck

Done I also created redirects from his 2 Native american names. --Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I have a question posted on one of the image discussion pages, File talk:SpybuckBuffaloDance.jpg regarding fair use of text in an exhibit catalog...

take a look here Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria at option 4. If you read the information for the links I think it will answer the question. If not please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is some more info here Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. Just look under the resources section. --Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ...and a question about how to nominate images for a Today's featured Picture.Taoboy49 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Go here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and follow the instructions. If it doesn't make sense and you need more help there are instructions for that as well or you can contact me and I can help you or leave a message here. --Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Image

Hey all, I noticed that the photo could use a little bit of digital restoration, so I put in a request at The Graphics lab, Sadads (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner did a very nice job of cleaning up the Spybuck photo. It is clean and still respects the original appearance of the old film-based documentation. I know this took quite a bit of time and care to accomplish. Thanks! --Taoboy49 (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean we can rmv the Image needed banner on the top of this articles talk page now? --Kumioko (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think so, Sadads (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright

Unless my math is wrong, Spybuck hasn't been dead for 70 years yet, and he's an American artist so usually that means that his works (and derivatives such as photographs of them) would be under copyright still. So what is the reason File:SpybuckChickenDance.jpg and File:SpybuckBuffaloDance.jpg are licensed as Public Domain? Has their copyright also been taken up by the federal government, or some branch thereof, and released? The current image tags seem deficient if that is the case since the paintings themselves don't appear to be works of the US Federal Government - unless they were originally work for hire for the government, in which case it would be helpful if the copyright information on the image page said so. TheGrappler (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The originals were commissioned by Museum of the American Indian staff before 1918 [3] and became part of the collections of the National Museum of the American Indian, part of Smithsonian. User:Taoboy acquired these from the collection. I am pretty sure that those fall under institutional ownership, and in turn, because of the federal funding is in the Public Domain. That was my reasoning methinks, I don't know if we have any better upload rationals, Sadads (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise actually writing something to that effect on the image pages so in 5 years time nobody comes along and wonders the same as me, but gets trigger-happy with a delete request... the licensing templates only go so far, and I can't think of a better or more specific template that applies, but it's worth annotating why that licensing template is actually applicable. What you've said certainly sounds reasonable to me, tho IANAL (fortunately!) TheGrappler (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

images published in a monograph in 1921. Accotink2 talk 03:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-US}} would cover pre-1923 publications first published in the USA - would that make better sense as a (c) tag, or is the "work commissioned for the Smithsonian is PD" argument rock-solid? (The latter argument has the advantage of making the images PD worldwide, but only if it's true that work so commissioned is automatically PD.) TheGrappler (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the images we have right now are of the originals I believe, whereas they were also reprinted elsewhere. Am I right Accotink2?

And in regards to the rock solid argument, I really am not sure. We get fuzzy answers from them when we inquire about official legal policy on copyright. However, logically it makes sense and the NMAI, whom Taoboy works for, is the most supportive of the Smithsonian museums we are collaborating with. They are really interested in sharing information and media. I am by no means an expert on copyright. Sadads (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

i mention the published book with images, because that's cut and dried (published before 1923). it's unclear to me if his other artwork is PD, since it's unclear if he was an employee of SI, or date of publication. (similar to art in the LOC may not be PD) otoh, we had a WP:Wikipedia Loves Art where photos of art at the SAAM were uploaded.[4] if after 1923, they are orphan works, which are probably ok to show online (i would show them on a blog of mine), but i suspect would not pass muster at Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks. (but then i am not a copyright attorney). i hope that clarifies the state of my confusion. Accotink2 talk 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note since this was linked from elsewhere... it does not appear that Spybuck was a government employee, so unless something could be considered a "work for hire" of the government, PD-USGov cannot apply. For works published before 1923, they are public domain today in the U.S., no matter what. "Published" was not defined in the copyright law, so it can be a slippery concept particularly for paintings, but if made under commission, and particularly sold to a third party, a good case can be made for {{PD-1923}}. Past that, published works had to have a copyright notice, and had to have a copyright renewal filed with the U.S. Copyright Office 27 or 28 years after publication. Modern digitized images of the paintings would be considered copies and not derivative works, so they do not have any additional copyright over what the original painting has (see {{PD-Art}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)