File talk:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compared to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg

Needs clarification

This file description page was in a chaotic state. First of all, it doesn't really say what this image is. Are these photographs of historical swords? If yes, when were the photographs made? Or are these drawings of swords? If yes, are they old, historical drawings from a contemporary 90th-century publication? Or were they made by a modern artist?

For the licensing: There are two possibilities. If this is an old, 19th-century drawing, as seems most likely, and if it was published back at the time, then it should be tagged with {{PD-old}}, because it's in the public domain. In that case, we don't need any permission statements from the modern publisher. What we need is the information of when and how these were originally made and published.

Otherwise, if this is really non-free, as previously tagged, then there is no way the image can be used, because in that case it would most definitely be replaceable (with new photographs of surviving historical swords, or with new, self-made drawings.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ames images in question

Hello,

The images are from the John Hamilton book the Ames sword company. The Ames sword Company 1829 - 1935

Hello,

I am under the impression that permission was given by the Owner Stuart Mowbray, Mowbray Publishing under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. I sent in the request to Commons. Commons come back to me for the release. I sent it to Mowbray Publishing they then emailed it to me with their approval and I sent it on as requested by Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org>. They referenced it under Ticket#201205151000069. So the question is do I have to go back to Stuart and ask him again for approval or do I have approval. I do have all emails between Mowbray, <permissions@wikimedia.org>, and my self to show you just how it went down.

As for the charges I do not really understand them. Yes there are other images that are part of the NPS, but the quality very poor and the image is of the model 1872 springfield. This Image comes from the very best reference source on the subject and that is the Ames Manufacturing company. They made it and they have the very best image of it.

Now why you should not remove this image.

Several highly regarded references have all said that they believe that the Musicians sword was where the design came from. When I took the images I posted a poor image and I had all kind of problems trying to get it corrected, and nothing worked. I reloaded it under a different name 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg, it was first called it regulation 543.jpg have the problem with the images. If you look at the book in my first upload I removed the Musicans sword but after looking at the book the photo shows both swords under 1 heading. which looked more natural. I can upload the original upload of regulation 543 with out the Musicians sword if you like. I can do anything you ask to bring it up to your standards, just ask. I think that it comes down to if you accepted Stuarts permission or not, if not it can be requested again Hope this is on track. AndyAndy2159 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Hope this helps?

AndyAndy2159 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Approval for this work should be under this number The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available as ticket #2012051510000691

I do not have an account number but permission was granted at the same time and should cover this.

I just wish I could upload a better image.

AndyAndy2159 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not answered my question. Maybe the answer seems so obvious to you that you don't understand why I'm asking, but I really need this information: What is this image? You have never clarified this. Is this (a) a modern photograph of a sword? (b) a modern drawing of a sword? (c) an old 19th-century drawing of a sword? If the latter, where and how was it originally published (not in the recent book you cite, but back in the 19th century?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really surprised, as I just had to prove this in the question below. Just what do you have a problem with and what do I have to show you to prove to you that the image has been aproved? And this is the 3rd time. Andy2159 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay try this it need to read like this. All reference to the below has to be removed as it is not part of the copyright: Francis Bannerman, Military Goods Catalogue, 1913.

The true copyright owner is: Reproduction taken from John D. Hamilton, The Ames Sword Company, 1829-1935, Mowbray Publishing, 1994.

The owner is John Hamilton not Francis Bannerman.

I sorry you do not like the photos but there from the best source available and the images were scanned or photographed directly from the book by me. There are no better images anywhere and I've been looking for 6 years. Andy Andy2159 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. So we're back to square one. If this is not from the 1913 Francis Bannerman catalog, then why did you name that catalog as the source of your parallel upload of File:West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg? It is obviously the same picture. The matter is this: either it is ultimately from that 1913 catalog; in which case we're fine, the image is in the public domain, and whatever the people from Mowbray Publishing say about copyright just doesn't matter, because there simply isn't any. Or, it is not from that catalog; in which case you have now failed for the third time to answer my simple question: what is it really? I really don't understand why this question should be so difficult for you to answer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

---

You are correct, my error the correct Image is Page 225 item number Regulation, I thought I had that covered.

You can do one of two things, exchange the photo for the correct one.

And/Or

I can get another release, that would take a week would.

What do you want to do?

Andy Andy2159 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have again no idea what you are talking about. I'm afraid the reason it's been so difficult for you to get the situation of your images clarified to your satisfaction is because you have not been communicating efficiently. Much of what you have said throughout all these days has been unclear, imprecise and often downright incoherent, and I don't get the impression you are understanding what other people are telling you either. I have asked you a very simple question on the image talk page, at least two or three times, and you have again failed to answer it. Instead you are again talking about something else entirely, and I don't even know what. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. So we're back to square one.

I did not notice your post.

I guess we are. I submitted many photos. there are 4 in question.

first I up loaded a free image a images from the 1913 Francis Bannerman catalog, it showed a image of a surplus of U.S.M.A. sword for sale.

Then I upload 3 images from Mowbray publishing with all your paperwork the release from the owners with the correct copyright information (I still have the email). The summary is for Mowbray is mixed up with the Bannerman information. Their name was never entered into the summery, but it shows up in another images summary.1913 Francis Bannerman catalog, Please check the history of the images and it should show that someone edited it and I could not do it if i wanted to. so you will be able to tell who messed around with the summary.

I will do everything I can to get it corrected back to the way it was entered and approved by Mowbray publishing. I will also get the image you have in question released by Mowbay.

Please Let's try this again

Andy Andy2159 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to my talk page I did not and do not know what your so upset about.

If I need to get the release for the 4th image I will. But the copyright information was changed on your side. not mine.

I sorry you are finding it hard to work with me, I'm doing my best to give you what I think you are asking for.

Maybe, we can start over. Please ask me your questions again. And I'll try to give you that you need. Please keep it simple as I do not come close to your level of the written word. Andy2159 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Once more. There are three questions now.

1. When you say "first I up loaded a free image a images from the 1913 Francis Bannerman catalog", are you referring to File:West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg?
2. Do you agree that the above and the right-hand half of this image are reproductions of the same original catalog page? (Compare the lettering and the number written at the top; they are precisely identical.)
3. If this image is not a reproduction of the same 1913 catalog page, then what is it? I understand you took it from the Mowbray book. But where did the Mowbray people get it from? Was it:
   1. a reproduction from the 1913 catalog?
   2. a new photograph of a real sword made by somebody for the Mowbray book?
   3. a drawing made by somebody for the Mowbray book?
   4. an old drawing or photograph originally published in some old (19th or early 20th century) print publication?
   5. something else?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• To #1: Yes, I do.
• To #2: No. Please let me point out that this information is copyrighted by Mowbray publishing. It's not from the 1913 Francis Bannerman catalog. The correct name for this images is Regulation 543.jpg it's on page # 225 in the Hamilton book above the swords reads Military regulation the sword 542 543, the second image name was Military regulation 543 543.jpg or some thing close to that. My first up load it just said regulation 543. that just did not look just right so I uploaded the full image. you might want me to get a new release from Mowbray which will take me about a week for them to get all the papers back. Please Francis Bannerman image are no where to be seen in the article they were never used and look different.
• To #3: John Hamiltion had full access to all of Ames work and Mowbray Publishing ownes the copyrights they are photograph on page 225 of that book. My guess is that John Hamilton had someone or he took the images, I would have to ask, no one is given any credit for graphics in the book

Thank you for a second chance. I do not know how the names were changed or how the copyrights got all mess up but they are. There are no images in this article from the 1913 Francis Bannerman catalog. NOTHING.

I have a copy of the release from Mowbray to you that was approved still on my computer if you need to see it.

I hope that was what you needed if not please ask again. If this opens up new area's and questions I will be very happy to get the answers you need. I am sorry that sometime you might have to ask a second time, Thanks, – Andy2159 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. We're getting a bit closer now. I still disagree with your position that File:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg and File:West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg could somehow be from different sources. They are completely identical, to the point that coincidence is quite excluded; they must be from (ultimately) the same source. Now, I have looked around a bit further, looking both at sample pages I could find of old Bannerman catalogs and at other things, and found the following. These images don't really look like excerpts from a Bannerman catalog. But they do very much look like images from an original old 19th-century print catalog of the Ames company. There are some sample pages of a reprint of such a catalog visible here: [1]. If you look at the layout, especially the way the illustrations are numbered at the top, and the lettering (the fonts, etc.), wouldn't you agree that File:West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg must come from a very similar page? Of course, it is only natural that the Mowbrey book you used would also have reproduced images from such an old catalog, since the book is about that old company.

So: could it be that you made a small mistake when uploading File:West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg, and it's really from an old Ames catalog rather than a Bannerman catalog? And if that is the case, don't you agree we can safely assume the Mowbrey people took File:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg from the same?

If that is the case, it is good for us. Because it means we could use both graphics even without a permission from Mowbrey. This is because the original catalog was published back in the 19th century, and it is therefore now in the public domain. Mowbrey publishers don't really own these illustrations any more than you or I do. It's still a good thing you asked them for permission, so we know they don't object, but legally we could do with these images whatever we want, even without that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

problem

The image that I uploaded from the Bannerman catalog is a totally different image and it does not look like the images from Mowbray not even close.(see the Bannerman image below, does it look the same to you) the upload from Bannerman was called military surplus.jpg. this is the photo that is in the 1913 catalog and it is an illustration, that I photo or scanned in. If I did upload the image so would see the difference. It should be listed under my contributions in commons as well.

The Images that you have named above they had there names been changed. The Images That I uploaded where named Ames Regulation 543.jpg and the full image military regulation 542 543.jpg. (or something close to that. The images that you name are my images but the facts are all incorrect. It is not the information I put in when it was uploaded the 3 Mowbray images that were approved. The image can be found on page 225 in the Ames sword company book published by Mowbary, Again two different sources of references. Two different swords. Mowbary would be very happy do do another release if you need it.

Andy Andy2159 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you copy File:West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg yourself from a physical print copy of the 1913 Bannerman catalog? If not, where exactly did you get it from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I copied or photographed the Image my self, The catalog was on loan from a friend. The name of the image that I up loaded was changed. The Image That I up loaded was called militarysurplus.jpg I have more than 5 or 6 images, which I took all different from full page to this small part of this page the add read. Andy 65.35.73.243 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"No 320j WEST POINT CADET SWORD. Kind in use after the Civil War; diamond shaped blade with copper bronze handle and cross-guard, With Liberty cap pommel: with letters M.A. (military Academy) on the guard. With steel scabbard. In good second-hand serviceable order. Souvenir relic of school days of famous Army officers at West Point. Price, $15.00 each." Image up loaded and in commons. Thats from the 1913 Bannerman catalog less image.

Andy2159 (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Forgot to log on. Andy

If you "copied or photographed" (why "or"? which of the two?) File:West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg yourself directly from the original Bannerman catalog, why then does it have the description "Ames Sword Company Book 1829-1935. Reprint of page 225 item number 543 1850 West Point Cadet sword" written into its exif metadata (visible at the bottom of the page)? Isn't "page 225" of the Ames Sword Company Book exactly the same source you also stated for File:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg ? These two images clearly are identical. I have no idea why you so stubbornly deny that they are the same, when it's totally obvious that they are. See comparison here on the right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The fully story

I'm sorry, but I'm just upset as changes to titles, copyrights and credits have been changed.

First Image Bannerman 1913 militarysurplus.jpg was uploaded as a pdf file called cw1850.pdf, cw1850.pdf then change to Military surplus.jpg copyright Bannerman 1913 then some one changed the name.

West Point Cadet Sword. Kind used after the Civil War.jpg.

1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg

The files above had there names changed fron the time I up loaded the images in fact I requested a received a new release that was submitted today giving me permission to use the following files. please read the release below.

This Image has be brought into question. This is a new release from the best reference on the subject and the images are the best that can be reproduced, The copyright information has been changed from how it was entered the first time. I have all the images as I have taken them along with up dated releases. How would you like me to respond. Do you need me to reload the images.

Andy Needle

---

Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Wikipidia image reprint request Re Wikioidia: [Ticket#2012051510000691]

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:55:18 -0400

From: Mowbray Publishing <service@manatarmsbooks.com>

To: Andy Needle <aneedle1@tampabay.rr.com>

>From The Ames sword Company 1829 - 1935

Page 161 cadet sword and scabbard.

page 63 U,S.M.A c 1850

page 225 item number Regulation 543

Military Regulations 542 & 543.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License

(unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a

commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs,

provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be

attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the

work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or

may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS <Stuart C. Mowbray> <service@manatarmsbooks.com>

SENDER'S AUTHORITY copyright holder [DATE] 6/25/2012

I have to change all the information on the images as someone changed the copyright Nothing in the above release as anything to do with the Bannerman catologe, the images are totally different.

this is my up load of the bannerman surplus for sale it does not look anything like the others and that is why the image is so important as it is the only Image for a USMA cadet sword for that time period, and that would be the only time frame that the academy whoud of sold surplus swords as the the new issue was filtering in to the school.

So I need to reinstall the images that I got a release for Mombray publishing. and I would need to uplad the bannerman images with the add that goes with it or the full page if you have any questions.

And yes I'm upset as I followed all the rules and you made me jump through hoops to get it done. Then other users messed it up. and then turned and with the words that are out of reality, challenge the images knowing full well that the copy rights after they have been altered. fine I can see the staff can do anything and get away with it. 65.35.73.243 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Who allowed -Sphilbrick (talk) to us my work

who allowed him change my images to his? Who allowed him to change the copyright information to false and misleading information? Who is he and does that give him the right to steal other peoples work? Why is his mane on my work....Andy2159 (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bannerman image is the same as the Mombray image.

Both are made by Ames Mfg Co. copyrighted about 1866 or so. I miss understood, as usual the question. You are correct shoot me, you got it right long before I understud the question.Andy2159 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)