File talk:AlexanderHall.jpg

Copyright status

The editor who posted this file wrote at the time Interiors of the Winter Palace. The Alexander Hall / 1861 / Edward Hau / Watercolour. This may be a little cryptic, but it seems clear that what was meant was that this is a watercolour painted by one Edward Hau in 1861.

Googling takes one here, thence here, and thence the picture. Bingo. J'accuse Giano of omitting the patronymic; this is not Edward Hau (who sounds like a Hong Kong businessman) but Edward Petrovich Hau, and he painted it in 1861. We have the word of arthermitage.org for this. It's not clear that arthermitage.org is an official site, Arthermitage.org is not the official site and it does carry ads; but it also seems carefully put together. Surely we can accept that this is a reproduction of an 1861 painting by Edward Petrovich Hau; at least until somebody provides evidence suggesting that such a claim is untrue.

So much for the source. Now for the reproduction. Who photographed the painting? Who printed from the negative (or slide)? Who scanned the print or slide? Who removed the grit, balanced the color, etc.? Did Giano get the result from arthermitage.org or from somewhere else? I don't know, and it seems we don't have to worry about any of these matters, because the file page also tells us:

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 [...]

'Nuff said? -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC) [... altered Hoary (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)]

Satisfies me - just need proof that this isn't from a site that may claim (c) for the image itself. Have added the appropriate citations to the image page. Skier Dude (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But -- especially as long as we're being all legalistic here -- is that the correct citation? You've now said that it's from arthermitage.org. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; Giano (if he even remembers) hasn't yet said. Although if i read the "originality of expression" stuff correctly, it doesn't matter and thus I don't know why you'd want to mention it at all. ¶ Secondly, what if this genuinely is a faithful reproduction of an 1861 work and the reproducer claims copyright? My understanding is that Wikipedia would then cite Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (That's what the template says it does.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

P.s. The other issue I can see with images such as this without a source is being able to prove that they are actually authentic reproductions of the originals. I'm not talking colour balance, cleanup of pixelation/artefacts, but to be able to look at the source and verify that this is actually an authentic reproduction thereof. Skier Dude (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite with you but can make two guesses at what you may have in mind. First, that some present-day artist may have spoofed this painting. Secondly, that such an artist may have imaginatively altered an 1861 painting. Well, a file very similar to the one here is displayed at arthermitage.org (seemingly a private Ukrainian website). It may also be on display at hermitagemuseum.org, which seems to be the official site but which has buggy navigation ("This address type is unknown or unsupported", says Opera; the site caused my Firefox to conk out). I see no suggestion that this is a spoof or fake, and Occam's razor is in my left hand. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)