Template:Did you know nominations/John Carter (printer)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

John Carter (printer)

(
)
John Carter colonial printer
John Carter
colonial printer
  • ... that John Carter (pictured) started his career as an early American colonial printer working as the apprentice of Benjamin Franklin? — Sources: Thomas, 1874, 203;  Bicknell, 1920, p. 771;  Woods, 1918, pp. 1, 5

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 19:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC).

  • (Now approved ) – The article in new enough (created on October 22, 2021) and long enough (6,343 characters). It appears neutral. Given that most of the sources are academic work (books/journals) having a certain page rage, I believe that the article is well cited. Each paragraph has at-least one citation. Earwig's Copyvio detector detects at-most 30.6% similarity, that appears to be direct quotation, so I see no issues. The hook is interesting, meets the formatting guidelines, and is within the character limit (currently 112 characters long). It is cited, here as well as in the article. Would it be possible to reduce the repeating as an in the hook. Rest, a QPQ has been done. Bit sceptical about the image, as it is not clear when did the author die, so we can't claim that he died 70 years ago. When was it first published? Rest, it appears fine at 100px, and is used in the article. Almost good to go, just clarification needed on the hook and the image. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • <AGF Approval symbol, withdrawn on nominator's request> – Well, published means when it was first printed/available to general public, regardless of when it was painted. If no-one seem to know when this was actually painted, or first published, we do not have enough evidence to judge the copyright status. The source (this) states that The following pictures (except as noted) and documents, are some of the Carter/Brown/Woods materials inherited by me [the author of that web page, maybe]. It also states at the end of the page Images of original documents and transcriptions by Susan White Pieroth, Copyright June 2000-1. But I wouldn't hold off this nomination on a minor issue. AGF on sourcing. So, Approving the nomination without the image! Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kavyansh.Singh and Doug Coldwell: — I am not sure one can take a picture of, say, the Mona Lisa, and turn around and have the image copyrighted. Am going to seek an other opinion just to be on the safe side. Please withdraw the nomination approval for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, I have withdrawn my approval symbol. Rest, my rational was that we don't know when the author died, so can't just claim that he died 70 years ago. If it may have been published before 1926, without copyright renewal, well and good. If between 1926 and 1977, without copyright notice, well and good. But, we even don't know when when it was first published, so I felt uncomfortable to approve it with the image. Feel free to take a second opinion on the image, and let me know what happens (because I might be wrong...) Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I have created 500 Did You Know articles and 195 Good Articles so have experience with images and the copyright of it. The source states that it was painted at Rome for Nicholas Brown. That means to me that when Brown received the painting is when it was available to the public. The painting had to have been done by the painter BEFORE 1814 (death date of Carter). The painter had to be at least 24 years old to do such a sophisticated painting. That would put the birth of such a painter at 1790. He certainly could not have done such a painting when he was 14 years old (such a painter being born 1800). I rarely have seen a person reach the age of 100. If the 24 year old painter did, then he died in 1890 (likely before). Italy has a copyright expiration of life of the painter plus 70 years. That means in 1960 (or before) the copyright expired. Nobody can make a copyright later than the original copyright. So, somebody taking a picture of the John Carter painting, that was made available to the public in 1814 or before, can not make a different copyright on the painting. It was "published" and made available to the public in 1814 or before. The painter died in 1890 or before, therefore the copyright expired in Italy in 1960. Even if the painter was the 14 year old painter (highly unlikely) the copyright expired in 1970. Very likely the copyright expired sometime between 1930 and 1950. No matter, which analysis you chose the copyright has expired at least 50 years ago SINCE the painting was made available to the public in 1814 or before. That's my take on it from the Wikipedia experience I have of 15 years and hundreds of pictures that have been approved for DYK and GA. The image can be used in the article and DYK nomination.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Doug Coldwell – And I wouldn't dispute your analysis. Thanks for correcting me... Approving the nomination, and sorry for my misunderstanding. I often don't go deep into the assuming business, so I didn't realize that, and was unsure. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks! Could you place the symbol in front of "The article in new enough..." replacing so the Promoter can find it easily and promote the nomination and place the DYK into a queue. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2