Miscellaneous desk
< April 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 1[edit]

Finding an identical picture[edit]

Can anyone help me find this picture without all the publication additions? Just the original photo in this quality. --Steverci (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try TinEye ? StuRat (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you explained what you want this image for and where on Wikipedia you intend to use it – otherwise we are not interested.--Aspro (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our ability and willingness to answer Q's should not be based on it helping Wikipedia, only helping the OP. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tried searching the image URL in Tin Eye, just got the same thing. It's a picture of Aram Manukian. The same picture is already on commons and used on his page, however this magazine picture is of much higher quality. --Steverci (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best I could find.--TMCk (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Tin Eye, I'd suggest it's worth trying Google reverse image search, and probably Bing too, if you haven't already. Also since you have the commons variant, try that too. Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look in Google and Tin Eye and didn't find anything that interesting except that for some reason the wikipedia article is using a poor variant of that image. We have Commons:File:Aram_Manukian.jpg which while not anywhere as good as the magazine image, is somewhat better than the one used in the wikipedia article. Edit: Forgot to mention, didn't try Bing because I can't seem to find their Image Match any more. Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or were using. I've changed the en.wikipedia article to use the better version that already exists. Feel free to change to an even better version if you find one. Also someone may want to inform the other users once this is done. Actually, it'll probably be okay to simply replace the jpg version with a better version if you find one, unless the original uploader really feels they want the version they uploaded, but they seemed to have replace it before, so probably not. The gif version probably shouldn't be replaced, since I don't think it's ideal to use either a gif (even if it is grayscale so theoretically you shouldn't be losing that much) or to give a jpg a gif extension (does the software even allow that?). Potentially it could be deleted, but I don't know the common rules on these sort of things. In the interim, I've added the other version to each of the images. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, we deliberately lower the resolution of images in order to be able to claim 'fair use' under the copyright laws (not using a higher quality image than we strictly need is one of those provisions). Since this is an image of a magazine cover - it seems likely that this was the reason and Nil Einne should double-check whether the cover is recent enough to be in copyright before uploading a high-res version. SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not planning to upload everything, and never intended to suggest I was.

Both existing images are on commons, so obviously not claimed to be used under the NFCC. The documentation on both versions of image is fairly poor, and they claim different licences despite obviously being the same image. Normally this would be concerning. However I didn't investigate further, or mention it before now, as the person died in 1919, so the image must have been created then or before.

This doesn't completely eliminate all copyright concerns, in particular if the image was unpublished before I think 1977, it could still be copyrighted (see Commons:Help:Public domain). Still I suspected the chance it will be a problem is not that high so didn't think it worth mentioning (I'm normally quite a sticklet for copyright concerns, but this just seemed one case not worth worrying about).

In any case, if it is a problem, the images should be removed from commons, appropriately tagged as NFCC, and downgraded from the 1,050 × 1,496 version which has existed on commons for over 1.5 years now (really 2+ years if you consider the older variants). Uploading a newer version isn't going to help the situation in that case, but it isn't going to make things much worse than the existing situation either.

Now as for the magazine cover, I don't think anyone is suggesting it be uploaded. That said, while the cover itself may be copyrighted, the image it depicts is most likely not as with the other images we already have.

If someone were to modify it to remove the copyrighted elements from the magazine so it only depict the original older image, then it would it would likely be perfectly usable without copyright concern, even on commons, since commons, as per the WMFs stated view, has rejected any copyright claims of simple reproductions of public domain 2D art work (as per US law) regardless of whether other countries may allow copyright of such images. Although I would recommend anyone investigate further that this would be okay, before they try this.

The exceptions I'm aware of would be if this isn't a simple reproduction (i.e. beyond the magazine elements, there were additional creative elements to the magazines version of the image e.g. there was a creative rather than faithful restoration of the image). And of course, if we are mistaken about the image being in the public domain in the US.

P.S. I was actually considering mentioning someone may want to investigate the true source and history of the image. This should hopefully put to rest any copyright concerns. More importantly IMO in this case, it may make it easier to find better versions of this image, perhaps from offline sources. Unfortunately I didn't in the end and this confusion arose.

An alternative which may not help find a better version, but will probably (again I'd check with others first before going to the effort if it's for this reason) resolve copyright concerns, would be to find evidence of it having been published before 1978. To be clear, I don't think you have to find the source, the first publication, or any real info about it, simply that it was published before then.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually upon further consideration, the images probably should be deleted point blank and not used anywhere any more if they are copyrighted, rather than being uploaded to wikipedia, tagged as NFCC and reduced in resolution. I suspect it will fail the irreplacable test considering there person appears to have been significant enough in their life that, even with it being the relatively early age of photograph, there's surely some surviving photograph or good likeness potrait of him that isn't copyrighted (i.e. anything published during his lifetimeo or a long while after). Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]