File talk:Benedict Calvert.jpg
File:Benedict Calvert.jpg hangs at the Enoch Pratt Free Library.[1] It is a European painting (likely British) collected for/donated to the Library. Although put together as a series of "Six Lords Baltimore", the paintings (others are 17th–18th century) are collected from different sources/authors.[2][3] It is likely a 17th-18th century painting, but there is no source to verify this (or for near-conclusive inference).
The Library states (post-edit: note the underlined sentence), "The digital images contained in the Portraits of the Six Lords Baltimore Collection are copyright 1998 by the Enoch Pratt Free Library. The Library does not own the copyrights to the prints themselves; to the best of our knowledge all the images published on this website are no longer copyrighted. Anyone intending to use these images must be aware that they may be subject to copyright, fees, and other legal restrictions imposed by parties outside of the Library. Usage of this exhibit implies consent with these digital guidelines. The users of this exhibit are solely responsible for any storage, republication, adaptation, or transmission of these images in any form outside of this exhibit. The Enoch Pratt Free Library is not responsible for the outside use of these images." How do we fit a license to this painting if it can be stored on Commons? Jappalang (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Copyfraud again... Regarding the picture, I am afraid it is anonymous, see also [4]. Sv1xv (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Uploaded that one as it's clearly superior. Rocket000 (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the copyfraud; it is the Library's assertion that "to the best of our knowledge all the images published on this website are no longer copyrighted" (I should highlight that) we should be interested in. Can we take that as a statement of the anonymous undated painting as in public domain? If so, what sort of template/license are we going to use for that? Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Presuming it was a contemporary portrait and thus PD-Old seems reasonable. There is no picture to verify, but it would seem to be the same painting sold at public auction in 1903 (Google Books link), so that would seem to be the last possible date of publication -- although the painting probably predated any copyright law which would have protected it... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the portrait held by the Calverts and later auctioned off is this one: a half-body portrayal of Leonard Calvert, who wears a long curly white wig per 17th century fashion. Jappalang (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that would be right. Nice searching. I should have read your original links better :-) Still, all logic and evidence for the uploaded painting points to PD-Old, so that should be the tag we use (inside PD-Art). Unless you want to use PD-UK-unknown; that would seem to be accurate too -- an apparently English painting, which I'm sure the provenance was investigated as much as possible, and the author is still unknown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going with PD-Old and approving PDreview here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I presume the reason we are going for PD is because the five other Lords Baltimore paintings are of the 17th–18th century and it is extremely unlikely this is a later 19th-century or early 20th century work (not likely either that the collector would pick up such a painting to complete the series)? Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your own links state that the original owner of all six was a descendent of the Calverts (Sir Thomas Calvert Eden), who had inherited them from an ancestor. No reason to think they came from different sources. This page (a Pratt Library page) goes a bit further; all six were owned by Caroline Calvert Eden (wife of w:Sir Robert Eden, 1st Baronet, of Maryland, died 1784) so they all presumably existed in that time frame. A couple of them were dispersed in sales and later re-collected, but they all came from the same original owner. I can't see any reason to question PD-Old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- By "different sources", I mean "different authors"; each painting was done by a different painter. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, OK :-) But said unknown painter lived during the 1700s by all indications, so PD-Old is fairly obvious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- By "different sources", I mean "different authors"; each painting was done by a different painter. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your own links state that the original owner of all six was a descendent of the Calverts (Sir Thomas Calvert Eden), who had inherited them from an ancestor. No reason to think they came from different sources. This page (a Pratt Library page) goes a bit further; all six were owned by Caroline Calvert Eden (wife of w:Sir Robert Eden, 1st Baronet, of Maryland, died 1784) so they all presumably existed in that time frame. A couple of them were dispersed in sales and later re-collected, but they all came from the same original owner. I can't see any reason to question PD-Old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I presume the reason we are going for PD is because the five other Lords Baltimore paintings are of the 17th–18th century and it is extremely unlikely this is a later 19th-century or early 20th century work (not likely either that the collector would pick up such a painting to complete the series)? Jappalang (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going with PD-Old and approving PDreview here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that would be right. Nice searching. I should have read your original links better :-) Still, all logic and evidence for the uploaded painting points to PD-Old, so that should be the tag we use (inside PD-Art). Unless you want to use PD-UK-unknown; that would seem to be accurate too -- an apparently English painting, which I'm sure the provenance was investigated as much as possible, and the author is still unknown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the portrait held by the Calverts and later auctioned off is this one: a half-body portrayal of Leonard Calvert, who wears a long curly white wig per 17th century fashion. Jappalang (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Presuming it was a contemporary portrait and thus PD-Old seems reasonable. There is no picture to verify, but it would seem to be the same painting sold at public auction in 1903 (Google Books link), so that would seem to be the last possible date of publication -- although the painting probably predated any copyright law which would have protected it... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- ((pasted from commons talk:PD files) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- (Updated) Jappalang (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](http://calvertgenealogy.net/images/4thLordBaltimore.jpg){kind=link}
