This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I put the stamp image on there a while back for want of an actual photo but it would be nice to have both. I searched .gov on Google and came up with this excellent image from Wash. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, if anyone wants to figure out if it's copyrighted. All the other .gov images seem to be of Tiger Swallowtails or don't specify... Katr67 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The main page of the gallery says: "Images supplied on these pages, unless otherwise indicated, are owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or have been made available to the Department for public use. They may be used for non-profit or educational purposes provided that the Department or copyright holder is properly credited. Commercial use of these images is prohibited without approval of the copyright holder." Does Wikipedia count as educational purposes? --Esprqii (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The way I understand it, Wikipedia is considered educational but it is preferred that the images we put on here can be used by anyone, which could mean commericially. Pete knows more about it... Katr67 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There is also this Flickr search, again I am too lazy to figure out Flickr licensing. I think most of these depict "Swallowtails in Oregon" vs. "Oregon Swallowtails" but maybe the differences are clear enough to be able to tell them apart? I dunno, trees, plants and birds are more my thing... Katr67 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As far as I can tell, it's up to the Flickr poster to tag his image with a creative commons tag, which I think would let us use it in wiki. None of the good P. oregonius pics are so tagged, near as I can tell. --Esprqii (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Outside of fair use, Wikipedia requires images to be permitted to be re-used commercially. So the educational aspect doesn't matter. And actually, when you see the disclaimer/copyright notice like the one above (you see this many places) they actually have no choice in that matter. The ability to use it in those ways are what fair use is, which is codified in the Copyright Act of 1976. So nobody can prevent you from using the images for an educational purpose, no matter what sort of copyright they claim. As to flickr, towards the middle right is where to copyright notice is for each image, click on it and make sure it is CC 2.0 or greater and no commercial use restrictions. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I took a picture of one yesterday. Public domain, enjoy. :) Colonelpanik (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Great job! The difference between this one and Papilio zelicaon seems mostly to be that P. oregonius has a more squished eye spot and yellow body with black stripe (instead of black with yellow). The eye spot is hard to see here, but the body coloring looks right. Glad you were quick with your phone camera, and nice to know they are flitting around downtown Portland! --Esprqii (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Langellotto-Rhodaback at Oregon State University has discovered that my swallowtail photograph does not show the black line protruding through the black dot within an orange spot on the underside of the wing; consequently, this photo could show either an Oregon swallowtail or an anise swallowtail. I think it's best to remove this photo from the wiki and go back on the hunt.Visitor7 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)