Template:Did you know nominations/Rossa Matilda Richter

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Rossa Matilda Richter

(

)

The 14-year-old Richter with her cannon in 1877.

... that the first recorded human cannonball act was 14-year-old Rossa Matilda Richter's 1877 performance in London? Source: "A 14-year-old acrobat, Rosa Richter - Zazel - was chosen to be fired out of it and became the first recorded human cannonball." BBC (there are others in the article)
- ALT1:... that Rossa Matilda Richter became the first recorded human cannonball in 1877, when she was only 14 years old? (same)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Troublemaker: Surviving Hollywood and Scientology

Created by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

Note: there are a few other images in commons:Category:Rossa Matilda Richter. The one I included is one I cropped/adjusted to be more suited for small display, but others may have different opinions... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Without the image The article is long enough, and new enough at the time of nomination. It is within policy and stable. The hook is interesting, a QPQ has been completed and spotchecks have been carried out for paraphrasing. I don't see any evidence that the image was published prior to 1923, which would be required for it to be free-use. Indeed, Getty Images apparently claim a 2009 copyright on it, so unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, we can't use it on the main page, and we might have to consider its use on the encyclopedia at all. Even fair-use is a bit iffy where Getty are involved. Harrias ^talk 16:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hold please - At work and can't take the time to look into this at the moment, but I'd like to open a discussion on Commons regarding copyright. No doubt they've encountered something like this before. My understanding of copyright (in the UK for this image, and US for Wikimedia), since Getty includes a creation date of January 01, 1877, it should be in the public domain. I'm not entirely certain of that, and know that creation and publication are different things. I'll open that thread later today and link it here. To the closing admin please hold off on closing this for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, I've changed the symbol above. Feel free to tag me into discussion wherever it ends up (I'm interested in the outcome as much as anything else.) Harrias ^talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: FYI commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Photo_from_1887_at_Getty_Images._Public_domain? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just tagging @Adam Cuerden: who might have any idea on this. Harrias ^talk 07:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment This might be of help with the photo. We hope (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, We hope. @Rhododendrites:, if you can update the copyright information on your image, I'll be happy to pass this (not that you'll to leave your source file information the same of course.) Harrias ^talk 13:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@We hope and Harrias: Thanks. That Strand clipping is a nice find. Question: why tag it as a file not to be copied to Commons? The Commons Village Pump discussion was inconclusive, but the indication seems to be that if publication prior to Getty's could be established, and if the author either died before 1947 or cannot be identified, it would qualify for PD-1923 and PD-UK-Unknown. This publication in The Strand clearly satisfies the former, and we still don't know the author. I've updated the tags on the Commons file, fwiw, though. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Habit makes me cautious re: uploads of non-US material, so I always start out by uploading it here. ;) We hope (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Harrias: Just a bump to see if we can push this forward. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, really sorry; thought I'd approved this already. I'm now happy that this was published in 1897, and due diligence has been done to justify the unknown tag. Rest of review provided above. Harrias ^talk 22:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)