Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pbjohnday-m.jpg

No proof the painter worked for the government, government pages often use unfree images. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. I've emailed the NPS to see if they can tell us who painted it and whether they were a government employee. If I don't get a response from them within seven (7) days, I'd say deleting it sounds fair. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and hopefully we'll hear from the NPS soon. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it could be good to know. The government sites aren't to be trusted unless they specifically state the artists worked for the government. In one case[1], the paleontologist Gregory S. Paul commented on the Albertosaurus talk page on Wikipedia requesting that we remove an image he had created. It had somehow ended up on a government owned site, and had subsequently been uploaded to Commons in good faith. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice to think the government would follow the law, but as you have just pointed out, that doesn't always happen. Thanks for allowing the week to clarify this. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you for the inquiry and request.

On private contract, a Doris Tischler painted the image for the National Park Service (NPS) back in the 1980s. The NPS may use the image for public education, and it is in the public domain, as long as credits are given.

You may use it and please do credit the artist, and the NPS as the source."

-Ranger John Fiedor, Chief of Visitor Services

Looks like fair game...I'll update the descriptions appropriately. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's great! Just too bad the resoultion is so low, they must have it in higher resolution somewhere... FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation...I've emailed Ranger John thanking him and asking whether there is such an image available for our use. Now that I think about it, cropped versions of the hypothetic higher image would be great for life reconstructions in all ten species articles, except perhaps the maple article, which has no use for that. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly my thoughts with the cropping. FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I don't seem to be able to find a picture of the art in our files.

-Ranger John Fiedor, Chief of Visitor Services 6/10/2009 1:36 PM

Guess not, then. It was worth a try, though. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Permission should be forwarded to OTRS, to avoid further annoyance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]