Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Is Your Home Worth Fighting For? Well, is it?

Is Your Home Worth Fighting For?[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 23:19:32 (UTC)

Reason: While not the most artistic of posters, it's a rare example of an Irish WWI recruitment poster - there aren't that many of them available. Indeed, before this file, the entire article Ireland and WWI had no illustrations.
Articles in which this image appears: Ireland and World War I
FP category for this image: WP:Featured pictures/History/World War I
Creator: Hely's Limited; restoration by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if there were more real information in the "recruitment" section of the article, rather than just the raw numbers, and I'd love to know more about this poster as well. Who paid for it? Was it usual for a private lithography company to be identified so prominently in a public-interest ad like this? Were there a lot of posters like this? Were they effective? These are rhetorical questions; I'm aware that they're tough to answer without some more help from the LOC. By the way, I wonder if S.I. means that this was acquired through the Smithsonian? Very uncertain about that. S.n. usually means sine nomine and is used when the publisher is unknown, but that's very odd in this case since the name of the publisher is right on the poster. Anyway, weak support pending further information. Chick Bowen 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a few WWI posters, the majority were done by private lithographic companies, presumably on commission by the government. I presume it's cheaper and more convenient than for the government to keep a lithographic staff themselves, plus keeps the businesses from being hurt too much by the civilian paper shortages wars cause. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as article information is not entirely pertinent to FPC. S.n here may (but I'm not sure) mean that they aren't sure of the actual artist. The LOC also notes who the publisher was, so this is... a little weird. BTW, did you see the pupils on the second soldier? Very disconcerting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jujutacular (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a cracker. --jjron (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Even if this image is public domain in the US, are there any Irish or UK copyright laws that might still give copyright protection to this image? --Pine^✉ 07:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why it's on en-wiki, not Commons. For En-wiki, only US copyright law matters. Now, it probably isn't in copyright in Ireland or the UK, but it's very, very hard to prove that, as it depends on when the [unknown and uncredited] artist died, or on making a claim of anonymity. In all honesty, if the LoC doesn't know the artist, it probably is fine under EU law (copyright terms are 70 years for anonymous works), but a little extra precaution never hurt. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of these days I probably should learn more about how international copyright law works. At this time I don't feel confident enough to support this image for FP, so I will vote reluctant neutral. --Pine^✉ 08:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do remember that only US copyright matters for En-wiki, and this is definitely out of copyright in America. We do have several featured pictures that are US-only. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]