# Talk:Ruth Cupp

Template:Infobox officeholder should be incorporated into the infobox. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this has been done but let me know if I am mistaken. Remember (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The subject has been deceased since 2016. How could she give permission for the image? It's not at all certain that this image can be licensed as public domain. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I know the family of the deceased. How do I show the image is allowed? Remember (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the family permits it, but whether the photographer permits it. If the photographer has been dead for 70 years, I think, it becomes public domain. You could ask our helpful image editor, GRuban, for advice. Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
So, Wikipedia:Image use policy has lots of details, but the point is that images we use here have to be reusable and modifiable by everyone, like the rest of the Wikipedia. (See the Terms of Use at the bottom of every page, or more specifically for images, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing) In general, the copyright to a photograph is held by the photographer, but there are exceptions, as below. So: where did this specific image come from? I can see two possibilities:
If it's an image from a magazine or a newspaper, then copyright was probably held by the magazine or newspaper (due to employing the photographer), and unless that lapsed we'd need them to release it under a free license. Lapsed means that some works that were created and published before 1978 could go into the public domain if they weren't marked by a copyright statement when published or if their copyright wasn't renewed properly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Works_created_before_1978 has the details. From reading the article, this could well be an image made before 1978, so that's a possibility. If you can find where the image was previously published, and can show it, that might be enough, we'd then put the details of why it is free on the image page.
If it's a personal image, taken by a family member, never published, then you could ask that family member to release it. This looks like a professionally taken and posed image, though. Was a family member a professional photographer? You can ask the family if they have the terms under which it was taken, or know of them: sometimes a hired professional photographer will give the copyright to the subject, sometimes they won't (and will use those images for advertising their studio). If the family believes they own the copyright, they need to write an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that explains how they own the rights and that they are releasing them under a free license. It could say something like "I'm Jane Smith, heir of Ruth Williams Cupp. The image now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Ruth_Cupp.jpeg was taken by Bob Jones Studios of Kalamazoo, Washington on February 30th, 1987, and the copyright was assigned to Ruth Williams Cupp. I inherited the copyright upon her death, and release the picture under the license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ allowing anyone to reuse and modify it under those terms." There are more details at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS? The "OTRS" people at permissions-commons might write back to confirm some details, so do check the email address this is sent from.
Good luck! --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Heh - I notice you got this advice, in much shorter form at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_170#Help_for_DYK - this is basically what "document where the photo was released into the PD with Wikipedia:OTRS" means! --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!!! That was all very helpful!!! Remember (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

When was this poster made? A photographic reproduction of a two dimensional object does not create a new copyright, and if the poster dates from before 1978 (possibly later) it is PD if no copyright notice appears on it. It would take this tag--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Poster was made in the 1960s. Remember (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Unless there was a copyright notice on it, and I don't see one, it's PD then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If more is known about the circumstances of her childhood, that would be a good addition. Also, anything about her years in practice before her legislative service.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree.  I seem to be at a loss for sources though. Don't know if you have any recommendations on where to find more information. Remember (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You might make it clearer that Winthrop, established by the legislature as the state school for women, needed the legislature's permission to become co-educational. Or so I surmise from what you say here and my research on Ben Tillman.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Will do. Remember (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Done. Remember (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Wehwalt, I'd prefer to keep the COI disclosure here? I think such notices are helpful for future editors. —valereee (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel knowing the family is a COI.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with it. I know them pretty well.  Given that the issue is resolved, I am happy to state it and move on. Remember (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The article should use "Williams" to refer to the period before she changed her name. See MOS:CHANGEDNAME. It seems to me that she might be better known under "Williams" than "Cupp". (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Looking at the sources it seems she is best known as Cupp. I have made edits such that we now use Williams up to the year she married and then switch to Cupp, and I pushed the marriage up in the article. This seems better than what we had before, even though that was modelled on the FA Constance Stokes. What is different here is that the namechange happened later in life. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Motorola satelite 2601:447:C802:2820:9946:887D:4019:EE14 (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)