File talk:Nudaurelia cytherea capensis00.jpg

It is disputed whether this file violates our non-free content criteria. The reason given is: This image is a unique historic image and its value lies in its provenance, which is the SA Forestry Bulletin, and its artistic value, having been painted by an artist of whom very little is known and who produced very few works. I cannot argue that a photograph showing this larva may not become available to Commons at some future date, but until then I feel the rationale behind keeping the painted image is essentially sound Closing administrator: if the decision is to Keep the file please put {{Old replaceable non-free use}} on the file description page. If the decision is to Delete please archive the discussion on the talk page between {{subst:Archive top}} and {{subst:Archive bottom}} and delete the file page.

Based on the text in the article, the species still seems to exist and appears to be easy to find: "Nudaurelia cytherea is a Southern African member of the Saturniidae family, whose large edible caterpillars are an important source of protein for the Bantu races of Southern Africa." Therefore, the image violates WP:NFCC#1, per WP:NFC#UUI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting the text - the family Saturniidae has large edible caterpillars that are eaten by the Bantu. This particular species is extremely rare. I have altered the text to avoid ambiguity. Paul venter (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

After researching South African copyright I find that {{PD-South-Africa}} applies according to the following requirement: "It is an artistic, literary or musical work created under the direction of the state or an international organization and 50 years have passed since the year the work was published" and since it was published in 1941 "A South African work that is in the public domain in South Africa according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in South Africa in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. (This is the effect of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)" It is therefor a candidate for transfer to Commons. Paul venter (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Sorry for not noticing that the Department of Agriculture was listed as the source and that it was published in 1941. I'm updating the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)