File talk:InvincibleBlowingUpJutland1916.jpg

There is an interesting article by Peter Marshall in the Feb 2012 issue of Naval History magazine discussing the hypothesis that this well-known and often-seen photo might be a doctored image or her or a sister ship on regular operations or exercise and not, in fact, in the moment of blowing up and likely not in battle. Certainly, I've never seen this photo shown and seen any glimmer of explanation as to who took the photo and from what ship. DulcetTone (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Public domain in the UK?

@Sandpiper and J Milburn: Isn’t this photo public domain in the UK? W. H. Fawcett died in 1929, if the photograph has separate copyright, I think it expired until 1 January 1992 (70 years after its known publication in this book). Of course, if the author is known, the copyright may be longer, but it seems he’s anonymous. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The pertinent question is when the photographer died. If he (almost certainly a he) genuinely is anonymous, it would surely be PD in the UK, but we would have to take reasonable steps to ensure that the photographer was unknown, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, judging from the above, it is surely fair to say that the author is unknown, but that we should probably be using the image in articles only cautiously! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

According to this 70-years rule one has to wait 65 years to have this image on Commons since the very last surviving veteran died in 2011.

--Andreas P 15 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that the picture could only have been taken by a naval officer who was on duty on a naval ship at the time, I am unclear whether the images might in fact be crown copyright, which would have expired. However, I note the comments above by Dulcet Tone, that a question has been raised over whether the picture might have been faked. The linked explanation requires a subscription to read in full, but it seems the issue arose because Marshall tried to figure out who had taken the picture by first trying to identify which ship could have been in the position from which it must have been taken. He seems to have failed to find any such ship. Unfortunately I have not read all the article, but I also expect precise records of ship positions are no longer available, if they ever were, so it is likely it could not be concluded absolutely that no ship could possibly have been at the right place.

I was separately messaged by User talk:adm.tang about a different image, File:HMSLion besideHMSQueenMaryblowingup1916.jpg, because he was concerned that the description of the ships in the picture had the wrong order of ships. This image also was published in 'Fighting at Jutland' by Fawcett. I think it most unlikely Fawcett was personally responsible for taking the pictures, although of course he could have been responsible for faking them, if that is what they are. I do not know how common it was for ships to carry photographers permanently on duty, or if this was officers acting in their own capacity to what extent they would be able to leave their duty and start taking snaps in the middle of a battle. So from this perspective, it might be considered surprising that anyone was able to take any pictures of exploding ships. But of course, senior officers might have seen the benefit of photographing significant events if they happened to have the necessary equipment, even if this was not standard practice.

The authors of the book acted as editors and recount the stories of various survivors. Photography must have been much less common at this time in printed material, with drawings and illustrations being common. I can imagine they might have thought an existing photo faked to show an explosion was an entirely acceptable way to illustrate the descriptions, without needing to explain what they had done. I posted a long commentary on Adm.tang's talk page discussing the possible positioning of ships and why they might not have been in the expected order, but I have no definitive answer to his query. It might increase concern that more than one image in the same book is found to be anomalous. I seem to recollect that the book was vetted by the admiralty before publication, whatever bearing that might have on its accuracy. First Sea Lord Beatty was especially sensitive about anything published about the ships he had been commanding, which include those in the pictures. It might even be possible the admiralty officially faked the photos itself! Sandpiper (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)