Author talk:Ardern Holt

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Copyright checking ( Fancy dresses described : or, What to wear at fancy balls)[edit]

I found this:

If it's an actual author, I can't find anything on them. If it's a puesdonym - Section 57 here can be reasonably applied, ( )

So is it reasonable to consider this one acceptable for local upload? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why local upload? And that Ardern Holt is a pseudonym? — Ineuw talk 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some points that might help provide a partial answer.
  1. I can't find a date of death for Ardern Holt. (Hence my Refdesk enquiry), The work is Published pre 1923 (so is PD in the US), but can't be uploaded to Commons because I can't be sure if the author(Assuming not a pusedonym) died before 1944.
  2. In respect of the name being a pusedonym, I tried searching for it as an exact match on the 1911 census, which didn't seemingly find an exact match.
  3. Additional note, a source listed in the refdesk thread indicates that Ardern Holt wrote a column in a magazine called "Queen" (which later merged with another to become the UK version of "Harpers Bazzar".) The sources say they were active from 1866 to 1916. If it's one person, assuming they started writing when around 20 (they may have started earlier or later given the start date), that would suggest them being 70 or so in 1916. On those calculations they would have been about 80 in 1926, meaning that they would be around 98 in 1944. Whilst it's not implausible for someone from the 1840's to be alive in 1944, I'm reasonably confident that seems unlikely, the actual death being sometime between 1916 and 1946 (when on the above they'd be 100)
  4. If the Ardern Holt is a byline (used by more than one staff writer), within reasonable bounds it might not be possible to find the exact 'Ardern Holt' concerned with the 1877 edition.
  5. The publisher is "Debenham and Freebody" (they later became the Debenhams chain in the UK), so given the 1877 version was published under their auspices. If they are regarded as the creator (the other's identity not known) then I'm not sure when the work expired.
  6. Later editions (Such as one from 1896) credit a Lillian Youg for the illustrations, The 1877 edition doesn't. I've not been able to find any dates for Lillian Young either.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very good analysis, but please be reasonable, there is such a thing overdoing it. Just load it up to the commons. — Ineuw talk 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Ineuw said. Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Schedule 2 indicates that under that legislation it would have been out of copyright in at the date of that Act (t set 50 years after publication), though the 1909 Act is the reference point for its contemporary legislation. The author should be considered an unidentified pseudonym, and you should add your research to the author talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Licence {{PD-anon-1923|1877}}billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Commons:File talk:Fancy dresses described, or, What to wear at fancy balls (1887).djvu
Can you advise on what to put in the Author: page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I put, based on the information I had Author:Ardern_Holt, and I'm copying this thread to the talk page there ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed in the reference desk thread are :

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Name: Ardern Holt
Title: Allibone's Critical Dictionary of English Literature: A Supplement
Source: Allibone's Critical Dictionary of English Literature: A Supplement. British and American authors. Two volumes. By John Foster Kirk. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1891. (Alli SUP)

Reference itself has nothing informative.

Newspaper references contemporary to the time are similarly uninformative. It should be noted that the name was often put inside double quotes which can be inferred that it was considered as a pseudonym at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]