"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
It is impossible to say. The image you posted came from a publication (it appears to have the moire effect), so unless you know the publication and its date, then I do not see how anyone can know if that particular image is in the public domain.
The moire effect. Blimey, I had to look that one up. Thanks for the info.
No details that I can see at armchairgeneral. But there is hope:
I need a good quality shot of a Mk I or II Female, showing the sponson as a contrast to the Male. Unfortunately, I haven't found an original that's good enough, and the shots of Flying Scotsman at Bovi are a problem because the camo scheme does exactly what it's supposed to - breaks up the outline so it's hard to make it out. And in the new layout at Bov it's impossible to get a good shot of the starboard side, because it's too close to the wall. I've had a look at my own shots, and there's nothing good enough.
However, there is a perfect shot of Flying Scotsman, in the previous layout, amongst those taken by Knut Erik Hagen and posted in the article on the Mks I - III. I don't know if he still visits Landships, but I'll try to contact him and ask if he'll give permission.
I've also just realised that not only is Mother male, but Flying Scotsman is female.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Unless your project is for personal financial gain it's likely you can use the image under fair use provisions of most copyright legislation.
Since the image was taken during WW1 and I suspect in France - check out the respirator clipped to the officer's belt - I'd think any copyright
has expired. It's more than likely the image was an official photograph since it would be unlikely a private individual would be permitted
to legally photograph two Mark IV tanks on an operational base. The official images from WW1 are all in the public domain.
The content of Landships II is all creative commons - so long as you show attribution of an image you may do with it what you will. So far I haven't had anyone
complain about their images being in the creative commons - I guess if they did I would remove the images.
I'd try the IWM - there are some good images of the Mark II Female "A Perfect Lady" before Arras in their image collection - and these are in the public domain.
Regards,
Charlie
-- Edited by CharlieC on Wednesday 10th of February 2016 10:17:21 AM
-- Edited by CharlieC on Wednesday 10th of February 2016 10:20:09 AM
Ta, Charlie. I've bagged a side-on of a male and a female, very similar angles. Knut's would be the icing on the cake, but these are tickety-boo.
Thanks to all for assistance.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
This image was taken in France during the Royal visit to B Battalion on 4 July 1917. See page 66 of Ian Verrinder's "Tank Action in the Great War". I think the photos in the IWM collection. But the photo's useless if you really want a pic of a Mark I or II - these tanks are Mark IVs.
I've also just realised that not only is Mother male, but Flying Scotsman is female.
Flying Scotsman is not Female. It was built as a Male, number 785. This can be seen from the 6 pdr ammunition stowage inside the hull. It has been fitted with a Female sponson, but that doesn't make it a Female.
This image was taken in France during the Royal visit to B Battalion on 4 July 1917. See page 66 of Ian Verrinder's "Tank Action in the Great War". I think the photos in the IWM collection. But the photo's useless if you really want a pic of a Mark I or II - these tanks are Mark IVs.
Gwyn
Well, perhaps I haven't explained properly. Ideally, I wanted a Male and Female Mk I or II, to contrast the sponsons. But because of the camo, period photos (and Flying Scotsman) aren't as clear as I would like. So I was going to use the photo of the Mk IVs (which I do recognise) because it's nice and clear and the two machines are conveniently juxtaposed, plus the best Mk I or II Female I could find. I was working on the theory that it would be easier for the reader's brain to interpret the camouflaged female sponson when it's already got something to go on. I've now found the Mk IV shot in the IWM collection, so that should be OK. Thank you, Gwyn.
I am also grateful for the info about Flying Scotsman, although I think that if someone removed my male features and replaced them with those of a female then the change would be more than merely notional. The question of whether Flying Scotsman is now Male, Female, or Hermaphrodite is the sort of discussion that would keep Wikipedia busy for a long time.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Going back to tanks ... for me the descriptors male, female and hermaphrodite are too simplistic. We should ask ourselves whether a tank has a Male or Female hull, and whether it has Male or Female sponsons, or one sponson of each kind. Flying Dutchman has a Male hull. Today it has one Female sponson, but when built it had two Male sponsons. When we look at the tank we see a Male hull (converted to supply tank configuration with part of the ammo stowage cut out and a cab roof fitted) and one Female sponson. We don't see a Mark II Hermaphrodite, because they never existed.
Going back to tanks ... for me the descriptors male, female and hermaphrodite are too simplistic. We should ask ourselves whether a tank has a Male or Female hull, and whether it has Male or Female sponsons, or one sponson of each kind. Flying Dutchman has a Male hull. Today it has one Female sponson, but when built it had two Male sponsons. When we look at the tank we see a Male hull (converted to supply tank configuration with part of the ammo stowage cut out and a cab roof fitted) and one Female sponson. We don't see a Mark II Hermaphrodite, because they never existed.
Gwyn
Quite so. Just because something gives "Wikipedians" a reason to live doesn't mean it has any relevance to the real world. As I intend to point out, the terms had only a limited significance. Once they start swapping sponsons around, it's the sponson that matters. So Flying Scotsman is a male tank with a female sponson, and a bit of an aberration. By the time we get to the Mk V Hermaphrodite, what happens then? Male sponson + female sponson = hermaphrodite tank? But what was the mix of ammunition storage racks? It could be that there was also a Mk V Hermaphrodite hull.
I've had a look at D. Fletcher's "Chat" on the Mk II, and he kind of explains about the female sponson.
I don't know how the Dutchman got in there . . .
And @ Alpha Six: Ta.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
Hermaphrodites don't have a mix of ammunition stowage racks so there's no such thing as a Hermaphrodite hull. They either have a Male hull or a Female one, with one Male sponson and one Female sponson. Take a look at the photos of the (now lost?) Mark V Hermaphrodites in Lugansk when they were being restored. One had a Male serial number and had a Male hull. The other had a Female serial number and had a Female hull.
Likewise, Mark IV Tenders either have Male hulls or Female hulls.
