Memorial Portrait Version and Approval Record | Evidence Checklist

Direct answer and scope

Source, master, approved, display, and export can be treated as separate version-status questions without requiring a particular number of versions or file set. For any role that applies, record the evidence state and the question that remains open. A source-file question asks what material the artist will use; an approval question asks which delivered portrait was accepted; a display or export question asks which later copy is intended for that use.

The Library of Congress guidance allows a commissioner to ask which source file and version the artist will use when multiple versions exist, without deciding image quality, authenticity, ownership, restoration potential, or print suitability. The record should therefore preserve the selection question rather than making the selection itself.

A completed approval label is not a copyright conclusion. The U.S. Copyright Office distinguishes ownership of a copy embodying a work from copyright ownership in the work. A source photograph, portrait file, print, or exported memorial copy can therefore be documented as an item or deliverable while creator, rights, and intended reproduction or display permissions remain separate written questions.

How to use the official evidence

Use the evidence record to ask what document, file state, or written response supports each label. For the source role, ask which version the artist will use. For the master role, ask which version is identified as having long-term value. For approved, display, and export roles, ask which deliverable or copy carries that status and what intended use is attached to it.

Personal-digital-records guidance recommends deciding which versions have long-term value, organizing files, using descriptive names, and documenting the folder structure. It does not prescribe a particular file format, resolution, color space, layer structure, naming convention, or number of versions for a portrait commission.

File naming and metadata can be treated as private preservation questions. One National Archives approach uses consistent alphanumeric names without spaces or punctuation, with hyphens or underscores as separators. That is an optional approach for a private archive, not a required filename for an artist. Basic metadata can describe who, what, where, and when, but the record should let the visitor decide which nonpublic details accompany preservation copies and which should not be displayed.

The evidence record should retain unknowns as unknowns. The supplied methodology states that output separates evidence states from unresolved contract, copyright, privacy, export, backup, QR, and continuity questions and does not convert an unanswered status into a positive conclusion. A vendor-specific answer remains unknown until a separate primary-evidence review supports it.

Decision framework

Start with identity of the version role, not with a quality judgment. Ask whether the record concerns source material, a master designation, an approval event, a display copy, or an export copy. Then identify the evidence attached to that role, such as a written deliverable description or a stated version designation. If no evidence supports the label, leave the status unresolved.

Next, separate the source and creator questions. A portrait commission should state the source material, the claimed creator, the deliverables, and the intended reproduction and display permissions in writing. Those fields organize the discussion; they do not decide originality, authorship, copyrightability, ownership, infringement, or whether a source photograph may be used.

Then make the private-metadata decision. The visitor may decide privately which descriptive information should accompany preservation copies and which should not be displayed. The record should not require entering names, relationships, dates, locations, descriptions, filenames, tags, or other memorial details.

Limits and what to verify next

No validated portrait artist, digital-memorial vendor, hosting platform, QR provider, domain operator, processor, product, or related service manifest is attached to this launch pack. Vendor-specific answers should therefore remain unknown unless a separate primary-evidence manifest passes review. This record does not name, compare, rank, recommend, or imply a capability of any provider.

Before relying on a version label, verify the supporting deliverable description, written approval record, intended-use statement, and any applicable permissions language with the relevant party. Keep those questions distinct from the evidence that a particular file or copy exists.

The record should not include a photograph, image, filename, free-text memorial information, vendor identity, account information, or other personal input. The validated tools are described as anonymous in-page organizers whose controlled selections reset locally and are not sent to the publisher; they do not turn unanswered questions into positive findings.

Evidence behind this page

Each point below is restricted to what the cited primary source supports. Administrative listing status is not a quality endorsement.