And likewise, RightAsRain, you are also not exactly right ...

The problem lies with the source of the photo ... this being taken from Wikipedia makes it a little suspect, if not a matter of at least requiring a little more digging. They do not cite the source of the photo used, which is troubling. We KNOW that the Prado owns the painting. It is the sourece of the photo that is problematic. "No attribution, no use" is still the safest approach. This failure to perform "due diligence" is one of hte reasons that Wikipedia is professionally shunned.

While I applaud the efforts of Wikipedia in general, I tell my patrons that Wikipedia is for professional use only ... just because of these kind of "got yous" that are in there.

Please DO take the time to read Peter Hirtle's pages .. .those are legitimate, researched, and thoroughly vetted points of reference, unlike the stiil all-too-much hearsay nature of the Wikipedia entries. As I said earlier, not knowing the nature and source of the photo in question would automatically make it suspect in my eyes and I would have discouraged it's use when there were other sources for the image readily availble for legal use elsewhere.