0

I found a photograph supplied by a museum that I want to include in a document, but how do I write a bib entry for it?

https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/BK-AM-61

The information I'd like to include is best summarized by:

@misc{sackbut,
  title          = {Sackbut in {G}},

  % The creator, not the photographer or curator
  author         = {Pierre Colbert},
  author+an:role = {1="Musical Instrument Maker"},
  date           = {1593},

  % Make it clear we are referencing the object, not the photograph
  entrysubtype   = {Sculpture}, 

  % What museum are we talking about?
  location       = {Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam},

  % Not applicable here, but lots of museum pieces are part of collections
  collection     = {City of Amsterdam}, 

  % CC0 not necessary, but some museums release photos under
  % licenses that require a link (e.g. CC-BY-SA 4.0)
  license        = {CC0 \url{https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en}},

  % Static link
  url            = {http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.329305},
  urldate        = {2023}
}

I'm planning to caption this with a citation:

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sackbut.jpg}
\caption{\cite{sackbut} \citetitle{sackbut}}
\end{figure}

However, if I generate my bibliography with APA styles:

\usepackage[citestyle=authoryear, bibstyle=apa]{biblatex}

then the bibliography is missing most of that information:

Colbert, P. (Musical instrument maker). (1593). Sackbut in G [Sculpture]. Retrieved 2023, from http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.329305

Of course location, collection and license aren't biblatex keys that are used in @misc. Is there an appropriate biblatex type for museum objects? If not, is there a way to create your own generator?


I also tried putting must of this information into notes, but that doesn't look great, and it's still missing the publisher/collection:

@misc{sackbut,
  title          = {Sackbut in {G}},
  author         = {Pierre Colbert},
  author+an:role = {1="Musical Instrument Maker"},
  date           = {1593},
  entrysubtype   = {Sculpture}, 
  publisher      = {Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Collection: City of Amsterdam},
  note           = {CC0 \url{https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en}},
  url            = {http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.329305},
  urldate        = {2023}
}

Colbert, P. (Musical Instrument Maker). (1593). Sackbut in G [Sculpture; CC0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en]. Retrieved 2023, from http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.329305

4
  • 3
    You can create a new entry type, see for example tex.stackexchange.com/questions/175776/…. However, the bibliography may not be the best place for such sources, because it deviates a lot from the information that is present for 'normal' publications. Maybe a normal footnote or something like tex.stackexchange.com/questions/236605/… would be more appropriate.
    – Marijn
    Dec 17, 2023 at 10:09
  • I love that new-entry-type link. Thanks.
    – Stewart
    Dec 17, 2023 at 10:15
  • @Stewart If you look at some publications by museums such as the MET, this info is normally part of the figure, reserving the citations for published work about the object. Example: books.google.com.qa/…
    – yannisl
    Dec 17, 2023 at 15:52
  • @YiannisLazarides That might or might not be appropriate in other kinds of publication, where the sculpture, say, isn't the main focus of discussion. Also, that makes it impossible to use a standard database for managing this kind of information about sources. Even if that's the correct style, it would be nice to have a \fullcite option do the right thing (with the possibility of excluding from the bibliography). OP: I'm not sure it makes sense to cite the sculpture rather than the image, however. (Unless you go to look at the sculpture directly, of course.)
    – cfr
    Dec 18, 2023 at 5:23

0

Browse other questions tagged .