 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Untitled
editThe prominence figure of 3m is wildly wrong. Jrbray 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC) No one corrected it for 5 years, so prominence removed. Vicarage (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Possible Pic
edithttp://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-old-george-inn-portsdown-hill-24816
Need to establish artist date of death though
©Geni 04:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- No you don't. The copyright will will be for the reproduction and still current. The painters date of death would only matter if you took the images yourself. Nuttah (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- wikipedia goes by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. We (or at least our american friends) do not recognise copyright on reproductions.©Geni 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would wait and see how this National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts plays out before assuming that is the case. Nuttah (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- As and when they file a case in a US court I suppose their opinion might be considered by the americans. Untill that point I suspect they feel that the US declaration of independence covers such issues.©Geni 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The case is already filed in the UK courts against User:Coetzee - not Wikipedia. The reason it has not been heard yet is the the Wikipedian is a US citizen and civil matters do not allow extradition. Looking at your page I'm guessing that will not apply here. Legal opinion is that the National Gallery will win. Much as in a number of libel cases and the recent superinjunction cases, UK courts are of the opinion that UK subjects are bound by UK law - regardless of where the media is hosted. Nuttah (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh you have evidence of the case against Dcoetzee actualy being filed? That would be an new development. In any case I'm very aware of the surrounding legal issues having had dealings with copyright issues on wikipedia (including those around the Dcoetzee case) for some years. My expirince is that our american friends are quite capable of uploading such images.©Geni 18:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- The case is already filed in the UK courts against User:Coetzee - not Wikipedia. The reason it has not been heard yet is the the Wikipedian is a US citizen and civil matters do not allow extradition. Looking at your page I'm guessing that will not apply here. Legal opinion is that the National Gallery will win. Much as in a number of libel cases and the recent superinjunction cases, UK courts are of the opinion that UK subjects are bound by UK law - regardless of where the media is hosted. Nuttah (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- As and when they file a case in a US court I suppose their opinion might be considered by the americans. Untill that point I suspect they feel that the US declaration of independence covers such issues.©Geni 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would wait and see how this National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts plays out before assuming that is the case. Nuttah (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- wikipedia goes by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. We (or at least our american friends) do not recognise copyright on reproductions.©Geni 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
hmm active in 1883.©Geni 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)