This article is within the scope of WikiProject Herefordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Herefordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HerefordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HerefordshireTemplate:WikiProject HerefordshireHerefordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Quite take the point. I just don't know the copyright status. I took it from the Lost Heritage website, http://lh.matthewbeckett.com/index.html , and it clearly is old, doesn't belong to the website creator, and has no credit on that site. Thus, I think it's probably pretty safe, but I'm no copyright expert. What it does do is give a clear picture of what the court looked like, which the Victorian print, whilst very pretty, does not. As such, I prefer it. But I can't argue with the guy who gave us GA for Raglan Castle. KJP1 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, its a better picture for the article - my concern is purely on the copyright side of things. I remember this problem when I created the first version of the article - I couldn't find a good picture that wasn't potentially copyright... It's a challenge for photographs that might be around 1900+ in date. Where we don't have a photographer's name, it is quite plausible that they may have been taken (say) by a 20 year old, who could easily have lived to seventy, in which case the "lifetime + 70 years" of copyright protection won't run out until 2020+, depending on the exact date of the photo. With a photo with a firmer date (e.g. 1880s) we'd be on somewhat safer ground, but as you say, the website isn't giving an indication there. Hchc2009 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I shall set off to hunt for something older, with a date. Don't you sleep, or are you not in the UK? KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
