Talk:Colkirk
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Photos
[edit]There are some photos at:
They Some look to be PD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there are some photos. No, they do not look to be PD. That said, if anyone cares to approach the website owner and, through them, the authors of the photographs (or their estate) and ask, they might well get permission to use them. —ClickRick (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I apologise for my carelessness in wording my grandparent quote: I should have said some look to be PD. Purely mechanical scans of sufficiently old photos are PD under US law, and are presumed to be PD under British law. Of course this must be verified, and note that only some of the photos are asserted to be sufficiently old. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Sufficiently old" is very old under UK law. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has the summary, but I doubt that it will be more than 70 years after the death of the author in many cases. Not that the article would need many, of course, so it'd be worth trying to find out. ClickRick (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- According to the Intellectual Property Office, copyright has expired on all photographs taken before 1945, unless a copyright extension was obtained, which I understand happens only for commercially important sound recordings. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I apologise for my carelessness in wording my grandparent quote: I should have said some look to be PD. Purely mechanical scans of sufficiently old photos are PD under US law, and are presumed to be PD under British law. Of course this must be verified, and note that only some of the photos are asserted to be sufficiently old. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"History" section
[edit]Given that this is mostly from a presentation from someone called Paul Routledge, whose credentials are unknown, and that no sources are cited for the information he presents, this should definitely be removed in its current form, but I'm tempted to see whether it could be added to wikisource. Thoughts? —ClickRick (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this looks as if it might count as a personal essay, but there's no urgency about this. I think it would be a Good Thing if we were to contact some people from Colkirk: we could ask about the status of the photos from the Colkirk Remembered site (i.e., establish when they were taken), and we could ask about the accuracy of the history. For such a small locality, I think that an email or two should be sufficient sourcing. I'll ask: is there anything else I should ask? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is so much on the Colkirk website which looks "interesting" but sadly lacks sources I think all you can do is ask about "everything", and hope that you end up talking to someone who can provide the requisite sources such that it can be included in the article. If you point them at WP:UKCITIES for useful ideas but stress WP's policies then you might well get what we want. Good luck! —ClickRick (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)