Content deleted Content added
Jdforrester (talk | contribs) Meetup |
David Newton (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 352:
I notice that you put an extract from a visitor's pamphlet into the article about Hatfield House. If it is such an extract then the text would be copyrighted to whoever wrote the pamphlet. Did you get permission to include the text in the article? [[User:David Newton|David Newton]] 11:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
:The leaflet has no copyright attributed to it and is given away for free. Since no copyright is claimed the content would be suitable, would it not? [[User:Nickshanks|Nicholas]] 15:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::The fact that the leaflet is given away free makes no difference. Copyright subsists immediately an original work is recorded in a tangiable form, ie written down, recorded etc. You say that, "The leaflet has no copyright attributed to it …." I presume that means that there is no copyright symbol with a year of copyright on the leaflet. That is bad practice if it is true, but it still does not necessarily mean that the leaflet is in the public ___domain. Did you check with the people at Hatfield House to see what the situation is? If the leaflet is an anonymous work it will be under copyright for 70 years from creation. Somehow I doubt that they are still using a leaflet from the 1930s. [[User:David Newton|David Newton]] 07:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
== Biloxi ==
| |||