Talk:Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet

message: This is an interesting and well-referenced article which is significantly improved from the last version I read. In terms of further improvement it would be interesting to include more illustration, in particular of his chemical works, and perhaps of one of the buildings &c that he donated. Under 'Politics', there seems an imbalance between the election records and what Brunner actually did in parliament; the successful elections after the first could probably be summarised and more details on his parliamentary record would be useful. The section 'Personal life' seems to include material on honours which might be better in a separate section. A separate section on his legacy might be useful. The separation of the references into notes and bibliography has had the unfortunate appearance that only two sources were used; the bibliography should probably be extended to contain all major sources. 
One minor point: the copyright information on the etching (in the infobox) seems to be lacking the artist; just the raw date isn't helpful as the copyright expiry is based on the date of death of the artist.
Hope this is helpful in continuing to develop this article. Espresso Addict 08:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments.  The source did not give the name of the artist of the image in the infobox (which on second looking seems to be a drawing rather than an etching).  It seems to have been done from life and as it is dated 1885 I assumed the artist would be dead for over 70 years by now (is that safe?). Peter I. Vardy 09:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the hyper-cautious assumptions that the artist was only c.20 when the drawing was made and lived to be c.80, it could conceivably still be in copyright. Also if it was a photograph rather than a scan of the artwork, that could also be problematic depending on the country in which the photograph was taken. However, if the source was published by a reputable publisher and didn't give copyright information, it's very likely that it was already out of copyright in the country of publication on that date of publication, and that no separate copyright was claimed on the photograph, so it's probably fine. In the worst case, fair use would reasonably apply to an image of someone who has been dead for such a long period, though that would need a detailed fair-use rationale to be added to the image upload page. Espresso Addict 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen somewhere on the British Library web site that copyright expires 100 years after publication or 70 years after the death of the creator of the work, but I can't find it right now.  Certainly you pay no copyright fee for documents over 100 years old -  Salinae 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See also  as it's a photo. Salinae 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't heard the 100 years rule (and fear it might just apply to material published in the US); however, for it to apply, we'd need to know the original publication date of the original artwork -- it might have been commissioned by Brunner and kept privately by the family for any number of years. The date of the photograph is presumably c.1970 when the source was published, and thus would still presumably be in copyright. Espresso Addict 12:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some review comments