Talk:History of Ramsgate

message: A link to a site with a good number of views of old Ramsgate was deleted as commercial; I have reinstated it. The site did indeed offer things for sale; but the views are interesting and valid in their own right and add significantly to the historical aspect of the article, and the site is not pushily sales-oriented. Wikipedia mustn't be an advertising tool; but where a source has useful information to add rather than blatantly advertising with little content of value, it enhances Wikipedia. I have no connection with this site (or any other commercial site) and disapprove strongly with using Wikipedia for the main purpose of advertising product. (Added later): I have deleted a lot of links, and a lot of article text, which had commercial intent with no useful information. Pol098 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these postcards are quite old.  I wonder whether copyright has expired on them.  They'd make a nice addition to the article.  It'd be nice if someone knowledgeable about copyright could advise. pgr94 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a precedent: a postcard on Wikipedia that dates from 1936 stating that copyright expires after 70 years.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HM_Trawler_Agate-Postcard.jpg  However, I don't know whether it is important who scanned the image. pgr94 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the original artwork is old enough to be in the public domain it is OK to upload a scan or a photocopy (from any source) or a photograph you have taken yourself. A faithful photographic copy of a public domain 2D artwork such as a painting may always be uploaded to Commons, even if the photograph was taken by somebody else and even if no photographer's licence has been provided. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_casebook#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29  My reading of this is that it is ok to upload these images onto Wikipedia/Commons. pgr94 (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which explains why your calling for a "vote" is note a suitable way to resolve this, and why a general discussion is the right way. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 extended copyright forphotographs published prior to 1 August 1989, made by unknown photographers, to 70 years after the date the photograph was taken. At least one of the photographs on the Ramsgate page was taken in the 1950s, which means it will not be copyright free until 2020. If the photographer can be identified then copyright is 50 years, but no photographer's name is given so we have to assume 70 years. Even setting aside the technicalities of copyright, it is not right to publicise on Wikipedia a site which makes money from selling the images that it displays.  --Simple Bob (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What? "your calling for a vote is not suitable". I clearly said "could I ask for formal opinions", which is a discussion. It's useful to see if people's final opinions are to include or delete; I'm quite aware that the opinions expressed don't establish a binding commitment (in fact even formal votes don't), and that other valid considerations (particularly regarding copyright) may override anyway. Pol098, 16:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it's time to upload them then.  The artice will be significantly improved and I look forward to seeing it with the images. pgr94 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a better approach - if it is clear that copyright doesn't apply then simply upload. Use the  tag as with this image :File:Northamptonabingtonpark.jpg. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old postcards on commercial site 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Ramsgate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106105555/http://ramsgate-society.org.uk/about.htm to http://www.ramsgate-society.org.uk/about.htm
*Added  tag to https://www.thamesandhudson.com/vvgcontents.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified