Talk:History of Ramsgate

Old postcards on commercial site

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have no problem with old postcards, but I have a huge problem with this commercial spam site which makes money selling old postcards. It has no place on Wikipedia. If anything it should be added to the spam blacklist and expunged forever. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You should also read WP:ELNEVER which talks about contributory copyright infringement by linking to sites which knowingly infringe copyright. While it is clear that many images on the site are likely copyright free due to their age, others may still be copyright as the original photographer could still be alive, or the work could still be copyright for the period following the photographers death. This uncertainty means that we should never allow links to this site. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

---

There are clearly different opinions. Previous contributions suggest that two people, besides myself (three), approve of this site, one saying "They'd make a nice addition to the article" and another suggesting that copyright would not be a problem, which seems to imply approval of the site. One person—very forceful, but one—opposes.

Could I ask for formal opinions, "Approve" or "disapprove" from anybody who cares to contribute, including those who've posted already and whose opinions I have assumed.

• I approve of inclusion of the particular postcard website mentioned, with lots of images of old Ramsgate, although it is commercial in nature. pol098

Re copyright: it is very unlikely that any of these images are restricted by copyright. Rather than a general discussion, I suggest that anyone who thinks that copyright might apply pick out the image deemed most dubious and say why it might be subject to copyright. Pol098 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Copyright is not a problem: the old Act applies: copyright in a photograph expires 50 years after first publication. There might be a case for including the clearly pre-1940 images in the article instead of linking. Could I ask for formal opinions, "Approve" or "disapprove" from anybody who cares to contribute (which doesn't constitute a binding vote). Pol098 (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Yes, that's a better approach - if it is clear that copyright doesn't apply then simply upload. Use the {{pd-us}} tag as with this image File:Northamptonabingtonpark.jpg. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)