Talk:Bradbury Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Southern California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Photo(s) requested

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in California may be able to help!

This article is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Requested photos.

"has about a half dozen 'fair use' images". ^BlankVerse 07:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Frustratingly, there are three pictures of the building on PDphoto.org (e.g. [http://www.pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=8107 this one), but non of them are licensed as public domain. From the details link on the PDphoto page, this would seem to be because of generic concerns over the use of photos of interiors of private buildings in the US. In this instance, it might not be so much of a problem, as I would have thought the copyright on the building would have expired by now. However there could be some other reason for the non-PD status and it is probably too much trouble to get the situation clarified. -- Solipsist 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So is the idea that any photo of the building is a derivative work? Given the building's age and the fact that the architect has been dead for over 100 years, it seems like a modern photo could not be considered a derivative work since the original design as "published" is in the public domain. Mike Dillon 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, AFIK that is essentially the point, but it primarily only affects building interiors and buildings which would not normally be visible from a public road. In the US (and some other terriories), there are specific exceptions for photographs of exteriors taken from a public street.

It would also be my guess that in the case of the Bradbury building, this shouldn't be a problem as the copyright should have expired in any case. I guess people are just used to there being copyright problems over photographs of building interiors. -- Solipsist 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are twelve images of this building from October 1960 in the HABS collection. It's a decent mix of exterior and interior shots, all black and white. Mike Dillon 15:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)