Talk:Bradbury Building
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Southern California, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Southern California, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject California. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
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. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Los Angeles County, California may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Contents |
[edit] Photo(s) requested
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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] "Inside joke"?
From the article:
- The building was prominently used in the film Blade Runner (where it served as an inside joke, as the building shares its name with science fiction virtuoso Ray Bradbury)
At the risk of sounding like a dense oaf- what exactly is the joke? If it's simply that Blade Runner is a sci fi story and Ray Bradbury was a sci fi author... well, I've got half a mind to edit that out. Druff 03:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BladeRunner Bradbury Interior.jpg
Image:BladeRunner Bradbury Interior.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Banyon
It was the office building of TV detective Banyon. -17.232.124.153 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
