Talk:Skylon (tower)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in London may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Should it not be mentioned that the conservative government were determined to get rid of the Skylon as it represented a labour success? I know this is political but it is what happened, rather then an opinion. oxyman42

Prove it with a quote or reference.GraemeLeggett 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article may need disambiguation: there is a Skylon Tower overlooking Niagara Falls.


It appears that old crown copyright and therefor PD images do exist:

eg

However the museum is claiming copyright on the scan.Geni 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

They can claim whatever they want, but a scan is not changing the image in any material way, and even if it did, copyright is contagious, the copyright is still owned by whoever owns the copyright. What makes you say that it has crown copyright?WolfKeeper 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, if the image is under crown copyright then it is not compatible with GFDL, so it wouldn't help anyway. If you can show the original image is PD, then we can grab it, whatever the website says.WolfKeeper 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
British Official Photograph taken 1951. I fail to see how a British Official Photograph could be anything other than crown copyright. Crown copyright expires after 50 years in the case of photos that is 50 years after it was produced.Geni 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it unfortunately. The 50 years goes from the introduction of the 1988 law, before that it seems to have been in perpetuity, and the crown copyright office claim that crown copyright is incompatible with GFDL or even reproduction on websites without payment. See Crown_copyright#United_Kingdom, particularly the last paragraph.WolfKeeper 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No, on second thoughts that's unpublished. Still digging.WolfKeeper 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We probably don't know when this picture was published. So we're probably screwed.WolfKeeper 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I dug up the 1911 law that was in force when the photograph was taken, and it gives 50 years copyright from when the negative was made, which would probably be OK,since they would have developed it fairly promptly.[1]. I then had a look at the 1988 law, but I couldn't seem to draw any conclusion as to whether it changed the situation, it wasn't particularly clear.WolfKeeper 00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Opinion appears to be that because it is a photo and it was taken before 1st of june 1957 the relivant term is date of creation plus 50 years. See this.Geni 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's do it.WolfKeeper 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)