Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not particularly care which one is correct, but it would be great to have consistent practice.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation
of
the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
JP
The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also have replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007 conservation closure period when the fire took place.
Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.
Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both. In the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so that visitors can view the hull (for example).
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe