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.


On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Joly <> 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:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to