Talk:Portsdown Hill

Hampshire Mid‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Untitled

The prominence figure of 3m is wildly wrong. Jrbray 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC) No one corrected it for 5 years, so prominence removed. Vicarage (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Pic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-old-george-inn-portsdown-hill-24816

Need to establish artist date of death though

©Geni 04:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. The copyright will will be for the reproduction and still current. The painters date of death would only matter if you took the images yourself. Nuttah (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia goes by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. We (or at least our american friends) do not recognise copyright on reproductions.©Geni 05:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait and see how this National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts plays out before assuming that is the case. Nuttah (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As and when they file a case in a US court I suppose their opinion might be considered by the americans. Untill that point I suspect they feel that the US declaration of independence covers such issues.©Geni 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case is already filed in the UK courts against User:Coetzee - not Wikipedia. The reason it has not been heard yet is the the Wikipedian is a US citizen and civil matters do not allow extradition. Looking at your page I'm guessing that will not apply here. Legal opinion is that the National Gallery will win. Much as in a number of libel cases and the recent superinjunction cases, UK courts are of the opinion that UK subjects are bound by UK law - regardless of where the media is hosted. Nuttah (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you have evidence of the case against Dcoetzee actualy being filed? That would be an new development. In any case I'm very aware of the surrounding legal issues having had dealings with copyright issues on wikipedia (including those around the Dcoetzee case) for some years. My expirince is that our american friends are quite capable of uploading such images.©Geni 18:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmm active in 1883.©Geni 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portsdown park source

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/heritage/notorious-portsmouth-housing-estate-which-lasted-only-20-years-1-6883930

©Geni (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]