File talk:1929 William Bennett, Labour.jpg

w:en:James Lafayette (1853-1923) died over 90 years ago. This would seem to make the photograph eligible for a {{PD-old-70}} licence. If not, why not? Mike Hayes (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I'm not a legal expert on copyright or an expert on wikipedia policies. Before I uploaded the file to here, I did consider if and how it should be used. The original copyright holder was Lafayette Ltd and I gather that they are considered as the author, not the individual who may have originally given his name to the company. The current copyright holder has made this file available for use on wikipedia under the creative commons licence. I hope you are satisfied with this explanation. I have therefore reverted your edit. Graemp (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette Ltd existed from 1898-1923. The company was dissolved when Lafayette died. It is therefore out of copyright. Mike Hayes (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reference:lafayette.org[reply]

Your link does not say the company was dissolved in 1923 but continued trading until 1952 which is confirmed by the NPG. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp08092/lafayette-lafayette-ltd?role=art Graemp (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A for-hire copyright work belonging to a company, is out of copyright 70 years from the time of its publication. Mike Hayes (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I think you asked a very relevant question at the start of this discussion, which I have done my best to answer in good faith. I have also supplied further information to help work through this difficulty. I don't think that your for-hire point is relevant to the Lafayette Ltd discussion. I have done my best since first creating my wikipedia account in 2007 to work with other editors and feel that I can still do this with you. Graemp (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]