'Great Art' thread?

[Kid Galahad]

Jettisoned again? You gotta love this place....

 

[peachy]

Where did it go? Is it because of copywrite issues?

 

[DeathTrooper]

I was looking for it earlier. I had another photo to add.

 

[Kid Galahad]

Where did it go? Is it because of copywrite issues?

You tell me, be nice when a thread gets pulled for no apparent reason to get an inbox with the reasons, unless they just aren't culture vultures like ourselves?

 

[johnna]

warwick castle art is tremendous, i could look at it for days

 

[peachy]

You tell me, be nice when a thread gets pulled for no apparent reason to get an inbox with the reasons, unless they just aren't culture vultures like ourselves?

It'll to be with posting images I suppose. Shame but I think a bridges thread got pulled before anarl.

Sad world but I guess the powers at be have to follow the rules else they will be fined or whatever indictment gets handed out.

 

[greedminds]

warwick castle art is tremendous, i could look at it for days

a lesson in how not to do english heritage

 

[PinzaC55]

It'll to be with posting images I suppose. Shame but I think a bridges thread got pulled before anarl.

Sad world but I guess the powers at be have to follow the rules else they will be fined or whatever indictment gets handed out.

And yet there are music threads here with videos from Youtube ?

 

[Kid Galahad]

And yet there are music threads here with videos from Youtube ?

How can stuff that is 2,3,400 years old still be in copyright ffs?

 

[peachy]

How can stuff that is 2,3,400 years old still be in copyright ffs?

It was only a guess!

 

[greedminds]

How can stuff that is 2,3,400 years old still be in copyright ffs?

er, the photo of it perhaps ?

i don't think thats the issue btw, i haven't a clue tbh

 

[PinzaC55]

The laws on "intellectual property" are very complex but they mainly relate to photos and whether the photgrapher is still alive and/or whether anyone still has the negative or original print. I suppose that in the case of great works of art copyright would rest with the owning gallery or individual but is still pretty meaningless as they have been reproduced so many times

 

[Kid Galahad]

The laws on "intellectual property" are very complex but they mainly relate to photos and whether the photgrapher is still alive and/or whether anyone still has the negative or original print. I suppose that in the case of great works of art copyright would rest with the owning gallery or individual but is still pretty meaningless as they have been reproduced so many times

Like I said earlier, a bit of insight from the mod who pulled it would save a lot of guesswork and wasting the time of posters who contribute to such threads, is that too much to ask?

 

[Linus]

Like I said earlier, a bit of insight from the mod who pulled it would save a lot of guesswork and wasting the time of posters who contribute to such threads, is that too much to ask?

Agreed, nice to to have a bit of culture. It may have been the painting that included a nipple in the first? image iirc, could have set off the mods sophisticated nipple detector system.

 

[Kid Galahad]

Agreed, nice to to have a bit of culture. It may have been the painting that included a nipple in the first? image iirc, could have set off the mods sophisticated nipple detector system.

I'll bet if I posted a pic of the statue David with his wee todger out it would be fine but hoy up a Bottecelli bird showing her bits off and I'll be looking at a ban!

 

[jcrossan]

The missus just sold one of her paintings to some investment banker in London for $2,500 via Saachi online. Not bad..