Do you have any information/knowledge more specific? It's possible that a late-19th century work could still be copyrighted, depending on how long the author (architect) lived. cmadler (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this kind of fundamentalistic approach seems ridiculous, if not disruptive, to me. Many ancient buildings in Europe have been rebuilt during the nineteenth century (so often the wrong way, hélas) and, in some cases, architects were certainly involved. Does that mean that the work of those architects is copyrighteable? I very much doubt and imagine the most strict official defender of French copyrights openly laughing at the present case... BTW, what about the little house at right? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Archaeodontosaurus's comments, I understood (or misunderstood) that the upper level was a new construction in the 19th century (e.g., adding a second floor), not that it was a repair/reconstruction job. If it was some sort of repair or reconstruction, it's possible that the visible new original content was so minimal as to be irrelevant from a photo copyright position. cmadler (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The threshold for originality in copyright is high in France. I agree with Alvesgaspar's comment above. See my recent post on the VP/C. Yann (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
