Again you are jumping to assumptions, there was nothing I saw on the page when it was up to say it was their work, you all assumed it was, the only issue was copyright and again you are making a pariah out of this company without knowing the facts.
They may well have paid a Company to produce the website, as most do, oblivious to the fact they had used none copyright free material on it.
To their fortitude, they rapidly reacted when the facts were put before them and withdrew the site until they can rectify the problem.
To be fair I think the issue here is that this company, whoever they may be, have made a big thing of saying how good they are and how much better their work is than every one else without having anything of their own to show for it, I fact worse than that they have used other people’s work passing it off as their own. Or at least they have let people assume its their work. I agree about people jumping to conclusions but it would be much better to have used pictures of their own work, if indeed they have actually done some. Surely with 140 years of experience between them they have something to show for it???
Sorry but in recent years there has been to many of these company’s appear, jumping on the restoration band wagon with not expertise and no qualifications and shout loud about it to try and get the work.
Those than can do this sort of work quietly get on with it and let the work speak for itself.
Sign In
