Talk:Brahmo Samaj/Merger and Copyright issues

Merger
Section for discussion on "merger" with other pages

Merge request

 * I agree - I've made a few edits and am suggesting that the pages on Bengal Renaissance and Brahmo Samaj be merged since it is impossible to talk about one with the other, which might help in this respect. -Classicfilms 17:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See discussion here. -Classicfilms 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response
Not necessarily, Brahmo Samaj and Bengal Renaissance are different social movements, although they occasionally overlap. Religious revival in Hinduism through Ramakrishna Mission, or through Christian learning in Bengal as well as ushering a spirit of intellectual enquiry and flowering of architecture and literature may not be necessarily linked to the Brahmo Samaj, but they constitute part of the Bengal Renaissance. It is best that they remain separate articles. LordGulliverofGalben


 * See response here. -Classicfilms 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger Request with Brahmo
Dear Mr.Barlow. I formally object to merger of these 2 pages. I have copied a few of my detailed specific objections to your talkpage as well as SlRubenstein's reserving the right to put forward more later. Incidentally it appears that SlRubenstein did not suggest any merger - but was using a certain (temporary) caution on Brahmo to prove some other point to you. The user who did initially suggest the merger on Talk:Brahmo ie. Sniperz11 is now an enthusiastic (and independent) editor of Brahmo. You may examine the harmonious way the conflict between Brahmos and BrahMos articles has been resolved between Users Sniperz11 and Ronosen. I foresee that merger of these 2 articles under consideration articles is difficult and may generate edit wars. Once botharticles are up to WP:CITE and WP:V and WP:RS etc only then could merger be considered. Otherwise both articles ought to be deleted in accordance with WP.Yvantanguy (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear people, As regular contributor to Brahmo article i too must record dissatisfaction with the merger proposal. If the stated objective of 'Brahmo' article is to be Neutral Point of View then where is the question of "POV Fork" arising from? 'Brahmo' article flows from premise that 'whereas all Brahmos are classifiable as Brahmo Samajis but all Brahmo Samajis are not Brahmos'. This is true fact of law and there are several citeable authorities on the point. Disagreeing with this settled position will result in legal confusion and absurdities. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear People. In addition to what i have submitted above, please record my objection to participation in a "Hindu" project page like this one. Brahmo religionist are never Hindu : it is an oxy-moron like "Hindu Muslim", so we cannot participate in such articles like "Brahmo Samaj". 69.50.160.154 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that this is a Hindu project is simply becuase it is connected to the history of Hinduism. The "true fact of law" you refer to can be expressed on this page, because, as I am not the first editor to point out, "The Brahmo Samaj lacks info about the Brahmo philosophy, while this page lacks info about Brahmo Samaj history" (see comment by Sniperz11 on the Brahmo page). It is a question of improving clarity, comprehensivity and coherence, not creating factionalism. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr.Paul. The comments of Sniperz11 on Brahmo page were made on 01:24 UTC 21-March-2008. If you see the Brahmo page then at 01:36 UTC the same day the Brahmo page was embryonic - as Sniperz11 stated it even lacked a History - which is now not the case - in fact the History section at "Brahmo" is now coherent, linear, and as detailed as Brahmo Samaj's and is beginning to be backed with reliable alternate citations (unlike "Brahmo Samaj" which relies on Sivanath Sastri almost exclusively). FYI the internal test we use for NPOV is for (say) comments on Unitarians to cite a primary Unitarian source, likewise for Sadharan Samaj comments a primary Sadharan source like Sivanath's History. This avoids edit wars and POV charges. The History section at Brahmo has barely begun, we are proceeding sequentially, we are now primarily at the Adi Samaj stage, by the time we work upto Sadharan Samaj the NPOV issues / doubts will be dispelled. Our team includes members from both these Samajes. We are also in constant touch with the Nav Bidhanis and Prarthana Samaj clergy / laity. You will also find that the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj article is merely 2 lines long and is sorely neglected. Once "Brahmo" is fully ready with all references and citations, We would be first to suggest its merger. Doing it now will be inequitable since IMHO Unequals (ie. an old developed page like BS and new developing one like B) are being treated Equally. There is another aspect from Sniperz11's comment, at that time he was under the impression that Brahmos and Brahmo Samajis are inter-changeable. The aspect was clarified to him (see Talk:Brahmo) and he seems convinced and is collaborating with us. Lastly, we are not very expert with WP and its rules, we are learning, Slrubenstein for eg. has taught us alot. Please dont "bite the newbie" but help us, as it is this merger issue has set us back a whole day. Yvantanguy (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not bitten anyone. I can't really follow alot of what you are saying here. NPOV means that scholarly sources should be preferred, not religious sources as such. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Paul, Can we take a pause? For a week? I am suffering from information overload on WP policies and need to digest them thoroughly. User:Sniperz11 has also made suggestions at Talk:Brahmo which I can understand much easier than what you say - perhaps it is a cultural issue (am I allowed to say this at WP?) but he implies we should dumb down Brahmo to a 6 year old's level and think of the readers plight. He also suggestd that sections of Brahmo itself can be combined to better effect. Since he does not seem to have any religious themes in his reportoire, I would tend to listen to him first and get the act together. Yvantanguy (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe... I was surprised at how much of what I've said is doing the rounds here. If you read the comments correctly i never said dumb down. The point i was trying to make is that the prose HAS to be simple enough that most readers, who may never even have heard of Bengal, let alone Brahmo Samaj, must be able to understand and grasp what is being said. In other words, assume that the reader knows nothing, is a six year old, and write the article accordingly, so that he may understand most of it. This certainly does not mean dumbing down the page, which I would most vehemently oppose. In addition, most readers are not Brahmo or Brahmo Samajis, which means that many concepts and events which are well known to the above will not be known, like Court judgements, books published, doctrines, etc. these will have to be explained clearly. The point about merging sections was coz a lot of the sections about beliefs seem to be similar, and could be combined to make it more readable and accurate, taking the larger picture into account. Hope that cleared things up.  Sniperz 11  @CS 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and P.S., I dont see why Brahmo cant be merged here, as a section of the article, especially since Brahmos are a group under the Brahmo Samaj itself. This difference can be clearly and easily explained. Another thing, please add the points about the Adi and Sadharan Samajs to the article page... thanks.  Sniperz 11 @CS 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am surprised about the comment above on the Hindu project tag in the Brahmo Samaj page. Yes, most followers of the Brahmo Samaj do not consider themselves to be Hindus. That is fine but Wikipedia is not meant for any specific religion or group. Anybody can use it. What happens if somebody puts the Hindu project tag on the Brahmo page? You will remove it? If yes, then go ahead and do it here also citing your objections. But, I have two questions: (1) Rabindranath Tagore considered himself to be a Brahmo and a Hindu. Would you accept that he was Brahmo? (2) Do you consider Navabidhan Samaj to be a part of Brahmo Samaj or a separate religion again? It is a good effort that some people have taken to revamp information about the Brahmo Samaj. However, it would be helpful if these points are clarified. Whatever the views go ahead, anyway. - 59.93.196.244 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Friend. I have just been reading this discussion page and came across your pertinent comment which was overlooked in the hurly burly. Rabindranath is a Brahmo, he is son of Devendranath. Rabindranath is author of national anthem of both countries of India (now) and Bangladesh (now) and was a great Indian (Hindu). About Navabidhan Sabha I cannot say too much. In 12 brief years Mr.Sen caused 2 splits in Brahmoism, yes, some of the old bitterness against him is fading away, but Navabidhan (New Dispensation) at the end was not a Brahmo stream but flowed into the sea of Jesus Christ and mystical Arya practices. The role of Mr. Keshub Chunder Sen in Brahmoism's growth is matter of record. So is the fact that his organisations never had a Trust Deed or democratic Charter. But these are old matters which are better left to specialists to delve into rather than placing them in encyclopedias. 122.163.151.152 (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is evident that recent edits are the bised views of the Sadharan Samaj, with minor modifications. Sadharan Samaj guys have suddenly woken up to the possibilities of Wikipedia as propaganda platform. Unfortunately, they are not only adding their views but also deleting well referenced material not palatable to them - see Prarthana Samaj. This is nothing short of intellectual hooliganism. I wonder to what extent other Wikipedians should allow this. - 59.93.245.238 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir, I am mildly offended that you consider my edits to be "biased" or of "Sadharan Samaj" or "intellectual hooliganism". This is absolutely not true. Which is the "referenced work" which has been deleted? Actually, nothing has been deleted, whatever was there on this page on Feb.18.2008 is still here. Material has been added to this article without deleting. Yes these additions also include citations from Sadharan Historians like Sivanath Sastri and Hem Chandra Sarkar, if you have better sources kindly cite them (preferably on this discussion page in advance). Finally about my recent Prarthana Samaj edits. I have higlighted there (in bold) under my WP user name that the source of certain statements is dubious - namely the work "B. N. Luniya, "Rajendra Suri: A Reformer and Revivalist". Please note that I did not delete or vandalise anything the Prarthana Samaj article, I only highlighted a dubious source and made the requisite adjustments. Nobody has reverted my edits at Prarthana Samaj as yet,and I am fully prepared to debate it there at the talk page. Yvantanguy (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT AND MEDIA ISSUES
Section for discussion on Copyright and other media issues / controversies.

Copyright queries about Images hosted on this page
There are 2 images on this page. One of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the other of Keshav Chunder Sen. Both images are hosted at Wiki Commons from where I find claims that both are photographs of 2D works of art. However, the source, age of work, artist and location of the original art works which have been photographed are not clearly apparent from Wiki Commons. The Ram Mohun Roy image is acknowledged to be copyright and unlicenced but with a USA fair use claim for article "Raja Ram Mohun Roy". No such fair use claim is made for usage in "Brahmo Samaj". In the case of Keshav Sen's image it is claimed that image is out of Copyright because the subject (Keshav) expired 120 years ago and copyright expires 70 years after his death. The uploader seems to be confused between creation of the artwork and death of the subject. It is not clear to me if it is a self-portrait. There is no fair use claim for this image. Accordingly I query if "COM:PDART" is violated in case of Keshav's image which also seems to be lifted from Banglapedia. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Country-specific_rules Also, the Indian / Bangladesh Copyright laws cited in Wiki Commons for these images are explicitly for photographs and COM:PDART has nothing on India/Bangladesh specifically. So my issue is, "Is it appropriate to use either of these images in Brahmo Samaj article? Yvantanguy (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you are being a little disingenuous. There are numerous out-of-copyright images of Roy, who was regularly drawn and painted, so it is clear that he had no problem with being depicted. The Roy portrait appears to be a copy of a work contemorary with the subject, which would certainly be out of copyright. The image of Sen is obviously a photograph, so it is not a "self portrait". Since it was clearly taken when he was a young man, it cannot reasonably be believed to be still copyrighted. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Paul, thanks for educating me. I dont understand disingenious - is it like Sophism? I agree that Roy had no issue with being painted. I would certainly dispute (subject to reasonable evidence) that he would allow his portrait to be displayed at a site of common orderly assemblage or worship. As I had stated the Wiki Commons image tag for Roy is explicit that the work is not only very much under copyright but also unlicenced. The image of Sen as you say is obviously (and admittedly) a photograph - of a 2D work of art. The original 2D art work is claimed to be in the public domain because "life of author + 70 years" is expired. I have no proof that the creator of the "work of art" expired more than  70 years ago. For instance a 10 year old could have painted that portrait in 1860 and lived till the age of 90 passing away in 1940 which leaves copyright till 2010. Or the work of art which was photographed could have been painted in 1966 to commemorate the First Schism - like the Sistine Chapel was painted to depict Adam(?). I also find some subtle deviations between Keshub's photo uploaded to this page and the 30 paise postage stamp issued by Dept of Posts - Government of India ca. 1980 which IMHO is more likely to be from an authentic source. How are these matters decided at WP - by consensus? Yvantanguy (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The deviations between the Sen image and the postage stamp are gross.The photograph at Wiki Commons Media is obviously doctored from the original source image used by GoI Postal Department in their website URL (without html) indianpost DOT com/images/0965.jpg to depict at Wiki Commons, and many other sites, a "younger" and "whiter" Sen in the identical pose in a manipulated monochrome photograph image obviously originating from some history or religious book. Note the "baggy" eyes and wrinkles around the neck in the postage stamp and the skin tone. Keshub Sen like Ram Mohan Roy was "nut brown" in real life. The image of Sen linked to on Brahmo Samaj article is quite obviously not a "faithful reproduction" of the source artwork. Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the India Postal Ministry website is http://indiapost.gov.in. The website you cited is a private website dedicated to Indian philately. The image at the private site, however, corresponds to the stamp from other independent (non-interested) sources (Baggy eyes et.al). From the gov.in site "Conditions for reproduction of Stamp Images: Re-production of stamps is allowed for illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article relating wholly on postage stamps  which   may appear in any magazine, newspaper or publication of a general character. Such reproduction should however, be only in black. If stamps are to be   produced in  colour for publicity   purposes, prior permission of the Director General of Posts  must be obtained. To avoid similarity with the postage, such  reproduction must  be distinctively in smaller or larger sizes than the actual stamp and must be  without perforation on the edges. Further, across bar will also be placed on one- corner of the stamp, obliterating the denomination. It must be noted that reproduction of the stamp in colour of the actual size of the stamp with perforation of the edges may be deemed to be taken as production of the actual stamp"." Yvantanguy (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So it is also possible that the impugned "photograph" of Keshob is a photographic (like Mr.Paul Barlow sez and not created by Mr.Sen himself) non-faithful reproduction on black and white photo stock from the postage stamp which qualifies as "2D work of art" but has reproduction right from its copyright holder which doesnot extend to this article. As nobody here seems interested in defending the image, perhaps deleting the image from this article whilst leaving it on Keshob's bio-page should unearth the reality = or the copyrighted book it was extracted from. Bikash. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all very silly, and is obviously part of an attempt to remove images based on sonme anti-image ideology, while manufacturing the claim that the picture has been distorted in some way. That's what I mean by "disingenuous". Take it to the image talk page. The idea that a postage stamp, which is subject to creative design, is somehow more authentic than an actual photograph is absurd. The image on the stamp is clearly taken from a print copied from the photopraph, probably a a lithograph. The importance given US copyright laws lies in the fact that the wikipedia Servers are based in the USA. It has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Paul Barlow. I opine that you make too many generalisations and everything is as "obvious" to yourself as it is to myself or my brother. The Wiki Image Link for this impugned image states explicitly "Licencing: This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The original image comprising the work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:... " It "obviously" denotes that the image link deleted by me is that of a photograph OF an original 2D art work and NOT that of Keshob directly. The appropriate convention COM:PDART was also referred previously. The original uploader (User:Rajibg) of the Image has previously contributed to the Brahmo Samaj and similar articles, let us see what he or others think too on the issue and bring out the source of the said image (which should be trivial) or make out a case for "Fair Use" as in RamMohan's Image case which we are not now questioning. Your statement that there is an "anti-image ideology" is preposterous and unsubtantiated with no basis. I am not sure what point User:Slrubenstein was conveying to you, but I and my brothers are not rigid or dogmatic on such matters. Concerning your claim to US Copyright alone extending due to server location, I say that if the impugned Image of Keshob is extracted from a work with copyright subsisting in India / Indian - such as book, stamp, recent art work, India's laws would apply equally / better under certain Conventions which you are doubtless aware of. About taking this to the Image talk page, as it only concerns the "source" and "provenance" of this particular image or its artwork, I opine that I am on the right Talk:Page for preliminary discussion by domain specialists. It is open to you to take this discussion to any relevant page of your choice. Kindly leave a note here for me though. Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Preposterous? Now you are simply being unbelievable. There was a statement placed on the Brahmo page that no images were allowed for religious reasons, and now, out of the blue, you suddenly start to question the copyright of two images which have been here unquestioned by anyone for years. I don't think that anyone can seriously believe that that's a coincidence. Paul B (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr.Barlow. As per our earlier discussion at Brahmo, let us confine the discussion to THIS article Brahmo Samaj and not "chase each other about WP". As I recall the statement you refer to was placed by me on the Brahmo article relying on "Trust Principles of 1830", I stand by the same but do not wish to aggressively pursue at present. No such statement was placed on this article, and I do not recall ever editing the Brahmo Samaj article. Do you not find it curious that the Brahmo Samaj article does not refer to such a major document like the Trust Deed of 1830 or contain its principles? Neither are the 1850 Brahma Dharma "beej" principles on this page. Such issues are surely central to the "merger" you have proposed? If you wish to discuss alleged "anti-image" ideologies" I suggest you do so at Talk:Brahmo and we can resolve the issue there where it originated. You may request "domain experts" on Brahmoism to assist you if you are not yourself an expert. Alternatively I can request Brother User:Ronosen to post an appeal at Brahmo groups and mailing lists to clarify such matters to you at WP. Ronosen is member of some groups where many previous "Brahmo/Samajist" editors of Brahmo Samaj article congegrate, and assuredly we shall put our petty differences aside to educate you and you us. You are welcome to frame the specific issues to be resolved so that User:Ronosen can circulate them or you can do so yourself. Till then I request forbearance, non-User:Bikash has cited the 3RR elsewhere in this connexion and agreed to abide by it and refrain from vandalism, as I shall also. Let us not provoke each other but strive to maintain encyclopedic standards albeit belatedly. I also request you to appreciate the significance of nonUser:Bikash's statement that he does not now question Ram Mohun's image on this page - as he is limiting it only to Copyright isses / WP violationn and not theology. IMHO the salient issue here is if the "impugned" image of Keshav is a "faithful reproduction" of a "photograph" taken of him directly and which can be confirmed from alternate reliable sources. If you assert that the image in question is an actual photograph of Keshav and not a photograph of a "2D work of art" as cited by the source / image uploader, you must demonstrate this consistent to WP's policies and standards, now that it is challenged with some basis. To a Brahmo there is no such thing as "coincidence" it is all "Divine Will" aka "Nizam" as I was informed today by a Brahmo congregation - "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference/message/478", please read this. Yvantanguy (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Yvantanguy (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Do you not find it curious that the Brahmo Samaj article does not refer to such a major document like the Trust Deed of 1830 or contain its principles? Neither are the 1850 Brahma Dharma "beej" principles on this page. Such issues are surely central to the "merger" you have proposed?" Indeed they are. That's one reason why merger was desirable. You are the one who has been resisting it, not me. The statement says nothing about no images at all being allowed anywhere does it? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Paul, if you put it this way and merger indeed results, I think we can THEN safely and immediately delete Mr.Keshav's text and image and Mr.Mazoomdar's too from ALL these article as their Navabidhan (New Dispensation) has nothing to do with Brahmo Samaj but with some discredited "Aryan Invasion Theory" you may be familiar with, and which theory at one time was extensively researched within Adi Brahmoism (but not Sadharanism) and which rejected Adi research was stolen by Keshav from Debendranath's house along with the subscriber list of Adi Samaj. Yvantanguy (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, the copyright law of India and Bangladesh (where the image of Sen was taken) provides a 60 year copyright for Photographs, from the day the photograph was taken, and NOT from the day the photographer died. The Sen photograph has clearly been in public domain for a considerable time. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ragib for your prompt reply. I wish to assure you that this issue of Keshav's image on Brahmo Samaj is not related to theology and alleged "anti-image" ideologies as is being sought to be made out. I have no issue yet with images on the Brahmo Samaj page per se - the similar question for Brahmo is debatable and requires consensus. Whilst greatly appreciating the difficulties of getting reliable "out of CPR" images for publication in OFL sources, I request you (as original uploader) to kindly confirm, if you can, these preliminaries. (I apologise if this reads like the Inquisition).


 * Is/was the original source document of the image provably a "photograph" of Keshav himself as commonly understood, if so when and where was it taken and by whom? If not is it a "faithful photographic reproduction" of the original work of art (say a 2D painting etc.).
 * Was Keshav himself or his estate the creator of the original source document?
 * Was Keshav himself the original owner of the original source document?
 * Since you have stated that 60 years starts from the day the "photograph" was taken, I bring to your specific attention the provision in Bangladesh Copyright law that for "artistic works (other than photograph)" the relevant time period is 60 years starting 1 calendar year of the author's death. This particular work of artistic work (incl.photograph) is "obviously" composed with great care on its creator's part (it is patently not a natural / candid pose) and hence the limit of copyright under international law may be different. For eg. it is still not clear to me if this "photograph" was taken in India or Bangladesh - and the copyright provsions for photographs is different. For example the firm of Bourne and Shepherd came to Calcutta around 1869, the Bengali upper class (was Keshav one?) found it fashionable to have their photograph (they called it portrait) taken here but the original photograpic plate was always retained by the firm to run off copies. So if this turns out to be a B&S (or similar company) image the copyright starts 60 years after the FIRM finally goes out of existence (BTW it still survives). Lets get to the bottom of this one. BTW do you know of any images of Keshav in other poses, ages, or colours  :-)? Cheers Yvantanguy (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "it is still not clear to me if this "photograph" was taken in India or Bangladesh". Why do you put photograph in inverted commas? What on earth do you think it is? You do know, don't you, that there was no distinction between India and Bangladesh at the time that the photo was taken. Why don't you try google? It's easy enough to find photos of Sen. There is one in which he is standing by a column. I've no idea why you seem to be preoccupied by skin pigmentation. The appearence of that can vary depending on exposure. Mid-Victorian photography had poor capacity to capure mid-tones. Unless a photographer was very skilled, most paler areas came out looking very pale, and most darker areas came out looking very dark. Such excessive contrast is simply a product of the poor responsiveness of photosensitive chemicals at the time. It has no relevance to copyright issues. Most of the questions you ask about estates etc are impossible to answer and wholly irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, By using google image search with "keshub chunder sen" I come to this image of a man standing by a column "http://www.answers.com/main/Record2?a=NR&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FImage%3ARamakrishna%2520at%2520studio.jpg".
 * Unless my aging eyes deceive me, its a novel depiction of Ramakrisha Paramhansa - a studio portrait in 1881. Or perhaps you were referring to another studio photograph of the "man standing by a small studio prop table"? Concerning relevance of fact I can quote the then common law of evidence (Evidence Act) for BOTH India and Bangladesh (still in force in India AND Pakistan - BD?) from memory and my questions are framed precisely as per that law also - note my use of the term "provably". The reason I put photograph in inverted commas is because there is considerable doubt if the image is indeed an original photograph as we commonly understand it. Considering pigmentation it is immaterial to me personally since I am an "Even(ly)Tan(ned)Guy and mine is natural pigmentation. BTW which is "the time" period we are talking about (Mid-Victorian is so delightfully vague - since even Laurel and Hardy in their Laughing 20's used yellow ochre) so I can better reply concerning the chemical process and colloids used? If we cant answer these questions I suggest you gracefully revert your rv. Yvantanguy (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about the anti or pro image debate here. The only point I'll make is that, the image that I've uploaded to commons is from a print encyclopedia Banglapedia, which refers to it as Keshub Chunder Sen's photo. Looking at the grainy nature of the image, it does seem to be an old photograph. If you have proof that this is a photo of a portrait, please provide that. In case of a photo of the subject, there is no question of the copyright ... anything taken before 1948 is in public domain in both BD and IN. It is also irrelevant who owned the copyright at the time it was under copyright ... if it is a photo then it had to be taken before 1884 (124 years ago), and therefore, it is in the public domain both in India and Bangladesh (presumably, these are the locations where Sen lived through his life). The image is also in PD in USA and UK for the same argument.

Of course, if you can prove that this is not a photograph but rather an immaculately drawn painting, we might have to look into other provisions of copyright law, but at this moment, I don't doubt a bit that this is a photograph. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ragib - WP was having server problems at the time. Assuming without admitting that it is an old grainy photograph, it is highly probable that it was a studio portrait. The age of the subject appears to be about 30 (photo) and about 40(postage stamp) placing the range from 1867-1878. It may also have been taken in Britain when Keshav went there in 1870. If taken in India - Bourne and Shepherd seems the most likely candidate. If so they still retain copyright to their original artistic work "photographic portrait" as distinct from "photograph". I think the same rule would apply if the portrait was created by an English studio. The original plate was always retained by the studio - subjects were only given a copy. This is classic CPR law, I dont know about Wiki, but they will probably have something about photographic compositions and creativity / skill of the photographer being involved.  BTW I dont have to prove its a portrait, the onus is on you to prove its a photograph since you uploaded it and are asserting the statement. Yvantanguy (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Ragib. What would you say to this (alleged) image of Keshav. He is standing next to a studio prop table / bar stool. I hope you can then appreciate the postage stamp problem. URL : http://www.payer.de/dharmashastra/dharma0713.gif

(PS: The GoI was equally sceptical about the stadard image.) Yvantanguy (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By studio portrait, do you mean a photograph or a painting? The law does not differentiate between a studio photograph and a photo taken outside studio. It doesn't matter that B&S photographers took the photo ... after 60 years, all such photographs come into the public domain. Finally, the image is obviously a photograph to the naked eye ... it is you who are making an extra-ordinary claim that it is a painting. The print encyclopedia Banglapedia claims it to be a photograph. --Ragib (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Keshub_Chunder_Sen.jpg asserts that the image is "a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art." going on to say "This photograph was taken in the U.S. or in another country where a similar rule applies (for a list of allowable countries, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules). This photographic reproduction is therefore also in the public domain.".
 * So somebody, not necessarily User:Ragib, has invoked applicability of COM:PDART and asserts that there is a underlying 2D work of art. It is like the Mona Lisa. When is COM:PDART invoked? When it is a photograph of a painting or other 2D image!! So there must be a painting or similar 2D artwork (like postage stamp) involved if COM:PDART is invoked. Alternatively supposing (without admitting) it was a photograph, running off 1 or 2 insignificant copies by B&S (say) to the subject may not constitute "publication" (see proviso to section 6 if India CPR Act). It is when (say) "Banglapedia" print encyclopedia runs off a 100+ copies for the "public" or Postal dept runs off 1 million stamps for the "public" that "publication" takes place and 60 years starts ticking. Bikash for eg.has disputed that "Impugned image" is a faithful reproduction of Keshav's image - he was allgedly "nut brown" or suchlike which the alleged photograph does not depict faithfully. Does Banglapedia explicitly / unambiguously say that it is a photograph of Keshav himself? The other photographic image shows a darker Keshav as does the postage stamp, so faithfulness of reproduction is also in question. In fact the other image of a visibly older Keshav (matching the stamp) contradicts the "impugned image" at various places as a concoction. Yvantanguy (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I see your "this is a portrait because pd-art was used" argument. :) The mistake seems to be mine when I added the pd-art tag, instead of pd-old tag. I've changed the tag to pd-old.

As for whether the printing of copies of a photograph is not considered "publishing", you are misleading when you cite section 6 of chapter 1 of ICA. It merely says the copyright board decides in such disputes whether an image has been published or not. "Publishing" is defined to be "making available to public" in ICA. No provision there defines the number of copies of the photo (i.e. no definition of what sufficient means in section 3. chap 1 of ICA). Considering that the ICA causes all pre-1948 pictures to be in public domain, it is beyond any discussion that a pre-1884 image is certainly in public domain.

If you still have issues with the definition of publishing of photographs as interpreted in Wikipedia, you might refer to Village pump. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC) --Ragib (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Ragib. Your discussions with "YTG" are illuminating. Kudos. There is considerable body of legal case law as to what constitutes "publishing". The essence is making known to the "public" ie. the "body public" or "public at large". Much of this case law is applicable to both our countries. If B&S or "The Bengal Photographers in Radhabazar, Calcutta, India." etc create such photographic work and give a copy or 2 to their customer it does not enter the "public" "domain" at that time since it is a "private" commercial transaction. We cannot presume that the photograph was circulated and came to the ken of the public. Printing 1000 reproductions but hiding them in people's homes without their knowledge does not constitute "publication". It is only when a "significant" number of copies start reaching the "public" that publication is involved. This is an old well settled concept deriving from the "criminal" law of Indian Penal Code 1860, for all "3" PK-IN-BD of us :-), involved in matters such as "publication" of defamations, obscenities, sedition (this is the big one), anti-religion, etc. and which retains in place in the ICA. Privately, some of us (IN Brahmos) are convinced that this image from BP is not faithful (forgery fake) - this is not a reflection on BP's use of the image, which BP we often refer to. Would not it be better to use another image of Kebhub on this article Brahmo Samaj such as the "payer.de" (fairly authentic site) (first choice) or the Indian Postal stamp as per the Terms of Use permitted by Government? The bio-page is not of concern to me. I cannot agree that the ICA automatically places all pre-1948 "pictures" in public domain. This is fallacious, specious, based on convenient exclusion of the letter and spirit of the 60 year ICA rule and inconsistent with the settled case law - Sorry. In your opinion can the "payer.de" image be uploaded to Wiki Commons? btw What does the Vill.Pump mean/do, (we are fairly new here at WP)? Regards, Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. The general consensus for old images in Wikipedia does not seem to support your position. However, I have started a thread in the Policy page at the Village pump, you can check that here. What does ICA say about unpublished works? The US law seems to allow 120 year old (pre 1888) unpublished images to be considered into the public domain. --Ragib (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the thread. Shall use it. Our edits crossed -"edit conflict" when I was adding the following-
 * By using PD:OLD, we now have the 60 year old rule starting from "life of author". Per ICA "author" is a "person" (which legally includes juristic artificial persons like corporate bodies and their "employees" who actually composed and took the picture on behalf of the firm). If the corporate person still exists then 60 years has not even commenced for the original especially since concept of "publication" does not now come into play. Regards. Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul wrote "The image on the stamp is clearly taken from a print copied from the photopraph, probably a a lithograph. The importance given US copyright laws lies in the fact that the wikipedia Servers are based in the USA. It has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)"
 * Actually on scrutiny of your remarks we find "Wikipedia currently runs on dedicated clusters of GNU/Linux servers, 300 in Florida, 26 in Amsterdam and 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility in Seoul." Our Reliable Source Citation is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_servers#Software_and_hardware". Does anyone read Dutch or Korean? Rono (I'm back from Goa beach) Ronosen (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to stop this utter madness? Paul B (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr.Barlow seems to be expressing a universal frustration. I wish to convey some basics (to my mind but equally appropriately cited) to my brothers. Since this is a Brahmoism related page, we "public"ly acknowledge (Friendly) the valuable contributions Mr.Barlow has made to what shall now exponentially be the strictly encyclopedic dissemination of Brahmoism of which Brahmo Samaj is a necessary component. We (some users on this page) shall adhere to every Policy or Binding Rule of WP (our Host), and stay within WP "guidelines" unless these conflict with our Brahmo principles wich are now being clearly set out courtesy the largesse of our Host. In particular our seminal (and undisputed - for all variants of Brahmo Samajist) Trust deed of Brahmo Sabha is a legal and binding work for all descendants of those Trustees, and their heirs and assigns (ie. Brahmos) (which includes many of us "domain exeprt" WP editors comprehensively) and is of great foresight and vision - applicable by induction directly to "virtual communities" like WP where any person without distinction may assemble for public meeting, and where nothing may be "preached" but that which tends to bring men of different faiths together etc. We thank you deeply Mr.Barlow and Mr.Ragib, we know that you will always be looking over us in the universal Spirit and that we may turn to you when required, but now please allow us to get on with our Work. YTG (I need to update my Even Tan after all this at Goa /Pondy). Yvantanguy (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)