Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Adiparashakti.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Adiparashakti.jpg

Uploader makes several mutually contradictory and seeminly incorrect statements. There is no evidence that V.V. Sapar, who is cited as the author of the work, has been dead for more than 70 years, as it is claimed. There are fair use claims, which is inconsistent with public domain status and with Commons' licensing policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, V. V. Sapar is not the author of this work. In fact, there is no indication of the artist on this work. The deletion notice was applied with undue haste in this case; only minutes (5 to be precise) after I uploaded the image, and while I was still editing and customizing the copyright info! Although every physical indication is that this print is quite old, the issue of who the artist may be, and whether he or she has been dead for 70 years is actually irrelevant under Title 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, as cited in the tagging. By the language of the act, these are not "fair use" claims, but rather exemptions from copyright protection.

This matter was referred to Advocate N. Shankara Menon, of Cochin, Kerala, who delivered this opinion based on a quarter century of practice including Indian copyright issues. I would argue for removal of the deletion tag as it was premised upon inaccurate and incomplete information. Thank you. - DB (Devi bhakta 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

I brought the image up for discussion here based on the information you supplied when you uploaded the image. It is your duty as the uploader to provide correct information at the time of uploading, so please do not get offended if images get nominated for deletion if you supply incorrect information.

Now, there are still several problems:

• The permission section still makes reference to fair use for non-commercial and educational use. Works on Commons must not be restricted to such uses, so any such claims are irrelevant.
• The licensing section still makes the claim that the author died more than 70 years ago. If this claim is not relevant, as you say, then why is it still there?
• It is claimed that the image is not protected by copyright because it is permanently situated in a public place, but there is no evidence to support that this is the case, nor any mention of the public place in which it is supposedly situated.
• Indian copyright is limited to 60 years after publication for anonymously published works only. For other works, it extends 60 years after the author's death. The fact that the author's name does not appear on the work itself does not necessarily mean that the author is anonymous.
• As explicitly stated by {{PD-India}}, this tag requires the year of publication and the author of the work to be provided, but this is not done.
• For the copyright to have expired, the work must be published no later than 1946. There is no evidence to support this. In fact, the text at the top of the image appears more modern than that.

—LX (talk, contribs) 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• If irrelevant, then ignore.
• I am a newbie at Wikimedia Commons, and you are coming on strong. But I am not a newbie at Indian copyright law.
• Catch a plane to India sometime -- any time, any place, any city -- and walk down any street, and look in any direction, and you will see such images on every wall, in every shop, in every temple.
• These are devotional works, copied and copied and copied.
• It is not given, and it is inapplicable.
• It is not given, and it is inapplicable.

Your interpretation of Indian copyright law appears to be based on Wikipedia's one-sentence summary, and to ignore both the tagging and the law itself as cited. There is, as I noted earlier, no issue of copyright expiration as it is not a copyrightable image. If there are parts of the tagging that strike you as redundant, feel free to erase. If the picture offends you, delete it - but it is just crazy-making. I am a new member and an easy target. But what I am telling you is legitimate.(Devi bhakta 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Please make your comments after mine, not inside my comments, as this makes it difficult to see who wrote what.

• The reader shouldn't have to guess which statements are accurate and relevant. If it should be ignored, don't write it.
• As above.
• I'm not talking about "such images". I'm talking about this image. Copyright exists not just in a theme or motif, but in the specific interpretation of it as well.
• Copyright extends to "devotional works" as well, and previous copyright violations are no excuse.
• It is applicable, as it is required by the licensing tag that you've chosen.
• It is inapplicable, because every work on Commons must provide a verfiable original source per Commons:Licensing.

Actually, I haven't even read the Wikipedia article on Indian copyright law; I went and looked at the relevant sections of the full-text copy of it instead, and I've also read a fair bit about Common Law copyright law in the past. How is it not a copyrightable image?

Please understand that this deletion request is not to be taken personally. Of course I am not offended by the image. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not free, not compatible with Commons. -Nard 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Gone. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (GMT)