Commons:Deletion requests/Paintings by Tapand

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Paintings by Tapand

[edit]

First, note that:

Now my reasons for this DR:

Tapand is an Afghan artist that is still alive despite the PD-old and PD-Art template on Image:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.jpg. I don't doubt that PRTkand and Executioner, the uploaders, took the photographs. But, since these images are faithful representations of Tapand paintings, Tapand owns a big part (if not all) of the copyright, and this makes these pictures unsuitable for Commons.

But, to make things more difficult, here is what Madmax32 said: "Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works so the works are not obliged to be protected by copyright". This seems to have triggered the keeping of Image:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg.

My opinion: even if Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention, which induces that we are not obliged to respect Afghan authors' copyrights, I believe this would be a bad idea to consider Afghan works as Public Domain or something similar. We should ensure that these paintings are protected according to local Afghan copyright laws (which remain to be determined). Therefore, I propose that these images be Deleted because they show the work of a living artist which, unless proved otherwise, is certainly copyrighted. — Xavier, 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I own these paintings, they are no where else to be found. Tapand is no longer the copyright holder because he sold them to me, which means he sold the copyright to me.--Executioner 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether that is how copyright works. I question your assertion that your ownership of the painting means you own the copyright on it, unless you explicitly negotiated for that with the original copyright holder. Artists sue the owners of their work when the owners want to modify them, or display them in a manner the artist considers inappropriate, or damaging to their reputation.
It is not that common for artists to sue owners. But if you look around you will find instances. Here in Toronto a big mall -- unusually large for the time was built, right downtown. It has celings about eight stories tall down its central hallway -- which is also quite wide. An artist was commissioned to create models of about 100 Canada Geese. They weren't duplicates. They were hung to look like a big V of Geese, from one end of the mall, to the other (The mall is about half a kilometer long.) The owner made a big deal about this artwork. It was expensive. But, about a decade later, when the thrill of ownership was over, whoever had the responsibility of decorating the mall for Christmas hung all kinds of Christmas decorations from the Geese.
The owners argued, as you seem to be arguing, that they owned the Geese, so they could do whatever they wanted with them. The court sided with the artist.
Then the owners decided that they would move all the Geese to one end of the mall, so they could hang those Christmas decorations. The artist sued again. The Geese have been moved, and are now hung as if the flock was taking off from a fountain at one end of the mall. I don't know if the artist lost, or if he reached a settlement with the owners.
Over on the wikipedia contributors are proscribed from uploading copyright material that hasn't been liscenced under a free liscence. And contributors are not supposed to get around the liscensing restrictions of copyright holders, by using links to unauthorized material as references -- when the copyright holder has the article on a member's only site. Using copyright material without authorization is violation of the law. Linking to copyright material elsewhere, that is being mirrored by someone else, in violation of the law, is not a violation of the law. But the wikipedia doesn't do this, because it looks bad.
Similarly, even if, for the sake of argument, under the copyright laws where our uploader lives, he or she does own the copyright for a work of art, just because they bought the physical object, I think we should be careful about uploading images of that work of art, because it gives the appearance of not respecting copyright -- just as linking to unliscenced mirrors does -- even though that too is legal. Geo Swan 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sale of paintings does not imply the sale of the copyright. An artist can sell the copyright to the buyer of an artwork, or to anyone else for that matter. It is very rare for an artist to also sell the copyright to the buyer of a painting, but quite common for people owning artworks to (mistakenly) think they have copyright over them. Is there any evidence of the transfer of the copyright? --Simonxag 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To Xavier, Geo Swan, Simonxag, the best example for you to understand how copyright works, please see information about this image. Harrison Forman created the work but the copyright holder is the current owner, the American Geographical Society Library of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Libraries or simply University of Wisconsin. Similarly, Tapand (an artist) created these works but the copyright holder is me because I claim to owning them now.--Executioner 21:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Copyright suppose to mean claim of ownership. I don't understand how this works. I thought that since I owned the paintings that I also owned the copyrights. In Asia for less than $100 you can get your own photo turned into a large sized painting... there are many shops who do this. I can give you telephone numbers of some shops and they can explain all this. Once you pay for the painting then it's all yours. These paintings are not that important for me to keep them here, I just thought that I could share them with people who may want to admire the work. Isn't this one (Image:Kamoli Khujandi.jpg) same as mines? And if so, then why is that not deleted? If you really must delete my paintings from here then I guess I will not make more arguments, I give up on this.--Executioner 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have to make a stand on whom the copyright belongs to. I will make my vote on the basis of the legal limbo the lack of Afghan ratification of Berne has created. My prime concern is the highest degree of availability. __meco 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Owning a painting is never ever the same as owning the copyright, however, this can be transfered also. And like it or not, there usually is no mention of the word "copyright" when the transfer takes place. That's how most of the world works. There's not always going to be formal statement to show the transfer of rights. So we can take it or leave it. Rocket000 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on the circumstances. In some cases owning a painting that was created by someone else is not the same as owning copyrights, but, in some cases it is. As I explained to Xavier, Geo Swan and Simonxag above that Harrison Forman created images in the 1960's and now the copyright holder is the University of Wisconsin because it has legal possesion of them. [1] Similarly, Tapand (an unknown artist) painted these but now I have legal possesion of them. I took the photographed images of the piantings and uploaded them here. Xavier, asked to Delete these images because they show the work of a living artist [2] and that is not a valid reason to delete images.
I will give an easy example (to everyone). Let's say you buy a Ford Mustang vehicle from a Ford auto dealership. You become instant owner of that car as soon as you buy it and pay for it. The Ford Motor Company does not own it anymore, it only owns copyrights to the name "FORD". If you take photo of your Mustang car and upload it to Commons there is no reason to delete the file. The people asking to delete my images here are basically arguing that Ford Motor Company is the copyright holder of your Ford Mustang because that company created it. That is not how it suppose to be. Cars and painitings are both called "things" so one cannot say they are not the same.--Executioner 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You failed to understand the given information. If you read here, it says: Photographer = Forman, Harrison and Rights = The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. That means Harrison Forman visited Kabul in 1969 and took the photos but the copyright holder of these photos is the University of Wisconsin. At the very bottom of the photo it also indicates that the University of Wisconsin is the owner of the photos. The fair use license is irrelevant in this topic.--Executioner 23:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Access to Library owned resources is governed by license agreements which restrict use to the UWM community and to individuals who use the UWM Libraries facilities. Anyone using the UWM Libraries facilities is welcome to use these resources on-site but off campus or remote use is restricted to UWM faculty, staff and students. Licensed electronic resources are owned by independent providers and are protected by copyright and other laws.
The low-resolution images available from the UWM Libraries Digital Collections website may be copied by individuals or libraries for personal use, research, teaching or any "fair use" as defined by copyright law. Low resolution images can be downloaded for no charge by “right-clicking” with your mouse on the full image and saving to your local computer.
  • Excuse me but I believe the conditions under which the University of Wisconsin released the low resolution versions of these images stops short of what you have asserted they have released. I would argue that it stops short of the requirements to be hosted on commons. The wikipedia proper, as opposed to the commons, does allow a limited amount of "fair use" images. Geo Swan 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was no explicit transfer of copyright, then the copyright remains with the artist. This is a cut-and-dry case. Selling a drawing is not the same as selling the copyright. Mangostar 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Mangostar is a very new user. He/she began just last month in March 2008. [3] His/her reason for deletion doesn't make any sense to me. The paintings were not and never copyrighted before they fell in my hands, so how can the copyright be transferred? Mongostar has admitted that selling a drawing is not the same as selling the copyright. I own these never before-copyrighted drawings and so I should be allowed to upload images of my drawings.--Executioner 07:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is and isn't copyright varies by jurisdiction. But 163 countries have signed the Berne Convention.
Note what the article on the Berne Convention on copyrights says.
Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force at creation, without being asserted or declared: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors were treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country that signed the Convention.
My understanding is that it is US law that is most important to the consideration of copyright on the wikipedia, because the servers are in the USA. Therefore Taipand has the same "moral right" to his work, when it is hosted on servers in the USA as if he had created it in the USA.
Do I know, for a certain fact, whether a photo of a painting violates the painter's rights?
I am not claiming to know what the copyright rules are in Afghanistan. List of parties to international copyright treaties says that Afghanistan is not a Berne signatory, but has observer status under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. I don't know what "observer status" means. But my reading of these articles is that if Afghanistan was a signatory to this agreement all of the intellectual property of your artist Taipand would be born copyright -- same as in the rest of the world.
Having said that, I have read many of your observations on copyright, and, no offense, I am concerned that you hold serious misconceptions on how copyright works in the USA. You might find it worthwhile to read w:Feist v. Rural. Geo Swan 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia and no USA's copyright law does not apply to Afghanistan. Afghanistan's copyright law would be similar as to other Middle Eastern or neighboring countries, if whenever it is introduced. If US law was the utlimate one than why are there different laws for each country? "Observer status" there means it is not a signatory, not part of the convention so you can't make anything out of it. I'm from USA and I know the law on copyrights, and since you're a Canadian, you probably don't know our law in USA.
I've read w:Feist v. Rural. It says: Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)[1], commonly called just Feist v. Rural, was a United States Supreme Court case in which Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural had sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement existed. Similarly, the paintings by Tapand are not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement exists.--Executioner 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It appears that Afghanistan has no copyright laws at all. See this information from WIPO, and also w:Afghanistan and copyright issues. MichaelMaggs 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Re-opening

Not first published in Afghanistan. Likely the uploader bought this artwork in Afghanistan and published it online. For Berne purposes this makes the country of first publication the home country of the uploader. See Commons:Village_pump#Free_for_all_on_Afghanistan_images.3F.21.3F. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it was sold in Afghanistan, that is publishing it. Country of first publication would be Afghanistan. Buying artwork does not transfer copyright; and if there was none to begin with it is certainly not created by purchasing works. Still  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Berne Convention, Article 3 says "The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication." I see no way to interpret that as saying that selling the original is publishing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do. Exhibiting a work is mentioned as not being published, but not selling it -- that would seem to count as published. And the sale was by consent, presumably. The author has received typical economic compensation... that is publishing it to me. Offering for sale is explicitly part of the U.S. definition, so it is most definitely considered as published in Afghanistan by U.S. copyright rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It specifically mentions copies. Publication is something restricted to the artist; since I can legally sell the original, selling the original can't be publication. Unpublished manuscripts get sold all the time without jeopardizing the rights of the authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The original is a "copy", by U.S. copyright law definitions. This paper goes into the topic in depth. Even by the definition as conjured by the courts before 1978, the original author selling the work to the public was considered publication (there is a Nimmer quote in that paper). The key is offering it to sale to the general public -- manuscripts are not directly offered for sale by the original author, usually. Sale normally doesn't jeopardize the rights, either. But an Afghan author would not expect to have any such rights for works sold in Afghanistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - These images were captured in Afghanistan by someone I personally know, they are camera pictures of paintings that were made by a local Afghan artist (Tapand). The original paintings are found at the governor's palace in Kandahar [4], [5] (File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg), at the Presidential palace in Kabul, and at some other government locations inside Afghanistan. The current owner is Afghanistan's government and that nation has no copyright law. See {{PD-Afghanistan}}--Officer (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, first publication (i.c. sale) was in Afghanistan, by an Afghan, thus Afghan copyright applies. Kameraad Pjotr 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Paintings by Tapand

[edit]

Time to revisit this as these paintings are now copyrighted due to changes in PD-Afghanistan. Previous discussion accessible by collapsible tab above. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have followed the links and see that Afghanistan now has a "Law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers". However, I have read the online translation, and the law appears to give rather limited protection. In particular, Article 10 reads "The Author shall enjoy the provision of this Law as long as his work has not been published, printed or broadcast before Afghanistan in any other country." As these works appear to have been first published at Commons, on servers held in the United States, the artist seems to me to be unable to claim a copyright in them. That being so, I am at a loss to see what prevents the owner of the paintings, Executioner, now called Officer, from claiming (and giving up) his own copyright in any photographs he takes of them. I am not convinced by case law from other countries, and the international conventions do not create supranational copyrights. As Officer has donated his images to Commons, is there really a problem? Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a work was first published in another country, then it would not qualify for PD-Afghanistan in the first place, and would be copyrighted under the terms of that other country (almost all of which are Berne Convention signatories). The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright -- the concepts are distinct, and can be transferred separately. Usually these days, laws are written so that the sale of an object does not imply the transfer of copyright. The Afghan law does not state that in so many words, but Article 12 seems to require that all transfers of copyright must be in writing with an explicit timeframe mentioned (and Article 36 seems to forbid a total transfer of rights for "future" works). As the owner of the object, User:Officer likely has a certain number of rights in many countries, but the unfettered use of the copyright is not one of them, at least inside Afghanistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This all seems to suppose that the physical works themselves are subject to some copyright law other than the Afghani one, but so far as I can see they aren't. The person who publishes photographs of them in the United States can surely (if he wishes) assert a copyright there. I agree that "The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright", but that can be put the other way around: "The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it". The real issue here is whether anyone other than Officer can demonstrate a copyright in the works of art which defeats his in the photographs, and on the basis of the Afghani law it seems very unlikely. Moonraker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - This one (File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg) was painted on the outside wall of the Governor's Palace in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and I snapped the photo of it. I'm not sure but I think the wall has since been painted over or something, you may be able to find a different version of this image in news reports or something being shown on the wall. I'm also not sure if there is any other fine version of this because at the time when I took the photo not many people used cameras in southern Afghanistan. The rest of these are large-sized paintings inside the Kandahar Governor's Palace [6], [7], [8]. I took these with my camera and later fixing them using Photoshop software. Since then I have distributed these files and many others by the same painter to a number of other people. Isafmedia uploaded the same images to Flickr, which is not copyright violation, and so my uploads should also not be copyright violation.--Officer (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those would not be a copyright violation outside Afghanistan, and even in Afghanistan there may be some equivalent of "fair use", but ... unless Tapand transferred his copyright to you (which as mentioned above seems to require a written notice), or Tapand agrees to license them himself, they would not be "free" in our definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as the license suggests these files are copyrighted for life + 50 or publication + 50 (if author is not known) unless they can be tagged with some other license (such as through OTRS). PD-Afghanistan cannot be used here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all; these ought to have been deleted long ago anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment One very murky aspect is if User:Officer bought some of these original works prior to the 2008 implementation date of their copyright law -- it's hard to say if that would have been considered to transfer the copyright as well, as that right would not have existed at all at the time, and would not have been a consideration. Any law requiring a written transfer would not be applicable to pre-2008 acts though. It's hard to say if the law simply granted the author a new right regardless of having previously sold the work, or if that would be deemed to have been transferred as well. The law doesn't have much in the way of transitional clauses dealing with situations like that. But, it sounds like most of these are photos of paintings which are owned by the government, so I'm not sure if that ambiguity applies here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a very logical answer to the problem you raise: if there was no copyright, and transfer of copyright wasn't a consideration as you rightly say, then of course it didn't get transferred. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist. And the new law obviously speaks of authors, not of owners, so the author and not the owner is the person to whom the retroactive restitution of copyright applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The copyright existed, they were protected under US copyright law before 2008 because I was the first person to publish them in the US. Author and owner should be the same when it involves purchasing paintings from the painter. Attribution goes to the person who paints a painting and permission is required from whoever owns them.--Officer (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he sold it in Afghanistan, that is usually considered publishing -- even the offering for sale is, under current U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The general meaning of publication is when the work is published in the media. If one wants to add exhibiting as publication then one would need to show some kind of proof that it was published inside Afghanistan. I wonder what's so important that people find about these silly paintings, they are nothing special. You can walk into any art store and find things like this for as low as $5.--Officer (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Buying a painting doesn't mean you own the copyright. Artists can make multiple identical paintings. We would need proof of rights transfer perhaps. Just because it is sold cheap doesn't mean it is freely licensed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Exhibiting a painting is not necessarily publication. *Selling* a painting is something else altogether. Publishing via the media is not a requirement at all. For the Berne Convention, publication is making the work available to the public in a manner sufficient to “satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work.” Offering it for sale, for something like a painting (different nature than a book), would probably qualify -- anyone is able to buy it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg is an actual photograph off that wall? It certainly doesn't look like a photograph of a wall painting; it looks like a watercolor or something. Or do you mean the wall painting and this painting are just versions of the same popular motive? Back when you were User:PRTKand, you once claimed that this painting was "displayed for the public at Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan" ([9]) and then again that you "own" the painting [10]. So, which is it?

BTW, This is another more general problem with this set of images: hardly any of the "paintings" in question here are actually original. For instance, File:Lady_Diana_of_Wales.jpg is obviously a derivative work made after some photograph, of unknown provenance (likely copyrighted); same goes for File:Ahmad Zahir of Afghanistan.jpg; File:King Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan.jpg is copied after the old photograph seen here and elsewhere on the web (likely PD); File:King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.jpg is a very poor quality copy after en:File:King Mohammad Zahir Shah.JPG (PD status currently unconfirmed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. It is anonymous "artwork" on a wall, someone used Photoshop to edit it. Whatever it looks to you is not important, and I suggest you stop worrying about what my motive is. I have over 1,300 legitimate uploads here. PRTkand is my brother and I made that clear a long time ago to another disruptive user.[11]
  • Being displayed inside Kandahar Governor's Palace or inside Kandahar Museum is the same shit, because in his opinion Kandahar Governor's Palace "is museum" since all the artworks are housed there. [12] [13], [14] In the eyes of a Westerner that place appears like a museum in Kandahar so it is safe to call it Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan. What's the difference and why is this a big deal that you had to bring up?
  • When someone says he or she owns the painting it means he or she owns the painting, not the copyright. Do you have evidence that someone else owns it?
  • No body claimed that these are original and only a fool would think that this Afghan painter went back in time to paint these people, then come back and paint current Afghan President. Of course the painter looked at various of other works and using his own hands created these works. He is the author of these works and something like that shouldn't be treated as derivative work.--Officer (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "brother" (i.e. you) claimed that he owned not just the others, but also the one you now claim was an anonymous wall painting [15]. Did he physically own that building? Was that wall painting on the Governor's Palace/Museum/whatever? What about the other ones that are in that building: he also claimed he owned those. Does he own the Governor's Palace and the artworks inside it? Also, earlier on this page you clearly said you took that photo off the wall [16]. So why did your brother claim it was his? Or are your brother and you the same person after all? Moreover, in the first deletion request (collapsed at the top of this page) you said the other images were paintings that you physically bought from the artist, Tapand. In this discussion, you have claimed that the paintings are in the Palace/Museum/whatever, and you merely took photographs of them. So, which is it? You are just stumbling from one lie into the other, and you are mixing them up now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are trying to accuse me of being a liar or a fraud, I could have easily cut out the painter's name and claimed that I made these, there is no way of verifying that. But from being too honest I told everything in details and that proves that I'm not a fraud. You need to understand that sometimes the truth seems like a lie due to certain circumstances. Whether PRTkand is me or not is irrelevant and I don't need to convince you on that. If I say that is not me then it is not me. Looking at my first comment above, I've stated that "I took these with my camera and later fixing them using Photoshop software. Since then I have distributed these files and many others by the same painter to a number of other people. You have no idea which is original or which is a copy. You're just taking wild guesses. Is it possible that in these days somebody can take my file and enlarge it and then hang it inside their house? If another person said or says he owns them he may be telling the truth and I don't care because whoever I gave these files to are the owners as I gave them permission to do what they want with them. In fact, I have dozens of others by the same painter which are not found anywhere else.--Officer (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, which is the original and which is the copy? Won't you tell us? You very clearly said earlier the paintings in the palace where the originals and you took photographs from them. Now you say you own the orginals and the paintings in the palace may be copies from your photographs? Were you lying then or are you lying now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finding out which one is original is again irrelevant and cannot be determined by us because I don't know myself who made those in the Palace. There may be copies everywhere now. I have to be there and closely inspect it to make sure. You are arguing but not paying attention to the point. The Palace only has a few but I have dozens.--Officer (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DeleteIt's life+50. All the rest of this discussion seems irrelevant. Certainly Berne is; it's Commons policy, not US copyright law that we're worried about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is more than one original work of art, however similar it may be to others, it can be considered in its own right. Copied from an indented reply I have just left above: "This all seems to suppose that the physical works themselves are subject to some copyright law other than the Afghani one, but so far as I can see they aren't. The person who publishes photographs of them in the United States can surely (if he wishes) assert a copyright there. I agree that "The owner of the physical object is not necessarily the owner of the copyright", but that can be put the other way around: "The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it". The real issue here is whether anyone other than Officer can demonstrate a copyright in the works of art which defeats his in the photographs, and on the basis of the Afghani law it seems very unlikely. Moonraker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The owner of the physical object is not prevented from claiming a copyright in photographs of it. Um... yes they are; that is a misreading. The owner of the physical object has no claim on the copyright whatsoever, unless the copyright was also transferred separately (which usually needs to be explicit). If someone just took photographs of works which existed in Afghanistan, then there is no physical ownership even. (If these works have since been destroyed, yes, this is a shame -- but the law, in Afghanistan, is now giving the reproduction rights to the original artist.)Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these contemporary paintings are PD-Afghanistan based on the date of the original works that were published, see this and this. This includes the following: File:King_Amanullah_Khan_of_Afghanistan.jpg and File:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png.--Officer (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani_-_1747.jpg, it was first published in a 1943 Afghan book (page 90 of Tareekh-e Ahmad Shah Baba / Ahmad Shah Baba-ye Afghan[17]), that was written by w:Ghulam Mohammad Ghobar, with paintings by Afghan artist Abdul Ghafur Breshna.[18] [19] File:The Char-Chatta Bazaar of Kabul.jpg It appears that this was also published in the same book so both of these qualify as PD-Afghanistan.--Officer (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original works may be PD, but Tapand's versions would be derivative works which have their own copyright. (If the originals were not PD, then distribution is subject to the permission of the author of the original as well.) They really need to be exact copies, such that there is no extra original expression in the new version. Straight-on photographs of a painting have been ruled to be such a case in the U.S. (no new expression) but something as simple as a mezzotint of a painting has been ruled to have its own creativity; see here. While I'm sure there are little or no cases in Afghan law yet, something like the above is usual under the Berne Convention, which it seems that Afghanistan is targeting, and the Afghan law does say that derivative works are copyrighted so far as the expression in the new version which is "differentiated" from the original. File:King_Amanullah_Khan_of_Afghanistan.jpg looks very close I have to admit, but as the other example you found is very small it's hard to tell. If it's a re-drawn version, it's probably copyrighted, if it was basically a photocopy of the original with his signature added, maybe not. You almost suspect that there is an original photograph which both are based on (drawings based on photos like that are still derivative works though). If the original works are PD, then those can be uploaded, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for Afghan law, but under US law, generally reproductions of public domain items are not copyrighted, per L Batlin and Sons v Snyder and Bridgeman v Corel, however there is a case[20] involving transferring a work from one medium to another (in this case a canvas painting to Mezzotint) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted There are two possibilities:

  • If the publication on Commons of these images predates any Afghan copyright, then the publication of these images created a USA copyright in each of the paintings. Those copyrights are owned by the artist. This happened because publication of a copy or replica will constitute publication of the original if it has not previously been published. It is well known that under Bridgeman vs Corel the mere copying of a painting does not give rise to a copyright for the photograph, so the photographer has no rights.
  • On the other hand, it is possible that the works were first published in Afghanistan and are copyrighted under Afghan law.

In either case, the copyright belongs to the artist and the photographer has no rights. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Paintings_by_Tapand&oldid=164708527"