Dear All,
Thanks for beginning discussion on this important topic,Pandarpur and God Viththal is very old and very central to Marathi and Maharashtra culture, I still remember few years back I failed to upload an image of God Vitthala of Pandharpur on commons, subsequently some one succeeded to upload an image under proper license.
While it is true that we need to believe in people, I have very closely observed quite a few people selecting some license for the sake of it or just to retain the image. While it is true that now that Vithathal image is there on wikipedia pages,still I am not sure how far legal it is ?
while god is one or many, for Indian Legal system idols in temples are treated as person and those are public places but not necessarily in public domain per say, many temples across India you will notice having notice boards which strictly prohibit taking a photo graph of the idol and temple; I dont know why this system exist in the temple but when it is there we are supposed to comply the law.
Why we need to be concerned ?
So an image coming without permission from temple authority is anyway illegal.What we need to understand is not that we are concerned about copy right for the sake of it, we ( commons/wikipedia) are concerned of the issue because we just do not want to do a collection of information and knowledge, but we share, and we do not want just share through wikipedia site but we want wikipedias to be a vehicle of knowledge sharing where other medias of communication can come forward to take this info and knowledge to masses. When we share info knowledge with other media people, they will do so only if they are assured that material available at wikipedias is legal enough.
There is total lack of awareness , concern and sensitivity and above all Law is a complex subject. Given that, the funny thing is you go to a person with a request to make otherwise an unimportant thing copy right free he may not co-operate ask you thousand frustrating questions, but the same fellow you may find,floating copy-right of others happily every now and then
At Wikipedia for many Indians, it is there first time in life time that some one is asking them about copy right, they are simply surprised in disbelief and usually they are so passionate about their subject at their hand at least until they receive several requests/warnings they happily tend to ignore such communications .
And why not so ? just few years back,to write copyright related help pages (on marathi wikipedia), I thought to procure few Copyright related books from the market, In Pune I went from shop to shop what I could get just a bare act copy.Only one shop was carrying book with detail commentary and the price he told me for the same was just Rs 12000!.Then at least for few months I tried to get an appointment with a law college principal and simply all that effort turned out to be futile without getting an appointment ever.
Servers are in USA! So can I bypass the Indian laws ? Again I see a huge number of people using fair use clause for uploading images on Wikipedia, and that too under provisions of non-Indian laws ! Whether servers are in USA and some thing is legal under their law suffice the requirements of Indian Laws ? When a kite is floating from Indian soil to out of India border or a kite is floating in Indian sky from out side India,is it not an Indian law, at least to all Indian subjects, is supposed to get applied ?
Accepted that intellectual property acts in most countries are similar now a days but those simply can not be the same because laws are subject to final definition by supreme judiciary of each country independently.
How fair is the fair use under Indian Laws?
While I dont have a detail commentary of Indian Copy right law , what I read until now is bare copyright law .My understanding is while Indian Copy Right act has provisions of fair dealing but those concessions are largely for educational and restricted community performances. While Wikipedia has educational component and non profit but we are not a website that restricts other making profit from the info available on it so in perfect sense we are not supposed to get concessions on account of fair use/deal under present Indian Copy right act; unless owner of the copyright himself permits such usage.
Similar to commons,unlike to english wikipedia, I have kept a proposal on Marathi Wikipedia to bar usage of fair use provision since according to me we (wikipedia and indic wikipedians) are not supposed to benefit any concession under Indian Copyright fair use clause. We do lack enough legal expertise at mr-wiki community,so inputs on this issue from other indic wikipedians are most welcome ,imporant and will be valuable to us all.
Look forward to read more opinions on above issues and continued discussion of copyright subject on this forum
Thanks
Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia
________________________________ From: "wikimediaindia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org" wikimediaindia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, 10 May, 2011 12:18:54 PM Subject: Wikimediaindia-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 17
Send Wikimediaindia-l mailing list submissions to wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimediaindia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimediaindia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimediaindia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India (Sreejith K.) 2. Re: Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India (wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:23 +0530 From: "Sreejith K." sreejithk2000@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India To: Wikimedia India Community list wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: BANLkTinaqSxY1=q4WnrnGcYDxTgv2F6J_Q@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
All paintings of Hindu deities are not copyright free. There are clauses for it. As per Indian copyright act, only paintings that were published 60 years before are in public domain. Now the question here is how to prove the age of the painting. Lets take a different example, may be Lord Ram or Lord Shiva. How can we prove the age of the painting? In one discussion, a commons admin asked me to find a book that was published 60 years back in which this image is included. I need not explain the difficulty in getting such a proof.
Similar case with photographs of images before 1943. Colorization does not add new copyright, unless they add changes to it which makes it significantly different from the original. Now, how do you prove the images of such photographs? These photographs were taken during their lifetime and probably belongs to their family when it was taken. As per current rules in Commons, the family will have to send OTRS saying that the image belongs to them. Even then, someone could say that the photographer is not from their family and so the OTRS cannot be accepted. See this example -> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_undeletion#File:Vargh...
There are a lot of copyright violation photos uploaded to Commons. In between those deletions, a lot of genuine photographs get deleted for lack of proof. The concern here is on how to save them.
- Sreejith K.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bala Jeyaraman sodabottle@gmail.comwrote:
Ayyappan, a popular god of Kerala, has his image circulatedeverywhere on the plant with no proof of copyrights. It makes sense to believe that this image is not eligible for copyright because Hindu deities are all common property,
i have to disagree with this. All images of Hindu deities are not public property. Most of the popular images were done by painters some time in the immediate past - Ravi varma's paintings form the base for many deity images. Similarly there are many unknown temple artists, who have gone uncredite because of our practice of gross insensitivity to others' copyright. Claiming that deity images are not eligible for copyright is wrong. They do have copyright and unless there is iron clad proof of publication, dont decalre them to be in public domain. The fairuse clause is there for cases like this.
- While i understand what sreejith is saying, repeated copyright
violations in commons by Indian uploaders is mainly to blame for this backlash. In Ta wiki and in commons, i have to repeat many times to people that "everything that comes out of google image search is not free". In my experience, about half the people react defensively to such advice and reflexively claim the image is "own work" and they "took it". They do not like being pointed out they are wrong and thus damage the reputation of Indian uploaders further. Many of the regular commons users thus become immediately suspicious when a new indian user claims that an image is "own work". Even in the outreach programs i participated, people listen to me drone about how taking images of google image search is not ok and do the same the immediately after. This issue is not restricted to Indian users, but is a major problem for us. The only way to deal with this is a relentless copyright awareness campaign for Indian users.
- Images of people who died prior to 1951. Here too the case is not clear.
Many photos of such people are reconstructive work done post-1951. Colourisation of black and white pictures is a major concern. I am still not clear, if colourisation passes the originality threshold and becomes a original work on its own. If so, then such a work cannot be claimed as PD.
Personally i add a ton of descriptive information and long arguments to prove PD in india and in case of my own images, i always upload with full resolution and metadata. It is a sad bad situation, but the root cause is relative ignorance of Indians (including me) about copyright.
regards Bala
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Shiju Alex shijualexonline@gmail.comwrote:
Dear All,
I am forwarding the below mail on behalf of a Malayalam wikipedian who is very active in Wikimedia Commons.
Of late it is becoming very difficult for many Wikimedians from India to contribute to Wikimedia Commons especially if they are uploading historical images which are in PD. We are facing lot of issues (and many a times unnecessary controversies also) with the historic images in PD, images of wall paintings and statues, and so on. Please see the below mail in which Sreejith citing various examples.
It is almost impossible for the uploaders from India to show proof of the century old images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The current policies of Commons are not permitting many of the PD images from India citing all sorts of policies which might be relevant only in the western world. With these type of policies we are going to have serious issues when we try to go for GLAM type events.
But I also do not know the solution for this issue. Requesting constructive discussion.
Shiju Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sreejith K. sreejithk2000@gmail.com Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM Subject: Copyright problems of images from India To: Shiju Alex shijualexonline@gmail.com
Shiju,
As you might be aware already, we are having trouble keeping historical images about India in Wikimedia commons. This pertains mostly to images about Hindu gods and people who died before 1947.
Please see the below examples:
- File:Narayana
Guru.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narayana_Guru.jpg - This is the image of Sree Narayana Guruhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana_Guru, a Hindu saint, social reformer and is even considered a god by certain castes in Kerala. This image has been tagged as an image with No source. Narayana Guru expired in 1928 and considering the conditions in which
India
was in during that period and before, it is very difficult to get an image source online. Most active Wikipedians does not have access or information on how old the image is or where a source of it can be found. Any
photograph
published before 1941 in India is in public domain as per Indian copyright act. Common sense says that this image meets this criteria because the person was long lead before 1941, but we still need proof of the first publishing date. Deleting this image on grounds that no source could be found will only reduce the informative values of all the articles which
this
image is included in.
- File:Aravana.JPG: This image has already been deleted, but you can
see the amount of discussion that went in before deleting it. See Commons:Deletion
requests/File:Aravana.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aravana.JPG.
(An almost similar image can be found herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/anoopp/5706721852/in/photostream/.)This image as put for deletion because it had the image of Swami Ayyappanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Ayyappanin it. Ayyappan, a popular god of Kerala, has his image circulated everywhere on the plant with no proof of copyrights. It makes sense to believe that this image is not eligible for copyright because Hindu deities are all common property, but again, Commons need proof that the image is in public domain. This is the same case with all Hindu gods/goddesses. The images can only be kept in Commons if the uploader can provide proof that the images are in public domain.
- File:Kottarathil
sankunni.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpg: This is a picture of Kottarathil Sankunnihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kottarathil_Sankunni, the author of the famous book Aithiyamaalahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aithihyamala. Kottarathil Sankunni died in 1937 and so it makes sense to believe that
this
image was created on or before 1937 and thus falls in Public Domain. But some people in Commons is refusing to believe that and is asking for
proof.
Now it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to show proof that this image was published 60 years before today. The editor who nominated the image for deletion is on the safer side because it is not his
responsibility
to prove that the image is a copyright violation. So long story short, anyone can nominate any image for copyright violation and it becomes the uploaders responsibility to prove that its not. The deletion nomination
need
not be accompanied with a reason for disbelief.
- File:Anoop
Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anoop_Menon.jpg: This is the picture of Anoop Menonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Menon, a popular actor from Kerala. A discussion is going on about the uploaders credibility whether he is the original photographer of this image. Please see File talk:Anoop Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anoop_Menon.jpg. The reason for doubting the uploader is simple. This image has
professional
quality and so the uploader cannot be the copyright owner because this is his first upload. Strange? Now, it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to prove that he took this image and I do not know how and nor
does
the person who is arguing for it. He claims that the uploader can upload
the
full resolution image with EXIF but whats even funny is that most of
images
from the person who is saying this does not meet this criteria. Again,
back
to round 1 in my first example. Its the responsibility of the uploader to prove his image and anyone can doubt him for any stupid reason and commons hardly cares.
As you can see, it is getting quite difficult to maintain images from India in commons. India is a country which has only started to use Internet less than a decade ago and we still do not have many of our countries' books or sources of information online. So any image from India which gets nominated for deletion in Wikimedia Commons get deleted for absence of proof. Commons is ruled by *precautionary principle*, where in they are not willing to take any risks on copyright and will delete any image for which anyone has doubts. This is in contrary to local wikipedia projects in India where it is rules by the *good faith principle* where we will trust the uploader and it becomes the responsibility of the nominator to prove that the image has false copyright claim.
This issue is beginning to hurt the contents from India. If we can do something, its time we act immediately. If we are just going to just spent out time discussing about it, the pictures of all Hindu gods and people who died before independence might get deleted by that time.
Regards, Sreejith K.
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
In India, and in many countries outside the US, the concept of fair use is referred to as 'fair dealing' - the terms are analogous, but not exactly similar. In India, the copyright act outlines fair dealing principles in Sec 52, and if you would like to see the old and new provisions under this section, refer to:
Current Indian copyright law (with suggested amendments from government and civil society): http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/advocacy/proposed-amendment...
Proposed amended copyright law (soon to be tabled in parliament): http://tinyurl.com/3tb7drx
While under fair dealing it is possible to 'use' an image without permission under prescribed circumstances, this naturally does not mean that a user is free to change the licensing terms of the image. My understanding is that to upload an image on to Wikimedia Commons, the image licensing terms are fairly strict and clear; either it has to be out of copyright (i.e. its copyright term is verifiably over) or it has to be licensed CC BY SA, GFDL or Public Domain. So, in short, the concept of fair use/ fair dealing is inapplicable to Wikimedia Commons and doesn't help there in any way.
English Wikipedia allows for non-Wikimedia Commons images to be used in articles under fair use/ fair dealing, so that is an option that is option that is open to you as well when working there. Furthermore, all Indic language Wikipedias can also set a similar policy (i.e. allow for image use on the language Wikipedia through fair dealing) - so that is something that you and others might want to consider - I don't know what the current policies across Indic language Wikipedias are. This is one way to bypass both (a) the copyright policies set by Wikimedia Commons and (b) the difficulty in establishing copyright provenance in images of Indian religious iconography.
Fair dealing provisions in India are quite wide, and would allow you to use a wide set of commonly available images for illustrative purposes only - though you could seek specialised legal help if you want full clarity.
Cheers, Achal
On Wednesday 11 May 2011 09:02 AM, Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia wrote:
Dear All,
Thanks for beginning discussion on this important topic,Pandarpur and God Viththal is very old and very central to Marathi and Maharashtra culture, I still remember few years back I failed to upload an image of God Vitthala of Pandharpur on commons, subsequently some one succeeded to upload an image under proper license.
While it is true that we need to believe in people, I have very closely observed quite a few people selecting some license for the sake of it or just to retain the image. While it is true that now that Vithathal image is there on wikipedia pages,still I am not sure how far legal it is ?
while god is one or many, for Indian Legal system idols in temples are treated as person and those are public places but not necessarily in public domain per say, many temples across India you will notice having notice boards which strictly prohibit taking a photo graph of the idol and temple; I dont know why this system exist in the temple but when it is there we are supposed to comply the law.
Why we need to be concerned ?
So an image coming without permission from temple authority is anyway illegal.What we need to understand is not that we are concerned about copy right for the sake of it, we ( commons/wikipedia) are concerned of the issue because we just do not want to do a collection of information and knowledge, but we share, and we do not want just share through wikipedia site but we want wikipedias to be a vehicle of knowledge sharing where other medias of communication can come forward to take this info and knowledge to masses. When we share info knowledge with other media people, they will do so only if they are assured that material available at wikipedias is legal enough.
There is total lack of awareness , concern and sensitivity and above all Law is a complex subject. Given that, the funny thing is you go to a person with a request to make otherwise an unimportant thing copy right free he may not co-operate ask you thousand frustrating questions, but the same fellow you may find,floating copy-right of others happily every now and then
At Wikipedia for many Indians, it is there first time in life time that some one is asking them about copy right, they are simply surprised in disbelief and usually they are so passionate about their subject at their hand at least until they receive several requests/warnings they happily tend to ignore such communications .
And why not so ? just few years back,to write copyright related help pages (on marathi wikipedia), I thought to procure few Copyright related books from the market, In Pune I went from shop to shop what I could get just a bare act copy.Only one shop was carrying book with detail commentary and the price he told me for the same was just Rs 12000!.Then at least for few months I tried to get an appointment with a law college principal and simply all that effort turned out to be futile without getting an appointment ever.
Servers are in USA! So can I bypass the Indian laws ? Again I see a huge number of people using fair use clause for uploading images on Wikipedia, and that too under provisions of non-Indian laws ! Whether servers are in USA and some thing is legal under their law suffice the requirements of Indian Laws ? When a kite is floating from Indian soil to out of India border or a kite is floating in Indian sky from out side India,is it not an Indian law, at least to all Indian subjects, is supposed to get applied ?
Accepted that intellectual property acts in most countries are similar now a days but those simply can not be the same because laws are subject to final definition by supreme judiciary of each country independently.
How fair is the fair use under Indian Laws?
While I dont have a detail commentary of Indian Copy right law , what I read until now is bare copyright law .My understanding is while Indian Copy Right act has provisions of fair dealing but those concessions are largely for educational and restricted community performances. While Wikipedia has educational component and non profit but we are not a website that restricts other making profit from the info available on it so in perfect sense we are not supposed to get concessions on account of fair use/deal under present Indian Copy right act; unless owner of the copyright himself permits such usage.
Similar to commons,unlike to english wikipedia, I have kept a proposal on Marathi Wikipedia to bar usage of fair use provision since according to me we (wikipedia and indic wikipedians) are not supposed to benefit any concession under Indian Copyright fair use clause. We do lack enough legal expertise at mr-wiki community,so inputs on this issue from other indic wikipedians are most welcome ,imporant and will be valuable to us all.
Look forward to read more opinions on above issues and continued discussion of copyright subject on this forum
Thanks
Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia
*From:* "wikimediaindia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org" wikimediaindia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org *To:* wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Tue, 10 May, 2011 12:18:54 PM *Subject:* Wikimediaindia-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 17
Send Wikimediaindia-l mailing list submissions to wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimediaindia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediaindia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimediaindia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediaindia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimediaindia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India (Sreejith K.)
- Re: Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India (wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com mailto:wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com)
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:23 +0530 From: "Sreejith K." <sreejithk2000@gmail.com mailto:sreejithk2000@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India To: Wikimedia India Community list <wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <BANLkTinaqSxY1=q4WnrnGcYDxTgv2F6J_Q@mail.gmail.com mailto:q4WnrnGcYDxTgv2F6J_Q@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
All paintings of Hindu deities are not copyright free. There are clauses for it. As per Indian copyright act, only paintings that were published 60 years before are in public domain. Now the question here is how to prove the age of the painting. Lets take a different example, may be Lord Ram or Lord Shiva. How can we prove the age of the painting? In one discussion, a commons admin asked me to find a book that was published 60 years back in which this image is included. I need not explain the difficulty in getting such a proof.
Similar case with photographs of images before 1943. Colorization does not add new copyright, unless they add changes to it which makes it significantly different from the original. Now, how do you prove the images of such photographs? These photographs were taken during their lifetime and probably belongs to their family when it was taken. As per current rules in Commons, the family will have to send OTRS saying that the image belongs to them. Even then, someone could say that the photographer is not from their family and so the OTRS cannot be accepted. See this example -> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_undeletion#File:Vargh...
There are a lot of copyright violation photos uploaded to Commons. In between those deletions, a lot of genuine photographs get deleted for lack of proof. The concern here is on how to save them.
- Sreejith K.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bala Jeyaraman <sodabottle@gmail.com mailto:sodabottle@gmail.com>wrote:
Ayyappan, a popular god of Kerala, has his image circulatedeverywhere on the plant with no proof of copyrights. It makes sense to believe that this image is not eligible for copyright because Hindu deities are all common property,
i have to disagree with this. All images of Hindu deities are not public property. Most of the popular images were done by painters some time
in the
immediate past - Ravi varma's paintings form the base for many deity
images.
Similarly there are many unknown temple artists, who have gone uncredite because of our practice of gross insensitivity to others' copyright. Claiming that deity images are not eligible for copyright is wrong.
They do
have copyright and unless there is iron clad proof of publication, dont decalre them to be in public domain. The fairuse clause is there for
cases
like this.
- While i understand what sreejith is saying, repeated copyright
violations in commons by Indian uploaders is mainly to blame for this backlash. In Ta wiki and in commons, i have to repeat many times to
people
that "everything that comes out of google image search is not free".
In my
experience, about half the people react defensively to such advice and reflexively claim the image is "own work" and they "took it". They
do not
like being pointed out they are wrong and thus damage the reputation of Indian uploaders further. Many of the regular commons users thus become immediately suspicious when a new indian user claims that an image
is "own
work". Even in the outreach programs i participated, people listen to me drone about how taking images of google image search is not ok and
do the
same the immediately after. This issue is not restricted to Indian
users,
but is a major problem for us. The only way to deal with this is a relentless copyright awareness campaign for Indian users.
- Images of people who died prior to 1951. Here too the case is not
clear.
Many photos of such people are reconstructive work done post-1951. Colourisation of black and white pictures is a major concern. I am
still not
clear, if colourisation passes the originality threshold and becomes a original work on its own. If so, then such a work cannot be claimed
as PD.
Personally i add a ton of descriptive information and long arguments to prove PD in india and in case of my own images, i always upload with
full
resolution and metadata. It is a sad bad situation, but the root
cause is
relative ignorance of Indians (including me) about copyright.
regards Bala
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Shiju Alex
<shijualexonline@gmail.com mailto:shijualexonline@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear All,
I am forwarding the below mail on behalf of a Malayalam wikipedian
who is
very active in Wikimedia Commons.
Of late it is becoming very difficult for many Wikimedians from
India to
contribute to Wikimedia Commons especially if they are uploading
historical
images which are in PD. We are facing lot of issues (and many a times unnecessary controversies also) with the historic images in PD,
images of
wall paintings and statues, and so on. Please see the below mail in
which
Sreejith citing various examples.
It is almost impossible for the uploaders from India to show proof
of the
century old images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The current
policies of
Commons are not permitting many of the PD images from India citing
all sorts
of policies which might be relevant only in the western world. With
these
type of policies we are going to have serious issues when we try to
go for
GLAM type events.
But I also do not know the solution for this issue. Requesting constructive discussion.
Shiju Alex
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sreejith K. <sreejithk2000@gmail.com
mailto:sreejithk2000@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM Subject: Copyright problems of images from India To: Shiju Alex <shijualexonline@gmail.com
mailto:shijualexonline@gmail.com>
Shiju,
As you might be aware already, we are having trouble keeping historical images about India in Wikimedia commons. This pertains mostly to images about Hindu gods and people who died before 1947.
Please see the below examples:
- File:Narayana
Guru.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narayana_Guru.jpg -
This is the image of Sree Narayana
Guruhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana_Guru,
a Hindu saint, social reformer and is even considered a god by
certain
castes in Kerala. This image has been tagged as an image with No
source.
Narayana Guru expired in 1928 and considering the conditions in
which India
was in during that period and before, it is very difficult to
get an image
source online. Most active Wikipedians does not have access or
information
on how old the image is or where a source of it can be found.
Any photograph
published before 1941 in India is in public domain as per Indian
copyright
act. Common sense says that this image meets this criteria
because the
person was long lead before 1941, but we still need proof of the
first
publishing date. Deleting this image on grounds that no source
could be
found will only reduce the informative values of all the
articles which this
image is included in.
- File:Aravana.JPG: This image has already been deleted, but you can
see the amount of discussion that went in before deleting it.
See Commons:Deletion
requests/File:Aravana.JPGhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aravana.JPG.
(An almost similar image can be found
herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/anoopp/5706721852/in/photostream/.)This
image as put for deletion because it had the image of Swami
Ayyappanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Ayyappanin it. Ayyappan, a popular god of Kerala, has his image circulated
everywhere on the plant with no proof of copyrights. It makes
sense to
believe that this image is not eligible for copyright because Hindu deities are all common property, but again, Commons need
proof that
the image is in public domain. This is the same case with all Hindu gods/goddesses. The images can only be kept in Commons if the
uploader can
provide proof that the images are in public domain.
- File:Kottarathil
sankunni.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpg:
This is a picture of Kottarathil
Sankunnihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kottarathil_Sankunni,
the author of the famous book
Aithiyamaalahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aithihyamala.
Kottarathil Sankunni died in 1937 and so it makes sense to
believe that this
image was created on or before 1937 and thus falls in Public
Domain. But
some people in Commons is refusing to believe that and is asking
for proof.
Now it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to show proof
that this
image was published 60 years before today. The editor who
nominated the
image for deletion is on the safer side because it is not his
responsibility
to prove that the image is a copyright violation. So long story
short,
anyone can nominate any image for copyright violation and it
becomes the
uploaders responsibility to prove that its not. The deletion
nomination need
not be accompanied with a reason for disbelief.
- File:Anoop
Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anoop_Menon.jpg:
This is the picture of Anoop
Menonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Menon,
a popular actor from Kerala. A discussion is going on about the
uploaders
credibility whether he is the original photographer of this
image. Please
see File talk:Anoop
Menon.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anoop_Menon.jpg.
The reason for doubting the uploader is simple. This image has
professional
quality and so the uploader cannot be the copyright owner
because this is
his first upload. Strange? Now, it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to prove that he took this image and I do not know how
and nor does
the person who is arguing for it. He claims that the uploader
can upload the
full resolution image with EXIF but whats even funny is that
most of images
from the person who is saying this does not meet this criteria.
Again, back
to round 1 in my first example. Its the responsibility of the
uploader to
prove his image and anyone can doubt him for any stupid reason
and commons
hardly cares.
As you can see, it is getting quite difficult to maintain images from India in commons. India is a country which has only started to use
Internet
less than a decade ago and we still do not have many of our
countries' books
or sources of information online. So any image from India which gets nominated for deletion in Wikimedia Commons get deleted for absence of proof. Commons is ruled by *precautionary principle*, where in they are not willing to take any risks on copyright and will delete any
image for
which anyone has doubts. This is in contrary to local wikipedia
projects in
India where it is rules by the *good faith principle* where we will
trust
the uploader and it becomes the responsibility of the nominator to
prove
that the image has false copyright claim.
This issue is beginning to hurt the contents from India. If we can do something, its time we act immediately. If we are just going to
just spent
out time discussing about it, the pictures of all Hindu gods and
people who
died before independence might get deleted by that time.
Regards, Sreejith K.
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
mailto:Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org