Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg

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.

Image:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg

this user is not the author of this image, and also he is a sockpuppet of the banned user:NisarKand from the English Wikipedia. He is known to upload images under the own work license. this is not his image and neither are the other 3. User:Le Behnam 21:42, 20 May 2007

Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.JPG and Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.jpg should also be considered --ALE! ¿…? 11:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . All 3 clearly have invalid licenses - the uploader is not the copyright holder. It seems likely these are old paintings now out of copyright, but without further information about the artist there's no way to confirm this. Anyone recognise them? WjBscribe 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These images do have the correct licenses. I, PRTkand, am the uploader and the copyright holder of these pictures. I photographed them inside Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan by the full permission from the museum staff. I also have them loaded on to www.Flickr.com, so it's useless to make false claims against me because I am the copyright holder to all these images since I took the pictures with my own camera. You will not be able to find these images anywhere else online, like I said they are one of a kind. The original paintings are hanging in Kandahar Museum. If you claim that I am not the copyright holder then you must provide clear and convincing evidence, otherwise you are violating the rules of Wikimedia by knowingly and falsely accusing someone of not being the copyright holder when in fact they are the copyright holders.--PRTkand 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mistaken assumption. Image's EXIF data does not show camera etc for the first two. On the third, EXIF claims the image was made with an Olympus C-740UZ on January 14, 2003... but apparently that camera model was first presented by Olympus at PMA in Las Vegas on March 2, 2003! (See List_of_Olympus_products, [1], [2], [3].) How can that be? It's up to you to provide proof that you are the copyright owner on these images. Send such proof to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, and mention clearly to what images it applies. Without such evidence, these images may be deleted. Lupo 13:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that according to a Japanese news release from Olympus (as far as I understand it thanks to babelfish), the C-740UZ first went on sale in Japan in mid-May 2003.[4] So it seems highly unlikely that the C-740UZ was available anywhere before that March 2, 2003 date. Lupo 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions of who took the photos aside, photographing someone else's work does not make you the author of the work in question (in this case, the painter is the author), nor does creating a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work in itself merit any copyright protection, since the reproduction does not introduce any creative elements not already present in the work depicted. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never said I was the author of the original paintings that are hanging in Kandahar Musuem. I am the uploader and owner of these pictures is what I stated. User:Lupo, all that detailed search you made about my camera is irrelevant because the sources you provided are not from the Olympus manufactoring plant that actually physically put-together or build these cameras, and ship them to people but rather from different marketing agents of Olympus and other cameras. Products can be released to some individuals or organizations ahead of their original launching dates. I don't think I need to go further with explaining how and where I got my camera in January 2003. I am from Asia so perhaps we get our hands on some Asian products before you get them in the west. According to Olympus C-740UZ, the camera was out for the public to buy in 2003, the same year I took this picture with it, there are no months shown in the article or in its sources. I am the owner of these pictures and tons of others. I own several cameras, and by the way, I have fixed some of my pictures using Adobe photoshop, so the information of my camera may not be available on every picture. I will show you a link to www.flickr.com, showing these same images with copyright protection (all rights reserved) under my name. I also have many other paintings, several of Hamid Karzai, old historical paintings and real views of Kandahar. That's only if you insist. If you believe I chose a wrong license and can help me fix it to the correct license then that will be fine with me. Anyway, why are you all wanting my pictures deleted from here? I see many pictures uploaded by people on commons, similar ways I uploaded my pictures, and those are not under deletion but mines is because User:Le Behnam made false accusations that I am not the author. Since I produced or created this image on my PC, I believe I should be the author of my work, unless someone has a claim to this. I don't see anyone making a claim to this work, so you people still lack evidence to prove that I am not the rightful owner of this work.--PRTkand 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cannot be the copyright holder of the pictures, because authorship is a status earned by making creative decisions to produce a copyrightable work, and faithfully reproducing a two-dimensional work does not involve such creative decisions. (Similarly, if I take a pen and paper and write down the script for Hamlet, I cannot call myself the author. There is no such thing as "author of a copy.") The only question is whether the copyrightable elements in the pictures (the original paintings) are GFDL-licensed and CC-licensed (unlikely), {{PD-Art}} eligible (in which case the licences must be changed), or copyrighted and non-freely licensed (in which case they would have to be deleted). Actually, it doesn't matter whether you or someone else took the photos, so long as the copyright status of the original works can be determined. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, this is a picture of a painting that is displayed at a public museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan, for the public to view it and take pictures. I am sure in your country, where ever you live, there is also a public museum for people to go in and take pictures of paintings hanging there. If the paintings that are hanging in the museums had copyright rules then I am absolutely sure that taking pictures of such paintings would not be allowed by the museums in the first place. Example, if I go to a museum in the United States and take pictures of George Washington's paintings, those pictures are considered mines, not of the museum or the government of the United States and or anyone elses. This is the case here, I took these pictures and the copyright to these pictures are totally mines, or to whoever I release my rights to. Since most museums don't restrict the public from taking pictures of paintings that are hanging inside them, well that means that whoever takes a picture of the paintings are given permission to claim copyright to "their own copy" of the paintings, which is in a form of a picture. The person in the painting, Ahmad Shah, who was the King of Afghanistan in 1700s had die over 100 years. So far you have not shown me any rules of commons that explains to me that I cannot upload a picture of a painting. Your argument is based on pure POVs.--PRTkand 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Copying a public domain work does not make you the author, and you don't earn any copyright by doing so. Copies of public domain works remain in the public domain, and if the original work is indeed in the public domain, claiming that you hold the copyright of a copy or otherwise attempting to impose copyright or licensing restrictions is a criminal offence in the US under United States Code 17-506(c) and similar laws in other countries. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read and the court decided in favor of Corel Corp., not in favor of the plaintiff (Bridgeman Art Library), so therefore, that decision supports me here. Although the decision or opinion was rendered in the United States, it does not apply to the laws of Afghanistan. Also, why you showing me laws of the USA when I had already stated I am from Asia? Anyway, you are trying to change the main subject, my "pictures" to the original paintings. I've never claimed to be the "author" of the paintings, which is something I can't be because the author's (artist's) signature (Tapand) is marked on the paintings. The original paintings are perhaps the property of Kandahar Museum in Afghanistan, and they do not have a policy to restrict photographs of these paintings because they allow the public to view and make personal photographs of them. I claimed to be the "copyright holder of these pictures" that I uploaded to Commons, which were taken of unknown paintings by unknown artist. This is what the license on Commons asks for, nothing else. Lets make it simple, show me proof that these pictures or images are somebody elses, otherwise no need to make false accusations.--PRTkand 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The uploader shall provide proof. Besides, there is something fishy about the EXIF tag on the third image. I have provided sources (including an Asian source directly from the manufacturer!) that indicate that this camera model was not available at the date the EXIF data claims the picture was taken. Lupo 07:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is my proof showing that I am the copyright holder to these pictures ---->>>PRTkand's pictures. I, the uploader, provided convincing evidence to prove that I am the copright holder to all these pictures, yet nobody made any claims to the ownership of my pictures. I am unessary disturbed for no reason, probably due to someone who dislike me because I tell the truth. Also, the dates when pictures were actually taken are not always 100% authentic proof because cameras can be set to any date, sometimes purposely and sometimes by mistake, so the dates when a picture was taken cannot ever be 100% correct. It's the first time I ever saw someone arguing over this here.--PRTkand 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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, even though this may be PD old. Madmax32 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept all as PD-Art (although I deleted Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.JPG as being superseded by Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.png) .

Lupo's main argument is incorrect. If a camera is relased in May 2003, its setting when you first turn it on will often be January 1, 2003.

I could see no other reason why they should be deleted.

Fred J 16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]