Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Chaman Lall

Helen Chaman Lall

(

)

Portrait of Helen by Sher-Gil

... ~~that Helen Chaman Lall (pictured) was the only person painted by Amrita Sher-Gil in Lahore in the 1930s?~~
Source: [1]
- Reviewed: Annie Huggett

Created by Whispyhistory (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 203 past nominations.

Whispyhistory (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC).

I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice article, and a great picture which will look good on the main page. Thank you for this.

I did a very brief copyedit of the article, which does not affect this review. Storye book (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Storye book:... Thank you for reviewing. I need to recheck the hook fact as the source is not correct and does not correspondance to Sher-Gil's letters. Will ping you once checked. Sorry for this. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Amrita Sher-Gil painted a portrait of Helen Chaman Lall (pictured) without expecting a fee?

for ALT1, with offline citation taken AGF. Thank you, Whispyhistory. Storye book (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The author of the painting, Amrita Sher-Gil, died in 1941, so the painting entered into the publish domain in India in 2001. Regrettably, because it was still protected by copyright in India in 1996 (the date of the URAA), it's still protected by copyright in the US until 2033. Given the extensive discussion of the painting within the article, I think there's a pretty good argument that we can use this painting as fair use on enWiki. Rather than nominating this for deletion on commons, I'm pinging Whispyhistory so you can {{SD|g7}} this on commons and re-upload locally as a non-free file. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay... thanks for explaining. I'll have a look. Whispyhistory (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian:. I don't see a problem with the copyright of the above picture. Its filepage on Commons has all the correct copyright tags. Storye book (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here's my line of thought. ownership of the painting was transferred or "communicated to the public", meaning it was published. It was published outside of the United States, it seems- India, specifically. The author died in 1941, so Indian copyright law protected her works until 2001. Therefore, it was still protected by copyright in its home country in 1996. Therefore, it had its copyright restored in the United States by the URAA. That being said, international copyright law is....complicated. Have I missed anything super obvious or made any illogical jumps? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Both tags on the image file say that the image is currently in the public domain. Are you saying that one or both of the tags is untrue? If that is the case, what are your grounds for saying that your theory is the correct one, and that the Commons tags are incorrect in principle? Looking at the first tag on the page, it strikes me that you are perhaps not aware of the bit of law which that tag is using? Storye book (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. I think the answer lies in the definition of "pubished". Whispyhistory (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Whispyhistory. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)