A fact from Indira Devi of Kapurthala appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 August 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that in 1935, Indian princess Indira Devi(pictured) secretly travelled to London to become an actress, telling only her two sisters?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article was created or improved during the following events hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that in 1935, Indian princess Indira Devi(pictured) secretly travelled to London to become an actress, telling only her two sisters? "She left India for Britain in 1935 at the age of twenty-three. Only her sisters Princesses Sushila and Ourmilla knew of her intentions. "[1]
ALT1... that propaganda broadcasts to India by princess Indira Devi(pictured) during the Second World War were twice as popular as those of George Orwell? George Orwell, the BBC and India: a critical study (1994)... During the two years that George Orwell spent, between August 1941 and November 1943, at the Indian Section of the BBC, producing propaganda talks for listeners in India and elsewhere... Survey by Brander to Bengal, Bihar, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, Hyderabad and South India...Which of these personalities are enjoyed? Results: Orwell 16%, Indira 40%
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced (but the 'whens' and 'citation needed' need to be fixed before approval), is neutral and is plagiarism free. The hooks are cited and are interesting. I prefer ALT0, and I agree the image of three sisters would be good. QPQ is outstanding though. Images: I'm looking at the Commons entries, and I would query whether they are actually free to use - the statement says that "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer." BUT neither image lists an author. For Princess Indira Devi of Kapurthala, Bassano Ltd, 1938.pngaccording the to NPG, the firm was active until 1962 and it got incorporated into other companies; for that image the commons link doesn't actually take you to it either. For Princesses-of-kapurthala.jpg the link to source is archived, but there it clearly says "courtesy of: Shatrujit Singh/ Tasveer". I wouldn't say my understanding of copyright is completely comprehensive, but I don't think for either image we can categorically say they are free to use. This makes me sad, as they are beautiful. I'd be really pleased to read other's interpretations of the information on Commons, since the IPR lies with the photographer/company I believe? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore: Driveby opinion. The images are fine. I have added a different tag. "Bassano" died in 1913. Therefore the images must have been taken by an unknown (and skilful) photographer. Sure the Bassano company may still be in business now (and in 500 years time) but thats irrelevant. If the photographer is unknown then the copyright lasts for 70 years according to EU and UK law. HTH Victuallers (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Victuallers that argument might stand for the first image, but I don't think it does for the second - the website clearly says "courtesy of" implying that the site had to get permission to use the images. Permission is different, but I really don't think we can say they're out of copyright without further infomation. Also we don't know where the sisters image is taken - is it UK, or maybe India? Would there be differences in IPR legislation? Lajmmoore (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Victuallers. I notice the image of her with the BBC microphone that you added is sourced to Facebook. Are we sure it is her? I don't know who else it might be but it seems a little contemporary despite the period mic and the quality is too high. Compare it to this one which is probably correct. I was wondering whether yours was a modern recreation? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, Victuallers - note, even the FB image clearly says "Source: BBC Archives" - so presumably they would claim to still hold copyright on it? I'd love to use these images, I really would, but due diligence still has to be taken.
Note: The one with the microphone is the only one sourced to the BBC. The others all have different original sources but were also all in the book Maharanis: Women of Royal India which Whispyhistory says on their talk page that they have ordered. Its receipt should provide greater detail about the original source of the images. There are numerous Indian princess images floating around on the web but almost all on unreliable sources and I suspect many are wrongly identified. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Countesy of" and "Source:" is nice manners - and the fact that someone claims rights doesnt change anything. I can use a picture of the Mona Lisa and I can write "courtesy of the Louvre" ... I can even pay to get the rights (yes really!) BUT the law is that there are no rights.... and India versus the UK? If it was taken in India then it is definately out of copyright as the law is less onerous and clearer. I have added those tags too in anticipation of that complication. As for the quality being too high ..... have you seen the quality of turn of the century colour images ... the technology of photography was superb. The guy mentioned called Bassano created quality images and he died in 1913! ... a later re-creation? (That is stretching credability - it is theoretically possible, but then we need to delete a few million images because they "may" be a later recreation.) There are lots of images of everything on the web (including Indian Princesses) and I can assure you that many of them are wrongly identified. Is that an argument or a vague support for doubt about anything? Victuallers (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt 1946 or later "recreation" ... it was 1942 ... and they are ALL in the public domain. (Yes maybe the BBC recreated them all? really?) The law trumps commercial opportunism and that is Wikimedia's clear policy. We should not support copyfraud. Victuallers (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant an image created for some other purpose with a "period" look. It has often been done for films/PR purposes etc. Good to know the Facebook poster got it from the BBC. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lajmmoore:, @Philafrenzy:... Both above images are in Poddar, Abhishek; Gaskell, Nathaniel; Pramod Kumar, K. G; Museum of Art & Photography (Bangalore, India) (2015). Maharanis: women of royal India. Ahmedabad. pp. 138–141. ISBN978-93-85360-06-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). The three sisters (unknown photographer c 1935), and the other one - photograph by Bassano Ltd 1938. The other single portrait wearing triple pearl necklace says Kinsey Studios c mid 1930s. Does that help? Whispyhistory (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Whispyhistory - yes it does - thanks for investigating, I'm really pleased what you read concerns what Victuallers supposed, and I've put a tick, as I see the citations that were missing have been fixed! Thanks for bearing with my (over?)cautious approach! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced (but the 'whens' and 'citation needed' need to be fixed before approval), is neutral and is plagiarism free. The hooks are cited and are interesting. I prefer ALT0, and I agree the image of three sisters would be good. QPQ is outstanding though. Images: I'm looking at the Commons entries, and I would query whether they are actually free to use - the statement says that "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer." BUT neither image lists an author. For Princess Indira Devi of Kapurthala, Bassano Ltd, 1938.png according the to NPG, the firm was active until 1962 and it got incorporated into other companies; for that image the commons link doesn't actually take you to it either. For Princesses-of-kapurthala.jpg the link to source is archived, but there it clearly says "courtesy of: Shatrujit Singh/ Tasveer". I wouldn't say my understanding of copyright is completely comprehensive, but I don't think for either image we can categorically say they are free to use. This makes me sad, as they are beautiful. I'd be really pleased to read other's interpretations of the information on Commons, since the IPR lies with the photographer/company I believe? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
