copied from Brahmo Samaj talk page

The deviations between the Sen image and the postage stamp are gross.The photograph at Wiki Commons Media is obviously doctored from the original source image used by GoI Postal Department in their website URL (without html) indianpost DOT com/images/0965.jpg to depict at Wiki Commons, and many other sites, a "younger" and "whiter" Sen in the identical pose in a manipulated monochrome photograph image obviously originating from some history or religious book. Note the "baggy" eyes and wrinkles around the neck in the postage stamp and the skin tone. Keshub Sen like Ram Mohan Roy was "nut brown" in real life. The image of Sen linked to on Brahmo Samaj article is quite obviously not a "faithful reproduction" of the source artwork. Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the India Postal Ministry website is http://indiapost.gov.in. The website you cited is a private website dedicated to Indian philately. The image at the private site, however, corresponds to the stamp from other independent (non-interested) sources (Baggy eyes et.al). From the gov.in site "Conditions for reproduction of Stamp Images: Re-production of stamps is allowed for illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article relating wholly on postage stamps which may appear in any magazine, newspaper or publication of a general character. Such reproduction should however, be only in black. If stamps are to be produced in colour for publicity purposes, prior permission of the Director General of Posts must be obtained. To avoid similarity with the postage, such reproduction must be distinctively in smaller or larger sizes than the actual stamp and must be without perforation on the edges. Further, across bar will also be placed on one- corner of the stamp, obliterating the denomination. It must be noted that reproduction of the stamp in colour of the actual size of the stamp with perforation of the edges may be deemed to be taken as production of the actual stamp"." Yvantanguy (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So it is also possible that the impugned "photograph" of Keshob is a photographic (like Mr.Paul Barlow sez and not created by Mr.Sen himself) non-faithful reproduction on black and white photo stock from the postage stamp which qualifies as "2D work of art" but has reproduction right from its copyright holder which doesnot extend to this article. As nobody here seems interested in defending the image, perhaps deleting the image from this article whilst leaving it on Keshob's bio-page should unearth the reality = or the copyrighted book it was extracted from. Bikash. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all very silly, and is obviously part of an attempt to remove images based on sonme anti-image ideology, while manufacturing the claim that the picture has been distorted in some way. That's what I mean by "disingenuous". Take it to the image talk page. The idea that a postage stamp, which is subject to creative design, is somehow more authentic than an actual photograph is absurd. The image on the stamp is clearly taken from a print copied from the photograph, probably a lithograph. The importance given US copyright laws lies in the fact that the wikipedia Servers are based in the USA. It has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Paul Barlow. I opine that you make too many generalisations and everything is as "obvious" to yourself as it is to myself or my brother. The Wiki Image Link for this impugned image states explicitly "Licencing: This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The original image comprising the work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:... " It "obviously" denotes that the image link deleted by me is that of a photograph OF an original 2D art work and NOT that of Keshob directly. The appropriate convention COM:PDART was also referred previously. The original uploader (User:Rajibg) of the Image has previously contributed to the Brahmo Samaj and similar articles, let us see what he or others think too on the issue and bring out the source of the said image (which should be trivial) or make out a case for "Fair Use" as in RamMohan's Image case which we are not now questioning. Your statement that there is an "anti-image ideology" is preposterous and unsubtantiated with no basis. I am not sure what point User:Slrubenstein was conveying to you, but I and my brothers are not rigid or dogmatic on such matters. Concerning your claim to US Copyright alone extending due to server location, I say that if the impugned Image of Keshob is extracted from a work with copyright subsisting in India / Indian - such as book, stamp, recent art work, India's laws would apply equally / better under certain Conventions which you are doubtless aware of. About taking this to the Image talk page, as it only concerns the "source" and "provenance" of this particular image or its artwork, I opine that I am on the right Talk:Page for preliminary discussion by domain specialists. It is open to you to take this discussion to any relevant page of your choice. Kindly leave a note here for me though. Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Preposterous? Now you are simply being unbelievable. There was a statement placed on the Brahmo page that no images were allowed for religious reasons, and now, out of the blue, you suddenly start to question the copyright of two images which have been here unquestioned by anyone for years. I don't think that anyone can seriously believe that that's a coincidence. Paul B (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)