Image talk:MuhammadSeal.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article [1] doesnt mention what this image is. Contributor seems to have made his own guess. Who has the rights to this? We dont know.Opiner 03:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rare letters bearing the seal of holy Prophet Mohammed and addressed to the kings of Egypt and Ethiopia, the emperors of Iran and Rome and Governors of Bahrain and Oman are on display in the Calligraphic exhibition that is being held in the Salar Jung Museum. The week long exhibition conducted by Islamic Heritage Foundation has the masterpieces of art from the early days of Islam to modern times. "

for anyone who can read arabic, they will know exactly what this is. under fair use rationale, it is permitted to use such low-resolution copyrighted images for display purposes if they are explicitly mentioned in the article. ITAQALLAH 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, letters BEARING the seal and the orriginal SEAL are totally different things. What you have here I think is plastic RECONSTRUCTION of seal based on impressions in those letters.

Seal itself is NOT mentioned in the article. If they hawd it it would be VERY valuable and would be mentioned. And why isnt picture labelled?Opiner 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

it may be a plastic representation, it may not be. it is under possession of the islamic heritage foundation, per the credits given in the article and at the bottom. so at least you are admitting it is the seal, whether it is a representation or the actual. nobody is claiming it is the original. the caption used in the wiki article (Muhammad as a diplomat) clearly says it is a rendering of the seal. do you have any justification for proposing the deletion? i currently see none. ITAQALLAH 21:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah NOW it says its a rendering of the seal cause you just changed it! Before it said it WAS the seal.

No Im not 'admitting it is the seal', YOU are finally admitting its NOT the seal. What it is? WEll you need a source that actually says what the picture is of. You cant just guess. A plastic model? Maybe someones drawing with crayons? A photoshop job? Could be any of these. We dont know do we? THe article doesnt say.

'Rendering' is just your way of admitting you dont know. If I draw it right now and uplaod thats a rendering too. Even if totally not accurate, still a 'rendering'!

You cant just upload image first then figure out what it is later. Same with rights to use it. If its someones photoshop then we DONT have the rights to the 'rendering'.Opiner

yes, perhaps you should look at the edit summary, i cited the talk for the change in wording. you have not studied the link, the images are accredited to the relative organisations where it says "Photographs : Islamic Heritage Foundation and Srinivas Setty ". the image is a photograph, not a photoshop job. you yourself have admitted that it is related to the seal above: "What you have here I think is plastic RECONSTRUCTION of seal based on impressions in those letters". i conceded that it may not have been the actual seal but instead a rendering long before you even joined up to wikipedia, per the caption in the Muhammad as a diplomat article. the previous description did not imply at all that it was the actual seal, although it may be or may not be. i added the clarification stating that it is a rendering of the seal, whether it is a reconstruction or not. the rights to the image are made quite clear: that image is under copyright of indias-best.com per the bottom of the page. it is usable under fair use rationale. i feel that you do not seem to understand what fair use rationale is, but are quite content to bicker over the image with endless, baseless speculation. ITAQALLAH 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Um photoshop is a program to retouch photographs, most photoshop jobs are also photographs! It can also be a photograph of an original artwork which speculated how seal might have looked. Even if we have rights to use we should NOT use it if we dont know what it actually is. And we dont do we?Opiner 01:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

whether it has been photoshopped or not does not stop it from being a rendering. we do not own the rights to it, indias-best.com owns the rights to it, and we are allowed to use it as long as it adheres to fair use rationale. everyone knows it is a seal, check out the other imprint in the Muhammad as a diplomat article which is identical to this. we know exactly what it is, as does the article it has been taken from. you also know what it is, and you have provided no reasonable basis to believe it is not a seal. anyone who can read arabic knows what it is. ITAQALLAH 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading Arabic is totally bogus argument, you can write those words on anything it doesnt make it the seal or even a rendering of the seal, just a quote of whats written on the seal! The article knows what is it? Please show where article says what it is cause I couldnt find it. Doesnt even have a caption.

Its not my burden to prove what it is, its yours.Opiner 01:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

i quoted it to you above. you yourself also admitted that you believed it was a reconstruction of the seal. the image in the article does not have a specific caption, although anyone with a bit of sense would be able to point out what it is, per the first paragraph. i also directed you to another imprint of the seal which has the exact same text and layout as in this image. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatd be my GUESS but my GUESS isnt good enough any more than yours is. If its so famous as you say why dont you go find another one with a clear description?Opiner 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

if you had taken the trouble to check the ALT text of that very image on that very website, you would have seen the words "The seal of Holy Prophet". if you can't see it, view the source for the page and scroll to where the coding for the ALT text is. even then, there are innumerable websites affirming that this rendering or its equivalent as a depiction of the seal. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. anything else? ITAQALLAH 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of those aren't 'equivalents' at all! Others are the exact same picture not another picture of the same object. Whats going on?Opiner 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

these are all sources confirming that the image as depicted on the image page is a rendering of the seal. they are equivalents: same text, same style, same positioning, all claiming that they are replicas or renderings of the seal. did you miss where the original webpage provided confirms: "The seal of Holy Prophet" by the way? ITAQALLAH 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Youre saying this[8] is the same as this[9]? I dont think so!

And this page looks like a museum of forgeries![10] The beard hairs of Muhammad??? Well whatever. I see now that original webpage says that. Thank you. But we know that its NOT the seal, at most some kind of replica and what kind we still dont know. It seems then that the problem isnt with any intentional misrepresenting of yours but just repeating what museum is saying. So keep the image if you want EVEN THOUGH its probably not real. I give up.Opiner 03:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)