File talk:Pahari women kashmir1890.jpg

message: OK Fowler.  Since you feign ignorance let me explain.  The source you initially gave for the pics was this.  Now do you see any pic on that page which even remotely is connected to the Toda images you've uploaded?  NO?  That explains why I initially tagged it as not having source info.
You then came up with this.  Now, while that page sure has a scaled down image of what you've uploaded, it certainly by itself is NOT what you have uploaded.  I am certainly aware that hi resolution and large pictures can be scaled down.  But I've never seen a small original being scaled up.
Now, I am sure you will point me to this("large image") and say that is what you've uploaded.  Right?  Wrong.  Here is the tricky part.  That pic is NOT what you have uploaded.  That pic has the British Library logo on it and yours doesnt... meaning you uploaded a cropped version of the original.  Now thats still vio.  The fact is, BL got their hands on the original(which either belonged to them right from day one or was obviously pd-old) and watermarked it.  When they watermark it, it becomes a new creation.  Now, unless they release their new creation on a license which allows you to produce derivatives, you are NOT allowed to produce derivatives.  The British Library categorically says on their website that all pictures on their website are copyrighted to them.  (I am sure they're professional enough to know what they're talking about).  That being the case, it is not upto you to simply download their creation, modify it and upload it on wikipedia.  You were being smart.  Werent you?  If you can actually get your hands on the original original(sans the watermark, ie.,) feel free to upload it on wikipedia.  But NOT the British library creation.
While I'm explaining this, let me also point out another thing.  You have uploaded some maps on wikipedia on which you credit yourself for annotating it.  You can jolly well add such credits in the summary, but you are not supposed to have it on the actual picture itself because it is a watermark of sorts and watermarked pics are not allowed on wikipedia.  The watermark concern apart, some would argue that it is vanity too.  So take those pics down, fix them and re-upload them before somebody tags them too. Sarvagnya 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the above.  As long as we remove the watermark, we can use the remaining portion of the public domain image. -- But|seriously|folks  02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the funny thing is that all my BL images were downloaded from their web site in early 2006 (and I have quite a collection).  This was before they started tagging the images with that red BL mark.  I will shortly upload a full scale version of the image without the label (and I haven't played any tricks with the image).  Later in Fall 2006, I wrote a number of times to BL first asking them if it would be OK to upload the images to Wikipedia and then telling them I would be uploading them, but got no response.  The red labels appeared sometime in early 2007 or at least that is when I noticed them.  More soon.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is the original image.  As you can see, there is no label.  I did crop them, but that was done for symmetry and arrangement.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)