Commons:Deletion requests/Der Stürmer

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Der Stürmer|year=2024|month=November|day=25}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Der Stürmer|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Der Stürmer}} at the end of today's log.

Der Stürmer

[edit]

I've nominated all the Der Stürmer images except those available under FoP. Three of them have an unacceptable PD-USGov-NARA, where they're clearly German works. One of them has anonymous-EU, which makes no sense; we know the publisher, Julius Streicher, who died in 1946. Even if he wouldn't be counted as an author, the authors and artists are surely credited somewhere. Looking at [1], you can see a signature in most of the cartoons reproduced from the periodical, and it's likely that larger versions of these images would likewise show a signature.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per de:Zeitungszeugen. As I had written in the previous DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No where on that page does it mention Der Stürmer. If there is some general law on German periodicals, then perhaps you should explain that and we can add it to COM:L or some place. Google Translate gives us
  • The named as publisher (especially Hitler) have provided the legislative power is not even out, and thus no compilation copyright law ( LUG § 4, sentence 1) were purchased. The same is probably true for the editor and in addition they are not explicitly named as publisher. Finally, it is not proof that these people the viewers and publishing rights have transferred or granted.
  • A separate compilation copyright of the wedding-Verlag (LUG § 4, sentence 2) as a legal person is 70 years expired after the release (LUG § 32 in conjunction with the Copyright Act § 132 sentence 2).
  • As far as the individual contributions have been published anonymously, the property is also 70 years have lapsed after the publication ( Copyright Act § 66 para 1 in conjunction with § 129 para 1). Moreover, it is not likely that the author name in posts marked deviation from VerlG § 42 para 2 sentence 2 aF (now the Copyright Act § 38 paragraph 3) Rather, the publishing house longer-term exclusive rights have transferred.
Which is not quite coherent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget they have to be out of copyright in the US, which means they had to be out of copyright in Germany in 1996.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nazi stuff is not protected by copyright in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual exception in the URAA is "EXCEPTION.-Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work." Was this owned by the Alien Property Custodian? It's possible, but I don't know they grabbed literally everything. And why would it be owned by a government? As far as I can tell, this was not an official Nazi paper, instead being a private rag, so it would still likely be in private hands.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a copyright issue here: Though the State of Bavaria (Freistaat Bayern) holds many copyrights of publications published between 1933 - 1945 and/or by fascists (which enables the state to prevent reprints in Germany, i.e. of Hitler's "Mein Kampf"), these publications may be quoted, if these quotes are in a historical context. These quotes may even consist of faksimile reprints of whole newspapers or magazins, if they are older than 70 yeras - 70 years is the period in which a copyright is protected. The state of Bayern went to court when the German publication "Zeitungszeugen" (newspaper witnesses) published Third Reich reprints in 2009. The state argued breech of copyright. Two courts ruled that this was not the case. The final verdict was ruled by Oberlandesgericht München. "Zeitungszeugen" could continue its publications. Here http://www.urheberrecht.org/news/3743/ the verdict (concerning reprints of "Völkischer Beobachter" and "Der Angriff") is specified: Da mangels eigener Leistung der Herausgeber von einem Urheberrecht des Verlages auszugehen sei, das nach dem damaligen Literatururhebergesetz (LUG) möglich war, ende die Schutzfrist nach Ablauf von 70 Jahren nach Erscheinen der jeweiligen Ausgabe.----weaubeau

 Keep per de:Zeitungszeugen. -- Laberkiste (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep More than 70 years old. --FLLL (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Images are important illustrations how this notorious paper worked. And the images are way old enough to be out of copyright long since. --91.52.6.23 17:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Der_Stürmer&oldid=923790726"