Commons:Deletion requests/File:Höcker Album.png
These items were created in what is the modern-day EU. They were not created by the US government. According to EU law, if an anonymous work is published within 70 years of its creation, then it is protected by copyright for 70 subsequent years. This item was created in c.1944, less than 71 years ago. Thus it is copyrighted in its home country for 70 years after its first publication, which was c. 2007 according to w:Höcker Album - thus copyrightable through 2007. The item is quite possibly free in the US as a work seized from an entity with which the US was at war; however, Commons policy requires an item be in the public domain in both its home country and the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, isn't "copyright" an intangible good that can be bought, sold, traded and given away? Seems to me it's quite possible, even probable that in the acquisition of these items by the U.S. govt any copyright ownership transfered as well. – JBarta (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose I should have read Höcker Album before posting above. How sure are we that German copyright law insists that material confiscated under such circumstances still enjoys German copyright protection? – JBarta (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep - first published in the US, US law applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Pieter Kuiper SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Not PD in the US. It was first published in the USA 2006. Author is a German war criminal, not a US-Gov-guy. sугсго 06:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - first published in the US, US law applies. Same as above.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is not PD in the USA. Höcker wasn't a GI, but a German soldier. This work was not seized by the US-gov. sугсго 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting that twice an effort is made to delete a useful historical photo, yet we keep assloads of utterly useless crap. Common sense sure does take a beating around here. – JBarta (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2012
- Your comment is misleading. This deletion is based on copyright grounds, not grounds of historical usefulness. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't think I needed help proving my point, but thank-you anyway. Carry on folks, carry on... – JBarta (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you'd like to propose that Commons host non-free material, do so here: Commons talk:Licensing. Alternatively, you could simply make your argument for why this is free. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- You've been very helpful, thank-you. If I have any other questions or need some guidance, may I leave a message on your talk page? – JBarta (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you'd like to propose that Commons host non-free material, do so here: Commons talk:Licensing. Alternatively, you could simply make your argument for why this is free. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't think I needed help proving my point, but thank-you anyway. Carry on folks, carry on... – JBarta (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - as I stated above, this may qualify as seized property, and thus the copyright is nullified in the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't siezed. An American found it and took it to the USA as his own property. sугсго 13:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- What do you think "seized" means?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- t was siezed, but not by the US gov. sугсго 06:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
