Commons:Deletion requests/File:USHMM 34755 Soletal Solahutte img61 mengele hoess.png

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.

File:USHMM 34755 Soletal Solahutte img61 mengele hoess.png

Waffen-SS Member Karl-Friedrich Höcker was obviously not a Member of the US Army, therefore the license tag is wrong. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

the deletion-nomination is an outrage. the deletion reason given is: "Waffen-SS Member Karl-Friedrich Höcker was obviously not a Member of the US Army, therefore the license tag is wrong." no one asserts that the photographer worked for the u.s. army. the author tag clearly says "US Govt office scans of WWII German images by staff of SS Karl-Friedrich Höcker" --repeat: US Govt *SCANS OF*. they are in the collection of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum. the digital versions are US GOVT now: public domain. the film-printed originals were by a government employee of a now-defunct regime (the nazi govt) which has no copyright-assertion capability. you or other users are welcome to adjust the category to one more fitting if you feel an extreme need to do so. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Cramyourspam is quite correct. There is nothing in the license tag that mentions the US Army, or Karl-Friedrich Höcker's membership therein. I move this frivolous deletion nomination be closed. Rathersane (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you assume that by scanning an image the US Govt takes the copyright of the original image? Commons:Derivative works also applies for the US Government. So by editing/scanning/publishing works from other (non-US-sources) they do not take the copyright and therefore cannot release them to the public domain either. The Nazi Government didn't ever have the copyright on these images either, because according to german law, copyright always remains with persons, never with institutions. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about the technical stuff this is an unfortunate part of history get the details correct and leave the pic. The pic is a chilling reminder of how twisted the German population became after all their problems from ww1- (that managers of a killing camp for Germany's perceived enemies would be happy to have a cigar break)-wow sad! either way keep the pic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.197.41 (talk • contribs) 29. August 2012, 15:09 Uhr (UTC)

This discussion again? It has been already noted in few places that as these images were first published by US goverment. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:H%C3%B6cker_Album.png for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.95.166 (talk • contribs) 30. August 2012, 02:05 Uhr (UTC)

Do NOT delete it, it is clearly evidence and a reminder of the suffering of the those in german hands, it's outragous you would consider deleting something that provides evdience of Dr. Mengele's existence. Don't be pathetic, you could easily edit the discription if it bothers you so much and just as cramyourspam said it says SCANS OF*, it does not have the decription ANYWHERE of the following people being U.S soliders. Even I, at sixteen years old took notice of that fact. pull your head in, no evidence of the holocaust should be deleted, it is history... it will not miraculously dissapear even is some hope it will. And let us make a note that we do NOT blame this generation of germans for what their ancestors have done. It is over now, we are keeping it for prevention of the same thing happening again in the future. suck it up, unfortunatley for you this photograph is too valuable to delete. jgracesmale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.162.127 (talk • contribs) 1. September 2012, 13:13 Uhr (UTC)

On Commons we are not making any compromises in copyright status for political/moral/whatever reasons. Therefore, please refrain from any sort of such arguments. They are neither useful nor relevant here.

The images in the collection (so-called Höcker Album), from which this photo was taken, are assumed to have been shot[1] by SS man and concentration camp administrator Karl-Friedrich Höcker, who died in 2000. As 70 years p.m.a. is the default duration of copyright protection, this DR is neither "an outrage" nor "frivolous". The US government may consider these photos as "war booty", but that is not relevant for Commons. And for the "scan fans": scanning of a copyrighted work doesn't give you any copyright over the scan.

As the assumed author lived in Germany, copyright law of Germany is relevant for the assessment of whether these images are still copyrighted. The most relevant question is whether the image has to be considered as as "Lichtbildwerk" or "Lichtbild" (German legal term for simple photography). In the latter case AND if the photo was published for the first time when the album had been sold or donated to USHMM in 2006, then the image is out of copyright, as Lichtbilder, if unpublished, go out of copyright 50 years after production/creation[2]. Though currently none of the images from the Höcker Album on Commons is correctly dated, they were created surely before 1946 and therefore protection would have ended in 1996. However, if these photos are considered as a Lichtbildwerk, then they might be protected in Germany til end of 2071. Even then they could be used on :en under fair-use, but not uploaded to Commons. However, as these images are surely historical documents, they might fall under a special clause for "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" in Germany copyright law, which would mean that the protection ends on Dec 31, 2015.[3] (Disclaimer: IANAL) --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Technical question: 1. does the German copyright law apply to such kind of works, too? Not a polemic question, just a request of clarifying when dealing with similar cases as the status of photos taken in war theatres during wartime always appears to be uncertain or at least confused. 2. The photo was taken in Auschwitz which is in Poland, not Germany. At the time it was a territory occupied by Germany (the situation is different from ie Lybia or Somalia, that were internationally recognised as Italian territory and for the period under the Italian sovereignity they were considered legally as Italy), but the question is if the German law applies to the cases of photos taken in occupied territories , too (even if never recognised as German territory)? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This seems more difficult than I thought. To make things clear: I fully agree that these are important historical documents, but that's indeed not the point here. According to the above-mentioned old DR, it was originally published in the US. Why this would imply that only US copyright would apply, I don't know. Even a publication by the US gov doesn't make the government own the copyright.
  • I guess if the US seized the album as war reparations, we would need proof for that. Then I'd agree that it's free.
  • Whether german or polish law applies doesn't really make a difference, I think. Both have 70 years pma.
  • Turelio: We need to consider them as Lichtbildwerk. ASFAIK there's consensus on both commons and dewiki that there are almost no cases where the less strict rules for Lichtbild can be applied (except maybe for passport pictures). --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RE:"I guess if the US seized the album as war reparations, we would need proof for that. Then I'd agree that it's free." - 1) as one can read from the articles about that album, though the person who "found" the album was from the US secret service, he seems to have taken it for himself; otherwise he wouldn't have been able to donate or sell it in 2006 (60 years later) to the USHMM. 2) But even it were war booty, that is irrelevant if the images are still copyrighted in Germany, as per our policy images have to free in the US and in the country of origin. --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Good points actually. It seems that your link from above could be the right hint, so we'll have to wait till 2015 for these images to be free. (Although I don't understand the rationale in the linked article. Why does the scratching of the special article shorten the copyright duration?) --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

see above 'the film-printed originals were by a government employee of a now-defunct regime (the nazi govt) which has no copyright-assertion capability.' Cramyourspam (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There was never such a system as PD-USGov in Germany. The image was likely shot by Höcker and, if the image is still copyrighted, then Höcker (his heirs) hold it. --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about the technical stuff this is an unfortunate part of history get the details correct and leave the pic.

Most clever message here. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

not finding this Lichtbildwerk in wp. what is that? Cramyourspam (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

'images have to free in the US and in the country of origin' --but country of origin no longer exists. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1) Here it is: de:Lichtbildwerk, however, available only in German language and no equivalent article on :en. AFAIK, in today's jurisprudence in Germany, every photo in which there is the slightest hint of the photographer choosing a specific setting when taking the image is regarded as "Lichtbildwerk". So the level for being a "Lichtbildwerk" is rather low.

2) "no longer exists"? In case you are referring to the actual location where this photo was shot: it seems (at least when I put that question on COM:FORUM I was told so) that this location was considered to be Germany at that time. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

the land does still exist. the government is long gone. nazi germany: kaput since 1945. PS: we're not using other laws of the nazi era either --like the racial laws. it is a good thing. PS2: surely if the family of the ss man that you couple of guys are so concerned about were going to press a claim, they'd have already done so to the US govt to try to get back 'their' photo from the holocaust museum. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment borders to personal attack. On Commons we don't make political differences in copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

no, there's nothing personal about it. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Túrelio, let me disagree with your assertion this location was considered to be Germany at that time. Actually nobody ever recognised German sovranity over Poland (Auscwhitz is in Poland). As I said before, is not the same as Libia or Ethiopia that were internationally recognised as Italian territory. To be clearer, the situation of Poland in these years is very similar as 1941-45 Ante Pavelić's Croatia that was recognised as such by Germany, Italy and Japan only but that in fact was a puppet State within the borders of the legitimate Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Hence my request for further clarify on this subject. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just forwarded what I was told when I put that question on COM:FORUM. I am no lawyer and probably none of us is. So, it seems we should try to get input from people specialized in international law. --Túrelio (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Deleted: 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) 05:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)