Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps

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.

Template:PD-German stamps

[edit]

Delete due to the Loriot stamps case decision. § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst). PETER WEIS TALK 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info There have been other deletion requests for this template, see #1 and #2.

I changed Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Germany according to the new situation. The decision by the German court (Landgericht Berlin) dated 27 March 2012 states indeed very clearly: "Von § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG werden nur Sprachwerke erfasst, nicht aber Werke der bildenden Kunst" (as Peter Weis says: applies only to literary works). Furthermore: "Auch $ 5 Abs. 2 UrhG ist für Postwertzeichen nicht einschlägig. Postwertzeichen werden nicht im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht, da kein amtliches Interesse an der freien Verwertung besteht. Denn sie werden nicht zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht, sondern zum allgemeinen Gebrauch im Geldverkehr herausgebracht." I.e. stamps are not considered a work that is published "for the attention of the general public" (zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme) as a matter of official concern ("im amtlichen Interesse"). Forgive my rough translation, I'm not well-versed in translating German legalese into English... Anway, all this means that stamps are not in the public domain in Germany, except individual cases where other reasons for them being in the public domain apply (e.g. creator dead for more than 70 years or just a simple design). E.g. I think that File:Stamp Germany 1999 MiNr2041 Deutsche Briefmarken.jpg probably is still copyright-free (as it only reproduces stamps of 150 years ago and some simple text), or File:Stamp Germany 1996 Briefmarke Europa Paula Modersohn-Becker.jpg (a self-portrait by Paula Modersohn-Becker who died in 1907). The latter would be PD-Art, I think. But most German stamps on Commons are copyright violations and should be deleted quickly, as well as this template, of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps which are not subject to copyright due to {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-text}} or have entered the public domain via {{PD-old}} (via Gestumblindi) are not affected by this decision, hence a case-by-case decision for deleting the files will be necessary. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Works with an ND restriction are not allowed on Commons anyway, regardless of this decision. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Instead of simply deleting the template it should be changed into a warning template that covers the new situation. Saying something like: "This file has previously been tagged as PD-German stamp, but since a German court (Landgericht Berlin) made the Loriot stamps case decision, dated 27 March 2012, each files has to be individually reviewed, if it has to be deleted or if it is not subject to copyright due to {{PD-shape}}, {{PD-text}} or {{PD-old}}." This would take care for resusers immediatly and would give us time to review all affected files and to delete or relicence them. --Martina talk 13:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This DR is about the template, not the files. A mass deletion is not an option we should consider, as I have indicated here. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep the template, and repurpose as Martina Nolte said. It can no longer be a valid license tag, but turning it into a warning/categorisation tool is better than just deleting it. Rd232 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep subscribe to Martina's point of view. Separate review is needed for every file, so the category is still very much needed. Also, the court's decision does not hold true for German stamps that were issued before the German post services were privatised.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wrong, it applies to those stamps too. The decision says that works of the visual arts (such as stamps) aren't to be considered "amtliche Werke" at all, so it doesn't make a difference whether the stamps in questsion are pre- or post-privatisation. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No mass deletion. I agree to Martina's point of view. -- --213.39.162.235 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep see Martina, but there's IMHO one wrong assupmtion in the in the court decision. They say the publishing of stamps are not for the public information. This is highly wrong. The sense in publishing specimen of stamps by the Ministery of Finance indeed is the information of the public. It's the interest of the state, that people can inform which stamps are legal, valid stamps or wether they're falsifications. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The court argues on page 11 of the decision that there is no official (i.e. by a government agency) concern to publish postal stamps for public information, since there is no interest in a free utilisation. On the contrary, they are issued for the public use as part of the process of monetary transactions. By their logic, postal stamps do not qualify as official works, since the official concern requires the prerequisite condition of free utilisation. The Federal Ministry of Finance informs about postal stamps in a way, that most certainly does not encourage their free utilisation (see copyright notice in the PDF). Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note, however, that this doesn't apply to the court's reasoning with respect to the stamps' classification as official works as defined in § 5 (1) urhg (that is to say, we don't really have to bother with their reasoning with respect to § 5 (2) urhg because we couldn't use the files under that provision anyway). their point is a sui-generis approach, barring any application to works that are not Sprachwerke (§ 2 (1) urhg, also perhaps § 2 (7) urhg). that is a conclusion based directly on the Amtliche Begründung, the history (compare with the previous provision in the LUG) and the design of § 5 (1) urhg (just think about the category of works outlined there). it is not essential for their argument to assume that "publishing [is] not for [the] public information". that would have only been necessary (in some form) if the court had not stopped at ruling out eligibility for § 5 (1) urhg because the works are protected as works of fine art (§ 2 (4) urhg) as opposed to Sprachwerke. (that's quite interesting, by the way. it's basically consensus that § 5 (1) urhg does not apply to works of fine art. however, many scholars don't stop at that conclusion. interestingly, for instance, the court lists Schricker in GRUR 1991, 645, as a source for their statement. while that's correct, it is only part of Schricker's [extremely thoughtful] reasoning. most importantly, after checking whether works of fine art may be covered by § 5 (1) urhg he goes on to check whether they are covered by § 5 (1) because they are made such an integral part of the Sprachwerk in which they are included that the latter's public domain character extend to the included work (or whether they are merely quotes). that's a step left out by the court in their reasoning regarding § 5 (1), though their answer is implicitely provided in the assessment of eligibility for § 5 (2) urhg). cheers, —Pill (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (ah, to your point itself, as far as § 5 (1) urhg is concerned, i respectfully disagree. it is convincingly argued in the literature that the black-and-white pictures of the stamps are far from sufficient for actually identifying whether a certain stamp is fake, thus they cannot have a regulatory(!) purpose as is required by § 5 (1) urhg. c.f. Schricker ibid. the fact that they are somehow informative to the public is not the point here.)[reply]

 Question What about Template:PD-GDR stamps? Same situation, same handling? --Martina talk 15:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion: sure. —Pill (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep template but delete most of the files with phased implementation per Martina:
  1. Repurpose template (explain this discussion, this is no longer a license template, instructions on what to do next)
  2. Review each file which transcludes the template. If the file can stay, it needs a new "this is a German stamp, this is not a license template" template. If the file needs to go, tag it as a copyvio referencing this discussion.
  3. Once the template is no longer transcluded by any file, change it to a delete template, with a reason referencing this discussion.
  — Jeff G. ツ 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

[edit]
Discussions
[edit]
Notifications
[edit]

Kept: Template has been modified, per discussion. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-German_stamps&oldid=76879145"