Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-anon-70
Commons doesn't accept the pragmatic rule for 100+ images from German Wikipedia. Why should we allow this, then? How do you determine, if a picture really was published anonymously? --Flominator (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree,
Delete. You can only assume a work to be anonymous if you can prove this, but I don't know how it is supposed to be proved that a work was originally published anonymously? Yellowcard (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
keep Der deutsche Gesetzgeber und andere nationalen Gesetzgeber haben mit guten Gründen Sonderregelungen für anonyme Werke eingeführt, die nicht durch gewisse Beweisschwierigkeiten im Einzelfall ausgehebelt werden sollte --FrobenChristoph (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This template needs to be used responsibly, but I think it's acceptable. If one wants to use this template, it has to be shown that:
- the work in question was really first published more than 70 years ago, and
- that the uploader diligently searched for the creator's name, but found nothing.
I.e. I would delete images using this template if the image description doesn't contain an account of where the uploaders did their research, what works they consulted to verify the image's supposed anonymous publication. It isn't sufficient that the uploader doesn't know the author from the immediate image source - we need to know where it was first published and then whether this first publication states a creator, at least. 100% proof of anonymity is never possible, but proof of reasonable research should suffice. However, when I look at the images currently using this template, I think that many do this on shaky grounds and maybe should be deleted. But this doesn't mean that it's impossible to use the template in a correct way. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- What about adding parameters to the template, where a user can state when it was published and what he did to find the author? --Flominator (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think that such parameters (as a requirement) would be a good idea. - And for those who don't read German, I'll try to translate the above statement by FrobenChristoph: "The German legislator and other national legislators have introduced special rules for anonymous works for good reasons, and they shouldn't be annulled/undermined because of certain difficulties of proof in particular cases." Gestumblindi (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep +1. To concretize statement of Gestumblindi : It needs to be described that the first publication took place without an information of the creator and the uploader confirms, that he diligently searched for the creator's name, but found nothingKarsten11 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed: A likely first publication should be known, at least. An old image found somewhere on the Web or reprinted later without attribution can't be accepted without indication of further research. But if you find, for example, a photograph depicting some then-recent event in a magazine from e.g. around 1930, and the creator is not named there, then it's reasonable to assume that this is the first publication. If it's a well-known magazine mentioned in secondary literature, or a well-known photograph, further research is in order (checking the secondary literature - it may mention the magazine's photographers). All this should be recorded when uploading an image as PD-anon-70. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- same as Template:Anonymous-EU. If a postcard or pamphlet has no copyright claim or authorship info printed on it, then it should be considered to be anonymous by default, until and unless further information can be discovered. I see no real problem with this... AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The template is in accordance with the law of most countries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep +1 to Pieter. Maybe one could limit the usage of this to images > 100 years old (similar as dewiki does), to be on the safe side, but the laws of most countries have special rules for anonymous works. Whoever claims rights on one of these images would need to proove them, too. ASFAIK, whoever wants to enforce one's claims to sth. needs to prove he has the necessary rights. Just arguing that the other one doesn't have them doesn't suffice. (Simply put: If somebody comes and claims rights [without proof] on these images just because we have no real proof that he does not have them, nothing will happen). --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept as this template reflects the law in the EU and other countries. As in case of other templates, its usage requires proper documentation and where this is missing or unsatisfactory, the individual files can be submitted for deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)