Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hinterkaifeck-Hof.jpg

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.

File:Hinterkaifeck-Hof.jpg

[edit]

Neither the owner of the copyright nor the webmaster (that's me) of the website allowed to use this pictute Arschimedes (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Do you know how old this image is or who took it? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image shows the site of a spectacular murder case in Germany. The buildings were demolished in 1922, which gives us an upper limit for the time of the photograph. The claims by User:Arschimedes are unsubstantiated, he traces his claims to a book of 1997 by author Peter Leuschner. Leuchner obviously allowed him to publish the image on his website, where a Wikipedian lifted the image and taged it as PD-old. Leuschner does not substantiate in any way why he claims copyrights of this picture that was taken long before his birth.
Frankly: I'm not convinced of the PD-old-label, but I state that all claims by Archimedes and Leuschner are unsubstantiated unless the provenance of the image gets proven. --h-stt !? 10:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Do you know that I did the work with scanning and so on therefore do I have some rights on the picture and I do not allow to use it. On the other hand side the user Ratzer1 does not have the right to use material from a foreign web site. I'm the webmaster of the website www.theater-nandlstadt.de and I never allowed to use this picture --Arschimedes (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you on deWP, scanning does not give you any rights on its own. All your claims are derived from Leuchner and his claims are unsubstantiated. Unless you learn basic facts of copyright law in Germany and worldwide, please refrain from making accusations. --h-stt !? 15:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you: I did not only scan tis picture but i did also work on it and invested my time. therefore I do have the right to forbid the use of this picture, so says the german law! I require that this picture will be deleted immediately!--Arschimedes (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Arschimedes, can you explain what work you did on it, apart from scanning the image from a book? Also, could a knowledgable editor please comment as to whether German law recognizes a principle similar to that in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.; in other words, that exact copies of works in the public domain are not entitled to copyright because they lack originality? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Arschimedes, I studied law in Germany, with a certain emphasis on copyright law. You claim to be a computer programmer. Under both German and US law (the two jurisdictions relevant on Commons for this case) scanning and digital restoration does not award you a copyright. "mere labor" or in other words "sweat of the brow" are not recognized in these jurisdictions, only originality will get you copyrights. Please stop the edit war on deWP or you will be permanently banned there. And please don't use bold case in discussions here. At least unless you have understood the laws you are referring to. --h-stt !? 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's copyrighted! Look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinfreiheit! The difference between the death of the photograph Andreas Biegleder and today is lower than 70 years therefore the pciturre is protected! Please delete!

If the buildings were demolished in 1922, this is likely {{PD-1923}}, unless it was under copyright in Germany in 1996, in which case it is reinstated due to the URAA (which itself may be unconstitutional, but has not been struck yet). Can someone post the answers to the following three questions (some may be above already):

  1. When this picture was taken?
  2. Who took it?
  3. When did this person die, if they are dead?

-- Avi (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If published before 1923, it is public domain in the U.S., URAA or not. (And BTW, only one small aspect of the URAA was ruled unconstitutional; since the majority of it is required to comply with the Berne Convention, it is highly likely to stay.) And while scanning a photo is just making a copy, which means no additional rights are generated, the original may well be copyrighted now in Germany -- 70 years after death is a long, long time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did the photographer die prior to 1939? If not, we cannot keep it on the commons even though it may be PD in the US. -- Avi (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point of my second sentence; sorry if it was not more clear. For a 1922 photograph, it is more likely to be copyrighted then not. With a named photographer, we need to find the date of death in order to keep it, failing that we need to delete it. It could probably be moved to en-wiki though and tagged with their PD-US-1923-abroad tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless information requested by Avraham above is provided and it can be properly shown that the image is public domain in Germany. (If this cannot be shown, why should it remain on English Wikipedia?) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The image is in use on English Wikipedia, and is public domain in the United States, as it was published before 1923. I have copied the image to EnWiki w:en:File:Hinterkaifeck-Hof.jpg and tagged it as not being able to be moved to the commons for now. We still need to know when the photographer died so we know when this comes into public domain in Germany. -- Avi (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Here's a thought – according to the source website, the photograph was taken by the police investigating the crime. Are works produced by agents of the government in the public domain in Germany, as they are in the US? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, I think it depends on the level of govt. While Federal gov't works are usually PD, I am uncertain if local municipality gov't works are. This is likely a local police force, and we would need to know what the rules are for that. -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oy Vey :) w:en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights -- Avi (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so they may not be able to remain on the English Wikipedia either unless the German copyright position is established. Another thought – the photograph (one of five) was clearly taken shortly after 31 March 1922, when the murders that occurred at the farmstead are believed to have taken place (am getting the shivers reading about it). But do we know when the photograph was first published? It may have remained unpublished in the police files for a long time. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can most definitely stay on the English wikipedia, since it was published before 1923. That was my mistake before, see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Only works after 1923 would have to worry about the URAA. -- Avi (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs were taken April 5, 1922. See [1]. -- Avi (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs were taken by a police man on duty. So the question is: Have they been in any public archive? So either the photographer or the archive has the copyright. But not the one who scanned them. --Nicola54 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By now we can say, that the pictures were taken on April 5, 1922 by one Andreas Biegleder, a Bavarian Police officer from Munich. I can't find any further information about him, particularly no date of death. Under Germany copyright law - now and then - the photographers life span decides the duration of copyright. There is no "work for hire"-clause in German law and works by police officers take no special treatment. As we can't prove he died before December 31 1938, there is no proof the image is in the public domain. The image is not old enough for any of our pragmatic rules. Therefor the PD-old-tag is faulty and I support the deletion request. --h-stt !? 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if A. Biegleder was on duty, when he took the photos, the copyright is not with him, but with the Bavarian state. --Nicola54 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under German copyright law, works by officers are covered by regular copyright. In the parallel discussion on deWP you refer to the exemption clause of §5 UrhG, but that one is not applicable here, because in Germany only statutes, verdicts and a very few other "official works" that were officially announced are exempt from copyright. Crime scene photographs by a police officer are not exempt. --h-stt !? 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
German courts have almost abolished the "lichtbild". With the exemption of medical x-rays, aerial and satellite photography and very few other extremely simple pictures, everything else is considered a Lichtbildwerk and protected for 70y pma. --h-stt !? 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Cannot translate it in English therefore in German: Zitat aus http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinfreiheit: "Bei Lichtbildwerken gemäß § 2 UrhG, die gegenüber den Lichtbildern nach § 72 UrhG eine geistige Schöpfung darstellen, endet der Schutz 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Fotografen. Heute ist davon auszugehen, dass die meisten Fotografien von den Gerichten als Lichtbildwerke gesehen werden. Umstritten ist die sogenannte Reproduktionsfotografie, bei der auf jeden Fall lediglich ein einfaches Lichtbild entsteht. Seit dem Wiederaufleben bereits abgelaufener Schutzfristen mit der Urheberrechtsänderung von 1995 sind ältere Darlegungen hinfällig, die, anknüpfend an den Aufnahmezeitpunkt, viele Lichtbildwerke für gemeinfrei erklärten, deren Urheber noch keine 70 Jahre tot ist." --Arschimedes (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I am neither a lawyer nor can speak German, this implies that expired copyrights were reinstated in 1995: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/137f.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhgrOw_0Q1N1zT_biWNeIB3L6qh5BA. Perhaps a native German speaker could confirm? -- Avi (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the help of the Dictionary.com Translator, the passage from German Wikipedia appears to say that according to the Copyright Act, the period of protection for a photographic work is 70 years after the photographer's death. However, the term photographic work (Lichtbildwerken) connotes an intellectual creation. While it is assumed that most photographs will be seen by the courts as photographic works, so-called "reproduction photography" is controversial. The issue seems to be whether merely reproducing a photograph that is already in the public domain is sufficiently "creative" to give the photographer fresh copyright over the reproduction. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, in Germany the Lichtbild is dead, every photography that could have been taken differently by any other photographer is considered a work and protected for 70y pma. --h-stt !? 10:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even so-called "reproduction photography"? As I commented above, if an image is merely a "slavish copy" of another image, does it gain separate copyright in Germany? According to the text from the German Wikipedia (which, of course, is not conclusive since it is freely editable), the position seems uncertain. Anyway, there are a lot of questions about the copyright status of the photograph that the uploader has not addressed. Unless these are resolved, the photograph has to be deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not reproductions (including by photography). They are not covered by copyright at all, neither as works not by the lesser protection of a Lichtbild. Please see: Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag/Archive 1#"Germany" section --h-stt !? 10:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone confirm that Germany increased the copyright times to 70 pma for works taken prior to 1965? At the time this photo was taken, it would have been covered for 50 years, or until 1972, so it was under copyright still when Gremany revamped their laws in the 60s. Or did it become PD in 1972? -- Avi (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all European countries retroactively made copyright 70 pma, restoring copyright to works which had previously passed into the public domain, like this one. At the time (1922), the term was actually 10 years from publication; in 1940 that was upped (non-retroactively) to 25 years I believe. However, the law which went into effect in 1995 completely restored all old copyrights. So this was probably PD in Germany from 1933 through 1994, but is copyrighted now, as the EU copyright directive forced all member countries to retroactively restore copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it appears that this picture should be deleted from the commons and not restored until we can be pretty certain that it is 70 years passed Andreas Biegleder's death. If he was a young man of 20 in 1922, and he lived to be 80 years old, for example, this would not be PD in Germany until 2052. Unlikely, but possible. It remains PD in the US and can thus be hosted on EnWiki (which it is). Is there any way we can possibly get an idea as to when Andreas Biegleder passed away? -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy records? Google searches (web and books) didn't come up with much. The closest I came was finding an Andreas Bickleder from Bavaria in a list of German WW I soldiers on ancestry.com (I don't subscribe, so I can't see details). But yes, odds are quite good that it is still copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same user Arschimedes who originally claimed copyright to the image now (in his unsigned comment of 17:52, 23 December 2009) claims that the user has been dead for less than 70 years. In order to claim that, he has to know the date of death of Andreas Biegleder, which should be verifiable. It would be too easy if anyone, including myself, could contend an arbitrary day of death. It has to be verifiable.--Ratzer1 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chance for Andreas Biegleder to die after 1940 is very big because he owned a very low rank in criminal police in 1922! Ratzer1 if you can prove that he died before 1940 then use the picture! --Arschimedes (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only he (she) who can prove his (her) ownership of copyright can legally demand cease and desist. It is none of your business, Arschimedes.--Ratzer1 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I think the result is clear that we need to delete this image from the Commons, and for countries where this is in the public domain (such as the United States) they can link to the EnWiki version. Perhaps in the 2030s or 2040s we can bring this to the Commons :) If no one has any objections, I'll close this myself, but I'd be happy to let someone else do it if anyone is worried about a conflict of interest as I was involved in the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Most likely under copyright in host country. Public domain in the United States so moved to EnWiki. -- Avi (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hinterkaifeck-Hof.jpg&oldid=341622246"