Commons:Deletion requests/File:H-Otto.Ramdohr, STAF SA-Stand271 Hindenbg 1935.jpg
This file, a photograph from 1935 published in a German magazine in 1935 (plus some accompanying text), was uploaded using two license tags.
The first, {{PD-Germany-§134}}, is a rather special license tag that does NOT apply to the image, because it was NOT "published by a legal entity under public law". Accd. to German law, "Legal entities under public law" , emphasis on under public law (de:Juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts), are basically cities, counties/districts, the German states, the German nation state itself, some churches and some other public bodies. Also, to use this tag, the legal entity under public law in question must be named as a "Herausgeber" in/on the work, and at the same time no personal author must be named. None of this is shown to apply to this photograph.
The other tag, {{PD-Polish}}, refers to photographs by Polish authors or first published in Poland before 1994. This is a photo showing a German SA member in (likely) 1935, published in a German magazine in 1935. So PD-Polish does not apply as well. It definitely does not apply to the text.
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, another license tag often used by uploaders as a sort of catch-all for older works, isn't applicable to German works before 1995, since German law says that pre-1995 anonymous works are only really anonymous if the author was never publicly disclosed anywhere, not even in a lecture or similar. One cannot prove that, so pre-1995 "anonymous" works from Germany are not suitable for Commons (or de.wp).
A 1935 photograph is also not old enough to assume that the photo must be in the PD anyway, since the author easily could have lived beyond 1950. There is {{PD-old-assumed}}, but the photo would have to be at least 120 years old for that.
tl;dr: There is not enough information for us to be able to keep this file. It should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless conclusively shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 10:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Thanks for paying attention to this file. It was published between 1935-1938 in the paper: "Der Oberschlesische Wanderer", i.e. = "Der Oberschlesische Wanderer. Amtliches Organ der NSDAP sowie aller städischen und staatlichen Behörden" (cf. https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/297463#structure). Thus, the HERAUSGEBER (editor) is indeed (besides Nsdap) also "alle städischen und staatlichen Behörden" (="all municipal city and governmental state offices"). This equals the "Legal entities under public law" (de:Juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts), which is the requirement to use the licence tag {{PD-Germany-§134}}, as it is here, and further there is no other personal author named, for this photograph. Therefore, please do not delete the file Nicoasc (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Amtliches Organ von" is not enough, the legal entity under public law must also be explicitly named as "Herausgeber", "herausgegeben von" or such. Those words need to be there. Also, it must be a specific entity, not "alle Behörden". --Rosenzweig τ 11:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the swift reply. "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz)" § 134 Satz 2 reads: Ist nach den bisherigen Vorschriften eine juristische Person als Urheber eines Werkes anzusehen, so sind für die Berechnung der Dauer des Urheberrechts die bisherigen Vorschriften anzuwenden. Herein the phrase "eine juristische Person" could also be understood to mean "any legal entity". Is it necessary to have a specific legal entity named, especially considering that the "entity" only is rather required to be "anzusehen" (presumed/supposed/inferred) and not required to have been "disclosed"? Further to support "Gemeinfreiheit" (public domain and/or free license) of the item in question here, on the Silesian Digital Library (Śląska Biblioteka Cyfrowa) archive page (https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/197099/edition/185763/content), from which this photograph has been derived, the copyright of this 1935 document is explicitely disclosed as "Domena publiczna (public domain)", if you scroll the metadata (pl.: Metadane) on the left-hand side far down to the bottom. Please advise, therefore, which different PD-licence-tag is better to be used, in alternative to the one currently disputed, to have this PD-indication in the source archive more properly reflected? Hopefully, the said PD label is sufficient to conclusively show this file is actually in the public domain. --Nicoasc (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your quote from the UrhG basically only says that certain provisions from earlier laws are still in force. The provisions at debate here are in two laws usually abbreviated as KUG (§ 5) and LUG (§ 3), and they contain the term "Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechtes". More details (in German) at de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Sonderfall: Juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechtes als Urheber (bis 1965). The German wikipedia only allows three very specific groups of images using these tags BTW.
- As for the Silesian Digital Library claiming that those newspapers are in the public domain: They do that, but they don't explain why at all. From what I have seen in numerous cases, libraries and archives often seem to operate with an "old enough for us" rationale when digitizing and publishing old works, using the end of WW II as a cutoff date for pragmatic reasons because either a) they don't want to do the research about the actual copyright situation or b) they are aware that portions of those works are NOT in the PD yet, but wait for someone to complain or c) they don't care. That's not how Commons operates however, so I'm not prepared to accept this PD claim without a convincing explanation why these newspapers are actually in the PD as they say. So to answer your question: As I see it, none of the available PD license tags fit this file. --Rosenzweig τ 17:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the swift reply. "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz)" § 134 Satz 2 reads: Ist nach den bisherigen Vorschriften eine juristische Person als Urheber eines Werkes anzusehen, so sind für die Berechnung der Dauer des Urheberrechts die bisherigen Vorschriften anzuwenden. Herein the phrase "eine juristische Person" could also be understood to mean "any legal entity". Is it necessary to have a specific legal entity named, especially considering that the "entity" only is rather required to be "anzusehen" (presumed/supposed/inferred) and not required to have been "disclosed"? Further to support "Gemeinfreiheit" (public domain and/or free license) of the item in question here, on the Silesian Digital Library (Śląska Biblioteka Cyfrowa) archive page (https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/197099/edition/185763/content), from which this photograph has been derived, the copyright of this 1935 document is explicitely disclosed as "Domena publiczna (public domain)", if you scroll the metadata (pl.: Metadane) on the left-hand side far down to the bottom. Please advise, therefore, which different PD-licence-tag is better to be used, in alternative to the one currently disputed, to have this PD-indication in the source archive more properly reflected? Hopefully, the said PD label is sufficient to conclusively show this file is actually in the public domain. --Nicoasc (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Amtliches Organ von" is not enough, the legal entity under public law must also be explicitly named as "Herausgeber", "herausgegeben von" or such. Those words need to be there. Also, it must be a specific entity, not "alle Behörden". --Rosenzweig τ 11:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Thanks for paying attention to this file. It was published between 1935-1938 in the paper: "Der Oberschlesische Wanderer", i.e. = "Der Oberschlesische Wanderer. Amtliches Organ der NSDAP sowie aller städischen und staatlichen Behörden" (cf. https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/297463#structure). Thus, the HERAUSGEBER (editor) is indeed (besides Nsdap) also "alle städischen und staatlichen Behörden" (="all municipal city and governmental state offices"). This equals the "Legal entities under public law" (de:Juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts), which is the requirement to use the licence tag {{PD-Germany-§134}}, as it is here, and further there is no other personal author named, for this photograph. Therefore, please do not delete the file Nicoasc (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: This image has been published without any name. It is very unlikely the photographer has disclosed their name since then. So I think in this case this image be kept per COM:Germany. --Ellywa (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
