File talk:Ar95.D-OHEO.JPG

 

File:Ar95.D-OHEO.JPG

This photo has been transferred to Commons from de-wiki. There was an inconclusive deletion request. Could someone fluent in German notify de:User:ADL on de-wiki, perhaps he can give us some details about the source and copyright status of this photo and why a 1937 photo is tagged as {{GFDL}}. Sv1xv (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless ADL is the photographer or the photographer's descendant, he or she would not have the right to administer the copyright of the image in question. German copyrights are fundamentally heredity in nature. Quoting Film Copyright in the European Union, "The solution is different in Germany, where article 29 of the copyright Act states that copyright may be transferred mortis causa but shall not be otherwise transferable."[1] (Also defined in German Tax and Business Law.[2]) The author can grant another person the "exclusive right" to use the image however he or she wishes, but it is not a transfer of copyright and it is only transferable on the permission of the author/copyright holder.[3] This issue seems to require an OTRS from ADL to affirm his or her identity in relation to the photographer. Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that de:User:ADL does not use Commons (there is no User:ADL) and he is not aware of this discussion. Sv1xv (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone has to contact him or her then; as it is, we have no evidence that ADL is the photographer or a descendant, thus no right to license the image to others. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that on the surface, the circumstances described in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ar95.D-OHEO.JPG does not point to ADL as a descendant but as someone who just came into possession of the negatives. Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We may have a problem contacting de:User:ADL; he has not edited de-wiki since September 2007. See de:Spezial:Beiträge/ADL. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, my stance is for deletion. ADL has not given any indication he is the copyright holder or the descendant. I would not like to burden anyone to face a possible court case if they use the image under the thought that ADL has given them license to do so (which ADL has not the right). Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Any other opinions, or do we start {{Copyvio}}, {{Npd}}, or nominate for {{Delete}} again? Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ADL stands for "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrthistoriker", a community of German aviation historians with great reputation, who write many publications. One of it's members started to work with the Wikipedia, which was thought to be great for the Wikipedia content for many users, but conflicts with other users, especially regarding the original research rules of the Wikipedia led to deep disappointment so he did not contribute any more. The Pictures are from the ADL Archive, and it is unlikely that there will be any copyright claims. But they will probably not comply with the Wikipedia rules. It is sad that Specialist who are willing to work for the Wikipedia are not respected and soon leave the project. He will not care if you are deleting the picture. He now is working for other websites and writes more books which you will have to buy. But this is a different story. 12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (User Erzwo on the German Wikipedia)

Erzwo, thanks for the information. Then the photo is an orphan. By that I call a work (usually a photograph) which is unpublished, by an unknown artist, not old enough to ensure 70 years pma, and which the current owner does not have the legal right to publish. Sv1xv (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless it could be considered {{Anonymous-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Carl, unofrtunately {{Anonymous-EU}} works for 70 years after publication, not after creation. This is one of the causes that create orphans. Sv1xv (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The German law states In the case of anonymous and pseudonymous works, copyright shall expire 70 years after publication. However, it shall expire as soon as 70 years after creation of the work if the work was not published within that time limit. So, that period may well have expired too. If ADL published it before the 70 years was up, either it was unauthorized (and the 70-years-since-creation would still apply) or it was authorized (and the GFDL may actually apply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the photo is dated 1937, which makes sense, as they were built in 1936-37. ADL published the photo in 2007. Sv1xv (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A tough call. seems to me since it was not known to be published within the 70 years from creation, the rule about 70 years from creation applies and we tag it PDR. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging as PD, discussion seems to have died out. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(the above thread pasted from Commons talk:PD files) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)