User talk:Rosenzweig

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Babel user information
de-N Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache.
en-3 This user has advanced knowledge of English.
fr-1 Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances de base en français.
la-1 Hic usor simplici lingua Latina conferre potest.
Users by language

You can also use my talk page at the German wikipedia (in German, English or French), but since I enabled notification by e-mail, it might be only marginally faster.


I also manually created Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-01. Should I manually create 2024-02 now too? Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, another one of the failing tasks of SteinsplitterBot? I've created the daily DR pages for the last month or so. With monthly pages there's probably a bit more time before the next one needs to be created :-) --Rosenzweig τ 19:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me know when you think I should manually create it for February. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right now no closed undel requests are archived by bot anyway, Thuresson and I have been manually archiving them. The bot always created the monthly archive pages when archiving the first batch of the month, usually on that month's first day. I don't think it's necessary before the last day of the preceding month. If the bot has resumed by then, it will take care of it, if not, probably only a handful of admins will bother to archive them manually, and they should know what to do if the monthly archive page does not exist yet. --Rosenzweig τ 20:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question related to painters with work in PD in Europe[edit]

Hi Rosenzweig, in the first place, I hope your 2024 will be a happy year for you and all people around you!

Then my question, regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Jean Brusselmans". I am not aware of all details of URAA and generally do not handle DR's relating to URAA. In this case, I wonder, is the work of Jeans Brusselmans special as you are nominating it for deletion, or would you act similarly for work of other painters in PD, such as work of the world famous Piet Mondriaan from the Netherlands (died 1944 in NYC) or the paintings of a very famous Belgian painter, James Ensor (died 1949)? I hope not, as a I am doing some effort in uploading works of visual artists in PD in our country each year. I would like to understand. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ellywa,
thank you, and the same to you. I nominated the files because I was looking at the category after I had previously restored some other files of paintings by Brusselmans which are now in the PD both in Belgium and the US. Generally, the URAA is a tricky thing, you have to check if it actually applies because there are a lot of variables (as mentioned in some detail in the DR). But yes, generally the URAA applies to works of art too. We only tend to "ignore" it when those works are statues etc. displayed out in the open in countries with commercial freedom of panorama. So any post-1928 works by URAA artist are usually still protected in the US. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, this is extremely worrying, Perhaps we should ask Legal for a clearer opinion. Ellywa (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been debated to death since 2013, there are almost endless pages of debates. I doubt you'll get a clear answer from the WMF, as on the one hand of course they're bound by US law, while on the other hand they don't want to anger European Wikimedians by telling them that certain works which are in the PD in Europe are still protected in the US. So the previous statements that came from them regarding this matter remain a bit vague. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have all these discussions - as far as you know - ever resulted in proposals for a solution? For instance, funding a separate server, located and funded from the EU, to host all PD artwork with missing USA tags? Including software to show that artwork on all wiki's, except for users located in USA? This should be technically possible; my husband and myself were in Switzerland last week, and we could not watch several TV programmes on our mobile phones due to copyright restriction. (Yes, we could use VPN). Ellywa (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Things like that were surely dicussed a lot, but I don't think anything like it ever actually happened. The only thing I remember is that sometimes files were copied to Wikilivres, which is independent of the WMF and operates under various 50 years pma jurisdictions. First it was Canada, then South Korea for a short time, and now it's based in New Zealand. --Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice a tendency in Commons to apply URAA far more strict than years ago. Is that impression correct? What is the current stance of the WMF Board towards URAA? Vysotsky (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be, but I don't have any hard facts to confirm if this is true or not. I don't know what the current stance of the WMF Board is. --Rosenzweig τ 15:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Goodday Rosenzweig and @Vysotsky: . The two paintings of Brusselmans have now been deleted. I noted that at least one of these has recently been uploaded locally on the German Wikipedia, de:Datei:Jean Brusselmans De vuurtoren van Heist 1939 URAA.png, per action of Goesseln (thanks!). Could you please tell me where I can find the German version of the Exemption Doctrine Policy? Perhaps we can use it on NL Wikipedia. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Ellywa: I'm not aware that there is an explicit EDP for the German Wikipedia. There is just the determination that de.wp uses D/A/CH law (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) at de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Wikipedia richtet sich nach DACH-Recht. meta:Non-free content is an overview page of various EDPs etc. across the WMF wikis. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 06:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also a 100 year rule at de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Pragmatische Regelung für Bilder, die älter als 120 bzw. 100 Jahre sind (similar to the 120 years rule of Wikimedia Commons). --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monika Wolting[edit]

Hallo Rosenzweig, ich möchte dich auf das Foto File:Monika Wolting, 2015.jpg hinweisen. Als Quelle ist "eigenes Werk" angegeben, doch man sieht, dass das Foto von einem Profifotografen gemacht wurde und sie keine Fotografin ist. Sie hat schon mehrere Fotos von sich mit der Angabe "eigenes Werk" hochgeladen, die alle gelöscht wurden, weil sie nicht ihr eigenes Werk sind. Mewa767 (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Mewa767,
danke für den Hinweis. Ich hab's mir angeschaut, bin mir aber nicht so ganz sicher, ob das von einem Profifotografen ist. Zum einen steht anders als sonst oft nichts davon in den Exif-Daten, zum anderen steht da, das Bild sei mit einer Nikon D3100 gemacht worden. Das ist ein eher preiswertes Modell, von einem Profifotografen würde ich was Höherwertigeres erwarten. Ein wirklich überzeugendes Indiz, dass es kein "eigenes Werk" mit Selbstauslöser oder so ist, sehe ich also nicht. Deswegen unternehme ich b. a. W. nichts bezüglich dieser Datei. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK --Mewa767 (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internierungsbefreiungskarte Marie Boehm[edit]

Hallo Rosenzweig, wir haben gestern beide das Gleiche gemacht - ancestry abgesucht ;-) Ich wollte gerade im Forum fragen, ob man eigtl. und unter welchen Umständen die Karteikarte hochladen darf, da es hier auch schon andere gibt, aber irgendwie "frei" ohne Begründung. Du scheinst es bereits zu wissen und hast die Karte schon hochgeladen. Frage: Worauf fußt das, dass man diese Art Dokumente zur freien Verwendung veröffentlichen darf? Und wo sind ggf. zeitliche o. staatliche Grenzen? (Ich meine nicht die Scan-Arbeit, die jetzt "als Lizenz" steht.) Tozina (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Tozina,
im konkreten Fall habe ich den Inhalt als urheberrechtlich nicht schutzfähigen Text ohne Schöpfungshöhe eingestuft. Dafür gibt es den Lizenzbaustein {{PD-text}}, den ich verwendet habe. Da es hier nur um einfachste Angaben aus bestenfalls zwei Wörtern geht (Household duties), sollte das so ziemlich überall passen. Dazu {{PD-scan}} für das bloße 2D-Abfotografieren, das urheberrechtlich auch nicht schützbar ist, nicht mal mehr in Großbritannien (die haben das lange anders gesehen, es dann aber im Zuge von EU-Harmonisierungen mal geändert, was letztes Jahr ein hohes englisches Gericht auch noch mal festgestellt hat).
Das war also wg. PD-text recht einfach. Wenn es sich um urheberrechtlich prinzipiell schützbares Material handelt, kann man nur sagen „kommt drauf an“. Je nach Land und Art des Materials gibt es da verschiedenste Vorschriften. Grob gesagt, wenn sich das Werk an einer Person als Urheber festmacht, ist es zu deren Lebenszeit und in vielen Ländern weitere 70 Jahre nach dem Tod geschützt. Mancherorten auch nur 50 oder 60 Jahre, anderswo wiederum auch bis zu 100 Jahre. Die USA hatten bis 1978/89 wiederum ein gänzlich anderes System. Dazu kommen je nach Land noch Regelungen, nach denen bspw. staatliche Werke generell gemeinfrei sind (USA auf Bundesebene) oder für 50 Jahre geschützt sind (Crown Copyright in Großbritannien), es gibt kollektive und kollaborative Werke, Sonderregelungen für dies und das usw. usf., das ist wahrlich ein weites Feld. Commons:Copyright rules ist ein Einstieg, Commons:Copyright rules by territory bietet einen Überblick nach Staaten. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 09:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Rosenzweig, vielen Dank für die Ausführlichkeit. Mit Urheberrecht habe ich mich schon oft beschäftigt, und immer wieder fühlt man sich von den Details erschlagen ... Hier ist ein Verwaltungsakt u. die persönlichen Daten von staatlicher Stelle erhoben. Gelernt: Da GB, ist also das Crown Copyright mit den 50 Jahren bestimmend, die um sind :-) Ich hätte erwartet, dass man das irgendwie kennzeichnen muss. - Hab das erste Mal so eine Karte gesehen. Ist schon krass: Musst vor den Nazis fliehen und musst dann ein Urteil abwarten, ob du nicht viell. trotzdem ein Feind bist.--Tozina (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crown Copyright habe ich hier explizit nicht genommen, weil es seine Tücken hat. Ich weiß bspw. nicht, wann diese Karte denn erstmals veröffentlicht wurde. Je nach Veröffentlichungsjahr wäre sie womöglich noch jetzt geschützt, siehe File:UK Crown copyright flowchart.pdf. Dann besser gleich PD-text. --Rosenzweig τ 06:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weimar Germany film poster resources[edit]

Relating to a query that I received by e-mail, do you know of any resources that list the authors of Weimar Germany period film posters? Obviously we can only accept pre-1929 posters from authors who died before 1954 here on Commons. I figured I'd ask since that's an area where my knowledge would be limited. Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] and [2] come to mind. Both not restricted to the Weimar Republic era, but including it. Also various museum and archive web sites. There may be more sites. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any chance you can make the edit request I made yesterday as you have done previously? There are hundreds of files that I really don't need. Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magog the Ogre has done it now. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 07:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 60[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

  • Three new partners
  • Google Scholar integration
  • How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Film still from Algol again[edit]

Hi Rosenzweig. Sorry to bother you, but if you have time I'd appreciate hearing your opinion about the following. I've been thinking about the image File:Algol 1920.jpg from the 1920 German film Algol and this discussion at the Village Pump, and trying to find a more legitimate reason to keep the image in the Commons. Using {{PD-old-70-expired}} with the director's name as the creator, as Yann did when he uploaded it, is obviously invalid, as the points you raised in the VP discussion make clear. The problem that the cinematographer Axel Graatkjær, who died in 1969, is the best candidate for the man who actually operated the camera, and if he receives 70-year protection as the creator, we are still within the copyright term. But it occurred to me that perhaps this particular photo does not pass the threshold of originality, and can be considered a "simple photograph of a work of visual art in the public domain" (as described in com:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs/en#Germany). The sets for the film were designed by Walter Reimann, who died in 1936, so as works of art the sets themselves are PD. The photograph is a straight-on photo of the set, without any actors and without any creative angle or lighting, so one might argue that it is merely an unoriginal photograph documenting Reimann's work, rather than a creative photographic work of its own. If that were the case, it would be eligible for the 50-year protection given to simple photographs (Lichtbilder) rather than the 70-year protection given to creative photographic works (Lichtbildwerke). What do you think of that argument? And if it seems reasonable, does Commons have a 50-year template specifically for German Lichtbilder? All I can find are 70-year templates. What kind of license would be appropriate and how would one indicate that the term is 50 years rather than 70? Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Crawdad Blues,
as far as I know Wikimedia Commons has no template for simple photographs from Germany. The German courts have restricted that category to images from photo booths, satellite imagery, X-ray images and similar. My take is: The Simple photographs of works of visual art in the public domain are not protected bit refers to faithful 2D reproductions of paintings etc., but not to reproductions of 3D works like statues etc. Even if the underlying 3D works themselves are in the public domain, reproductions of those 3D works are photographic works (with 70 years pma) because there are always choices about angles etc., which is creative enough. Since the sets are arguably not flat 2D works, I'd say this is not applicable to the file in question. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. It appears that the only way it can be legitimately retained in the Commons is if we treat the cameraman as anonymous and change the license to {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Which I suppose is technically correct, since we don't know for a fact that Graatkjær was behind the camera when the frame was exposed. I appreciate your help. Cheers, Crawdad Blues (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really deleted files[edit]

Hello Rosenzweig. Regarding a file I wrote up to be undeleted, you responded: "no file there left to undelete, just file description pages (in those early days, the files actually _were_ deleted)" When was this technical thing changed, do you know when it was made on Wikimedia so that files weren't fully deleted, if you get me? What's more, I asked Yann about it and got in response that it was probably a bug. Do you think that would be more correct? Grey ghost (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was made possible with MediaWiki 1.7 in 2006, see mw:Release notes/1.7. It became the default setting with MediaWiki 1.11 in 2007, see mw:Release notes/1.11. I'm not sure when it became the default for Wikimedia Commons. The affected file was deleted on May 24, 2006. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2006/09#Undeletion: File:DSCF0349.JPG, deleted on June 17, 2006, is still on the servers, while File:DSCF0350.JPG, deleted on May 23, 2006, is also gone. So the change apparently happened between May 24 and June 17, 2006. --Rosenzweig τ 21:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the answer! Grey ghost (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hallo Rosenzweig, könntest Du bitte die 1. Version von dieser Datei rückstandsfrei löschen? Das Bild wurde von mir irrtümlich hochgeladen und ich habe auch keine explizite Genehmigung von meinem Kollegen zur Veröffentlichung dieses Bildes. Danke --Manfred Schröter, Berga (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done --Rosenzweig τ 18:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Herzlichen Dank! --Manfred Schröter, Berga (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italian PD-ItalyGov[edit]

Hi Rosenzweig, how are you? I've finally found something that goes beyond circumstantial evidence regarding the extension of Template:PD-ItalyGov also to buildings: in this legal guide of the Research division of the National Council of Italian Engineers about copyright on buildings, written by a lawyer expert in this issue, is clearly written on page 24 that for public works the copyright on the building itself is ceded to the public customer.
It says: "Ciò chiarito è di tutta evidenza che nell’ambito dei lavori pubblici l’elaborato progettuale (ma non certo l’idea progettuale originaria) passa in proprietà della pubblica amministrazione; tale orientamento discende dall'art. 11 della Legge n.633/1941 che dispone: "Alle Amministrazioni dello Stato, alle Provincie ed ai Comuni, spetta il diritto di autore sulle opere create e pubblicate sotto il loro nome ed a loro conto e spese" ed è stato ribadito dalla Autorità per la vigilanza sui lavori pubblici43 e da numerosa giurisprudenza.44"
English translation (more or less): "It is evident that in the realm of public works the architectural project (but not the idea behind it [note: here it refers to the "moral rights", right of citation, and so on]) is ceded to the public administrations. This case law comes from article 11 of Law 633/1941 that says: "State Administrations, Provinces, Municipalities have the copyright on the works created and published under their name and payed by them" and has been confirmes by sentences of the Supervisory Authority for public works and by many case law."
@Adamant1 I ping also you.
Maybe we could add that in the guidelines about italian copyright? Friniate (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Friniate: Thank you. I'll have a look at it and reply more thoroughly (I hope) at a later time. It might take a few days. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate: I've looked at the PDF, and it looks like it is indeed about that, and apparently even some administrative and court decisions are quoted. This should be added to COM:Italy, but preferrably by a native speaker of Italian who can at least understand what all the abbreviations refer to, which courts are cited etc. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 07:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. I'll write in the talk what I would add, then I'll ask the italian admins to check if it's ok. Friniate (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rosenzweig.

I'd like to thank you for the precise point that you wrote in this deletion request discussion (PD-US versus PD-France reciprocity).

About the file itself, I cannot démonstrate the precise date when this picure was taken in 1954, so I agree for it's temporary deletion on Commons, until the 01/01/2025. Best regards. Tisourcier (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Copyright notices[edit]

At Category:Copyright notices I am adding examples of copyright notices, so we can work out at what point in time various entities added copyright notices. RAN (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]