User talk:Rosenzweig

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.

• Archiv(e)

 

Added 2024 to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

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)

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)

Let me know when you think I should manually create it for February. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Question related to painters with work in PD in Europe

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)

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)

Thanks, this is extremely worrying, Perhaps we should ask Legal for a clearer opinion. Ellywa (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Monika Wolting

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)

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)

OK --Mewa767 (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Internierungsbefreiungskarte Marie Boehm

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)

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)

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)

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)

Weimar Germany film poster resources

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)

[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)

User talk:OgreBot/gallery#User:Ww2censor/Recent philatelic uploads error

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)

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

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

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)

Film still from Algol again

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)

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)

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)

Really deleted files

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the answer! Grey ghost (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Versionslöschung

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)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 18:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank! --Manfred Schröter, Berga (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Italian PD-ItalyGov

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BrigitteAuber-1954-Harcourt.png

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)

Category:Copyright notices

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)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

US FOP

Hi Rosenzweig, thank you very much for the info, I'm still unsure on some points of the US copyright law, so that provision is applied also for buildings outside the US, isn'it? Friniate (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for all buildings in the US as well as all buildings in other countries. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you very much! Friniate (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Order_of_Karl_Marx

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheberrecht_(DDR)#Einigungsvertrag - "gilt es auch für Werke, die im Beitrittsgebiet vor dem Beitritt geschaffen wurden". Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Und? --Rosenzweig τ 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Und. Будьте последовательны и удалите все изображения скульптур. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Für diese Skulpturen gilt die Panoramafreiheit (COM:FOP Germany). Deswegen können diese Dateien bleiben. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Вы не считаете барельеф на ордене Карла Маркса произведением скульптуры? Engelberthumperdink (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Der Karl-Marx-Orden ist nicht dauerhaft in der Öffentlichkeit aufgestellt wie diese Skulpturen. --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

По этой ссылке вы номинировали на удаление по крайней мере два изображения ордена, которые, как видно из названий файлов, находятся в открытом доступе в музее Эльсница. Это как расценить? Как игру с правилами? Вы долго будете упорствовать? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Die Panoramafreiheit umfasst keine Ausstellungsstücke in Museen. Sie gilt nur für Skulpturen, Gebäude usw., die dauerhaft an öffentlichen Straßen, Wegen, Plätzen, also draußen, angebracht sind. --Rosenzweig τ 08:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Абсурд. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Mag sein. Aber der aktuelle Stand von Gesetzgebung und Rechtsprechung in Deutschland. --Rosenzweig τ 08:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Бездарная работа сообщества Википедии в Германии видна налицо. Россия, славящаяся своим бюрократизмом, очень далеко стоит от Германии с её бюрократизмом. В России ордена не охраняются авторским правом. Вы бы лучше занялись изменением германских законов, чем боролись с соблюдением этих некачественных

законов в Википедии. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Na ja, in Russland ist bzgl. Urheberrecht auch nicht alles bestens. Eine Panoramafreiheit für Skulpturen gibt es dort jedenfalls nach wie vor nicht. Wenn die erwähnten Oelzner-Skulpturen also nicht in Leipzig und Berlin stünden, sondern in Omsk oder Moskau, müssten wir diese Dateien löschen. Immerhin wurde die Panoramafreiheit für Gebäude 2014 eingeführt. --Rosenzweig τ 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Зато в России можно фотографировать ордена, медали, знаки, банкноты, монеты. А в Германии, свободной от тоталитаризма, охраняются символы тоталитаризма. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So sind eben die Entscheidungen der jeweiligen Gesetzgeber. Ab und zu gelingt eine Änderung zum Besseren (im Wikim/pedia-Sinne) wie die Einführung von Panoramafreiheit oder die Klarstellung, dass durch Abfotografieren eines gemeinfreien Gemäldes kein neuer Schutz für das Foto entsteht. Aber ansonsten wird man wohl mit den Absurditäten und Zumutungen in den Urheberrechtsgesetzen so mancher Länder leben müssen, wenn man wie Wikimedia Commons den Nachnutzern der Mediendateien hier eine freie Nutzbarkeit zusichern will. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Request

Delete these two files: File:Государственный печать кенесары хана.png and File:Кенесары по иллюстрации Ж.Касымбаева в книге "Кенесары Касымов".jpg. The participant himself admitted that the files were taken from the book Kenesary Kasymov, but this book is protected by copyright. Incall (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Incall,

please file a deletion request for these files. I'm not comfortable with deleting files per request on my talk page by someone other than the uploader, especially if I can't easily understand the relevant conversation. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it's so late. I submitted for removal [3], [4]. If anything is wrong, sorry, I'm just new to Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely Incall (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Documents_regarding_Dolgen_manor

Hallo Rosenzweig, danke für Deine Information auf meiner User-Disk in der Lösch-Sache, für die ich grundsätzlich Verständnis habe. - Meine "keep" Position habe ich dort dargelegt. - Vielleicht wäre es ein für alle vertretbarer Kompromiss (?), jene Files zu löschen, die nicht unmittelbar mit dem Rittergut Dolgen und dessen Nachkommen - zeit- und familiengeschichtlich - zu tun haben (?) - Ich hätte Verständnis dafür, dass Files gelöscht werden, die z.B. den EGMR (Pfeiffer./.BRD)- oder den allgemeinen Rundbrief von User:Christian von Plessen an alle Verwandten betreffen ... aber alle Files, in denen es explizit und namentlich um Dolgen und/oder Leopold von Plessen geht, sollten bitte dauerhaft unter den beiden Kategorien erhalten bleiben, um Plessen und/oder Wissenschaftlern, die an der 1000-jährigen Plessen-Geschichte (enzyklopädisch) forschen, eine neutrale-, faktenbasierte und absolut wahrheitsgemäße Informationsquelle zu bieten. - Könnten wir uns darauf verständigen ? - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias Gordito1869 (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Dss ist keine Frage für meine Diskussionsseite, sondern für die Löschantragsseite. Hier gibt es keine Deals oder dergleichen. Entscheiden wird den Löschantrag ein anderer Admin. --Rosenzweig τ 14:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Jawoll, Sir ! --Gordito1869 (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello. Thank you for your action in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mons. Franciscus Nipa.jpg. Would you be able to look at this request as well: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mgr._Vinsensius_Setiawan_Triatmojo.jpg? Regards. Medelam (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Thank you. Medelam (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Hello. Can you delete my uploads File:Halte Pejaten (2024).png and File:Halte Buncit Indah (2024).png? Thank you. Medelam (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Medelam: these files are still COM:INUSE at id.wp and Wikidata. Please remove them from the pages there first. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 06:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it. Thank you. Medelam (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Thank you. Medelam (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Galerie für Karlsruhe

Hallo Rosenzweig, du kannst doch die Botgalerien bearbeiten. Die Galerie für Karlsruhe funktionierte seit März nicht mehr und wurde dann vom Botbetreiber aus der Liste entfernt. Könntest du die vielleicht neu anlegen? Ausschließen würde ich z. B.: Category:Draisines, Category:Benz & Cie. und Category:Heidelberg University Library. Die letzte könnte fürs Überlaufen verantwortlich sein. Gruß, --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Halo @Sitacuisses:

prinzipiell schon, aber es gibt ein Problem: Die lief bei User:Ireas. Das bist nicht du, oder? Wenn, dann sollte man die Neuauflage in deinem Benutzernamensraum ansiedeln. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Das bin ich nicht, es lief dort allerdings bereits seit 2014 und auch seit seiner Inaktivität über Jahre weiter. Würde bei einem Neuanfang in meinem BNR dieser Verlauf ebenso leicht zugänglich bleiben? --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Man müsste jeweils eine Verlinkung setzen auf die alten Galerien bis März 2024 bzw. die neuen Galerien ab Mai. --Rosenzweig τ 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Meinetwegen. Kann der fehlende Zeitraum dazwischen nachgetragen werden? Am besten schon ab März 24, denn da ist in der alten Galerie sehr viel Heidelberger Bücherei-Beifang drin. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, ich habe den Auftrag neu eingerichtet, unter Ausschluss der drei genannten Kategorien, ansonsten mit denselben Parametern. Die Ergebnisse sollten unter User:Sitacuisses/OgreBot/Karlsruhe landen, gib mir Bescheid, wenn das nicht funktioniert oder du Fehlermeldungen bekommst. Der fehlende Zeitraum kann meiner Vermutung nach nicht nachgetragen werden. Letztlich müsstest du das aber den Botbetreiber fragen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Danke soweit! --Sitacuisses (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Das war es noch nicht. Heidelberg University Library kann nach Umbauten wieder aus der Ausschlussliste raus. Dafür würde ich als nächstes eintragen: Regierungsbezirk Karlsruhe, EnBW und Things named after Heinrich Hertz‎. --Sitacuisses (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Läuft jetzt. --Rosenzweig τ 16:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Help with biographical info on an artist.

In the May 20, 1928 New York Times, I came across an artwork from what the Times said was "Berlin: Symphony of a Big City" which sounds like it's Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Großstadt. The artist credit looked like Smolic to me, but could be slightly different like "Sholic". I could upload it locally on English Wikipedia since it would be PD in the US, but I'd like to know what the German copyright of that would be. Abzeronow (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something. --Rosenzweig τ 08:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no, no luck. Reverse image search was not successful. The signature could also mean "Stolic" or "Stolle" (which is a somewhat Common German family name), but I couldn't find any artist where age, circumstances etc. fit. Just a vague family name is probably not enough. Are we even sure the image is from someone German and not by an American commissioned by the NYT? --Rosenzweig τ 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's possible. That would certainly make determining the copyright even easier. I'll upload the file to English Wikipedia later today. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

By chance are you talking about Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis? If so, the artwork should be PD in the United States as it was released there a few weeks before the add came out and there's no reason it would have been published in Germany before then. As movie posters and adds were usually "localized" versions by regional artists back then. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the film. Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded as en:File:An Impression of Berlin, Symphony of a Big City, 1928 NYT.png Abzeronow (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Special:Redirect/logid/355727266

Sorry my silly question but was that really the page you meant to protect? --Geohakkeri (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, actually it was the file itself. Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 23:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Harcourt

Hi, As per the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tisourcier, Harcourt photographs taken between 1934 and 1991 are not under copyright per ticket:2020112910005534. Yann (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Yann: does that ticket really explicitly say that? If so, on what legal basis (collective works only expire after 70 years), and where (just in France)? Why the random 1934 to 1991 time span? And where was this explicitly discussed? The last Harcourt discussion at the VRT notice board, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023#User:Studio Harcourt, did not have that outcome. Also nothing like that at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/06#User:Studio Harcourt. if this is true, it affects a large number of images, there should be a thorough examination of what this actually says. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have VRT access myself, but that was the result of the long discussion linked above. Yann (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: If you're actually reverting deletion decisions I made, I'd expect you to be a lot better informed than just "this is what others stated there". I don't see any really meaningful information there other than Asclepias suddenly claiming that a bunch of files were in the PD because of that ticket and Ruthven closing the DR with the same claim. I found an apparently more relevant discussion on Ruthven's user talk page, and the ticket apparently says (coming from a woman working for Harcourt it seems) « Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. » That would explain why 1934 to 1991, but it is not an actual declaration that the files are in the public domain, just that "Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial". Droit patrimonial? Doesn't exactly sound like copyright, that should be "droit d'auteur". It also is not a proper release by an owner or rights holder, just a claim that anyone can use them or so. That is not convincing at all. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Droit patrimonial" is opposed to "Droit moral". Yes, this declaration is equivalent to a public domain release to me. Yann (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Not to me though. You don't even seem to know what is the actual case here, here you're claiming that those Harcourt files are "not under copyright", but there you're claiming that "the photo archives of Studio Harcourt" (all of them?) were released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license by the French state. Any evidence for that? I'm not aware of any, and I would gladly accept that if it were true.

Finally, just reverting my closures of those DRs and replacing them with your own is not ok. The proper way, as you should well know, is to discuss it, either informally (on my talk page, but without just reverting decisions) or in a regular undeletion discussion. I'll ask you to go that way now, else I will have to take this case to the admin's noticeboard. This cannot stand. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Yann & Rosenzweig,

VTR Ticket #2020112910005534 Statement is clear (here is a translation in English of the source document).

Agnes BROUARD, Chargée de la valorisation des collections. Studio Harcourt Paris :

“I must tell you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights so anyone who has a portrait from the period 1934-1991 can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet. ». Regards. Tisourcier (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a proper explanation, just some claim, and coming from Harcourt, it is also not a proper release, because the rights holder wouldn't have been Harcourt any more, but the French state. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also evidence that the French State bought the rights from Harcourt, so yes, this is a proper release. I think you are looking for a problem where there is none. Yann (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: I didn't doubt that the state bought the images (presumably along with the rights) from Harcourt. I just asked for evidence that the collection as a whole was released under the stated CC license. I recall seeing Harcourt images on French state web sites claiming a copyright of the French state, which does contradict the claimed release under a CC license. That is a problem. (And I understood now that the "droit patrimonial" is the economic right, like allowing or prohibiting reproductions, as opposed to the moral right of being named as author. Still, if the rights were sold to the French state, that sort of statement coming from Harcourt isn't worth much, if anything. It should come from the owner of the rights.) --Rosenzweig τ 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Oh, and per [5], the older Harcourt ticket (2010061710041251) only covers files uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt, while the newer ticket (2020112910005534) "only covers a specific file". That doesn't sound at all like something valid for all Harcourt files. --Rosenzweig τ 21:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

2020112910005534 covers one file as @Rosenzweig has noted. However, elsewhere on the same ticket I find a note "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights, so anyone who has a portrait from the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet." and the other ticket, should perhaps be discussed in more detail. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 10:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. See COM:VPC#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt. --Rosenzweig τ 10:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Flag heart symbols of Eurovision

Probably half of the images in this gallery should be deleted, but I'm very much inclined to definitely DR the Narnia ones. But before I do anything, your thoughts on this gallery? Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone's hobby, not like a collection of educationally useful media. I wouldn't oppose any deletions of files in this gallery. --Rosenzweig τ 15:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)