Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972

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.

RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972

[edit]

I kind of fail to understand how this fits our Scope, it is more something like a article for Wikipedia or Wikisource than it is a gallery. Commons host galleries full of content, no articles. --Huib talk 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is not an article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentUser:Abigor/temp is a plain copy&paste of the alleged out of scope gallery. Note that User:Abigor signs as "--Huib talk" Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - I had it moved to the /temp to show it to a non admin while it was delete, I have blanked the page. Huib talk 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see now that User:Herbythyme had deleted it, difficult to understand why. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, the poster is so to say "famous" at least in germany, a gallery of RAF wanted posters is in scope imo. Collecting all the cropped small files is a good idea and it is something a gallery or a category can do. Besides I have some doubt regarding the copyright, it is not in line with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hundertwasserentscheidung.jpg where we talked about files that are not official works extracted from an official work. --Martin H. (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about the cropped images, and if they are deleted, the page will not have much use. But, that would be a reason to delete those cropped images, not a reason to speedily delete the gallery while keeping the cropped images. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment How long should I wait before I may edit the page? And, if I may edit, what is wrong? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If the file is kept and the discussion is closed, then please remove the deletion marker, too.

The photos on this poster aren't German amtliche Werke, but works by others, which were used by the German police. (see § 24 KUG Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.) The photos are still copyrighted by their authors. sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rafplakat.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Pieter. Derivatives of official works are allowed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a real official work. According to $ 24 KUG it is only allowed to use the photos on the poster for judicature or public security uses. That is not free use. sугсго 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The above was about the gallery page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and SCOPE, not about the possible copyright issue. Just because a work that is not an official work is shown in an official work does not make it free of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If those 23 images are deleted, we should also delete:
Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per previous DR. What a waste of time... 201.17.85.216 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment (again) The above deletion request was about SCOPE and the gallery, not about the file and not about copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It's been open now since last May (!) and there doesn't seem to be any consensus.--DieBuche (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RAF_fahndungsplakat_±1972

[edit]

reopened according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Forum&oldid=45130076#L.C3.B6schregelfrage and de:Bildrechte#Fahndungsfotos Isderion (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [1]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [2]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - invalid DR - Jcb (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972

[edit]

Reopened. 1) its not an invalid DR, it is allowed to appeal. 2) if the full procedure was not followed it is not a reason to simply quash valid arguments with an unfounded "kept" and declaring the request as "invalid" (and thererfore judging that the arguments are wrong and that the copyright status is correct). Simply fix the problems or ask the requesting user to fix it! --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)The nominator is responsible for a correct DR. If a DR has been kept already for two times and the new nominator fails to make a valid DR (it *was* an invalid DR), I don't see a valid reason against a keep closure. DRs like this are always at watch lists, so nominator will notice what happened and will be able to try again to follow the procedure. The fact that the uploaders have not been notified about the deletion request is sufficient for a keep closure for the moment. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For arguments you may also read the previous requests. The last one has been closed for procedural reasons, not judging yet the arguments. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to add the DR to the today deletion request log, for now it's only present in archived logs. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We only have 2 requests here. 1st about the Gallerie page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and if this gallerie is in scope or not, the 2nd is about copyright. The 2nd request was started by Sycro, closed by DieBuche, reopened by Isderion, closed by you). The copyright arguments have never been judged correctly, Sycro made an appropriate request, tagged all files and informed the uplaoder, this request was closed 1) for beeing open a long time by DieBuche 2) for procedural reasons by you. Damn, Sycro informed the uploaders, tagged all files, added a list, arguments are provided, the copyright concern is serios and this arguments are simply squashed with a "kept" because in the meantime the deletion tags have been removed? Thats inappropriate. Even if the uploaders were not informed: Inform them! but not simply use a procedural mistake to overrule valid legal concerns with such wikilawering. And remember please that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, no matter the uploader was informed or not. And now remove this {{Delh}} tags, the discussion is not for the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will copy the comments below. This is a new DR, so my keep closure remains and your new request starts today. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a new request, I dont request something, I only fix the inapropriate dealing with other users requests. If you ask me we would reset the request to the version before your closure. The initial request was made by Sycro and was never correctly handled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're that concerned with this DR, why didn't you process it in the past three months? You also still failed to list this DR to the today deletion request log. Please tell my if this comment is Chinese to you and I will take some time to explain you how it works. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because im not sure to make a decision. For the second question: {{Sofixit}}. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do that, but as long as nobody does, nobody will be allowed to close this request. Jcb (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<quote>

 Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [3]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [4]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

</quote>

 Keep Empty galleries should be deleted. If we keep the images in this gallery, there's no reason for it to be deleted. There are no files listed with this deletion, so it's only the gallery.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This request is about copyrights, if the files are a violation of COM:L we cant keep them, no matter if they are linked somewhere or not, this is entirely meaningles and nothing but stupid wikilawering. The lists are however provided by Special:WhatLinksHere and above by Sycro and theu uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first DR and the last DR just mentioned the gallery in it. It was an honest mistake. And making it very clear what is to be deleted is a very important thing in DRs, and this page is a mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The files are all listed above and in Category:Deletion requests May 2010. Teofilo (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There are two aspects concerning the photographies:

  1. Right of the own image of the photographed people: They are not neccessarily famous people in public. The were just searched by the police for some time. They are unguilty, arrested, or free again. Keeping the pictures in public is a damage to their personal rights.
  2. Copyright of the photographers. It is not given for further use than the police search.

So there is not a legal base for keeping it. On the other hand, these papers are indeed part of the german history. -- Simplicius (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the first one; I don't think we worry about Germany conceptions of personal rights. The English Wikipedia has an article on a German murderer who won cases in Germany about the violation of his personal rights, and threatened the WMF with legal action. You join a terrorist group, earn some notoriety, you've bought yourself a place in the public record.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is law. Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: Works under the terms of § 5 II dUrhG are not compatible with the conditions of free contents. Free content require the right for derivations, but these works doesn't allow this, so §§ 5 II, 62 I - III dUrhG.
Werke gem. § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG sind nicht mit den Bedingungen der freien Inhalte kompatibel. Nur solche Werke, welche eine freie Bearbeitung zulassen, entsprechen den freien Inhalten. Dies trifft jedoch im Gegensatz zu Abs. 1 explizit nicht zu.
--Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: See also this Discussion. --Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Das Fahnundungsplakat und alle daraus entnommenen Lichtbilder müssen leider gelöscht werden. Der § 5 aus dem Urheberrecht kann in diesem Falle nicht angewendet werden. Da der § 24 KunstUrhG (Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie) für Wikipedia / Wikicommons nicht gelten kann.

Zitat:
Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.

Von daher leider leider löschen kandschwar (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Wikimedia Commons ist keine Behoerde. Jeder Kriminelle sollten sich den entsprechenden Paragraphen allerdings merken, falls sein Bildnis einmal ohne dessen Einwilligung von den Behoerden oeffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden sollte. --Janericloebe (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Du verdrehst da glaube ich was. Behörden dürfen ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten (Berechtigter=Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte), andere Stellen dürfen nicht. Wikimedia Commons darf also nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Die Abgebildeten sind ggf. unschuldig, oder verurteilt, inhaftiert oder bereits entlassen. Damit ist der Drops gelutscht. Rechtspflege greift nicht mehr.- Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. User:Pill's analysis is persuasive, and others seem largely in accord. I'm not concerned about protecting these people's privacy in this case, only that the law in question does not permit derivative works, and so does not comply with Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/RAF_fahndungsplakat_±1972&oldid=418536596"