File talk:Artur Phleps and Kurt Waldheim.jpg
Contested deletion
This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because despite the fact that there is some claim that it is an AP photo, there is no way that this image was taken by a photographer that worked for AP or that AP could have acquired the copyright in this photograph. The photograph was taken in the middle of Montenegro during a massive Axis anti-Partisan operation. A source has been provided that states that the photograph was found in an antique shop and was subsequently published by the New York Times. The fact that the photograph was published by the NYT does not mean that the NYT or AP own the copyright to the image, and I believe this is a blatantly incorrect claim that is contradicted by reliable sources. --Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I realise that it would be hard for a NYT or an AP photographer to be at that place at that time, so I have removed the tag. The Associated Press must have obtained the image from some other source. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers. I believe they got it from the person who found it in the shop. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- According the pages in the second source linked in the template, the photograph was handed to an employee of the World Jewish Congress by a man who is referred to in the book using a pseudonym. The WJC investigator had the photograph authenticated by the former head of the CIA Questioned Documents Lab, who said it bore the stamp (on the back) of the photographic section of 7th SS Div. It would appear the copyright would be held by the actual photographer (unknown). The photograph was subsequently shared with a number of news outlets including the NYT and others who published it. It appears in several books, and on the front cover of at least one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see. This sounds like an anonymous photo, then, and not a photo by a news agency. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- My reading of the German WWII copyright situation is that it is either a) the individual copyright of the (anonymous) German military photographer or b) a German government photograph. Either way, it appears to need a NFR as someone (potentially) holds the copyright. Should I change the rationale? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, one potential error in the rationale is that it says that the photo was first published in the New York Times, but it seems that we have no clue about where it was first published. About copyright, it seems that it is an anonymous photo which was published less than 70 years after it was taken, so the copyright should expire in Germany 70 years after the photo was taken. It is also protected by copyright in the United States, but the exact rules depends on when it was published for the first time, and we don't know when it was first published. The resolution seems to be a bit too high (see WP:NFCC#3b), but that is easily fixed by simply adding {{non-free reduce}} and letting a bot reduce the resolution automatically. I am also not sure if the image is needed at all (see WP:NFCC#8). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- From reading the various sources the day before yesterday at the library, it was definitely published for the first time in 1986 (exact date in 1986 unclear due to lack of access to the German magazine Profil, but if not published in Profil then NYT date is correct and I see no evidence whatsoever that date is wrong). Later that same year it was published in at least one book. It will expire in Germany in less than a month, and it seems to me that this NFR will cover it until then. I utterly reject the idea that NFCC#8 applies here. This image is crucial to the biographies of both Phleps AND Waldheim. The only reason that Waldheim's skipping of his wartime history was even examined properly was as a direct result of the uncovering of this photograph with Phleps. If he had been pictured with someone else no-one would have cared or paid attention. But Phleps was a Waffen-SS general and the operation (Case Black) during which they have been photographed resulted in the slaughter of many ill and wounded Yugoslav Partisans. The photograph gave investigators proof that Waldheim was in the Balkans when he had previously claimed to have been be in Austria studying law at the time, and opened up many other avenues of inquiry that were subsequently followed up. It is self-evident this photograph significantly increases reader's understanding of the topic and that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Happy to further expand this in the article if you feel that is necessary to explain the inclusion of the NFR pic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright will not expire in Germany in less than one month. Copyright always expires at the end of the year. Also, 70 years after creation only applies if the photo either is published during the year it was taken or not published at all for 70 years after it was taken. In this case, it was first published in 1986, so the copyright expires 70 years after 1986. In either case, Wikipedia uses USA copyright law (not German copyright law), and if it was first published in 1986, then the copyright expires in the United States in 2064. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fine. I am unlikely to ever suggest copyright law is a strong point of mine, however this NFR is on very solid ground in my view. Neither Phleps nor Waldheim had a more important photograph taken of them in their lives. If I cared enough about the Waldheim article I would be entirely justified adding it to his article as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright will not expire in Germany in less than one month. Copyright always expires at the end of the year. Also, 70 years after creation only applies if the photo either is published during the year it was taken or not published at all for 70 years after it was taken. In this case, it was first published in 1986, so the copyright expires 70 years after 1986. In either case, Wikipedia uses USA copyright law (not German copyright law), and if it was first published in 1986, then the copyright expires in the United States in 2064. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- From reading the various sources the day before yesterday at the library, it was definitely published for the first time in 1986 (exact date in 1986 unclear due to lack of access to the German magazine Profil, but if not published in Profil then NYT date is correct and I see no evidence whatsoever that date is wrong). Later that same year it was published in at least one book. It will expire in Germany in less than a month, and it seems to me that this NFR will cover it until then. I utterly reject the idea that NFCC#8 applies here. This image is crucial to the biographies of both Phleps AND Waldheim. The only reason that Waldheim's skipping of his wartime history was even examined properly was as a direct result of the uncovering of this photograph with Phleps. If he had been pictured with someone else no-one would have cared or paid attention. But Phleps was a Waffen-SS general and the operation (Case Black) during which they have been photographed resulted in the slaughter of many ill and wounded Yugoslav Partisans. The photograph gave investigators proof that Waldheim was in the Balkans when he had previously claimed to have been be in Austria studying law at the time, and opened up many other avenues of inquiry that were subsequently followed up. It is self-evident this photograph significantly increases reader's understanding of the topic and that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Happy to further expand this in the article if you feel that is necessary to explain the inclusion of the NFR pic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, one potential error in the rationale is that it says that the photo was first published in the New York Times, but it seems that we have no clue about where it was first published. About copyright, it seems that it is an anonymous photo which was published less than 70 years after it was taken, so the copyright should expire in Germany 70 years after the photo was taken. It is also protected by copyright in the United States, but the exact rules depends on when it was published for the first time, and we don't know when it was first published. The resolution seems to be a bit too high (see WP:NFCC#3b), but that is easily fixed by simply adding {{non-free reduce}} and letting a bot reduce the resolution automatically. I am also not sure if the image is needed at all (see WP:NFCC#8). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- My reading of the German WWII copyright situation is that it is either a) the individual copyright of the (anonymous) German military photographer or b) a German government photograph. Either way, it appears to need a NFR as someone (potentially) holds the copyright. Should I change the rationale? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see. This sounds like an anonymous photo, then, and not a photo by a news agency. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- According the pages in the second source linked in the template, the photograph was handed to an employee of the World Jewish Congress by a man who is referred to in the book using a pseudonym. The WJC investigator had the photograph authenticated by the former head of the CIA Questioned Documents Lab, who said it bore the stamp (on the back) of the photographic section of 7th SS Div. It would appear the copyright would be held by the actual photographer (unknown). The photograph was subsequently shared with a number of news outlets including the NYT and others who published it. It appears in several books, and on the front cover of at least one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers. I believe they got it from the person who found it in the shop. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)