Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler in Paris.jpg

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.

Image:Hitler_in_Paris.jpg

Photo by en:Heinrich Hoffmann, therefore copyrighted until 2028. -- Kam Solusar 04:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This particular image might no be so straight forward as your comment suggests. It is normally implicit in the granting of 'rights' that the act itself needs to be 'legal' for those right to come into force. At the time, Hoffmann was an illegal alien and attached to an illegal occupying force. It was shot on a French structure (as opposed to the camera-man being on a German Man 'o War or Luftwaffe etc., etc.) Therefore, under French law (the country that this was taken in) this photograph would very likely not be eligible for copyright at all -period. Also, for this reason one can imagine, it can not gain copyright at any point in the future, without out a law being created for this pacific type of illegal act. The German government might be able to claim a right under their laws but I do not understand German laws in this matter either; but I would expect, that under the Burn agreement, they (the German government) would have to also reciprocate (as signed up members) and deny copyright to any photographs which was obtained by illegal means in another EU country -in this case France. Also, if the German government did claim a copyright at the time, then one would expect it to have expired on Dec 31st 1980 ( i.e. after 50 years) since I don't think they could not claim to be the 'author' under German copyright law. In short, I can see no reason why this could be created in anything other than the PD from the outset.--P.g.champion 17:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter that it was taken in France while it was occupied? Either we apply French law because the photo was taken there - then it's still copyrighted as France has the same 70 years pma rules. And if it was first published in Germany, 70 years pma apply as well. Do you have any proof that the creation of this photo was considered illegal and that French or German laws deny copyright in this case? Also I've never read any statement that said the government ever claimed copyrights for Hoffmann's works. --Kam Solusar 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

when the photograph was shot, france was occupied from the germans. so at this time, the tower of eifel was a german building, also the whole background. so it doenst matter what is today and what laws are today.

en:Heinrich Hoffmann says: "A large archive of his photographs was seized by the United States government during the Allied occupation of Germany. These are now held by the National Archives and Records Administration and comprise an important source of images for scholars of the Third Reich. These photographs are considered to be in the public domain in the US owing to their status as seized Nazi property (otherwise their copyrights would not yet have expired)." --Emkaer (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. Seized photos may be PD in the US, but Commons requires that all PD images are PD in the US and their respective country of origin. Therefore we can't use it, as the photo is still copyrighted (under both French and German law). --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The over riding point remains:

(1)It never became eligible for copyright protection in France because it was not taken legally.

(2) It is not copyright in Germany because it was taken in France.

So this is a rare-ish example of an image that never had any protection – and it is it's own proof to the facts of this matter -nothing could be more incriminating. Repeating black is white over and over, is not going to change the evidence.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources (copyright law texts, legal commentaries, court decisions) that confirm that this photo wasn't "taken legally" and thus not eligible for copyright? So far in my time on Commons, I haven't seen any evidence that photos taken in occupied countries during wartime wouldn't be copyrighted. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, why should a photo taken in France (apparently by Hoffmann, a German citizen) not be copyrighted in Germany?? Indeed, "repeating 'black is white'" is not going to change anything. Care to provide sources for your claims?  Delete Lupo 21:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Deleted. No evidence this is ineligible for copyright. Patrícia ^msg 16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)