User talk:Folklore777

File:Treblinka Cremation Pit.jpg

In regards to the File:Treblinka Cremation Pit.jpg image posted, among the others. This is a personal photo that is under the proper copyright from the company I work for. I'm not sure why this image was targeted, but if the "This photo may not be used for financial gain" comment was the reason, I have taken it down. All images donated under my username Folklore777 are proper licensed and accounted for. The comment that was posted under the "attribution" was to deter anyone from unproperly using the images on other sites without giving credit where credit is due.~Folklore777(talk) 02:47, 22 December, 2011 (UTC)

That was indeed the issue, and thank you for clearing it up. This is actually in regard to files on Wikimedia Commons. Commons only accepts images that are under a free license, which means, in short, that anyone may use and modify the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Free licenses may require author attribution and/or that derivative works remain under the same license. Licenses which forbid commercial use and/or modification, however, are not free licenses, and Commons will not accept those (Wikipedia won't accept them locally, either, except under a few exceptions). You can find more detail at the Commons license policy page, especially (from that page): "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses also are not accepted" (emphasis in original). The notice in the required attribution, "This image may not be used for financial gain", essentially banned commercial use, and so rendered the content nonfree. Since they're your images, and you've chosen to remove that restriction, there's no further issue. The CC-BY-SA license still requires attribution, so no one else may use your images under that license without attributing them to you. I hope that clears up the reason, but feel free to ask if you still have any questions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg and File:Göth1941.jpg

Both images have the Schutzstaffel as an author source because that is the source of the images. File:Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg image is out of my personal collection and has the proper licensing and the File:Göth1941.jpg image is past it's 70 European copyright date so it properly licensed and can be used. I changed the author, was that the problem? And do you feel it is resolved now that I changed it?~ Folklore777 (talk) 15:58, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

70 years from publication counted from the next 1st January following the year of publication. Provide a source of publication. --Martin H. (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I put an author, but I'm the source. You want me to put "Folklore777" as the source? The images are from my personal collection. I don't know what more you want from me?Folklore777 (talk) 15:58, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

You got the image from somewhere, you not created it. So the source is the publication which made it possible that today you have a copy of it. That source is required, it must be anonymous without disclosure of the original creator. --Martin H. (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, years ago, the image came from Amon Göth's daughter, they are of her personal images that I was given permission to be used for education purposes. And for years, I have been donating the 1943 image for education Holocaust research. The File:Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg image is a personal photo done by Göth himself for a promotion during the war. I suppose he would be the ultimate source. But I didn't just "find" the image somewhere. I wouldn't have posted the 1943 picture otherwise. As far as the "File:Göth1941.jpg", you can delete it, I have no use for it now.~ Folklore777 (talk)17:04 , 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

If it is done by Göth himself - unlikely - the copyright will expire in 2017, 70 years following the death of the author. If it was published under an unidentifiable pseudonym (of the photographer) or anonymously the copyright will expire in 2014. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Göth paid someone to come take the Military photo for a promotion he was trying to seek in Feb of 1943, according to his daughter. No one knows who the author is, no one ever will, because Göth is dead. She donated the image, that she has the copyright for, and your telling me it can't be used until 2014? Doesn't make sense. I know the copyright is proper on it. If it makes you feel better to delete an educational image regarding the Holocaust, then go ahead, it's not worth fighting you about it.~ Folklore777 (talk)17:24 , 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, copyright belongs to the author even if the author is unknown and lasts the authors lifetime and 70 years thereafter. And we talk about free content here, thats not only educational use but free reuse, worldwide, also for commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I researched this a bit, and left my interpretations for you as a response on my talk page. I believe this image actually is in the public domain, according to Commons' matrix on the matter, since it was published without copyright notice at a time when that was a required formality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I need your help!

I was hoping you could help me. You seem sweet, and you have helped me before. I research and write about WWII and have some images that I have posted in Wiki commons. One of those images is "File: Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg" and is currently listed on the Amon Göth Wiki page. It seems to be an easy target for deletion. I want to give you a background on this image: I acquired this image from the daughter of the Military SS Officer that is in the photo. She gave me permission years ago to use the image for Holocaust educational purposes, and so I use it in my writing. The image was taken in 1943 by an unknown author that the subject Amon Göth paid during the war. No one knows who the author is. But it's from the family's archives, I can't see why there is such an issue. The person who is deleting it states it can't be used until 2014 because no one knows the author. Is there anyway to save the image from deletion or is it a lost cause? :( ~Folklore777 (talk) 22:36, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

I think I see the problem there: The author is listed as "No specific author". (Get ready, copyright is a tangled mess sometimes. I'll untangle it here as best I can, with of course the caveat I'm not a copyright lawyer.) The "author" of a photograph is always the photographer, so it would be necessary to state who that is. The copyright is not owned by the person featured in the photograph, it is owned by the photographer (unless the photographer explicitly gave a copyright release assigning it to the subject, some photographers do that). If no one knows who took the photograph, that can get awfully tricky. What I would do is replace "No specific author" (that's not even possible, there always is a specific author, even if no one knows who it was), and replace that in the "Source" field with the information you've given me here (something like "Photographer unknown. Photo acquired by uploader with permission from subject's family in YYYY, originally taken in YYYY."). I think, based upon the Commons Hirtle Chart, that this image is in the public domain in both the US and Poland, and as such is acceptable if you provide the additional information. That's based upon the fact that the image has no copyright notice, so the applicable section is the "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. On Commons these cases also need to be free according to copyright terms in the country of publication. These terms are not part of this table." That states that works published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice are in the public domain in the US, having failed to comply with required (at the time) US formalities. Since the image also failed to comply with Polish formalities required at that time, and as such never qualified for a Polish copyright, it appears to me that the image is in the public domain and is acceptable. There just needs to be a little more detail to demonstrate that this is actually the case. If any of that doesn't make sense, please feel free to ask for more clarification. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it does... Maybe? :) I used the Polish copyright because Göth had the photo taken in Lublin, Poland so I wasn't sure what to use. I have used the photo on other sites I have written for in the past, so the image my be in other places, but I have the original. But if I put the "Photographer unknown. Photo acquired by uploader with permission from subject's family in YYYY, originally taken in YYYY." will that keep Martin from deleting it? And, can I show him this, he insisted there was nothing that could be done. I don't want him to continue to flag the photo. I'm worried. :( ~Folklore777 (talk) 23:38, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a complex situation, and I can't guarantee you any given outcome. I've certainly had cases where someone on Commons knew some nuance of copyright law I was unaware of—it's a tangled mess at best, and becomes even worse when authorship is unknown. My advice is just what I'd do in your situation, while I don't know copyright law perfectly, I've worked with it here and elsewhere to know a decent bit about it, and Commons itself has some excellent resources on it as well (like the chart I linked to). Still, it never hurts to have as much detail as possible on the source, especially where actual authorship is unknown. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry honey, I tried clicking on the Hirtle Chart, but it said it didn't exist. But is the image in the Public domain now? Or is it because I have used the image on other sites? I'm so sorry, all of this is confusing. I'm going to do what you said and hopefully that will work. ~Folklore777 (talk) 23:38, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I borked the link. The correct one is here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes under the "File: Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg" summary. Plus, I'm sure the Polish symbol wouldn't be the best fit, what license would be? You don't mind checking it out and seeing if I did it right, do you? :D~Folklore777 (talk) 00:35, 27 December, 2011 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. You should leave the Polish PD tag, but also add one for the US, something showing it's not copyrighted in the US due to the lack of a copyright notice. I believe the correct one here would be commons:template:PD-US-no-notice, or as {{PD-US-no-notice}} on the image page itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)