File talk:Anschlusstears.jpg

Pharos you are wrong to claim it is 'misfiled' see 'Price vs United States:' United States Court of Appeals, Fifth circuit, 20 November, 1995[1], case law dictates that any captured German photographs vested as US property are indeed US government property and thus public domain Bleh999 02:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And note that Lupo who knows a lot about copyright laws and is from Germany, admits that such captured photographs are public domain in the US, but out of respect for claimed German copyright they won't accept them on commons Bleh999 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That decision says nothing about copyright law; it's about the property rights to specific physical photographs that were seized in wartime. Any discussion about possible copyright implications is just speculation that is unreflected in any statement or ruling of the US government. By the way, it is not unusual for NARA to misfile such photos (and indeed the OEM is explicitly listed as the creator); I only managed to correct the grossly incorrect info on Image:Livestock chicago 1947.jpg the day it was featured on the MainPage.--Pharos 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, it is about copyright law as well as ownership to actual photographs, had Hoffmans heirs and Price won, they would have been eligible for licensing fees and ownership of the copyright. Case law is not 'speculation', but your claim that NARA misfiles regularly is speculation and you must provide some proof of this claim otherwise it can't be considered credible, I suggest you contact NARA and question them whether this image is Public Domain in the United States or not. Also 'Price vs United States:' United States Court of Appeals, Fifth circuit, 20 November, 1995[2] was appealed all the way to supreme court but not overturned, hence it does matter here. On wikipedia we use images based on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. why is is this court case irrelevant in your mind? Bleh999 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it appears to extend to copyrights as well. To quote from the article Bleh999 linked to: "It now seems clear that all of Heinrich Hoffmann's photographs at National Archives may be considered as being in the public domain." This would seem like a similar situation. howcheng {chat} 03:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true, images from Nazi Germany in the National Archives and Records Administration are US government property by act of legislation and tested by case law, they are public domain in the USA, its too bad some are trying to turn this issue into a soapbox with few facts presented to argue their point Bleh999 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that no statement of the US government makes any reference to "copyright" or "public domain" at all. I would like one statement where NARA claims these photos or other photos of this type are PD (it's possible the Hoffmann photos are even a special case, but so far there's no evidence of that). I have provided a very clear instance of NARA misfiling (see above) and I could provide more; these records are often computer-generated by photograph collection, not creator, so they are often inaccurate (but the inaccuracy is usually just one government department instead of another, so it's usually not too significant). The last paragraph of that article ("It now seems clear..") does not address issues actually discussed in the case, as near as I can tell (and for what it's worth, it does appear that the "vesting order" was a unique situation to Hoffmann).--Pharos 03:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I am not interested in your personal examples, if you can post some news articles or reliable sources about NARA being unreliable in copyright matters please do so. Also read this quote Scholars fearful that a major source of visual material in the public domain was suddenly liable for ruinous permission fees can now breathe a sigh of relief. But one is well-served to look carefully at both Judge Hughes's initial judgment in favor of Price as well as Judge Jolly's judgment of dismissal, as both contain many illuminating details. It now seems clear that all of Heinrich Hoffmann's photographs at National Archives may be considered as being in the public domain, which means they may be used in scholarly and popular books, articles, films and television programmes without payment of permission fees to German heirs or to Billy Price. [3] And you said it does not concern copyright? Clearly you have not done any research into that case nor NARAs definition of 'unrestricted' FYI copyrighted material is not even usually available online through NARA, you have to sign a release from them to gain such material. This image is definitely Public Domain in the US. Bleh999 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is clear that the last paragraph of that article raises issues not actually discussed during the case, and is the judgment of the article's author only, not the court ("seems clear... may be considered"). I would personally love to hear that the judge actually ruled on copyright, but we just don't have that.--Pharos 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting your own words in italics does not give them added credibility, the article does not say those 'issues were not discussed in the case', I don't have a copy of the court judgment for you, I am sure you could find out more about it if you wanted to. Anyone is free to contact NARA and confirm that any items that say use and access 'unrestricted' are public domain. If that wasn't true we would have to delete 1000s of images, not just ones of Nazi Germany.Bleh999 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can we take the discussion regarding the copyright of the image to the image talk page? I think it is unnecessary and disruptive to do so here? This is for debating the merits of FP candidates not discussing general copyright law. Bleh999 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved it, I hope no one minds, this discussion is more about the image than the FPC status Bleh999 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Except that FP status is directly dependent upon the copyright status. :) Anyway, I found the original court decision via Google at [4] (PDF), but I haven't gotten to reading it yet. howcheng {chat} 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the major decision (the case has been appealed a number of times etc.) The major decision is here).--Pharos 06:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Image description

The description of the TIME caption problem is misleading (seemingly on purpose). The TIME caption only said "Prague 1939: Greeting to Hitler", and the error that the editor conceded was that it was not in Prague and that it was not in 1939. This has nothing to do with misinterpreting the woman's emotion; that's not even mentioned in the caption and not even part of the discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-05 14:01Z

Actual emotions in picture?

I don't know if it has been discussed before, but what emotions are being displayed in the picture? Are the Germans correct, that they are tears of joy, or are the Americans correct, that she is sad about being subjugated? Does anybody know? Whoops, forgot to sign.Rebelyell2006 04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone does know (perhaps the person in question if she's still alive, or her family), it certainly hasn't been published anywhere. howcheng {chat} 04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likly it was tears of joy, over 99% of the population were pro-nazi, and there is nothing to indiciate that they were forced in any way to go to or watch the troops as they came past.--Dacium 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

99%

In the main page, the Nazi press release quote (including "99% of which were ardently pro-Nazi") reads like it's part of the *actual* Wiki text for this image. This need cleaning up. Toby Douglass 09:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that photo staged?

Close examination of that 'photo shows a number of anomalies: (a) the alignment of the row of saluting people doesn't match the background, (b) the people in the background are oblivious of the foreground activity and (c) there are signs of masking particularly around the woman's hand and the edge of the man's coat.

Granted that I wasn't there, but I suggest that the woman- and an unknown number of others- was coerced into saluting in a studio, and was then masked onto an outside background. MarkMLl 09:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there is enough information to conclude that the photo is staged. The lighting of the foreground appears to be consistent with that of the background although it is difficult to tell (and a strong back light - i.e. the sun - often gives a slightly "stuck in" appearance to foreground objects). No one denies that there was a lot of Nazi support at the time amongst the people Sudetenland either so such a scene is hardly inconceivable. Ranny11 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too found the photo suspect, upon a first glance. What catches me as strange, is that if a flashbulb is to explain the perceivable lighting difference with the background, then why is the women not lit from the front? The alternative explaination is that the woman (or women [5]) are lit from behind by the sun. I wonder what the odds are that this street in Cheb still exists in a remotely similar appearance today as it appeared in October 1938. - Eric 11:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]