Commons:Deletion requests/Article 72 UrhG

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Article 72 UrhG

From the image descriptions: "This file is in the public domain, because This is a German photograph now well over 50 years old. Under Germany's copyright law, Article 72, this means that any copyright has expired" - Thats not true - photographs are always protected for at least 50 years, but these photo would qualify as "Lichtbildwerke" so they would be protected 70 pma ( § 64 UrhG (Germany's copyright law): Allgemeines - Das Urheberrecht erlischt siebzig Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers.). Ebenda 10:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer : Full text of art.72 UrhG (German copyright law) - according to photos

UrhG § 72 Lichtbilder

(1) Lichtbilder und Erzeugnisse, die ähnlich wie Lichtbilder hergestellt werden, werden in entsprechender Anwendung der für Lichtbildwerke geltenden Vorschriften des Teils 1 geschützt.

(2) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 steht dem Lichtbildner zu.

(3) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 erlischt fünfzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Lichtbildes oder, wenn seine erste erlaubte öffentliche Wiedergabe früher erfolgt ist, nach dieser, jedoch bereits fünfzig Jahre nach der Herstellung, wenn das Lichtbild innerhalb dieser Frist nicht erschienen oder erlaubterweise öffentlich wiedergegeben worden ist. Die Frist ist nach § 69 zu berechnen.

Source: bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg

Commentary: Article 72nd UrhG is "lex specialis" (strict definition according to photos) in contrary to article 64 UrhG which is "lex generalis" ( general rule of copyright apart exlusions such like art. 72 )

Andros64 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art 72 UrhG in official English translation:

Section II Protection of Photographs

Article 72

(1) Photographs and products manufactured in a similar way to photographs shall be protected, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Part I applicable to photographic works.

(2) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall belong to the photographer.

(3) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall expire 50 years after publication of the photograph, or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, after the latter, but 50 years after its manufacture where the photograph has not been published or legally communicated in public within such period. The period shall be calculated in accordance with Article 69.

Source :[1]

Da Du das UrhG so gut verstehst, sprech ich Dich mal auf Deutsch an: Das UrhG unterscheidet zwischen (einfachen) Lichtbildern und (qualifizierte) Lichtbildwerken. Wie aus § 72 Abs 1 UrhG ersichtlich ist, gelten für Lichtbilwerke die Vorschirften des Teils 1 des UrhG (§§ 1-69g); festgestellt wird dies übrigens positiv in § 2 Geschützte Werke:

"(1) Zu den geschützten Werken der Literatur, Wissenschaft und Kunst gehören insbesondere: [...] 5. Lichtbildwerke einschließlich der Werke, die ähnlich wie Lichtbildwerke geschaffen werden; [...]" - festgestelllt, damit gilt für Lichtbildwerke die Schutzfrist des "§ 64 Allgemeines - Das Urheberrecht erlischt siebzig Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers."

und nicht die Frist des § 72 UrhG, die nur das dem Urheberrecht verwandte Schutzrecht an einfachen Fotografien schützt.

Der Maßstab, ob ein (einfaches) Lichtbild oder ein (qualifiziertes) Lichtbildwerk ist seit der de:Schutzdauerrichtlinie/Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights der EU in dieser einheitlich zu bestimmen: zur Auslegung das oberste Gericht der Republik Östterreich "Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten)." (Eurobike (Beschluss vom 12. September 2001, 4 Ob 179/01d)). Eine ähnliche Auffassung vertrat das oberste Deutsche Gericht, der BGH, (Az.: I ZR 55/97) bereits 1997. für eine gute Zusammenfassung kannst Du mal de:Lichtbildwerke lesen. Alle oben genannten Fotos erfüllen die Vorraussetzungen an eine Lichtbildwerk, daher sind sie URV und bitte unterlasse das Löschen der Löschwarnung aus den Dateien.--Ebenda 14:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the detailed questions

You have considered quite correctly, that it is two kinds of photographs ; the first one ( common, or amateur) , which is depicted in German law in UrhG Art.72 , its terms and conditions of expiring copyrights (Abs.3), and the second one : the art or commercial photography , which is described in common regulations of UrhG Art.64 .

The photos, we are talking about we shall divide into two groups :

1.The first one are the amateur ( secret made) photos documenting Soviet crimes in 1932 in Ukraine , and amateur private Polish photos made in Katyn Forrest in 1943 ( published by German DNB in 1943 too)

2.The second one are various official photos of governmental ( civil and military) photographs of Nazi-Germany ( between 1933 and 1945) ( workers of Deutsches Nachrichten Buro ). Every copyrights for intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions such like DNB , Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and so on without individual restricted copyrights were expired the 8th. of May 1945 with the fall of the IIIrd Reich and was made public property in definition.

3.Internal definitions of the Supreme Court in Austria has nothing in common with this case , particularly Austrian Court cannot deal with questions of adoption of internal law of BRD in the whole area of EC.

4.Finally , UrhG Art. 72 Abs 3. is in effect for the subject of our conversation . There is no basis to acknowledge amateur photos documenting genocide crimes in 30.-ties an 40-ties as Lichtbildwerke. And an official intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions is copyfree from 1945. ( What would you like to do with the photos of Nazi or Japan crimes in WW II ?) I hope it is unquestionable.

5.And of course - the sense of Art.72 Abs 3. is that , there are not photos for private use only, but common or amateur photos ( not art or commercial) - published or unpublished.

With best wishes:

Andros64 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscriptum Documents of EC

Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights

Article 6

Protection of photographs

Photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected in accordance with Article 1. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection. Member States may provide for the protection of other photographs.

Comment: European Law describes protection of art and commercial photographs only. It is an exactly expressed (formal) ban for wider court and legislate interpretation of copyright protection in this area.

Best greetings:

Andros64 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same Document EC same source

"(17) Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;"

Das ist der explizide Ausschluss einer Einschränkung auf Kunst- oder Kommerz- Fotos. Aber das weißt Du sicher selber. PS: Polnische Fotos aus der Ukraine unterliegen nicht dem Deutschen sondern den polinischen und ukrainischen Urheberrecht. Deine Lizenzen sind Blödsinn. GrussEbenda 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these images are obviously copyrighted, the laws cited above are only valid for very basic images taken by automated processes -- Gorgo 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not quite obvious, as Gorgo said above. Some of these pictures (first seven small photos, about Great Famine in Ukraine in 1932-33) were taken and published before 1936 (i.e. more than 70 years ago) and it's authors are anonymous. In these cases {{Anonymous work}} can be used - 70 years after publication. Julo 12:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autor : Engineer А. Wineberger (Germany) 1933 = anonymous???

Autor: probably ( person officialy unknown )- it was photos secret made for obvious reasons

Comment Pictures whom the author is not known can be kept if more than 70 years old (taken before 31-12-1936). Yann 08:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix

The cited #.17 of Directive confirmes "expressis verbis" that no other reasons then only"the author's own intellectual creation" from #.6 of the same Directive may be considered as basis for acknowlegment photos as art or commercial kind ( and broadening basis for strict copyright protection ). It means only that the basis for this acknowlegement work as photoart are the internal characteristic features of photo ( not external - such like purpose of work ). It means also, that members of EC may secure OTHER ( common) photos ( like in UrhG Art 72) on their own internal basis ( so - "common" photos are not deprived ANY copyright protection , but this protection shall be limited and described in internal regulations of countries of EU ). In commons in such situations ( cases for protection of copyrights before Directive ) has been in effect previous stipulations of Berne (Bern) Convention text.

Regulations of UrhG Art 72 Abs 3. according "common" photos ( fifty years of protection of copyrights from date of publishing , or making work ) are identical with Art.7 p.4. Berne Convention.

Best regards Andros64 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for previous voice - there is no such thing like obviousrights in law. Any right in any case should be described in detail and confirmed on detailed law basis by those, who present his standing to the case.

Andros64 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what I meant with 'obvious' is: e.g. Image:Ribbetropp, Stalin Mołotow.jpg says "Author: Deutsches Nachrichten Buro 1939" so obviously there is an author and he was working for some german agency, this means:

- the license is simply wrong because it's no simple "Lichtbild" but a "Lichtbildwerk" (because it is complex enough and not a simple standardised image)
- the claim "without individual restricted copyrights were expired definitely the 8th. of May 1945" is wrong because according to german copyright law, copyright cannot get lost nor is it transferable, it always sticks to the author
- the author is not anonymous (because he's was known to the agency and did not choose to publish it anonymously)
- the author cannot already be dead for > 70 years

-- Gorgo 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering

Deutsches Nachrichten Buro was an official ( state, NOT PRIVATE) agency of IIIrd Reich. All materials signed by DNB was copyrighted by Buro as an juridical person owned exclusively by the state - the IIIrd Reich, was the subject of state property. Materials of DNB like materials of Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda were not a subject of individual private intelectual property of workers (f.e. photographers) of this state agencies.

The IIIrd Reich have come to an end in May 1945 and has not any legal successors at all. BRD is not a legal succesor of the IIIrd Reich as a state ( see - Constitution of BRD). The Four Occupied Allied Powers officially declared that the former German State (The IIIrd Reich) ceased to exist. This attitude is described in constitution of BRD and accepted by Bundesregierung.

In consequence - all intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions belongs to public domain, because the only owner of this rights have ceased to exist by international decisions and de facto, later confirmed in Contitution of Germany (1949). There is no legal successors of the rights of intellectual property of state propaganda institutions of the Nazi Germany.

Lichbild is a common photo - not a art or commercial photo (Lichtbildwerk). Definition of Lichtbildwerk is depicted strictly in international law : Berne Convention and Directive of EC from 1993. Definition of art (or commercial) photo shall not be adopted broader then a strict, precise definition. For this reason common photos (Lichtbilder) are protected by fifty years from publication or creation , and art photos (Lichtbildwerke) for seventy years pma.

In our case we deal with two sorts of photos.The first one are common photos from 1932 ( secret made in Ukraine) and from 1943 ,documents of genocide. I have just changed some licences, because photographs from 1943 are also the subject of Polish law. There arise a question whether the photos made in Ukraine in 1932 are the subject of German law.

In any case all photos of this group are the common photos in meaning of UrhG Art 72.

The second group of photos are these, which copyright is definitely expired with the end of existing the only owner of these rights - Nazi German state, which has not any successors in civil law.

You would be right in case of photos, made by individual German photographers, who has not worked in Nazi propaganda institutions, and who had not transferred their copyrights into possesion of these institutions.

However - every official photos of VIP -s in IIIrd Reich was made exclusively by state workers and the copyrights were transferred into property of State ( through Nazi state institutions like DNB).

Every photos such persons like Goring, Himmler, Ribbentrop,an so on , made in public, belongs to that category.

As you have seen - the photos I had presented were not the photos from private life of Nazi prominents, but their public life.

If you can present me any legal succesor of intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions it will be pleasant for me.

For this reason public (official) photos from IIIrd Reich public activity were , and are published worldwide without any limits.

The exclusions are only, when it was made by foreign press agencies, photographers or German photograhers , who has worked on their own ( documenting f.ex. private life of Nazi officials). None of the photos presented belongs to that cathegory.

With best wishes:

Andros64 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In consequence - all intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions belongs to public domain, because the only owner of this rights have ceased to exist by international decisions and de facto, later confirmed in Contitution of Germany (1949). There is no legal successors of the rights of intellectual property of state propaganda institutions of the Nazi Germany." This is not true, Germany is the legal successor of nazi germany, this means all current laws of Germany apply to the legal status of intellectual property. No copyright was transfered, which is also not possible under german law, thus copyright of these images still belongs to their authors.

The UrhG referes especially to that "Abschnitt 2 Übergangsbestimmungen § 129 Werke (1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes sind auch auf die vor seinem Inkrafttreten geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden, es sei denn, daß sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt urheberrechtlich nicht geschützt sind oder daß in diesem Gesetz sonst etwas anderes bestimmt ist. Dies gilt für verwandte Schutzrechte entsprechend." [2]. The KUG (KunstUrheberGesetz) was introduced in 1907 and replaced in 1965 by the UrhG. See [3] -- Gorgo 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering

You are wrong -because there are two different questions :

The first one - the existing ( and legal continuation) of German Civil Law ( like BGB, or cited by you KUG, replaced by UrhG) - it is unquestionable - and nobody questions the rights of private persons or communities (like cities, churches and so on) to their property and rights. And you have written just (and only) about this case.

However : all civil rights ( property, intelectual property and so on - depending on German Civil Code (BGB)) which were the property of IIIrd Reich as a state (subject of international and civil law) were definitely expired with ceasing the existence of this state as a subject of law - without any law successors.

Every rights of intelectual property which were transfered by physical persons to possesion of state institutions (juridical persons) like Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and its agencies (like Deutsches Nachrichten Buro) on basis of Zessionrechte of BGB (German Civil Code) in consequence were expired by law in 1945. These rights belong to public property.

And this is a matter of our discussion and the question quite different to the first one.

And in the end one more example:

File:Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche.jpg

Boy in Warsaw Getto Uprising April 1943

This is photo made by anonymous war correspondent attached to the troops of SS-Brigadefuhrer Jurgen Stroop in Warsaw Getto in April 1943. The first was published in report of SS-Brigadefuhrer Stroop to SS-Reichsfuhrer H.Himmler in May 1943. Original of this photo is in possesion of Archive of Polish Institute of National Rememberance in Warsaw.[4] ( with all original report of Stroop to Himmler, made in one copy). All evidence is known : place, date of work,institution were the correspondent was attached, first publishing, actual place the only existing original copy of photo. (We don't know only the exact name of photographer - state worker of Nazi Germany).

According to your remarks above it should be strictly forbidden to publish this photo till April 2013 ( a least - we don't know date of death of photographer), without violating of copyrights of the photographer - unknown for us but very well known to his employers (DNB or SS or both)- govermental institutions of Nazi Germany.

According to your remarks ALL anonymous photos from resources of Nazi Govermental Institutions from the period of WW II (1939-1945) will be copyfree not earlier then in 2009 - 2015. This is practical conclusion of all your remarks in this case. And all questioned by you on this basis photos belonges to this category.

I hope you see - it is an absurd. I would like to finish this discussion with one small request : Bitte um die Ruhe about non-existing copyrights (and - in consquence - material claims) of anonymous workers ( Kulturtragern) of Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and all its agencies like Deutsches Nachrichten Buro, Das Reich, Volkischer Beobachter , anonymous war correspondents attached to Waffen SS or Wehrmacht troops and so on.. Please.

And in any case it would be easier ( and just) to consider, that regulations of art. 72 UrhG ( fifty years of protection of copyright in case of non-art photographs) are suitable to this case. Apart from it as I have previous written - there are strictly (and detailed) international regulations of idea of art-photographs (Berne Convention,and Directive of EC) with explicitly expressed ban for widening this term. So, you should present regularly jurisdiction from European Court in Strasburg,or at least exactly (detailed) jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of BRD to confirm your private views on UrhG 72 and the area it deals. Your personal view , that "common" photos are only the "automatic one" is in contrary with esence of copyright - automatic photos are just copyfree - because they has not any author in fact. UrhB Art.72 secures copyright for non-art photos for fifty years ( broadly than Berne Convention (25y.) and prieviously KUG (in acc with this Convention also 25 y. for all sort of photos)).

Let me reminde , that cited by you KUG for every kind of photos ( without categorizing) had secured ten years (1907-1940) , and from 1940 twenty five years of copyright protection (KUG Art.26) from a date of publication. The distinction between common and art- photos was made by international conventions in 1950-ties and 1990-ties . It doesn't mean however that every common photos (Lichtbilder) done ( and in particular - published) before 1950-ties were automatically transformed (reclassified) into art photos (Lichtbildwerke). The art photos are the special kind of photos ( with special original internal features depicted in conventions) and only for this features are distincted from the "common" ones.

In general there is in fact no question to discuss this question in connection with photos from 1930-ties and 1940-ties. There is also an old rule of Latin Civil Law :lex retro non agit (the law is not retroactive ). It has its limitations towards copyright law , but in fact not in this particular case.

Best regards:

Andros64 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is also an old rule of Latin Civil Law :lex retro non agit (the law is not retroactive)." - The UrhG referes especially to that "Abschnitt 2 Übergangsbestimmungen § 129 Werke (1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes sind auch auf die vor seinem Inkrafttreten geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden, es sei denn, daß sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt urheberrechtlich nicht geschützt sind oder daß in diesem Gesetz sonst etwas anderes bestimmt ist. Dies gilt für verwandte Schutzrechte entsprechend." The UrhG is retroaktice.Ebenda 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why do you think that the intelectual property of the images taken by people working for the government of the IIIrd Reich is owned by the state and not by that person. According to the UrhG this cannot be possible. Please refer to some specific article of the KUG if this was different at that time. Please also refer to some decisions by a german court that supports your opinion. Because I can't see how your view is supported by the UrhG. -- Gorgo 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

direct answer to Ebenda

I have written above There is also an old rule of Latin Civil Law :lex retro non agit (the law is not retroactive ). It has its limitations towards copyright law , but in fact not in this particular case.

Of course UrhG is retroactive in this area, where f.ex. prolongs existing copyrights.For this reason exactly art. 72.UrhG is simply repeating of regulations of Berne Convention according terms of protecting common copyrights. It does mean that the stipulations of KUG towards photos for 25 y. protection was prolonged to 50 years in common (Art.72 Abs.3), and for 70 y. in particular cases depicted in international conventions.

However nor UrhG, nor any other civil law has retroactive consequences to the acts of will , contracts, cessions, transfers of property between subjects of law , which were made before in different state of law (conditions) ( in Germany BGB in accordance with KUG ).

As you see I try to be precise. When you are quoting me, do it in all context , please

With best wishes: Andros64 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And shortly for Gorgo - I have written, that Art.72 is in effect in this case.

When you are opposite - the subject of proof is on yours , not on my side. I am correct. In 1930-1940 as I have written above it was the subject of BGB in according with KUG, and all legal deeds made in that time are considered on this basis. When you would like to be an advocate of Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and all its agencies like Deutsches Nachrichten Buro and its workers - it's your right - but you have to confirm and prove your legal attitude. Best wishes:

Andros64 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, delete!

In the German Wikipedia we have with good reasons not to accept such a dubious exception. According to § 31 IV UrhG the copyright is now owned by the photographer and if he is not 70 years dead the pictures have to be deleted. No further arguments are needed, ask Lupo in the case you do nut trust me. --Historiograf 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anserwing to nonsense - Nonsense

Tranlate in detail into English the following text of German UrhG please, and comment , if you can in short words what does it mean:

UrhG § 72 Lichtbilder

(1) Lichtbilder und Erzeugnisse, die ähnlich wie Lichtbilder hergestellt werden, werden in entsprechender Anwendung der für Lichtbildwerke geltenden Vorschriften des Teils 1 geschützt.

(2) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 steht dem Lichtbildner zu.

(3) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 erlischt fünfzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Lichtbildes oder, wenn seine erste erlaubte öffentliche Wiedergabe früher erfolgt ist, nach dieser, jedoch bereits fünfzig Jahre nach der Herstellung, wenn das Lichtbild innerhalb dieser Frist nicht erschienen oder erlaubterweise öffentlich wiedergegeben worden ist. Die Frist ist nach § 69 zu berechnen.

Source: bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg

And then try to explain the others, why should be photos from 1940 copyrighted longer then to 1990.

And than explain to non-German on what law basis you want to prolong the protecion of these Nazi official photos of 1939-1945.

Eventually Supreme Court of BRD verdicts very desired.

Thank you in advance

Andros64 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See WP:PD#German World War II images. BTW, the legal successor of the "Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro" (DNB) appears to be dpa.[5] Furthermore, these photos are not simple photographs ("Lichtbild") but photographic works ("Lichtbildwerk"). The copyright term for works, including photographic works, is defined in §64-69 UrhG (70 years p.m.a.). Because these are works, §72 is not applicable anyway. And finally I note that all these images are lacking an immediate source, and some bear a © notice (which may be unfounded). Lupo 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering to Lupo

1. DPA is a new subject of law (juridical subject), not the legal succesor of BND ( which was govermental property of state -IIIrd Reich) and the only connection is in the same area of working.( The webpage you have quoted confirmes it). See - the solutions of Allied powers in 1945 and later (Potsdamer Conference and solutions of Allied Control Council), to the date of establihing BRD (October 1949). With legal dissolving of the IIIrd Reich as a state , all material rights (claims) of non-existing state ceased to exist, or were transferred to the possesion of Allied Powers. Thus in consequence is a difference beetween German public records of WWII and the private ones, and in particular oficial public records of the IIIrd Reich (diplomatic events, and so on). The same situation is in the case of property of NSDAP as a political party - and subject of civil law.

Between May 1945 ( arresting by British authorities Admiral Donitz as President of Germany and the whole last goverment of IIIrd Reich ( Reichsregierung ) ) and establishing BRD (October 1949) there was no any German State at all as a subject of international an civil law with all its consequences.

Are you trying to assert that Germany (BRD) were not the (or a) successor state of the Third Reich? Also, please do not confound the issue by mixing "public domain", "public records", and "official governmental publications". Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. In consequence your attitude is correct towards private photographs ( and in cited NARA webpage there is strictly dictiction between public (govermental) - which are without any restrictions, and private, which were the subject of copyright. This is a consequence of legal deeds from #.1 . You exactly know , how strictly in the USA the subject of copyrights is treated. Would you like to tell (suggest) us , that US Federal Agency permanently violates international copyright law? No- Public records of govermental agencies of the IIIrd Reich are just copyfree ( for the reasons described in #.1). And NARA consequently put into public domain without restrictions materials of Auswartiges Amt( Foreign Office of Germany) , DNB, Deutsche Wochenschau ( work of DNB). Just visit the page of NARA and book a microfilms. I'm sure you well know about it.

Wochenschauen are copyrighted, the copyrights are held by Transit Films GmbH, who have followed the U.S. procedures to be able to enforce their copyrights also in the U.S. See WP:PD#German World War II images. The NARA does provide access to some confiscated German WWII-era images under a rather special provision in 17 USC 104A, which did not restore copyright in the U.S. under the URAA in 1996 on items on which the German government was the copyright holder (17 USC 104A(a)(2)). Furthermore, note that copyrights on most seized materials were returned by the U.S. authorities to the foreign authors in 1962 (Pub. L. No. 87-846, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 76 Stat. 1107). See Patry, W.F. Copyright Law and Practice, Introduction, "Trading With the Enemy Act". In that law, the U.S. retained the right "to reproduce, for its own use, or exhibit any divested copyrighted motion picture films." See Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998. That amounts to a compulsory, non-exclusive license for seized films on behalf of the U.S. authorities; but it doesn't make these works public domain. Finally, please note that all this applies only within the U.S. It does not apply anywhere else. Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3.I don't know for what reason the detail rule of German Copyright Law depicted directly to photos ( art. 72 UrhG)( "lex specialis" ) ( it should be good translate into English - would you kind to do it yourselves , or shall I do?) shall not be in effect only on basis of private opinions, or voting on German Wikipedia. Does German law does not exit , or existing partly? In such case why was copyrights for photos strictly divided from the other ones ( Art 64-69 are general terms for every rights ( "lex generalis" ) ) . If Art. 72 UrhG is not necessary, it is easy way for Bundestag to repeal it ;).

Are you aware of the distinction between a simple photograph ("Lichtbild") and a photographic work ("Lichtbildwerk")? Under German laws, virtually all photographs are "Lichtbildwerke". U.S. law doesn't even know the distinction. Both in the U.S. and in Germany, photographs that show only the tiniest bit of originality/creativity are copyrighted as works. See e.g. de:Schöpfungshöhe, or en:threshold of originality. Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. The only basis for apply the regulations of law is only direct meaning of law, and in disputable cases - verdict of Supreme Court of BRD in such case ( detailed interpretation of regulations - art. 72 UrhG)or European Court of Human Rights. Private opinions cannot and should not substitute it.

There were cases confirming that WWII-era copyrights were restored by virtue of EU directive 93/98/EEC. See WP:PD#German World War II images, where the relevant links are given (OLG Hamburg 3.3.2004, 5 U 159/03). Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. In the end - I was wrong applying German licence to the photos made in Ukraine in early thirties, and Polish and unknown photos made in Katyn (Russia) in 1943. The licence towards Ukraine will be change after resuming this discussion (Polish was just changed). Such discussions as above are usefully just for correct the wrong views for everybody.

Photographs of German nationals, or photographs first published in Germany (e.g. by the DNB) have Germany as a country of origin. See e.g. the Berne Convention, article 3. Note that the place where the work was created (or the photograph was taken) is not mentioned. Changing these to Polish or Ukrainian licenses is thus just wrong. Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. I can unterstand, that German art-photographers today are in interest to broadening interpretation of law :)) ( and take every photo as a piece of art). However, it is in no connection with possibity using worldwide ( this is Wikimedia Commons - not German Wikipedia) the public records from 30-ties or 40-ties of XX century with expired (in anyway) copyrights . As I have written above it should made impossible to present in public till 2009-2015 photos, which are present in public domain (public property) just now - and worldwide without any restrictions.

The UK had the "Enemy Property Act" which "extinguished all German interests, both copyright and ownership, in all material belonging to former German enemies (whether individuals or businesses) which was brought into the UK between 3 September 1939 and 9 July 1951." [6] This act was repealed in 1976. [7]. For more info, see http://www.enemyproperty.gov.uk/ and the reports available for download there. That info applies only within the UK. Outside of the U.S. and the UK, German WWII-era works are copyrighted just like any other work. I am not aware of other countries having had rules akin to those of the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian or to the Enemy Property Act in the UK. German WWII-era works are certainly not PD "worldwide". Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Accidentaly I am an historian and lawyer by profession. I have presented my attitude very detailed and I will be very grateful - do not force any opinions without confirming in detail on proper basis.

With best wishes: Andros64 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix

1. Are you aware of the distinction between a simple photograph ("Lichtbild") and a photographic work ("Lichtbildwerk") ? On what law basis you have to exclude "almost all" photographs from acting 72 UrhG ? I have not seen any legal definition in UrhG of this two sorts of works. In any case art photographs are exception to the general rule ( art.72 ). You had not presented any positive evidence against ( apart from private opinion) .The only one may be the verdict of Supreme Court of BRD or ECHR according to intellectual property.

See de:Lichtbildwerk and de:Schöpfungshöhe. Lots of court decisions. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "Lots" - 2 verdicts (one of SC of Germany , one from Bayern) , apart from this particular case Both confirmes the strictly distincton beetwen common and art photos.

2. Non-existing of any German state from 1945 to 1949 is out of discussion and you don't take it into account.

And in consequence you are talking all the time about private ( not state )property and - in this question - you are right

All your remarks are concerning this subject. But it is apart from essence of case. (NARA does provide access to some confiscated German WWII-era images under a rather special provision in 17 USC 104A, which did not restore copyright in the U.S. under the URAA in 1996 on items on which the German government was the copyright holder (17 USC 104A(a)(2))- yours). And we are talking just about it - about the property of former German State.

You have just confirmed my attitude towards this particular case. Thank you. Hier ist der Hund begraben.

No. Two things: first, the NARA explanations were just intended to show to you why the NARA can, in the U.S., make accessible some German WWII-era works. It does not apply outside of the U.S. And second, there are two conditions for 17 USC 104A(a)(2) to be applicable in the U.S.: (1) the copyright on the item must have been administered by the Alien Property Custodian, and (2) the restored copyright would, as of January 1, 1996, been owned by a foreign government or its instrumentality. Both conditions must be true. But again: all this NARA stuff is not important here; these are not NARA images, and the NARA rules would apply only in the U.S.! Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. The photos we are talking in this particular case are not from Deutsche Wochenschau.

I never said they were. You brought up the Wochenschauen, claiming these were not copyrighted. I pointed to sources that refute that claim. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Intelectual property of DNB as IIIrd Reich state agency is out of protection ( items on which the German government was the copyright holder) , and nobody is its legal successor ( if is - a positive evidence, please).

Wrong. See above. If you think that copyrights on German WWII-era images had expired worldwide, as you claimed above, you have to provide proof. Proof, not just your unsourced private opinion. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow. Again and again and again. I don't know who would hold the copyright on these works today—the original copyright owner surely was the photographer, but he might have transferred the exploitation rights to a legal person such as a state agency—but that is not so important in these cases. In any case the legal successor of the "Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro" (DNB) appears to be dpa (see [17]). As we know, copyrights on German WWII-era photographs did expire indeed, but were restored in 1995 by EU directive 93/98/EEC throughout the whole European Union. And furthermore, these are clearly photographic works ("Lichtbildwerke"), not simple photographs ("Lichtbild"). Lupo 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC) - :))
  - If you quote me, at least have the decency to read the quote. These copyrights were restored in 1995 by EU directive 93/98/EEC throughout the whole European Union. Thank you for your attention. Now, please, provide independent proof for your assertions. Lupo 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly - it means,that copyright protecton towards German photos from WWII is 1. limited to the private photos ( not govermental ones ) 2. limited to private German photos only in the area of EU. ( so , f.ex. only in Europe - Switzerland, Norway, Ukraine, Croatia, Serbia,FYROM, Russia, Belorus etc are not suited to that interpretation). That's conclusion.

5. The anonymous photos from Ukraine , and from Katyn wasn't the property of DNB (the whole Europe was occupied by Germans - vis major ) , and if any - only the legal succesor can reclaim in the case.

Well, for example on Image:Katyn14.jpg, you wrote: "Author:unknown, first publisher :Deutsches Nachrichten Buro 1943." And the photos from the Ukraine were sourced by you to a certain engineer A. Wineberger (Germany). See e.g. Image:Ulica w Charkowie 1932.jpg. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With best wishes:

Andros64 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix - DPA

Ownership

dpa is a limited company with around 190 shareholders (newspaper and magazine publishers, publishing houses, public and private broadcasters). No shareholder may hold more than 1.5 per cent of its capital and the broadcasting corporations are limited to a maximum of 25 per cent between them. This prevents any one shareholder from exerting an undue influence on the company. The turnover of dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH (excluding subsidiaries and holdings) stood at 94 million Euros in 2004.

At the shareholders meeting the shareholders (current figure) determine the guidelines for running the agency [8]

DPA is private corporation (legal subject), which has nothing in common with DNB (owned exlusively by German State) through Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (Reichsminister -dr Joseph Goebbels). DPA is not legal succesor of DNB.

Details:webpage as above

best wishes Andros64 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad 72 UrhG

§ 137a Photographic Works

(1) The provisions of this Law as regards the term of copyright shall also apply to those photographic works whose term of protection under prior law has not yet expired on July 1, 1985.

(2) Where a right of exploitation in a photographic work has been assigned or transferred to another person; such assignment or transfer shall not extend, in case of doubt, to the period of time by which the term of copyright in photographic works has been extended.

§ 137a Lichtbildwerke

(1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes über die Dauer des Urheberrechts sind auch auf Lichtbildwerke anzuwenden, deren Schutzfrist am 1. Juli 1985 nach dem bis dahin geltenden Recht noch nicht abgelaufen ist. (2) Ist vorher einem anderen ein Nutzungsrecht an einem Lichtbildwerk eingeräumt oder übertragen worden, so erstreckt sich die Einräumung oder Übertragung im Zweifel nicht auf den Zeitraum, um den die Dauer des Urheberrechts an Lichtbildwerken verlängert worden ist.

Article 137a UrhG

§ 137a Photographic Works

(1) The provisions of this Law as regards the term of copyright shall also apply to those photographic works whose term of protection under prior law has not yet expired on July 1, 1985.

(2) Where a right of exploitation in a photographic work has been assigned or transferred to another person; such assignment or transfer shall not extend, in case of doubt, to the period of time by which the term of copyright in photographic works has been extended.

§ 137a Lichtbildwerke

(1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes über die Dauer des Urheberrechts sind auch auf Lichtbildwerke anzuwenden, deren Schutzfrist am 1. Juli 1985 nach dem bis dahin geltenden Recht noch nicht abgelaufen ist. (2) Ist vorher einem anderen ein Nutzungsrecht an einem Lichtbildwerk eingeräumt oder übertragen worden, so erstreckt sich die Einräumung oder Übertragung im Zweifel nicht auf den Zeitraum, um den die Dauer des Urheberrechts an Lichtbildwerken verlängert worden ist.

Unfortunately, this is not applicable. See §137f: copyrights were restored for works that were still copyrighted in any one of the other EU member countries. Lupo 09:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, following the argumentation of Lupo, Historiograf and Gorgo. --Polarlys 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]