Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Meyers Blitz-Lexikon

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.

Files in Category:Meyers Blitz-Lexikon

Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. Copyrighted in the U.S. until 2027. I checked every image three times to see if it had a reasonable chance to be PD. 70 images were not included. This could be because it did not meet Commons:Threshold of originality, it solely depicted a person, it consisted entirely of artwork, it was a borderline case and was better suited for individual scrutiny, or just because I thought it would be better not to include it.

List of 540 files

* File:LA2-Blitz-0008.jpg

Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree they've got to disappear for the next 14 years. Not a huge loss, I have to confess! - MPF (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have checked only one file (File:Quebec castle.png) and therefore I can't believe your claim "I checked every image three times to see if it had a reasonable chance to be PD". 91.66.153.214 10:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the date of publication was 1932, which is when the clock starts ticking down. Otherwise it must have been taken in 1892. (120 years from creation. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what the IP may be suggesting above is that, for some extracted images, a publication in Meyers Blitz-Lexicon was not the first publication and it should be possible to find an earlier publication. It is the first publication that should be the reference for the year and country of first publication and the determination of the copyright status. To continue with the example given by the IP (File:Quebec castle.png), a search on the internet shows that this photo was published on postcards in Canada in the early 1900s. The Quebec News Company (Québec) published it circa 1903-1908 [1]. Valentine & Sons (Montreal and Toronto) also published it [2] in the same years [3]. It was also published by Gaston Vennat circa 1900-1904 [4]. So, basically, the original photograph is PD-1923 and PD-Canada and the Bibliographisches Institut, the publisher of the Lexicon, cannot claim a copyright on it. If the concern is that the Institut may try to claim a copyright in the United States on the lower-quality offset reproduction, Commons deals with it with the templates PD-scan or PD-Art, unless sufficient creativity was added to the reproduction, which does not seem to be the case for this reproduction. That said, although copyright concerns would not seem a sufficient reason for deletion, I suppose we would not lose anything if we deleted this file anyway and replaced it with a better version of the photograph taken directly from one of the available postcards. So, I guess the deletion of the files is okay. Some files are under copyright. And for images that can be shown to be in the public domain, if a copy of better quality is available, the Lexicon copy is not necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those in use on :de, might be uploaded locally at :de. --Túrelio (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Just curious why the introductory paragraph implies that the fact that an image "solely depicted a person" would be a reason for that image to have a reasonable chance to be in the public domain in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really, but if the photo was taken and published before 1923, then it would be in the public domain. I'll do a followup, smaller nomination soon. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not overreact, keep them all. The scans have been uploaded 7 years ago long before URAA became evident and they are part of a project on de.wikisource. If a takedown notice arrives they must be deleted. --9xl (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not wait for takedown notices. COM:PRP explicitly forbids that line of reasoning. If these are needed on other projects, they should be copied now, because these will be gone in the next day or two and no Admin is going to want to restore them all for copying. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- You two : I share the "Do not overreact" point of view but totally agree with Jameslwoodward it would violaet COM:PRP to have policies like all is okay pending takedown notices. Wikimedia Commons does a best effort to warrant to other reusers the media are really free. But this "Do not overreact" point of view also means we should wait regular URAA deletion processing instead to handpick files indidivually. Because in the URAA public domain review taskforce, the local projects needs are taken in consideration for example. --Dereckson (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did handpick these. This is the processing you are taking about. The local projects have had two years to do whatever they want to do and the uploaders and any other interested parties are notified during a deletion request and are given 7 days to do something. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a decision not to delete files uploaded before March 2012 (Golan v. Holder came out on 18 January 2012). I was told so... Yann (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such decision. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, we need a cite for that. Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review suggests that there is a project underway to delete all URAA affected files after notifying the local wikis. I can't find any agreement that we are going to ignore URAA with respect to files uploaded before March, 2012 -- simply that we would not simply delete them all. But as far as I can see, ordinary DRs are OK. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was told so. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Claudel 1928.jpg‎. Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that admin was mistaken then. That's all. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my closure to clarify the matter

Furthermore, I suggest to close a similar way here and wait the Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review deletion operation, which will occur according the current deadline in the next 6 months and will offer a better notification process and smoother workflow. --Dereckson (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I myself just changed that deadline, which used to be December 31 2012, the date all files copyrighted in the U.S. should have been reviewed to see if the tag was appropriately added, then deleted. I changed it to July 2014 because 2012 has long passed and July 2014 seems like a reasonable date for all the files to have been deleted. The to do list is a draft anyway and I think local wikis should already know about this 2 year-old court decision. During deletion discussions, anybody can upload to their local wiki under fair use if it allows it and the file meets the criteria. That review is what is happening in this DR. I reviewed them, saw that they are indeed copyrighted in the U.S., and opened a DR. That deadline is when I think all files should have gone through DRs by that date. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, local wikis aren't aware of the decision. When I delete a new file, I must explain it. Each time. --Dereckson (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have deleted hundreds of URAA problem files with no particular attention being paid to the upload date. I see nothing in any of the discussions that precludes deleting these. The only community supported agreement in place is that we will not do a mass delete of all the URAA problems -- that they will be considered on a case by case basis. While this DR is 540 files, it is all one case.

Again, I give fair warning -- I am going to close this as a delete and I will not restore these so they can be moved -- there are too many of them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you have a look at page 2 of this „work“, you’ll read „copyright 1931 by Bibliographisches Institut AG Leipzig“. (Print; Bibliographisches Institut AG). This german dictionary was never published outside Germany since internet or wikipedia was founded in US.

There is an other interesting german dictionary helt on US server: „Beilstein Handbuch der Organischen Chemie“ (e.g. copyright 1931 by Julius Springer Berlin). We can find it at www.archive.org . They have no problems with the regulations of URAA. There are many books .....

List of xx german dictionaries

*Band 5 (1922). - Band 6 (1923). - Band 7 (1925). - Band 8 (1925). - Band 9 (1926). - Band 10 (1927). - Band 11 (1928). - Band 12 (1929). - Band 13 (1930). - Band 14 (1931). - Band 15 (1932). - Band 16 (1933). - Band 17 (1933). - Band 18 (1934). -. - Band 20 (1935). - Band 21 (1935). - Band 22 (1935). - Band 23 (1936). - Band 25 (1936). - Band 26 (1937). - Band 27 (1937).

4. Auflage - 1. Ergänzungswerk (E I)

acyclische Verb.: [Band 1 EI (1927)]. - [Band 2 EI (1928)]. - Band 3-4 EI (1929).

cyclische Verb.: [Band 5 EI (1930)]. - Band 6 EI (1931). - Band 7-8 EI (1931). - Band 9 EI (1932). - Band 10 EI (1932). - Band 11-12 EI (1933). - Band 13-14 EI (1933). - Band 15-16 EI (1934).

heterocyclische Verb.: [Band 17-18-19 EI (1934)]. - Band 20-21-22 EI (1935). - Band 23-24-25 EI (1936). - Band 25-26-27 EI (1938).

Registerbände 4. Auflage (H & E I): Gen.Sachreg. A-G (1938), Gen.Sachreg. H-Z (1939). - Gen.Formelreg. C₁-C₁₃ (1939), Gen.Formelreg. C₁₄-C₁₉₅ (1940).

4. Auflage - 2. Ergänzungswerk (E II)

acyclische Verb.:. - Band 2 EII (1942). - Band 3-4 EII (1942).

cyclische Verb.: Band 5 EII (1943). - Band 6 EII (1944). -. - Band 8 EII (1948). - Band 9 EII (1949). - Band 10 EII (1949). - Band 11 EII (1950). - Band 12 EII (1950).

So I think all foreign dictionaries up to 1943 are PD in the United States. mfg --Drdoht (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive also hosts copies of every copyrighted website ever, which is not allowed on Commons, in addition to many other things. I don't know what the Internet Archive does to justify everything, probably a combination of fair use, "let's hope the copyright owners don't find out", and "it's for educational purposes." Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a nice interpretation. How stupid should world wide publishing companies like Bibliographisches Institut AG Leipzig (after WW2 in Mannheim, today in Berlin) and Springer AG (Berlin) be?

BI belongs to „international tätigen Franz Cornelsen Bildungsgruppe“ [5] (investors EQT from Sweden and GIC from Singapur).
Springer today is a international publishing company. [6] [7]

They have a lot of lawyers checking the world wide web just in time and looking after their copyrights. If there is something going wrong with "Meyers Blitz-Lexikon", Commons should have got information from them since 2005. --Drdoht (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PRP forbids us from taking account the amount of enforcement done by the copyright holder. Also, showing that an entity that hosts a lot of copyrighted material, also hosts this, is not a good stand-alone argument. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever thought about writing a friendly email to Bibliographisches Institut at "kundenservice@dudenverlag.de"?? --Drdoht (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't speak German so that wouldn't work and this DR should be closed any moment now as it could have been closed 2 weeks ago so any reply will most likely come after that, if they reply at all. You appear to speak German though and if you wish, you can, however, I don't know what their customer service email address will do for you. This DR is no different from the 575 others in Category:URAA-related deletion requests/deleted. Also, if I remember correctly, users can upload things to the Internet Archive and being on their site doesn't mean that the organization put it there themselves. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Apparently protected by copyright in the US until 2027 by URAA FASTILY 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: See COM:UDEL --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]