Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Monika Mann.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Question about the deletion

[edit]

@Jameslwoodward: Sorry, but if you know the author, please tell us. We know, that the photo was taken before the 1930s in an Studio in München... I don't understand why could not wait till next week when the ETHBIB Thomas-Mann-Archivs director responding can? Fauvirt (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(If it was not clear: Atelier meaning Studio - see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Atelier ) Fauvirt (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" one of her colleagues has written an advance that the Foto was created in the Studio Elisabeth (Atelier Elisabeth) in Munich"
I understand "atelier" -- although a French word it is often used in English as well. I took the comment to mean that it was produced by a particular person or studio, which makes it impossible to use {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. In order to restore it, you must prove that the actual photographer died before 1946.
Please remember that Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day. About 2,000 of those must be deleted, mostly for copyright violations. A dozen Admins do almost all of that work and we work through the daily logs very fast. {{PD-anon-70-EU}} is very hard to use -- it can rarely be proven that the work was both anonymous and published before 1946. My experience tells me that it is very unlikely that the source can provide enough information for this image to be kept, hence the deletion. If it turns out that I am wrong, then it can easily be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Okay, I see now, what was my mistake.  Thank you.! (And sorry, for my incomprehension... ) Fauvirt (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fauvirt, no problem. Most of the busiest Admins recognize that Commons is a very steep learning curve and we try hard to be helpful to people who ask politely when they don't understand. Any time you have a question, please feel free to drop a note on my talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tambo and Jameslwoodward: The director of the Thomas-Mann-Archivs have answered me. The Archiv just working on a project in which theirs pictures makes under a free license. This picture is in this projekt, but the preparatory processes is still 1-2 months.

Magyar: Választ kaptam a Thomas-Mann Archívumtól. Azt mondták, hogy egy projekt keretében a birtokukban levő képeket szabad licenc alá helyezik, de az előkészítő munkálatok még 1-2 hónapig eltartanak, addig a türelmet kérik, viszont ez a kép is beleesik.

Fauvirt (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I the Archive can show us that it owns the copyright and is willing to license it freely, then when they are ready to do so, they should follow the instructions at OTRS and the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Yes, I told them, what are the Wikimedia requirements... see
this is so appropriate? Fauvirt (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read German and Google translate did not do a great job with it, but it seems to say that he both claims that he owns the copyright and that the image is PD. It cannot, of course, be both, which suggests to me that he does not understand copyright very well. He also says that the image is PD because it is more than 70 years after an anonymous publication -- there are two problems with that -- first, since we know that it was created by studio Elisabeth, it is probably not actually anonymous as the law means it. Second, there is no proof that it was published before 1946 -- as he says, the clock starts on publication, not on creation, except that if an anonymous image is unpublished for 70 years after creation, then it is PD. So, in order to restore this, we still need proof
  • that the author died before 1946, or
  • that the work was in fact anonymous and was published before 1946, or
  • that the work was in fact anonymous and was not published until 70 years after creation (1924?).
Given the apparent lack of understanding of copyright, I am disinclined to accept anything but solid proof of any of those. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know was it understandable for you, that the licensing letter I wrote to them. Because 'Atelier Elisabeth' was just a Studio, where probably several photographers worked.[1]
But... to be sure I wrote them what we need by the image-description to use this picture on the Commons (in other words to be de facto PD). I hope, it works. Fauvirt (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  1. ↑ →„...die erfolgreichen Portraitstudios, die [Elfriede Reichelt] in ihrer Münchner Studienzeit kennen gelernt hatte: Mit den Ateliers von Theodor Hilsdorf (1868-1944), Franz Grainer (1871-1948), Friedrich Lützel und Stephanie Ludwig (Atelier Veritas), dem Atelier Elvira und dem Atelier Elisabeth hatte sich München als Zentrum für die neuzeitliche Portraitfotografie etabliert...“ (in: https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13876/1/Faber_Verena.pdf 22 pp.)
    English: „...the successful portrait-studios that [Elfriede Reichelt] get acquainted with in their Munich studies: with the studios of Theodor Hilsdorf (1868-1944), Franz Grainer (1871-1948), Friedrich Lützel and Stephanie Ludwig (Atelier Veritas), the Atelier Elvira and the Atelier Elisabeth had Munich established itself as a center for modern portrait photography“
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Monika_Mann.jpg&oldid=190206772"