File talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg file.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Improper? Remaining copyright violation?

This "transfer from source" is not proper. The blogger (see the source) took the photograph from Wikipedia/Wikipedia Commons, from which, since then, it has been deleted for copyright violations. The taker of the photograph Wilhelm Brasse is still alive and the image was deleted from both Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia previously for copyright violations. If used in Wikipedia, it requires a detailed "fair use rationale." The current one (which I have revised a bit to be more accurate) is not sufficient for "fair use" in Wikipedia. The photographer is not the blogger; the photographer is Wilhelm Brasse. There remain the same problems as before in the posting of this image in Wikipedia. See WP:Copyvio. --NYScholar (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC) --Updated after adding templates on image page and uploader's talk page; see talk page and editing history re: misuse of this image in the article. --NYScholar (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on the photograph in Edwards' personal blog (the source of the uploader) reads (as it did last week when it linked to the version of the article in Wikipedia w/ the copyright violation photograph: "Wilhelm Brasse photos via http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Czes%C5%82awa_Kwoka." Clearly, Edwards uploaded the photograph from the Wikipedia article (whose description page then linked to the Wikipedia Commons description page, from which the image has since been removed due to copyright violation). This is not Edwards' photograph; this is Wilhelm Brasse's photograph displayed in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. The photograph appears via the link to Edwards' blog (written by her about her and her collaborator's artwork based on this photograph; but the uploaded version in that blog was taken from Wikipedia. It appears in Google now, due to its previous appearance in both Wikipedia and the blog. But one cannot simply upload images that appear in Google searches due to website usage into Wikipedia articles; this situation is complicated because the editing history re: the removal of this image from Wikipedia/Wikipedia Commons was not consulted apparently by the current uploader who added it to the article again after uploading it, despite its previous deletion on basis of copyright violation: see WP:Copyvio for links to image copyright policy in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you can't see the photograph deleted from Commons, NYScholar, in order to make the proper comparison. These are not the same photos. The one from Commons included a few more takes in separate rows. It was square in size, with different resolution, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that, with the proper copyright tag, the image meets the criteria of fair use regardless of where the original copy was obtained from, especially that the photograph is not the work, nor claims to be the work of the blogger, but rather, of one Wilhelm Brasse. --Poeticbent talk 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared both photographs (before the deletion of the photograph from Wikipedia Commons); the "low resolution" argument is not sufficient to trump the fact that this is a copyright-protected photograph by Wilhelm Brasse. The blog uploaded the photograph from Wikipedia (however it was later changed) and that version of the photograph was deleted for reasons of copyright violation. The resolution [and/or cropping] does not change the violation of copyright. There is no permission from the photographer Wilhelm Brasse or from the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Poland (which exhibits it) or its publications (which publish it in copyrighted works) to upload it to Wikipedia. It is also highly problematic given the nature of the photographs themselves, which depict a Holocaust victim. Greater sensitivity to the copyright issues is really necessary here. I do not see an argument for "fair use," given the conflicting potential claims of copyright violation by owner and publisher of the photograph(s), which also may include the copyright owner(s) of the documentary film on Brasse's work. --NYScholar (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the original fair-use rationale written by the uploader presented its "source" as the blog (blogger, the creator of the blog); yet, the blogger (the verse-writer Edwards) does not own the copyright to the photograph that she took from Wikipedia and featured in her blog. That itself is a copyright violation; Wikipedia has strict warnings about uploading images from websites (including blogs) to Wikipedia and linking to the images directly in Wikipedia articles and image pages, other Wikipedia space. This is a clearcut copyright violation. Permission from the photographer/publisher/museum would be needed for such use in Wikipedia. I don't see how this is within "fair use". The images are accessible through the sources citations; they do not need to be incorporated as an "illustration" of the subject (the dead girl). It is also in extremely poor taste to use it as in illustration of the subject in the lede, and that use itself is not within Wikipedia guidelines/policies for use of images in ledes of personal biographies. --NYScholar (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar copyright violations occur in other websites and in previous versions of Wikipedia still accessible via Google: see, e.g., http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mensviventer.no/mvv39/dead3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mensviventer.no/mvv39/holocoust.htm&h=358&w=288&sz=12&hl=en&start=5&um=1&usg=__cwier0ZGEKCRQezRDdzWJuLATZM=&tbnid=De6hBukML6NrRM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCzes%25C5%2582awa%2BKwoka%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-34,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN. People take photos from unidentified locations on the internet and put them in their own self-published websites, via cropping and changing of resolution, but that does not change the fact that they are engaging in violations of the photographer's (and others') copyrights. --NYScholar (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no claim or permission filed that the photograph originally uploaded to Wikipedia came with the permission of Wilhelm Brasse. The uploader did not state that or prove that with any kind of authenticatable permission Wikipedia notice through correspondence with Wikipedia filed anywhere; no ticket no., e.g.; If you have a link to a proper permission file no., please post it. Rules for uploading of photos to Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia differ; in the case of this photograph (cropped and changed resolution) from original, it appears to be taken from still photographs placed in parts of You Tube clips; it is not clear at all where the photograph that the blogger posted to her blog actually comes from; the uploader in this instance Poeticbent took the version uploaded to Wikipedia most lately from the blog. The blog gives the link for the blogger's source as Wikipedia's earlier version of this article. She credits the photographer in both the collaborative artwork and the blog, but she does not state that she has his permission to post his photograph (however cropped or in whatever resolution) in her blog or in Wikipedia. See the current links via the infobox that I just added to the article for what one needs to be considered within fair use in this case. Just because one would like to post the photograph in Wikipedia as an "illustration" does not mean that one is permitted to do so by Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. The photographs as they may appear in the documentary film have been posted in a compilation video in You Tube, which is already linked as a "resource" in Wikipedia; that work is full of plagiarism, even from Wikipedia itself. --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're going round in circles here. It makes no difference where, and how the image is being disseminated online by private individuals. The Wikipedia image has been properly tagged as copyrighted (read the tag, please). The image description page includes all the necessary elements for every fair-use reproduction such as, attribution of the source of the material (being Auschwitz State Museum, no less), copyright attribution that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is being used, and the name of the article (with a link to the article, as recommended). I resent the fact that the image (now reinstated) has been removed from view at the article page in order to claim that the image is not being used, and therefore somehow, more appropriate for a "speedy deletion". It is an iconic image, a subject of an artistic interpretation. As such, it does not require permission of its author to be used as illustration according to US laws about fair-use. To say that this is just a picture of a dead girl is a misnomer. I highly disagre with your personal definition of what constitutes a good taste. The picture IS being used in good taste of course, in a Wikipedia:Biography. --Poeticbent talk 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Contrary to a fury of objections by a problem user who nominated this image for deletion, not a single copyright breach has occured here, since the image, made by an unknown prisoner (wild guess: Brasse) is in public domain according to Polish copyright law regardless of where it was obtained from. --Poeticbent talk 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; but your original image page description was entirely misleading: I corrected it. It implied that the source of the photograph is the blog; the source was Wikipedia itself. The blogger took the photo from Wikipedia. If you would look at the editing history summaries and the rationale for removing the image from Wikipedia Commons on the basis of copyright violation, you would understand this problem. In no way should this image be placed near the lede. It is in poor taste to do that. It is a photograph on which an artwork was based. See the previous discussion about deleting this article entirely; you need to see the reasons some people wanted to delete it. This is not my "personal definition"; it is not proper to use such an image as the illustration of what a person looked like when she was being photographed as an inmate in a concentration camp; that is in poor taste. If you or anyone else could find an image of what she looked like before her deportation and incarceration (not likely), that would be possibly the image that one would expect to see opposite a lede in a biography. This photograph pertains to discussion of the photographs of her taken by Wilhelm Brasse, who is still alive and whose copyright is being violated all over the internet, including in the blog that you took this photograph from. You uploaded the photograph from a blog which does not have the rights to post the photograph. The artwork is another situation; and that is a creative "derivative work" based on a copyrighted photograph. The photograph may be famous, but it is not currently within the public domain and permission is needed for its use in Wikiepedia from the photographer or the museum which exhibits it and which uses it in its publications (which are also copyright protected). If used in any other encyclopedia, its use would require written permission from the copyright holder of record. The photograph is not needed as an illustration in this article (unless one overcomes the copyright violation situation and it is actually deemed (by administrators) to be within fair use, because the sources and/or references/resources provide imagery of it. There was some consensus reached in its removal before you re-uploaded it to Wikipedia in cropped format that appears in the blog (which you took it from). --NYScholar (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of debate about deleting the article in which you uploaded this image recently before you did that. You need to find the links to that discussion via the editing history. I did not remove the Wikipedia Commons/Wikipedia image from the article; it was removed by someone else after it was deleted from Wikipedia Commons: please see the editing history. The inclusion of this image in this article might jeopardize the entire article; that is in part why the image was removed as well. The article cannot have a questionable copyright image in it. Editors are directed to remove such images via the linked templates. I edited it out. It remains edited out due to the jeopardy reinserting it could do to the article's viability in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you stopped WP: baiting me and incanting in the same mantra over and over again. You do not, and I repeat, you do not seem to understand what makes fair-use different from GDFL as your reasoning clearly shows. BTW, thanks for improving on the description of the image. And, why don’t you go around and take a good look at Wikipedia pictures of World War II. They are all in “poor taste” for en aesthete, aren’t they? The AfD debate was closed so fast (with a resounding Keep), I didn't have time to vote, though I wanted to. --Poeticbent talk 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I did almost all of the work in attempting to rescue this article in Wikipedia. I suggest that you examine the editing history. User:Kameraad Pjotr (a sysop) deleted the earlier uploaded image from both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons on basis of copyright violation. The same reasons for deleting it before remain. This has nothing to do w/ you personally; it has to do w/ trying to maintain the integrity of this article in Wikipedia so that it does not get deleted entirely. --NYScholar (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an editing conflict (ec) and I lost the link that I provided to the editing history where KP removed it on basis on copyright vio. You can find it by going to the log of the old image name. --NYScholar (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion re: deletion of whole article (which I opposed and recommended "keep") is found via the template on Talk:Czesława Kwoka: See links in {{oldafdfull|page=Czesława Kwoka|date=27 August 2008|result='''keep'''}}. You need to familiarize yourself with the reasons why other people (not I) wanted to delete the article; it was User:Ecoleetage who asked me to help out by commenting in that discussion, which led to my working on trying to improve the article and its being "kept". --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current version of this image page

All those refs. to Polish law do not pertain to the problem of the possible copyright violation from a copyrighted Polish film (See Wilhelm Brasse#Documentary film: The Portraitist) in its use in the United States. (The source of the image is not the photograph in the museum (as suggested in the image page) but it appears to be a capture of an image (reconstituted) from a copyrighted film made in 2005.) Please see U.S. copyright law pertaining to capturing material from copyright-protected film properties and downloading material from YouTube sources, putting it in Wikipedia, and then copying from Wikipedia into a blog, then downloading and copying the image from the blog, and uploading it back into Wikipedia. There are problems in this process that are not at all being addressed in the image's refs. to laws and licenses in Poland relating to photographs that have no copyright notices on them, which may or may not relate to photographs exhibited in a museum, which owns its exhibits and reproduction rights to photographs displayed in them. This is far more complex a copyright situation than the fair use notice rationale admits or that the templates about laws in the U.S. and Poland are acknowledging. This is not a proper presentation of the source of the photograph posted from Wikipedia to the blog and vice versa. --NYScholar (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can find the image in the video clip in the official Website of the distributor of The Potraitist; the image that this blog uses was made by someone from a derivative work that was constructed from copyrighted published materials without credit or citation and then downloaded, edited, cropped, etc., then uploaded to Wikipedia, then downloaded from Wikipedia, uploaded to a blog, then downloaded by current Wik. uploader of this image, and uploaded back to Wikipedia. This is not proper. --NYScholar (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of this image took it from a personal blog, which gives Wikipedia as its source: <http://tacse.blogspot.com/2007/09/lori-schreiner-and-i-collaborate-for.html>: at the time that was posted (in 2007), the image was the one copied there. This is not a proper source for an image in Wikipedia. The image is in the copyrighted film and appears in a version compiled in a video by a YouTube uploader, who incorporates this piece of the film The Portraitist (apparently) in his online video, which, whoever copied this image originally into Wikipedia, may have also used (it's copied all over the internet over an extended period of time), claiming, falsely, to have taken the photo him/herself in 2004. That is not apparently the case (that image was deleted from Wikipedia Commons). The blog (TACSE)--a personal blog--copied and downloaded a version of the image from Wikipedia in a post in 2007, giving the Wikipedia link to the article on the little girl (an article created in 2006). Using material, the blogger (one of the creators of the painting now cited in Wikipedia's article on the little girl) copied the photo to her blog in a post dated 2007. The painting was created also in 2007. The blogger does not say where she and her collaborator found the photos that they credit to Brasse initially to make their painting; it could have been anywhere, but it does not appear to have been from the museum in Poland. It appears to be from some other copyright-violating source; the way the post is presented, it could have been Wikipedia. The presentation in the image description page is very misleading. --NYScholar (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no real proof of this beyond your suspicions. In reality, the photo this image is of is not under copyright. Even if your claims that a low res version of a screen shot from a film regarding a non-copyrighted image was in fact not fair use, you have no proof and I see no reason to delete (especially in a speedy fashion) an image that adds to the article simply based on your unverifiable claims. Open it up to general debate and we can move from there. You removing an image without debate because you think it might be an image from a flash video conversion of a film that might have been passed through a blog and also might not be fair use (but in my opinion is) doesn't make it anything but vandalism and I'll treat it as such. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish legal penalties for copyright violations

This is a very serious matter: See: Chapter 14: Criminal Liability (Polish Copyright Law from 4 Feb. 1994); current copyright law in Poland applies (if invoked); not past laws, since amended and rewritten to apply today. (The film in question was made in Poland and shown on Polish television.) The amended laws are incorporated in current codes of law. One abides by laws that pertain today, and one also (primarily) must abide by the laws of the United States governing use of copyrighted materials from this country and others.

The "original" photograph was taken in 1942 or 1943, and it is currently the property of the Museum which exhibits it; one needs to contact the museum and the filmmaker re: public distribution over the internet (not "personal use") of their works in Wikipedia, via people's online copying, downloading, and uploading of such materials. Again, please see the sources provided in the pertinent articles. Links already provided above. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See similar problems already discussed in other image created by uploader

Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg; there is a link there to a Wikipedia Commons image of another Auschwitz inmate photograph citing Polish law's so-called public domain reference in license leading to its being nominated for deletion by another Wikipedia user. The same arguments pertain in relation to this very misleading claim about public domain in this image page. The Polish film that the image comes from (apparently) is copyrighted and current Polish and U.S. copyright laws pertain to any such use in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is based in the United States and governed by its laws re: intellectual (including artistic) property. [The U.S. laws are linked in my User subpage via my user page.] --NYScholar (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the uploader of all these images is the same. Please see the notices. --NYScholar (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader for the related larger image that this one was cropped from before posting in blog TACSE (apparently) is listed in the deletion log links in Wikipedia Commons: [1]. It was deleted due to "copyright violation." --NYScholar (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many remaining questions and concerns

What evidence is there that the photograph was published before 1994 with or without copyright identification?
Date of first "publication" of this photograph, place of such "publication"? Source of such information? From what source does the video clip that the first uploader of this image (as part of a larger series of images taken from a YouTube video clip) take this material?
What source does the current uploader give as proof that the original series of images was published before 1994?
Please document these claims of public domain with reliable sources verifying the first publication date of this particular image and the source that the current uploader has taken this image from: a self-published blog crediting Wikipedia as its source. Not an acceptable fair use or public domain claim for this image.
What is the precise source of information that Wilhelm Brasse is the photographer who took this particular photograph among those exhibited in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum? Is that a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms)?
When was the series of photographs that this particular photograph is cropped from placed in that Museum? Who owns the rights to the exhibits in the Museum presented by the Museum. Was this photograph presented visually in the film The Portraitist?
Was the video that this portion of the photograph was taken from and uploaded to Wikipedia from taken from the television broadcast of that film?
Was the photograph videotaped from television? Was the photograph videotaped by the YouTube video compiler himself or not? Or did he create a compilation "vid" from others' (copyrighted) video properties?
Was it captured from on screen video materials broadcast on television and copyrighted by the television production/distribution company/artists involved/Wilhelm Brasse/A-B State Museum/etc.?

Many unanswered questions that render the fair use description in this image page incomplete and misleading. Claims in it are not supported by any sources. --NYScholar (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The third photograph (far right) in this photograph has been cropped and edited both by the compiler of the video "tomasmarec" in YouTube video and by this current W. uploader in Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg. The second single image appears in many other online Websites in much the same resolution as it does in the version said to be "perfected" by the current uploader in a previous version of this image page; it appears to be cropped from a photograph that appears in articles with joint credit given to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and the Associated Press; e.g., as illustration in letter to the editor, published in fredericksburg.com (FLS) news site (Fredericksburg (VA) Free Lance-Star: [2]; [3] This image page is highly dubious, just as the other one is highly dubious. Same problems exist in both image pages created by this uploader. The image uploaded as "Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg" appears to be cropped from the same image at fredericksburg.com. (See above and the other talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition against both still and video photography by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum

See updates and links provided at: Image talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg: all that applies to this image as well. --NYScholar (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum provides clear copyright notices on its website and there is one featured on the Webpage (see link provided in other image talk page already) relating to one photograph provided by the Museum of the exhibition of life in Block 6: the exhibition that this photographed image is part of and that is explicitly prohibited from being photographed by visitors to the Museum. The Museum declares and publishes its copyright notice relating to its photo archives. --NYScholar (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See sources cited in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs on museum's policies regarding its indoor exhibits, including the exhibition of photographs in Block no. 6. --NYScholar (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on pl wikipedia and in Polish media, the museum has dubious rights with such prohibition (it receives public funds, violates constitution that requires it to make the materials public, and/or tags PD material as copyrighted). This practice is shared by quite a few museums in Poland, varies from museum to museum, but bottom line is that museum claim on copyright should not be treated as stone tablets. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. copyright law, not Polish copyright law, governs uploading of images in Wikipeda (which is in the U.S.). The Polish copyright law "public domain" matter is a red herring, and a similar image from the YouTube video clip made without permission in Poland (purportedly) has already been deleted from Wikipedia Commons (about a week ago or earlier) due to "copyright violation" by an administrator. --NYScholar (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved inappropriate signed comment from image page here

Please mind Wikipedia: conflict of interest, and do not remove images from articles before this issue is resolved. --Poeticbent talk 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Brasse#Documentary film: The Portraitist

Provides additional information regarding photographs in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum Block no. 6 Exhibition: The Life of the Prisoners that Brasse "remembers" having taken and talks about in the film. Sources are posted in that section of the article. --NYScholar (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the speedy deletion template

Not accurate; Polish "public domain" is not an issue; the issue is U.S. copyright law and fair use; the fair-use rationale is disputed and the materials that the uploader took the image from are violations of Museum policy and U.S. copyright law fair use provisions; they are unauthorized and unlicensed Websites that had no rights to the materials they uploaded in the first place and that do not belong copied to Wikipedia (however cropped or altered). Their use in the article on the subject of Brasse's photograph in the Museum exhibition is not within fair use and not authorized by the Museum and not permitted in the U.S. The photographs were taken in 1942 or 1943 and distribution on the internet via YouTube is unauthorized and not compatible with a GFDL-compatible license: See below editing preview box: warning: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." --NYScholar (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images copied from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license and without proper fair use rationales and licensing information may also be deleted. This image is now listed in WP:FUR, where further discussion occurs. Added disputed fair use rationale template accordingly. --NYScholar (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion and Vandalism by ...

I've yet to see any reason why you hold to this mistaken belief. Is your issue that you think, without any present proof, that the image was taken from a YouTube video and you find that in violation of copyright or is you issue with the fact that the image was taken by a Polish photographer and is now in a Polish museum and neither has given permission to copy it? If it is the first, I'd like to see conclusive proof and not a hunch that it comes from a YouTube video and I dispute that it is a violation even if it does. If it is the second, neither museum nor photographer hold the copyright to the public image and I can cite both common sense and Polish law to support that. Regardless, your continued attempts to get the image deleted in a speedy fashion despite constant debate regarding the validity of deleteing it is vandalism and will be reported if you continue. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked for vandalism in Wikipedia by administrator. The above post is untrue and revolting. The heading violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and other WP:POL, including talk page guidelines (linked in talkpage header templates (above).--NYScholar (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he kinda has a point. If the image has gone into the public domain, any two-dimensional reproduction of it is ALSO in the Public Domain. I see no copyright notice on the images themself, and that means since that complies with {{PD-Polish}}, it is in the public domain in the US because of URAA. ViperSnake151 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See #Response below: that "If" is the crux (in part) of what is disputed: that assertion of "pubic domain"; the anon IP user and Poeticbent (uploader) are referring to "public domain in Poland" (also disputed due to actual "source"/"sources" cited in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons cropped versions of these images); this is different from "public domain in the United States"; U.S. copyright law pertains to content (including media/images) uploaded to Wikipedia and "published" online with GFDL licensing. --NYScholar (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored my deleted speedy-deletion template

Read the notice about not removing it until the disputed problems relating to status of this image are resolved. If someone wants to add his/her own template to the image, fine. But do not alter what I have placed in my template about these problems. Sentences about "public domain" were not mine. Someone else (the uploader and/or others) added it after I placed the no-permission template. This speedy-deletion nomination still stands and it should not be removed until the matter is acted upon. I do not think that this image or the other 2 uploaded by Poeticbent with similar claims to "public domain" is actually in the "public domain" according to U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia image policy. --NYScholar (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay hold on I don't get what you're all complaining about

Firstly, for most cases on Wikipedia, we only care about the status of the work in the United States. Only several sites I know of and the Commons use the "must be free in US and source country" rule. Sure, the museum can claim copyright over the presentation of public domain works since it contains originality, but just scanning in pictures of them, two-dimensional reproductions in ANY method (yes, I count video as a part of this to) could be {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-US-no notice}}. But, I'm confused, could someone just give me a short rundown on why fair use can't be used here? We're claiming no permission...on fair use. ViperSnake151 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

The photograph was a photograph of the exhibit which was posted in a YouTube video compiled of stills made from it, without any identification of the sources of those stills; the Museum prohibits visitors from using cameras (still and video) in its indoor exhibits.
This is not a copy of a photograph made by the current Wikipedia uploader; it is a cropped piece of a larger series of photographs exhibited in the Museum
The photographs in the video it was copied from by the current Wikipedia uploader (Poeticbent in Wikipedia; re-uploaded by Nard in Wikipedia Commons) was used by a blog from an earlier version of the cropped piece uploaded to Wikipedia, inserted in an earlier version of the current Wikipedia article (see URL and citation of Wikipedia as source). For use in commercial products, like the film The Portraitist (another potential source of the YouTube video compilation (a derivative work), the Museum requires permission to take photographs of its exhibits (outdoors) and may possibly have granted permission for some photographs of its indoor exhibit(s). (Wikipedia has strict policies pertaining to copying, downloading, and uploading images from WP:YouTube to Wikipedia; citing copyright issues.)
This is a photograph of a larger series of photograph, and it contains the captions that the Museum added below each of the photographs in its exhibit, which the Museum Exhibition Department developed or re-developed from its archives of preserved photographs and/or negatives and added the captions to when creating the exhibition.
It is not known when this particular set of photographs containing the 3 poses of Kwoka (subject of the Wikipedia article) was first placed in the "permanent exhibit," which was first mounted in 1955.
The history of the photographs with reliable sources (in-line citations) is in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz photographs, cross-linked through Wikilinks in each article relating to Kwoka and The Portraitist. It is not clear whether or not the uploading of this particular version of this particular cropped part of the photograph of the larger series of photographs exhibited in the Museum is within the "fair use provisions" of U.S. Copyright Law, whether or not it needs permission from a copyright owner or copyright owners (author/authors), or whether or not it is within the "public domain in Poland" and "public domain in the U.S." (see dates required for that) and free of copyright infringements as claimed by the uploader. [The templates on this image and on the other images uploaded by the same uploader to Wikipedia (Poeticbent) (and now by another uploader to Wikipedia Commons [Nard]) contain links to the related discussion.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem: Wikipedia does not know the answer to the unresolved questions pertaining to copyrights and possibility of fair use and/or public domain in the U.S.:

There is no date assigned to when the "original" photograph from which this cropped portion, located now in the Museum exhibition, was first "published".
It is known that it was taken in 1942 or 1943, and it is only known that it may have been first placed in the exhibition called "Block no. 6: Exhibition: The Life of the Prisoner" in 1955; but it could have been later.
It is not known when that series of photographs containing the portion shown in this image (with the captions) may have first been published (and thus copyrighted in such a publication)
First "publication" of the piece of the series of photographs w/ the 3 poses of Kwoka and the caption could have been as late as 1999, 2000, 2002 (later eds.: 2003, 2004), or not at all. (citations in the article[s] in Wikipedia)
The 3-pose photograph of the photographs w/ caption and cropped version w/o caption have been found in newspapers articles beginning around 2006 pertaining to the film The Portraitist
Another 1-pose portion Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg matches a portion of a photograph published in Fredericksburg.com online as an illustration to a letter to the editor referring to an unarchived article about the film about the "famous photographer of Auschwitz", The Portraitist, also published in 2006: 3/29/2006: [4]. In that publication of the image (3 poses; this pose is the righthand pose), credit is given to both the "Auschwitz Museum" (Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum) and the "Associated Press" (probably same credit as given in the unarchived article referred to by the writer of the letter to the editor, which happens to be about guns:

elsewhere in the newspaper was an article about a photographer who was forced to take pictures for the Nazis at Auschwitz ["Photographer of Auschwitz"].

... He took thousands of pictures of Auschwitz prisoners who were stripped of their dignity, tortured, used for human experiments, brutally beaten, and ultimately gassed or shot.
...

At the top of the page was a picture of a young Jewish girl [Kwoka] with a bruise on her lip and fear in her eyes. As I look into her eyes, I cannot even imagine the pain she was going through.

Note: I have presented all the sources in discussions of the images. These images in various versions of cropping are all easily found via a Google search of "images" for "Czeslawa Kroka" and/or "Wilhelm Brasse" and/or "The Portraitist and ....", which brings up these Wikipedia-uploaded images; the YouTube video is easily found via searches in YouTube for "tomasmarec", its uploader; the blog (<http://tacse.blogspot.com/2007/09/lori-schreiner-and-i-collaborate-for.html>) used for this particular version from which it was copied and which had copied it from an earlier version of the current Kwoka Wikipedia article gives the URL for the Wikipedia Kwoka article as its source. Wikipedia cannot cite Wikipedia as a source, since the potential copyright violations/infringements can be in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: If it is possible to have this and/or the other image in Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons, that would be fine with me; but the images have to be uploaded with proper source information, proper licenses, and (if needed and uploaded to Wikipedia and not Wikipedia Commons) proper "fair use rationale[s]" for each usage in Wikipedia. That is Wikipedia media policy. --NYScholar (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've updated the articles on Czesława Kwoka, Wilhelm Brasse, and The Portraitist; the External links sections now include a link to a YouTube video clip from the film, Portrecista (2005) (The Portraitist), as broadcast on TVP1, in Poland, on January 1, 2006, in which Wilhelm Brasse shows his photographs, including the three poses (in the original separate photographs) of Kwoka, and discusses these photographs of Kwoka. It is thus established without doubt that he is the photographer who took these photographs of Kwoka. I do not know how this information affects how the photographs uploaded by Poeticbent (and Nard) and/or others to Wikipedia and/or Wikipeda Commons are described on their image pages and how this information affects the possibities for "fair use rationales" or "licensing" or copyright or public domain in Poland or public domain the United States notices and/or claims. I leave that decision up to Wikipedia administrators with experience in copyright issues who have knowledge of how to license and upload such media in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of viewing this and other video clips from the film, it appears to me that one would assign a "publication" date to the images of Kwoka as 2005 (the date of the film); the film is a copyrighted commercial property in Poland and, by virtue of the Berne convention to which the U.S. is a signatory, in the United States. I do not know how that affects the copyright status and/or fair use provision exceptions to copyright law in the United States; however, such exceptions regarding copies of films pertain to personal use not public distribution on the internet. The copyright/fair use/public domain in the U.S. claims for this and related images based on Brasse's photographs of Kwoka and on their exhibition by the Museum in its much larger series of photographs seems complex to me, but, again, I leave that decision about whether or not and how to upload these images and how to present the image pages up to Wikipedia administrators with experience in copyright issues who have knowledge of how to license and upload such media. --NYScholar (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love this, you're all trying to get these removed as copyright violations, yet you violate WP:EL by linking to them AS copyright violations. This, is quite ironic. :D ViperSnake151 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you don't realize that are completely different videos in YouTube; the El is to a video that completely identifies in the video the name of the film, the makers of the film, and is allowed to remain on YouTube (it is not flagged) for copyright violations by its owners. --NYScholar (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EL that I provided links directly to the Wikipedia article on the film, which gives all the copyright detials. Linking to this YouTube as an EL for purposes of the EL section (see WP:EL is completely different from taking still photographs from video compilations created by someone else (derivative works), copying images from them, downloading them, editing them, and then uploading them directly to Wikipedia for use as an illustration in a GFDL-licensed article. Please read the previous discussions and look at the difference in the links given in them.

There are differences between providing a URL in an EL section and importing material from one directly as Wikipedia content by uploading images from it (whether a Website (YouTube; a blog) or another publication.

See WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites; WP:YouTube for the policy/guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia's linking to YouTube, etc.:

There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites [referring to YouTube and others] as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis.

If this EL does violate Wikipedia's intended EL policy re: YouTube, I am fine with an administrator's deleting these links from the EL section.

I think that this EL can be reviewed "on a case-by-case basis" and I welcome you or anyone else submitting it for such a review. If it is deleted after such a review, that's fine with me. (They are relatively short clips, though more than 2 minutes long, and it is possible that they will be deleted both from Wikipedia and, if the copyright owner contacts YouTube and files a "flagged" report, from YouTube. (I just found them today and provide them for consideration. I expect a review of them, and, if it is determined that they should be removed, that's fine; but I will not link to the videos by "tomasmarec"; see below (as I've stated before when removing them from the EL section [and I was initially the one who added them; I removed them after realizing how unreliable his "more information" captions are and his lack of identification of his sources).

There is no way, however, that the material in the YouTube videos by "tomasmarec" (and/or via the blog citing Wikipedia as source) are properly being copied and edited and uploaded as media content to Wikipedia. "tomasmarec" does not identify the sources of his video compilation/derivative work and he is not their "owner" (copyright holder). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive removed the copyvio youtube links, linking to copyvios is forbidden. NYScholar you might want to review the non-free image policy. Under polish law this image is public domain. whether or no it was placed on display by the museum or not they are not the original copyright holder. thus this image was created prior to 1994 without a valid copyright statement from the copyright holder. One thing that I will point out is that with the museum derivative is copyrighted. what I would recommend is that the image be cropped to leave the original PD work intact and remove the derivative. β^_command 21:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reply. I have no problem with the removal of the YouTube links in the EL section. If there are still in the other related articles, I will remove them as soon as possible. --NYScholar (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[copying here from my reply in templated review page]: The issue is what the copyright status is in the United States, not Poland. Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright laws. We need to know how to present the image, how to state what its actual "source" is/are, and how to present the image page in terms of licenses that are valid in the United States. --NYScholar (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC); --NYScholar (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States of America respects the copyright of the original source country. If a image is created and is PD in the originating country it is PD in the states. The United Sates cannot force copyright on a image that is free, what may happen is the reverse. an image might be PD in the states while not being PD in the source country. in that situation the copyright of the original country again takes priority. the US cannot modify the copyright of an image. β^_command 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand that explanation; but the issue remains of what "source" or "sources" the uploader used to make this image and how to deal with its derivative work status; the blog took it from an earlier version of Wikipedia itself. The YouTube video is a compilation that appears to be made from unidentified and possibly copyright-protected sources. I do not know how to handle that situation, and it is what I have been asking about all along. If you can help to present the image page more correctly, accurately, and legally, and within Wikipedia media policy, please do. Thank you. (Same pertains to other image which is an enlarged version of some source of this one. Source again is not entirely clearly presented in the rationale.) Also see the same versions of these images uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. If in Wikipedia Commons, they are duplicates; one place or the other, not both? Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

easy solution, use the original PD part of the image the part that cannot be copyrighted. I created a version from this image that would meet those standards see this cropped version. that way it is completely PD and issues related to derivatives as this would be only the original photograph. β^_command 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your assistance! I hope that this "solution" does resolve the problem relating to this (and the other) images taken by Wilhelm Brasse that have been uploaded to Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia Commons. The others may still need corrected pages, and one still may need to decide whether or not they remain in both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. The source or sources used to make them need clear identification in their descriptions. All three images are linked in the various discussions. If you can't find the non-Kwoka one, please let me know. Thanks again. (I lost my conn. to IE for a moment and got tossed off of Wikipedia; know not why. Sorry for delay in reply.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked further more closely and see that you're using a "non-free image" rationale instead of a "fair use rationale"; that should work. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reupload the cropped version? The version this page links to still needs the captions cropped out? --NYScholar (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's all right to ask this. --NYScholar (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the duplicate image (older one, with captions) has been deleted from Wikipedia Commons? --NYScholar (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been. The so-called duplicate image in Wikipedia Commons is different from this image; it has the Museum captions in it still (cropped out in the Wikipedia image of the same name). One or the other image needs a different name according to the templated messages; the "PD-Poland" template in Wikipedia Commons still asks the unanswered question: When and where was this image (source of this image: photograph) first published? Wikipedia has "PD-Poland" template and Wikipedia Commons has "PD-Polish" template, which are slightly different; but in both cases one does need to answer the question re: when and where the source of the image was first "published" and one also has to identify the source used by the uploader of the image. It is still not identified clearly in the image page(s). What URL did the uploader(s) copy these image(s) from before s/he/they uploaded it/them? Citing an earlier undocumented Wikipedia image is not the same as citing an actual source for the image. --NYScholar (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the version in the link supplied above by User:Betacommand?* The captions are not needed; they are unreadable anyway, and it is the Museum that added the captions to its exhibit. I think the cropped photograph with proper rationales seems better than the image currently there. I thought User:Betacommand was uploading the cropped photo? Clarifications please? --NYScholar (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~[5] (see comments by Betacommand above). Thanks. Much appreciated if this can be resolved. --NYScholar (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]