Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Walter Frentz

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:Walter Frentz

The author died in 2004, so probably not OK in Germany until 01-01-2075.

Yann (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All these images are authorised by the Bundesarchiv, Federal Archive of the Federal Republic of Germany. There is no doubt about the rights according to german law. --22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC) --Bahnmoeller (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Bundesarchiv would own the copyright of these works? Yann (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Bundesarchiv: „Wikimedia Germany and the Federal Archives have signed a cooperation agreement that, among other things, asserts that the Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license.“ --Johannnes89 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hier war keine Möglichkeit, das überhaupt zu diskutieren. Ich halte viele der Freigaben des BA für höchst zweifelhaft, so auch hier. --Ralf Roletschek 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened again... --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bundesarchiv claim that these are under a CC licence. That's not affected by their age, or the death of the photographer. The nomination seems confused between copyright and licensing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't confuse copyright and licensing. We have had several cases where institutions wrongly license works of art because they own a copy. Only the copyright holder can do that. If there is a special reason which allow the Bundesarchiv to license works from others it should be explained. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These works are licensed as a CC licence. You have nominated them for deletion on the basis of the author's longevity (which affects copyright, but not licensing). So yes, you're very clearly confused between copyright issues and licensing!

If you want to make a second nomination for deletion, on a totally different basis, then you need to make that clear. If that basis is, "The Bundesarchiv are not competent at carrying out their basic function, on the word of a passing Commons editor", then you're going to have to start showing some convincing reason as to that. And no, the age of the photographer isn't one, or even relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't even read what I wrote above. Talking to you isn't worth the ink. :( Yann (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you refuse to even discuss your nomination, we should close this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask questions, which are genuine and useful. Answering "We don't know and shut up" isn't useful, nor polite. Yann (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Google-Translate): It is certain that the BA has copies of these photos (or negatives). But this does not justify any copyright claim. --Ralf Roletschek 21:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neben seiner beruflichen Filmtätigkeit fotografierte er aus eigenem Antrieb in den Hauptquartieren und auf seinen vielen Reisen durch die von deutschen Truppen besetzten Länder. und im Impressum: Alle auf dieser Website gezeigten Fotografien sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Selbst wenn wir die hiesigen Fotos nicht auf der Homepage seines Sohnes finden sollten, heißt das nicht im Umkehrschluß, daß das BA Rechte an den Fotos besitzt. Anders als bei den dienstlich angefertigten Filmaufnahmen beansprucht der Sohn das Urheberrecht bei Fotos. --Ralf Roletschek 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institutions miss licensing files is quite a common occurrence. Example: hundreds of files from the Category:Photographs in the Austrian National Library which were deleted, and then restored today after the photographer's rights expired. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When any doubt exists fallback to COM:PCP The-Copyright-Enforcer (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's very doubtfull that Walter Frentz' son claims for author's rights. Let's look on his site for the picture of Leni Riefenstahl and Walter Frentz (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1988-106-29, Leni Riefenstahl bei Dreharbeiten.jpg) : there is no copyright tag on it (the authorship was given by an IP). And the Bundesarchiv do not attribute this picture to Walter Frentz. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1978-043-02, Focke-Wulf Fw 200 C Condor.jpg is tagged "author unknown" on Bundesarchiv : where is the proof the son claims for it ?--Pa2chant.bis (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is a confusion between "author" and "subject" of a picture for File:Frentz walter summer olympics berlin 1936.jpg, as the author is stated "unknown" even on Commons. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence at the Bundesarchiv page that File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B24543, Hauptquartier Heeresgruppe Süd, Lagebesprechung.jpg was taken by Walter Frentz. They credit "Scherl Bilderdienst" (Scherl Picture Service).— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the Bundesarchiv is licensing these photos it indicates that they own the rights under German law. Since they are a federal agency of the German government, I think we can trust them for that. Buidhe (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Buidhe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Buidhe, too. There are people who don't even trust their own licenses ;-). AM (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's stop being holier than the Pope. BA claim is good enough. If you want to sue them, do it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Na prima, Weißwaschen per Bundesarchiv. So werden Urheberrechtsverletzungen durchgewunken, während Quitscheentchen und langweilige Betonbauten gelöscht werden. --Ralf Roletschek 12:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translation via Google Translate: "Great, whitewashing by the Federal Archives Copyright violations are waved through, while rubber ducks and boring concrete structures are deleted." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several images where the Bundesarchiv has reviewed the licenses of the supplied images and recognized not to own the appropiate rights. In such cases they would send an email to the OTRS, and the images will be speedy deleted (mostly by User:Raymond). But this has not happened here, so I think we can rely on the licensing and permissions supplied by the Bundesarchiv. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Before 2007/2008, the Federal Archives either concluded new contracts with the photographers or the heirs that allow licensing under CC license, or the full rights of use went to the German Reich or the Federal Republic of Germany, since the photos were taken on their behalf (as employers). I have personally seen some of these new contracts in 2008. If any errors were discovered later (e.g. wrong attributions), these images were deleted, as Reinhard Kraasch|Reinhard wrote. Raymond 17:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept the Bundesarchiv images per Reinhard Kraasch and Raymond, I have no reason to doubt what they wrote. Deleted the one image not by the Bundesarchiv (which was not taken by Frentz BTW, but shows Frentz) because of insufficient information to determine its copyright status. --Rosenzweig τ 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]