Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Einsatzgruppen / Holocaust beginnings

Einsatzgruppen killing a Jewish man

 * Reason:High resolution, captures an event that can never be forgotten and 100% non-reproductible
 * Articles this image appears in:Einsatzgruppen, Holocaust
 * Creator:


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Brent Ward 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The creator is certainly not the USHM, and I doubt it really is in the PD in the US. The photographer is most definitely not a member of the allied forces. My guess would be that the picture was taken by a german SS (or possibly Wehrmacht) soldier, and thus would be copyrighted until at least 2012 (assuming the photographer died in 1942). A pretty iconic and strong picture. Unfortunately the license needs some further investigation. --Dschwen 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Amazing picture, of course, but I'm sure I've seen better versions of it. As for the license, good catch Dschwen, but I can't believe all the Nazi stuff we have isn't PD; I see you're correct, though.  Stupid laws.  --TotoBaggins 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, very poor quality.--Svetovid 00:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind clarifying? See criterion #3 if your opposition is based on the quality of the photo. If it is based on the quality of the scan, of course, this doesn't apply. J      Are you green?  01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a scan that is better, it can be order from here, even at low resoultion the details are much better.Chris H 16:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There must be better pictures to illustrate German atrocities during WWII.--Svetovid 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well find one then nominate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs)

Mbz1 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Comment Wouldn't copyright from that period only still be in effect if there was a notice on the image, or at least a renewal, so it's safe to assume that any copyright that did exist has lapsed? I also have issues with the quality of the scan. It looks blocky or otherwise degraded, like it was a scan of a photocopy instead of the original image.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC
 * No, copyright lasts until 70 years after the photographers death. No notice or extension required. --Dschwen 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Under United States copyright law, to quote our article, "For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated in 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. " The 70 years requirement only holds for works that hadn't yet entered the public domain in 1978. But that's US law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but german law is different here. --Dschwen 07:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might have been released into PD by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (as was Image:Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche-edit1.jpg).  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 09:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the USHM cannot release a picture into the PD which is still copyrighted by someone else, unless they can properly document a transfer of rights of some kind. This issue comes up every time I see a picture from the USHM website. They quite frankly either have no clue about the legal situation, or they don't care. Anyways, in their position would also try to handle copright situation as liberal as possible, as their educational mission is fairly important. But falsely claiming PD is just too much of a stretch, and it is pretty annoying that people believe their bogus licensing every time due to their perceived authority. --Dschwen 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to think these images are in a legal wasteland so they just assume PD... or maybe they do know how the copyright holder is. I usually think it's proper to trust them unless we have evidence to the contrary. gren グレン 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The German government doesn't usually claim copyright on holocaust related photographs, the stroop report photos were gifted to the polish institute of national remembrance, and this photo is over 50 years old, many photographs are considered public domain according to German law Article 72 Bleh999 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Would be better if it was a higher quality photograph. But is still a fantastic picture -- St.daniel Talk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - It is an amazing - yet terrible - picture. Booksworm Talk to me! 05:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment Whenever I look at this image, the expression on that poor man's face makes me cry Booksworm Talk to me! 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - As per Booksworm. S0ulfire84 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support version 2 - Great photograph of a tragic situation, I would like to see more information on the discovery of this photograph, was it released through the polish government in exile or USSR? Bleh999 09:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose on copyright grounds. There is no evidence this photograph is in the public domain (other than two words on a website that does not specialize in copyright), and until there is this nomination cannot be approved.--Pharos 11:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you 'that there is no evidence this photograph is in the public domain', USHMM and the Library of Congress are considered reliable sources on wikipedia, Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz has this image in its archive (# 30003980), but they say photographer is unknown, hence unable to claim copyright Bleh999 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The USHMM is a reliable source on many things, but not on international copyright law. There is no evidence the Library of Congress considers this image public domain.--Pharos 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * USHMM is pretty clear to credit the specific copyright owners for images they don't own copyright, not all the images are labeled public domain, they say this image is public domain and courtesy of the library of congress, I don't see why it's not true Bleh999 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt they made a good-faith effort in labeling this image, but they just don't exercise the copyright scrutiny that we do (or that the Library of Congress does). Mistakes do sneak in.  And when they label a photograph "Public Domain" when we have every reason to believe it to be copyrighted, we cannot take that at face value without further explanation or evidence.--Pharos 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But I think the onus is on the people who think this image is copyrighted to do some research to prove it is, besides this image is not on commons but only on the en wiki, so only US law applies here. If this was a captured or seized photograph and the author is unknown then it is also PD after 50 years in most countries according to the Berne convention Bleh999 12:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That being said, it would be nice to know more about the origins of this photograph Bleh999 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is clearly the responsibility of the nominators to show that the image meets the very basic criteria of being a free image. And there is just no evidence or reason at all to believe that this image is public domain in the United States, or anywhere else.--Pharos 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you only seem to claim USHMM made a mistake by claiming the library of congress released the image into the public domain (but you didn't offer any proof that USHMM and the Library of Congress made a mistake about the image being PD) and yes the image is explicitly labeled as public domain as USHMM photo #64407, that is proof enough since I don't think their claim has been refuted Bleh999 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By Pharos's argument, we should delist most Featured Pictures because they don't have a handwritten (and signed in blood) letter from the creator indicating release of copyright. Anyone who submits their "own" work to Wikipedia would be in the same situation; after all, how do we know that Fir0002 has ever actually taken a photograph? Maybe he's found a nice database of images, and he's just been stealing them all these years. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for copyright claims, so Image-space copyright claims should be held to such high scrutiny (or should they?). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-25 20:13Z
 * Comment Beyond the copyright issues, is there a way of fixing the fading on the right side of the photograph? Spikebrennan 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Unique and interesting. Public domain claim is from a satisfactorily reliable source. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-25 20:16Z
 * Strong Support This picture is unique and has huge encyclopedic value.
 *  Strong support Strong support version 2 The copyright finally seems satisfactory...so I;m giving my full support. The pic is extremely grainy, but given the circumstances and rarity of the pic, the historic value overrides the technical problems. Very encyclopedic...certainly one of the best on Wikipedia.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The scan from the Library on Congress is much clearer and less noisy than the one from the USHMM. The original one is also cropped, so it looses some of the historical context.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 04:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This picture is unique and show huge histrorical value.--Beyond silence 08:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Poor quality for even for a WWII photo and copyright is questionable, but in reality know one would ever challenge its use.Chris H 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. 8thstar 14:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

--Brent Ward 23:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)  +9 / -2


 * Huh? It's only been four days, and you didn't actually close the FPC! J      Are you green?  01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this, promotion can not take place before the 7 day mark and it is questionable for the nominator to do the promotion.Chris H 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I striked struck it out. The nomination doesn't end for at least another three days.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 02:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Striked"? I think that should be struck too :) J      Are you green?  03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting antsy with the grammar, huh? I "struck" it out. ;)  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Image moved to suspended nominations pending copyright clarification. ♠ SG →Talk 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Until you got involved people were entirely satisfied with the copyright. Move it back! --Brent Ward 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, leave it down here. The copyright situation clearly needs clarification and the legal situation is not up for vote here. --Dschwen 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares though, if we're allowed to display it on the holocaust and the einsatzgruppen pages, whats wrong with displaying it on the main page?
 * Featured Pictures have to be genuinely free. They have a PR function and stand for the best Wikipedia has to offer. Other people might want to spread the FPs and any legal limitation or copyright issue reflects badly on the supposedly free Wikipedia. --Dschwen 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright clarification: The pic is released into the Public Domain by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, as indicated by the copyright page for the pic. The credit is "USHMM, courtesy of Library of Congress" and the copyright is "Public Domain"...as black and white as that. The issue seems to be a distrust of the validity of the copyright status as provided by the USHMM. I'm not sure if I missed something, but I'm assuming that the USHMM is a rather trustworthy organization. I'm aware of the German law that states that 70 years has to pass after the photographer's death before the pic is released in PD. However, this pic was probably released into PD before the copyright expiration period and transfered over to the Library of Congress, which allowed the USHMM to use the pic. Given no other sources that would directly indicate the copyright status to be different, why should the copyright come into question? Furthermore, this nom has the same copyright status as based on the info provided by the USHMM. That nom passed and appeared as pic of the day back in Sept. 26, 2006. There was also some controversy over the pic's copyright status, but the tag was reverted since there was no clear copyvio.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is no clarification, and the example is unfortunately backing my point, that image has been deleted . --Dschwen 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And that image of the Warsaw ghetto uprising from the Juergen Stroop report was incorrectly deleted, I emailed the bundesarchiv in Koblenz (which holds a copy of those photographs) and they say the German government claims no copyright over those images and transferred them to the Polish institute of Remembrance, also those photos are in the US national archives too. The people in that deletion request did not even bother to clarify the copyright status, and so I didn't bother to reply since the discussion is closed. Bleh999 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a new version, this hasn't been resized, its the native resolution from the library of congress. I did adjust the contrast though. Bleh999 11:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And where did you download this version from (link please)? Thanks.--Pharos 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the library of congress won't mind if I post the link to the uncompressed tif file, and yes I did adjust the the black & white levels, because the original is dark as you can see and I cropped the white border, but there is no retouching or manipulation in the version I uploaded, as you can verify. Bleh999 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, what is the url of the description page?--Pharos 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was able to deduce that from the URL of the TIFF file: . Source link has been added to the photo.  howcheng  {chat} 06:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * and that source link states Rights status not evaluated. There seems to be a misconception of all LOC material being PD or otherwise free... --Dschwen 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not all LOC material is PD, since it is a library, however this item is PD and USHMM told me in an email the Library of Congress and the 'Dokumentationsarchiv des Oesterreichischen Widerstandes' provided them with the copyright information regarding this photograph, so I guess they must have confirmed it is PD --Bleh999 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the copyright issue, see WP:PD for some background. It is possible that this image is PD in the U.S. by virtue of being "seized enemy property". (That doesn't make it PD elsewhere, though. Commons treats German WWII era photos as copyrighted. Mark both images with text saying that these images should not be transferred to the commons.) Here at the en-WP, we operate under U.S. law exclusively, AFAIK, and we host quite a few such confiscated Nazi-era images available from the NARA, the USHMM, or the LoC (even if we may know better concerning the copyrights elsewhere, I presume they know better what they may legally do within the U.S....) I'll happily contend such PD claims over at the commons, because they only apply within the U.S., but here, they appear to me to be acceptable. Lupo 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleh999, where did you find that memory.loc.gov link to the TIFF? On what page is this being linked to? Lupo 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and BTW, if you do have an e-mail from the USHMM on that image, please forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, clearly stating to what images this refers. Thank you. Lupo 12:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * email PhotoArchives@ushmm.org and ask yourself, although emailing them may be pointless since some here dispute USHMMs authority to claim this is PD anyway Bleh999 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do already have such an e-mail, why can't you forward it? Lupo 12:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will forward it Bleh999 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got it all backwards bleh, I have no obligation to prove that there are licensing inconsistencies (and in particular I have no obligation to do any legwork for you). The uploader (and on FPC the nominator) has to prove that the license is ok. The main issue is that the USHMM did not provide any information on the origin of the image. If they claim that it is PD they have to give a reason. They did not shoot the picture and therefore they cannot release it to PD on their own authority. --Dschwen 12:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to provide proof that this image is not public domain as claimed by USHMM, I suggest since you are fluent in German you contact the Dokumentationsarchiv des Oesterreichischen Widerstandes, which is a primary source for information on this image according to USHMM --Bleh999 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to 'suspended nominations' section. The concerns over copyright are sufficient to need further investigation before we decide what to do with this one. Raven4x4x 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, people concerned about copyright should read comments by Lupo above, even if it is theoretically copyrighted in Germany, it doesn't mean it has a valid copyright in the US, look at Price vs United States:' United States Court of Appeals, Fifth circuit, 20 November, 1995, where Price sued the US government on behalf of Heinrich Hoffman's heirs but lost and the case confirmed the items captured were PD in the US. Heinrich Hoffman had a better case for having the copyright to his images restored than the author of this einsatzgruppen shooting image, because his images didn't depict illegal acts and that might be why the author of this image is unknown, it seems he wasn't eager to gain credit for his photography Bleh999 10:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So is this picture still up for debate? Have we any conclusions as to the copyright status?Schulb72 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright issue clarified. I would like to drop my opposition to this photograph on copyright grounds. It was difficult to get an explicit statement on the copyright status of these photos from NARA, but I finally got one, which I much appreciate. Please see User:Pharos/NARA.--Pharos 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pharos while I respect your efforts, I have to be honest, this is actually not a NARA image AFAIK. I sent some emails to the places USHMM said but never got any response, maybe someone else can try. Bleh999 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion reopened I'll follow howcheng's lead and move this nomination out of the suspended section. Since there's been a significant amount of comments on the nomination already, I don't believe it needs be placed on top of the page, as was the other WWII nomination. I'll add it back to the appropriate time slot.  Jumping   cheese  10:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--Raven4x4x 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)