File talk:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg

Provenance?[edit]

This is quite a flattering portrait of the Reichsfuehrer, some indication of when and how it was originally produced would be interesting. Lycurgus 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reichsparteitag 1934. Look at this, 0:25:36 nd you'll see exactly the same picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.133.98 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from PUI[edit]

I am copying the discussion from PUI. It seems to me that this image is very safe for our use and the reuse of any mirrors, most likely. I would suggest, though, that if possible, a clearly free image should be put into the info box on Adolf Hitler and into the related template.

Copied text follows: kmccoy (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we can accept the LOC's position that "there are no known restrictions on publication". If we know the author, when the author died, that the image was first published in Germany and that it is still under copyright in Germany, I don't think we can use it. The Price/Hoffman case deals with physical paintings, not the intellectual property rights underlying them. But|seriously|folks 04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point, and one question. Traditionally the English-language Wikipedia has operated only under United States copyright law (see the lead paragraphs of Wikipedia:Public domain). Doing so does, admittedly, permits works which are considered in the public domain in the United States but copyrighted elsewhere. I tentatively would prefer continuing this position. (Abandoning it would require at least notice or discussion, and quite probably a Foundation mandate.)

I am, however, unaware of the Price/Hoffmann case details, and was not aware that it deals only with physical paintings. Any links? :) (Btw, see Template:PD-HHOFFMANN for some some details.) --Iamunknown 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just tracked down a copy of the opinion and am about to read it. I should be working. <sigh> Oh, the link: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov:8081/isysquery/irl622/1/doc -- But|seriously|folks 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what's important:

On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1-33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images "to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States." See Vesting Order 17952, 16 Fed.Reg. 6162.

I checked the Trading with the Enemy Act (which is still on the books, by the way, at 12 U.S.C. § 95a) and it does appear to permit the President or his designee to essentially take any property or rights of a foreign national under US jurisdiction. Not sure whether that would apply to an intangible right like copyright.

But even if the US acquired the copyright to these images, that wouldn't necessarily make it PD. Copyrights don't evaporate when the US gains ownership. The US often takes assignments of copyrights from others, which copyrights continue in force. So my current thinking is that these images are still under copyright and that the US owns that copyright. Am I making any sense? -- But|seriously|folks 05:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's operate under this assumption that the copyright is still valid and the U.S. holds it now. That being the case, why then would the LOC declare "no known restrictions on publication"? It just doesn't make sense. Not that all agencies of the government are always working in tandem, but it stands to reason that the LOC would certainly be aware of any such issues. howcheng {chat} 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. Fortunately, Iamunknown tracked down this link to the LOC's definition of "no known restrictions on publication". It's comforting to know that they vet these fairly thoroughly. Of course, if the US acquired a German copyright, it wouldn't be recorded in the US Copyright Office. And they've also got this little zinger of a disclaimer for us: "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply." It's probably safe to use these images without fear of infringement litigation, but that's not how we decide copyright issues here. Either way, this is a horrifically complex copyright issue for us to be deciding by consensus. Most of us are not lawyers. Anybody want to try and ask Mike? -- But|seriously|folks 07:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is essentially a statement to cover their asses just in case they might be wrong. Consider too, that this image has been around for more than 50 years. You're telling me that no one in that time has claimed ownership of it and tried to have their copyright enforced? It seems a little far-fetched to me. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That happens all the time, especially when the copyright is vested in someone that doesn't realize it. Like if this one is held by the US. See also page 19289 of this Federal Register volume, which states that "[t]he current copyright status of works once held by the Alien Property Custodian will depend on a number of variables." Some of the works must be under copyright, or that statement wouldn't make sense. -- But|seriously|folks 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image repairs[edit]

The image repairs were done with great care to avoid loss of details. They are primary cleanup of "white noise" and improvements in tone, not contrast. Latest Adobe Photoshop CS5 tools. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]