File talk:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg

Dachau cold water immersion.jpg

I'm not doubting that experiments took place but I'm curious as to why all three individuals are in Luftwaffe uniforms. Very odd in a concentration camp.I have my doubts about this photo being in Dachau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.31.177 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, those are definitely Luftwaffe uniforms, and since the Luftwaffe didn't run Dachau, the subject is unlikely a prisoner. This picture is irrelevant to the article and could even possibly be used as "evidence" the Holocaust didn't happen. If a picture is going to be used, it needs to be authenticated before accepted.

i have been told that they were in Luftwaffe uniforms and in the freezing cold water to simulate what would happen if a plane crashed in the north alantic and the pilot was exposed to freezing cold water also i heard that the Dr person there tried to find the quicket way to warm them up (eg dousing them in boiling water) not sure if that entriely right since it was m history teacher that told me =. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.222.216 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture is clearly made by Photoshop or other tricks. Even a child can notice it.--HW-lied (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined as you did not give a valid CSD Criterion, also there is consensus on the image. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Luftwaffe uniform

It might be worthwhile for the editors above to have read our article on Sigmund Rascher. The man was conscripted to the Luftwaffe after having joined the SS in 1939. Who would have thought that being in the Luftwaffe would have been a good enough reason to be wearing a Luftwaffe uniform? Obviously it must be photoshopped. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo is public domain

Nazi publications are public domain in the USA says Peter Hirtle: "the copyright in most of them would have belonged either to the Nazi Party or to the German government. While [US law] 104A(a)(2) was passed in part to make sure that Nazi publications do not receive copyright protection in the U.S., this would apply only to published items." at Library Law. That is reflected in federal court rulings cited at Wiki Commons US Courts hold: " 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.” source this photo therefore is public domain in the US. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be PD in the US but not in other countries and certainly not in Germany, the country of origin. --Denniss (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: see above. There isn't a copyright tag (on Commons) to support the view that all Nazi works are PD either. Works that are not PD in both US and the country of origin can't be uploaded on Commons and can only be used on Wikipedia as fair-use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

PD in the US is what matters for Wikipedia. the rule is: The Wikimedia Foundation, the legal body responsible for Wikipedia, is based in California, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States. For re-users of Wikipedia content, it is the laws of their respective countries. see WP:PD 10:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I've tagged it for do-not-move-to-Commons for now, but I dispute your interpretation. According to Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images: "It is unclear to what works exactly this provision [on wartime exemption] would apply, as it can be argued that copyright of hardly any of the WWII works at all were owned by the German government and the Nazi party, but by private people and organizations." In essence, you need to come up with something that says this particular image is owned by the Government or the party. Otherwise we'll have to assume it's owned by the photographer. As WP:PD concludes: "In general, wartime German images cannot be tagged as being in the public domain." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe was government not a private organization. It had its own photographers in top secret locations. The idea that it let people walk into the labs and take posed photos for their private use is far fetched indeed. And then it archived those private photos in its own files?? Rjensen (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Was there a law or contract that transferred the copyright from the author to their military employer? I doubt it. If there was, WP:PD would certainly cite it and come to a very different conclusion than these photos generally being something else than PD. If there was a law or contract like that, we need evidence. (pinging Denniss who returned the non-free tags in case they have input) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Photos taken by an employee/soldier at the direction of the employer/army belong to the employer. See Work for hire "According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author." The law says a work for hire = "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment". that article has key quotes from court cases that make it clear a soldier on duty is in the work-for-hire status. Note that Wikipedia follows US copyright law. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

German and European copyright laws contradicts what you claim. A transfer of copyright from one to another is not possible. Although the original author may grant (exclusive) usage rights. For Wikimedia copyright laws of both US and country of origin are relevant.--Denniss (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia only follows US copyright law. The US seized all German copyrights in 1941 -- both those held by individuals as well as thosde held by government agencies--as enemy property in a war. Rjensen (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This claim is not true at all. That's why the file is fair use and not PD. You should educate yourself in copyright laws.--Denniss (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Which claim is not true?? Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The "only follows US copyright law". This only works for content created in the US or made by US citizens but not for content created outside of US.--Denniss (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia policy is stated at wp:copyright: Governing copyright law: The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)