Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg

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.

File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg

This is apparently a still photograph for a 1925 German film. It was uploaded using a rather special license tag, {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, that does NOT apply to the image, because it was NOT "published by a legal entity under public law".

For a 1925 photo, there's a good chance that the author (who is not named) lived beyond 1950, which would mean the image is still protected in Germany. So it should be deleted per the precautionary principle, unless there is a convincing explanation why it is actually in the PD or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 12:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The film was produced by Solar Films wich IS a legal entity. /ℇsquilo 12:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And just to clarify; I choosed the license template {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} because the photo was from a film published by a legal entity. If the photo had been the work of an individual, I would have choosed {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} instead. In either case, the photo is in the public domain. /ℇsquilo 13:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Companies are NOT "legal entities under public law" , emphasis on under public law (de:Juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts). Those are basically cities, counties/districts, the German states, the German nation state itself, some churches and some other public bodies. Also, the legal entity under public law in question must be named as a "Herausgeber" in/on the work, and at the same time no personal author must be named. --Rosenzweig τ 08:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} isn't applicable to German works before 1995, since German law says that pre-1995 anonymous works are only really anonymous if the author was never publicly disclosed anywhere, not even in a lecture or similar. One cannot prove that, so pre-1995 "anonymous" works from Germany are not suitable for Commons (or de.wp). Images from 1925 are also not old enough to assume that they must be in the PD anyway, since the author(s) easily could have lived beyond 1950. --Rosenzweig τ 08:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have pointed this out before and I have to point it out again. The text in PD-Germany-§134 and PD-Germany-§134-KUG must be improved!!! In the current state the text is unusable and that will inevitably lead to arbitrary and incorrect usage of these templates. Because from all I can understand from the templates text and de:Juristische_Person#Juristische_Person_des_öffentlichen_Rechts, Körperschafts are both "Juristische Person" and subject to "Öffentliches Recht". If this is not the case, the phrase "legal entity under public law" should be replace with something more appropriate like "Behörde" or somthing more apprehensible. /ℇsquilo 16:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Then I'll write again what I wrote before: Please do not use license templates you do not fully understand. Ask at an appropiate venue like Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons:Forum if you speak German (though many participants there will be able to understand and reply in English) before using them. Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Then I'll write again what I wrote before: Licence templates with texts that is not readably understandable should not exist at all. The text in {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} and {{PD-Germany-§134}} should be rewritten or the themplates should be deleted. /ℇsquilo 18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with deletion. Those templates were originally conceived in the German wikipedia for use in narrowly defined cases only. Then some people created them here as well, where they're mostly used by people who don't understand them for images to which they don't apply. --Rosenzweig τ 08:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And for the record when it comes to authors; there was three cinematographers involved in shooting Joyless Street. Guido Seeber, Curt Oertel and Robert Lach, dead in 1940, 1960 and 1971 respectively. If this scene was taken by Seeber it is PD, if it was taken by Oertel it will be PD in 2031 and if it was taken by Lach it will be PD in 2042. /ℇsquilo 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is actually a frame of the movie itself, it could well be a still photograph shot by a separate photographer with another camera (that was not a film camera).

If it actually is a frame of the movie itself, a specific provision of German Urheberrecht applies, UrhG § 65 (2). It says that the duration of copyright to a film is 70 years after the last death of four persons specifically named – director, writer of the script, writer of the dialogues, and composer of the music („Hauptregisseur, Urheber des Drehbuchs, Urheber der Dialoge, Komponist der für das betreffende Filmwerk komponierten Musik.“) So no director of photography there. The director, Georg Wilhelm Pabst, died in 1967. IMDb names Willy Haas as the writer of the scenario, who died in 1973; I don't know if there was a separate writer for the dialogues. I'm not sure how the composer part ("composer of the music composed for the film in question") applies to a silent film. There was music composed for this film (by Max Deutsch accd. to de.wp – who died in 1982), but of course it was not really a part of the film itself, but meant to be played independently in cinemas while the film was shown. So that movie frame would not be in the PD before 2044 (death of Haas + 71), perhaps even later. --Rosenzweig τ 18:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons given above, that section 134, 2nd sentence, of the Germany Copyright Act is inapplicable to this image. I would add the following: If the image is a still frame from the film itself, note that it would be protected as a photographic work or, in the absence of a sufficient level of originality, as a simple photograph (BGH [Federal Supreme Court] NJW 2014, 1888 – Peter Fechter, para 20); however, it would not share in the—even lengthier—protection of the film work. (See Loewenheim/Leistner in Schricker/Loewenheim, UrhG, 6th edn 2020, § 2 para 215 ("Die Einzelbilder eines Filmwerks sind nicht nach Abs. 1 Nr. 6 schutzfähig, können aber als Lichtbildwerke nach Abs. 1 Nr. 5 oder als Lichtbilder nach § 72 geschützt sein"; citations omitted); Bullinger in Wandtke/Bullinger, Urheberrecht, 5th edn 2019, § 2 para 121 ("§ 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 schützt das Filmwerk als solches, nicht die darin enthaltenen Einzelbilder."); Obergfell in Mestmäcker, Urheberrecht (looseleaf, 55th edn 2011), § 2 para 148 ("Die oft zu Werbezwecken benutzten Einzelbilder eines Kinofilmwerks [...] werden nicht vom Filmwerkschutz nach § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 UrhG umfasst [...]"); suggested IMHO by BGH GRUR 2010, 620 – Film-Einzelbilder, para 18 ("Allein die Herkunft der Lichtbilder aus einem Film hat nicht zur Folge, dass deren Nutzung als filmische Verwertung i.S. des § 91 UrhG anzusehen ist. Andernfalls wäre jegliche Nutzung von Lichtbildern aus Filmwerken als filmische Verwertung einzustufen [...]").) Therefore, it is not necessary to calculate the duration of protection of the film. In fact, in a way, it doesn't even matter whether we assume it's a still frame from the film or a separately created photograph. Either way, it is protected until 70 years following the death of the camaraman/photographer if it is sufficiently original to merit protection as a photographic work; if it is not a work and merely a simple photograph, its protection would have already expired. There is nothing indicating that it may be an anonymous work; to the contrary, should it be a still frame from the film, it must be noted that de:Die freudlose Gasse mentions three cameramen, who died in 1940, 1960 and 1971, respectively. With that being said, and because I think it is likely that the image qualifies as a photographic work and not just a simple photograph, I suspect it may still be protected and thus cannot be kept as {{PD-old-70}}.  Delete. — Pajz (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that case law simplifies things a bit (no need to figure the duration of protection for the whole film for single film frames). But since we don't even know if this is a single film frame or not (and even if it were we still don't know which cameraman actually photographed it - if we assume the one of them who died last in 1971, that'd mean PD in 2042) we can't really tell if or when this is in the PD. So, as you wrote, we still would have to delete the file (per the precautionary principle). --Rosenzweig τ 11:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)