User talk:Rosenzweig

Babel user information
de-N Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache. en-3 This user has advanced knowledge of English. fr-1 Cet utilisateur dispose de connaissances de base en français. la-1 Hic usor simplici lingua Latina conferre potest.
Users by language

You can also use my talk page at the German wikipedia (in German, English or French), but since I enabled notification by e-mail, it might be only marginally faster.

• Archiv(e)

 

Books & Bytes – Issue 69

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Test successful?

Not sure what you were testing here but would it be ok to revert? It undid the formatting of the hyperlink in my comment. Nakonana (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Nakonana,

yes, and that was kind of the purpose of my edit. Some hyperlinks with special characters (like that one apparently) disrupt the operation of the tools used by admins to process deletion requests (the links that allow to quickly delete files, close the DR as kept or deleted and so on). In these cases, those links are not shown in the deletion request concerned, but more importantly they are also not shown on substantial parts of the daily and monthly DR pages like Commons:Deletion requests/2025/03/23 or Commons:Deletion requests/2025/03 (everything above or below the affected DR does not display them). I'm not sure what the exact cause is, but unless you come up with a different way to solve this problem, I'd very much prefer to use the nowiki tags for such hyperlinks. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. What about bare URLs without any wiki syntax, do they also interfere with admin tools? Nakonana (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Just tested it: Every DR above that one in Commons:Deletion requests/2025/03/23 was not displaying the tool links. So yes, they do interfere. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for testing. I guess the nowiki has to stay then. Regards Nakonana (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

request for feedback

Hello. I'd like to make contact regarding the proposal Commons:Village pump/Proposals#remove mandatory username verification from username policy. A private discussion with uninvolved bureaucrats concluded that the proposal has not enough participation to be closed currently, and it was suggested by crats to put a notice at the talk pages of the ten most active admins and ask for feedback, which I'm doing hereby. If possible please comment directly in the proposal with your opinion.

(I hope this is not interpreted as canvassing. I was told it's not as the criteria of contacted users is clearly defined, and the proposal was already mentioned at several noticeboards. Please don't feel biased because of being personally contacted.)

Thank you, yours --Krd 09:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

About belgian FoP

Hello @Rosenzweig. My apologies about belgian FoP, because it seems you were right and it's me who eluded the fact that subjects on my pictures were sold/bought so it's not forbidden to publish them even for commercial uses, unlike France like you said. I panicked and I was already seeing me pursued by a discontent author... Maybe I'll stop uploading pictures of recent art and buildings for a moment... Best wishes. Olga Rithme (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

"Vater und Sohn"-Briefmarken

Hallo Rosenzweig, du hast kürzlich unter anderem sechs Dateien gelöscht, auf denen Briefmarken mit Zeichnungen von Erich Ohser (1903–1944) abgebildet waren. Ich möchte dich bitten, eine Wiederherstellung dieser Dateien zu prüfen, da das Urheberrecht für diese Zeichnungen zumindest in Deutschland abgelaufen ist. Die Zeichnungen sind spätestens 1937 in Deutschland erschienen. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Robert Weemeyer,

ist denn sicher, dass das Zeichnungen von Ohser selbst sind und keine Nachzeichnungen Gassners im Ohser-Stil? Bei den Wilhelm-Busch-Zeichnungen auf anderen Marken war ich mir einigermaßen sicher, dass sie von Busch sind, hier bin ich es nicht. Weiteres Problem: Die Vater-und-Sohn-Geschichten sind 1934 bis 1937 erschienen, also in den USA noch ein paar Jahre geschützt. --Rosenzweig τ 11:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Wenn ich die Briefmarken mit https://musenblaetter.de/artikel.php?aid=34916 vergleiche, kann ich keine relevanten Abweichungen erkennen.

Was das Urheberrecht in den USA betrifft: Da hast du wahrscheinlich recht. Category:Undelete in 2033? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, mit dem Vergleichsmaterial kann man die als Ohser-Zeichnungen identifizieren. Ich habe die Undelete-Kategorie reingesetzt. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 11:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Struwwelpeter-Briefmarken

Und eine weitere Prüfbitte. Sie betrifft die fünf Dateien mit Zeichnungen aus dem Struwwelpeter, die du unlängst gelüscht hast. Da diese Zeichnungen von Heinrich Hoffmann stammen, die noch im 19. Jahrhundert verstorben ist, müssten sie doch gemeinfrei sein. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Robert Weemeyer,

ich habe sie mir gerade nochmal angesehen und komme zum gleichen Schluss wie schon bei der Löschung: Das sind nicht Hoffmanns Zeichnungen, sondern Nachzeichnungen von Annegret Ehmke. Alle bis auf eine (der Struwwelpeter, der weicht mehr ab) ziemlich eng am Original, aber doch leicht anders. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 11:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Sovereign-state flag galleries

Following the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Sovereign-state flags in 2025, that gallery was deleted, whereafter you continued to delete the similar galleries for 2024 and 2023. However, there are still 140+ such galleries, as seen in Template:Sovereign-state flags. Can we hope that those, too, will be deleted in the not-too-far future. It would be a shame to be forced to start working on them in order to remove all the nonsense they contain. Regards! TU-nor (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 08:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thx! --TU-nor (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi @Rosenzweig, Thank you very much for dealing with the vandalism of @Alifsamad 1999.

Best regards, מקף־עברי (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Anerkennung vom Auswärtigen Amt.jpg

Is the license on this file correct (I cannot read German so I am not sure if the license is right). Abzeronow (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. This is a letter personally addressed to a recipient, most likely identical to the uploader, the content is about refusing a funding for a book publication. That's IMHO not covered by {{PD-GermanGov}} - it's not an official judgement like administrative notices about social relief measures, tax refunds or building permits are (these always name the law upon which they're founded and ways to object to them). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use on the German WP talk page makes it apparent that the file is used in a way liable to a COM:CSD#G10 deletion - it's about a self-promotional endeavour around a book. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree to both points. Letter sent to this person, not a publication, so not PD-GermanGov. Some might want to argue it's below COM:TOO Germany, but we should err on the side of caution here, and I doubt it's below the US threshold. We know the author (Georg Enzweiler, a diplomat working at the Foreign Office, currently deputy ambassador in India), so it's 70 years pma. --Rosenzweig τ 08:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Images of physicians up for deletion

Are you going to continue working on them? If we both do, it will be less of a burden, its very time consuming to do a reverse image search, look through the copyright databases, and fix the attributions. RAN (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You mean the DRs by Jmabel? I think I'm done with them. --Rosenzweig τ 04:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

On Sovereign-state flags By Year:

Why Did You Delete That? You Know It Was My Favorite! Thats Very Rude! Can You Please Restart It? (Not Begging) ScienceGD (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello ScienceGD,

there was a proper deletion request for these, Commons:Deletion requests/Sovereign-state flags in 2025. If you want anything restored, you can try at Commons:Undeletion requests. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, Okay. ScienceGD (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Operaton logo.png

Der Benutzername PaulHempel2 weist eventuell darauf hin das es sich um einen der Programmierer von Operaton handelt. Vielleicht handelt es sich sogar um den ursprünglichen Logo-Urheber. Zumindest könnte aber ein Interessenskonflikt vorliegen. Oder er ist einfach drauf bedacht das kein falsches Logo in Umlauf ist. Schwierige Sache. Wollte das mal anmerken. Aber wie ich schon auf der LD gesagt habe, ansonsten sehe ich ja keinen validen Löschgrund. Wobei sollte es stimmen, könnte man hier wegen falscher Farben eventuell einen Löschgrund haben. --Wikijunkie (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Mal gleich noch was anderes. Was sagst du zu File:Bootzubehoer24.gif. Für mich ist das Out Of Scope. Irrelevante Webseite, keinen Bildungsnutzen und keine Verwendung auf Wikipedia. Was ist deine Meinung wie man mit solchen Logos vorgehen soll? --Wikijunkie (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Das wurde für den gelöschten Werbeeintrag de:Bootzubehoer24.de hochgeladen. Vorgehen: Commons-Löschantrag für die Datei als out of project scope/advertisement, am besten mit Hinweis auf den gelöschten Artikel. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 12:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review

Please review the deletion of File:Телешова (cropped).jpg. If I remember correctly, I specifically cropped the file so that it would not contain any copyrightable elements, in contrast to the source file which clearly showed a copyright protected monument. Nakonana (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. That does indeed seem to be the case, so I have restored the file. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) Nakonana (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Deletions

Can you delete these files as useless and for very bad quality: File:Fumimaro Konoe and Hideki Tojo.jpg, File:Portrait de Louis-Jean Saint-Just de Richebourg (1715-1777).jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto, ceramic artist (1935).jpg, File:Tomimoto and Nishimura.jpg, File:Tomimoto reunion.jpg, File:Otake sisters.jpg, File:Otake women.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto with some close friends.jpg, File:General Masao Maruyama.jpg, File:Yamane, Sasaki, and Sawaguchi.jpg, File:Kiku Yamane and Denjiro Sasaki.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto and Shinichi Sasagawa, circa 1917-1918.jpg? I'm the uploader, so delete in G7. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.20.15.135 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

These were uploaded over a week ago, by various users it seems. Please file regular deletion requests. Thanks. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 09:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Those users were my socks, so delete them as my request and it's definitely closed. Thank you very much. 79.41.235.236 09:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 70

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

• New collections:
  • Times of Malta
  • Africa Intelligence
  • Intelligence Online
  • La Lettre
  • Glitz
• Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Rosenzweig and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Restore File:Weinsberg Bahnhofsareal Harald Knauer 1986-07-04 0.jpg

Hi. Can you restore File:Weinsberg Bahnhofsareal Harald Knauer 1986-07-04 0.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log) This seem to have a valid license: https://www.landesarchiv-bw.de/plink/?f=2-5835717-1 -- DaxServer (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Daxserver,

I accidentally uploaded this as a separate file and deleted it a few minutes later. It was meant as the first file version of File:Weinsberg Bahnhofsareal Harald Knauer 1986-07-04.jpg, where it still resides. I think that it should not be restored as a standalone file with this file name, because the file name would be somewhat misleading IMO. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Frage: Admin-Hilfe bei Test?

Hallo Rosenzweig,

mir ist ein Problem mit einem Gadget aufgefallen, siehe Commons:Help_desk#Page_protection_setting_interfering_with_edit_gadget. Kannst Du mir mal eben testweise explizit (zusätzlich) Autopatrol-Rechte geben? Ich möchte gerne ausprobieren, ob damit das geschilderte Problem (das LA-Tool wird nicht angezeigt) gelöst wird. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Automatischer Kontrollierer für eine Woche. --Rosenzweig τ 00:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Danke! Grand-Duc (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for DR review

Hi Rosenzweig. I hope you're well. Few days ago I opened this DR about more photos taken by Béla Halmi. As I saw you closed this other DR about another photo taken by Halmi, could you please be able to check the new DR and delete soon all these photos? Thank you in advance for your help. Yours sincerely. 81.41.190.161 11:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

That DR should still be open until at least tomorrow. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 14:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of Oltregiu1991

It seems that a new sockpuppet was created after you blocked the last one, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Files uploaded by Shakespearebook. Günther Frager (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you for letting me know. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Urheberrechts- oder andere Problem bei Fotos von Fenstern eines Lebendigen Adventskalenders?

Hallo Rosenzweig,

ich habe wieder einmal eine etwas knifflige Frage, die das Urheberrecht sowie ggf. andere Rechte/Richtlinine berührt. Wir haben auf Commons ja bereits einige Fotos von Lebendigen Adventskalendern (leider verstreut in Category:Advent calendars). Vor einigen Jahren habe ich in Bonfeld einigermaßen systematisch die dortigen Adventsfenster fotografiert und daraus dann 2020 für die Kirchengemeinde einen kleinen Papier-Adventskalender gestaltet, der gedruckt und zugunsten der Kirchenrenovierung verkauft wurde. Hier die Vorderseite (es geht hier aber nur um die Einzelbilder, nicht um den Kram drumherum). Nun ist es eigentlich schade, dass die Bilddateien nur auf meiner Festplatte herumliegen, und tatsächlich haben mich nun mehrfach Leute gefragt, ob ich die Bilder nicht (wie meine anderen Fotos aus Bonfeld) auf Commons hochladen könne, damit andere Leute sie als Vorlage, Inspiration usw. nutzen können. Das würde ich gerne machen.

Meine Frage ist: Siehst Du offensichtliche urheberrechtliche oder andere rechtliche/Commons-Richtlinien-mäßige Problem? Alle Bilder wurden von öffentlichem Grund aus aufgenommen (Gehweg/Straße). Die Fensterdekorationen waren zwar nur im Dezember zu sehen, aber das kann ja bei einem Adventskalender auch gar nicht anders sein, die Anbringung war also gewissermaßen dauerhaft (für die Adventszeit), nicht etwa nur einen Abend lang. Die Dekorationen wurden von den Familien (bzw. Kindergärten) selbst gebastelt, es sollte also keine markenrechtlichen o.Ä. Probleme geben. Ich habe immer darauf geachtet, dass vom Inneren der Häuser fast nichts bzw. jedenfalls nichts Persönliches zu erkennen ist.

Was meinst Du? Wir können die Frage natürlich auch ins Forum verlegen, aber da es sozusagen um eine Heilbronner-Land-Angelegenheit geht und da Du in solchen Fragen sehr beschlagen und scharfsichtig bist, dachte ich, ich frage erst mal Dich. Herzlichen Dank für Deine Hilfe und beste Grüße, Roman / – Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Aristeas,

da geht es um de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „bleibend“: In einer neueren Entscheidung aus dem Jahr 2017 sah der Bundesgerichtshof den bleibenden Charakter dann als erfüllt an, wenn das Werk „aus Sicht der Allgemeinheit dazu bestimmt ist, für längere, meist unbestimmte Zeit an dem öffentlichen Ort zu bleiben“. Das sehe ich bei einer Anbringung, die von vornherein auf weniger als einen Monat beschränkt ist, nicht, analog zu bspw. Wahlplakaten. Folglich wären die Dateien löschgefährdet.

Bei manchen Zahlen, wie der 1 und der 23, könnte man noch mit mangelnder de:Schöpfungshöhe argumentieren. Bei den meisten aber nicht. Letztlich halte ich die meisten der Fotos nur mit Genehmigungen (COM:VRT/de) der Urheber der gezeigten „Kunstwerke“ für commonsfähig. Den Aufwand wirst du dir aber kaum machen wollen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 10:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Rosenzweig, vielen Dank für Deine Einschätzung! Was mich verwirrt hat, ist eben die Besonderheit, dass diese Werke zwar nur ein paar Wochen lang angebracht sind, dass sie aber auch nur für diese Zeit existieren (da die meisten Dekorationen danach zerlegt oder weggeworfen werden). Daher befinden sie sich praktisch für die gesamte Dauer ihrer Existenz an einem öffentlichen Ort. (Irgendwie habe ich das Gefühl, dass Gesetzgeber und Gerichte gar nicht an temporäre Werke denken, sondern nur an dauerhafte Skulpturen etc., sonst müsste es eigentlich längst eine Entscheidung geben, die klar festlegt, wie die Panoramafreiheit bei temporären Werken zu beurteilen ist.) Aber Du hast zweifellos recht, die Lage ist rechtlich zu heikel, also lasse ich das mit dem Hochladen. Die Genehmigung der Urheber hätte ich damals sofort einholen müssen, nun macht das keinen Sinn mehr. Dir nochmals vielen Dank und alles Gute, Roman / – Aristeas (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Schneeskulpturen oder auf Fahrzeugen aufgemalte/-druckte Kunstwerke wären hingegen wieder ok :-) Die Rechtsprechung produziert mitunter seltsam und widersprüchlich anmutende Entscheidungen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 15:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

St. Marien (Heidelberg)/Paul Hirt

Ja, es war mein Fehler. Mein Fehler, den Künstler recherchiert (im Gehrke und in online zugänglichen Quellen ist er nicht erwähnt) und vor allem angegeben und kategorisiert zu haben. Ich mache das (bei eigenen und erst recht bei von anderen hochgeladenen Bildern) schon lange nicht mehr, wenn ich auch nur den geringsten Verdacht habe, dass irgendjemand mit einem Löschantrag daherkommen könnte, aber diese absurde URAA-Regelung hatte ich nicht auf dem Schirm. Aber ist das der Sinn? Ist es das, was du bezweckst? Dass das Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht mit Füßen getreten wird? --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Das Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht wird mit Füßen getreten, wenn man urheberrechtliche Schutzfristen beachtet? Auch ein Standpunkt. Ich werde mich dem aber nicht anschließen. --Rosenzweig τ 23:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Das Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht wird mit Füßen getreten, wenn man den:die Künstler:in eines Werkes wider besseres Wissen nicht angibt. Ich finde das auch nicht in Ordnung, aber offenbar werden nur so ungerechtfertigte Löschungen verhindert. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Benutzer X weiß also, dass bestimmte Dateien (noch) nicht für Wikimedia Commons geeignet sind, und hat nun die Wahl, entweder a) diese Dateien nicht hier hochzuladen (sondern gar nicht oder in de.wp) oder b) die Dateien trotzdem hier hochzuladen und den bekannten Urheber des gezeigten Werks zu verschweigen, in der Absicht, so eine regelkonforme (und keineswegs „ungerechtfertigte“) Löschung zu vermeiden. Und den Fall b) willst du nun mir anlasten? Das sind schon sehr schräge Überlegungen. Jegliche weitere Diskussion erübrigt sich da wohl. --Rosenzweig τ 10:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Benutzer X weiß das eben nicht, woher auch? Viele Werke im öffentlichen Raum sind nicht erkennbar signiert oder mit einem Schild versehen, wer der/die Künstler:in ist und wann er/sie gelebt hat. Man kann nichts "verschweigen", was man nicht weiß. Und es geht hier ja auch nicht um offensichtlich urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke, sondern um Werke im öffentlichen Raum, bei denen die Panoramafreiheit zu eng ausgelegt wird oder gemeinfreie Werke, bei denen diese absurde URAA-Regelung geltend gemacht wird. Ich laste dir gar nichts an, ich zeige nur auf, wohin dein Verhalten führt. Ich werde jedenfalls keine Bilder mehr kategorisieren oder Beschreibungen ergänzen, wenn ich nicht 100 % sicher bin, dass nicht doch irgendjemand irgendwelche Schlupflöcher findet, um die Bilder zu löschen. Eigene Bilder werde ich wohl nach wie vor auf Commons hochladen, wenn ich mir sicher bin, dass das - je nach Aufnahmeort - nach dem deutschen oder österreichischen Urheberrechtsgesetz zulässig ist. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wenn X das nicht weiß, hat er auch keinen Grund, "den Künstler wider besseres Wissen nicht anzugeben". Deine Argumentation ist in sich widersprüchlich. --Rosenzweig τ 15:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

RfA

Hello, I wanted to ask for your opinion. Do you think I should apply for adminship on Commons? Since you’re already an experienced administrator, your opinion is important to me. I have a good understanding of licensing rules (especially in Central Asian countries), and from time to time I participate in DR. After becoming an administrator I also plan to work on CSD and RfR. I am already an administrator on the kywiki, but there I mostly handle technical tasks and sometimes act as a mediator.

The main reason I’m considering requesting admin rights is that there are no administrators from my region — that is, from Central Asia. I could easily handle requests in languages such as Russian, Kyrgyz, and other related languages (see Robert Lindsay, p. 9). I will also ask other administrators for their opinions and summarize their feedback before deciding whether I should apply for adminship or not. Incall ^talk 16:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hm. We could certainly use admins from countries/regions not yet represented in the admin roster. You've been active here for a bit less than two years, which some might consider to be long enough, while others might feel it's too short. If you decide to run, be prepared to answer questions related to copyright and about any conflicts you might have had here (I did not search if there were any, but you should know :-)) Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Danke

für Deine sehr ausführlichen und nachvollziehbaren Begründungen zur Löschung des Bildes:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Theodor_Oelenheinz.png

Das macht es mir klarer und hilft für zukünftige Uploads.

Weißt Du wie es bei der englischen Wikipedia aussähe, da der Oelenheinz Artikel dort auch existiert? Smaddl (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Die en.wp richtet sich nach US-Recht. Ab 2029 könnte man das Foto dort vermutlich als public domain (in den USA) hochladen, bis dahin evtl. als fair use. Die Richtlinie dafür ist en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, die müssest du mal durchschauen. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. sind anscheinend prinzipiell ok, es gibt aber m. W. gewisse Formalitäten zu beachten, das Bild darf eine bestimmte Höchstgröße nicht überschreiten usw. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 10:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, danke! Ich schaue mal mit der Familie Oelenheinz ob eine aätere, free Alternative nicht doch verfügbar ist. Smaddl (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

dieses Foto müsste dann jetzt den Anforderungen genügen, korrekt?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Theodor_Oelenheinz.jpg Smaddl (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ja, sollte passen. Gem. [1] sollte der Urheber (Fotograf) Theodor Jakob Schuhmann (1838–1914) sein. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 11:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hitler's photos

Hi. What do you think about these ([2] [3]) photos taken by Hoffmann, they published by Finnish National Archive as CC-BY-4.0? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that Finnish archive could have acquired sufficient rights to release those photos under a CC license. The German national archive released several under a CC license (we already have those here at Wikimedia Commons), and in their case it was pretty clear: They took over images which were created for the German state or one of its agencies, along with the rights. I don't see the same happening for the Finnish archive. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 05:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

So you think it's license laundering?

For example, I know about this official portrait of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, published by National Archive of Netherlands (CC0), but firstly it was taken by Vladimir Musaelyan from TASS, Russian state news agency. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They probably don't really know or care about copyright. Some libraries, archives, museums etc. seem to assume that they own all the rights for any items they possess. --Rosenzweig τ 07:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If I searched about Hitler in Finnish Archive, I found about his trips to Finland, I think these photographs are legit. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If they were taken by Hoffmann, they were not taken for the Finns though. --Rosenzweig τ 08:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think me or we should contacts with Finns about that license situation. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to do so if you want. --Rosenzweig τ 11:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Undeletion protocol

Hello, I have this really fantastic photograph of a Vichy general (Charles Huntziger) standing before a crowd of freed prisoners of war, however it's attributed to a photo agency and is therefore not yet in the public domain. There's one other I would like this with also of him visiting a soldier wounded in the Syria campaign.

I saw that you added the armistice photo to an undelete in 2028 category, would I be able to upload this image, have it be deleted, and then have it added to its relevant undelete category? Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Either start a deletion request (after having uploaded the file) saying you think the file is not suitable for Commons yet and should be undeleted in year XYZZ, or ask an admin (like me) to delete the file and add it to the appropriate category. Please bear in mind that files have to be free both in their source country and in the US (Commons:Licensing). Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent thank you. I might reply here with a few links if that's okay. Joko2468 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It is. --Rosenzweig τ 14:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Here they are (I was especially miffed about the one with Petain walking, it captures the complexity of Vichy France so well). Dating them was challenging, it's likely that they were all taken in the same months as the magazine issues but I imagine you'd want something more concrete?

• File:Petain on the street.png
• File:Petain goering 1941.png
• File:Huntziger wounded soldier.png
• File:Huntziger prisoners-of-war.png

Joko2468 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hm. For now, I have added them to Category:Undelete in 2037 (when their US copyright will have expired) with a note that their French copyright still needs to be determined. Maybe someone can decipher some of these abbreviations. We don't have a tag with 140 years btw, {{PD-old-assumed}} is 120 years. --Rosenzweig τ 17:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought I might have been wrong to say that. Joko2468 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

A German copyright/FoP query

Hi Rosenzweig, I am hoping you might be able to help me with something. I recently took a photograph of a large Bundeswehr advert on the platform of a U-Bahn station in Berlin. I'd like to upload it to commons. It seems that opinions are divided on whether a station platform is a "public place" for the purposes of German freedom of panorama. Is there a convention regarding this on commons? GanzKnusper (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello GanzKnusper,

the convention would be COM:FOP Germany. Subway stations are usually considered to be interior places (see cases with U-Bahn in Category:German FOP cases/deleted), so the outdoor criterion is not met. Also, ads like this are (almost always) not permanent, so the "permanent" criterion is not met as well. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the quick reply! GanzKnusper (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 71

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 71, September–October 2025

• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
• Frankfurt Book Fair
• Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 15:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Rosenzweig and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Adolf Hitler's photo 1933-1934

I got another answer from Finnish Archive:

"I have received your inquiry. The photograph in question is indeed an image taken by the German photographer Heinrich Hoffmann. It is an original photographic print and forms part of the archive of the Foundation for the History of Finland in the 1920s–1940s, which was transferred to us by the National Archives of Finland.

The foundation (active 1953–1990) collected materials particularly related to the history of the Finnish far-right and fascist party, the Patriotic People’s Movement (IKL). The photographic materials of this archive are in our custody.

Since the image has been published, it has—at the time of the publication decision—been classified as a photograph protected by neighbouring rights (related rights), not as a photographic work. If the photograph were to be classified as a work, its copyright would not expire until 2028." Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That is a classification by Finnish criteria. In Germany, such a photograph is definitely a photographic work. --Rosenzweig τ 11:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Rosenzweig/URAA

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Rosenzweig/URAA, has failed. Your gallery has a hard upper-limit of about 8000 files per day, while your gallery would have had 27397 files (including files already on the page).

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal at User talk:OgreBot/gallery within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:Rosenzweig/URAA

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:Rosenzweig/URAA, has failed. Your gallery has a hard upper-limit of about 8000 files per day, while your gallery would have had 24241 files (including files already on the page).

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal at User talk:OgreBot/gallery within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC))