Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Inmates of Auschwitz

Auschwitz Buchenwald inmates edit

Inmates of ~~Auschwitz Birkenau~~ Buchenwald. These people are incredibly thin, suggesting that they have been malnourished. The inmates were used as a labour force for the German war effort. The inmates were given no food as this was part of the German policy of "Extermination through work". Elie Wiesel is second row, seventh from left.

Reason: It demonstrates historic and encyclopedic value. Clearly demonstrates that inmates in the concentration camps were malnourished. And given that it was taken between 1942-45 it is a surprisingly good picture. It is not easily replicated without ruining encyclopedic value.
Articles this image appears in: Elie Wiesel, 1945, Buchenwald concentration camp, Internment, Night (book)
Creator: ~~SS Guards, although the image is courtesy of the Auschwitz museum~~ Private Harry Miller of the 166th Signal Photographic Company

Support as nominator — Hadz^Talk 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Image is unsourced and licensing is suspect. I don't see how you can claim this is GFDL here. howcheng {chat} 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its endorsed by a museum for god sake
  - If I googled for the right site, there is this: "1999-2003, © Panstwowe Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau", and that's a NO GO for GFDL. --Janke | Talk 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't necessarily mean they own the copyright to the picture -- lots of museums and other web sites claim blanket copyright on their pages for things they don't necessarily have the copyright to. Under German law IIRC, the copyright belongs to the photographer himself. There is no concept of work-for-hire, so it wouldn't be the German government/army that holds the copyright (unlike in the US). But let's assume for the sake of argument that the Auschwitz museum DOES own the copyright -- what makes you think you can declare it GFDL? howcheng {chat} 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course the museum owns the copyright, how else would they be able to display it? --Hadz^Talk 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Displaying and owning the copyright have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Howcheng is right about the copyright and I must add that there were no copyright transfers from axis to allied forces as a result of the outcome of WWII. The rights stay with the photographer until 70 years after his death. And the passing of this period cannot be safely assumed. Most likely mislicensed and definetly not well documented. Was a permission letter sent to permissions@wikimedia.org? Can the museum plausibly claim copyright? --Dschwen 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe they were early inmates, upto or before 1937? --Hadz^Talk 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Poland was occupied in 1939, Auschwitz 1 was established in 1940, and Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1941, so no. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you sign some nominations as Hadz others as Ahadland? And how does copyright clash with GFDL? --Dschwen 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadz is a childhood nickname based on my surname, Hadland. As to how copyright clashes with GFDL, your guess is as good as mine. The Hadz is a fairly recent thing too --Hadz^Talk 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "203647-s" (i.e. the number on the corner of the picture) lead me to this page, which says the photo was taken by Harry Miller, a private in the 166th Signal Photographic Company, that it is of the Buchenwald concentration camp (rather than Auschwitz) and that it was taken on the 16 April 1945 (making it a few days short of 62 years old). "Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute" says WP:C. Furthermore, the version seen at that link seems to be a much better digitisation of the original photo. Mike1024 (t/c) 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: See item 178 - "These are slave laborers in the Buchenwald concentration camp near Jena; many had died from malnutrition when U.S. troops of the 80th Division entered the camp." Pvt. H. Miller, Germany, April 16, 1945. 208-AA-206K-31. This picture is public domain. Mike1024 (t/c) 09:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great job, I changed the license tag accordingly, and would like to request the uploader to exercise caution concerning the licensing information. Plus there is commons, the central image archive to which all images with sufficient licenses should be uploaded! --Dschwen 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent detective work. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support if copyright issues are resolved. Ishaana 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Inferior reproduction. --Dschwen 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wrote an E-Mail to Stiftung Gedenkstaetten asking for a better reproduction. We'll see what happens. --Dschwen 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer: since the personally went to the national archives to digitize a copy the request an anual fee of EUR 100.00 for the pic to be available on Wikipedia. Too bad. Maybe Noclip our man in Washington could visit the Archives and make us a decent scan :-). --Dschwen 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some companies offer a service where you give them the item reference number (in this case 208-AA-206K-31 I gather) and they get it out, scan it, and e-mail you copies (or produce reproductions etc if you want that). However, as commercial companies they charge for this; for example (from one supplier) scanning a photo at 300dpi and e-mailing it as a jpeg costs $9.50 to get it out of the archives, $10 for scanning, and $5 for e-mailing, a total cost of $24.50 for a single photo (and a 300 dpi JPEG, at that). If we're going to buy every historically important photo in the national archives at $25 each, we'd need a lot of money. Mike1024 (t/c) 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, and neither are we paying commercial companies to write articles for us. That's why I was implying/hinting, that a local volunteer could do the job. --Dschwen 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I can always visit the College Park, MD archives (which is where the negative of this photo is located) but I don't have a decent scanner. Aside from that perhaps it'd make sense to come up with a list of many images we could use and they could all be scanned in one go. Noclip 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rant: Sigh, this whole nomination was a piece of sloppy work. Not only the license was wrong, the caption is unprofessional, the picture misidentified and placed in the wrong article. Hadz, from your talk page I see that you seem to be emotionally overwhelmed by the topic of the holocaust, which is pretty understandable when you just started familiarizing yourself with the historical background and the gruesome details. But please note that the purpose and quality of WP:FPC should not have to suffer under historical education attempts. --Dschwen 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Ahadland, you need to make sure you have all this clear before the FPC nomination. If you need help, there are plenty of people to ask. Proper licensing of images is crucial and cannot be taken lightly or simply assumed. I suggest that when you don't know the particulars, you first upload it to your own web site (or photobucket or some other host), and ask for help at Wikipedia:Reference desk. This image in particular can stir up a lot of emotions, so it's important to stay rational and keep focused on the details. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeh, sorry for such a cock-up just it came up on a google search I did for Birkenau. Sorry anyway though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs)
    - These things happen, just be careful :) And ask for help if you need it. --gren グレン 08:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are still some outstanding issues. I'd say close this nomination, and work on trying to get a new scan, assuming copyright is legit, and then renominate the new image. Besides that, this is a very, very iconic image, and historically significant.-Andrew c 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]