Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anschlusstears.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Crying Sudeten woman saluting Hitler, 1938

Crying Sudeten woman saluting Hitler, 1938

Reason: This famous image has been used as propaganda both by the Nazi government as well as the U.S. Originally published in the Völkischer Beobachter, the Nazi explanation was that here were portrayed the intense emotions of joy which swept the Sudeten Germans as Hitler crossed the Czech border at Asch and drove through the streets of the nearby ancient city of Eger [the German name for Cheb], 99% of whose inhabitants were ardently pro-Nazi Sudeten Germans at the time. However, in the National Archives and Records Administration, this image is captioned, "The tragedy of this Sudeten woman, unable to conceal her misery as she dutifully salutes the triumphant Hitler, is the tragedy of the silent millions who have been 'won over' to Hitlerism by the 'everlasting use' of ruthless force."
Articles this image appears in: Sudetenland, German occupation of Czechoslovakia, History of Czechoslovakia
Creator: Völkischer Beobachter (National Socialist newspaper)

Support as nominator — howcheng {chat} 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that this is a cropped version of the original, or perhaps 2 photographs were made within a short period of time, some have derided this photograph as being deceptive, but I'm sure someone else will mention thisBleh999 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

never mind you did include a link to the original Bleh999 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Bleh999 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Click "show" to read copyright discussion →

* Oppose. This image is copyrighted. It is only marked as "unrestricted" in the NARA archive because it is misfiled as created by the Office for Emergency Management (presumably they just hold a copy of the photograph in their archive). Unfortunately, it is not true that Nazi photos are automatically public domain in the United States.--Pharos 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

- See the rest of the discussion regarding the copyright of the image on the image talk page[[1]] Bleh999 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop this nonsense. It's PD in the US, and that's all that matters. You can't win this argument no matter how many times you rehash it. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-05 13:55Z
  - But the thing is, unfortunately, it isn't. I wish it was. I've looked extensively, and there's not one statement from the US government that Nazi stuff is PD.--Pharos 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    - ignorance in the law is not a valid defense, you didn't prove that statement that NARA mislabeled this photograph (your original claim) Bleh999 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Huh, "ignorance in the law"? I suppose the US government is "ignorant" of this law too, because, despite a widespread misconception, it just doesn't exist. About the mislabeling, do you really believe that the Office for Emergency Management is the creator of this photograph, as clearly labeled in the NARA record?--Pharos 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Interestingly the Department of Defense has the same photograph on their 'war and conflict' collection[2]
        
        The DoD claims that all the photos on those CD rom collections are : are cleared for public release and are approved for unrestricted use and publication[3] are the department of defense wrong too?Bleh999 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        And yet again: it is fairly irrelevant what third parties say about public release. The page above doesn't even mention copyright issues, just that the DoD has no objections to publishing. The rights of the copyright holder are not touched by such statements. No clear source is given, no tangible or even plausible argument is made for the pic being free. --Dschwen 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        You are wrong, they would never distribute high resolution copies if they were a copyright infringement, the statement regarding unrestricted use is clear and it can't be that everyone is wrong except you. I think the circular reasoning presented by you and Pharos is disruptive to the FPC nomination page, therefore I request both of you contact the National Archives or DoD to provide some concrete proof of your claims before replying here. People on wikipedia have contacted NARA before to clarify what unrestricted use and access means, it does mean public domain. Bleh999 14:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Unfortunately, it just does not mean public domain. Quote from recent e-mail: "Quite frankly, we do not make the determination of whether our records are in the public domain." It can't be clearer than that. I am currently in the process of researching this area extensively, and I -hope- to discover actual legal justification of public domain for some of the seized German records in the next week or two. Suffice to say, the situation is very complicated.--Pharos 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        please forward it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, clearly stating to what image(s) this email refers. Why do I have the feeling this selective quote has nothing to do with the image in question?Bleh999 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        AGF here. Pharos is a well-respected administrator and licensing issues are not to be trifled with. It's better to absolutely sure than to just assume it's public domain (even if only limited to the U.S.). howcheng {chat} 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        of course, but the information must be specific regarding this image, because pharos is suggesting that most images from the national archives should be deleted because they aren't really PD, that would mean 1000s of images maybe moreBleh999 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspended due to uncertain copyright status. MER-C 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue clarified. I would like to drop my opposition to this photograph on copyright grounds. It was difficult to get an explicit statement on the copyright status of these photos from NARA, but I finally got one, which I much appreciate. Please see User:Pharos/NARA.--Pharos 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Support, conditionally with the assumption that this is copyright eligible, if it ends up that it isn't and I don't get a chance to change my vote please disregard. Cat-five - talk 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion reopened. I took the liberty of moving this back to the top of the nomination pile, since we didn't really get much comment on it due to the copyright clarification. howcheng {chat} 06:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Provided that the caption (image page and in article) do no inaccurately represent the image one way or the other. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-19 14:51Z
Support If the copyright works out. ^8thstar 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright has been worked out. howcheng {chat} 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Sweet... ;) ^8thstar 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Support A good historic depiction of something that couldn't be re-created. Jellocube27 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose Yes, a good historic depiction of something, but of what? Perhaps it's a good historic depiction of an emotive scene that was photographed and served opposing propaganda roles? Do we have an article on that? This is a powerful image, no doubt, but it's a propaganda image first, and a historic one second. Would be a good candidate on Commons. —Pengo 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, the fact that the photograph was (perhaps deceptively) cropped does lessen its encyclopedic value... Bleh999 05:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak support Emotive and very high on enc. value, but the crop leaving a "floating arm" really destroys it in terms of the picture itself. Pedro | Chat 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I was going to support until I saw Pengo's post. Considering we do not even know whether she was crying from joy or sadness, this picture is of low encyclopedic value (unless the use of the image as propaganda is being discussed in the main text, which it is not). It can't be used to show what the normal emotional response of people in Sudetenland was to Nazi occupation, or even really as an example of one woman's emotional response, because the photo is ambiguous without some sort of accompanying interview, which we obviously don't have. Calliopejen1 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly the same photograph was used by the nazis as evidence of her being overcome with emotion at the entry of German soldiers, while the allies used it as propaganda that she was crying out of sadness, the truth may never be known Bleh999 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong support: A photo used by both sides? One worthy of discussion in and of itself? Definition of encyclopædic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, that said, though, maybe we could crop it a bit tighter? That would remove (most of) the hand. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)