John Lee wrote: >[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery >itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the >subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those >images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It >has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not >been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a >copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. >It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but... > > 1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer > 2. It's on the frickin' main page right now > >Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use >and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most >Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use >review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on. > > Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005. Ec

geni wrote: >On 3/7/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: > > >>John Lee wrote: >> >> >>>[[Triumph of the Will]] has a gallery of fair use pictures. The gallery >>>itself violates fair use under American law, which requires that the >>>subject of the images be critically discussed by the article using those >>>images. As if that were not enough, the images are *high-resolution*. It >>>has been suggested that the images are public domain, but this has not >>>been conclusively proven, and the images are currently marked with a >>>copyright of 2005 by the uploader, who also wrote much of the article. >>>It would be bad enough if this is any ordinary article, but... >>> >>>1. It's a featured article, which means it's the best we have to offer >>>2. It's on the frickin' main page right now >>> >>>Then again, I suppose this does reflect the condition of how fair use >>>and copyright law are blatantly ignored/misunderstood by most >>>Wikipedians...for further information, see [[Wikipedia:Fair use >>>review]], which has a fuller description of what's going on. >>> >>> >>Why are we talking about fair use when the film is clearly in the public >>domain? It was released in 1935!!! 1935 + 70 = 2005. >> >> >Wrong country. Leni Riefenstahl died in 2003. > >Further details: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=42060761&oldid=41976931 > > Riefenstahl did not own the copyright; she did the work as an employee of the German government. The talk page for the article cites http://www.twobirds.com/English/publications/articles/GermanFilmsandUKEnemy… "Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party" The 70 year clock for government and corporate copyright owners starts when the work is made public. The US situation is even simpler, because the extension of foreign copyrights from 50 to 70 years was not applicable to enemy properties. The rights there expired at the end of 1985. What "wrong country" are you talking about?