File talk:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg file.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

See You Tube and copyright problems acknowledged in many discussions throughout Wikipedia regarding such use of material from You Tube for images. The source in You Tube does not state where he ("tomasmarec"--the uploader to You Tube) actually got the video; how he made it; it could have come from the documentary film which has been shown; nowhere does he ("tomasmarec") state what he did to make these video compilations of Brasse's publicly exhibited and published photographs. I think this needs some review still. There is a tremendous amount of plagiarism from Wikipedia and other sources in the captions about these videos by "tomasmarec" (I provided the links to all three videos as "resources" in the article on the subject of the photographs); please read those discussions. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm increasingly tired of this user's inability to grasp the concept of fair-use and his unwillingness to budge. NYScholar is badgering me enough to want to just turn away from it all. There's one thing I need to say before I quit though. The image has been properly tagged as copyrighted (read the tag, please). The image description page includes all the necessary elements for a fair-use reproduction such as, attribution of the source of the material (being Auschwitz State Museum), copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is being used, and the name of the article (with a link to the article, as recommended). It is an iconic image, a subject of an artistic interpretation. As such, it does not require permission of its author to be used as illustration to a biography according to US laws regarding fair-use. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 04:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Contrary to a fury of objections by a problem user who nominated this image for deletion, not a single copyright breach has occured here, since the image, made by an unknown prisoner (wild guess: Brasse) is in public domain according to Polish copyright law regardless of where it was obtained from. --Poeticbent talk 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy re: a so-called "iconic image" as referred to above; the people who wanted to delete the article entirely (not I) questioned the notability of the subject (on the basis also of the photographs, about which at least some of if not all of them appeared ignorant). I spent days trying to establish the notability, providing reliable sources; another editor (not I) has complained of the unreliable nature of the You Tube material; it could not be cited as a source; please stop the personal nature of this arguing and please read the previous discussions, which reflect consensus. The inventions above are not WP:POL re: copyright; I've linked to the pertinent policies in a subuser page via my own talk page; please take a look. I doubt that the above editor has spent as much time familiarizing himself or herself with the sources that I have developed for these two related articles; see Wilhelm Brasse as well as the one that this image is linked to. The problems of copyright have been mentioned for a long time related to these images taken from the video(s) uploaded by "tomasmarec" (no idea who that really is) to You Tube. That is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia; it is simply a place where a You Tube user has uploaded his videos, which all appear to relate to a self-published partisan website re: The Holocaust, a highly controversial subject, which also brings in Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. My attempt has been to maintain neutral point of view and notability in view of the debate about this article; already mentioned. The above user needs to familiarize himself/herself with that discussion by many Wikipedia editors thus far. My goal is to maintain the integrity of this article so that it is not attacked further in Wikipedia (as it has been in the past). --NYScholar (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed the current image from the infobox of the article. But I have questioned the propriety of its uploading to Wikipedia. It needs review. --NYScholar (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the URL address of the website (You Tube) video from which the current uploader took the still photograph. I do not know how or when or from what materials the You Tube uploader {"tomasmarec") created that or his other videos. He does not say. Assumptions are made in the fair use rationale and tagged template that are not borne out by the material as posted in You Tube. I do not know how "tomasmarec" created the videos, and, unless the uploader posting these images from the videos here is the same person as "tomasmarec", neither does he or she. If he or she has independent information about the construction and editing of these videos, please state his/her source. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past problems with the article involve possible self-promotion by the creators of the artwork based on this photograph; that would violate Wikipedia:NPOV. Original research is also not permissible as per WP:NOR. What is the basis for the assumption about how the video was or videos were produced (by "tomasmarec")? Please state source so that others can check it for reliability and verifiability. Thank you. Those arederivative works. --NYScholar (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the image in the infobox of the article with the speedy deletion template caption. I don't know if it's posting the way it is supposed to; but the situation is clear enough and the image name appears visible. But the image is being disputed and should not currently appear until this matter is reviewed by administrators and fully resolved. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: See problem relating to the downloading and copying of material from YouTube videos (YouTube#Terms of service) to upload it to Wikipedia: Talk:Wilhelm Brasse and Talk:Czesława Kwoka as well (both updated). Added ed. note in the image page as well as the multiple sources involved and new template and informed uploader via uploader's talkpage, as requested. --NYScholar (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the copyright-related issues are cited in Wikipedia:External links#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites. It appears that the YouTube video from which the uploader of this image took the still was violating copyrights in uploading his videos to YouTube, and inserting a still from his video(s) into the Wikipedia article on Czesława Kwoka puts dubious material in the article, damages its integrity, and make may it vulnerable to article deletion in Wikipedia if the image is not removed or replaced with an actually-free image or one that meets the actual criteria for fair use. This image does not meet those stringent Wikipedia criteria for images (in my view). --NYScholar (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that in addition to uploading these videos to YouTube, the YouTube uploader "tomasmarec" has also duplicated it and uploaded it to many other online locations, including partisan websites, from some of which internet service providers have already removed it, due to violations of their terms of service: e.g., AOL, message boards, forums, various websites about The Holocaust, and so on, from and/or to which other people have downloaded and/or uploaded and/or copied it (further illegally), further violating various copyrights of the authors of the photographs and television documentary film. Wikipedia's standards for maintaining adherence to copyright laws (of the United States and other countries) are higher and warn against reproducing such copyright-violating content on Wikipedia. That such copyright violations occur elsewhere on the Web does not justify repeating them in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is not the original work of the uploader of this image (the Wikipedia uploader). If "tomasmarec" went to the museum and took video photography of the exhibits (which may be prohibited by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum (it depends on what are its photography policies) and then uploaded his videos to YouTube and elsewhere (without clearly stating how they were made or what they were videos of precisely), that is one difficult copyright situation that would need resolution. The Wikipedia uploader did not take the videos posted in YouTube; s/he downloaded and/or copied it from YouTube to make the image that is currently uploaded as this image to Wikipedia. That is a violation of YouTube#Terms of service, which both uploader and visitor (this image uploader) agree to abide by in using YouTube. Then to involve Wikipedia in this problem, by uploading the image taken from the YouTube video to Wikipedia complicates the copyright violation problem. Brasse's photographs are videotaped and shown in the documentary film (also copyrighted and copyright-protected) The Portraitist (I have provide the official film distributor's site as an EL in the article on Brasse; one can see the production information and screening information there and the sources about the film cited in the body of Wilhelm Brasse.) The Adobe Flash film distributor's site contains a video clip that scrolls on the top of its page and that clearly comes from its film. The still taken from the YouTube videos (made by "tomasmarec" without attribution or credit or permission given to his sources) is also in the film, and it could be that the video that "tomasmarec" made was captured from a television documentary showing on TV1. Since "tomasmarec" does not provide his sources or credit any photographer or any museum, there is no way to be sure what he did to compile this video and the other videos that he has uploaded to YouTube and other websites. That makes his video highly unreliable, and to base copyright tagged notices and fair use claims on it, while violating YouTube#Terms of service--See http://www.youtube.com/t/terms> ("Terms of use")--in the process places Wikipedia at risk of copyright violations and the articles (that I and other have worked very hard to rescue) in jeopardy in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (Updated, with direct URL address. --NYScholar (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The pertinent passage from YouTube's own "Terms of use":

5. Your Use of Content on the Site

In addition to the general restrictions above, the following restrictions and conditions apply specifically to your use of content on the YouTube Website.
A. The content on the YouTube Website, except all User Submissions (as defined below), including without limitation, the text, software, scripts, graphics, photos, sounds, music, videos, interactive features and the like ("Content") and the trademarks, service marks and logos contained therein ("Marks"), are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law. Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be downloaded, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes whatsoever without the prior written consent of the respective owners. YouTube reserves all rights not expressly granted in and to the Website and the Content.
B. You may access User Submissions solely:

• for your information and personal use;
• as intended through the normal functionality of the YouTube Service; and
• for Streaming. (Bold typefont added.)....

The downloading and/or copying of a still photograph from the video(s) uploaded to YouTube by "tomasmarec" and the subsequent uploading of that image (from YouTube) to Wikipedia violates both the Terms of use of YouTube and the policies for uploading images to Wikipedia. This is not "fair use" of copyrighted and copyright-protected media and images. --NYScholar (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a related situation with a different but related copyright notice about Polish law applied, see: Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg, which has been marked for deletion from Wikipedia Commons due to apparently-faulty references to public domain in Poland and in the United States. That photograph is not dated (as it states in complaint about it).

This image Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg already identified to be from a photograph by Brasse (and the other may very well have been taken by him as well) is dated as taken in 1942 or 1943. (Fair use claims do not apply for images in Wikipedia Commons.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC) [(updated after further examination). --NYScholar (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

For comparable information about the photo archives and collections of photographs held by and exhibited in the United States Holocaust Museum, which mentions its reciprocal agreement with the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, see Library of Congress Webpage re: United States Holocaust Museum Photo Archives. It provides some further information pertaining to such archives. --NYScholar (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Collections

Paintings, photographs and slides:
Over 50,000 images (about 35,000 prints, the rest photographs), gathered from more than 350 archives and private sources and dating largely from 1933 to 1948. There is also a small selection of prewar materials from various Jewish communities in Europe. The Photo Archive maintains reciprocal arrangements with Yad Vashem and the Ghetto Fighters House in Israel, and the State Memorial Museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland, in order to make available images from these institutions. Among the subjects covered in the collection are concentration camps and Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe; anti-Semitism; deportations and executions; Jewish life in Nazi Germany and Austria; the life of Jewish refugees in China and Japan, Palestine/Israel, the United States, and elsewhere; and the persecution of Gypsies, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses by the Nazis.

A computer imaging system provides access to database records and digitized images by subject, geographic location, and keyword. Reproductions of digitized images are available for a fee.

The museum's reference to necessity of paying a "fee" suggests potential copyright violations of such photographic materials held in these museums done without payment of such fees and/or written permission; it is highly unlikely that the agreement for conditions of use of these photographs (provided when such fees are paid) permit anything but personal use only; public distribution of the digitized photos (in publications in print and on the internet) would appear to violate these museum's agreement with those who pay such fees (terms of use). Photographs taken in 1942 or 1943 by Wilhelm Brasse (such as this one) and owned by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum (copyright owner of its exhibits) may or may not be in the public domain in Poland and/or in the United States (research required re: that). --NYScholar (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for searching the Photo archive at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, by way of example.Catalog, for anyone who needs it re: these kinds of photographs. --NYScholar (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link in that webpage lefthand menu for "fees and reproductions" and also at top menu a link to its FAQ. One should be able to find similar information at the website (see EL of related articles) for the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. One can try to research the museums' policies re: reproduction of photographs and what is and is not in the public domain in both Poland and the United States. (U.S. copyright law governs content uploaded to English Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing. Who captured the still from the film? Please use the active voice construction and identify precisely how you made this image and what source or sources you used in making it, giving the URLs that pertain to the material or materials that you used to construct this image. The current description is vague, unclear, confusing, and it appears to me very misleading. Give the URL addresses in "nowiki" format for the precise location on the internet that you took/copied/downloaded this image from and please say what you did to that image as well. If the image is copied from a copyrighted film in a copyrighted Website for the film or from YouTube or ???, please make that crystal clear. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me and others that the uploader of these (now three that I have seen) images is violating the copyrights of the publications (and possibly museum or other institutions) that s/he is taking the images from. These images are not the property of the uploader or even of the people's works that s/he has copied/downloaded them from. There are copyright-protected intellectual properties that feature the photographs that various downloaders and uploaders are violating the copyrights of; this has nothing to do with the status of the museuem exhibit photographs—whatever that may be, which is certainly not clear from the presentation of old versions of Polish copyright laws; current U.S. and current Polish copyright laws pertain tot the intellectual properties (films, books, articles, Websites, etc.) that various people are stealing this material from. These works (the uploaders' sources) are not their own. They have created derivative works based on copyrighted materials and posted them on the internet, from which various later downloaders/uploaders have taken them. If the image is taken directly from a film distribution company's Website or from an online Website feature book or article content, that is still copyright violation in the United States and in Poland. --NYScholar (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader still needs to identify and to define unambiguously precisely what source s/he used to make this image (URL of Webpage that s/he copied it from) and what source that source used to upload the image to the Web: what is the uploader's source? Not clearly and not fully defined in the image page: see editorial comments that I added: Please do not add comments that make it impossible to distinguish between my editorial comment and other users' editorial comments. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again: What is the actual URL that the uploader used in making this photograph and what are that URL's source(s) [possibly more than one if the cropped image derives (is taken from) a larger series of images]? The image description page is still highly inaccurate. --NYScholar (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: derivative work for definition; my own user subpage linked in my user page has relevant links to Wikipedia editing policies pertaining to copyright issues and U.S. government copyright law links. --NYScholar (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: When a video is made from others' materials (such as the YouTube videos--one example of a secondary source; the film The Portraitist--a primary source), it is a derivative work, whether or not the materials making up the photographic stills or moving video captured in making the YouTube video or the copyright-protected documentary film The Portraitist may (in some cases [unknown and unestablished]) be in the public domain (or not: questioned) in some country, e.g., Poland. Both U.S. copyright law and perhaps but not necessarily Polish copyright law (current law) apply to any such derivative work and its use in any image uploaded to Wikipedia and used in articles in Wikipedia. The oversimplification in this image page description by the uploader of the circumstances and sources used in making this image is highly misleading and puts Wikipedia in danger of at the least potential copyright violations (perhaps multiple). Wikipedia instructs its editors to remove potential copyright violations from Wikipedia; the proper notices have been placed on these images to alert Wikipedia to the potential copyright violations; sometimes the notices placed have been altered or removed by other users. It is taking far too long to correct what should have been the speedy deletion of this image (and others similarly uploaded) to Wikipedia. It needs a quicker review. If the decision is to keep it, the image page will reflect that, and the speedy deletion nomination templates will be able to be removed, as soon as possible. --NYScholar (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a Wikipedia uploader takes an image from a blog or other website that captured its version of a photograph from Wikipedia and then copied and downloaded and uploaded it to the blog or website, the Wikipedia uploader is not using a primary source, but a secondary, tertiary, etc. source in the process of creating a copy of or another derivative work based on a primary source. The source actually used to construct the image uploaded to Wikipedia is the source that must be cited as the Wikipedian uploader's source in the image page description of "source".

If the Wikipedian uploader has used a derivative work as a source, the copyright of the actual owner (not the owner of the derivative work or of the blog or Website) is the one that has the right to give or withhold permission and to license with a GFDL-compatible license the material shown in the image. The Wikipedia uploader does not have that copyright and the claims of "fair use" do not change that situation. "Public domain" claims may refer to some materials in Poland and not to their posting in Wikipedia; newspaper articles and films made in Poland still have copyright-protection in the United States against abuse. Generally, we cannot copy photographs (in part or in whole) from articles published in copyrighted newspapers or capture images from copyrighted films (whether published in the U.S. or in Poland, or elsewhere in the European Union, etc.) from online sources and post them on Wikipedia without first getting permission from the owners of the publications to do so. These images are not taken by the uploader with his or her own camera in the Museum in Poland where they are exhibited and then cropped and uploaded to Wikipedia; they are images that the uploader made using sources published on the internet without permission from the website creators and without permission from the original sources of those website creators (a copyrighted publication or film or other website without a proper GFDL-compatible license). --NYScholar (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blog that the uploader cites took the photographic image from an earlier version of the article in Wikipedia at some point. The URL no longer goes to that same version of the article. There is a plagiarism/copyright-violation loop occurring by virtue of the process by which this image was made by the uploader in Wikipedia. It appears that the earlier versions of the image (prior to copying and cropping by the uploader) came from YouTube videos and the YouTube uploader does not identify sources used at all. They could have been the documentary film shown on TVP1 (Polish television), they could have been some other copyright-protected source; they are not identified as video made in the museum by the YouTube uploader himself ("tomasmarec"). It appears that he copied those materials from unacknowledged copyrighted sources to make the video compilation. Such a video compilation is a derivative work, derived from the copyrighted intellectual property(ies) of others, including the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Wilhelm Brasse, the Polish documentary filmmakers, its distributor, and the owners of the various Websites on which such materials appear on the Web, including but not only YouTube and the blog cited. --NYScholar (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under Polish law the image is not copyrighted by anyone and may be freely used. If you doubt this, please call any number in Poland and ask if anyone retains the copyrights to Nazi works done in Poland by Polish prisoners. They will cheerfully tell you that no one does. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the following American newspaper, published in 2006, the same photograph as the one placed in Wikipedia earlier, then copied to the blog (TACSE), then recopied and uploaded by the current uploader back to Wikipedia is credited to both the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum (Wilhelm Brasse) and the Associated Press and published in the Web-version of the copyrighted newspaper (with the "KL Auschwitz" label on the photograph): Letter to the Editor: "Don't be flip about gun rights; they may be needed", published at fredericksburg.com, re: an article in the issue of the newspaper entitled "Photographer of Auschwitz" (March 29, 2006, 12:50 am):

This photo was taken by Wilhelm Brasse while working at Auschwitz, where some 1.5 million people, mostly Jewish, died by the hand of the German government. AUSCHWITZ MUSEUM/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Associated Press is thus one such source of that version of the photograph re-copied, cropped (the captions are left out under the photographs), and uploaded to Wikipedia, then re-copied, downloaded, and uploaded to the blog (and so on). According to Google images, at <http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-34,GGLG:en&q=Wilhelm%20Brasse&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi> (cut and paste URL in browser, then click on each photographic image thumbnail), which hosts this particular image from the 2006 Fredericksburg newspaper and the 2007 TACSE blog post, copyrights still apply in such sources. (That is why the active link to all these images cannot be placed in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of an American newspaper publishing a photograph of the same photo from the Associated Press (using cropped out museum caption) while including the "KL Auschwitz" label on it, with a caption crediting the sources of the photograph as the Museum and the AP, shows that in the United States, there is still copyright protection for the publishers of the photographs in newspapers in print and online. The article on the subject of the image was created in 2006, the same year that this news was published in American (and other) newspapers. The insertion of this and other related versions of the photograph in the Wikipedia article originally can be found via the editing history for this article from 2006 until now. At some point in 2007, the blog (TACSE) (Edwards, one of the creators of Painting on the subject) downloaded the photograph from Wikipedia and put it in the blogpost. She and her collaborator (Schreiner) could actually have been inspired by any number of versions of this photograph, including the one featured in Wikipedia for which Edwards gives the Wikipedia article URL. She does not say how they first noticed the photograph or what version of it in what publication brought it to their attention. At various times between at least 2006 and 2008, more recently in 2008, "tomasmarec" began uploading his video compilations with the photograph stills and moving pictures in YouTube and other websites, and people have captured stills from it and posted them elsewhere on the internet. The various "original" sources of this particular version of the image (the uploader's) are just not clear or certain. --NYScholar (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC) [corrs. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC) & NYScholar (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

[Ed.: This statement is disputed by NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC): The still was initially captured from the uploaded YouTube video, whose source appears (at least in part) to be the televised documentary film. Furthermore, the downloading and copying of content from YouTube is prohibited by YouTube#Terms of service: See <http://www.youtube.com/t/terms> ("Terms of use").] The above statement by User:NYScholar however, is also disputed. The video was and is not reproduced here. Meanwhile, the PD mug-shot used by the videographer (without modifications) is copyright free, and therefore the mentioned terms of service are not applicable. [Ed.: The above statement by the uploader is further disputed by NYScholar (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC): The uploader has not clearly and unambiguously specified precisely what source s/he used to make this image that s/he uploaded to Wikipedia. What is her/his actual source for it and what actual source did her/his source use to make the photographic image that the uploader copied, downloaded, and then uploaded to Wikipedia? Claim of "PD" of this and photographs similarly uploaded by same uploader (inappropriately called "mug-shot") disputed as well both in Wikipedia and in Wikipedia Commons. This is a cropped version from a larger series of photographs that are interconnected, and the cropped version was made from as-yet still-unidentified source(s) uploaded to the internet by others in Webpages not identified.][reply]

---

[An anon. IP user deleted a proper template that had a time period in it w/o any authority to do so; the uploader is also advised: let this process work out and do not remove templates properly placed in the image in the article. See also: WP:3RR re: this matter. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

This version of the photograph was copied from a still image in the YouTube video uploaded at the URL <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaPiH75v9DU&feature=related>, as posted by "tomasmarec" in YouTube and elsewhere on the internet; the uploader of this version of the still, User:Poeticbent, edited the "tomasmarec" YouTube version further to make this version of the image before uploading it here. The YouTube video made by "tomasmarec" captures the photographs of Czesława Kwoka, exhibited in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland, possibly from television, possibly from elsewhere, but "tomasmarec" does not acknowledge or give any attribution or credit to any specific source of that material; based on source citations in the related Wikipedia articles, the source appears to be the copyrighted documentary film, The Portraitist, shown on TVP1, Poland, and distributed commercially and shown in Polish film festivals, in London, Canada, and elsewhere (See Wilhelm Brasse). Please note: the photograph of the concentration camp inmate does not originate with YouTube (nor its uploader) and is in Public Domain according to Polish copyright law. [Ed.: This statement is disputed by NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC): The still was initially captured from the uploaded YouTube video, whose source appears (at least in part) to be the televised documentary film. Furthermore, the downloading and copying of content from YouTube is prohibited by YouTube#Terms of service: See <http://www.youtube.com/t/terms> ("Terms of use").] The above statement by User:NYScholar however, is also disputed. The video was and is not reproduced here. Meanwhile, the PD mug-shot used by the videographer (without modifications) is copyright free, and therefore the mentioned terms of service are not applicable. [Ed.: The above statement by the uploader is further disputed by NYScholar (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC): The uploader has not clearly and unambiguously specified precisely what source s/he used to make this image that s/he uploaded to Wikipedia. What is her/his actual source for it and what actual source did her/his source use to make the photographic image that the uploader copied, downloaded, and then uploaded to Wikipedia? Claim of "PD" of this and photographs similarly uploaded by same uploader (inappropriately called "mug-shot") disputed as well both in Wikipedia and in Wikipedia Commons. This is a cropped version from a larger series of photographs that are interconnected, and the cropped version was made from as-yet still-unidentified source(s) uploaded to the internet by others in Webpages not identified.]

Moving all of the above to this talk page; the source was not clearly stated by uploader (as already said). An anonymous IP user cannot remove a template properly placed; will restore it as soon as can re-locate it. There is a time period of a week during which the template is required to remain, until acted upon properly (not improperly). No authority for an anon. IP user to delete or for the uploader to delete this template or those properly placed in the article page to which the image relates; will restore that as well. Uploader is strictly required not to delete the templates disputing the fairuse licenses or the need for permission (from the filmmaker and others (incl. Brasse, who has rights implied in the film as well) and the museum (which has copyrights as well to its own exhibits) which the YouTube user violated the copyright of repeatedly all over the internet and which this uploader repeats by copying the material (no matter how cropped) here. Not fair use. --NYScholar (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC) [added section heading above. --NYScholar (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

See same heading in talk page of Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg. Same here. Source: [1] (Fredericksburg, VA Free Lance-Star (2006); more in the other talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This photo was taken by Wilhelm Brasse while working at Auschwitz, where some 1.5 million people, mostly Jewish, died by the hand of the German government. AUSCHWITZ MUSEUM/ASSOCIATED PRESS":

From a letter to the editor by Dave Ludeker, Date published: 3/29/2006; place of publication, fredericksburg.com (see above URL):

See reference to article from same newspaper: "The Photographer of Auschwitz", with same photograph containing piece that has been uploaded here without the caption "AUSCHWITZ MUSEUM/ASSOCIATED PRESS"; some time near March 29, 2006 (note creation of the Wikipedia article on this little girl--2006) the Associated Press published this photograph. Then on 3/29/2006, as an illustration in the newspaper's publication of this letter, it published the 3-pose version, from which the single righthand pose was taken (by multiple uploaders w/o permission of publishers). To take that photograph from some other Website is a copyright violation and it is not within fair use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law to publish it in a GFDL-licensed article in Wikipedia; the procedure has nothing to do with "public domain" in Poland; see the links to the laws that I have already provided (via Wikipedia and ELs).

Please cite actual source used to make this version of the photograph uploaded to Wikipedia and please give its URL. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk)

It will take a while to find these documents, but here's a start, regarding painted portraits of Gypsy inmates; the Museum's statements regarding ownership of its exhibits and reiterating ownership rights re: what is in the exhibits (to whom they "belong" in terms of attempts to publish them w/o permission of the Museum) is of related interest.

[2] — ["Museum’s position on issue of portraits, made in Auschwitz Concentration Camp by Dinah Gottliebova-Babbitt on orders of SS doctor Josef Mengele"]

[3] — Photograph of first political prisoner from the "photo archives" of the Museum, with copyright notice at bottom of the page:

Copyright ©1999-2008 Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Poland

All such photographic images appear to be the property of the Museum, not in the public domain, as they were not published prior to 1994 (apparently); they are held in the photo archives and part of exhibits that change from time to time; that are not necessarily permanent exhibits. Still researching. --NYScholar (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] — Book relating to the particular photographs of political prisoners/inmates deported from the Zamosc: Note well: the photographs in this book were not published until 2004, according to the press release/book description of this book by Helena Kubica. The Wikipedia Commons photo said by its uploader to be taken at the museum (and since deleted for "copyright violation") was not taken until 2004. That is not in the "public domain" in Poland or in the U.S. Re: authorship and ownership of the material published in the copyright-protected book: Current copyright laws pertain to its contents: "The book also includes photographs, documents, and an appendix containing recollections by survivors. The author, Helena Kubica, is on the staff of the Historical Research Department at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. The book is published in cooperation with the National Remembrance Institute." --NYScholar (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[I will add related links [above] as time permits.] --NYScholar (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: Photographs held in archives by a museum are not "published" and in the public domain just by virtue of being part of a temporary or permanent exhibit. --NYScholar (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many museums prohibit the photographing of their exhibits. (e.g., the Nobel Museum. I haven't yet found an Web-based reference to the policy in the A-B State Museum re: photographing its exhibits and distribution of such photographs. Contemporary films like The Portraitist are governed by international and U.S. Copyright Laws. --NYScholar (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [5] and
• [6] — The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum exhibit from which this photograph comes (originally) is the exhibit for "Block 6"; see the photograph at the link, which partially shows the exhibit (which contains the photograph shown in the online sources, one or some of which were used by the uploader of this image and the other image of Czeslawa Kwoka. Note the copyright notice on the website page (same as on the earlier one). I'll check to see if it is possible to find the date when the photographic exhibit of Block 6 opened at the Museum. --NYScholar (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please respect the site: if one clicks on that sentence, one will see the pop-up icons, including:
• [7] — X-ed out camera and X-ed out video camera, indicating a prohibition against photographing "indoors" (its indoor exhibits) by both still and video photography. The image of Block 6 linked to above gives a credit to the Museum photographer, and the image has the copyright notice of the Museum on the Web page (already quoted above too): "Auschwitz I. Exhibition department. Photograph by Ryszard Domasik". --NYScholar (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the exhibition called "Block no. 6: Exhibition: The Life of the Prisoners" [accessible via this index: [8] cannot be photographed or videotaped by visitors to the museum, and any such video that may have been taken there is a violation of that prohibtion against such photography and videotaping. Any still photograph said to be made from any such YouTube video either from a person going to the museum and photographing or videotaping him/herself and/or capturing the video and/or stills from the film The Portraitist would be violating both the copyrights of the Museum to its own exhibits and the copyrights of filmmakers and others with rights established and registered in the films (videos/DVDs/film stock/etc.). --NYScholar (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [9] — This bulletin contains chronology of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, which indicates that the "permanent exhibit" including life in Block 6 appears to have started exhibition in 1955; it is not clear when the photographs were first exhibited (sim. chronology on the Museum's own website); but the prohibition against visitors taking photography inside (of any kind) of the exhibits is clear and existed in 2004. (Some online self-published photographs and videos show that people are violating that prohibition, but that does not make it right to do so, the materials are not in the "public domain" in Poland or in the U.S.)
  • See, e.g., the notice citing the prohibition against taking photographs inside at the following URL of a person's "tour" of the Museum, which, notably, has no photographs of Block 6, as he chose "to respect" the notice as per his own note: "Also, please note that - given the nature of the place - we were asked not to take photos inside the buildings, a request which I respected." (bold print added) [10]. --NYScholar (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The photographs of this little girl being credited to Wilhelm Brasse were taken in 1942 or 1943 in Auschwitz and not exhibited until later; they were not "published" in 1994; they appear in exhibits (unpublished and protected) made from the photo archives owned by the Museum, loaned to other museums with stipulations, and, the books that may include (some of) them, are copyrighted in 2004 and after that. --NYScholar (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The film about Brasse and his photographs at Auschwitz is copyrighted in 2005 in Poland, with reciprocal Berne copyright protection as U.S. is signatory of the Berne convention. --NYScholar (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added the sources to additional dev. in Wilhelm Brasse#The Auschwitz Photographs; the prohibition is clear. "Tomasmarec" and others who have violated the prohibition and then posted their videos and still photographs of "indoor exhibits" of the Museum (incl. Block no. 6, where these photos reside); or, even worse, in more than one case, stolen an image from the Museum's own webpage and inserted it into a video on YouTube and elsewhere, are breaching the Museum's own copyrights. --NYScholar (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In order to make film any of the Museum Memorial exhibit materials in The Portraitist, a commercial property, according to the Museum's explicit notice (quoted in note citation of the Brasse article sec. now), the filmmakers had to have "advance" permission to do so; Brasse's affiliation with the Museum is undoubtedly a basis on which the filmmakers would have been able to get such permission. --NYScholar (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Those YouTube videos (by "tomasmarec" and others) from which people take stills and upload them to other sites (including Wikipedia) violate the Museum's copyrights and the ownership rights of others with such rights in the indoor exhibit photographs. --NYScholar (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please mind Wikipedia: conflict of interest, and do not remove images from articles before this issue is resolved. --Poeticbent talk 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this section of the article on Brasse for the sources that establish the Museum's prohibition against visitors to the Museum using cameras (both still and video) in its indoor exhibits. These photographs taken from other Websites and made by people who did not have the permission to make and distribute them should not be placed in Wikipedia articles that feature GFDL-compatible licenses. Doing so is not within "fair use" and the images are not in the "public domain." That is a claim that has no evidence to support it. --NYScholar (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some photographs credited to Brasse are in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum's permanent exhibit in Block no. 6: The Life of the Prisoners.^[1] All visitors to the Museum are explicitly asked to respect the Site of the Death Camp and prohibited from using any cameras (both still and video) in all of its indoor exhibits.^[2]

--NYScholar (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Already replied to this there before seeing this comment; see my comments on your own talk page and on my talk page. There are still problems with the uploading of these images to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot removed the images from the article pages as it was triggered by the dates in the original template that I placed. That is the function of the templates. The uploader should not be altering the speedy deletion templates. Please find whatever dispute templates needed to place on the image page below the speedy deletion template as one wishes. This is the procedure for speedy deletion request template notices. The uploader needs to let the process work according to the template. Do not change the template that I have placed. Doing so is creating further problems. If an image has questionable copyright, it should not be in a Wikipedia article until and unless the problems are resolved. I did not use the "bot"; the bot operated independently of me. The image was deleted by the bot sometime before I noticed that. I have restored the bot's action; it should not have been reverted. --NYScholar (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., One is instructed to place {{hangon}} under the template one does not agree w/. (The bot deleted the images uploaded by the uploader from the article; then an anon. IP user deleted the templates and reverted the bot; the uploader and the anon. IP user have been adding the images deleted by the bot back into the article. I restored the bot's action last night (my time) and that was reverted again today (my time). Images with potential copyright violations marked by speedy deletion templates do not belong in a Wikipedia article according to the time frame of the speedy deletion template; they can be deleted by the date or before that by the bot. The only bot that I am familiar with is the one archiving my talk page. When the speedy deletion template is on an image page, a template indicating that is also placed in the image by the placer of the speedy deletion template. The uploader has been deleting those templates from the captions of the images. A bot deleted the image yesterday; that was reverted by an anon IP user's actions and/or the actions of the uplaoder. That is not how this process is supposed to work. The uploader is free to place a "hangon" template if he/she wishes. That is the procedure, as I understand it. --NYScholar (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provides additional information regarding photographs in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum Block no. 6 Exhibition: The Life of the Prisoners that Brasse "remembers" having taken and talks about in the film. Sources are posted in that section of the article. --NYScholar (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant in the editing summary by Piotrus by "irr"? All I can find is a redirected page from WP:IRR to Wikipedia:Image recreation requests, which is said to be obsolete. Please use clearer editing summary so that most readers can understand what is intended. I am not always familiar w/ all Wikipedia abbreviations used by administrators; am just an editor for over three years who has not encountered these initials before.  ???? --NYScholar (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus: Are you asking for a replacement for these 2 images uploaded to Wikipeda pertaining to the article on Kwoka? Kwoka died at the age of 14; the possibility of having actual free images of her is highly unlikely, and finding a photograph that does not have the same problems as the YouTube source that is actually free and capable of licensing with a GFDL-compatible license is also unlikely (acc. to research that I have done, with links posted above already and also on the talk page of the other image). What are you asking for? --NYScholar (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already indicated and explained that one of the images posted in the article on Kwoka appears the same as one credited to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and the Associated Press. Usually such articles are not free and not capable of being uploaded to Wikipedia or to Wikipedia Commons; they involve copyrights of those who have publication rights/ownership rights in them. They are parts of intellectual properties--especially with the Museum captions attached; perhaps that is why the AP version cut off the captions (as do many other online reprintings via cropping); many self-published online Websites and blogs, including YouTube, publish them illegally, it seems. --NYScholar (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Polish speakers/readers: There is some discussion of the "tomasmarec" YouTube videos (which are flagged by the way in YouTube, though comments are shut off there) which is in Polish and which I cannot understand. There may be more information claimed by TomasMarec about sources used to make the videos, but any such claims are highly unreliable, given the self-published nature of the source. Does not meet core policy in WP:V#Sources. --NYScholar (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see any reason why you hold to this mistaken belief. Is your issue that you think, without any present proof, that the image was taken from a YouTube video and you find that in violation of copyright or is you issue with the fact that the image was taken by a Polish photographer and is now in a Polish museum and neither has given permission to copy it? If it is the first, I'd like to see conclusive proof and not a hunch that it comes from a YouTube video and I dispute that it is a violation even if it does. If it is the second, neither museum nor photographer hold the copyright to the public image and I can cite both common sense and Polish law to support that. Regardless, your continued attempts to get the image deleted in a speedy fashion despite constant debate regarding the validity of deleteing it is vandalism and will be reported if you continue. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such "vandalism" by me: this comment violates WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Also, one cannot put another user's name in a talk page heading. See WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The discussion is about the status of an image, not users. --NYScholar (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to assume good faith when you have demonstrated that you are not acting in such. You are aware that your request for speedy deletion is contested and yet have not made any effort to open it to debate and have only continued to replace speedy deletion tags. I do thank you for mentioning that policy is to add the "hangon" template to such contested images but wonder why you never added it yourself or mentioned it earlier when it was contested by myself and others repeated. That is not good faith and the policy does not require delusion. This is not only in regards to the image but your vandalism of the image's page. I notice you did not address any of the issues above but only spouted a bunch of acronyms. Next time, come with arguements or you'll simply be reported and hopefully the rest of us can reach a consenus without your interference. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that none of the guidelines you've linked to mention that usernames should not be placed in talk page topics. This topic conerns your vandalism and only your vandalism as you're the only one doing any of it. - 67.166.132.47 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user needs to desist and consult WP:NPA and WP:AGF; the anon. IP user is violating Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines, which link to WP:NPA. I have deleted the inappropriate posting of my user name in this section heading again. I have also warned this user to stop posting these offensive false claims about my supposedly not editing in good faith etc. on my talk page. The user does not know what he or she is talking about. I edit in good faith. What content has this user contributed to the article on Kwoka? Examine the editing history. A bot deleted the image from the article and the user added it back in; then the user deleted the required templates from the captions and the uploader kept doing that as well. The image is properly templated and the template caption is properly in the image caption (or at least it was the last time I looked at it). Deleting properly placed templates from the image caption is vandalism. --NYScholar (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: IP user 67.166.132.47 has been blocked by administrator for vandalism. --NYScholar (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

I did warn you that I was using a public computer and that if you left messages to that IP it would very likely result in someone else getting them. You did, and your reward was a defaced page. Listen better next time. None of that matters since you've yet to address any of my valid points and only continue to make personal attacks, vandalize this page, and alternate (without proof of either) that this image is either from YouTube or that Nazi works can claim copyright in the US and/or Poland. Your continued vandalism is obviously being opposed by several users so if I were you Id give up on a speedy delete and actually try to convince some of us why it is that it should be deleted. - 32.159.18.101 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and have restored states:

Please remove this template if a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or a tag with an OTRS ticket number has been added.

Otherwise, it stays as is. It is a nomination for speedy deletion that I placed that others changed; I never stated any references to "public domain" in it; someone added it to that. I do not believe that this image (as created by the uploader from the materials used) is in the "public domain" in the United States or in Poland. See Polish copyright law and WP:Copyvio links to U.S. copyright law pertaining to Wikipedia policies for images in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed material added by another/others to the template that I did not write; and I've clarified information re: potential sources and/or owners (which were not initially identified or are even known with certainty) due to the copying of this image by the uploader from Website materials). --NYScholar (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference, here is the "Technical page", with credits and copyright notice, pertaining to the official Website and official publications of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, in Poland: "Technical page". --NYScholar (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on there claims copyright to the photographs which cannot be copyrighted under Polish law. - 32.159.214.148 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed. --NYScholar (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Czesława Kwoka#Historical contexts of photographs of Czesława Kwoka and source citations, References, and External links, and links to related Wikipedia articles placed in that article.

I still see nothing claiming copyright. You link me to text stating that the photos are the result of forced Nazi labor and were ordered to be destroyed. The text states they reside in a museum and that said museum requests the camp not be turned into a photo op. The external links all state the same story. Tell me why, rather than playing linking games, you think the Nazis, the photographer, or the museum own the rights to this image even when Polish law says they do not. The Nazi party no longer exists and could not claim rights if they did. The photographer was a prisoner and (even if by force) released his rights and did not place copyright notice on the photo both of which can be argued to remove his rights under Polish or US law, the museum created captions from public records and houses them but that does not grant them rights anymore than the Louvre can claim the rights to the Mona Lisa. On top of it all, the very reason this photographer risked his life to smuggle these photos is so that these people could be remembered as more than a statistic. Both law and creator's intent are against your interpretation - 32.155.37.76 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We perceive the matter differently. I've discussed this image and the other related images enough elsewhere. Please visit those other discussions linked via the templates and links in the image and image talk pages. There is no need for me to discuss it any further. --NYScholar (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a new user, please register and read the Wikipedia editing policies before commenting on these matters involving Wikipedia editing policy concerning media/images. The issues are related to policy and guidelines for media/images in Wikipedia and are not the product of my own "personal opinion" about the subject of the article(s) the images illustrate, as you seem to think. See the talkpage header for links above. Note well: Talk pages are not the place to discuss the subject of the article or [the subject of the] image; they are about editing the article [or image page]. Please visit the links provided in the talkpage header (if it's not here, I'll add it in a moment); the relevant policies for keeping images in Wikipedia are linked via the template notices in each image whose status is under dispute. Your comments can be made in those other specific image template discussion pages. I'm afraid I'm "talked out" on this matter of the image. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me you think speedy deleted based on your opinion are policy. Read it. It says that an image does not require permission if free, which these are. Failure to convince this community otherwise makes deleting this vandalism. Since you no longer wish to discuss deleting this image and are the only on looking to do so, I will give a small amount of time to present why this image is not free. If you haven't, I'll consider your attempts abandoned. - 32.156.179.113 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the above user has not already read all of the discussions about this: I've already explained and is just wasting my and others' time. Until the disputed status of these images is resolved, one way or the other, and in the meantime, the templates remain in the captions of these 2 images in this article. I am not involved in the resolution; I provided the information required by the templates. It is not my responsibility to respond any further to the anon. IP user or to anyone else re: this matter. I am ignoring further comments from an anon. IP user who will not read the discussions linked in the template notices on the image pages and from anyone else who will not read them before placing comments on this page. [Added bold print/brackets in previous comment for emphasis/clarity.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Images and Media for Deletion (listed by Nard): "speedy closed" by administrator, with directions to list also in PUIC, which has been done: See the template re: that. Nard's repeated deletion of templates already listed in administrative project pages is causing problems. Leave them alone, and they will be acted upon in due course. There are links to follow in all of them that contain related discussions. The administrator who speedy closed the discussion in the above project page observes that it appeared that Nard was attempting to compromise the other discussions already going on in WP:FUR/WP:NFR. Nard has no authority to delete templates that I placed; they are listed and have links to related discussions by various editors and administrators in some cases and remain part of the discussion of this image (and the other one uploaded by Poeticbent. Such repeated deletion of the templates appears to be vandalism; I hope that it is inadvertent vandalism. After this warning it will appear as intentional vandalism and undermining of the review of this and the other image. (At least that's how it will appear.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the articles on Czesława Kwoka, Wilhelm Brasse, and The Portraitist; the External links sections now include a link to a YouTube video clip from the film, Portrecista (2005) (The Portraitist), as broadcast on TVP1, in Poland, on January 1, 2006, in which Wilhelm Brasse shows his photographs, including the three poses (in the original separate photographs) of Kwoka, and discusses these photographs of Kwoka. It is thus established without doubt that he is the photographer who took these photographs of Kwoka. I do not know how this information affects how the photographs uploaded by Poeticbent (and Nard) and/or others to Wikipedia and/or Wikipeda Commons are described on their image pages and how this information affects the possibities for "fair use rationales" or "licensing" or copyright or public domain in Poland or public domain the United States notices and/or claims. I leave that decision up to Wikipedia administrators with experience in copyright issues who have knowledge of how to license and upload such media in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus, on the basis of potential copyright violations, these external links have now been deleted from all three articles. --NYScholar (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of viewing this and other video clips from the film, it appears to me that one would assign a "publication" date to the images of Kwoka as 2005 (the date of the film); the film is a copyrighted commercial property in Poland and, by virtue of the Berne convention to which the U.S. is a signatory, in the United States. I do not know how that affects the copyright status and/or fair use provision exceptions to copyright law in the United States; however, such exceptions regarding copies of films pertain to personal use not public distribution on the internet. The copyright/fair use/public domain in the U.S. claims for this and related images based on Brasse's photographs of Kwoka and on their exhibition by the Museum in its much larger series of photographs still seem complex to me, but, again, I leave that decision about whether or not and how to upload these images and how to present the image pages up to Wikipedia administrators with experience in copyright issues who have knowledge of how to license and upload such media. --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comment of 22:43. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]