In today's world, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anschlusstears.jpg has become a topic of increasing interest to people of all ages and backgrounds. Whether due to its impact on society, its historical relevance or its influence on popular culture, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anschlusstears.jpg has captured the attention of millions of people around the world. In this article, we will explore the importance of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anschlusstears.jpg in depth, analyzing its evolution over time and examining its impact on different aspects of everyday life. From its emergence to its current relevance, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anschlusstears.jpg has much to offer in terms of reflection and understanding of the world around us.
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 , 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."
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 thisBleh99921:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
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.--Pharos02:21, 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.--Pharos18:06, 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) Bleh99920:24, 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?--Pharos21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly the Department of Defense has the same photograph on their 'war and conflict' collection
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 are the department of defense wrong too?Bleh99921:43, 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. --Dschwen12:25, 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. Bleh99914:47, 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.--Pharos05:20, 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?Bleh99907:41, 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 moreBleh99923:01, 7 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.--Pharos04:08, 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 - talk15:54, 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
I have to admit, the fact that the photograph was (perhaps deceptively) cropped does lessen its encyclopedic value... Bleh99905:43, 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. Calliopejen108:34, 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 Bleh99909:01, 21 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)
