Hosta

Delete because these files are not really free enough for Commons due to the restriction on derivative works. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags (kept three years ago), Commons:Deletion requests/Image:George Grosz, Café.jpg (deleted almost two years ago and restored five days later), Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Curd Juergens 2.jpg (deleted almost two years ago), and Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG (deleted yesterday).   — Jeff G. ツ 03:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified (everyone who contributed to those discussions of Deletion requests) of this discussion and tagged all of the named templates and categories.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Some restrictions on derivative works don't really make the files non-free. We have a lot of such restrictions -- you can't make crop of de minimis photo, you can't recreate a building or sculpture from a FOP-photo in 3D, you can't create a DW from different non-compatible share-alike free pictures (GFDL and CC-BY-SA), and so on. Trycatch (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Trycatch (and there is no need to notify me of DRs). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Trycatch has given more reasons then needed, I think NobbiP talk 07:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The license is perfectly ok. Of course there can always be additional restrictions like trademarks, derivative works, etc.. But still the license is ok and can be used. Please speedy keep. --ALE! ¿…? 11:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete ALE!, there can't be restrictions against derivative works. That's what Free Content means. And there's no meaningful derivative works that can be done with these stamps, so they aren't by the remotest stretch free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep see Trycatch and ALE! (My English is not so good unfortunately that I can supply a reason here) kandschwar (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The reason for deletion is not sufficiant. German stamps are official works which should not be changed. For instance: If someone changes a document of a century ago that will be a fake. --Gudrun Meyer (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Trycatch, and I note that bringing up the same issue over and over starts to look more like troublemaking than a good-faith effort. Stan Shebs (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags. When I felt the result of that request was not in the best interests of the WMF, I created File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG as a test case (and because I believed that file would find lasting use in our encyclopedic projects). When I found out that file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG, I started this request, basically to reconsider Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags. I believe it is naive to assume that we can ignore the insufficient freedom of these German stamp works under German law, and that if we do so, it will be to the detriment of the WMF, so I have requested that the WMF Legal Team comment.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. There is no legal problem for the WMF. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Trycatch, why would you need to crop a stamp image? If you need it, then look for another free image.--Steveurkel (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per ALE!, Trycatch and Gudrun Meyer. There is no reason for deleting all the german stamps. --Mogelzahn (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Government work, therefore not copyrightable. However it's in the nature of the thing that you can't make derivative works... whoelse than the state-owned post can sell stamps? --Matthiasb (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No reason for deletion - the only use that is not allowed is as stamps. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Alle Jahre wieder wird die selbe Sau durch den Ort getrieben. Ist das hier eine Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme? --ST ○ 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: Over and over again the the same story. Is this a Job creation program? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Works with ND restrictions are NOT ALLOWED ON COMMONS, per Commons:Licensing. To argue this is a free work is absurd. If I understand the arguments at places like [1] correctly, the natural author retains his copyright interest in the artwork, but there exists a license to publish the work if the stamp border remains. So you end up with a supposedly "free" work that consists of 90% or more of an All Rights Reserved copyrighted work, and a license to publish said work if you don't change anything. Not free enough for Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an ND restriction, you can create DWs from the stamps, though with some limitations. Trycatch (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, till next time :-) -jkb- (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete the reasoning for these have always been dubious; they should not be allowed on commons, nor on wikipedias. It essentially comes down to fair use. --rtc (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep bis zum nächsten Mal. ND ist auch in anderen Fällen (z. B. Porträts) gegeben. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep see Trycatch and ALE! --Laibwächter (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Trycatch. --Ekki01 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  KeepIt is free enough for Wikipedia, see Trycatch and ALE, with the same Discussion it would be prohibited to show money on Wikipedia, since it is not allowed to Print it out! Neozoon (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I dodn't see any problems. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Derivative works are not prohibited in this case. It is just undesirable to change the image of a postage stamp to the extent that it would cease to appear as a stamp (which is in PD as an official work of the German Government) and would be easily taken for a stamp essay or a drawing by the artist (stamp designer). Why so? Only because it would be difficult to prove in the courts (should the need arise) that we have used the actual uncopyrightable postage stamp, and not the copyrighted original artist's painting. So, yes, you can make a derivative work, no problems, if you are confident that you are able to prove the point in the courts. Now, what are main appearances of a postage stamp? Perforation, inscriptions and borders are sure marks, of course. And that's it! That's the logic. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) To sum up, you can make any DW, if you can demonstrate that it is based on a free image of a stamp, and not on some other image which is copyrighted. That's true for all DWs. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true; it is desirable to crop a postage stamp to get to the image it's displaying in many cases. And it's trivial to prove that we took a particular image file and cropped off parts of it. But still, Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG was deleted, even though it's obvious that came from a cropping of the stamp.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Trycatch already gave the most important reasons. Additionally I dont't believe in radical ideas that every file we present has to be absolutely free in every context and every country of this planet, free to be changed in any way you want. There are many restrictions concerning personal rights, political censorship, trademarks, specific laws of different countries and so on. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how we change this image at all, in any country in the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep everything has been said. --Jodo (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Trycatch. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]