Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Hermann Ludwig von Reuter.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hans Hermann Ludwig von Reuter.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as no license. Well there is a {{PD-1923}}, but a license for its likely homecountry Germany is missing. JuTa 07:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The source seems to have a photographer (Phot: Alb King, Wilhelmshaven?), but my knowledge of German is insufficient for me to do any research. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Ring, not King. (Unfortunately that combination of names also turns up a lot of irrelevant hits regarding male piercings.) Seems to have been an atelier located on Marktstraße 27 in Wilhelmshaven. Haven't been able to narrow down the timeframe. β€”LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Β Comment

  • The author died in 1943, so it's life plus 70 for the book.
  • Printed by Drud Und Verlag Von Breitkopf & Hartel, Leipzig in 1921.
  • Registered in the United States to: Copyright R. F. Roehler, Leipzig (for the purpose of distribution in the US, I assume), so PD-1923 is correct (printed or registered)
  • A thorough search was made, however the photographer was not identified despite all guesses how his name is correctly spelled; he is not articulated anywhere else in the book, so this is a pseudonymous published photographic work -- for Germany publication plus 50.
  • Last but not least, I put my trust into Google's "sharks and lawyers", they always cut out images from google books if they have any doubt.--Taterian (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a photographer with a known name and address and identified with a byline is not what is meant by pseudonymous or anonymous publication. β€”LX (talk, contribs) 10:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we've traveled that road before, and nothing did pop up, just guesses. Make no mistake, when you produce a photographer and his work, you'll really make my day. Also, there is no copyright mark in that byline and in those good ole' times you had to register your copyright. However, I see that you are hellbent to strike this particular boche out, no objections, you can have it, if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. For others, if Google lets an image stay in the book that they fully upload up the net (we are not talking about snippets here), it's kosher certified. --Taterian (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"𝕻𝖍𝖔𝖙. 𝕬𝖑𝖇. π•½π–Žπ–“π–Œ, π–‚π–Žπ–‘π–π–Šπ–‘π–’π–˜π–π–†π–›π–Šπ–“" from the byline here is clearly the same as "Albert Ring, Wilhelmshaven, Marktstr. 27." on this postcard. That's not a pseudonym by any accepted definition of the word. Copyright registration and copyright notice formalities as a requirement of copyright are a US thing, so not relevant to copyright in the source country. β€”LX (talk, contribs) 07:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You made my day, thank you, you can have it, but as a good digital citizen you now acquired a moral obligation to send a take-down notice to a provider hosting that particular Google book since there might be a chance that this Alb. Ring/Albert Ring lived past 1949. Please keep researching. --Taterian (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I put an image for deletion, I was accused of being a deletionist. So, I'll play the devil's advocate this time and pronounce that Google Books department has lawyers who diligently check legality of every book (including images in it) before it gets uploaded in toto on the internet. They are in business, and know how to run it without loosing money, and this book, which has an image under review, was registered in the United States before 1924. But I would like to express my admiration for the excellent LX's sleuth job as he left everybody in the dust! Now I wonder if that particular postcard with sailors can be uploaded, as I have a soft spot in my heart for seamen; who does not dream about running to the sea and sailing around the world. Best regards, --Taterian (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was to call out your BS claim that the author was not identified and to provide the correct name of the author. You're going to need that if you're ever going to establish a valid PD rationale. So maybe drop the snarkasm, stop trying to make this about me being the bad guy, and focus on doing what you should have done before uploading? I'm done here. β€”LX (talk, contribs) 06:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BS claim? You think that you whopped me? You just whipped your own arse in front of, please let me count, at least 50 spectators, not bad for a deletion request. Have a nice day. --Taterian (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: A Google Books search says Albert Ring became a photographer "Meister" (master craftsman) in 1919. Assuming he was in his late twenties at that time (a common age to become a "Meister"), he easily could have lived well beyond 1948, and his photographs would still be protected by German Urheberrecht. So I'm deleting this file per the precautionary principle, as well as the variant File:WP Ludwig von Reuter.jpg and the then-empty Category:Albert Ring, Wilhelmshaven. --Rosenzweig Ο„ 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hans_Hermann_Ludwig_von_Reuter.jpg&oldid=386843675"