Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GFHund

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.

Files uploaded by GFHund (talk · contribs) 1

[edit]

The permission cited for these files excludes commercial use and is not acceptable for Commons or Wikipedia.

Rosenzweig τ 04:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from talk page

Martin Storz gab Dr. Ullrich Löchner die Erlaubnis, Bilder seines Vaters Friedrich Löchner nach Wikipedia zu bringen. Entsprechende Telefonate und E-Mails wurden geführt bzw. geschrieben. Ullrich Löchner bat mich, einige dieser Bilder nach Commons hochzuladen. Heute früh schrieb ich beide wegen des aufgetretenen Problems an. Sohn Ullrich kehrt jedoch erst in etwa 10 Tagen von einer Reise aus den USA zurück. Reicht die Zeit aus, um eine allseits befriedigende Lösung zu finden? --GFHund (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of transfer

Ich denke schon. Der Löschantrag kann nach 7 Tagen entschieden werden, man kann aber auch länger warten. Und auch wenn die Bilder gelöscht werden sollten, sind sie nicht wirklich weg, sondern können von jedem Admin wiederhergestellt werden, wenn eine ausreichende Genehmigung vorliegt. Ich bitte den entscheidenden Admin (wer auch immer das sein wird) im Anschluss auf Englisch, etwas mit der Entscheidung zu warten. --Rosenzweig τ 15:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@deciding admin: The uploader has asked for some time, two weeks or so, to get a sufficient permission that includes commercial use from the author. Please wait before deciding this DR, if possible. Thank you. --Rosenzweig τ 15:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see is this simply wrong. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

--Jörgens.Mi Talk 12:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the file descriptions, the uploader is not the author of these images. The author gave the uploader permission to upload them, but excluded commercial use, as cited in the decriptions: Am 07. März 2013 sandte Martin Storz an Dr. Ulrich Löchner, der sie an mich weiterleitete, folgende Erlaubnis: "ich erteile Ihnen die Erlaubnis, alle Fotos, die ich von ihrem Vater am 24.04.2007 in Heilbronn gemacht habe, zeitlich und räumlich unbegrenzt zu nutzen. Davon ausschließen möchte ich eine kommerzielle bzw. werbliche Nutzung. Urheberangabe: Martin Storz". Martin Storz/Graffiti, Senefelderstr. 19 A, D-70178 Stuttgart So any cc-by-sa license bestowed upon the images (by the uploader?) is not ok with the author, it seems. --Rosenzweig τ 14:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Please email COM:OTRS with the permissions email attached to get these restored FASTILY 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by GFHund (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

I had initially tagged these files as derivative works with no source inidicated. Starting a regular DR as a courtesy to the uploader to allow all the time needed for review.

Withdrawn nominations
  •  Weak keep This most definitely looks like an image from far back in the 19th century, judging by the style of the clothing and the photograph, so it is most likely quite a lot older than 120 years and would be eligible for {{PD-old-assumed}}; but as there is not even an approximate date given (only the upload date), it's a bit harder to confidently vote for keeping it. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change licensing to {{PD-old-assumed}}. Per life dates in the image, Marie Schneidewind was born in 1851 and she looks young in this photograph (maybe taken for her wedding in 1872?), so it must be older than 120 years. The added hand-written text with life dates is below the threshold of originality. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Unsure Although this is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, it contains also a photograph with unclear provenance / licensing status. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, so the uploader most likely either has the rights to release it under a free license, or it could be seen as not copyrightable to begin with. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, so the uploader most likely either has the rights to release it under a free license, or it could be seen as not copyrightable to begin with. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, so the uploader most likely either has the rights to release it under a free license, or it could be seen as not copyrightable to begin with. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, so the uploader most likely either has the rights to release it under a free license, or it could be seen as not copyrightable to begin with. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, so the uploader most likely either has the rights to release it under a free license, or it could be seen as not copyrightable to begin with. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Unsure Although this is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, it contains also a photograph with unclear provenance / licensing status. Photograph could be cropped out, I suppose. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Unsure Although this is from the uploader's own website teleschach.de (has a copyright notice by himself), and it's mostly a simple table of data, it contains also a photograph with unclear provenance / licensing status (it's stated that the photo is "im Besitz", that is owned, by Gerhard Hund, but not who took it). Photograph could be cropped out, I suppose. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The description still doesn't actually mention who the original author of the photograph is. But as you told me on my German Wikipedia talk page that Hugo Schneidewind (not the author, but the depicted person) died in 1900, the photo must be older than 120 years. Keep and change licensing to {{PD-old-assumed}} Gestumblindi (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The description still doesn't actually mention who the original author of the photograph is. But as you told me on my German Wikipedia talk page that Hugo Schneidewind (not the author, but the depicted person) died in 1900, the photo must be older than 120 years. Keep and change licensing to {{PD-old-assumed}} Gestumblindi (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The description still doesn't actually mention who the original author of the photograph is. But as you told me on my German Wikipedia talk page that Hugo Schneidewind (not the author, but the depicted person) died in 1900, the photo must be older than 120 years. Keep and change licensing to {{PD-old-assumed}} Gestumblindi (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change licensing to PD-old-auto with parameter deathyear=1902. A letter written by Karl Zangemeister who died in 1902. As this seems to come from the uploader's own family archive and is published here first by the uploader, it is also in the public domain in the US per the Hirtle chart (unpublished work by a known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of the author). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep and change licensing to {{PD-old-auto-expired |deathyear=1553}} This is a reproduction of a 19th century photograph of a 16th century (1527) painting of Hans Luther. It's by Lucas Cranach the Elder who died in 1553, so it couldn't be more clearly in the public domain. Although there are other versions in Category:Hans Luther (father of Martin Luther), I think it may be worth keeping that one, too, as none of the other files has a really good resolution, e.g. File:Hans-Luther.jpg, although in color and better looking, is only 600 x 800. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change licensing to {{Licensed-PD |1=PD-old |2=CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. Per description, this was painted around 1801. As it is apparently the uploader's own photograph taken (with an iPhone 7, as others of his photographs) of the framed image owned by himself, CC-BY-SA-4.0 still applies for the photograph of the three-dimensional object. (In this case, I suggest "PD-old" and not "PD-old-assumed", as per the documentation on {{PD-old-assumed}}: "Please use {{PD-old}} or {{PD-old-auto}} (...) if the work was created more than 190 years ago by an unknown author (...)" Gestumblindi (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change licensing to {{Licensed-PD |1=PD-old-assumed |2=CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. For the original picture, I assume PD-old, as the person depicted died in 1850, and it seems to be a Silhouette portrait made during his lifetime, as it was popular in the 18th and 19th century. So it must be older than 120 years. As it is apparently the uploader's own photograph taken (with an iPhone 7, as others of his photographs) of the framed image owned by himself, CC-BY-SA-4.0 still applies for the photograph of the three-dimensional object. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change licensing to {{Licensed-PD |1=PD-old-assumed |2=CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. For the original picture, I assume PD-old, as the person depicted died in 1849, and it seems to be a Silhouette portrait made during her lifetime, as it was popular in the 18th and 19th century. So it must be older than 120 years. As it is apparently the uploader's own photograph taken (with an iPhone 7, as others of his photographs) of the framed image owned by himself, CC-BY-SA-4.0 still applies for the photograph of the three-dimensional object. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change licensing to {{Licensed-PD |1=PD-old-assumed |2=CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. For the original picture, I assume PD-old, as the person depicted died in 1831, and it seems to be a Silhouette portrait made during her lifetime, as it was popular in the 18th and 19th century. So it must be older than 120 years. As it is apparently the uploader's own photograph taken (with an iPhone 7, as others of his photographs) of the framed image owned by himself, CC-BY-SA-4.0 still applies for the photograph of the three-dimensional object. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change licensing to {{Licensed-PD |1=PD-old-assumed |2=CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. For the original picture, I assume PD-old, as the person depicted died in 1823, and it seems to be a Silhouette portrait made during his lifetime, as it was popular in the 18th and 19th century. So it must be older than 120 years. As it is apparently the uploader's own photograph taken (with an iPhone 7, as others of his photographs) of the framed image owned by himself, CC-BY-SA-4.0 still applies for the photograph of the three-dimensional object. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The description still doesn't actually mention who the original author of the photograph is. But as you told me on my German Wikipedia talk page that Hugo Schneidewind (not the author, but the depicted person) died in 1900, the photo must be older than 120 years. Keep and change licensing to {{PD-old-assumed}} Gestumblindi (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Etliche sind Fotos. Sind jedoch schwer von Postkarten zu unterscheiden. Ich bewahre diese noch etwas auf, aber spätestens bei meinem Tod landen sie im Müll. Weiteres siehe bei meiner Bemerkung zum Foto des Sohnes von Erika Meyer. Erst verlor sie ihren Sohn, später ihre Tochter Wendula, die sich das Leben nahm, kurz nach Geburt ihres Sohnes Allart. Meine Frau Juliane war das einzige Kind, was ihr blieb. --GFHund (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Auch besitze ich die original Photo-Negative meiner Schwiegermutter zu verschiedenen Städten wie, Posterstein, Schleusingen, Bettmar, Aken, Stolberg, Stadtilm, Heringen.--GFHund (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ebenfalls die Originale antiker Ölgemälde fand ich in den vielen Kisten des Nachlasse meiner Schwiegermutter. Jedoch habe ich noch nicht alle Kisten durchsucht. Es gibt da Ordner mit original Abschriften der Pastoren aus Kirchenbüchern. Da über mehrere Generationen nur ein Mädchen Nachkommen hatte, landeten sämtliche Dokumente in Volkenroda, auch eine originale Kopie von Luthers Testament. Der Nachlass reicht bis zu den Eltern von Martin Luther, in dessen Familie einer ihrer Vorfahren aufwuchs.--GFHund (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak delete Looks like a portrait by a professional photographer (there's something embossed to the lower right, can't read it, might be their signature?), so GFHund's mother-in-law (the mentioned source) probably didn't own the copyright. Only "weak delete" because the person in the picture died at the end of World War II ("starb Ende des 2. Weltkrieges"), so if the photographer were anonymous (it's a possibility, though the embossing suggests otherwise), it could be {{PD-anon-70-EU}} Gestumblindi (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
zeigt meinen Arbeitsplatz. Ich besitze jede Menge Fotoalben und Schachteln, die mir meine Schwiegermutter hinterließ. Sie ist eine Nachfahrin von Lucas Cranach der Ältere und hat viele Bilder selber gezeichnet. Außerdem wird etliches für vorhandene Artikel verwendet.--GFHund (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe das Foto Ottokar von meiner Schwiegermutter geerbt, die erst mehr als 20 Jahre nach Ende des 2. Weltkrieges starb. Das Foto ist heute immer noch in meinem Besitz. Ich besitze sehr viele Kisten mit ihrem Nachlass, die ich nicht einfach in den Müll schmeißen will. Ob ich vor meinem Tod (zur Zeit bin ich 89 Jahre alt) es schaffe, alles abzuarbeiten, weiß ich nicht. --GFHund (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GFHund: Ich habe grösstes Verständnis für den Wunsch nach Bewahrung. Mein im letzten Jahr verstorbener Vater war zwei Jahre jünger als Du und ich bin auch jemand, der versucht, Orte zu finden, an denen man Dokumente aus der Familie sinnvoll unterbringen kann, eben nicht "auf den Müll schmeissen". Aber Wikimedia Commons eignet sich in solchen Fällen höchstens für eine limitierte Auswahl des Materials: Nämlich Bilder, die einerseits zumindest einen potentiellen edukativen Zweck haben, andererseits aber auch urheberrechtlich den hiesigen Richtlinien entsprechen. Und das ist bei Fotos aus Familienalben etc. leider oft nicht der Fall, weil sich dadurch, dass man ein Foto physisch im Besitz hat, nicht ergibt, dass man die Urheberrechte daran hat und es freigeben kann. Wenn wir dieses Beispiel nehmen: Ich habe oben angesprochen, dass es so aussieht, als habe das Foto ein Profi-Fotograf gemacht. Die Rechte an solchen Fotografien sind normalerweise nicht an den Auftraggeber gegangen, sondern lagen weiterhin beim Fotografen, und dann für 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod bei seinen Erben. Wir müssten hier also wissen, wer der Fotograf war, und ob er vor mehr als 70 Jahren gestorben ist... - Ich habe selber durchaus interessante Fotos aus Familienbesitz, die z.B. die Stadt Basel in den 1930er Jahren zeigen, aber ich weiss, dass ich die Rechte daran nicht habe, also lade ich sie nicht hoch. Das ist zu bedenken. Vielleicht gibt es ja irgendeine Institution, die an diesem Familienarchiv interessiert wäre? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ich gab früher bereits viele Dinge an das Museum im Schloss Heringen. Dort wohnten Vorfahren meiner Töchter. Wegen Corona konnte ich nicht nach Heringen fahren, vielleicht später einmal. Im Artikel zum Schloss zu sehende Bilder stammen von mir.--GFHund (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GFHund: Das Medaillon sieht ziemlich alt aus. Weisst Du, wann es ungefähr gemalt wurde? Ist es wohl älter als 120 Jahre? Dann könnten wir es behalten (gerne das ungefähre Jahr in der Beschreibung ergänzen). Gestumblindi (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vieles kann man meiner Ahnenforschung zu den Familien Meyer und Hund entnehmen, wie den nachfolgenden Kindern von Carl Friedrich Schneidewind (1802/1889): Anna, Friedrich, Emil, Alfred, Max, Edmund, Otto und Hugo. Auf dieser meiner Webseite gibt es viele Links zu Einzelheiten. wie den Nachkommen von Ludwig Bernhard Schneidewind (1735/1790).
Fritz Baumbach schenkte mir das Buch.--GFHund (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GFHund: Es geht hier um die Gestaltung des Buchumschlags. Diese ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Der Verfasser eines Buchs hat die Rechte an Umschlag-Abbildungen normalerweise nicht (sondern der Verlag), und selbst wenn Fritz Baumbach diese Rechte hätte, hat er sie Dir nicht übertragen, indem er Dir das Buch als physisches Exemplar geschenkt hat. Du kannst also dieses Bild nicht unter einer freien Lizenz hier hochladen. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep
  •  Delete this and the following 10 files starting with "Plakat ..." except one (will vote separately there), as these are all posters for chess events designed by various artists with photos, graphics etc. of unclear copyright status. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep This poster might be simple enough to lack copyright protection. Short, simple text advertising a chess event with location, date and terms of participation, no particular graphic design. Might be a borderline case. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Racconish 💬 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Copying from my comment on User talk:GFHund (in response to the original tagging):
The individual cases seem to be quite different and merit individual discussions. For example, the file you listed first, File:Todesanzeige Anna 1903 Sangerhausen.jpg, is a very conventional death notice for which it can be argued that it it is {{PD-text}}, as the short text announcing the death of Anna Schneidewind in 1903 contains no original content, it's following the "boilerplate" for such a notice, thus doesn't meet the threshold of originality. File:Confirmanden 1879 Schlosskirche Hannover.jpg is a similar case, merely a list of candidates for confirmation without original authorship (if one were to argue that the decorative border could be copyrighted, I would say that, as it's from 1879, we could use {{PD-old-assumed}} for that part, but that's taking it a bit far IMHO). File:Brief Wilhelm an Gustav 1861.jpg, a letter from 1861, is most certainly in the public domain. Some photographs might be works by GFHund or his late wife (you have seen his user page and the link to the Wikipedia article about him there?).
Meanwhile, Ralf Roletschek has already removed the tag from File:Todesanzeige Anna 1903 Sangerhausen.jpg and I changed the license there to {{PD-text}}, so I think the case of this particular file is closed. Given GFHund's age (see his userpage!), it's plausible that photos e.g. from the 1950s from the estate of his late wife which were uploaded as "own work" might have been taken indeed by himself, or his wife (and inherited with the rights by him), but some confirming statement might be needed. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Info to the admin who will close this some day: Please note also the now collapsed list "Withdrawn nominations" at the top (mostly my arguments for keeping, then withdrawn by the nominator Racconish), as similar reasons might apply for part of the still open deletion requests. Given the sheer amount of uploads, however, I feel that I have done enough here and will refrain from checking more of these files individually. It's a difficult case. There are files that seem quite clear cases for deletion, others that seem quite clearly to be PD, and borderline cases... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and research deleted most of them. Those indicated to be kept were kept, in addition I could keep some which are imho in PD. Some are listed in undelete categories. I hope this beautiful digital archive can be stored in another safe place. --Ellywa (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by GFHund (talk · contribs) 3

[edit]

Previously nominated but not included in the lists above, revised the date for later review:

  • File:Turnier DDEM-1949o.pdf - Gerard Hund is shown on the photo from 1949. It is not clear who made this photo or whether the photo has been published before, anonymously or with a name. So this is copyrighted and the image should be deleted. Can safely be undeleted 120 years after 1949 = 2070.

Ellywa (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Ellywa (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meine Antwort hierzu: ==> Das File:Turnier DDEM-1949o.pdf erstellte ich aufgrund meiner eigenen Webseiten Teleschach. Siehe hierzu zum Beispiel Deutsche Meisterschaften der Frauen: [[1]]. Das abgebildete Foto machte ein Beauftragter des Deutschen Schachbundes. --GFHund (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Unless the photographer died within two years after the photo was made, the photo is still copyrighted. --Rosenzweig τ 09:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by GFHund (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Derivative work without permission for original work

Wdwd (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. If there is some kind of permission as alluded to in some file descriptions, it's not properly documented. The Edelmann image can be restored 70 years pma in 2080. --Rosenzweig τ 16:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_GFHund&oldid=660080462"