Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oberländer,Ludwig Friedrich Heringen.jpg

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:Oberländer,Ludwig_Friedrich_Heringen.jpg

Looks like a scan (COM:DW ?) - I'm not all that good at German, can't tell for sure what the situation is and if uploader has the right to release it under CC-license. –Krinkle^talk 19:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Keep - uploader's mother-in-law had owned this ink drawing; uploader has the right to publish this under any license he wants. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to keep this file. I could scan a filmposter hanging in a room of my mother's house, but no way that's going to live long as "Own work" on Commons. –Krinkle^talk 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is oploader's own work in the sense that he is its sole owner and in the sense that he digitized it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Keep - The original of the Indian ink drawing is my property and older than 200 years. Ludwig Friedrich Oberländer was a direct ancestor of my deceased husband.--GFHund (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how the rights were transferred to you. ZooFari 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in that case it could be {{PD-old}}, but certainly not {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. –Krinkle^talk 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploader inherited the ink drawing. If it was never published, he has publication rights and can license it any way he wants. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The ink drawing is an unikat, which is inherited (in the family) to son, to daughter, to son, to daughter, to daughter, to daughter, to husband (the uploader).--GFHund (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is the first publication of this over 200 years old image, the publisher (i.e. the uploader) has editio princeps publication right in Germany for 25 years after publication and of course can choose to publish it under a free license, e.g. CC-BY-SA or GNU-FDL. If it is the first publication, pd-old would be wrong, as in this case it's not PD in Germany and probably the whole EU. If it was published before (more than 25 years ago), it is pd-old, but only in this case. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep Anyway there is no reason for deletion. -- smial (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 KeepYes, that's true - probably it is indeed the first publication, so the licensing by the owner and uploader is correct. If it weren't correct, then it would be pd-old and still could be kept. But the image description should be improved. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)