File talk:WernervonBülowsWorldRuneClock.JPG

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles

Occult

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles

World Rune Clock[edit]

Hello again Evil Spartan, and thanks for updating the Gorsleben image and getting it on to Commons.

I also notice that you've tagged Image:WernervonBülowsWorldRuneClock.JPG for deletion. I'm pretty certain I know Robert Prenic's source for this one. The identical image of Bülow's 'world-rune-clock' is reproduced in the same book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (again: The Occult Roots of Nazism, 1985, ISBN 0-85030-402-4), and the single reference to it in the text is sourced to Gorsleben's book Hoch-Zeit der Menschheit (Leipzig, 1930), p.328f., which therefore seems to be where the clock design was published.

Bülow died in 1947 so if copyright applies, it should expire in 2017, but it isn't clear from the text whether he published the clock earlier some place else, in which case it might qualify as public domain on other grounds. Or fair use perhaps? Bülow designed the 'clock' (actually, a diagram of correspondences) to be used, which means widely distributed, among Germanic mystics so there's a doubt in my mind whether copyright status would be appropriate.

I'm not sure if any of that helps, but I'd hate to lose the image, as I would have liked to use it to illustrate Germanic mysticism and I think there may be genuine grounds for a benefit-of-the-doubt reprieve until somebody more expert than myself has checked into its earliest publication date and copyright status more thoroughly.

I do wish that Robert Prenic would defend his images, but then, I'm not very sure myself about how to enter the source information on to the image's page or whether I'm entitled to do so on somebody else's behalf.

I'm going to post this on both your own talk page and the image talk page, so feel free to reply in whichever place you think best. Gnostrat 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]