Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

< Commons:Undeletion requests

Current requestsEdit

File:Coat of arms of Cook Islands.svgEdit

See also [1]. Looking for an alternative depiction of that image, I found that the image the SVG is based on does not come originally from [2], but it was instead taken from [3] (for proof, see Images from NGW are very commonly used here, although NGW does not appply a specific licence to its images.--Antemister (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are not uploads by Copyviol

Are not randomly extracted images the copyright of the following images is correct (ANSWERED FILES),,, Can you explain what is the problem of images? They only deal with portraits, photographs and paintings of various times, why then? -- 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Inglehart Values Map2.svgEdit

This image consists of publicly available statistical data from World Value Survey, plotted on an x and y axis. While there are some labels and groupings, they are simple enough that they should not be copyrightable; further this image was not copied but recreated from original data by User:DancingPhilosopher. Further variants of this image exist at Category:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world anyway, so what made that one problematic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose The uploader says, in one of his upload comments:

"It shows that the map uploaded by me is based on the published data from the authors' website and doesn't differ significantly from the map published in a journal."

While it is true that points plotted on an x/y graph are not themselves copyrightable, the arbitrary shapes used to group the points are creative and it is clear, both from the uploader's words and from a look at File:Wikimedia map compared to published 2010 map.png that DancingPhilosopher had the copyrighted journal version in front of him when he created the subject version. The remaining versions cited above should probably also be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that arbitrary shapes used to group points can be copyrighted. They are stills statistical data. That's why you cannot copyright geographical information and claim that a map of city borders for example is copyrighted, because you happened to be the first to draw it. Academic theories are not subject to copyright. Inglehart-Values drew some lines on the graph and called them cultural clusters. That's non-copyrightable science, just like many other maps (like File:Archaic globalization.svg) or diagrams (like File:Mertons social strain theory.svg), just to point to some examples. You cannot copyright a theory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  Support I support Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, given his explanation about copyright circularity ("citogenesis") here. This map seems to have been released under CC anyway, by virtue of it being uploaded to YT, check the theory, but then I do not have time to delve into the nitty-gritty of the copyright of individual frames.) Zezen (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First, I don't see what the piece on copyright circularity has to do with this image. The uploader of this image, as quoted above, admits that he copied it from a journal. Second, most YouTube uploads claim copyright. CC licenses are the exception there, not the rule, and unless you can cite a YT page that this appears on, with a CC-BY license, the mention of YT is not helpful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Mao Zedong Signature.pngEdit

Hello, I saw that you've deleted several images of signatures as part of this project. However at least two of them should have been allowed. It's these two:

The PD signature page states that "If a signature is originally from documents of legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, it is in the public domain" and these two were indeed done as part of Mao's administrative work, specifically he was signing official documents for the opening of a factory.

I had put the sources in both cases. Would it be possible to please restore these two?

Also now I'm wondering about the rest of the signatures? Were they checked before being deleted? Perhaps they were also in the public domain? Laurent (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(Initially posted on administrator talk page)

File:BuffaloNinePamphet 01.jpgEdit

This is the cover of an anti-war pamphlet created and published by the Buffalo Nine Committee at the University of Buffalo during the 1968-70 time period when the campus was invaded and occupied by Buffalo police. I had a hand in creating the pamphlet a copy of which is in my possession. It has no printed copyright but has, on the last page, "A Plea" for donations from The Buffalo Nine Defense Committee, PO Box 399, Elliott Station, Buffalo, New York, 14205. Since there is no copyright on the pamphlet I see no reason why I cannot make my own copy freely available on Wikipedia Commons. I hereby give my own permission based on ownership of said pamphlet to use the cover image and any other images inside as long as they are refernced in the same manner as in the publication. For example, on page eight of the pamphlet is a photo of Bruce Beyer being arrested and the reference is to "Gruber" and Spectrum (the student newspaper, Sept 20th, (1968 assumed). I request that this image be restored to the article. -- Jerry Ross Pittore44 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose @Pittore44: Per COM:L, "In the United States, copyright generally lasts: ... For works first published [after 1963 and] before 1978: until 95 years after the first publication". Thus, the copyright on this publication will lapse on 1 January 2064.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment PD-US-no notice? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Jeff -- that's correct only if there was notice. According to Pittore44, there is no copyright notice in the pamphlet.
Yann -- I agree with you that no-notice could apply, but I strongly suspect that the cover image was not properly licensed to the Buffalo Nine Committee -- it seems to me a long stretch to believe that a protest group actually bothered to have the photographer execute a written license of the copyright. Unless such a license was executed, the photograph is not covered by the lack of notice and therefore remains under copyright. Therefore I   Oppose this..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Then we would need more information about the source of the image. Who is the original photographer? Whether it was published previously, where and in which conditions... Regards, Yann (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
There would not need to be a written license, just that it was used with permission. But if it was used without permission, then it would not count as publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Carl, I thought that all copyright licenses and transfers had to be in writing (see 17 USC 204(a)). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
A license is not a transfer of ownership. Well, an exclusive license might depending on the details, but not a regular license -- there is no transfer of rights, such that the other party can then further transfer them to others. Licensees usually can't, so there is no transfer, and no writing requirement (i.e. 17 USC 204 is not involved). [4][5][6] If the photos were published with permission, that was a non-exclusive license, and would count as an authorized publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. At 17 USC 201 we have "The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part", which suggests to me that 17 USC 204 applies to all transfers of any of the rights. Nowhere in 17 USC 200 is there any mention of being able to grant any of the rights in an oral contract. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Una B. Herrick.jpgEdit

on the page that I linked:

the description of the file is clear:

"Formal portrait of Una B. Herrick, Dean of Women, professor of Physical Education for Women, Director of Physical Education for Women & Vocational Guidance Advisor." Date: 1910-1934

Herrick died in 1950, therefore this portrait was published when she was still alive and per comment "the photo can be restored, if you give evidence, that the portrait was really published in her lifetime. Taivo (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)"

Further proof: it was used in an article about a strike at the university in 1920: The Town Talk, (Alexandria, Louisiana), 22 Nov 1930, Sat • Page 6 [7]

I kindly request for it to be restored. --Elisa Rolle 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Elisarolle: It doesn't help that you've gone and uploaded another photo with the same filename. It will need to be renamed or the older one moved to another name if it is restored. This is one of those difficult situations where evidence might point either way. From the same university website I note there are two more individual photos of her. One of them ( bears a startling resemblance to the one you uploaded. It seems to me that it may have been taken at the same photo shoot (unless she wore the same coat and had the same hair setting on a different occasion), but bears a date of 1930-40. I also assume that you meant 1930 for the news clipping. The question then might be whether this clipping was the first publication or was it published earlier? Was it published with or without a copyright notice? If with a notice, was it renewed? I know it seems like we are being cruel but our policy is that the burden of proof lies with the uploader or anyone supporting keeping the file. As it stands I'm not yet fully convinced that the photo was published without notice and it is not in the public domain. Green Giant (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
After requesting to undelete it I found a pre-1923 photo, so that was for sure good. The article was a DYK yesterday I did not want for it to remain without photo (a photo BTW I was sure was good to upload). For that reason I also wrote to the MSU library, asking if I could upload the photo, and they confirmed that, given source is maintained, I could do that, so I uploaded the other photo with another name giving the courtesy authorization. --Elisa Rolle 08:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Google Chrome Screenshot.pngEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Requesting temporary undeletion for discussion. I believe there may be a case to be made that there is no non-free, original authorship in these images. The Chromium software, available under BSD, LGPL, etc., is the basis for the Chrome software and its layout. The Google Chrome logo has been held to be below the threshold of originality. Whatever proprietary contribution Google may or may not have made to these images is likely to be de minimis. Guanaco (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jcb, Polarlys, Rosenzweig: I'd like your input, as you deleted these images. Guanaco (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • At least you shouldn't rely on the licensing of Chromium for screenshots of Chrome. They have shared code, but there are differences and we don't want to need an expert in every DR who has to tell us whether the particular part is suffenciently simular to that part of Chromium. If somebody wants to rely on the licensing of Chromium for a screenshot, they should install Chromium and make that screenshot. Jcb (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      The fundamental layouts are the same between the two browsers, and this is verifiable by comparing screenshots of equivalent versions. Proprietary Chrome features include media codec support, Google updates, error reporting, and similar; nothing that affects the base layout of the browser. If I wanted to upload a screenshot of a website, I'd use a free browser (Firefox is my personal preference), but when writing about Chrome itself, the Chrome screenshots are strongly preferred. If there's a question about some particular screenshot showing a non-free part of the browser, unfortunately we may have to go to the extra effort of comparing the browsers. Guanaco (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, we have many other images of Google Chrome, such as File:Google Chrome Finnish.png. I think we should address them all together in a single DR. Guanaco (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the file in July 2011 because it was marked as copyvio. The concern was mainly the Chrome logo. At the time, we didn't actually have the Chrome logo as a file on Commons (those came a little later), the threshold of originality was interpreted differently IIRC. Anyway, if we have the logo on its own now, there's no need to delete a screenshot because of the logo. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I restored the file. I overlooked the decision from earlier this year. Mea culpa. --Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Polarlys: Thanks for restoring it. Could you link the decision from this year for reference? Guanaco (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Google_Chrome_Screenshot.png. --Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Files deleted by JcbEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "Flickrreview failed, NC restriction at source" is not a valid reason for deletion. These are all genuine NASA files and therefore Public Domain, see here. Ras67 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • No, the NC licences are not valid, it exists a FAR, that NASA works are in public domain. This is a higher instance as an incorrect "licence" on a private image service. --Ras67 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that not everything published by NASA is authored by NASA. If you want to demonstrate that a file is indeed a PD work from NASA, you cannot rely on an unfree Flickr file as a source like you did. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? Since few years, Flickr is the only source of current NASA images. In the metadata of every file this link is embedded. Until now, this guidelines were acceptable for Commons. With your opinion we have to delete all newer NASA images and are cut of from NASA's current image footage. I don't think, that you have right. --Ras67 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe this non-DR out of process mass deletion was sloppy, as the deletions are correctly contested, and had a DR been raised for these it would have been complex and debatable. The second image I looked at, out of two, is published at (archive) and credited "NASA", clearly making it public domain. That's a very poor hit rate for a random sample. For these reasons I would rather the images were undeleted and if a particular contractor photographer's set of images is problematic for NASA credits, those smaller sets can have their own DR, thereby avoiding accidentally blitzing some of our most valuable public domain materials. Doing these investigations post-deletion is really only possible for administrators, thereby locking out the rest of our community from helping with analysis, and the history of our UNDEL process tends to bias towards deletion in a way that does not happen with open DR discussions. It is worth highlighting again that Deletion Requests should always be the default process for any deletion action that is contested; speedy deletions must be obvious and in any reasonable circumstances where contributors are contesting the speedies, the deleting admin's first action should be to presume good faith and undelete so there can be proper review and open discussion. -- (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm with Yann and Fæ on this. Out of process mass deletions like this one by Jcb should not be tolerated. We need these files restored forthwith so that the whole community can research and decide which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees on the dates of photography, and start DRs by photographer as and when appropriate. Any photos just credited to NASA or one of its units should just be kept.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Please take back the accusation. I did follow proper process. I am aware that you cannot see the history of the deleted files, so that you cannot verify this, but you may ask another admin to have a look if you have any doubts. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I was using 's words "out of process mass deletion" from the !vote directly above mine and I mentioned that user; perhaps I should have attributed (sorry for not doing so earlier). In my defense, I cite the truth of following facts in order: "out of process" there was no community involvement allowed in the decision making process evidenced in the deletion log; "mass" many files were deleted; "deletions like this one by Jcb" you did this mass deletion, and out of process mass deletions like this have happened before. In this case, via its Flickr account NASA is committing copyfraud re the PD photos its employees / unit employees took by even claiming licensing rights in the first place. Did you investigate which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees when they took those photos? What process did you follow that you consider proper?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, worth re-iterating. This was a mass speedy deletion which means that extra care should be taken that the deletions are justified as the administrator is taking full responsibility for skipping having an open mass deletion request where the community has 7 days to check, discuss and propose alternatives to mass deletion. As it took me literally 20 seconds of research using Google image searching (even without access to the actual files, as they have been deleted) to find that one of two searched for files is available as public domain, it is clear that the deletions are by default controversial. Though Jcb will argue that the deletions met COM:CSD criteria 1 or 4, the fact remains that while this may be sufficient for one file, it is not good enough for a mass deletion of multiple files where it must be clear to the community that the deleting admin has not taken enough care to avoid controversy, simply because the Flickrstream is known to contain public domain files. However this is turned around and wikilawyered, public domain is public domain and all administrators have a duty to take all reasonable precautions to avoid deleting public domain educational media from Wikimedia Commons.
      At the top of COM:CSD is the statement "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Jcb has failed to demonstrate that the required care was taken as these are not "obvious cases". If anyone should be apologizing and reversing their decisions, it is Jcb as the deleting administrator, not the few handful of community members prepared to both hold these sysop actions correctly to account and brace themselves for the defensive behaviour we see too often from Jcb when their actions are questioned. If anyone doubts this behaviour, they need to go research Jcb's talk page archives where the pattern is painfully clear. -- (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: In addition, I was not accusing you, I was criticizing your actions (I'm not sure if deletions are considered "edits" per se). Potentially controversial deletions should always be via DR, rather than SD.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment These deletions by Jcb are not OK, but he is not the only one guilty here. Speedy requests by B dash are not OK either. :( Yann (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    This is an UNDEL, not a hunt for the guilty, but procedural responsibility lies fully with the deleting administrator as COM:CSD makes clear. If someone is using the speedy deletion template without sufficient care, that is a separate issue to address. The final decision to speedy delete rather than defaulting to having a deletion request is the acting administrator's alone. -- (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I restored all images obviously by NASA. Those taken in Russia, and of the eclipse can be debated further. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll   Support temporary undeletion for discussion, any not proven specifically to be copyvios. We should all have a chance to look through these and decide based on the evidence. Guanaco (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Joel KowskyEdit

Photographs with NHQ numbers are original NASA commissions, going through the central request process. I suggest these are all undeleted and if anyone remains concerned that photographs, including those which have been released on, are given credits as NASA/<individual photographer name>, that DRs can be raised by photographer. If necessary to increase confidence, someone may want to write to the relevant photographer to check if their interpretation is that these are non-commercial use or public domain. Those I've checked appear to have active twitter accounts or instagram accounts.

As a starter, I have sent a twitter message to Joel Kowsky this evening:

-- (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately Kowsky has got back to me by direct message. Twitter DM notification copied to OTRS at ticket: 2017092010020535 (if needed I could screenshot the whole message, but almost all of it is in the notification).
Kowsky confirmed that the terms at apply, so commercial reuse is allowed so long as "it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services". It may be helpful to add the webpage link to the permissions parameter of the information box on each image page.
I find this encouraging, as it is likely to be the case for other NASA photographers credited in the same way.
Kowsky also confirmed that NHQ numbers are NASA asset numbers. Though Kowsky's message did not confirm how to interpret copyright for all NASA asset registered photographs, it seems unlikely that anything other than the standard terms would apply as linked above unless they were explicitly stated with the published image.
-- (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody conclude this undeletion request? Andrej-airliner beginns to reupload "my" uploads with succeeding speedies! That's redicoules. How can "my" effort recreate correctly in that situation? --Ras67 (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Andrej-airliner has been stopped. Could you easily say which files are from Kowsky? We can at least proceed to undeleted these files. Jcb (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
From Kowsky are the files from 26, 27 and 28 July 2017 (NHQ20170726xxxx), (NHQ20170727xxxx), (NHQ20170728xxxx) respectively Expedition 52 Soyuz Blessing, Expedition 52 Rollout, Expedition 52 Preflight and Expedition 52 Launch. Many others are from NASA senior photographer Bill Ingalls, we have over 1,000 images from him. --Ras67 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have restored these files. I have put some of the Joel Kowsky files on my watchlist, to prevent them from being deleted this way in the future. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by FæEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of them are photographs of automobiles or automobile parts and within scope. They were already categorised in proper categories. The deletion process was too fast for regular DRs (within hours instead of a week) as they were converted to them . Steinfeld-feld (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose most. All of the deletion logs state that uploader requested deletion, and I trust that user's judgement in this matter. That user was not notified of this request until now. There was only one DR I can find, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009-365-57 The Babe Magnet (3312722879).jpg created by Hystrix as a conversion from a speedy by Faebot, presumably at the instruction of Fæ, and unsurprisingly deleted way too soon by Jcb (after only 52 minutes, neglecting to close the DR), so I   Support the undeletion of File:2009-365-57 The Babe Magnet (3312722879).jpg for a full week-long discussion of Hystrix's concern per COM:DP, our deletion policy. @Krd: It would have been nice if Krdbot signed its work in closing the DR, and indicated the date, time, and timezone of Jcb's deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

For those that don't want to research what's going on, these deletions are trimming down a Flickrstream by Alan Levine, a long term established blogger, where the proportion of copyvios and out of scope images was too high. So far we have removed about 20%, leaving under 11,000 photographs. You can read the discussion at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/09/Category:Photographs_by_Alan_Levine. Consequently you can expect that a few marginal value images have been caught up in our rapid visual review based on Flickr Album names, including some car and dog photographs which I thought were unlikely to be useful. I do not want to spend time challenging any undeletions, so long as someone believes there is reasonable expectation that they can be categorized, perhaps renamed, and remain non-contentious as in-scope.

I do note that one DR which replaced a speedy was for a copyvio photograph of a large poster featuring a modern artwork, and a removed speedy of a statue in Garlic City made less than ten years ago which I had to spend time creating a DR for; it's understandable, but I suggest a careful look at any undeletion to ensure there are not more complex copyright issues rather than the simpler judgement about scope.

@Steinfeld-feld: is correct, the community agreed procedure is that once a speedy deletion has been converted to a deletion request, they should be considered controversial DRs which require the full 7 day period. No administrator should bypass this procedure unless they provide strong reasons for doing so (which in my opinion should be added to the DR to avoid confusion or disruption), such as being a demonstrable copyvio or being used for active harassment. Thanks -- (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Wolfgang Vorwerk.jpgEdit

Ticket#2017092010026824 Bildfreigabe ist angekommen. Bitte um Wiederherstellung. -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Moin (Jameslwoodward)
I have the permission here in the ticket, so I ask for restoration so I can see the picture, bye Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Raboe001:The current backlog in permissions-commons queue is 55 days.  — Jeff G. ツ 00:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  Done Raboe001 is an OTRS agent who was asking for temporary undeletion so he could evaluate the image. De728631 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Raboe001, De728631: Sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Great thanks and my english is not so good, otherwise I would have liked to apply as Admin. :) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Rafael Vasquez Alvarez.jpgEdit

Photography belongs to family, his grandchild asked me to share some pictures she had on her house, what can I do to be able to share it? Ronaldesc007 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Ronald Santizo

For a first estimate on any possible copyright, we need to know when and where this photograph was taken, i. e. the year and the country of origin. Depending on the country, we would also require the name of the photographer, if he is still alive, and if not, when he died. De728631 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose First, there does not appear to be any WP article on the subject and Google does not show any notable people with this name. Therefore it is unlikely that the image falls within the scope of Commons. That must be proven before any restoration can be considered.

Second, please understand that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it as required here. The copyright almost always rests with the photographer or his heirs. Since this appears to be a formal studio portrait, it is unlikely that the family has the right to license it. If the image was taken before 1947, it is possible that it is in the public domain, but that will depend entirely on where it was taken and if and when it was first published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Cahs Students Uper View.jpeg, File:Cahs Science Fair.jpeg, File:Cahs Book Fair.jpeg, File:Cahs Font View.jpegEdit

This photo is for educational artical. The photo content properly meet with Civil Aviation High School (est.1978). So Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiqsazzad001 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Files have not been deleted. Please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Siddiqsazzad001. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose I have deleted three of the four as obvious copyvios. They all appear at with "(C) All rights reserved, CAHS". The Science Fair image does not appear at that site, but is probably from the same source. The article on WP:EN is tagged for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Suzy sec photo 2.jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission provided with Ticket:2017092210024626. Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SeleniumEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My name is Marcin Szczygielski ( and I've upload all photos of Filipinki band ( I'm a writer and graphic designer. My mother is Iwona Racz-Szczygielski ( – one of the Filipinki singers. All band photos wich I've upload was published between 1960 – 1972 in Filipinki's promotional materials (brochures, cards, concert programs and posters) WITHOUT copyright notes –

  This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:

  1. it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
  2. it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
  3. it was in the public domain in its home country (Poland) on the URAA date ().
To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.

Photos came from private archives of my mother and her friends from the band and I have their permission for publishing those photos in any media.

I wrote and published the book about a Filipinki band ( and I used all those photos in my book. Before that I carefully clear all rights and I made sure that there is no copyright violation. The book was published by Instytut Wydawniczy Latarnik ( – publishing house run by me and my partner Tomasz Raczek (

Bands Bez Atu (, Coma 5 ( and Warsaw Stompers ( cooperated with Filipinki as their musicians.

Photo File:Warszawscy Stompersi 1964.jpg was published on promotional card without copyright note in 1964.

Photo File:Coma 5 1964.jpg was published in concert programm in summer of 1964 without copyright note.

Photo File:Bez Atu 1969.jpg was published on promotional card in 1969 without copyright note.

File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg is a cover of Filipinki's longplay which was released by last year by my publishing house ( I'm the author of layout. Photo used on cover was published in 1970 in Filipinki's concert tour promotional brochure without copyright note.

Im kindly asking for undeleted all those files. (Selenium (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


説明板の作者名を表記しているのと、対価を獲ること無く一般公開している点を考え、削除は不適当と考えられます。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BATACHAN (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)