Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
36 copyvios • 8 duplicates • 1 advert • 35 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG

The above files were deleted in error, due to a misunderstanding about British law and about the identity of the photographic subject. These deleted items were part of a now-resolved dispute about photographic copyright in the context of scarecrow festivals in the United Kingdom. The dispute has now been resolved and fully explained at great length here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Storye book. You will need to read through the latter discussion in order to fully understand the situation, but here is a very brief summary: Photographing scarecrow festivals in public-access places in the UK, and publishing such photos on Commons, is legal in the UK.

Re toys:

  • Objects which may look like toys in scarecrow festivals are not toys; their creators' intention is part of the scarecrow festival creation. Toys are defined normally as children's (or sometimes adults') playthings, but stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are created as part of the scarecrow festival tableaux, e.g. farmers with sheep, Cruella de Ville with dogs, the Pied Piper with rats, and so on. The stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are home made. They are not commercial objects, and that point matters in British courts. Also, British courts do not inflict punitive damages in copyright cases; it is the US punitive damages which give rise to the million-dollar damages awards that we hear about; that does not happen in UK courts.
  • This matters in copyright law in the UK, because only the designer's printed pattern, and the designer's own (usually unique and single) hand-made example are copyrighted. home-crafters who buy designer's patterns for home craft purposes and make a stuffy have not made an object copyrighted by the designer. I know that because I am a knitting pattern designer myself. The language and photographs in my written designs, and my own hand-made examples, are under my own copyright, as are my own photos of my own work. But my customers' creations are not under my copyright at all. No designer would want that, partly because no customer is going to make it in exactly the same way, but mostly because a lot of customers make an embarrassingly awful job of the sewing-up. As far as I am aware, no case has ever been brought to court by a home crafter who has knitted from a knitting pattern using e.g. a new colour, and then their neighbour has knitted from the same design and used the same new colour, etc. etc. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG. Yann (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose These are copyrighted in the UK and the USA. The facts that they are plush and were made for a festival are irrelevant to the basic fact that they are created works of art and do not have a utilitarian use and therefore are copyrighted in both countries. The fact that no case has been brought or that the UK courts do not award substantial damages are also irrelevant. The fact that they are not commercial objects is also irrelevant.
The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:
1 (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work --
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
(snip)
4 (1) In this Part "artistic work" means --
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality
(b) ...
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
One might argue whether these are sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, but it is clear they are one or the other, or both. Note that there is no requirement that they be commercial works or, indeed, that they have any artistic quality.
Therefore, we cannot keep images of them on Commons without the explicit permission of the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, we have already been through this, and you lost the case (see above link to discussion). I have discussed this with the relevant solicitors, as I described on the abovementioned discussion. British courts do not define works of art and they do not define artists, because the definition of art is a moot point. You are wasting your time talking about art, artists and sculpture.
It is intention which is taken into consideration in British courts. The intention here is to create a temporary tableau for the scarecrow festival, and these items were part of a tableau of silly non-artistic objects made of clumsy bags of straw and intended for imminent destruction. The non-commercial aspect does matter, because in British courts on this subject, it is the potential gain or loss of money which is quantifiable, and it is that which is taken into consideration. Thus, if the items had been made for sale (which they have not), there would have been potential for quantifiable gain or loss (which there is not). Unlike in the US, British courts do not inflict punitive damages, as I have said above. Therefore there would be no basis for a court case regarding my photography of these scarecrow tableau objects.
When these photographs were deleted, that was the point of loss for the villagers who made the objects, because they no longer had access to photographs of their now-destroyed works. If the photographs were still available online, they could still be using those same photographs to advertise the next scarecrow festival, and they could still be using those photographs for their own records.
I strongly recommend that from now on you save your efforts for matters regarding US law, and leave British law to those who are in the know. It is obvious that the objects in the photograph are not graphic works or collages. We have already established in discussion that a scarecrow is not, and never can be, a sculpture. Please now step back and let others discuss this. Storye book (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, and files hosted here must be allowed to be used by anyone for any purpose. These objects are copyrighted, it does not matter one whit if the objects are non-commercial or not, there are works that has been fixed in a tangible medium of creative expression. Since the display is not permanent, they don't benefit from FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be condescending -- it just makes the target angry and doesn't get you anywhere. I think you are wrong on British law as these are clearly artistic works, but the point is moot. It is perfectly clear that they have a copyright in the USA and therefore the images cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not copyright in the USA as the objects are traditional effigies, which in this case are not sculptures. That means that they are utilitarian. Effigies can be scarecrows in a field, which are utilitarian as bird-scarers. They can be guys in British Fireworks Night, where they are children's money-raisers for the purchase of fireworks, or (at Lewes, for example) dressed up to mock famous people. Traditionally, they were used in dimity rides, as described in Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, where (again) they were dressed up to mock or embarrass people who had committed a social faux pas. They can be voodoo dolls, i.e. symbols of enemies, which some people used to stick pins in, in the hope that the enemy would feel pain. These examples are all utilitarian, in that they are used to symbolise something, for some further purpose, In the case of festival scarecrows, they bring the inhabitants of a village together for fun, and are used to attract visitors who may then pay money for charity, for a trail map, and usually also for tea and snacks. As for the art, that is in my ph9togrpahy. There is no Commons rule demanding the deletion of photographs such as this File:Rababou 2006.jpg, and I would like to know how my photos of festival scarecrows are a different case from that photograph (and all the other thousands of photographs like it, on Commons). Storye book (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To me, these two files differ from some of the original effigies mentioned because they apparently utilise toys that have copyright, rather than creations that in themselves would appear not to cause copyright that the requestor identifies. The images mentioned both have clearly identifiable toys that are not de minimis and while may be effigies still essentially look like shop-bought toys, and there is no clear evidence that they are not shop-bought (PCP).  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I cannot see the pictures because they have been deleted. I uploaded hundreds of festival scarecrow pictures, as you know. Are they dalmatians (white dogs with black spots) or are they the weird stylised yellow and black bees out of the Winnie the Pooh story? If they are the dalmatians, then I accept that you cannot see whether they are shop bought or not, although I can, because I used to make them when I was a child. If they are the bees, then they are definitely hand made for one of the festival tableaux - the bees are far too scruffy and far too large to be toys (bigger than a toddler). One of the bees, if it is a re-used commercial item, then it was almost certainly made as a footstool, being very roughly hemispherical and about 1.5ft long and about a foot high - so never a toy. If they are something else, then please tell me. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: The first is a "bee", the second is of two white with black spots dogs. Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Yann. Then, in that case, the bee is definitely an exhibition item made for that purpose. I really don't see how it can be seen as a toy. Too big, too scruffy, unsaleable as a toy. The bee with the scary mouth is 2-3 feet long, and would be unsuitable and unsafe for toddler handling, anyway, and the hemispherical one is almost certainly made as a footstool. As for Disney copyright, well, Disney lost copyright for Winnie the Pooh some time ago. That fact was reported in the Guardian newspaper. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether it can be used as a toy or not -- and some toys are very big, and toys are not limited to toddlers. It also doesn't matter whether is was a one-off made by an individual or one of hundreds coming out of a factory and sold in shops. It has a US copyright as a sculpture and almost certainly a UK copyright as well, notwithstanding the claims above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been established in another deletion request started by you here, that UK courts do not recognise artistic identity as a legal argument in copyright cases, and that scarecrow festival exhibits are not sculptures. These items at issue here do not have US copyrights; this is a UK issue, whether this is a US platform or not. Regarding the existing perspective of this US platform: if British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are not subject to US laws (which they are not) then we have to deal with this under UK law. If our photographs were really subject only to US law, then this platform would not be taking into account our 70-years-deceased law for creative copyright of 2D artworks (which it does), or our Freedom of Panorama (which it does). Storye book (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made those claims in other deletion requests. British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are subject to US laws in the US, and have been for over a hundred years, a point only emphasized by the US signature of the Berne Convention that the UK was one of the founding creators of. Commons also pays attention to UK law for UK photographs; it's not just one or the other. COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (Italics in the original.) While this is a rule often ignored, it's still a rule. Freedom of panorama is a whole different can of worms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, Prosfilaes. I was only replying in general terms to a distracting comment by another editor. The point here is that the bees at issue here are not definable as toys in any country, because they were not made as toys, and cannot be used as toys. They are filled with unhygienic straw, for a start, and would quickly break apart, which is why festival scarecrows in the UK are routinely destroyed or dismantled within days of creation. If you try to overwinter them in the garden shed, they fill with insects and other wildlife due to the straw content. The 2024 BBC Springwatch programme featured one of them which was overwintered in a shed, and by spring it had acquired a robin's nest in its head, complete with eggs and sitting robin. Also, because Disney has lost copyright to Winnie the Pooh, the bees in that Winnie the Pooh tableau are not affected by Disney copyright. That is the information that pertains to the bee picture, according to the law in both countries. Storye book (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether or not they are toys is completely irrelevant, as is whether or not they are derivative works of a movie character. Each of them certainly has its own USA copyright as a sculpture and, notwithstanding the claims made here, almost certainly has a UK copyright as well. This is black letter law folks -- this should have been closed a long while ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told by a number of people that festival scarecrows are not sculptures. Storye book (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some images deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Puregold San Mateo

If some of the images at the DR show only generic parts of the building like window frames, the images may be restored as the parts are not unique architectural components (tag: {{PD-structure|PHL}}). But if all images show the complete appearance of the sides of the building or the entirety of the structure, then do not restore. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't see a request here -- only a comment. And note that even parts of an architectural work have copyrights unless they are truly generic, just as a sentence from a thousand page novel can have the same copyright as the whole book. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward I cannot see the deleted images, so I cannot list files that only show portions of window frames and other generic elements of the said building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I have looked at all of these and all of them show at least a significant portion of a copyrighted building. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1-StaCruz-28Noviembre (2).png

Es el escudo municipal de mi localidad y quiero agregarlo al perfil de la ciudad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesusEmilianoSalazarCardozo (talk • contribs) 18:19, 17 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no evidence that the image is freely licensed as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Хүн-Хүртү.jpg

It is my own took photo Agilight (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the 2016 photograph since I assumed you wanted to discuss the 2012 upload, which was previously published and would need VRT confirmation. Abzeronow (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears on several Web pages with an explicit copyright notice and no free license. If it is indeed your own work, you must provide evidence of that using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sb singh.jpg

Please undelete the file Sb singh as this is my personal image and I have proprietorship of this image and using it for my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shree Bhagwan Singh (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We do not keep personal images of non-contributors, see COM:INUSE. I also note that you claim to be the photographer but this does not look like a selfie and the background looks like it was made in a professional studio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Max Fishman.jpg

Please restore the photograph of Max Fishman. File:Max Fishman.jpg It was made by amateurs around 1953-54 for the stand of our conservatory teachers. Since then it has not been published anywhere. All rights to the photograph were given for free use. Comments that I am 90 years old are too exaggerated - I am 86 years old. When the photo was taken I was learning to take photographs. There were many assistants. Max Fishman died in 1985. Why remove a photograph of a person that no one has claimed for about 80 years. Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levikoan (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I said "approximately 90 years old", and I was rounding up from 88. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Трудовая Россия logo.png

I request to restore this file, because it's a simple logo and it does not meet the threshold of originality.--FlorianH76 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:God's Little Acre (Mann, 1958) — High Quality 1080p.webm

I have to say I have never come across people who are so arrogant, I need to raise another one of them since you closed my last post, you could not even allow it to run for at least a couple of days, who do you think you are?

Also, I need this post to take a screenshot of it, for my records you understand.

first a quick summary of what has gone down.

When I was looking into this movie I thought I saw the movie could be played from the website, then I was it was not there, and put it down to my imagination with the number of movies I look into daily, until I discovered on the 21st June 2024 it was not, my imagination.


A counter-notification was sent to a claimant by the Name of OD Media, this was sent to them on the 20th of June 2024 at 7:24 PM my (local time)

On the 21st of June 2024 at 14:24 User Yann here removed the entry for the film God's Little Acre from the List of films in the public domain in the United States page. which I was unaware, could done so easily, so I registered an account here to speak about it.

From my point of view, this looks not right to me, as if something untoward is going on, whether it is or is not I do not care, as the truth will come out in the end.

Now guys feel free to close this ticket. Just need the screenshot.

 Not done: Duplicate of UDR. The movie is definitely a DW of a book under copyright. This is how It's a Wonderful Life was brought back into copyright: the underlying story and music are still copyrighted. Obvious cases can be closed within a day. --Abzeronow (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:God's Little Acre (Mann, 1958) — High Quality 1080p.webm

Do you understand the reason for the last post, I did not ask you to do anything.

Just to understand you the reason for the takedown was based on the following copyright office information.

https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/7200944

Please can you give your best expert opinion on all the information shown in it?

Is there any other copyright office information that relates to this one?

If you do not answer then I will know you cannot answer the questions

Again whenever you are ready, close the ticket.

You are fully aware of what is going on at the moment?

Brougth back into copyright??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJC45 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Another identical request just denied. Please stop filing these. --Bedivere (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Ticket #2024052210003759

All those files have to be restored, as there's no copyright involved (old architecture) or it's no "art" (eg organ console). The deleting admin "krd" knew that, as I had wrote him (besides that everyone can see that at one glance). The permission itself by the author is there since weeks. --Subbass1 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(01).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(02).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(03).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(04).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(05).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(06).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(07).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(08).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(09).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(10).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(11).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tegernheim,_Mari%C3%A4_Verk%C3%BCndigung_(01).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tegernheim,_Mari%C3%A4_Verk%C3%BCndigung_%2801%29.jpg

File:Covey LAV2.png

Add to profile.

File:Zhurnalistskaia-entsiklopediia-novosibirskoi-oblasti-2008-s.33.jpg

Hello, The following image was deleted File:Zhurnalistskaia-entsiklopediia-novosibirskoi-oblasti-2008-s.33.jpg as for a reason COM:NETCOPYVIO. This is a scanned page of encyclopedia, which is located in the library of Novosibirsk and is available to everyone. The source is provided with the corresponding link. Please explain the reason for deleting the image

 Oppose This is a scan of a publication from 2008, so it is still under a copyright, and at least until the end of 2078 (70 years after publication if it is a collective work or a work for hire), and possibly even longer. Yann (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dom przy ul. Różanej 4 w Zakliczynie.jpg

A proper agreement from author of the picture has been sent to VTRS: ticket:2024062310005262 Polimerek (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krystyna Ungeheuer-Mietelska.jpg

A proper agreement has been sent to VTRS by copyright owner. See ticket:2024062410004574 Polimerek (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"