Commons:Solicitudes de restauración

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 89% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.

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

Other languages:

Nesta páxina, os usuarios poden solicitar o borrado da páxina ou arquivo (dende aquí, "o aquivo") a restauración. Os usuarios poden comentar as solicitudes deixando marcas como manter borrado ou restaurar xunto coa súa motivación.

Ista páxina non é parte da Wikipedia. Esta páxina é sobre o contido da Wikimedia Commons, un repositorio de arquivos media usados por Wikipedia e outros proxectos Wikimedia. Wikimedia Commons non hospeda artigos enciclopédicos. Para solicitar a restauración dun artigo ou outro contido que fora borrado dende a edición inglesa da Wikipedia, vexa deletion review páxina do proxecto.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
49 copyvios • 3 duplicates • 1 selfie • 290 others
v • d • e

Descubrindo porque foi borrado un arquivo

Primeiro, comproba en deletion log e atopa porque o arquivo foi borrado. Vexa tamén What links here asvcaracterísticas a ver se hai algunha discusión ligada ao arquivo borrado. Se subiches o arquivo, vexa se hai algunha mensaxe en your user talk page explicando o borrado. Segundo, fai o favor de ler en deletion policy, na project scope policy, e a licensing policy outra vez para atopar por que o arquivo non debe manterse en Commons.

Se a razón dada non está clara podes disputala, podes contactar co administrador borrador e preguntarlle e explicar ou darlle novas evidencias outra vez das razóns de borrado. Podes contactar con algún outro administrador activo (quizais one that speaks your native language) -a maioría está ledo de axudar, e se é un erro feito, rectificar a situación.

Apelando o borrado

Os borrados que son correctos baséanse na seguinte deletion, project scope e licensing as políticas non serán desfeitas. As propostas de troco de políticas poden ser feitas nas páxinas de discusión.

Se cres que a cuestión do arquivo non é unha violación de copyright nin vai fora do alcance do proxecto:

  • Podes querer falar co administrador quen borrou o arquivo. Podes preguntar ao administrador para unha explicación máis polo miudo ou que amose a evidencia que xustifique o borrado.
  • Se non queres contactar con ninguén directamente, ou se un administrador individual rexeita o desborrado, ou se queres unha oportunidade para que máis xente participe na discusión, podes pedir o desborrado nesta páxina.
  • Se o arquivo foi borrado por non ter evidencia de permission do propietario do copyright, fai ofavor de seguir procedure for submitting permission evidence. Se xa fixeches todo isto, non hai necesidade de pedir o desborrado aquí. Se o permiso foi enviado, o arquivo será restaurado cando o permiso sexa procesado. Fai o favor de ser paciente, como xa isto pode tardar varias semanas dependendo do traballo actual e da dispoñibilidade de voluntarios.
  • 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.

Desborrado temporal

Os arquivos poden ser "temporalmente" desborrados xa sexa para asistencia nunha discusión de restauración do arquivo ou permitir transferir ao proxecto que permita fair use. Usa a plantilla {{Request temporary undeletion}} nas peticións relevantes de restauración, e proporciona unha explicación.

  1. se o borrado temporal é para asistir nunha discusión, explica porque podería ser útil para a discusión restaurar o arquivo temporalmente, ou
  2. Se a restauración é temporal para permitir transferir o uso xusto no proxecto, indica cal é proxecto ao que tentas transferir o arquivo e liga ao uso xusto do proxecto.

Para axudar nunha discusión

Os arquivos poden temporalmente restaurarse para axudar nunha discusión. Se isto dificulta aos usuarios decidir se o requerimento de restauración pode garantir a concesión sen ter acceso ao arquivo. Onde a descrición do arquivo ou cita dende a descrición da páxina sexa suficiente, un admin pode proporcionar isto na vez de conceder a restauración temporal. As solicitudes poden ser rexeitas se cre que a utilidade para a discusión está sobrepasada por outros factores (tales como restaurar, incluso temporalmente, arquivos onde hai preocupacións sustanciais en relación a fotografías de persoas identificables). Arquivos temporalmente restaurados para axudar na discusión poden ser borrados outra vez despois de 30 días, ou cando a solicitude de restauración estea pechada (o que sexa antes)

Para permitir a transferencia xusta do contido a outro proxecto

A diferencia da Wikipedia inglesa e outros poucos proxectos Wikimedia, Commons non acepta contidos non libres con referencia a provisións fair use. Se o arquivo borrado chega aos requerimentos de uso de outro proxecto Wikimedia, os usuarios poden requerir temporalmente a restauración para ordenar a transferencia do arquivo aquí. Istas peticións poden usualmente ser manexadas rápidamente (sen discusión). Os arquivos temporalmente restaurados para propósitos de transferencia poden ser borrados outra vez despois de dous días. Cando o requerimento de restauración temporal, por favor cumpra o estado o proxecto no intento de transferir o arquivo e a ligazón ao proxecto para o uso xusto .

Proxectos que aceptan o uso xusto
* 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.

Engadindo unha petición

Primeiro, asegura que tentou find out why the file was deleted. Logo, fai o favor de ler ás seguintes instruccións para o que escribe a petición antes de proceder a engadila:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • No campo Subject:, enter an appropriate subject. Se ti pides un desborrado dun só arquivo, pon na cabeceiraI [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] é aconsellable. (Lembra poñer os dous puntos iniciais na ligazón.)
  • Identifica o/os ficheiro/s para os que tes solicitado a restauración e da unha ligazón ás imaxes (olla enriba). Se ti non sabes exactamente os nomes, da a información que poidas. As solicitudes que dan información erradas sobre "que" vai ser restaurado poden ser arquivadas sen máis aviso.
  • Indica a/as razón(s) para solicitar a restauración.
  • Asina a petición emprega catro caracteres de guión (~~~~). Se tes conta en Commons, loguéate primeiro. Se ti fuches quen subiu o arquivo en cuestión, pode axudar aos admins a identificalo.

Engade a petición ao final da páxina. Click here abre a páxina onde ti poidas engadir a petición. De maneira alternativa, podes pinchar na próxima ligazón "edit" da seguinte data actual. Mira os requerimentos da actualización.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Arquivos

Debates de restauración pechados archived diariamente.

Peticións actuais

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. However, I have doubts about legal status of some of the images form this DR, eg. Tbilisi street art 18 (UG-GE, 2018).jpg. They may be created legally. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mola_Ali.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

It seems to have been deleted because it was considered a derivative work. But actually, checking it from the Archive, it does not appear to be a derivative of any particular depiction of Ali. There are many similar illustrations of him with many variations, which are ubiquitous. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, see this image, which is in the public domain. It is also quite similar to the deleted image, so I think these kinds of depictions of Ali are too generic to be considered derivatives of one another. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Could we have it undeleted temporarily for the discussion since the Internet Archive is down? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The argument above certainly has some force, but side by side the deleted image and the one cited at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mola_Ali.jpg look very similar. Compare the folds in the shirt and the creases in the face. The position of the eyes is also identical. The image cited above does not have the same similarities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: This quote from page 39-40 of the referenced book implies that some of those features you mention are very common in his contemporary portraits:

Contemporary portraits of Imam Ali also give importance to the face. The viewer’s attention is drawn to the Imam’s face by a light illuminating the upper part of his face, that is, the forehead, nasal bone and cheekbones. However, the iconographic detailing of the face often differs between images to present a variety of physiognomic traits all held to represent Imam Ali. The most commonly produced and distributed portraits, which I call the ‘conventional’ facial type, are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 12 and 14. Imam Ali is shown in part profile with lofty forehead and wide, a little oversized, eyes with large pupils. The high eyebrows accentuate the size of the eye. Ali avoids eye contact with the viewer and the gaze seems to be directed slightly upwards with the look of a far-sighted visionary, creating an almost dream-like appearance. The face is oval, and the cheekbones round. The lips are full rather than thin. Cheekbones and lips are partly covered by a dark, thick, well-trimmed beard.

Also, actually, I can't entirely agree that the public domain image I shared does not have these similarities. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pas van Robby.jpg/File:Lachen is gezond.jpg/File:Wij hebben schik.jpg/File:Een mooi stukje op de Malediven.jpg/File:Robby Roeplall.jpg

Dear madam, sir,

My photo’s are for educational reasons updated to you without any ristrictions and copyright on it. Can you please put the pasphoto back? The photo’s can use worldwide and in the i.g. YouTube and radio Awaaz in the Netherlands (The Hague). It’s all ready for Wikipedia. Thank you for your trustful cooperation.

Have a nice day.

Yours sincerely,

Robby Roeplall (Rproeplall (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

File:Pas van Robby.jpg has copyright issues that cannot be resolved in on-wiki discussion. For other photos: where exactly in Wikimedia they were used / intended to be used? Ankry (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Equality March 2022 in Kraków - Among Us.jpg

Protected by Freedom of Panorama in Poland--Trade (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sign is not permanently exhibited as required by Polish FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Polish FoP, as is the case with most, maybe all, other countries, requires that the work be permanently displayed. A sign held up by a person is clearly not permanent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some signatures

These files deleted with the reason: "Although the signatures themselves are likely to be public domain, we have no source to confirm the accuracy of the images. They are not used anywhere; therefore, they were deleted." I wasn't very active during that time, but now I would like to source each file. Please restore them:

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Owais Al Qarni. Regards, Aafi (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gloria Morena.jpg

== [[:File:Bild 15.10.24 um12.31.jpg]] Urheberrecht liegt bei mir Gloria Morena ==

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

das Urheberrecht des Bildes und aller weiteren Bilder die ich hochladen werde, liegt bei mir. Da mir das sensible Thema durchaus vertraut ist, achte ich sehr darauf. Daher bitte ich sie, das von mir Hochgeladene Bild wieder freizugeben.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Gloria Morena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GloriaMorena (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GloriaMorena: Photos uploaded to Commons must be in COM:SCOPE so I would like to ask you to explain why this photo is useful, other than for your autobiography at de:Benutzer:GloriaMorena/Gloria Morena. Thuresson (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos de la Alcaldías venezolanas

Hi,please restored these images:

These logos are in the public domain according to the last paragraph of the license in Venezuela (logos created by public sector) {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} (google translator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheyenne Hotel.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cheyenne_Hotel.jpg. However, if it shows one of the files kept at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disney's Cheyenne hotel, then it may be OK to host here, whether it is a simple work of architecture or acceptable image courtesy of relatively-lenient French de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The photo is also available here. Thuresson (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson it's a confirmed COM:DM France. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manisa_Basket.png

That picture officialy belongs to Turkish Basketball Federation. Their copyrights are open sources. I mean anyone able to use that logo. And i have contact with the director of team. He said Federation approve the logo using actions too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErenKrcgl (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the Scuola di Guerra Aerea

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

All these images depict the it:Scuola di guerra aerea and were deleted in 2013 after 4 DRs: 1, 2, 3 and 4. As we can read here (p. 182) the complex was commissioned by the Ministry of the Air Force to en:Raffaello Fagnoni, and it was completed in 1938. Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1959, way before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:黃晴雯.jpg

照片由遠東SOGO百貨提供。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sogo100111100 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/gl&oldid=837814315"