Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

[edit]

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

[edit]

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As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia.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

[edit]

Russian department awards

[edit]

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)

[edit]

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

[edit]
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]

Some signatures

[edit]

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]

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

Logos de la Alcaldías venezolanas

[edit]

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]

✓ Done: @AbchyZa22: Please fix the licensing. Thx. --Bedivere (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel Cheyenne 6.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nkon21. But if any of the two shows something similar to the files kept at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disney's Cheyenne hotel (like, COM:DM France-eligible File:Street in Disney Village 1.jpg), then the two (or at least one of the two) can be restored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, kindly check to see whether any (or at least one) of the files can be restored as only showing incidental/accessory presences of buildings (COM:DM France).

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I undeleted 2 files which certainly do not show anything with a copyright. Yann (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:United Airlines Logo2010present.png

[edit]

This is the current logo of United and in the history brand in the history of United tab, it is important to compare and contrast now to the pat and that can't be complete without the current livery next to the past ones. This I tried to put online a few weeks ago and I tried to give the proper credit sources but somehow still was deleted. What can I do to make it come back and make sure it stays effectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymrat16 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You can contact Scott Kirby or somebody else of the board of United Airlines and ask them to license this logo with a free license. But please stop this nonsense of repeatedly uploading copyrighted works you find on the internet. Thuresson (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright I can try and also I don't appreciate you using the term "nonsense" because their was no ill intention in doing so. I had the right reasons but just didn't do so properly and I can and will do better. We are supposed to just be having a healthy conversation on how we can make this a better website and what we can fix if mistakes are made and using terms like "nonsense" seems a bit too harsh for someone who has no ill intentions. I'd appreciate better communication that's firm but more professional and dependable when talking to me on any matter good or bad Gymrat16 (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:etvwinlogo.png

[edit]

I want to create a profile for ETV Win, it is only for identification purposes only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allachandrasekhar (talk • contribs) 09:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about File:ETVWINLOGO.png. May be {{PD-textlogo}}, but what about out of scope? Yann (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support peer website, it's a simple logo (too simple) (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alebrijes Oaxaca Logo Escudo.png

[edit]

== [[File:Alebrijes Oaxaca Logo Escudo.png|thumb|Logo Escudo de Alebrijes de Oaxaca]] ==

No infringe la normas de derechos de autor, es una actualización del escudo de la institución — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanTrejo2024 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BryanTrejo2024: Where does the Creative Commons license come from? Thuresson (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is free to use, the club just wants its symbol to appear on its Wikipedia page, that's all. BryanTrejo2024 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, literally, where did you find the logo with a Creative Commons license? Thuresson (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Complex logo. Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some my photos

[edit]

File:E6X52 KMB 42A 10-06-2020.jpg File:E6X97 KMB 42A 10-06-2020.jpg File:E6X94 KMB 42A 10-06-2020.jpg File:E6X93 KMB 42A 10-06-2020.jpg File:E6X93 KMB 42A arrive West Kowloon Station 10-06-2020.jpg File:E6X71 KMB 42A 10-06-2020.jpg File:E6X104 KMB 42A 21-07-2020.jpg File:E6X67 KMB 42A 21-07-2020.jpg File:E6X96 KMB 42A 25-11-2020.jpg File:E6X100 KMB 42A 12-05-2021.jpg File:V6B96 KMB 42A 03-08-2020.jpg File:V6B95 KMB 42A 12-05-2021.jpg File:V6B174 KMB 42A 12-05-2021.jpg File:V6B76 KMB 42A 25-10-2021.jpg

I put the permission is CC-BY-SA,also same with hkbus fandom.

https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E5%9C%96%E5%BA%AB:%E4%B9%9D%E5%B7%B442A%E7%B7%9A — Preceding unsigned comment added by LN9267 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Deleted for lack of permission, but no need of permission for these. The IPs which tagged these files were blocked. I undeleted more files tagged by these IPs. --Yann (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg Zdjęcie ustalone z wlascielem - Kamil Suchański

[edit]

Dzień dobry, zdjęcie wgrane na stronie zostało ustalone z właścicielem. W imieniu właściciela akceptowałem wszystkie informacje więc są one prawdziwe i zgodne z prawem. Proszę o publikację i przestanie utrudnienia rzetelnych informacji na temat polskich polityków — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.31.18.236 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No file name provided. Please log in and provide a file name. --Yann (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murad Saeed.jpg

[edit]

The permissions of the file and other files were released by the original uploader (see ticket:2024082310011902). However, the file was tagged as copyvio by Saqib and deleted by Yann as COM:NETCOPYVIO. Google Lens search shows that the file was uploaded by Murad Saeed on his Facebook profile on 21 August 2020 earlier than all other uses of the other files on the internet. --Ratekreel (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to delete the image, it was taken by our party's member, Murad Saeed. PTI allows the usage of the image, and VRT has confirmed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insaf Feedback PTI (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Insaf Feedback PTI: Then please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NWS Hastings Tornadoes Picture 1 Webpage.jpg

[edit]

The file was clearly made by a U.S. government personnel on official duty as this is a screenshot of a U.S. government webpage. Deletion request was open for only about 27 hours before being "Deleted: per nomination" by User:Yann. As this was not a speedy deletion request and Yann did not indicate it was a speedy deletion reasoning, I would like to appeal this deletion. This is clearly a {{PD-USGov}} / {{PD-NWS-employee}} file, given it is a screenshot of a U.S. government webpage by the National Weather Service. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Deleted as recreated of a deleted file, as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:NWS Hastings Tornadoes Picture 1 Webpage.jpg. Yann (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file mentioned in the DR is not identical. Please explain further on why a webpage made entirely by a U.S. government employee on official duty was deleted. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's reference, the image in question was this National Weather Service webpage (Yes, the entire webpage was in the screenshot). By deletion, we are saying a webpage of the U.S. government, made by the U.S. government, is not free-to-use. I still request this file to be undeleted and a review from another administrator besides the deleting administrator, Yann. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The uploader is absolutely correct (if perhaps inadvertently so) that no, "a webpage of the U.S. government, made by the U.S. government" is not necessarily free to use, at least not in its entirety. Such webpages can and frequently do comprise free and unfree (or, in this case, presumed unfree) elements, and 17 USC §105 applies only to the portions created by US federal government employees in the course of their duties. This concept of the separability of different elements in a work is absolutely elementary to any understanding of copyright.
Aside of that, I am still assuming good faith here and asking @WeatherWriter: what purpose this screenshot serves that could not be equally served by obscuring the presumed unfree portion of the image, or by choosing a different NWS webpage to screenshot that is comprised of only unambiguously free elements? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord visvakarma statue.jpg

[edit]

This photo is taken by and not from anybody desiboy planting aligation is totally false — Preceding unsigned comment added by KESHAV nsr (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KESHAV nsr: If this is your picture, could you please upload the original one with EXIF data, instead of a mobile screenshot? Yann (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lines and shadows: Pontcanna Fields, Cardiff

[edit]

Lines and shadows: Pontcanna Fields, Cardiff.This is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ SethWhales talk 06:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please see File:Lines and shadows- Pontcanna Fields, Cardiff (28798307836).jpg. --Yann (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Good Friend (Novel)

[edit]

{{subst:db-notability-notice|The Good Friend (Novel)|header=1}} Deni Kusuma (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This concerns an article, which we don't accept on Commons. Please read COM:SCOPE. --Yann (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Σύλλογος Ελλήνων Ολυμπιονικών.jpg

[edit]

This Photo uploaded in wikipedia commons, is my own work and I hereby declare that also is publicly available for use in wikipedia or anywhere elese


--MakKost (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Kostas Makris 21/10/2024[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=947638094"