Commons:Deletion requests/2026/01/28

January 28

Files in Category:Digitized Sky Survey NGC objects

Copied from Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey:

Commons hosts many images from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). According to this page, DSS is copyrighted and only non-commercial use is allowed; in contrast to other data hosted by the same institution (STScI), which is in the public domain. Based on this, individual DSS images are often nominated for deletion. They are also often (re-)uploaded citing an email that gives permission for use on Wikipedia (e.g. here, also quoted below), but this doesn't contradict the non-commercial license terms on the website. Commons requires a license that allows commercial use (Commons:Licensing).

Hi, Thank you for your question. The licenses for SDSS and DSS images are different because there are different contributing organizations to each. However, both are free to use for non-profits for educational purposes, without further restriction. This includes Wikipedia. There is no copyright STScI holds that would prevent using the DSS images on Wikipedia, even though it may not be specifically named in the DSS license.

Referring to https://archive.stsci.edu/publishing/data-use#section-95dab389-f4b4-4a52-8985-dcbfb908d8f2 it appears that use of the color DSS images can be investigated further by contacting archive@stsci.edu

Sincerely, The Office of Public Outreach

This is a subset of the images in question (all in one category); there are many more.

SevenSpheres (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)


  •  Keep This seems to be a Terms of Service problem, rather than a copyright problem. Are there any creative elements to taking a picture of something in space with an automated telescope? It is not like you can choose an angle, or lighting, or depth of field. Even if the image was colorized by assigning infrared light and ultraviolet light or x-rays, a visible color, those choices were made by NASA decades ago and have been standardized ever since. I have never seen a copyright claim for a system of colorizing non-visible wavelengths. --RAN (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
    Even if the image was colorized by assigning infrared light and ultraviolet light or x-rays, a visible color, those choices were made by NASA decades ago and have been standardized ever since.
    I'm not sure why this is brought up (DSS is visible light and colorization is not the issue here), but this claim is false. There is no single standardized method of colorizing non-visible light images.
    Note also that these are not NASA images, nor derived from NASA images (this is unrelated to that thread). They were created by and are copyrighted by several institutions that are listed on the linked page: https://archive.stsci.edu/publishing/data-use (see "DSS Copyright Holders"). SevenSpheres (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    In astrophotography, you have to choose the exposure time, the timing (when to expose), the equipment and the processing to get an image (these contribute to the creative process). And also, the DSS is old, it was completed with film plates. C messier (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
 Delete DSS data are copyrighted (until anything changes). C messier (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
@SevenSpheres, They mean Wikipedia not Wikimedia Commons. Yeah, If you want you can get VRTS permission for each images or whole category using a template representing DSS. I recently talked with STScI and they told they got multiple email regarding change of license from non-commercial copyright to CC-BY 4.0 and will change it once four members UKST/AAO/ROE/Caltech accepted the request. But as of now the images are copyrighted until or unless it is NASA/ESA (Hubble/Webb)/STScI/NOIRLab with DSS. Then they are either PD-USGov-NASA or CC-BY 4.0/CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO. I can understand why users don't like to upload images on Wikipedia as per Fair Use that makes already low resolution images more low resolution. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
If the license is changed then the images can be kept, of course. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
@SevenSpheres, I mean they are in process of changing the image use policy but not changed it yet and thus as of now are still copyrighted although time should be given to move the images to other languages Wikipedia Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Adolf Bautze.png

1934 photograph, source link doesn't work for me. There are initials on lower right (photographers mark?). Abzeronow (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the link. You can see the "domena publiczna" annotation in the link, which means public domain.
The "RBŁ" in the corner stands for "Roman Borkenhagen Łódź". Borkenhagen's photography studio operated until 1945. Borkenhagen died in 1952.
More about Borkenhagen: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Borkenhagen Oooo93 (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, this is public domain in Poland as you say, but the question of US copyright is more complicated because Borkenhagen died in 1952. If this work was published with a copyright notice, it would still be under US copyright until 2030. {{PD-Poland}} is about photos that didn't have a copyright notice (and those would have been public domain in 1996 and thus public domain in the US). Abzeronow (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Suisei Signature.png

See also - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hoshimachi Suisei signature.svg Koh817486 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of the General Security Service of Syria.jpg

No sources given and it is being used on multiple pages. This user has created multiple files without sourcing or proper licensing, prior and since uploading this work. ~2026-61033-9 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)