Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016

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

Ticket 2016010210007154

Dear OTRS volunteers,

can someone tell me which files are covered by ticket:2016010210007154? Screwjack1981 has uploaded valuable files at Category:Unfiltered Breathed In (documentary) and subcat which are being deleted because of lack of permission. I would like to help solve the problem and help him/her obtain permission for the remaining files. Thanks! Ariadacapo (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Only File:Ungefiltert de-121015.jpg is discussed, and one already deleted file (the latter I don't know if it was released in a satisfactory way). Basvb (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Basvb! We will work with them to fix permission for the other files. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Ariadacapo (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Apfelblueten-Installation-Foyer.jpg and File:Apfelblueten-Installation-Wang-Fu.jpg

I'd just like to confirm whether the recently accepted permission for these files includes both licensing permission from the photographer as well as from the author of the depicted artwork (Wang Fu). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A first glance is doubtful, but tickets are both in German. Pinging @Wdwd: , ticket owner. Storkk (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
you are right - ticket include the permission for the photographs only. sorry, my mistake. I made a further inquiry for the artwork via OTRS and change two out of three photos back to OTRS-received.--Wdwd (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Pictures from Sulitjelma mines deleted with OTRS-ticket pending

An e-mail with permission to use a large number of pictures from Sulitjelma mining history was sent to OTRS on the 7 of January 2016 from the Nordland Museum (Nordland county museum). The E-mail confirmed that the pictures that I had previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons had received proper license. Several of the pictures got pounded confirmation that stated that the owner had given his permission through OTRS the same day. However the work stopped, and the majority of the pictures was not trated. Today thise pictures are deleted. It is especially bad since I've spent many hours to upload the pictures, naming them in English and add categories. I do hope that someone can look at this soon. I spent most of the Christmas holiday writing an article in Wikipedia about the mining company, and wanted to use those pictures as illustrations. I'm sure the e-mail you got from Nordlandsmuset still exist, if not I can resend it.--Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frankemann: This appears to be ticket:2016010710008082. @DarwIn: ticket owner. Just clicking a few, I note that some are not deleted (e.g. File:The upper dock at Finneid where barges were unloaded.jpg), and some were deleted for having no license (e.g. File:Flotation_facilities_at_Fagerli_in_Sulitjelma.jpg). All files, whether there is OTRS pending or not must have a license supplied. Finally, I would like to note that we definitely appreciate your efforts in providing Commons with these photos, and your work is not lost: if/when the photos are undeleted, categories, etc. will be restored. Storkk (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Frankemann: - Hello, I delayed a bit ending the review of your authorizations as the uploads were recent and they didn't appear to be in danger of being deleted, but apparently it was not the case. I'll resume that work as soon as I can.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Storkk and DarwIn, thank you for guidance and explanation! I was maybe a little too agitated when I wrote the message here. The image you specifically mention (eg File:The upper dock at Finneid where barges were unloaded.jpg) is expressly mentioned in the email from the museum that has given us permission to use the picture. I've used the same procedure for all the pictures, so I could not understand that some were deleted, while others got a OTRS ticket. Now I realize that there is something about the instructions I have not understand, this despite the fact that I read the instruction Commons:OTRS # If you are not the copyright holder wery carefully. Can you please take a look at for example this file: File: Galena from Sulitjelma.jpg. Have I managed to enter the correct license information here? I greatly appreciate this tutorial! Now I wonder if there's anything more I need to do to get images accepted, or is it enough that I am patient? Kind regards
@Frankemann: File: Galena from Sulitjelma.jpg looks good to me. Once DarwIn has reviewed them, he'll change the {{OTRS pending}} template into {{Permission OTRS}}, and the files will be confirmed. Storkk (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Frankemann: - As far as I know, there is not any problem with your OTRS ticket. As Storkk already told you, the files were deleted for lacking a license: If you do not provide a license on the upload, as apparently happened here, they are usually deleted after 7 days, independently of OTRS (which occasionally can take much more time till it even starts to be reviewed). To avoid this situation, next time please be sure you upload them with the proper license, so that they'll depend only from OTRS review, which usually is not a reason for their immediate elimination. In any case, as Storkk well explained above, none of your work has been lost. I'm dealing with them now. If they were removed from an article on the English Wikipedia, you may simply revert the bot which has removed them after their restoration here in Commons.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks to @DarwIn: and @Storkk: for youre helpfull instructions! --Frankemann (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Her Story images

Hi, I'm fairly unfamiliar with the process of OTRS, so I apologise in advance. I recently got in touch with game developer Sam Barlow, who was kind enough to send nine images (can be seen here and here) for free use, in three separate emails (15 January, 9:23 UTC, 10:44 UTC; 17 January, 14:55 UTC). I've added {{OTRS pending}} to each of the images, but I'm unsure as to what the next step is. If additional proof is required to demonstrate that the email address belongs to Sam, let me know; I can provide more information. I'd just like to know what to do next. Thanks in advance! -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 16:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

These appear to be ticket:2016011710008723, ticket:2016011510011795 and ticket:2016011510010492 Storkk (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain1999: as you were copied in on the original emails, I have copied you in on the replies, but will respond here as well. Essentially, we just need to confirm that the emails have come from the actual copyright holder. Should be relatively straightforward. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand; I figured that would be the case. Thank you for letting me know. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 17:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain1999: All looks good now. Thanks for facilitating the contributions to Commons! Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Status of File:Maritiem Museum Mataró model.jpeg

Hi! Could someone check status of above file (appears to be a reupload)? The uploader claims to have permission via ticket:2016012010022648 which is already in use at File:Hasselter aak Annigje.jpeg. Please check also if the ticket is valid for File:Maritiem Museum Rotterdam - Het Lage Licht.jpg as well. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Claims are correct, permission is available since 22-12-2015, will make some changes to the files. Basvb (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There are quite a bit more images from different photographers. I've offered myself as a point of contact to let these permissions walk through a bit easier. Basvb (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No subject

Polski: Niniejszym potwierdzam że zdjęcie w pliku: File:Bucznik_1930_r._widok_od_pd._zach..jpg jest własnością mojego prywatnego archiwum i zostało wykonane ponad 70 lat temu (ok. 1930 r.) przez nieznanego autora - stając się tym samym także własnością publiczną. W związku z tym było publikowane już też publikownae co najmniej dwukrotnie - w pozycji Zamek Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w Wiśle, Kraków 2005, s. 48 ISBN 83-921543-0-4 oraz na stronie: http://www.mapakultury.pl/art,pl,mapa-kultury,129972.html. Wiadomość tę zamieszczam z powodu usunięcia tego pliku przez użytkownika Natuur12 w sirpniu bieżącego roku z Wikimedia Commons. Zdjęcie było zamieszczone przez ponad rok w Wikipedii na stronie Bucznik (województwo śląskie) w Infoboksie i odnosiło się temtycznie ściśle do tej strony, będąć najważniejszą na niej ilustracją. Z przyczyn merytorycznych jego usunięcie jest po prostu szkodliwe. Mam nadzieję że to o czym informuję ostateczne wystarczy dla wyjaśnienia watpliwości natury prawnej, które jak się wydaje były przyczyną usunięcie pliku z Wikimedia Commons, o którego przywrócenie, jako autor tej i innych stron w Wikipedii, bardzo proszę.

Łukasz Konarzewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.konarzewski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 October 2015‎ (UTC)

@Rzuwig: , @Ankry: can one of you help out with this issue/give a short comment on what to do with this? Basvb (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@L.konarzewski and Basvb: We cannot. Unless the picture was published before 1.3.1989, it is still copyrighted in US (120 years from creation or 95 years from its first publication). A written permission from the photographer is required, which is dificult to obtain unless the photographer is known. Ankry (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, closing this one then as unlikely to receive permission. Basvb (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
However, according to the image description and OTRS author of the image is known and we have received permission from his heir. Ankry (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I see, you restored it at 19 december. thanks. Basvb (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Osterstein Castle from the air, 2008.jpg

Please delete this Photo. I took this Picture in 2008 and i have no idea, as this Picture could come here. All rights reserved by me. If the image is to be deleted. I'll hire a lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.208.143.61 (talk • contribs)

Hi, We have a formal written permission from the author, and the license is irrevocable. We already have Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osterstein Castle from the air, 2008.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Here you can find the original picture, took by me: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rbpw3ltxs5e1n1z/AAAx1bhjlyGm6LjR6TewCUBxa?dl=0 And some other pictures from the series. And now please delete the picture, or i´ll hire a lawyer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.208.143.61 (talk • contribs)
Who approved the ticket? The {{PermissionOTRS}} tag was added by the same user that originally uploaded it to English Wikipedia (before changing user names) despite not being listed at meta:OTRS/Personnel at that time. Does the ticket contain any proof of authorship trumping 92.208.143.61's ability to provide a higher resolution photo? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Now I doubt the ticket validity. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems to have gained some attention on the DR, let's post any further comments there. Basvb (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Who (from a company) can give consent for a given image use

Greetings,

so pursuant to an enwiki discussion, I've send an email to a company to request permission to use several files on their company page on Wikipedia project under "free use" concerns. I've received a positive reply, but I need to ask them to forward it to OTRS. I have to ask, when OTRS agents receive such permission statements and they are considered valid by the agents (i.e no ambiguous statements or those with too narrow a scope), by who (from the company) is the permission statement typically sent? By the en:Chief technology officer (as is the case here)? I want to be sure that the request wasn't processed by the wrong person.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It may depend on the jurisdiction and how the company is organised. If a CxO of a company asserts that he or she is authorised to speak on its behalf on a particular matter, there is generally no reason to question that. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've sent them back a request to forward the permission statement to the permissions email address, so it should arrive at OTRS shortly if they don't reconsider.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was standard practice on OTRS to accept permission statements from anyone at the company. If they say they're authorised to speak on behalf of the company, we can only accept that in good faith; if it later turns out that they're not then really that's between them and their employer. Of course, we might vary the practice a little bit (for example we might apply more scrutiny to a junior member of staff in a large organisation). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the files in question are these listed on, some of which are here on Commons. They did reply to my request but I am not sure if they understood that they ought to send a copy to the permissions queue as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you forward it to OTRS? If you leave the ticketnumber here I'll take a look (searching similar content to see if they also send something in or simply handle the ticket from your forwarded message). Basvb (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb: I've forwarded the first reply to OTRS. The forwarded copy contains my permission request as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: What is the ticket number? Basvb (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
ticket:2016013110005781 is the ticket that was cited in the auto-reply.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, found the related ticket, all is in order now. Basvb (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


The Midnight Sun.png

How do you do? I'm Jindory1618.

I'm E-mail(Permissions-ko@wikimedia.org) jindory1619@naver.com.

The Midnight Sun.svg. <- File


↓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jindory1618 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 05 January 2016 (UTC)

Because I'm Korean People. Korea Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jindory1618 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 05 January 2016 (UTC)

permissions-ko@wikimedia.org 귀하

나는 이 메일을 통하여 본인이 저작물 [ The Midnight.svg ]의 독점 저작권 고유 소유자이자 제작자임을 선언합니다.

나는 이 저작물을 자유 라이선스인 [ 다음 중에서 하나 Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ] 라이선스로 배포하는 것에 동의합니다.

나는 이 저작물에 적용되는 라이선스에 따른 조항 외 법에 준거하는 상업 목적의 이용 권한과 필요에 따른 개작 권한을 모든 사람에게 양도하는 것을 허락합니다.

나는 이용 허락이 위키미디어 프로젝트에 국한되지 않고, 전세계적으로 이용 허락을 하는 것임을 인지하고 있습니다.

나는 이 저작물의 라이선스에 따른 저작자 표시와 저작권을 본인이 계속하여 보유하는 것을 인지하고 있으며, 해당 저작물의 이차적 저작물은 그 권리가 본인에게 귀속되지 않습니다.

나는 자유 라이선스는 저작권에만 관계가 있는 것을 인지하고 있으며, 이 저작물을 명예 훼손, 인권 침해, 상표권 제한 등의 목적으로 사용하는 자에게 법적인 행동을 취할 권리를 보유하고 있습니다.

나는 이 허락을 철회하지 않을 것이며, 저작물이 위키미디어 프로젝트에 영구히 보관되거나 보관되지 않게 되는 것을 승인합니다. 

저작권자의 이름과 직책(미래의 증명을 위한 근거) Jindory1618      작성자의 권한 (저작권자, 저작권을 양도받은 기업체의 대표, 등등..)       작성일자  2016년 1월 5일

Jindory1618 (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm very Sorry. I can't. Because I'm Korean People. And I'm Korean Wikipedia Jindory1618 ID.

But My File The Midnight Sun.svg <- Will not be deleted and should be added to Wikipedia Picture.

And So I didn't recognize English. I don't know could successfully use a Wikipedia.

Help me. Jindory1618 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@-revi: , @Kwj2772: , @Sotiale: , @콩가루: , @분당선M: any of you able to answer/handle this? Basvb (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Ticket is existing and it will be handled in order of receiving. (Same for below.) — regards, Revi 15:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Midnight Sun.png

permissions-ko@wikimedia.org 귀하

나는 이 메일을 통하여 본인이 저작물 The Midnight.png의 독점 저작권 고유 소유자이자 제작자임을 선언합니다.

나는 이 저작물을 자유 라이선스인 Common_free_licenses 라이선스로 배포하는 것에 동의합니다.

나는 이 저작물에 적용되는 라이선스에 따른 조항 외 법에 준거하는 상업 목적의 이용 권한과 필요에 따른 개작 권한을 모든 사람에게 양도하는 것을 허락합니다.

나는 이용 허락이 위키미디어 프로젝트에 국한되지 않고, 전세계적으로 이용 허락을 하는 것임을 인지하고 있습니다.

나는 이 저작물의 라이선스에 따른 저작자 표시와 저작권을 본인이 계속하여 보유하는 것을 인지하고 있으며, 해당 저작물의 이차적 저작물은 그 권리가 본인에게 귀속되지 않습니다.

나는 자유 라이선스는 저작권에만 관계가 있는 것을 인지하고 있으며, 이 저작물을 명예 훼손, 인권 침해, 상표권 제한 등의 목적으로 사용하는 자에게 법적인 행동을 취할 권리를 보유하고 있습니다.

나는 이 허락을 철회하지 않을 것이며, 저작물이 위키미디어 프로젝트에 영구히 보관되거나 보관되지 않게 되는 것을 승인합니다. 저작권자의 이름과 직책(미래의 증명을 위한 근거) Jindory1618 (Korea Wikipedia) 작성자의 권한 (저작권자, 저작권을 양도받은 기업체의 대표, 등등..) 작성일자 2016년 Jan. 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jindory1618 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 05 January 2016 (UTC)

--Jindory1618 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@-revi: , @Kwj2772: , @Sotiale: , @콩가루: , @분당선M: any of you able to answer/handle this? Basvb (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg

The uploader claims that something was sent to OTRS (see User talk:Stefan2#File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg was deleted!!!). Can you check? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No email with that filename easily to find. Is there any ticket number from the OTRS auto responder?--Wdwd (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what was sent back: Dear Denes Emoke,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015102510013419].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team

DenesFeri (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: and @Wdwd: please look at this. DenesFeri (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

DenesFeri, ticket:2015102510013419 refer File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-1.jpg only. This ticket does not cope File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg. Could you send us (again) a permission for File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg via email? Thank you,--Wdwd (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you for telling me. I will try to resent it. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been received. Closing as resolved/no further action needed. Basvb (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


English Wikipedia COIN Orpheus (band)

There is a discussion at COIN Orpheus (band) regarding two OTRS images: File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG, and File:Orpheus (1969)-2.jpg. From a Google image search, the image File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG appears to be a combination of a separate name whose stylized name may have common law or federal trademark protection - (see the "R" inside the circle here) and a professional photo. It seems unlikely that an individual, rather than the band itself or their publishing company, would have the entire copyright in File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG. Were you able to confirm that User:Orpheusband drew the stylized name used on their albums in 1969, took the photo in 2014, and combined the two? Also, for the File:Orpheus (1969)-2.jpg image, were you able to confirm that User:Orpheusband took that photo in 1969, perhaps around the same time User:Orpheusband drew the stylized name? Perhaps they presented a bill of sale/contract showing that they purchased the band's intellectual property? A look at User talk:Orpheusband shows a copyright violation notice and a notice about User talk:Orpheusband posting an inappropriate comment. Those seem inconsistent with someone who would own the copyrights to File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG, and File:Orpheus (1969)-2.jpg. Please take another look at the OTRS tickets for these two images. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment This uploader put up eight images originally. The eight images were nominated, deleted by Yann. Subsequently, five were undeleted based on volunteer OTRS ticket #2015031310001879.
Discussion on this topic seems to be ongoing not only at the COI noticeboard but on talkpages. It was brought to my attention by Stefan2, but as I am not an OTRS volunteer, I cannot review the OTRS tickets on the foregoing. The only other image of the band is from Billboard and appears to be correctly licensed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The ticket is from Bruce Arnold, founder and lead singer of the band. I don't see any issue about his claims on the copyright of these images. FYI, nobody will ever show you a bill or contract. These are private documents, and won't be sent to anyone, except a court or a lawyer. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Askery polina.jpg

Can someone please check the ticket on this image? It was added by the uploader during upload, so looks suspicious. Otherwise it's a facebook image with no permission. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We need a Russian speaker for confirmation. Using translate it looks ok, but that's not a complete guarantee. Basvb (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it does seems strange for the uploader, who has no additional user rights, to apply the ticket at upload time which is why I think we need to verify this. Ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Ow, about that, looks like the OTRS volunteer indicated that the user could upload the image with the ticket in the description. Basvb (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing this as resolved. Basvb (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Poet.moglica

Could someone check these images? I have received a ticket ticket:2016010510005731. Thanks! --Stang 03:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted images, but from the DR, it looks insufficient. The ticket is the standard boilerplate and lists all the deleted images. @Cosine02: ticket owner. Storkk (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I restored 4 of them. Yann (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Closing this as resolved. Basvb (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

OTRS Administrator help requested

On Commons:Deletion requests/2016/01/01, the remaining images are claimed to be covered by OTRS tickets with numbers, but there is no indication that an OTRS administrator has been past these pages. Most/all of the image templates contain the texts of permission emails, the OTRS box has XXXXXXX for numbers, etc. Would it be possible for an OTRS administrator to take a look at these images regarding their OTRS status? Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've updated/fixed the permission for all the files mentioned on that page, there are some more from this uploader which might have permission or not on other dates, there are a huge number of tickets making the overview a bit difficult. Some of the files description could maybe use a little clean up with the high number of links, addresses, phone numbers, etc. Marking this as resolved. Basvb (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Assistance Requested/ Ticket #2016012410010528

I would like to request assistance from COM:OTRSN, so that an OTRS can verify the ticket number, upload the image that was sent to permissions-commons, and add appropriate template to the file. The ticket number is #2016012410010528. The release and photo were emailed by PBS. The Wikipedia page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Sanford Thank you. 679699sof (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward are you handling this ticket? Or should I follow up on it? Basvb (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The ticket was closed a couple of hours after the request above (which I did not see until now) was posted here. It covered File:Dr. Adriana Sanford discusses EU Data Protection Reform. Courtesy of Arizona PBS, September 2, 2014.jpg which is properly marked with {{PermissionOTRS|2016012410010528}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I did not look good enough beyond seeing your name. Marking this as resolved, thank you. Basvb (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Blatant vio

Could an Admin act on this ASAP. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you ! Mlpearc (open channel) 16:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: Permissions have been received Template:OTRS ticket Could you please un-delete the file and I will process the file and re-instate it in the article at en. Thank you for your help. Mlpearc (open channel) 08:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Somebody is on the ticket, so this should get handled if we wait a few days. Basvb (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Template:VitalyDruchenok

Could an volunteer can explain the logic behind this template? It is not clear who approved and/or added that permission. (Prefer commenting there.) Jee 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: This was Anatoliy. I have responded on the page you requested with my take. In short, looks OK in this instance for photos uploaded to the external site before the OTRS ticket date. The general case of these templates is potentially problematic, and we should really strive for proper lists of specific files rather than blanket releases. Storkk (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 17:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I see that the file on File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg in size 1,767 x 1,695 (2.87 MB) has been uploaded with permission by a company. However, in the file history there are two versions from 2014 that are of much higher sizes "3,998 x 4,828 (4.5 MB)" and "3,998 x 3,652 (4.47 MB)". My guess is that these two large versions from 2014 are too high and are not in accordance with the permission from the company.

We are allowed to create derivative works of what is uploaded here on Commons, but we are not allowed to simple find the same image in a higher resolution somewhere and then re-upload it here. That is illegal.

Is it possible to delete these two old versions from 2014 in the file history: File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg#File history?

SimpleSimpleSimple (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The company never mentioned such a restriction. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Valid OTRS Ticket, nothing illegal here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2015122710001184

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2015122710001184

Please correct the current file name containing a misspelled name (Sato Yamamoto): File:Medalists of 2015 JGPF - Nathan Chen, Dmitri Aliev, Sato Yamamoto (photo by Susan D. Russell).jpg

To the file name with the correct name (Sōta Yamamoto): File:Medalists of 2015 JGPF - Nathan Chen, Dmitri Aliev, Sōta Yamamoto (photo by Susan D. Russell).jpg

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcpedia (talk • contribs) 06:50, 13 February 2016‎ (UTC)

@Abcpedia: In future, please follow the instructions on COM:FR for file renaming. No need to bring it up here, just use the {{Rename}} template. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Global Climate Coalition logo.GIF

Request permissions review of File:Global Climate Coalition logo.GIF, a logo of a defunct trade association/lobbyist group, the Global Climate Coalition. Thank you. HughD (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: I am not sure what you are asking, but I'll take it as straightforwardly as I can and review the license template on File:Global Climate Coalition logo.GIF. "because its a logo of trade group dissolved 2001" is a spurious and invalid reason for something to be in the public domain. Unless a work falls into the public domain due to its age or the length of time after the death of its author (see COM:Hirtle chart), works essentially only become part of the public domain if they are deeded to it or are authored by a body that legally cannot claim copyright (US Federal government, for example). In this case, to keep the logo, we will need a license confirmation from the copyright holder. It is entirely possible that no legal entity can be found that is the copyright holder - in this case, we would have an orphan work, which would have to be deleted. Storkk (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please delete, as I now understand orphaned is not public domain. Thank you. HughD (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Revent (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploads from User:Plaid Cymru Swyddogol

Due to a DR I noticed the File:Dafydd Trystan - Cardiff South & Penarth.jpg (uploaded 17 August 2015), which is used here since 12 August 2015. User:Plaid Cymru Swyddogol (a political party in Wales) uploaded several files. I think a permission via OTRS is needed not only for this file but also for the other uploads. Please take care of this matter. -- Common Good (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Common Good: the usual way for OTRS volunteers to "take care of this matter" would be for you to nominate the files for deletion (or tag them {{subst:npd}}), mentioning that the user should email us following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know the usual way. But in this case it is not about one file or several files. It is about a user. So a broader solution is needed. IIRC there was a discussion how to handle such cases but I do not know about the outcome. I have searched for it (here and over at VP) but I have not found it. That is why I am asking the OTRS volunteers, who know it. I'll watch this discussion. -- Common Good (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Common Good: I disagree: the photos were taken by different cameras in different places (and some look like TV stills), and verifying the account will in this case not be considered evidence of adequate permission for the files. That might work for an artist or photographer publishing their own work, but not in this case, IMO. I do not believe the party is the copyright holder of all these, at least not without a convincing explanation. Storkk (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you got me absolutely wrong. You do not have to disagree. In fact that is the reason why I started the topic here. And you are absolutely right about the TV stills. Propably a larger problem than expected. -- Common Good (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I meant that it seems pointless to verify the account, when we will require permission for each file anyway. Storkk (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Common Good: I will go ahead and start the mass DR. Storkk (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Link to DR. Storkk (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk and Common Good: I've just talked over the phone with Plaid HQ. They were not aware of the above discussion. Yes, the banner on one image (Dafydd Trystan) is not freely licenced, and should be cropped. The rest, they say, are their images. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: with respect, that is not correct. File:Adam Price - Carmarthen East & Dinefwr.jpg, for example, is a photo by Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA. Evidence for each file should be sent in following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messanger! I'll phone him again. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Not shooting anybody, and thank you for being a go-between! However, now that there is a DR, all further discussion should take place at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Plaid_Cymru_Swyddogol. Storkk (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Telefunken minidisk.jpg

Hi! Above file received OTRS via Ticket:2011012010009761 (@Jcb: ). The question is: did http://www.audiorama.com.br issued the permission? If yes, audiorama.com.br (a private hobby site maintained by "Eduardo Colasuonno") was most likely NOT in the position to emit a related free license. The Mini-Disk-Player was developed by German company Telefunken in +/- 1979 but — considering the related dewiki entry de:Mini-Disk — the market introduction was never concluded and the player was not produced in series. The photo is most likely a promotional picture, copyrighted by Telefunken and used for German magazines ("Funkschau") and on fairs. If someone could check the details of the ticket, it would be great. Thx in advance. Gunnex (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The permission comes from Audiorama.com.br. Jcb (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thx! I opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Telefunken minidisk.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2011 05 Edvard Chubaryan 75th Birthday 37.jpg

User who downloaded this image says, that he included it in permission ticket:2013052110006439. Please, check it and add this permission to file. 17:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Красный Партизан (talk • contribs)

@Jcb, ticket owner. Ticket purports to cover images and text on what likely should be seen as this version of a hywiki page. A possible issue is that many images were added by an ip, whereas most historical edits were made by a Vahram Mekhitarian. I have doubts about the validity of the ticket, but will defer to any other agent. Storkk (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Striking part of my comment, as images were uploaded by Vahram Mekhitarian. Ticket still seems dubious to me. Storkk (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Situation seems really strange, because uploader says, that all of that files are property of Edvard Chubaryan and he permitted the usage. But I don't know is he really the owner of that images. Specifically this image — a photo collage and I don't know anything about copyrights in those cases. Красный Партизан (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
File was deleted. Красный Партизан (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Красный Партизан (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Fiona Steil-Antoni.png

ticket:2015061910024061. Permission granted by Nagy. There might be a permission but I can see no information whatsoever in which year this picture was taken nor at which tournament. The information about this on en.wikipedia was given by an IP without edit comment or source. Would you be so kind to add information to "Description" and/or "Source"? Thank you, --Gereon K. (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gereon K.: Ticket contains no information regarding when and where the photograph was taken. It was submitted two days before the putative date, however, so I've removed the obviously wrong date. Storkk (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Gereon K. (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"The photograph may not be manipulated in any way. Also, it may not be used in any type of commercial"...

Please see Commons:Village_pump#Korea.net_photos / help us reach consensus on what should be done with the 16 files found here. Posting here because the OTRS ticket may have key info .--Elvey (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: commented here. Storkk (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

process for OTRS verification of permission of copyright holder (a professional photographer) - point me in right direction?

In brief - my friend is an accomplished sports photojournalist and I'm fortunate enough that he captured several great images of me and several other athletes - images that could immediately be integrated into Wikipedia content that already exists, which he is willing to license suitably for inclusion in Commons. He's not interested in doing the whole create-an-account-and-upload-his-work thing - though of course he emails...and he's already made clear to me his willingness to grant appropriate permission for the images to be used here. I've never been on-point in this process though, and while I recall that there is some verification thing/step through OTRS, I also don't know what OTRS is and I can't seem to find the guide that I thought I'd bookmarked previously. So my request is will someone please point me in the direction of the process handbook you follow when a Commons user (me) is going to upload a professional photographer's work that he already has permission to include in Commons, but which he will have confirmed/verified by the photographer himself, via email? Thank you kindly. joepaT 03:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joep01: You can find more information on OTRS here and the consent form for the owner of the files can fill out and send to OTRS. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: Thank you. Will examine the material you've linked to. Much obliged. joepaT 00:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS information concerning the picture of Anne Frank File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto.jpg

Hello,

can you provide me information concerning the picture of picture of Anne Frank File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto.jpg? The documentation in Wikipedia says, that there is a letter by Anne Frank Foundation Amsterdam confirming the free status of the picture. Is it possible to get access to this letter in order to ensure that the information given by Wikipedia is correct? The link to the OTRS ticket is https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2015092310015067

All the best

Recred

Information in Wikipedia

Anne Frank im Jahr 1940

Unbekannter Fotograf; Collectie Anne Frank Stichting Amsterdam - Website Anne Frank Stichting, Amsterdam

Anne Frank in 1940, while at 6. Montessorischool, Niersstrraat 41-43, Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Photograph by unknown photographer. According to Dutch copyright law Art. 38: 1 (unknown photographer & pre-1943 so >70 years after first disclosure) now in the public domain. “Unknown photographer” confirmed by Anne Frank Foundation Amsterdam in 2015 (see email to OTRS) and search in several printed publications and image databases. Einzelheiten zur Genehmigung OTRS Wikimedia 

       Die Freigabe zur Nutzung dieses Werks wurde im Wikimedia-OTRS archiviert; dort kann die Konversation von Nutzern mit OTRS-Zugang eingesehen werden. Zur Verifizierung kann man jederzeit bei einem OTRS-Mitarbeiter anfragen.

Link zum Ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2015092310015067 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.237.209.238 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Ticket is in Dutch. @Natuur12 and Jcb: can you help? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The email verifies what is stated in the file description, namely that the Anne Frank Foundation Amsterdam confirms that the photographer is unknown. It might be better fitted to not add an otrs-permission, but to link the ticket in the description as it verifies this fact, but does not constitute a permission in itself. As far as I can see the description does not state that there is a letter from the Anne Frank foundation "confirming the free status of the picture", but rather a confirmation that the photographer is unknown. I think that, if there are any doubts about the reasoning behind the public domain status, asking the uploader for some more information on that might be able to answer questions you have. Basvb (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Recred Recred (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC) :This section was archived on a request by: Recred (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you received permission re photo for Garry Trudeau entry?

Greetings!


Some time back I posted a photo of Garry Trudeau for the GARRY TRUDEAU entry, but it was (correctly) removed because I had submitted the permission from the photographer incorrectly.

The photographer, Linda Cicero, has now (sometime since summer; I apologize for not knowing exactly when) sent in the proper permission (from lacicero@stanford.edu I assume), and I am writing to ask you to please look in the received mail / approval queue for that. As I understand it, if everything is in order you will then be able to restore the image, which is this:

File:Garry_Trudeau_2014_stanforduniversity.jpeg

If everything is NOT in order, please let me know what to do next! Your colleague Ellen Beltz wrote me on 12-10-15 and was most helpful in getting me this far...

With best wishes to you for 2016. Cheers!

David themanagement@doonesbury.com

David Stanford, DTH (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Stanford, DTH: We received ticket:2015100810020989 from Linda Cicero on 2015-10-08. Clarification/confirmation was requested on 2015-10-12, but nothing has been received since. Essentially, what is missing is confirmation that Stanford (the copyright holder) have released the rights or that Ms. Cicero can do so on Stanford's behalf. Storkk (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@David Stanford, DTH: I will attempt to follow up again regarding this in the next few days. Storkk (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Took longer than I wanted, but I've attempted to follow up with Stanford. Hopefully it works out and we can restore the photo. Storkk (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@David Stanford, DTH: Success! File restored. Storkk (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Candies.png

Pleasse verify the permission as it was added by the uploader. If it's valid please change the OTRS tag to reviewed so it doesn't come up again. --Denniss (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks bogus to me. Have nominated it for deletion. Storkk (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Cobalt CO50 Valkyrie.png & File:Cobalt Co50 Valkyrie.png

Dear OTRS volunteers,

can someone please verify permission for File:Cobalt CO50 Valkyrie.png and File:Cobalt Co50 Valkyrie.png, which are currently being undeleted? I believe permission was sent from an @cobalt-aircraft.com email. Thank you! Ariadacapo (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Ticket:2016012410009754 and Ticket:2016012410010537. Neither have the boilerplate that we prefer (COM:CONSENT), but they might be deemed acceptable given that the uploader's username appears to match an official at the company. Given they need another back-and-forth, I'll leave this for another agent... the permissions-en queue has >100 day backlog, so I am trying to focus time on that. Storkk (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am getting back to them and asking for a better permission mail. Thank you for your time Storkk. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OTRS review + undeletion needed

Please see Commons:Village pump#OTRS review + undeletion needed. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The case was reviewed by Storkk, see here. Apparently you didn't like the outcome, but that is not a reason to get the case reviewed again and again, hoping that at last somebody will come with the answer you are hoping for. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You need to 1) drop the stick on this and allow an independent review of your actions and 2) read what Storkk actually said. 81.159.41.192 16:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OTRS ticket review required: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2000년대 초반 서울소방 소방공무원(소방관) 활동 사진 배꼽응원.jpg

Hi, could an OTRS volunteer please have a look at the ticket for Commons:Deletion requests/File:2000년대 초반 서울소방 소방공무원(소방관) 활동 사진 배꼽응원.jpg and comment on the deletion request? Thanks and best regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:    FDMS  4    15:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo of the Israeli Declaration of Independence

There's four identical pictures of the Declaration of the State of Israel:

File:DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE Israel Wwwm1876.jpg
File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - David Ben Gurion reading the Declaration of Independence.jpg
File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - David Ben Gurion reading the Declaration of Independence (1).jpg
File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - Declaration of Independence in the Tel Aviv museum hall.jpg

The first one had PD-Israel license, and the others CC BY-SA 3.0 with OTRS permission. I was about to nominate the latter three for deletion so I put its license into the first one. Was it right? Which license is better? I don't understand how it works.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Surely no matter which one is kept {{PD-Israel}} certainly applies and it came out of copyright in 1999, so a OTRS ticket is not even needed no matter what way one reads the template. File:DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE Israel Wwwm1876.jpg is the best image having been straightens and cropped. Ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: If "it came out of copyright in 1999", then URAA applies. I think it is safer to keep the OTRS permission. Or just leave both. Ankry (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I forgot about that. I still consider the best image to keep is File:DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE Israel Wwwm1876.jpg after applying the OTRS to it and then delete the others. But you OTRS volunteers know best. Ww2censor (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please check ticket

File:David M. Kiely, author.jpg was uploaded in 2010, under ticket 2010092210012857. It was later overwritten by the same uploader in 2012. I've just split the overwritten image off as File:David M. Kiely, author - 2012.jpg. Please check the ticket as regards the overwritten version... thanks in advance. Revent (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The ticket is for file File:David M. Kiely, author.jpg. It is also not exactly necessary as it just claim that those images are copyrighted by the uploader. --Jarekt (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Revent: ticket mentions only the first file, I have removed it from the second. FWIW, I would not accept that ticket now (although I believe standards have considerably tightened in the last 5 years) without asking clarification as to how the subject is the copyright holder. Pinging @Jcb, ticket owner. Storkk (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Obviously it would not be accepted now. This must be one of the first tickets I handled, about a week after I got access. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

King muh (talk · contribs)

Currently blocked, claims here to have provided permission for his works to be hosted here. Could someone check the ticket, please? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: not sure what to do with this ticket. @DarwIn, ticket owner. Storkk (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: As far as I know, he has not yet provided a specific license, and I'm still evaluating this case, but there is a dialog going on.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I added an internal note to the ticket hopefully to explain the context. Эlcobbola talk 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Shirley Joyce Katz Pavilion at it's completion on Sep 18, 1949.jpg

This file, which has been deleted twice (by User:Jameslwoodward and again by User:Alan after it was recreated by the originally uploader) was just restored by User:Whym with an OTRS permission tag and unchanged source and authorship information.

I still sincerely doubt that this image was created by the uploader. As I pointed out in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shirley Joyce Katz Pavilion at it's completion on Sep 18, 1949.jpg, 1949 was 66 years ago, and the uploader claimed on the (since deleted) File talk:Shirley Joyce Katz Pavilion at it's completion on Sep 18, 1949.jpg to still be working. If the uploader was 18 when the photo was taken, he or she would be well over 80 years old by now.

Does the OTRS ticket address this? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@LX: It does not appear satisfactory to me. Perhaps confusion arose on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shirley Joyce Katz Pavilion at it's completion on Sep 18, 1949.jpg because the submitter owns a copy of that drawing, which they photographed... I see on the ticket that Whym has today requested further clarification. Storkk (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
[edit conflict -- written before I saw Storkk's comment]
There are four images on the ticket:
The writer says, in two different e-mails:
"...i am the rightful copyright owner of all those images."
"I assert that I am the photographer and the sol owner of the drawing."
He makes no explanation of how he is the copyright owner of a signed architectural drawing, or anything else for that matter.
The subject photo (Shirely Katz Pavillion....) is a professional photo with no people, cars, or anything else in it but the building. It is marked for publication with a single crop line at the bottom, so it was probably published in 1949. If that publication had notice and renewal, it is still under copyright. The other two photos are not quite so obviously professional.
The e-mails come from a Yahoo account. If they came from an account at the hospital, I might be inclined to believe him, but as it is, I think User:Whym erred.
It is odd that the only one of the four that Whym did not restore was the drawing. Since it does not have a copyright notice, it is the most likely to be OK. I think the three photos should be deleted again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I think these questions are valid - I have deleted the three files again, and sent another email to request further clarification. @Storkk and Jameslwoodward: if you could watch ticket:2015121410030168 and be available for answering, that would be great. whym (talk)
Thanks. FYI when you're processing this ticket: there's a copy of the image at http://www.brooklynvisualheritage.org/shirley-joyce-katz-pavilion, which states that "Copyright restrictions apply to the use of this image", so that probably needs to be addressed as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

File:E (Big Bang album).jpg

The uploader of this file, User:CesarLeto, who is not an OTRS agent (on the contrary, the user has a long history of uploading copyright violations), marked this file as reviewed. The ticket ID seems to be taken from File:A cover Bigbang.jpg, a similar image but with some clear differences, which was uploaded and marked as reviewed by User:Teemeah. Is the ticket valid for File:E (Big Bang album).jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@LX: Ticket contains the language "YG Entertainment allows the use of YG Entertainment album covers ..." and the CC-BY-2.0 license. No mention of any specific files, which would be preferable. Interestingly, Teemeah's confirmation reply to the customer bounced twice due to a full inbox. Email came from an address at ygmail.com, which may have at one time been the correct domain, but now appears to be spamparked. I'd much prefer that it mentioned specific files, or barring that, that we interpret tickets such as this narrowly to refer only to files uploaded before the ticket, but I may be more exacting in my standards on this than most. So in the end it's not clear cut, and is close to my personal line, but there is probably not enough doubt to motivate a DR. Storkk (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk and LX: YGmail.net (not com, and the permission came from a .net address) is the official email domain of YG entertainment (see similar address here: http://www.yg-audition.com/daily_ko.php). The person giving the permission was a YG employee at the time for e-marketing. I don't see why the permission would be invalid. getting permission for certain files onlz limits things, since this is a record label putting out new stuff every month. The permission they give is for any album cover they release (not including the Japanese releases under YGEX, a sister company). Getting a bounced mail means nothing, even my own boss' mailbox is always full... Teemeah (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Struck my mention of ygmail.com, which was just carelessness on my part I guess. I will flesh out why we need to "limit things" by getting concrete lists in the morning. Storkk (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
They chose to give such a permission, nobody forced them to... A limited number of album covers would mean we would need to write to them basically every month to get permission for newly released stuff. What's the point then...? To bother them all the time until they get fed up with Wikimedia projects? :) Teemeah (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Teemeah: apologies for the delay, I have been extremely busy off-wiki. Essentially, the problem that arises if we don't have specific lists is that the release becomes meaningless. Is the release a contract with us stating that any album cover they release in the future is CC-licensed? If they decide to release an unfree album cover in the future, are they obliged to come tell us (if so, what if the agent who handles that future ticket has no idea what they are referring to)? What happens in twenty years, when the employee of YG who sent the permission here is gone, and the ticket agent is gone too (hopefully not, but who knows)? I don't think we should start interpreting what the ticket means, unless the interpretation is obvious after the fact and to someone unfamiliar with the ticket's history... without explicit lists, I don't think it is obvious enough. Sorry this is a bit stream-of-consciousness, but I haven't had enough time to write this properly. Storkk (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point, but don't necessarily agree with it, since they found us first (the person who sent the email first uploaded several promotional photos of en:Big Bang (South Korean band) on his own for use in Wikipedia and sent CC permission for them to OTRS, so they were clearly aware of what the licence means. In any case, you are free to contact YG Entertainment for further clarification. Teemeah (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_fotopresidencia.cl

I request the restoration of the files from Prensa Presidencia. As many user already know, all the contents of all the websites from the Government of Chile are licensed under the CC-BY license according to the Oficio 112/14 of September 2010 and this include any of these websites, even if them lacks of the link to the CC-BY license and even if the page contains restrictions of modifications (these restrictions are just invalid and I requested the updating of the website to be aligned with the legislation of Chile).

I already sended the permission of these files to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org about 12 hours ago, but I didn't received the automated answer with the OTRS ticket.

Can an OTRS member if there is a problem with the system, or at least, check it and restore the files, meanwhile providing me the OTRS ticket? Thanks in advance. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

An OTRS volunteer already told me the OTRS ticket in the IRC, and I requested the restoration at COM:UDEL. This thread can be closed now, but be aware of the issue that I reported. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you check the copyright status of these files?

Hi there,

Can you verify the licenses of these files [1], [2], [3], [4] uploaded to Commons, and see if they're ok? Many thanks (62.205.96.37 06:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC))

Looks like they've all been deleted. Storkk (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Avril Nyambura selfie.JPG

Greetings the OTRS team. I just uploaded an image of Avril that was sent to me about a year ago. I forwarded the email I received to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Can someone look into this and approve the OTRS pending tag? The link to the image on Wikimedia Commons can be seen here. Versace1608 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Received but insufficient. Please continue further conversation in the ticket itself, rather than on this noticeboard. Storkk (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Otto-Modersohn-Kabinett Wertheim.jpg

Dieses Foto hat eine Löschwarnung erhalten. Dass die Genehmigung vom Commons-OTRS-Team noch nicht empfangen wurde, stimmt nicht. Allerdings wurde in der Antwort [Ticket#2016011910011617] an den Fotografen Kurt Bauer, der sein Einverständnis zur Verwendung des Fotos erklärt hat, für jedes abgebildete Bild von Künstlern, die seit weniger als 70 Jahren tot sind, eine Freigabe des Urhebers gefordert. Im Forum wurde ich darauf hingewiesen, dass Commons:De minimis greifen könnte. Kann bitte jemand kurzfristig entscheiden, ob diese Regel angewandt werden kann? Es handelt sich ja wirklich nur um kleine, perspektivisch verzerrte Abbildungen. Obwohl das nicht irreversibel wäre, möchte ich vermeiden, dass das Bild gelöscht wird. Ich habe erhebliche Kommunikationsprobleme mit dem Fotografen, der wohl krank ist. Dank und Gruß, --Anselm Rapp (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Das Foto wurde gestern gelöscht. Ich hatte gehofft, vorher eine Antwort zu erhalten. Wird meine Anfrage nun überhaupt noch beantwortet? --Anselm Rapp (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Anselm Rapp: I don't believe de minimis applies: the paintings seem to be the only real point of the photo... Storkk (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Ok, thank you. I'll try to get another picture showing the room with paintings of artists dead since more than 70 years. Regards, --Anselm Rapp (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

File:British singer George Michael of Wham!, London, 1983.jpg

Seems like a likely copyright violation, but the uploader claims to have submitted permission from Getty Images to OTRS. Is there any merit to that claim? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@LX: There are no tickets matching "George Michael" or "Wham" in the permissions queues in the past year. It would help if we had a ticket number, but I suspect at best they have licensed the photo from Getty and gotten a "you can use this photo for XYZ", which is insufficient. That said, I haven't even found that in the system. Storkk (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Tagged as copyvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Professor Universitar Dr. Iulia Motoc.jpg

Could someone with access to the Romanian queue look at the attached OTRS ticket and figure out if it is for the image at the provided resolution? We have an image at a higher resolution uploaded to English Wikipedia beforehand: w:File:Professor Universitar Dr. Iulia Motoc.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The mail of ticket contains:
  • At #1 she says that she releases the copyright. No mention about license.
  • At #2 she says that the person who published the photograph had her permission. (IMHO a statement as for a journalist.)
  • At #6 she repeats the permission and says there is no copyright. (IMHO comming from a lawyer it is a startling statement.)
  • At #7 the content is "Eu, autorul acestei imagini o ofer dommeniului public." Translate: "I, the author of this image, I offer it to the public domain."
IMHO the meaning of above dialog is "I have interest and agree to give you any statement". Formally, it is impossible to prove that it is not a selfie. --Turbojet (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I've uploaded the higher resolution version from Wikipedia, which it sounds like is acceptable according to the release. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Martin Medina Composer.tif

Hello Wikimedians. Would someone be able to help please? I recently uploaded a photograph (Martin Medina Composer.tif) which was deleted soon after upload as I had not completed an OTRS submission. I then completed an OTRS submission and an undeletion request. After appropriate scrutiny, the undeletion request was upheld and the image is now available again on Wikimedia Commons. However, the following paragraph stating that the image will be displayed in 30 days if supplementary permission is not provided. I used the OTRS Permission email template on the main OTRS help page and am not clear as to what further information I am required to provide. Could you clarify what I ought to submit in order to avoid a second deletion please? Thanks and best wishes medinm01Medinm01 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For ease of reference, this is the paragraph to which I refer...
An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted. Please do not file an additional deletion nomination for permission reasons.

Medinm01 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Medinm01, I am the OTRS agent that processed and approved your ticket. I apologize for the confusion this has caused, OTRS uses two templates that are very similar in name; OTRS Permission and OTRS Received. These templates are occasionally confused or the wrong one is added because of clicking the wrong button. I have fixed the template that was added to your file when undeleted by the admin, as you can see here. Riley Huntley (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Riley Huntley (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2007091910008544 and File:Affinage Gruyere.jpg

While it says on the file description page who the uploader was, it doesn't say who the copyright holder is. Please clarify. -- 141.48.43.27 09:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright holder is Walo von Mühlenen, as attempted to be credited in the second upload (see original upload log). Storkk (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 04:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2013052310008773

See also: Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Russavia_-_deletion_of_old_uploads and User_talk:Odder#Problems_with_Jcb.

Can ticket:2013052310008773 please be reviewed by an OTRS admin in relation to the above claims of fraud for this ticket. @Krd: ping. Cheers! Riley Huntley (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Riley Huntley: could you please check the ticket number? This was the one from two sections up and has nothing to do with Russavia or Jcb one way or another. Storkk (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Fixed; 2013052310008773 is the correct ticket number. Thanks for noticing my error. Riley Huntley (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this at various places. My explanation about how I decided to delete these files is here. Jcb (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The ticket seems valid. The agency confirming that their images are CC-BY. Platonides (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The ticket looks valid for me as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem with the ticket is that although it contains the correct magic words, it comes from the wrong person. The flickr stream owner is apparently not the author of the files, at least not of all of them. Jcb (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
See my review here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Haydn Washington.jpg

It'd be most appreciated if an OTRS member could take care of File:Haydn Washington.jpg -- as it's in use on a Good Article quality page on en.wikipedia.

Thank you !

-- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Permission received. Basvb (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much !!! -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Dr Maniruzzaman 2016 with Bangla Academy Award.jpg and File:Dr Maniruzzaman photo 2011.jpg

Hello, can you tell me what I must do? I was told to ask for help here. I upload two photos and send OTRS statement Ticket#: 2016041210020043. On my talk page it says the photos may be deleted. M.Hasan2016 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Responded.    FDMS  4    15:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:    FDMS  4    15:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Marko Đurić.jpg

I am asking for some help in confirming OTRS permission for image File:Marko Đurić.jpg. Mail was sent yesterday under the subject Permission for File:Marko Đurić.jpg. Can someone please search for a ticket? --Axiomus (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus: looks like Ticket:2016022210010235. Probably needs another back-and-forth to establish who the photographer was, but that's probably up to the discretion of the agent who will take the ticket. Ticket is only 13 days old though, so it is certainly in the queue. Storkk (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Awaiting reply and with correct template (received no permission as of yet). I'll close this section as resolved. Basvb (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Port de Saint Tropez.JPG

Could a French OTRS-volunteer check ticket:2013111210013534 and whether it contains permission for File:Port de Saint Tropez.JPG (or evidence that the uploader had the rights to release the file)? Basvb (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ticket in question does not specifically specify File:Port de Saint Tropez.JPG, however, it contains evidence that the uploader had the rights to release this file. The identity of the uploader has been verified. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

parlament.ch

Could someone who speaks German check out ticket:2016030410008521 in reference to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Parlament.ch? The DR needs an update and this ticket looks related, but I can't read it. (You can respond on the DR page.) czar 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that there is an answer on the DR page. Basvb (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jat helping.jpg

Has any email regarding this file been received? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jat helping.jpg was created at the end of February, and on the same day, the uploader claimed that an OTRS email had been sent. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Not that I can see... responded on the DR. Storkk (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It is under ticket:2016022910015843. However I fail to see how it is possible to provide evidence that this file is own work using OTRS, it is not published on another location (with a connected email-address). The doubt is that there is no EXIF data and the user has previously uploaded copyright violations. The way to reduce this doubt is to provide EXIF data, the way to substantiate the doubt is by finding an external version of the file. In the latter case OTRS can be useful, however currently I do not see how the OTRS-system can help with providing evidence in a way which can not be done on Commons itself. I'll answer the ticket and ask whether the uploader can provide the file with EXIF-data, however I don't see OTRS being the way to go here (and not adding a ticket nr in this case as a direct reason for deletion). Basvb (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 Info Being handled by Basvb via OTRS. There has been no response from the uploader to a request sent on 10 April, so I think this can now be closed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Beautiful_landscape_of_Cemoro_Lawang,_Mount_Bromo.jpg

Please explain me what to do. I already have the permission via email. --Impériale (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Impériale: Please have the photographer send us a free license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Note that all licenses we accept must allow for anybody to use it for any purpose, including commercial (see COM:L). Storkk (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Bassnectar_Live_at_Coachella_Wknd_2.jpg

My photo is being used here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bassnectar_Live_at_Coachella_Wknd_2.jpg

I gave permission since they just said "we want to use it for Wiki and it seems like a good fit"

However I do not approve of the licensing terms, as the photo cannot be used for commercial use and is registered under the Library Of Congress.

Ticket Link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2013062810010311

Is there any way to modify the license to be more restrictive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukes (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 April 2016‎ (UTC)

@Rukes: No, we accept no media that have "non-commercial" style licenses. In any case, you sent an email on July 1, 2013 clearly licensing the photograph under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License, both of which allow for commercial derivative works. In the email, you also explicitly stated "I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product...", and you acknowledged "I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement". This email was in response to a query from us explicitly asking you for a license and for you to state that you realized that it could be commercially used. We will therefore not be able to acquiesce to your request. Storkk (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:TerryNelson.jpg

I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. Pinging Angus Guilherme for comment here also (but absolutely not making or implying any criticism of the handling of the ticket). I note that a licence was added to the page by Iliketoeatpotatoesalot; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. This discussion may be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The release is from FP1 Stategies and seems perfectly fine in that sense. Basvb (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Basvb, but how is it fine? The EXIF data shows Michael Temchine as the copyright holder. Where is the release from him, or evidence of transfer of copyright ownership? On the other topic, is sockpuppetry discouraged on Commons, as it is in en.wp? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I was not trying to say that everything was fine, only that the FP1 release is fine (and that there is nothing else in the ticket). I might have been a bit too subtle in my wording. That does not mean that everything is fine with this image, to be kept it should be determined/made clear whether this was a work for hire and whether FP1 or Michael Temchine owns the copyright. But there is nothing on that topic in OTRS, so that is to be decided on in the deletion process. On the sockpuppetry issue, I doubt whether this is the page to answer that on (I don't know the answer from the top of my head), maybe the DR or Admin noticeboard can help out with that issue. Basvb (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016041110010181

Hi OTRS agent Basvb,


I never got a response on my sent Declaration of consent but my photo has still been deleted from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainvoyager. As suggested I did place the template "OTRS pending" on the deleted page, right after sending my email. Here is a copy of my email of 11 April 2016 to you:

<email copies removed>

What will happen now? I am the creator of the deleted photograph and therefore the copyright holder, as affirmed in my email of 11 April 2016.


Deirdre Ross (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Deirdre Ross,

It is still an open ticket, when the ticket is dealt with the image will be undeleted (if the ticket is fine). I might take a look at it later today. I've removed your email from here (and will remove your edit from the history), as crawlers tend to search for email addresses on these pages and for your privacy. Basvb (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Basvb, thanks a lot for your quick reply! I hope everything will be ok again soon. Deirdre Ross (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I answered the ticket with some follow-up questions, you can also answer, using the OTRS-system, in Dutch if prefered. Basvb (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Permission processed.  :This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:"Every now. And again." 2011, Hammer Museum, Los Angeles, CA ink on wall.jpg

I presume that because this is a photograph of a 3d artwork, the photograph is entitled to a separate copyright for the photographer, Brian Forrest. However the copyright holder of the underlying work asserts that she instructed him on the angle and composition of the shot. Does that make any difference to who the copyright-holder of the photograph is? --Rrburke (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest moving this question to COM:VPC where, for example Carl or another of our experts would be more likely to see it. Storkk (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Will do. --Rrburke (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Great. I'll mark this as resolved so as not to fork the discussion, which should now take place at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:.22Every_now._And_again..22_2011.2C_Hammer_Museum.2C_Los_Angeles.2C_CA_ink_on_wall.jpg. Storkk (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruprecht von Mangoldt.JPG

Hi, for the above linked image a permission had been sent on September 24, 2015 to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org. Nevertheless, 1 month later the image was still untouched by any OTRS-volunteer and consequently had been deleted. As the permission-mail has been disclosed to me by the original sender, I have temp-undeleted the image to allow OTRS volunteers to check for the permission-mail (possible search term "Ruprecht von Mangoldt", the depicted person) and evaluate it accordingly. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Permission is pending under Ticket:2015092410007556 after recent incoming replies. Basvb (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
There is some backlog in few OTRS queues (including de). So be patient, please. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I try, but now its 5 1/2 months since the permission-mail had been sent. --Túrelio (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Martin Kraft, Krd, and Túrelio: It appears that the permission has come from the subject rather than the photographer, although the photographer (Christian Malsch) has been identified. I think we should probably delete until permission comes in. As Túrelio says, this has been languishing for almost 6 months. Martin Kraft did attempt to re-establish contact four days ago, but the photograph can always be undeleted if permission is ever established. Storkk (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk and Túrelio: There has been a massive delay of more than 3 months due to the OTRS-backlog - so maybe deleting the picture (temporarily) is a good way to reactivate the our mail contact ;) // Martin K. (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to get it straight: I have no intend to delete the image, if not deemed necessary. This image comes via a fully trustworthy user, whom I know by face and who had (or was) contacted the depicted person. For sure, this doesn't exclude the possibility of an error of judgement by the depicted person about copyright-ownership. --Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Rather than delete it under {{subst:npd}}, I've nominated it for deletion. Hopefully this gets resolved soon. Storkk (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:April_Masini-1.jpg

Could someone double check this image please. The source is ARR, not all images from the source being released, and the ticket was placed on the image by someone other than the OTRS volunteer declared, so it is not clear that an OTRS volunteer checked this image specifically. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: Ticket covers File:April_Masini-1.jpg and File:April_Masini-2.jpg, so the following applies to both files: Ticket was submitted by the subject of the photos who sent in the standard boilerplate that includes the statement that they are "creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright". No explanation of why the subject owns the copyright instead of the photographer was asked or offered. I will revert both to {{OTRS received}} and ask for an explanation from the submitter. Storkk (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, it seems a sensible precaution. It could be that there are related photographs where there was confusion between the rights of the model/owner and the original photographer. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fæ: The situation has now been corrected. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Storkk (talk)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Book cover - Shibari, the Art of Japanese Bondage.jpg

According to the source of this file, it was "supplied by the pseudonymous Mr. "K" himself, who asserts that he holds the U.S. copyright and is releasing this work under the GFDL." The problem is that it was published originally in Brussels, Belgium, not the USA, so the US copyright is not as relevant. Is there a good reason why an author, who claims to hold copyright in one country only, is able to license this image without the permission of the copyright holder in Belgium? Do we know for sure that the licensor was indeed the copyright holder? Alternatively, have the publishers given permission for the image to be licensed? 92.40.249.59 00:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally can not open the ticket, meaning it is not in the permission queue. Maybe in any of the en-queues? Basvb (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb: moved from info-en to permissions-commons. Storkk (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've reviewed the ticket. The releaser is (claimed, I can't verify) both author and US copyright holder (including the cover of the book) and states that the Belgian publisher is also OK with the restoration (release) of the cover. Another issue might be that I tried to verify the email address, and am unable to do so, this is however a common issue with older tickets, and it could be that at the time it was verifiable. I see that you've nominated File:TheBeautyofKinbakucover.jpg, which claims permission but is uploaded from another account (and has been deleted twice already under other file names). Basvb (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb: thank you for chasing this up. I wanted to use this image as part of a presentation but it seems that the image may not have been properly released. I understand what you mean about the problem with older files but I don't think copyright law gives any such get-out clauses. The original upload may have been acceptable to English Wikipedia in 2006, but the file was transferred to Commons in 2008, so it should have been checked properly then. Since the author is effectively anonymous, I would have thought that the publisher would have been an obvious contact to verify that the image is being released. 92.40.248.219 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea what kind of problem with this picture

i cropped this picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H%C3%B6rmahnmal_am_Schwarzgrabenweg_Salzburg.jpg to this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H%C3%B6rmahnmal_am_Schwarzgrabenweg_Salzburg_2.jpg and now i have a lincence-prob. don't know why, can someone help? --Gedenksteine (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You accidentally removed the license. I fixed it for you. ★ Poké95 09:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 09:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ticket applied by the uploader

Can someone please check File:Un valencià al Congo.jpg where a ticket was applied by the uploader, an editor with just 300+ edits. If the ticket is good can you give it a good review. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ticket is not in a queue I have access to (permissions/photosubmissions/info-en). Storkk (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: It is in permissions::permissions-commons now. Josve05a (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:TS Madison Hinton.jpg

Given that Getty Images typically does not agree to publish their content under licenses allowing anyone to use it for any purpose including commercial purposes, and given that the uploader seems to believe that the subject of a photo is the copyright holder, I'm wondering if we could expedite the verification of the permission that has supposedly been sent in, so that we don't needlessly leave a likely copyright violation up. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Information for agents: ticket:2015111610021596 --Josve05a (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@LX: Obvious copyright violation. @Josve05a: No, the ticket you quoted was for File:TSMadisonHinton.jpg, not this Getty image. Storkk (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
See message 11-13 Josve05a (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
There is indeed a link to this image in message 11, I did not initially interpret that as an attempt to grant permission... perhaps I was wrong. Storkk (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Thales RBC Hardware 3.13752 b 1E HG.jpg

The following is in German, related to an e-mail sent to permissions-commons-de: Hallo, die Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung von File:Thales RBC Hardware 3.13752 b 1E HG.jpg wurde am 26. Februar, 18:28 Uhr, an permisions-commons-de@wikimedia.org übermittelt, kam aber offenbar nicht an. Die Genehmigung wurde nun (18:57 Uhr) nochmal an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org übermittelt. Um eine drohende Löschung des Werks wegen vermeintlich fehlender Genehmigung zu vermeiden, würde ich mich über eine Rückmeldung freuen, ob die Mail diesmal ankam. --Bigbug21 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Bigbug21 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OTRS - File:Sanjev Rajaram Assist.gif

Hi my friend Keith Balan has confirmed to me he has sent out an email regarding the fact that he has granted permission for this image (a gif image of me playing basketball that he took from my phone) to be used in Wikipedia and across the Wikimedia Commons. I'm just wondering what the status of this OTRS ticket is? Mr.Balan has provided me the OTRS ticket number from his email for your reference it is Ticket#2016050410003611 --Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sanjev Rajaram: It seems that the OTRS received Keith Balan's email and Amitie 10g verified it. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 12:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

German speaker requested

Could a German speaker please handle ticket:2016041210012187? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done No problem!? Regards ↔ User: Perhelion 07:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

CC-Zero-SpaceX

Is all SpaceX published media CC-Zero? I'd like to know if I can upload their launch videos from their Youtube channel. It's ticket #2015032410033985. Elisfkc (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. Only files on their Flickr feed is licensed with that ticket, and files on http://www.spacex.com/media per on-site statement.. Josve05a (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Darn. Thanks for the quick response Josve05a. Elisfkc (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau (artist)

Some of Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau's work has OTRS ticket #2013032610005631. The image of El milagro de Empel does not have a tag. Was this an oversight by the uploader (if it is the artist)?--Godot13 (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We need a Spanish OTRS-volunteer to check this. A quick check however learns that all the files seem to be separately mentioned (tens of files over tens of emails), searching on this specific title holds no results. However it seems that the uploader is the painter himself, and that this has been verified (given the other OTRS permissions) and as such the own work claim is valid and there is no reason to doubt the release of this file. But to be sure it would also be a good idea to ask for permission for this file explicitly. Basvb (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I reviewed that specific file between all of his other files uploaded, and even is found at the source provided. And yes, the permission is valid; Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau agree to release his works under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, and covers all of his uploads, most of them available in his magazzine (he is the painter). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Music Room

I have posted a photo of a painting by Cham Hendon. The photo has been nominated for deletion because it doesn't have proper copyright verification. When Cham Hendon died, I inherited all his work. Did I inherit the copyright rights as well? Thank you for your help. If the photo is deleted before you're able to respond, will I be able to add it again? I'd really like to be able to include an example of his work with the article. Thank you for your help.Shelleycaldwell (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Shelleycaldwell: you likely did, unless he sold them or they were otherwise transferred prior to his death. In what country was the will executed? If you don't feel comfortable revealing that information here, you can email me at here. Better yet, start an OTRS ticket by emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with an explanation of the situation. Once you've emailed OTRS, you can add the tag {{subst:OP}} to the file page to show you've contacted OTRS. --Rrburke (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Shelleycaldwell: please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. We'd love to have the artwork! Storkk (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:JNR LA Opening.jpg

In the spirit of the previous request, given that Getty Images typically makes money by not giving their content away and doesn't like to allow anyone to use it for any purpose, could this check be expedited too? Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Obvious copyright violation. Despite that, I searched for filename and putative photographer and was unsurprised to find nothing relevant. Storkk (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ticket #2014042910017985 File:Stuart_Styron.jpg

Hi, who gave permission? Stuart Styron or the Author Holger Winkler? 93.104.147.27 22:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Both. Storkk (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

ticket #2014042910017985 File:Stuart_Styron.jpg

Both persons send email or only stuart styron?

Regards 93.104.143.104 06:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Moved from my talk page. Storkk (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have specific reason to doubt the authenticity, please let me know. I would not have stated that both gave permission if the ticket did not contain permission from both of them. It does. Storkk (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Beyonce Knowles with necklaces.jpg

Would it be possible to get someone to review the OTRS ticket behind this image - ticket:2012010810006633? There's a DR open for this image - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beyonce Knowles with necklaces.jpg - and while the DR doesn't give any reasons why it is a copyright violation, I'd like to make sure things are properly set-up at our end while we're waiting for the nominator to provide more details. Tabercil (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Was a forwarded permission, which seems ok by first glance. (However, I would have sent an email to the original emailer to confirm the forwarded mail, but seems ok anyways). See also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-01#File:Beyonce_Knowles_with_necklaces.jpg. Josve05a (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
However, I can't really tell if they are the owners or not. While the emailed permission seems ok, I don't know if they own the copyright to begin with. (See the file talk page: "The photograph was taken by Tony Duran. Tony Duran transferred the copyright and all rights in the photograph to Beyonce, Inc. (an entity controlled by Beyonce Knowles). Time Magazine does not own the copyright in the photograph." Parkwood is a subcompany of Beyoncé Knowles. Josve05a (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to know that. Now we just need to wait for the nominator to further explain his actions... Tabercil (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Peter D. Hancock.jpg

This file was deleted relatively recently after I was unable to procure the proper release before the temporary reprieve expired. The rights holder has since released the image under a CC license, and filed a new ticket. I wanted to ensure that the two tickets (ticket:2015072210023983, ticket:2016032310024931) were identified as relevant to each other. I'm also relatively new to the process (I know you are all volunteers, so thank you) but I was curious as to how long this might take to resolve?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Bild-CC-by-sa-Naturspektrum

We have a number of photos from Naturspektrum, but the site doesn't say anything about Creative Commons licensing. I was going to make a template for this, but when I went to verify the ticket:2006051810006075, the email doesn't exist. Anyone know what happened? Do we need to confirm this license with the author? czar 23:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

One related ticket: ticket:2007011810022241. 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Related discussion Storkk (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: the link to the copyright statement has changed. It is now at http://www.naturspektrum.de/ns1.htm?defstart=text/text_impressum.php - to me, this looks like {{Attribution}}. Storkk (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
All right—I made {{Naturspektrum}} for those interested. It links to this discussion and the others I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 16:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Czar. I've added a German version of the custom text. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

File:青青草原一景.jpg

Ticket is here: ticket:2016022410008002. Please check if it is ok.--Stang 08:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Czech-speaking volunteer needed

Is there a Czech-speaking volunteer who would consider having a look at ticket:2016040110011805? The issue is that many of the files in Category:Elpida scanning workshop 2016 are derivative works depicting photographs whose copyright status is unknown, as well as copyrighted software interfaces. A language barrier is preventing me from getting across the concept of derivative works. --Rrburke (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Rrburke (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian reviewer needed

I need a Russian-speaking reviewer familiar with OTRS to {{subst:LRW}} these files: Special:ListFiles/Vmdubovoi. It looks like they are good, but I can't read the Russian permission message. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 11:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of images

Dear Team, I am writing to seek guidance for fixing below issue. Following are the names of image file which I used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Purplehed_Records article, File:Purplehed-Feel the passion.jpg and File:Purplehed-Burn Like the Sun.jpg , These images were deleted from my draft on 06:59, 9 May 2016‎ by CommonsDelinker (Removing "Purplehed-Feel_the_passion.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by ~riley because: No permission since 1 May 2016 - Using VisualFileChange) - Refer history of the draft.

I checked with the owner regarding permission. They told me that they have emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:04:59 +0530 via email id = contact@purpehed.com They gave me this ticket number for further reference [Ticket#: 2016042910001309] . Request you to kindly guide me what needs to be done in order to fix this issue . Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  •  Restore: Permission effectively sent much before the deletion and seems valid. Requested at UDEL. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Amitie 10g, Thank you so much for the help :) Catrat999 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Flag of UNASUR.svg

I am trying to find out the content or description of this email, especially pertaining to any design of this flag. I ask because this Logo Manual Document from UNASUR and it shows a flag different from the ticket (and some Google image searches show many variants, and does this ticket cover those as well)? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zscout370: there are two inline images in the message from UNASUR in the OTRS ticket, but the links to the files are broken and the images are not displayed. The image for which UNASUR gave permission is File:Logo_UNASUR.png. --Rrburke (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing a file: File:Ben and Lucy The Hike Premier.jpg

Please could someone remove the below file from the database...

The owner of the picture has requested this..

File:Ben and Lucy The Hike Premier.jpg

Thanks Sarah

@Sphilbrick: your ticket... normally I would say "licenses are irrevocable", but the ticket mentions only that the uploader has been "given permission" by the copyright holder, so I'm not sure the ticket was valid in the first place. Storkk (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The permission statement filed does “acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement”. However, I do note that the photo has not been used except to create individual photos of each person and neither of those are used. However, we have to be concerned about precedent what is a valid reason for honoring this request?--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Sorry, I just now understand the import of your comment. I do see two derivative photos created by @Ukexpat: . There’s not much point in removing the original unless the derivatives are removed so I want feedback from Ukexpat.--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Nominated. Also re-opened the ticket, but it is unlikely we can keep the photos. Storkk (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Files from Indian Navy not longer available at indiannavy.nic.in but at other Indian Navy websites like nausena-bharti.nic.in

According to the Template:OTRS ticket, I found two files from the Indian Navy: File:Basketball court at the Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala.jpg and File:Swimming pool at the Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala.jpg. Assuming that these files was available at indiannavy.nic.in at the moment of uploading, now aren't available at that website but at bharti.nic.in (that is also part of the Indian Navy).

  • Is the OTRS permission valid for nausena-bharti.nic.in in addition of indiannavy.nic.in?
  • The new source is fine in order to pass the License Review?

Thanks in advance. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: the forwarded ticket appears to simply refer to the "Indian Navy Website ... in accordance with the existing definition (as on 05 Sep 13)". I'm not crystal clear on what that means. It came from the Webmaster, who was deemed at the time to be sufficiently authorized to license the files, but it seems pretty borderline to me. Yann may have further insight as he dealt with the ticket at the time. Storkk (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, there are still uncertainty about these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Markus+Tom.jpg

For this image with OTRS-ticket today an IP, which calls herself the photographer, requests deletion for "missing authorization". Could one of you check this out, especially who gave the permission for the ticket. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Might be a good idea for a German-speaking agent to request clarification in the ticket as to how the ticket submitter came to hold the copyright, which isn't clearly stated as far as I can see. It is not inconceivable that the IP should be believed. Storkk (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, permission didn't come from the photographer as required by German (c)law. The club isn't the copyright holder and release the photograph. Doesn't matter if the IP is or is not the original photographer, the permission wasn't correct to begin with. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OTRS 2008122810014342 (again)

Hi! I need further information about Ticket:2008122810014342 (seems to be in Arabic). A related issue was already discussed via Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2015#OTRS ticket on File:Ni lin-34342.jpg with no reaction by ticket ownwer @Tarawneh: , who created also {{PalestineRemembered}}. Related is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gaza Port.png, with multiple authors and files taken from http://www.palestineremembered.com/ which is "© 1999-2013 PalestineRemembered.com all rights reserved. All pictures & Oral History Podcast are copyright of their respective owners."
How they could obtain all the individual permissions from (guessing) thousands of palestineremembered.com users and photo contributors? See also here: +/- 56.000 photos and +/- 24.000 members Affected files at Commons, using this ticket (or WhatLinksHere). Typical example: http://www.palestineremembered.com/GeoPoints/Tulkarm_6895/Picture_49051.html ("Posted by Nafiz Alqasem Uploaded on May 2, 2009"). Gunnex (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Tarawneh: again (as he was active on Commons on 15.04.2016). Gunnex (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I have taken a look with Google translate. I see a simple permission from a site owner to take whatever from their website and release it into GFDL. However, for all the contributors to that site, there is no way to know that they are releasing whatever they upload into GFDL, based on some 2008 conversation that the site owner probably even doesn't remember. So unless @Tarawneh: comes up with something spectacular, I'm affraid we will have to delete all {{PalestineRemembered}} files as 'missing permission'. Jcb (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Gunnex and Jcb: HI, The permission has been given since 2009 and along this period hundreds of photos have been uploaded.

Instead of rushing to remove the photos; enough time must be granted so the user contacts the website in order to get a new license that complies with Wikipedia's license. I'm fully positive that the website will not hesitate to give me the permission, I've been in touch with them before. They're running a nonprofit organization. I hereby ask for a 3 days so I figure out the issue with them --بدارين (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The website does not seem to be the copyright holder and the real copyright holders seem totally unaware that they are supposed to release their work into GFDL by publishing it via the PalestineRemembered website. There is no valid permission and the real copyright holders have never been asked to give permission. So it would be totally irresponsable to keep those files online. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: The website insists that the uploader should give the website full copyrights and distributions permission as long as the website indicates that the uploader is the original owner of the photo [5] in Arabic «تعطي فلسطين في الذاكرة كامل الحقوق للنشر والتوزيع ما دمنا نشير بأنك المالك الأصلي للصورة من خلال موقعنا».

--بدارين (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, the Arabic text says that you grant full rights for publication, but doesn't talk about transfer of copyright. So the uploader grants the website a permission for publication and distribution, but the uploader does not grant whoever this permission. Also the uploader does not grant the right to modify the picture and use it for whatever purpose, even commercial. So thank you for pointing out to me that there is indeed no permission from the uploaders to release these files into a CC license. Jcb (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
If the present permission are not sufficient, then I suggest that we indicate to the web-site exactly what uploading-text would be sufficient? Huldra (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think not many photographers are prepared to upload their pictures to a website if that actually means that they give away their rights to the website owner. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You might be surprised. When I have uploaded pictures here, I always upload them under CC 1.0. Which CC does the web-site have to notify their uploaders to agree to? Huldra (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Could be any CC as long as there is no NC or ND restriction. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Could you please link to an explanation of NC and ND? Huldra (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
NC means NonCommercial, ND means NoDerivatives. See for more information here - Jcb (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Contents of Category:Images from the Turkish Naval Forces

Hi,

Following a pending DR concerning contents from the Turkish Land Forces, I found the Category:Images from the Turkish Naval Forces where the most of the contents seems to be under the OTRS permission ticket:2012061210008721.

This permission follows the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:DzKK BG (87).jpg, which led to a kept.

But the contents of the Turkish Naval Forces, such as the Land Forces, are copyrighted ad defined in the law n°4982 (pdf), wich says in its article 29:

Bu Kanunla erişilen bilgi ve belgeler ticarî amaçla çoğaltılamaz ve kullanılamaz.

The contents and documents concerned by this law shall not be republished and used with a commercial purpose.

This law concerns all the "public institutions" (kamu kurum ve kuruluşları) (Article 2) and by "publications" (belge) is meant photographs or contents of any kind (Article 3d).

Then, we have some reservations about this permission and the deletion of the contents of this category is questionable.

Ping Fry1989, Taysin, Jbarta, Takabeg, BurakOtto

Kumkum (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ow dear, this seems to be a Wikipedia-only permission. (Though I used google translate to read the ticket.) Natuur12 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Bermanya was found in the application to Turkish Navy for license terms. The answer came by e-mail. E-mail was forwarded for otrs permissions. The answer can not be use commercially (or be republish) on the law, does not talk about use of the pictures on navy website. Kullanıcı:Bermanya Türk Deniz Kuvvetlerine başvuruda bulundu, lisans koşulları için. E-posta ile cevap geldi. OTRS izni için eposta yönlendirildi. Yasaya göre cevaplar ticari olarak kullanılamaz, donanmanın internet sitesindeki resimlerden bahsetmiyor. --taysin (message) 19:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay and you are the agent who accepted the ticket. Do you realise that a non commercial claue is a violation of com:L? Based on the current info all files relying on this ticket should be deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking this OTRS ticket. We're now discussing the issue on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy. --Dereckson (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Natuur12, Dereckson: Is a new DR necessary concerning Category:Images from the Turkish Coast Guard (ticket:2012071710010976) ? Kumkum (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a DR is required in such context. --Dereckson (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Natuur12 (or another OTRS volunteer) before a DR it seems necessary to check this OTRS ; even it would be a mere formality. Kumkum (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please remind me to check the ticket if I haven't done so tomorrow. Natuur12 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kumkum: I indeed forgot. While I still have to use google translate there is no mentioning of a free license as defined in our licensing policy. It seems to be a Wikipedia only permission and at this stage I believe we should start checking all @Taysin: his tickets. Mistakes happen but those are beyond stupidity. His most recent ticket (ticket:2016011410016112) is also suspect and I wouldn't have accepted it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Natuur12 thank you, here it is Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Attribution-TRGov-Military-Coast Guard. Kumkum (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

request permissions verification image of Cameron Townsend

Please, may I see the permissions verification for the image located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Cameron_Townsend6.jpg Also curious if the image that is Pub Domain Dedicated is only the cropped image on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Cameron_Townsend6.jpg or the original image located at https://www.flickr.com/photos/wycliffemedia/8531135041/in/album-72157632924544866/ which is listed as fully copyrighted still. Thanks for help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell567 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 April 2016‎ (UTC)

@Bell567: To start with, the ticket (ticket:2013030310005101) does not specify a license, just a statement that any and all images already on the internet can be used without permission. That statement does not allow for adoptations, which thereby fails our licensing policy.
This also applies for the following files:
Josve05a (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I opened a DR; Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Temp. cat for 2013030310005101. Josve05a (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent instructions

Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder instructs users to "ask the author to forward the email with their clear statement of permission" whereas the Catalan version, Commons:OTRS/ca#Si no sou el titular dels drets, tells them to "reenvieu el correu electrònic amb la declaració explícita d'autorització de l'autor a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" -- that is, forward the author's permission themselves. First, which is right? I ask for the statement of permission to come directly from the copyright holder, but I've experienced pushback from users who think a forwarded permission is sufficient. Second, shouldn't the instructions be consistent across all translations? It makes me wonder what other discrepancies there might be in other translations. --Rrburke (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think our position has changed over time, and we now view direct permission as much preferable. I think we absolutely require the contact information of the copyright holder (so a screenshot of an unidentified forum is not OK), but if it's an extremely straightforward ticket and there is nothing else to suggest it isn't kosher, I don't think the ticket should necessarily be invalidated. That said, if you're processing a forwarded ticket, it's relatively easy to hit the "reply" button, move the original sender to a CC field, put the copyright holder's email in the TO field and just ask whether they can confirm by direct reply that they sent the below email. I do think we need to make sure all languages have consistent instructions, I think some even still tell agents to ask the uploader to insert {{OTRS permission}} on the file page themselves (!). Standardizing the instructions is an important task, but will likely need a concerted and coordinated effort. Storkk (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Summer vs Wendy Wheels.jpg

This file was deleted even though I have a ticket on file Ticket#2011120810002511, dated January 13, 2012, even though I told them I am the director of the TV show this photo came from and have a history of posting other photos from the same show. Small picture, I'd like my content restored. Big picture, I'd like to discuss what we can do about this constant and apparently blind overzealous enforcement.

If you have any cross referencing system, which you should if you are going to do this kind of enforcement, you'll notice I had two other files deleted recently and restored. I contacted OTRS first by email explaining the situation for this and future content I would like to post. Two months later, I got a boiler plate response, as if nobody read the initial request. I still have not had a real conversation with a human being regarding how to clear this content on a wholesale basis. This has been a tremendous inconvenience to achieve such minimal results. You have my e-mail on file, I speak english as a first language. Trackinfo (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Trackinfo (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Hi! The File:Summer vs Wendy Wheels.jpg is not mentioned in the ticket and therefore not covered by this OTRS ticket. Small and big picture: Send permission to OTRS so we can restore your content and prevent further trouble. You can also post the photos on your website, license them there under a compatible license and use that as a source. It would be advisable to add your wiki username if you do so. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

photo Norbert Hofer

The photo is clearly NOT under any Creative Commons Licence, but must be assumed copyrighted. Why isn't it speedydeleted? Link --Jensbest (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is an ongoing OTRS procedure. Don't interfere with such a procedure by using a different procedure in the same time. Jcb (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Manish arora.jpg

Hi, the uploader claims a ticket regarding an image from a website but I don't see evidence of it: "ticket #2008030310010794". Thank you -- Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

File:JNR JC Speech.jpg

This file has been hanging around for over a month now with the rather unlikely claim that Getty Images has suddenly changed their business model to give away their content freely. Given that we've already been through this with a similar image uploaded by a rather obvious sockpuppet, could this verification please be expedited, to avoid further rewarding this user's tactic for delaying the inevitable? Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 09:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I think it would be okay make usual deletion request with these arguments. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    There aren't that many situations when starting a deletion discussion is not okay. My question was whether anything has been sent into OTRS in relation to this and the other uploads made by the user. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 08:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with Deleted Photos

Pictures I put on commons were deleted from the Wikipedia article they were posted on as well as the file completely from Commons. I did receive a warning that this will happen, but unfortunately, because I did not have an email associated with my editor, I did not see the warning in time. There is a legitimate permissions letter in the works which was sent to the correct address. I understand that there is, as of today, a 74 day backlog of emails for the OTRS folks to go through- and a robot seems to have done the deleting, so I guess it is just a mistake. But I hope you can help me to correct the mistake. There are two sets of pictures, the first are photos that were deleted already, and the second set are still up, but do not yet have the permission tag, and I am afraid they will be deleted before the permission tag has a chance to go up. The article in question is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_Ulukaya

I re-uploaded the deleted photos, and these are the URLs, which are exactly the same as the originals, except for one small difference:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20160123_ulukaya-hamburg_01_LoRes.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ChobaniLaColombe_224.tif

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Hamdi_Ulukaya.jpg

The permissions letter was sent on February 24 by Michael Gonda, who is the owner of the photos. The small difference in the URL is that the original letter called the file a "jpeg" and not "jpg" which is how it is called currently.

The second set of photos, which were still up the last time I looked are the following:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamdi_UNFAcceptance_2015.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamdi_Ulukaya_and_Bill_Clinton.JPG

This permission letter was sent on March 30, 2016, also from the copyright holder, Michael Gonda.

If there is any other information you need to help find the email and get those pictures back up on Wikimedia Commons, please contact me on my Talk Page. Thank-you so much! Eatdrinkmerry (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we accept the word of photograph subjects that they own the rights to submitted PR photos?

Hi, folks. Just under a year ago, here, a Commons and WP:EN admin wrote another Commons admin about some photos submitted by an article subject:

"Hi, I'm a Commons and WP:en admin who responded to a protected edit request at en:Talk:Brianna Wu to use these images, which the subject apparently released with the express purpose of use in Wikipedia, therefore I'm aware of the problem. From my point of view, the assertion by the pictured person that she releases the images as CC-BY (and, we assume, has obtained the rights to them or the photographer agrees) should be enough. My understanding of our usual practice including at OTRS is that with PR photos or headshots submitted by the depicted persons, we tend to take it as a given that the depicted people have obtained the rights to them. It's not as though we could realistically verify the existence or contents of the agreement between them and the photographer (and that person's identity) in any case. I don't think that there's any particular need to deviate from this practice here and let the subject jump through additional bureaucratic hoops. Would you reconsider your deletion of these images?"

The Commons admin who deleted the images in question agreed, and the images were undeleted and are now in Category:Brianna Wu and the WP:EN article, Brianna Wu.

Similarly, I made a WP:EN article about a person, and wrote the subject for some photos. Months later, the subject wrote me back, attaching 6 images of herself, and stating that she owned the rights to the images and was releasing them under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/. I put the images in Category:Melissa Bachman, in the EN article Melissa Bachman, and forwarded the release email to permissions-commons. The response came quite quickly, in less than a day - kudos for that! - but asked for

  1. a written and signed permission from the photographer, and
  2. a driver's license from the article subject.

That seems to be rather different from the terms stated and agreed to by the two Commons admins above. Can we clarify, please, whether we do, in fact, accept the assertion of photograph subjects that they own the rights to PR photographs of them that also appear on their web pages, and that they have previously submitted to other media outlets? Or are scanning and mailing in photographers' contracts, and subjects' drivers' licenses required? --GRuban (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is getting nowhere fast. Let me ping the admin and OTRS volunteer who responded to the cited request. @Hedwig in Washington: Sorry to bother you, but no one else is responding here. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
No bother at all, that's what we are here for. There's a significant difference between these two cases. Brianna Wu has released her photographs on her own website:

Rights granted by photographer Shannon Grant. All of these images are released to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. They may be used for any purpose, commercial or personal. The specific legal language may be found here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. These images have also been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under user: Spacekatgal.

— http://www.briannawu.net/#/photos/

Could M Bachmann provide something similar? I checked and the only thing stated is a (c), no CC etc. If not, we (you, she) need to sent an email using her official email. Just forwarding an email is not proof at all. Anybody can just add an email and manipulate the contents or just invent the whole thing. NOT saying that you do. We try to make the process as painless as possible. Not always possible. This is not really an OTRS case. You can contact me directly on my talk page if needed. I am sure we can sort this out in no time flat. Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! Will continue on your talk page. --GRuban (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

2016060210013531 (request for agent input)

A ticket affecting Commons content is currently subject of an OTRS wiki discussion. If you have access to the Commons OTRS queue, please comment at otrswiki: 2016060210013531. Thanks in advance,    FDMS  4    23:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:    FDMS  4    13:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

#2015012710019552

Can File:Ernest Mercier La Pocatière.jpg have a valid ticket when the author is unknown? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. So, the conclusion of that discussion is that the answer is no and therefore the OTRS tag should not be on that page and should have been removed following that discussion. Will an OTRS member remove it, please? -- Asclepias (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 12:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

#2015070410013036 (File:The Lord enters Jerusalem.jpg)

OTRS permission has been added by non-OTRS member. Is this a valid ticket? --jdx Re: 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Needs a Russian-speaker to double-check, but ticket appears to have been accepted by Максим_Підліснюк who then told the customer to apply the template themselves. There is a note by current ticket owner D.bratchuk that I can't understand. Storkk (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jdx: This image is not listed in the OTRS-lists. But as I can see the author of works, OTRS-customer and Commons-uploader is the same person. In this case, OTRS-permission is not required (own work). --sasha (krassotkin) 19:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 12:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016062210028166

Is this a valid ticket? --jdx Re: 08:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: jdx Re: 15:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

First National Anthem Of Ingushetia.ogg

Please restore File:First National Anthem Of Ingushetia.ogg the official anthem of the Republic of Ingushetia, as this file may be freely distributed on the basis of {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Sheet music of the musical work also officially published in the law. Thanks. Adam-Yourist (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@krassotkin sasha, Thank You ! Adam-Yourist (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016062310016211

Abuse filter tagged this edition, so I did quick investigation and found out that Ldorfman claims to be OTRS team member, but according to the current list he is not. What do you think about it? It this ticket valid? --jdx Re: 15:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Till a few days ago, I was a member of the OTRS team and, as I've been informed, my current status is still in discussion. Hopefully, I'll be back in the team in a short while. Till then, this ticket refers to a message I sent today to the OTRS team and בריאן handled. The ticket contains a release note for 50 high-quality pictures released by Israel Channel 10 News. It is part of a cooperation between Wikimedia Israel and the news channel. Yesterday I visited the spokesperson's office and assisted her in the pictures upload. What wasn't taken care by her is now handled by me - It involves adding the name of the photographer, the Hebrew name of the person who appears in the picture and his role in the news team (exactly as it is now in File:Akiva Novick-2.jpg). In between, I assist בריאן by adding the link to the ticket in some of the files details. Since we talk about 50 files, this would have been long work for him, while he probably has other things to do. As this is a project I had been working on while still being officially part of the OTRS team, I had plans to make sure everything is taken care by me, not needing to trouble anybody. I hope I can still do it. Just to make things clear: בריאן checked the release note and all the information I sent and added the tag to the first pictures. I just continue his work. Is there a problem with that? Ldorfman (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm approving what Ldorfman said here. בריאן (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 08:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

EU National ID cards copyright (ticket:2016041510005681)

Hello,

I am asking for some help in confirming OTRS permission for the following images:

Front of the Lithuanian identity card (first issued on 1 January 2009).gif (file) Swiss national ID card - Reverse.jpg (file) Swiss national ID card - Front.jpg (file) Slovenia national ID card - Reverse.png (file) Slovenia national ID card - Front.png (file) Swedish national id Card (Biometric) - Reverse.png (file) Swedish national id Card (Biometric) - Front.png (file) New biometric Maltese national ID card - reverse.jpg (file) New biometric Maltese national ID card - front.jpg (file) New biometric Spanish National ID Card - DNI (Front).jpg (file) New biometric Spanish National ID Card - DNI (Back).jpg (file) New biometroc dutch ID cards, European part of the Netherlands - (Back).png (file) New biometroc dutch ID cards, European part of the Netherlands - (Front).png (file) New biometric Gibraltar national ID card (Document which proves British nationality) (FRONT).jpg (file) Luxembourg National ID card (Back).jpg (file) Luxembourg National ID card (Front).jpg (file) Bhutanese national ID card (Citizenship card).PNG (file) New DNI, Spanish national Identity card issued since 2016.jpg (file) French national ID card (CNI Securisée) - French government Specimen model (Front).jpg (file) Irish Passport card (Back).jpg (file) Irish Passport Card.jpg (file)

Those images are from the EU website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/search-by-document-country.html, and can be found in the EU national Identity cards Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area&oldid=prev&diff=713274181 Can someone please search for a ticket? I would really apreciate that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: A picture of a specimen of an ID-Card is published by a government for the attention of the general public as a matter of official concern. Therefore it is public domain.
For the situation in Germany please visit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Amtliche_Werke
Kind regards, --Olli1800 (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Gregori-luxair: apologies for the late reply. I've added the ticket number to the section heading. Unfortunately I don't think the response was sufficient because it rules out any use other than "official and non-commercial". On Commons, files must be available for anyone to reuse in any way for any purpose, even commercially. Green Giant (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Image deleted, despite sending permission

I received this email shortly after submitting permission for an image that i uploaded. The image was still deleted, despite acknowledgement of the permission.

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Dear Naiele,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2016041810002061].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team thanks Naiele3 (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of permission and an automated response are to separate things. As you specifically quoted above, "If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later." Riley Huntley (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Naiele3: How old is the logo? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Naiele3: apologies for the delay in responding. I've added convenience links to the OTRS ticket and the deleted file. The ticket has already been replied to and closed. Please note that the file appears to be a reupload of a file that was deleted in September 2015. Please don't do this again - it could lead you to being blocked from editing. As for the file permission, it is difficult to verify you as copyright holder because you sent an email from an address provided by a free provider like Gmail or Hotmail, but the "organization" may have had an official website (now defunct) and seems to have a Facebook page. Until we have a response from you, we cannot proceed with this ticket and the file must remain deleted. Green Giant (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Jackson Yi 20151013.png

Hello! I uploaded a picture (File:Jackson Yi 20151013.png) and sent an email to OTRS, but the reply is "the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file". However, I have reserved the right from the owner, and he agreed to licensed the picture under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Internationallicense. In the email attachments, you can see the screenshots of my conversation history with owner. If this was not sufficient to confirm permission, please tell me what should I do, thank you so much. Pico cavadino (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pico cavadino: sorry it has taken this long for a reply. The main problem we have is verification and screenshots are not verifiable unless you bring your computer or phone to one of us and we look at the conversation, which would be an absurd amount of effort for some photos. Screenshots, like forwarded emails, can be easily manipulated, not that I'm suggesting you have done this. The best course of action is to ask the copyright holder to send a license statement directly to the same OTRS address or to publish the pictures on an official website together with the license. I realise that you have been given confirmation by OTRS but I've left a note for the OTRS person you contacted and hopefully we can resolve this promptly and properly. Green Giant (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pico cavadino: I have reviewed the ticket and found that no further progress has been made. Please note phone messages and social media conversations do not prove who the other person is. Would you believe me if I said I am the real Green Giant? Obviously you would want some proof and the same applies here. Green Giant (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

copyright protected photo of Norbert Hofer still not deleted

There is a copyright protected photo of the Austrian right-wing extremist Norbert Hofer which is now used in several language versions of Wikipedia - Obviously there is no licence proof in the OTRS-system which clarifies the licence of this photo. Why is it not deleted? --87.155.109.194 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Olaf Kosinsky. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In asserting "Obviously there is no licence proof in the OTRS-system which clarifies the licence of this photo.", you appear to be privy to information that we are not. Could you please clarify? From where I stand, it looks like the release not quite there, but stands a reasonable chance of being confirmed. The specific issue is that there is no explicit license in the ticket... but it appears to come from a credible source who was trying to license the file. Unless other information is available (to which you seem to allude), I would suggest allowing the process to run its course. Storkk (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 08:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Push Me Pull You videos

Hello, would someone please add OTRS permissions on the videos in Category:Push Me Pull You based on the latest replies in ticket:2016042710001885? The ticket was originally handled by Amitie 10g, but I see that there are some issues in that department czar 04:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: czar 15:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg

Hi, the author of the photo File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg, Dom Garcia (domgarcia.com), sent the appropriate mail (with licence choice) the 20/06/2016 at permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. So please undelete it. Thanks. (PS: we are french) Pierrem93 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

We cannot accept licenses that include -NC or -ND elements. A reply has been sent by an OTRS volunteer. Green Giant (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ticket for File:Gram4.jpg

Is it possible for someone to take a look at the ticket for this image - ticket:2517651? There's a DR for it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gram4.jpg where an anon editor is raising questions about it, about whether or not it' correct. Tabercil (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  •  Info Ticket:2009022510057944. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We have copy of correspondence (forward, not direct) with address ****@deepsabrina.com and permissions to publish the image under a compatible license. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
So is the information present in the sufficient for OTRS purposes that Sabrina has licensed the image? Tabercil (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Permission clarified. File kept. The IP could also have just asked here and saved the trouble of a DR. Green Giant (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Replace [ticket...] by OTRS template

Hello, i'd like to do replacements like this. Does that make sense? --Arnd (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arnd: It's not a good idea if you do not have access to queues. See from your example. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
But what sense does this comment with ticket make then? For me it seems that someone just did not know how to use the template. --Arnd (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Arnd: Do you mean my comment to the revision? It's for you. In fact we have to delete this image, to check all such cases, and to make a decision on each of them. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
So did i understand correctly that it is better to leave all these files as they are?[6] I just wonder why there is not template for the ticket but only this brackets. --Arnd (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Arnd: Yes, it is better to leave. You suggested good request. But all these cases should be checked by OTRS-volunteers. Yesterday I selectively checked and again found errors (diff etc). --sasha (krassotkin) 07:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest to help out, however I don't believe it's a good idea to replace these. I've used [[ticket:192723753290]] instead of the template when I refer to something said in a ticket, but there is not an explicit permission within the ticket (for example it details the copyright situation). The [ticket...] could also have been used for this purpose. Tickets should ideally only be added by OTRS-volunteers. Tickets by non-OTRS-volunteers can be found on User:Krdbot/af69 and should ideally be checked on whether they are correct, there is quite the backlog over there. I do think it would be a good idea to also walk past the wrongly linked tickets, but that also would require quite some attention and checking of the tickets. Thank you again for your interest, maybe providing an overview such as User:Krdbot/af69 might be an idea, I might then check a few of them. Basvb (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the ticket because it was effectively resolved in January 2016. It is not necessary to add it to the file unless we have some doubts about the validity of the original license, which the ticket did not address at all. Green Giant (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016060510006917

According to the uploader the ticket applies to these files: File:Tradman 01.jpg, File:Tradman 02.jpg and File:Tradman 03.jpg Is it valid? --jdx Re: 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  •  Info This ticket is not from the permission queues. We must know at what address he sent email. Perhaps a Swedish queue (f.e. info-sv)? --sasha (krassotkin) 06:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info The ticket has been moved to permissions-commons by Krd at my request. Josve05a (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Valid ticket. Files are kept. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 08:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Seeking for reconfirmation of OTRS ticket

Hello! I'd like to have an OTRS agent check a ticket cited in File:Algoma Enterprise entering Toronto's shipping channel, at dusk, while a small cruise ship leaves by the Eastern Gap, 2016 06 22 (2) (27841847422).jpg as a weird claim of PD status is made. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from COM:VP --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Grand-Duc: I not found this ticket in permission queues. Could you clarify what address original uploader used for ticket correspondence. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Grand-Duc, what, exactly, triggered your concern? I upload a broad selection of my images to flickr, and panoramio. I upload a narrower selection of my images here. Occasionally, other people have found my images on flickr. I routinely use flickr2commons to upload images here, rather than upload them directly from my computer, because (1) this only ties up my modem twice; (2) flickr will automatically figure out whether I took the image with a camera that embedded the GPS location.
I initiated the OTRS ticket because there were some occasions when my images triggered bogus copyvio concerns.
I have got to say I am disturbed at the suggestion that an OTRS that I thought had been fully processed somehow lacks something, so it is somehow challenged years later. What if I had died? Would all my images be deleted over some kind of stupid misunderstanding?
When I appeal to non-WMF contributors to license an image of theirs for use here I want to be able to honestly tell them they only have to give their permission once. Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: , I was puzzled by a ticket date hinting to a process dating back to 2012 for an image shot this year. As I was using my tablet to do some license reviews, I simply omitted to look at the Flickr stream owner's profile (I saw no evidence of Flickrwashing), where he clearly gives his works to the public domain. Guess that I was too leery (I didn't look who transferred the image to Commons) - I apologize for any inconvenience. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 08:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2014062710006924

Could somebody check this? Rw heart inserts {{PermissionOTRS}} into files which he uploads. Strangely, dates of some photos/events are newer than the ticket, eg. File:Перформанс в честь Дмитрия Аленичева.jpg. Also some of these photos are evidently grabbed from the Web. --jdx Re: 03:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 10:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Camel Mountains.jpg

Ticket:2015031810001431

Hi there,

the artist en:Sarah DeRemer (=User:Sarahderemer) has given OTRS permissions for some of her works (Ticket: 2015031810001431). File:Camel Mountains.jpg was uploaded by her some time after the original three uploads and doesn't have an OTRS template. Could you please check if the ticket somehow covers that image? Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @El Grafo: Author's uploads do not require additional permissions. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Uhm, yeah, not sure what I was thinking … sorry. --El Grafo (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 21:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

2011101010016175

Could this old ticket please be checked again please, it is in use on over 2,000 photographs. No doubt the release was from the website owner (where the site is all rights reserved), however the resulting photographs on Commons have no verifiable release from any named photographers, no EXIF data and are low resolution versions; hence appear derivatives. All of this gives concern as to exactly how release was obtained from photographers and whether there is a record that can be verified of the releases.

Lastly, I can see files where this ticket has been added by non-OTRS volunteers, which raises the concern as to whether all of the photographs have been checked as valid against the ticket, the details of which are not public. --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: Ticket is in Russian. Ticket owner is Lvova. Storkk (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Noting that Lvova's last contribution to this project was in 2013, so they are unlikely to respond, and they are no longer an OTRS volunteer. --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, the issue of verification of a satisfactory copyright release does not seem well understood in the DR. --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 07:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Restored files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KovacikovaIvana

I noticed that the files that were deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KovacikovaIvana and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flowin Hair Liberty Dollar 1794.jpg have been restored.

Are these discrepancies addressed in any way by the OTRS ticket? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't find these tickets in permission queues. @KovacikovaIvana, please could you explain? --sasha (krassotkin) 10:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    KovacikovaIvana hasn't been around since March. Perhaps it would make more sense to ask Podzemnik, who seems to have been the one processing the supposed permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    Podzemnik has been active since being pinged here, but has not responded... —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi LX, I'm sorry for not responding earlier. I've checked the ticket and there is a scanned declaration signed my the manager Kateřina Černá of Narodni pokladnice saying that they are releasing the files under CC-BY-SA. The true is that I've checked the metadata of one or two pictures and restored all of them without checking every single picture. Some of the pictures like File:Pamětní mince New York.JPG seems to be OK since the author in metadata is the same as the manager mentioned above (Kateřina Černá). Anyway, your doubts are obviously rational and I think we should delete the pictures you've mentioned which mean:
Rest of the pictures have Kateřina Černá in metadata or they don't have any metadata at all but they seem to be from the same source (Kateřina Černá) so I think they're OK. Thanks again for pointing it out, I should have checked all the pictures. With kind regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I disagree. If someone is obviously lying about being the author of several photos, then we obviously cannot just take their word that they're not lying about others, so low-resolution photos without metadata can't just be wishfully assumed to be the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@LX: So do you suggest deletion of all the photos or "just" the photos without metadata? --Podzemnik (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Podzemnik: I'm suggesting deleting the ones I brought up in the new installment of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KovacikovaIvana. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
LX: OK, thank you. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

2016072210007178

I just opened a new case on OTRS Wiki. Please, leave your opinion about it. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 11:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 10:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Project scope

Hello, I need help with one ticket. Please see ticket:2016061310009131. It is all in Czech however there are several images that were already (I suppose) uploaded by user:Von.rohac and deleted. The permission is alright in copyright point of view but I am not sure whether those images aren't out of project scope. Images are in part #3 of that ticket. What do you think? --Mates (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Mates: As OTRS-volunteers, we confirm a permission only. Next сommunity decides do we need such files or not. --sasha (krassotkin) 04:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

2016061510001162

I uploaded the eight photos under this ticket a little over a month ago, after having been in contact with the photographer. (They represent eight of the nine files in Category:Photographs by Steve Dunham). User:Amitie 10g, which no longer works with OTRS files, tagged them as having received an OTRS email but not having full proof of permissions. I'd like to reach out to the photographer if there's still something that needs to be confirmed; can someone check whether there's an email waiting in the queue, or still something missing? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Krassotkin, could you notify me if there's any updates, since I'm not able to view the OTRS wiki? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • OK. --sasha (krassotkin) 16:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: I confirmed this ticket and have made the necessary modifications to the files pages. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 14:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Viktor Šerbu, portret.jpg

Hello. Could someone please take a look at tickets ticket:2016072810013409 and ticket:2016073010007153 with regards to the aforementioned photograph? Ping User:Vserbu. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I confirmed these tickets. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 10:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vincenzo Langella - draghetto86 - Pitti 88.jpg

hi, the file in subject was nominated for delete. After that a photographer send (yesterday) an email to OTRS and I add a templete to update the status in pending. Is that correct? Best --Bx67212 (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Bx67212: It's all right! I have made the necessary modifications to the file page. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 09:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 14:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Status of Ticket#: 2016072210005465

Just wanted to know the progress on the ticket regarding permission of photos. These photos have been deleted for 'non permission'. Can the status on the application be checked? Abdullah Alam (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 17:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2016071210013681

I just opened a case for discussion on OTRS wiki. Please, leave your comments there. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket#2016042710019787

I had raised an OTRS regarding an image and received the response from OTRS team, but now an image included in OTRS mail was deleted stating that OTRS was not obtained in past 30 days, what exactly went wrong ? and how to restore it again ? can anyone help me on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu.engin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Himanshu.engin: Your OTRS ticken has the number 2016042710018395. Please give us the list of filenames of deleted images here (for example: File:Shri Satpal Maharaj.jpg). --sasha (krassotkin) 09:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • User has two images were deleted with the specified reason (no OTRS permission for 30 days): File:Shri Satpal Maharaj Official Display Image.png and File:Manav Dharam Official Logo.png. Both appear to be in the OTRS tickets (first in the fifth item, second in the first item) based on filename (I can't download the images at the moment to double check). I am not 100% comfortable with the ticket as it stands, as ticket submitter claims only to "represent" copyright holder: I would prefer an explanation of exactly what that means, and perhaps a confirmation from the copyright holder... but that should take place through OTRS, not here. Pinging @Amitie 10g: ticket owner. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question: If the client mail comes from an Organization address, is there a doubt to the claiming about representant of the copyright holder? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Amitie 10g: You can ask to send a letter from another address or to confirm his rights/name/address by other means (for example, through a personal website, social network etc). --sasha (krassotkin) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Amitie 10g: Someone who works in the organization is not necessarily legally able to license the files, so yes. We need to know first that the organization actually owns the copyright, and second that the organization licenses the files. Is this person in the legal department? Are they a spokesperson? Are they the web guy that someone is telling to get the files up on Wikipedia, and this is the only way he can do that? Storkk (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I know itl, so, I already sended a request for written and signed permission from the owners. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I represent by permission of the copyright holder, which in case is "Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti", I request to provide template/format for written permission as per wikimedia standards, I'll provide the same ASAP. -- Himanshu
  • I've Mailed the written permission from the copyrights holder (Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti) please proceed further. -- Himanshu
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Need help

Hello. I would like to ask you about something that puzzles me. More than a month ago I uploaded my first file on Wikimedia Commons. It took me a while to sort out the license and then I realised that I found out that I need permission for a valid OTRS ticket. Even though I am not the copyright holder of the photo I requested the copyright owner to let me upload it. I got permission to upload it, provided that I do not alter the content of the photograph, which I did not. Then I sent a statement to Wikimedia Commons (one that I found in the page about how to get permission and I thought that it might be ok to use it) and after various email exchanges with a volunteer I finally got permission for the file. I remember that the permission status of the file was updated. However, I cannot find it in my uploads. . . When I search it says 'No results', so someone must have removed it. However, I do not understand why it was removed if there was permission for it. I would be grateful if you could let me know what actually happened and if you could help me retrieve this file. Thank you in advance.Irene000 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is File:Fabio-Mancini.png and ticket:2016043010008471. There are two problems, first you write "provided that I do not alter the content of the photograph". We only accept images that can be freely modified by anyone for any purpose, please see COM:L. Secondly, the ticket contained only correspondence from the subject of the photo and yourself, but the copyright holder of a photo is the photographer, not the subject (unless copyright was transferred, of which there was no indication in the ticket). We need to have the photographer either confirm that they transferred copyright, or that they agree to a free license (which includes the terms that anybody can use it and modify it for any purpose, subject to the terms of the license). Storkk (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Storkk. Thank you for explaining these things to me. About the first problem: It is not a problem because the file was uploaded there so as to be used by everyone. I am simply an uploader so even though I uploaded it initially in a modified form (I changed the colour contrast) I soon replaced it with its original form as it was taken by the camera. A file in its original form can be used freely by everyone and can be modified according to every individual's different taste and purpose; not simply just mine. About the second problem: Indeed there was such a correspondence. However, the photograph I uploaded is one taken by the subject's personal camera and the sole owner is the subject and only the subject. I believe the subject mentioned that in the correspondence. However, there was another photograph uploaded by another user and I believe that was the one taken by the photographer. Is it possible to confirm this for me on the emails? I appreciate it for taking your time to respond to my query. Best, Irene000 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The person who took the photo should contact us to confirm the license. The ownership of the camera is not particularly relevant. Storkk (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, I apologize in advance for annoying you with this and for my persistence but I think I need a clarification. Firstly, I completely agree with you that the ownership of a camera is not that relevant. However, I checked the email correspondence and I found the last email sent by the subject to Wikimedia Commons permissions. In that email the subject states that the photo which I uploaded is taken by a friend of his (not a professional) but he also states that he is the only one who has the photos and he is the only one who decides how to use them, for personal purposes or for social ones. The way I understand it is that there is a clear indication that if the subject is the only owner of the file and most importantly if he has the freedom to use it for social purposes it means that he has the copyright for it. Therefore, his permission for usage and his agreement to free license should be enough to guarantee a valid OTRS ticket. On the other hand, there is a second photograph File:Giorgio-armani-and-fabio.jpg, which as stated in the subject's email it was taken by a professional photographer. In this case I agree that you need a confirmation from the professional photographer about the license. I also understand that even if the subject has the freedom to use this second file, you still need a confirmation from the legal owner whether he transferred his copyrights to the subject. Indeed, the subject did not mention clearly on the email that there was a copyright transfer for this specific file, but since he mentioned that it was originally taken by a third person it is absolutely logical to need a final confirmation about the license from that third person. So, my point is that I understand the deletion of the second file as it is basically a third person's work but still I fail to understand the deletion of the file I uploaded. In the case of the file I uploaded, it is quite clear that there is no issue of third person's copyright. If that was the case I believe the subject would have specifically named the person involved, as he did for the second file. Since he did not do that but instead he made it clear that he is the only one who has the file and uses it as he wants then he must have the copyrights for it and his permission was all you needed. Thus, this file shouldn't have been deleted. Again, I am really sorry for this long message but I tried to explain the train of my thoughts so as to make you see my point (I only hope that I did not confuse you with this!). Perhaps there are faults on my logic or perhaps there is something about copyrights that I miss out but from what I can make out of the situation I am of the opinion that the two files should have been subjected to different treatment. I am looking forward to hearing from you whether I have a valid point or not. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: The issues involved are not as straightforward as you make out. You are equating ownership of the camera and all the "negatives" (essentially, exclusive ownership of the physical means to reproduce) with ownership of the copyright. This is certainly not clear-cut. There has been previous discussion about similar issues at Commons:Own_work/Bystander_selfie, which if you read the accompanying talk page, you will see does not have consensus. But because the photographer was stated to be a friend, it doesn't even really fall into that category: the "bystander" is known to the subject and is contactable. So it would probably be best to simply have that friend/photographer send in confirmation that they transfer all copyright to the subject. However, it is a non-sequitur to state that since "he is the only one who has the file ... then he must have the copyrights for it". That is simply not true as an if-then conditional statement. In any case, for various reasons that are not particularly relevant to the specific file we are currently discussing, I should probably recuse myself and if you disagree with my opinions here, I suggest you take it to COM:REFUND for an independent pair of eyes. If you do, I will refrain from comment there (as opposed to {{Oppose}}ing restoration). You are not annoying me, and I view it as part of my "job" here to answer questions to the best of my ability. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, Thank you very much for providing the link to the talk page. Indeed, some of the thoughts I have on this matter are discussed in the link you provided. It does not surprise me that it has no consensus as the factors and views regarding these issues could generally be non-exhaustive. I think I understand now your point of view. I would like to avoid making things complicated therefore I would not take this to COM:REFUND as we might end up starting another no consensus discussion like the one in the talk page of bystander selfie. In this case, I thing it would be better to make a request for undeletion. However, in order to make this request you need a confirmation from the subject's friend about the transfer of copyrights. I am pretty sure the subject has no idea that such a confirmation is needed but I believe that if he brings you in touch with the friend/photographer then that should be fine right? There is now a small problem... since the subject has no idea about this someone must inform him. Will Wikimedia Commons-Permission contact the subject directly or will I have to reply to the previous email correspondence I had with Permissions (where the subject is also included) and make the subject aware of this? Once again I appreciate it for getting back to me. Best, Irene000 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: given the current backlog of over 3 months in the OTRS queues, it would probably be better if you could take the reins in organizing the permission from the photographer. Storkk (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk , I can arrange for the permission. However, is this the correct procedure to restore the file: ? First I make the undeletion request using the link provided in the Wikimedia Commons undeletion page and then I reply to the email correspondence with Wikimedia permissions, where the subject is also included. This will make the subject aware of the situation so that he can arrange the permission for the photographer. If this is the correct procedure then can I also request the undeletion of the second file (since that one also needs permission from the photographer and perhaps the subject can arrange this as he will do for the other one) ? However, will someone reply to me on Wikimedia permissions? Last time I sent an email I did not get an answer but I do understand that you are very busy and I do appreciate it for guiding me in this. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: please first reply to the email: once a satisfactory permission is in the ticket an agent will request undeletion. If it appears that nothing is moving, you can place another note here and other agents will see if they can help out. Storkk (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, Thank you for the advice. I will reply to the email tomorrow and hopefully soon after you will receive by email the confirmation from the photographers (I will do it for both files that were deleted). Once again, I am grateful for your replies. Best, Irene000 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Storkk Irene000 The ticket was approved, and I undeleted the image a little while ago after being requested to do so by an OTRS agent. Reventtalk 06:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Revent and Storkk thank you very much for your help! Irene000 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Reventtalk 06:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016043010008471

Hello, I have sent an email to Wikimedia Commons-Permissions regarding the restoration of some files. The files were deleted because you needed a confirmation from the photographers that they agree to a free license. Could an agent please check the relevant email correspondence? Both photographers replied stating that they give their permission for the upload of the files in Wikimedia Commons. I would like to know if this is ok or if you require any further information. Also I would like to know if I need to take any other action for the restoration of the files. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC) (I have just changed position of this section and put it on the bottom of the page. )Irene000 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, I am sorry for bothering you again but I haven't received any reply yet from anyone regarding my query. Could you please let me know whether the email responses from the photographers are ok? If there is anything else that I need to do please let me know so as to sort it out. In addition, I uploaded a new image which is my work. In this case how do I get a valid OTRS ticket? Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since undeleted after OTRS request, as mentioned where discussed above. Reventtalk 06:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Reventtalk 06:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Pictures for Hamdi Ulukaya

The following pictures are waiting for permission from OTRS. They have been waiting for several months. Please inform what to do to get these photos up on Hamdi Ulukaya's wikipedia article. A letter was sent several months ago giving permission for each of these URLs from the representative of Hamdi Ulukaya, who is the owner of the copyrights to the photos. What is the next step?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ChobaniLaColombe_224.tif

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Hamdi_Ulukaya.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamdi_Ulukaya_and_Bill_Clinton.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamdi_Ulukaya_at_the_World_Economic_Forum_in_Davos.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamdi_UNFAcceptance_2015.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20160123_ulukaya-hamburg_01_LoRes.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatdrinkmerry (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eatdrinkmerry: We have two tickets on this subject:
I added their to the pages.
The client did not respond to questions of the OTRS-volunteers. Therefore, we can't confirm these permissions. We still waiting responses.
I did not find a ticket for the file: File:Hamdi_Ulukaya_at_the_World_Economic_Forum_in_Davos.jpg. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain how to fix this problem so the pictures can get permission within the 30 days before they are removed? I am confused about this. Eatdrinkmerry (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Eatdrinkmerry: Addressee must answer our questions. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    @(krassotkin) Hi Sasha- the addressee says he did not receive emails from Wikipedia. Can you try again using the following email addresses: <Michael.gonda@chobani.com> and to cc <yael.habif@chobani.com> Thank-you so, so much.Eatdrinkmerry (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I resend the email regarding the ticket I am working on. I am not comfortable putting third parties with no prior involvement in cc though. Natuur12 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ticket #2013112410282212 and others by User:Robitsju

This was apparently uploaded by the author, who claimed it as his "own work" and submitted an OTRS ticket. Problem one - this artwork is by Leo Arthur Robitschek in 1943. That means the author is about 90 if he's even still alive (which he isn't - this file says he died in 1961). Second of all, the image this ticket pertains to is claimed to be General George S. Patton. That's not a US uniform, and Patton certainly didn't look like that in 1943; that appears to be a British uniform, to boot. So there's a problem here, and I'd posit there's an issue with everything the uploader uploaded. Can someone review this uploader's tickets, please? User:Robitsju has come up before at deletions for the dating issue, and now I'm very skeptical that these subjects are who they are claimed to be. MSJapan (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @MSJapan: The author of works by the ticket:2013112410282212 is Leo Arthur Robitschek (not User:Robitsju who is the copyright holder). It should be changed in descriptions. The rest looks as relevant to our rules (with little doubt in details, as for me). The second question is not for us. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

2010102710010945

A new case has been opened on OTRS-wiki: 2010102710010945. Please add your input. Josve05a (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Reuse of OTRS 2013092410011911 possible?

Hello, I have upload the file Hans Kruzwicki and want to use a similar permission like Kunstmaler Hans Kruzwicki already has. The owner of the files in Category Hans Kruzwicki asked me per e-mail to uplaod this file in his name. Have I done it correct or is it only possible that the owner Krefelder directly asks a member from OTRS team to do the upload for him? --Stolp (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Stolp: We have permission on these files in the ticket:2013092410011911. The right holder has to send a new letter. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi sasha, thank you very much for your answer. I was quite aware that it will not work like I did it quick and dirty, anyway I am pretty sure that we will get the permission for the file Hans Kruzwicki which I have uploaded already yesterday, as I am in direct contact with the right holder. He asked me to do the upload yesterday, as he knows me as an experienced Wikipedia writer, but I am not expert with OTRS procedures nor the right holder is experienced with Wikimedia at all. So I have to inform Krefelder that it is his duty to get in contact with the OTRS team. One more question in his name on how to get in contact with OTRS: Can I tell him an e-mail contact or should he do it for example himself via the free licence assistant? --Stolp (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2010102710010945

This is a purely 'OTRS' issue... non-OTRS editors cannot meaningfully comment. Reventtalk 03:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

See #2010102710010945 above. Josve05a (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Kanwal Ameen

Image in question is File:KanwalAmeen2.jpg - Dr. Ameen provided very clear statements in her emails to permissions that she owned the copyrights to her profile image and that she licensed it to WP Commons under CC-BY-SA 4.0 - the image is being used in her BLP on en.Wikipedia. She has confirmed ownership of the copyright in TWO emails to en.permissions per my instructions, and I will be happy to provide to OTRS editors copies of those emails. Dr. Ameen copied me on each email since I am one of the authors who has been working on her BLP and also the one who uploaded her image. As a photog professional who is quite familiar with work-for-hire portraits (which OTRS editors should also be aware of) -it is quite common for the person in the photograph to own the image but there are also laws in Pakistan that further confirm the photo belongs to the individual photographed which Dr. Ameen further confirmed in her email to permissions. The uploader's and copyright holder's confirmations have been provided so I don't know why this has become an issue. What do we need to do to get this issue resolved? Atsme 📞 21:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016080310003643 (for ease of reference). --Majora (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Reading the discussion in OTRS, I think we are too strict here. We usually can't prove or disprove a work for hire. Therefore we have to see the evidence, and use that to trust the claim or not. In this case, it looks quite probable that the person depicted hired a photographer to take a picture. We also have to take into account the local customs. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
OTRS agent (verify): Please all OTRS-agent: Do not disclose any information for what or why not the ticket is acceptable or not here, since that would be a violation of the privacy disclosure agreement which you should have sgned. Only if the customer has reqested that we comment on it publicly, then we can comment on specific issues in this ticket. (wagging finger). The sender to the email should have received an email of what is needed, if not, they are free to send another email asking what is needed to prove to the OTRS agent as to what may be missing to prove copyright ownership. Josve05a (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see otrswiki:2016080310003643 for a place to discuss details. --Majora (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Further email correspondence has been submitted by the copyright holder. This is the first time I've ever had to go through a drill like this when a proper license has been submitted. I hope it's the last. It certainly is proving to be an incentive killer when copyrights are questioned despite no apparent reason to suspect a copyvio. Atsme 📞 07:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Majora (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Marco viscont(architetto).jpeg

File:Marco viscont(architetto).jpeg has an OTRS ticket number of 2011021710005582 in the permissions section but that ticket number was added by the uploader and not by an OTRS volunteer. Is it valid? The reason I am suspicious is that the English Wikipedia article it is used in is one big copyright violation. --Whpq (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 10:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

HaraldFidler.jpg / Image on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Fidler

Hello! The image HaraldFidler.jpg has been removed. I've submitted the permissions statement on 2016-06-08, see Ticket#: 2016060810018846. I'm the photographer, the image is flagged as CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I don't quite get why it's still removed. Many thanks in advance, Wolf-Dieter —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.95.7.66 (talk) 20:54, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

You should have marked the file page with {{OTRS pending}} as is explained in the OTRS manual. Otherwise normal editors cannot know that you sent an email to OTRS and will tag your file for deletion because it has already been published elsewhere without the CC licence. The image will be restored once your ticket has been processed, but that may still take some time because our email team is notoriously understaffed. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Reventtalk 09:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

請求查核 (Check Request)

以下圖檔由台灣電力公司東部發電廠所提供，後由我上傳至共享媒體，再由東部發電廠依照OTRS的標準授權郵件之標準傳送至permissions-commons@wikimedia.org，然而自2016年7月18日圖片上傳至今仍尚未受到核准擔心圖片因此遭到刪除些望能盡速處理。謝謝。Eric Deng (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Following pictures were shared by Taiwan Power Company Tungpu Hydro Power Station.And uploaded to Wikimeda Commons by me. Two days ago,the Tungpu Hydro Power Station was sent the OTRS E-Mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but now still doesn's get the OTRS approval.I worry that these photos will be delete in the past few days.So I hope to complete the approval as soon as possible.

Thanks to OTRS volunteers. And sorry for my bad english.Eric Deng (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You have the OTRS pending template. that should be good for 30 days to allow OTRS to evaluate your permission. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Eric Deng: I can not find any email with keywords above. Perhaps this letter went to the spam. Can you tell us the sender's address (if it is public information)? --sasha (krassotkin) 06:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Krassotkin: The OTRS email was sent from taipower address,u503110@taipower.com.tw. If still can not find it. I can ask for the employee inTPC Tung-Pu power plant to resend the OTRS email to you.Thanks to your help and sorry about my bad english.Eric Deng (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Krassotkin: I fill a note in the ticket. --Stang 13:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Eric850130: 我收到了您的邮件。在我看来，邮件中并没有足够信息证实您是这6张图片的版权持有者。另外，您需要提供更加详细的授权说明。推荐您使用这里给出的授权信模板重新发送邮件。谢谢您的谅解。--Stang 14:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Stang: 已了解狀況，我會再向台灣電力公司東部發電廠承辦此項業務的人員請求重新發送電子郵件。另想請教，由於照片所有權是東部發電廠，那是否在郵件模板中的"（ [本人（您的姓名）] 或 [本人有權代理（版權持有者的姓名）]兩者擇一） "的內容是否可以填寫"台灣電力公司 東部發電廠(Taiwan Power Company Tung-Pu Hydro Power Plant)"這樣即可，還是一定要填寫承辦此業務之人員的姓名？另外，由於照片已經刪除，是否我要重新上船後再請東部發電廠發送OTRS郵件？否則擔心沿用已刪除的照片會無法證明已對照。謝謝您。Eric Deng (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. 写公司名就行。
  2. 我觉得可以重新上传吧？不过我也不确定。@Krassotkin: should the user reupload these files? --Stang 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Stang: 不好意思再請教一下，請問是否可以請台電東部發電廠承辦人員先將OTRS郵件轉寄給我，以確認郵件是否符合OTRS授權的格式後，再轉寄給OTRS小組？ 謝謝。Eric Deng (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Eric850130: 可以。--Stang 13:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
看過了，可能要等到正式授權信件送到後才能定案。This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 04:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Stang: @Taiwania Justo: 兩位閣下好，經過多日後，方才台灣電力公司 東部發電廠已依照標準授權郵件的形式將郵件傳送給我，經確認無問題後，我再傳送到授權小組的電子郵件信箱了，Ticket#: 2016080710010959，還望閣下協助確認授權狀況，以及請求復原已刪除照片，非常感謝二位。Eric Deng (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
已合併至原工單2016072110000079。等待進一步處理。This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Stang: 雖然已有正式授權信件，但由於該圖像早已刪除，無法比對這些圖像是否已經於網路上存在，所以能否暫時回復或能取回備份？
@Krassotkin: I recently received the copyright authorization mail. However, I cannot check if these pictures are available on internet because of deletion. Can I apply the undeletion request or take the backup? This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 11:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
觉得可以暂时恢复来看看。--Stang 05:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Stang: 剛剛快速用Google圖片搜尋，目前沒有發現網路存在這些圖片，確定從書中取得，且該單位也來信確認其持有人身份，我想就此通過結案？This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 05:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
个人认为这可以算有足够授权信息。结了吧。 --Stang 05:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Eric850130: Okay, this case solved. Permission accepted, see ticket. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 05:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 05:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

file uploaded by Peaksel

Hello, I deleted File:Coloring Pages for Kids PDF.pdf for copyright violation and was going to delete the rest of the upload when I noticed that 3 of them have a ticket OTRS e.g. on this file. Can someone confirm if the ticked extend to the rest of the uploads? and also to the deleted file? if yes please add the ticket to the files please. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Utah State Historical Society's photo of Mary Field Garner

Concerning this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Field_Garner_USH.jpg. The template message added by @Amitie 10g: said that the message was not sufficient. Can you tell me why the message was insufficient? I believe someone with a utah.gov e-mail address gave the OTRS permission. Here is the ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016061510020892. Since I didn't file the OTRS personally, I don't know what the issue was, but if you tell me, then I can try to resolve the problem. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The OTRS-volunteer has asked some further questions to the person releasing the image. In this case that is not due to being non-sufficient I believe, but due to the fact that the image might be public domain (instead of the released cc-by-sa-4.0). So it looks like everything will be fine on this one. I asked whether it would be an idea to accept the current cc-by-sa-4.0 permission pending the clarifications on public domain. Basvb (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! My contact told me they didn't have any donor information, and any next-of-kin are at least five generations out. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the file. It seems improbable to me that some 'Historical Society' is the author or copyright holder of this picture. Jcb (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Does ticket #2010041110015375 apply?

Does ticket #2010041110015375 (apparently for works by Category:Herbert Marxen uploaded by User:Julia Marxen) also apply to File:Aschermittwoch.jpg and File:Nordmarkplakat.jpg? If so, please mark that in the image description. The PD-old used in these files are wrong (and maybe the FAL tag is also wrong depending on what the OTRS ticket says). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Per above, DR opened for both files. Hopefully we can get a broader OTRS ticket for these works. Reventtalk 09:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Language barrier

Can someone please review Template:OTRS ticket (File:Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png) as I'm unable to confirm permission due to language. Thanx, Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 16:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

e-mail only received 10/08/2016 22:42. Not yet processed. I've adjusted the ticket on the image page ("Reason=1" in template) Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Help request

Dear sir/madam
I am writing to inform you that the request email has been already sent to ask for the authorities of Hamidreza Payman's photos and genrously the ticket code is sent to us .here: Ticket:2016081010016009
since the photos have been deleted, I would be gratful if you take Appropriate action.
Thanks in advance
Your faithfuly --👦 Farhangnameh · 💬 05:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket has only been received at OTRS, once reviewed and approved the OTRS agent will arrange undeletion, so they can apply the ticket. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Andra Day photo WMG.jpg

Uploaded with a comment "This file was previously deleted despite permission being sent. Ticket #2016072710001683." Does this ticket confirm permission? January (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

E-mail received 27/07/2016 02:24, in the queue, not yet processed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking ticket review

Dear OTRS team,

Could you please review ticket #2016082210006597? I've sent a letter of permission to upload and reuse some files which is now granted to be in Commons. Many thanks. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 04:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

E-mail only arrived 22/08/2016 09:56 - in the queue awaiting processing. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos of fencer Svetlana Kormilitsyna by Lee Kyu Jin

Hello! Could someone check if Lee Kyu Jin's declaration of consent is correct and files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Svet_(1).jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Svet_(2).jpg ..and up to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Svet_(22).jpg, all in the same Category:Svetlana Kormilitsyna have appropriate tags? There is no reply from OTRS team to author or uploader since he has sent the declaration of consent (24-08-2016). Thank you! --Voyagerim (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Author's declaration has been sent from e-mail lucas7483@naver.com --Voyagerim (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Solved! Thanks to Dogad75! --Voyagerim (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Releasing a photo of myself under CC BY-SA 4.0, does that mean someone can start putting it on T-shirts and start selling posters of it or even deface it?

I would like to upload a photo of myself basically so it can be used on my Wikipedia article and on my article on other language Wikipedias. From what I understand that means I need to freely license the photo for any use including commercial. If I do this, would that mean anyone could use that photo of me on printed t-shirts, posters, book covers, used on billboards etc. without my permission and without paying me? Could someone photoshop Nazi tattoos onto my face in the picture and I couldn't do anything about it? I do want this photo to be available for use on my Wikipedia article but I just want to know what I'm getting myself into before I email the permission to use it under such a license. RecentContributors (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. The copyright holder of a picture is the photographer, not the depicted person, unless it's a selfie. The release has to be done by the photographer.
  2. "would that mean anyone could use that photo of me on printed t-shirts, posters, book covers, used on billboards etc. without my permission and without paying me?" - yes.
  3. "Could someone photoshop Nazi tattoos onto my face in the picture and I couldn't do anything about it?" - no.
For more information see the Creative Commons page here - Jcb (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
With regard to defacement (putting aside Nazi tattoos which are a special case, as this may be specifically illegal in parts of Europe), were someone to make a parody with your face, like putting it on an animal's body, the CC-BY-SA license gives you no certainty of protection, and in many countries none if the image were arguably used in parody. It would be impossible to remove it from websites unless the host organization were in a country where it might be claimed to fall in breach of that country's legal definition of privacy rights, personality rights or (newer) harassment legislation. However as this would not be a personal photo, but one you are offering to release for wide use, it would be unlikely that you could later put a case under privacy rights or intrusion/harassment. With regard to personality rights, these are normally written from the perspective of a celebrity finding their likeness is being used to promote something, this gives the potential for a claim for compensation but not necessarily the right to have a published image withdrawn if correctly licensed under CC-BY-SA. Again all of this varies by country. If you have any doubt, then delay releasing the photograph until you have examined relevant past cases and understand what the possible and likely outcomes might be. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I'm still trying to figure this out, but according to this information an image of a person released under a permission that allows commercial use, existing laws on controlling your own likeness for commercial use would mean that the photo of myself cannot be used commercially without my permission or without paying me. So even if I have a photo of myself available under CC BY-SA 4.0 which will allow it to be used on Wikipedia and whatever else people can think of, that doesn't mean that photo of myself can be used to sell t-shirts or put on a billboard to sell adult diapers without my permission. Am I understanding this correctly? And do I still need to get the photographer to email the permission even though I paid a professional photographer a lot of money to take the picture and all rights to the picture belong to me? Thanks again for your help. RecentContributors (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
If you can show us a written document (e.g. an invoice) in which the photographer transfered the copyright to you, you can do the release yourself. As for the commercial reuse, please be aware that portrait rights differ from country to country. These are non-copyright-related restrictions, not being influenced by the CC license. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually I do have just one more question. If I uploaded a photo that I took of myself or I photo I took of someone else to my verified Twitter/instagram account, or even my verified webpage, and I put "CC BY-SA 4.0" in the image description, would that be enough to verify that I agree to release those permissions and the photo to be uploaded to Wikimedia? RecentContributors (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. I do have the documentation, but I'll contact the photographer anyway, they might be familiar with the legalities behind all of this. I just *really* don't want the photo used on the cover of an unauthorised biography and especially don't want to see it on an adult diaper billboard. RecentContributors (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The question is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and we cannot give you any legal advice for your country or the countries of the suspect reusers. Please contact your lawyer or see https://creativecommons.org/ --Krd 08:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Who should feel authorized?

I initiated opened an OTRS ticket, in 2012, OTRS ticket 2012092210003274. I've uploaded a large number of my own photos to commons. I've uploaded about 30,000 photos to flickr. There had been several instances where some well-meaning person accused me of copyright violation if I had uploaded one of my own images, and someone else had already uploaded the version from flickr. There had been other sources of confusion.

So, for the last four years I have added a {{PD-Self}} and a link to this ticket, to my images, whenI sourced them from my flickr archive.

Recently I have received an automated warning that only members of the OTRS committee are authorized to place OTRS tickets on images.

Surely, as the initiator of the ticket, I too should feel authorized to link to the ticket? What possible advantage to the project would there be to place this restriction on those who have opened a ticket?

Am I to request a committee member to place this tag on every image I source from flickr? That could amount to a thousand such requests per year.

Flickr2commons flat out refuses to transfer images if the transferee tries to place an OTRS ticket.

You may place a link like ticket:2012092210003274, but you may not use the {{PermissionOTRS}} template. That's a strict policy, not open for discussion. Jcb (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Abdullah - World Economic Forum on the Middle East 2008.jpg

The image derivative derivative has an OTRS ticket. It is however a derivative of original which is stated to be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic, but the source states it is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic which is non-free. Can you please solve this quandary. A haste reply would be much appreciated as this image is being used on a Good Article Nominee on the English Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • derivative

    derivative

  • original

    original

  • Looking at the ticket:2008032810015671 and comment I think WEF has changed license over time. But CC BY-SA is irrevocable license. Those all is well with these images, IMO. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: Thanks for the speedy help. Could you help me close the deletion nomination too please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: closed. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 12:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket#2016080110014699 & Ticket#2016080110014715

Ticket:2016080110014699, ticket:2016080110014715

Hello, two of our files OMV_Downstream_Portfolio_2015_EN.png and OMV_Upstream_Portfolio_2015_EN.png were deleted on August 9th from our page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OMV&action=history with the reason of no permission, but we have required the permission for those two file from the User Bettina Schweighofer on August 1st with the Ticket numbers Ticket#2016080110014699 & Ticket#2016080110014715. Now it is 30 Days later, but there is still no permission from the OTRS. Now they are back online but it says they are going to be deleted again.

Did I miss something here or do we still have to wait a bit? I would gladly appreciate it if anyone could have a look into it and explain to me if it was a mistake on our end or somewhere else.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Prinzip (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Das Prinzip: Files restored, tickets processed. Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Tickets #2014101110009596 and #2014111610008442

Following this 2014 discussion with an author on Commons French-language help desk, I'm guessing that the ticket:2014111610008442 possibly included 1) a validation of specific files (images of his works) that had been already uploaded by someone else before that date, and 2) a validation of the author's own account for the upload of new files after that date. Is that the case? However, I see that someone else has continued in parallel to upload images of this author's works. Was the account of this other person also validated in the OTRS ticket received from the author for the purpose of uploading new files picturing this author's works? To complicate matters further, a third account, possibly also operated by the same person, has recently uploaded one of the author's works. For clarity, could you please specify which accounts, if any, were actually authorized by the author for the purpose of uploading new files picturing this author's works? Or did the author declare that he offers all his works under a free license, which would allow anyone to upload them? N.B.: The communication is probably in French. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Extract from ticket reply, just four images given CC-BY-SA-3.0, does not mention future image uploads or other users...
Nous avons reçu l'autorisation pour ces images et fait les modifications nécessaires sur les pages de description

Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. After having another look, I see that there is another ticket number used on other files, ticket:2014101110009596, which probably has more information. Sorry that I had missed that other number in my first look. So, to get the full picture of the situation, same questions as above about that other ticket, please. Thanks in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
That ticket covers only the specific files...
Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Searched on "from" name also ticket 2014090510013971...
  • File:Coltrane-Coltrane.jpg
  • File:Calmoduline Monument.jpg
  • File:Thelonious Monk Architect «Evidence».jpg
  • File:A-M au Louvre 5.jpg
  • File:Lumen Poem 1985.jpg
  • File:80 blues projectw.jpg
  • File:Viseur «Espace détaché» 2002.jpg
  • File:Une après-midi au Louvre «Monk's dream».jpg
  • File:Kaluza ballet.jpg
  • File:Eronel.jpg
  • File:Free Jazz.jpg
  • File:Vicenza 1977.jpg
  • File:Jma angouleme wk.jpg
  • File:Sculptures de visées,.jpg
And then 9 tickets not yet actioned (8h to 79 days old)! Since they are all in French, they are waiting for a French agent to process them - large number of files, by the look of it. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok. The 3 tickets detailed above cover the uploads to the end of 2014. With new tickets, then it seems that the author is keeping track of the newer uploads made by the other person and he is sending successive permissions. It seems fine then. Thank you again for your time. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking for reviewing ticket #2016081510004674

Dear OTRS team,

Since this is a little bit important for us, I would like to request a review for ticket #2016081510004674. Your kind action would we appreciated. Thanks, ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 09:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rachmat04: Done! --Scoopfinder(d) 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Scoopfinder: Thank you. More uploads will be uploaded soon. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding image of Steve Herndon.

Hello, I am trying to get an image of former NFL player Steve Herndon added to his Wikipedia page. It is the image found here https://www.safetynetrecovery.com/our-staff/ on the website of the company to which he is the president and co-founder. The website does not have a copyright warning. He himself has tried to upload it and was denied as I have tried and was denied numerous times. This is a simple request that can be resolved in minutes. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS by email. Please be aware that permission has to come from the copyright holder (=photographer!) rather than from the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively - annotate the photo on https://www.safetynetrecovery.com/our-staff/ with "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License." - but the webmaster will have to be sure he has the power to do so, or he could end up having real issues from the copyright holder. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Image Régis Lefort

Bonjour,

Pour cette image File:Régis Lefort - 2013.jpg vous avez reçu deux autorisations :

  • celle de la personne photographiée
  • celle du photographe : Ticket#2016081810018271

Pourtant elle a toujours le statut "OTRS received". Quel raison empêche ladite photo de disposer du label "PermissionOTRS|id=XXX" ?
Merci de me donner des précisions ou d'apposer le statut définitif à cette image.
Cordialement. GerardGiraud (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

For this image File:Régis Lefort - 2013.jpg you received two authorizations:

  • That from the person photographed
  • That from the photographer: Ticket # 2016081810018271

Yet it always have "OTRS received" status. What reason prevents this file to have the label "PermissionOTRS|id = XXX"?
Thank you for clarification or to affix the final status at this image.
Sincerely. GerardGiraud (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@GerardGiraud : La raison est simplement que les permissions sont gérés par des bénévoles, sur leur temps libre, merci d'être patient. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour. Merci de votre réponse et toutes mes excuses pour ce message. Je comprends très bien les contraintes des membres bénévoles. Je vous remercie bien. Cordialement. GerardGiraud (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket#: 2016051210006736

Hello. Can anyone update me on this ticket? It's been nearly four months since the rights holder filled in the form. Joe Roe (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This ticket was merged to 201605111002472. Further information relating to the lack of FoP in Jordan was requested in May but nothing has been returned since. Nthep (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Is FoP really an issue? It's a photograph of a building the organisation owns, taken from within the grounds (i.e., not a public space). Joe Roe (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Copyright most often is owned by the architect, and not the organisation who may currently operate from within the building. Josve05a (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting review of [Ticket#2016081010007546], [Ticket#2016081010007626], [Ticket#2016081010007635]

articles: w:Robin-Lee Hall, w:Royal Society of Portrait Painters.
files (tickets): File:Hall-R-L-Joy-28x24-Egg-tempera.jpg (ticket:2016081010007546), File:The Royal Society of Portrait Painters.png (ticket:2016081010007626), File:Centenary-Catalogue-Cover-web-299x369-243x300.jpg (ticket:2016081010007635).

Hello,

The President of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters have asked me to chase up on getting our images undeleted from [Hall] and The [Society Of Portrait Painters] pages.

The relevant ticket no.s are: [Ticket#2016081010007546], [Ticket#2016081010007626], [Ticket#2016081010007635]

The files are:

File:Hall-R-L-Joy-28x24-Egg-tempera.jpg File:The Royal Society of Portrait Painters.png File:Centenary-Catalogue-Cover-web-299x369-243x300.jpg

This is really important to us, so any update would be gratefully received! Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxicarrow (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @User:Toxicarrow: I processed these tickets: files restored and I have made the necessary modifications to their pages. Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 11:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Will this confuse OTRS volunteers?

I drafted an article and uploaded a photo of the subject: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sailing_to_France.png

Subsequently the subject's granddaughter, owner of the image, used the permission template to confirm that she had released permission for this.

In her email (using the template) she says she is sole owner of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:wiki/Sailing_to_France.png

When you click on the link identifying her image, as it is formulated in the template, this pops up:

No file by this name exists, but you can upload it

i.e. prompting the author to upload the file again. Should she? Believeingood (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Believeingood (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Believeingood: I'd like to note that the mere ownership of the image is irrelevant when it comes to copyright. We need to know the original photographer, and not the owner of the physical copy. Only the original photographer or his heirs could release the image under a free licence. The copyright term in Ireland is the life of the author plus 70 years, so unless the photographer died shortly after taking this image, it is still copyrighted and non-free. If the image was taken by a family member, then Walsh's granddaughter would in fact be in a position to release the image, but we need to know the type of licence she would like to grant. De728631 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find out. Believeingood (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016051510010994

Would someone be able to take ownership for Ticket:2016051510010994? The owner used to be Amitie 10g, who is no longer an agent, and though I'm currently marked as the owner, it needs an external reviewer because I'm involved in gathering the submission. The items in Category:Nadia Kaabi-Linke (besides from "Flying Carpets") need to be reviewed. The artist's permission to use items from her website comes via her husband/curator/collaborator in the first part of the ticket, and I just added permission from Uwe Walter to use his photos, which were included in the ZIP file in the first part of the ticket. The "Walk the Line" photo permissions are in ticket:2016071210024758. Thanks, czar 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

moved from Commons talk:OTRS
@Czar: As you are an OTRS agent yourself, could it be that you want to address this on OTRS wiki or the related mailing list? --Krd 17:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Krd, my understanding was that Amitie 10g's tickets were a Commons-specific situation. And I've tended to have a swift enough response here rather than punting to the listserv (a little less intrusive than email spam) czar 20:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The ticket is open in the permissions-commons queue, like 550 other tickets. I'm sure it will be processed regularly on it's turn. --Krd 06:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, I actually meant to post this in OTRSN czar 20:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Working on it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking for an OTRS email template for making work CC0 (public domain)

Hi all

Apologies if I'm asking in the wrong place, I'm looking for an OTRS email template for releasing work under CC0 (public domain), I can't find one, I'm not sure if it exists or not? I assume there are some differences outside of simply changing the license in the CC-BY-SA one because more rights are given away.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've generated one below. Check out the new release generator here.

I hereby affirm that I, [your name here], am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[your name here] 2016-07-30

Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bobamnertiopsis, I'm not sure if this bit should be in there? I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. as it is CC0 so no copyright is retained and no attribution is required. --John Cummings (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's fair, John Cummings. I think sending the above release and omitting the aforementioned line should suffice. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bobamnertiopsis, I started a discussion on Wikidata about it, thanks very much for your help. --John Cummings (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Challenging deletion tags

Hello, I just got a message today in my Wikicommons account from some user named “EugeneZelenko” nominating 9 of my images for deletion, although “nominating” is a bit of an understatement since he already put a deadline of 7 days with no room for reply. The images that he tagged are the following:

All of the images targeted by this user have been under the Mexican copyright law (Ley de Derechos de Autor (http://www.indautor.gob.mx/documentos_normas/leyfederal.pdf)) that states you can share the content as long as it’s for non-lucrative means and you atribute the author of the content, it is stated on their websites. Further more, why is he running under the assumption that there is a problem with them, he doesn't speak Spanish nor does he have an understanding of Mexican law (I do, I'm a lawyer), if any of the original authors ever feel like there is a problem with the usage of the images on WIkipedia they are welcome to file a complain themselves.

I also went through the message history of this user and after seeing his archives you can see that he does this all the time, even deleting pictures that the authors themselves uploaded, I think he's abusing his power, not listening to arguments and deleting perfectly acceptable images anyway, could you please stop the deletion process? Thank you. Supaman89 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: Reventtalk 02:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Supaman89: The files won't be deleted until the seven days have run out, and you can change (or ask someone to change) the nominations to deletion requests where you can discuss them. This isn't really the right place for that.
However, you mention above the provision for fair use in Mexican law, and it's requirement that such use be 'non-commercial. We do not, by policy, allow either fair use material, or material that has restrictions prohibiting commercial use, on Commons. You indicated when uploading that the files were under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license... that license does not include a restriction on commercial use, and I see no indication that any of the copyright holders have released the images under that specific license.
Commons policies also do not allow us to keep material under the argument that 'the owners have not complained yet'. Reventtalk 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I checked source links for several files and there is no mentions of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Source sites look like blogs, so photos may be borrowed from Internet. Please read Commons:Licensing carefully before uploading again. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Charging Bull sculpture (ticket #2013120510013859)

Hello, I am interested in uploading photos of the Charging Bull sculpture, but it is copyrighted, and the photos are derivative works. I noticed that there was an OTRS ticket for File:"Charging Bull" replica.jpg, a replica of the sculpture. I would like to know if the license given to OTRS also covers the sculpture itself. Sunmist (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket only refers to the replica Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Photograph of musician Michael Morrow

Moved from Help Desk, since I presume only OTRS volunteers can give an accurate answer - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have written an article about the musician Michael Morrow, which has been accepted and is now in Wikipedia. On the Talk page of my article, I have been recommended to inclue a photograph of Morrow, which, I'm told, would enhance the article. However, the only image I have of Morrow belongs to a friend, Seán O'Leary, who was a friend of Morrow, who took the photo, and who lives in the UK (I live in Ireland). I spoke to him on the phone yesterday and he has given me verbal permission to use the photograph for whatever purposes I want. I did explain to him that once the photo gets into the public domain, anybody and everybody can use it. He told me that this would not be a problem. I expect that you would like all this in writing from him, but please bear in mind that Seán is elderly, is in poor health and does not have a computer or the Internet. However, one of his children or grandchildren might be able to send you an email about this matter on his behalf if you require one. Incidentally, he gave me permission to use the photograph in a biography that I wrote and which was published recently: 'John S. Beckett: The Man and the Music' (The Lilliput Press, Dublin, May 2006), where it is reproduced in black and white. It is credited 'Courtesy of Seán O'Leary'. As this seems to be the only image available, and as I would like to include this photograph in the article, I would welcome any comments that you might have as to what I should do. Charlesgannon (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
End moved

  • @Charlesgannon: His relatives can print standard permission (see: COM:OTRS). He will have to sign it. After that, anyone can send a scan or photo of it to OTRS with these explanations. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2008030310010794

Can someone let me know what the release says for File:Kalki Koechlin and Emran Hashmi Shanghai.jpg? It's one of several images with unclear releases in a featured-article nominee on enwiki. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Sasha, thanks. The problem with the group permission is that it effectively says "we release images that we're in a position to release" (e.g. images taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer), but it doesn't identify which images that applies to. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sasha or anyone, can you say what the OTRS release actually says? Riana created the template, {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}, in 2008 to say "All photographs used by this site with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by their own photographers." [7] But the interpretation of the OTRS release changed over time. Now it says:

Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload.

That means that, in effect, a release has to be sought for each individual image. But editors are not doing that because they believe there has been a group release. SarahSV (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Initially, there says: "All photographs used by this site with the exception of screenshots, promotional posters or wallpapers are exclusively created by their own photographers". But there is a vast correspondence (in 2008), which allowed us to clarify the mechanism and formulation. Now administrators or license reviewers can confirm this for individual images.
    You're right. This is confusing. But we have only this method now. If in doubt, you can send them a letter (with OTRS and this ticket in copy) and clarify the license of specific photos and/or offer them another way on the whole. At least we shall see that this permission is still valid in its entirety and our interpretation. --sasha (krassotkin) 17:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, thanks. Just to clarify, it's not me who wants to use these images. I'm just reviewing an article for featured-article status, and it uses several of these images. The article can't be promoted with unclear image releases. I'm not sure what you mean by "Now administrators or license reviewers can confirm this for individual images."
It seems to me that this is not a valid release, because the release for each image is going to have to be clarified separately, so the group release may as well not exist. SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: This means that trusted users can verify compliance. In fact, we have a lot of group permissions. This is a common practice. But if it's necessary you can offer creators of the article to write such letter to Bollywood Hungama. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, how do trusted users verify compliance for individual images? For example, is File:Kalki Koechlin at special screening of 'Margarita With A Straw'.jpg free? SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @SarahSV: This is a simple example :-). See original. Yes, because there's a watermark and we have permission from the owner of the watermark (was taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer - copyright holder is Bollywoood Hungama). In addition it is a photograph of a Bollywood party or event (see tags on image page: Parties and Events-Image, Bollywood, Parties & Events) and it's not screenshot, wallpaper, vacation picture, promotional poster or photo copyrighted by other websites. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sasha, I can't see the image on that site (your link doesn't work for me), but if they wanted to release it, I wonder why they would watermark it. People add watermarks to stop their images from being used.
We don't know who the photographer was and whether that person has released the image, or alternatively, if it was a work for hire and Bollywood Hungama owns the copyright, whether the company has released it. SarahSV (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: And this link? Usually watermarks are added for self-promotion of a copyright holder. Sometimes it do even those who transfers his rights into the public domain.
    Here the photographer does not matter. We are interested in the copyright holder only. In most cases the employer is the copyright holder of the all works created during the performance of official duties. This is a typical situation and on the contrary we should raise questions if it will look different.
    So all looks good here. But if there are doubts we have to ask the copyright holder and not each other. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, I think we are talking past each other. The problem is that image reviewers are passing these images as okay, when they are not okay. So we do need to talk to one another.
For example, File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg was taken at en:Lakme Fashion Week, which is not a Bollywood Hungama event. But the image has the Bollywood Hungama watermark on it. [8] Why? They don't say. Perhaps their photographer took it, or perhaps they use that watermark carelessly. So only half the image was uploaded to avoid the watermark, and Racconish passed it as being available on the Bollywood Hungama website. But that tells us nothing about (a) copyright and (b) whether the copyright holder has released it. The bottom of the page says "all rights reserved."
I've emailed Bollywood Hungama, but so far they have not responded. SarahSV (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: I think your email is the best way. If they do not respond within a reasonable time, we will think further. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If one of you thinks I did something wrong, please let me know. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 19:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Racconish, it's not that you did anything wrong. You reviewed the file page to confirm that the file was available on the Bollywood Hungama, and it was. But that is leading editors to believe that these images have been confirmed as free. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this group release. I'd like to know what it says and who it came from. I'm thinking we should not rely on it until an authorized person from Bollywood Hungama confirms it and clarifies what it covers. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Thank you for sending the email. Have you had any reply from them? Green Giant (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I'm sorry, I have only just received this ping from you. No, I haven't heard from them. I don't have time to pursue it right now, because I'm in the middle of dealing with another problematic group release, but any images depending on the Bollywood Hungama OTRS ticket probably ought to be nominated for deletion. SarahSV (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: They don't 'use the watermark carelessly'... they just apply it to every image on the website, regardless of if it is 'theirs'. Bollywood Hungama has long been a problematic image source, and you are spot on at pointing out the issues... it is not a source where simply checking it it is 'available there' is sufficient. All images from there are supposed to be reviewed, but the exact scope of the permissions grant is convoluted, and people often make mistakes due to not being familiar with the exact restrictions, even when reviewing. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bipasha Basu and Karan Singh Grover grace the green carpet ceremony of IIFA 2016.jpg for a current example.
Despite it having been discussed more than once, there has never been a consensus to blacklist this source completely, so we are left with images with the license to which it possibly does not apply, and are dependent on them being taken to DR when noticed. The general disclaimer is relevant, unfortunately. Reventtalk 08:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Marek okulary1.JPG

Czy mogę uzyskać zezwolenie na wykorzystanie ww.zdjęcia w projekcie - gra edukacyjna dla dzieci w karcie z pytaniami dotyczącymi tej postaci? z poważaniem Martyna Stupnicka martyna.stupnicka@dante.com.pl —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.97.149.10 (talk) 07:45, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

To zdjęcie jest udostępnione na licencji „CC BY-SA 3.0”, która umożliwia jego wykorzystywanie również w celach komercyjnych, pod warunkiem, że się je odpowiednio oznaczy: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pl. Jeśli chciałaby je Pani wykorzystać w inny sposób, np. bez podawania autora, to myślę, że należałoby skontaktować się z autorem, tj. p. Kamińskim. --jdx Re: 08:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Josef Scheuplein

Could someone please verify what license is exactly mentioned in https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010112110008243 - re: all files in Category:Josef Scheuplein. All the files had the artist name "Josef Scheupelin" in the _source_ field, and as author "Werner Kirchgessner". The author is surely not the heir, but the artist, so I changed those fields to author: Creator:Josef Scheuplin; and source = Werner Kirchgessner. Now the problem is how the attribution of those GFDL and CC licenses is supposed to be. The average Commons user cannot know how to properly attribute the image, hence they are quite useless if this isn't fixed. I hope there's something in the OTRS mail that helps to clarify this issue. --WolfD59 (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@WolfD59: That ticket specifies the license CC-by-sa 3.0/de (by referring to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Bild-CC-by-sa/3.0/de), but only applies to "das Bild 'Blick auf Würzburg.jpg'". I assume that this is File:Blick auf Würzburg (o.J.).JPG. Perhaps User:NORPpA, the original uploader of the image to the German Wikipedia, knows more. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File Red de museos para la atencion a personas con discapacidad.webm

This file was recently deleted but I sent the permissions letter to permisions-commons@wikimedia.org back on 26 May 2016. I forwarded the letter to you again (showing the original mail) today. Can you verify if you have received it? Thelmadatter (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two e-mails from you in the system - one 01/08/2016 18:25 and 21/08/2016 14:54 - an auto reply for the first one was sent on same day. Neither have been processed yet. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This is the problem. The original file was uploaded in May, with the email sent then and never processed. Then the file disappears with no warning to me to confirm that I did send the mail.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
E-mail never arrived in May - first e-mail on first August (those are UK style dates above). Note: E-mails sent to permissions queues always get an auto reply sent back the same day with the ticket number. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I had a look, and can confirm what Ronhjones says above. We have in OTRS in 2016 two emails from you:
  • one on 01.08.2016 about « Pro Natura »
  • another 21.08.2016 14:54 about « CDMX − Museo de Arte popular »
I understand these two are not related.
I have searched everywhere for other related email − the only one I can find was from 2015 about File:Alebrijes wikilearning.webm. As far as I can tell, we have not received any email in May about it.
Anyway, I have now restored File:Red de museos para la atencion a personas con discapacidad.webm.
Sincerely, Jean-Fred (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Brad Trost

Has anyone emailed MP Brad Trost to get a permission for the photo, File:Brad Trost, MP, 2016.jpg which he has upload to English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone?
Obviously not. Does this answer your question? --Krd 08:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well can someone volunteer to take this task on as I am not an OTRS admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 04 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kbq430: You should not have additional rights to do so. Follow the instructions: COM:OTRS. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 07:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:COA Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics.svg

This file is under public domain licensing {PD-UA|type=coats of arms} as emblem of ukrainian state university [[9]], it`s my own retouched drawing, don't remove them - restore please--Leonid76 (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 07:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Abotrika2012.jpg

Hi there! The metadata of this image indicates that it comes from AFP. The original version offered by AFP is 2706×3600 pixels, whereas the one here is only 800×1064 pixels (which happens to be the exact same size found at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=368683553190693). Keeping in mind that AFP's business model typically doesn't involve giving away their content for free, are these things reasonably explained by the OTRS ticket? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ticket is not in any permissions queue. @Ibrahim.ID: could you please explain? Storkk (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for delayed response, we receive email via (permissions-ar@wikimedia.org) from : Mohamed Fathy, photographer in AFP, and he take this photo in 2012, I asked him some questions and he answer it well, everything was ok, last year I asked in village pump about different between copyright holder and photographer (I can't remember the link), and someone said the photographer is the owner and he can license his photo, if this license is incorrect or suspicious, please delete the photo and I apologize, thanks --Ibrahim.ID ♒ 01:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ibrahim.ID:
  1. Based on the information at meta:OTRS/Personnel, you are the only one with access to permissions-ar. Is it possible to give other volunteers access to the ticket?
  2. Can you (without breaching confidentiality) disclose how the sender's identity was confirmed – did the e-mail come from an @afp.com e-mail address, for example?
  3. You haven't posted anything to any of the village pumps (main, copyright or proposals) since September 2014. I can't find anything in your Commons: namespace contributions matching the description of that question. Photographs taken by an employee in the course of their duties is normally considered a work made for hire, with the employer being the copyright holder, so if you actually asked that question somewhere and got the answer you say you did, it seems you got the wrong answer.
—LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
he gave me some information about file (date - location - first published) and sent to me his ID scan, but Anyway, the file's situation is wrong, so I tag it with speedydelete and sorry for my fault, you can close this discussion --Ibrahim.ID ♒ 03:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)}
This section was archived on a request by: Ibrahim.ID ♒ 03:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Undelete file:TellakagitaM.pdf (ticket:2016062010006201)

Hi,
I convinced and made a Telugu Book - Tellakagitam to be re-licensed into CC-BY-SA by its author and sole copyright owner Yasaswi Sateesh Kumar. He sent OTRS request mail on August 20, 2016 & I uploaded the book quoting OTRS number in its description on the next day. I indexed it in Telugu Wikisource and started digitization too. Now book left with proof-reading and further activities. In this stage, it was removed from commons and I didn't get any notice about it. But found the removal of book because it was removed in Telugu Wikisource (its index here). I request someone to review the ticket and restore. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Pavan santhosh.s: , I am Jayanta from OTRS member team, I have received email from Yasaswi Sateesh Kumar, the copyright holder. Could you please re-upload two books or arrange to upload the books? Then I can confirm the tickets.Jayantanth (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, will do it --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Jayantanth: , I have re-uploaded the books under names File:OkkaMaataKavitatvaalu.pdf and File:TellakagitaM.pdf Please help confirming the tickets. Thank you for a quick response and action. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If the original copyright holder anytime in the past , uploaded the books himself from his own account, please request an undeletion here Commons:Undeletion requestsJayantanth (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. He never uploaded it, I have uploaded previous time too. Anyway will check with it. Thanks for resolving this issue. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 05:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Restore File:Ramanujan Nundi Etu Atu by Vemuri Venkateswararao.pdf ticket:2016061910010172

Dear volunteers,
I got to know that anther work Ramanujan Nundi etu atu also got deleted in same way(As I mentioned above). In this case author sent OTRS permission and also uploaded file to commons from his own account. So, I request you to consider restoring this file too. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 10:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016060610005774

I think this may need one further back-and-forth to establish whether the gmail address is correct, but it may not... it needs a Dutch-speaker to confirm. @Natuur12, Basvb, and Jcb: could one of you take the ticket please? Thank you. Storkk (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a note with some extra info but I am rather busy this week so I am not sure if I can take over the ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm also rather busy, sorry. Basvb (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Edoderoo has picked it up. Basvb (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

3Rs

Hi

As the Secretary, I had created a Wiki entry for the Draft:Royal Aero Club Records Racing and Rally Association (3Rs, for short) which was subsequently deleted. It was removed because I was found to have breached the copyright of another organisation.

To create the entry, I had taken text from the organisation's handbook. Unbeknownst to me, another site which collates information on clubs and organisations had used the same text on their website as part of an entry for the 3Rs http://www.clubbz.com/club/791/Nationwide. The 3Rs was not aware of the existence of the site, nor had it agreed to the use of the text from the handbook. However based on the fact that the other website had published before my Wiki submission, they would appear to have been given the benefit of the doubt.

In searching for the disputed entry, it would appear that either the entry has been deleted or that the site has gone out of existence and the domain taken up by others. In any event, the only existence of the text remains in our handbook and on our website.

We would wish to continue to use the text as part of our Wikipedia entry, but not necessarily make the Handbook available under a Commons license, and I think this is where some confusion lies as the original entry was deleted because we were reckoned to have breached another's copyright by using their text, and not our own

Petechilcott (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Petechilcott: For issues regarding text in Wikipedia articles or drafts, as opposed to the licensing of images, you really need to address the issue on Wikipedia, not Commons. We are separate, but related, projects. You should, however, have no problems with licensing only the specific text from the handbook that you want to use under a license that Wikipedia will accept. You should bring this up at the OTRS noticeboard on English Wikipedia.. Reventtalk 06:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

permissions commons

Ticket:2016081910003481

good morning, do you have received my email for authorization to have occurred verifying in the Wikimedia OTRS system for this file: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martirio_dei_SS._Cesario_diacono_e_Giuliano_presbitero_in_Terracina.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frangpan (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Page has a ticket (2016081910003481). Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Classical Numismatic Group Images

ticket:2006092710009217

unter ticket #2006092710009217 sind 3024 Dateien von http://www.cngcoins.com/ freigegeben. Bezieht sich diese Freigabe genau auf die 3024 Dateien oder hat etwa CNG alle Bilder freigegeben? Hintergrund: ich würde gern dieses Bild einbinden. Ich habe gerade eben auch eine mail mit der Erlaubnis erhalten. wie gehe ich weiter vor? Grüße, 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgoetz (talk • contribs) 20:23, 08 September 2016 (UTC)

Zu diesem Ticket gibt es bereits das hier. Grundsätzlich sollte der Urheberrechtsinhaber die Freigabe direkt an die auf COM:OTRS angegebenen Adressen senden. --Didym (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
alles klar. Vielen Dank.--Stgoetz (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Stgoetz (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Shane Balkowitsch

I created a page for Shane Balkowitsch. I initially used images created/authored by Shane Balkowitsch on the page, with permission by the author to do so. These images were deleted. I requested that Mr. Balkowitsch send permissions by email to the OTRS as per instructed. He did that, three times now. The images were again up for deletion. I then made contact with Shane Balkowitsch to ask him to personally upload the images so I can use them on the page. Shane Balkowitsch has done that. I now see that those images are up for deletion. So, we are beyond emails and declarations. Most of the messages I receive are from userEugeneZelenko who clearly is not taking note of efforts made to resolve these issues and views the images as historical because they are created using a historical process, but are in reality, modern images created by Shane Balkowitsch and uploaded by Shane Balkowitsch and used on the Shane Balkowitsch page with permissions (sent multiple times) to do so. So, please let me know, what is the issue here? I have followed multiple procedures and end up with the same result, deletion messages. To say Wikipedia's guidelines seem arbitrary is an understatement, one well documented I might add. There are two options on my end. Either I upload images with permission from the author, or the author uploads images. I have tried both methods in accordance with various guidelines. These have not worked. What are the options, beyond these? -tjf5280 Tjf5280 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @EugeneZelenko. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    Files in question were claimed to be uploaded with permission of Dorothy Ross. OTRS ticket was not mentioned. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 19:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket#2016090510005403 no reply!

See also: Ticket:2016090510005403 and File talk:Βάλε με στην αγκαλιά σου.ogg#OTRS.

I have sent an email to permissions kindly requesting clarification so that I can properly proceed with assisting an audio file to be cleared by its six authors. On the same day I added the names of the authors to File:Βάλε με στην αγκαλιά σου.ogg and User:EugeneZelenko put the file up for deletion. A few days later I sent a reminder and still no answer so I will repeat the question here: will the email from each of the authors also be valid for the 18 additional files that will be uploaded by the same user with the same authors?

I have assisted other authors in the past in the same way and I remember being serviced promptly and politely. I understand that the OTRS team may be very busy but the same goes for all of us. In that respect, please confirm that this is the right process and DO NOT DELETE THE FILE as it is not our fault that the clearance has delayed. The user I am assisting is a newcomer and he has valuable contributions to make. All we need is a thumbs-up that we are following the right procedure or an indication of what is the right thing to do.

Hoping for a reply soon. Best, Mina--Saintfevrier (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @krassotkin Thank you for your reply and apologies for not replying right away (I am a secondary school teacher and this is our first week of the new school year, TOO busy days!). I see that the file has been deleted. No worries I guess, since I like the idea that you suggested and I will do the uploading this time, prepare the license and send to the authors so they can sign scan and copy to you. The original user who uploaded was inexperienced and the truth is that he is a little disappointed by the outcome... I explained to him but I think it could have been handled in a more friendly manner. In any case, I am just pointing this out for the future, I mean we shouldn't be discouraging newcomers, should we? Thanks again and I will proceed with uploading the files properly as soon as I can:) --Saintfevrier (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Saintfevrier: You're right. But we are obliged to comply with the laws. We will restore files, when we will get proper permission. Notify me when everything will ready. I will try to help. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 19:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Georgia senate

Would someone be able to send OTRS requests for File:Barksdale032.jpg and File:June 22, 2016 - Atlanta, Georgia, United States - Georgia Libertarian Candidate for the United States Senate, Allen Buckley.jpg, both of which are missing permission? MB298 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @MB298: OTRS-agents check permissions only. We are very small team. You can send a request yourself. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 19:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Review OTRS Ticket : #2016070710015483

Ticket:2016070710015483

Hi,

Please review the Ticket: 2016070710015483

This is an own work file and free to publish anywhere. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma (talk • contribs) 15:32, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

The ticket is in the queue - there is a backlog. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 12:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2016091610003162

Hello, I have sent an email containing letter of permission of some files uploaded to Commons recently to OTRS, which ticket number is 2016091610003162. Could someone of OTRS team please confirm the email and review it? Also, in the last 2 week, I also sent the same letter (#2016082210006597), but it is still in queue. I noticed that there are a huge backlogs that I'm afraid that the files listed in the email will be deleted after some time.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 07:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Rachmat04: Please can you send us the list of the urls in plain text in the body of emails for each letter/ticket. It would be much simplified processing. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: Alright, I'll send it shortly. Thank you. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 10:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
✓ Email sent. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 11:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
For URL in #2016082210006597, those files have been listed in Commons:OTRS/received by searching using "Horison" prefix. Thank you. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 11:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Rachmat04: It would be better if you list them in email in the same way. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: ✓ Updated email sent for ticket no. #2016082210006597. Thank you. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 12:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: Thanks for your big help! ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 12:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 12:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket # 2016081710012474 Request Undelete of file:Yura Min & ice dance partner, Alexander Gamelin.jpg

Ticket:2016081710012474

This file was deleted from the commons and from the info box on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yura_Min. An email was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on August 17, 2016 by the photographer releasing the copyright for this photo to the public domain along with all other photos taken by her on July 30, 2016 of Yura Min and / or Alexander Gamelin in Lake Placid, New York. In that email the photographer designating me as her representative in uploading this file along with any or all other photos taken of these subjects on that day at that location. IceTwinsMom (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket has yet to be processed Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Fixed licenses, added OTRS, fixed categories. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket#2016091510006911

Ticket:2016091610005044.

I just figured out that the permission linked to this ticket won't work, it is something like "Yes you can use my work," and not a strict declaration. So I contacted the copyright holder again, sent him the E-Mail template from Commons:OTRS, he filled and sent it to OTRS.

So it's the same photo, source and author, the uploaded file -linked to the ticket 2016091510006911- is likely to be deleted as permission in it is poorly organized as I said. So if the copyright-holder's E-mail is approved, what happens next, I mean where to find the photo? Or would you somehow know that the uploaded photo is the same as the one in the declaration, because I don't know his ticket number right now -he has internet problems- but he sent me a copy of the declaration, I can disclose the full template and time he sent it.

I already sent the filled template to OTRS, with the address being [Ticket#2016091510006911] --Karim3adel (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @krassotkin Thank you. I know you are volunteers, very much appreciated, but now that the file is deleted, just want to know how much ≈time would it take for the permission to be reviewed? --Karim3adel (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Karim3adel (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not aware that I did anything wrong

Ticket:2016062710024544

Can someone let know what I did wrong? I added a photo to Commons on June 26, 2016; the copyright holder sent a permissions Email clearly identifying the photo on Commons to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on June 27; at COMMONS:OTRS on June 28 I noticed it said "The current backlog for tickets in English is approximately 106 days", so I just waited. But on Sept 9 a bot informed me the photo was deleted for reason "No OTRS permission for 30 days". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot read the email that was sent, but judging from the tag that was afterwards applied to File:George R. Dekle 2016.jpg by a member of our OTRS team, the permission we received by email was not sufficient to keep the file. I have therefore deleted the file again because we need proper evidence that the original photographer agrees to releasing the image under a free licence that includes the making of derivatives and commercial re-use. De728631 (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Why did you do that??? I said a proper permissions Email was sent by the copyright holder. Why are you saying "I cannot read the Email" what does that mean??? And why do you assume the Email isn't proper??? And why haven't you even attempted to answer any of my questions above, like what I did wrong??? Shoot and ask questions later??? What the hell more can I do that I didn't do??? Are you OTRS??? I said the proper permissions Email was sent, and even gave the date. What more possible thing do you expect I can do??? Can you possibly be any more destructive and unhelpful??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong in your assumption that "the permission we received by email was not sufficient to keep the file". There was no inadequacy with the permission Email sent by the copyholder. And here's another question ... Why wasn't I notified here or on WP, as the uploader of the file, about pending deletion at any time??? You guys and gals make life overly difficult, why are you doing that??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You should obtain the permissions Email that was sent June 27, 2016, and read it, before you make assumptions and take action like you just took, to delete again. Do you know how frustrating it is to do things as right as can be expected by a average/normal/typical WP editor, then have their efforts trashed??? Why do you think I came to this noticeboard in the first place, and how does your response, which ignored all my questions, help at all??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
How the heck can I proceed to fix whatever needs to be fixed, based on your destructive response??? What needs to be done, which you didn't offer to do, is to LOCATE the permissions Email sent June 27, 2016 by the copyright holder. Perhaps it was never seen by any OTRS personnel!?!? That is my guess, that OTRS personnel overlooked it. I have a copy of the permissions Email and there is nothing inadequate about it. In order for you or OTRS person to be able to tell me what you think is inadequate about it, first you have to ensure/confirm that that you have it and didn't overlook it, because at this point it looks to me that it was overlooked. How about diggig up that permissions Email, since I cannot do that, I don't have access to the inbox at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org -- only OTRS personnel do. How about finding that Email as first step??? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you at least un-do (revert) your destructive knee-jerk reaction by restoring the file you deleted and associated info? (Took me 45 minutes to load that info using a dial-up. You threw away an hour of my life. And I don't have another hour to give you for free.) Repeat: The permissions Email was sent, no acknowldgement whether OTRS received or did not receive. You've made assumptions without research, and taken destructive action on that basis. I'll pay you $1000 if the inadequacy is mine, not OTRS's. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
And here's another Q: Don't you OTRS reps have any protocol to notify the uploader, before deleting a file for which you've lost or overlooked the permissions Email sent and presume it wasn't sent??? (No warning or working with the uploader??? Just delete??? I'm used to seeing warning messages at WP users' Talk pages, why did I not receive???) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I've reviewed the file history of the deleted file, the ticket number here was appended to the file on 6 August 2016 by BU_Rob13 so that would refute any suggestion that the permission e-mail was lost. I've asked that an available OTRS agent reviews the ticket to see what needs to be confirmed/clarified and as soon as that is done, either I or the agent will be in touch with you to assist in clearing the image for use.
The normal process on OTRS and Commons is for communication to be via e-mail, it would be most likely that you received an e-mail from the agent who handled the permissions e-mail asking for further information. You're also expected to observe the files you uploaded until such time as the OTRS permission is confirmed - OTRS based uploads to Commons can involve many files, if we notified users when every file had permissions issues, hundreds of notifications could be sent to the uploader, and indeed, if more than one uploader has helped, the notification could go to the wrong person, which is why everything with respect to OTRS is done via e-mail on the OTRS side of the system.
You should also know by now that we're all volunteers and there are backlogs, so please be patient. Nick (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Nick, no, I did not receive any Email from "the agent who handled the permissions e-mail asking for further information", whomever it was. In this case there is one uploader (me), and it's hard to imagine the expectation of receiving some kind of warning notification prior to deletion is somehow unreasonable or impractical. The backlog on June 28 said 106 days, so I'm not sure what/when/where re the file I was supposed to monitor during that period of time (can you explain what I s/ have looked for and where? thanks). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ihardlythinkso: Ticket:2016062710024544 was processed on August 8, 2016. This permission is illegal. OTRS-agent asked for clarifications. The client still has not responded. We can not publicly discuss details. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • sasha, thanks for that info, I was not included in the loop of course, and the client is not a Wikipedian and submitted the permissions Email based on my best recommendations. I don't see anything "illegal" or needing clarification from the client (who, BTW, is a former Assistant State Attorney, undoubtedly w/ a comfort level with any particulars required by Wikimedia!). Here is the body of the permissions Email the client sent on June 27:

      I am the owner and copyright holder of the above referenced image. I hereby give permission for said image to be published on Wikipedia under the Creative Commons terms set forth at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. Attribution should be "Photograph property of George R. Dekle, Sr."

      If this consent is deemed insufficient, please notify me of the particulars wherein said consent fails to comply with your standards, and I will correct the deficit.

      Without more info I'm put in the position where all I can do is write the client to find out what OTRS had a problem with and what any further problem is re response. (And how was I supposed to fathom the nature of hangup w/ such cryptic OTRS rationale in the deletion log/from the bot?!) Clearly the client wants to donate his photo. (It seems unlikely his above permission can be inadequate. Are you sure about that?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Allow me to state my Q differently ... I based recommendations to the client on what I found in WP articles re donating images. What in WP documentation did I miss? (I asked the client to identify themselves as copyright holder [they did that, and also as owner] and to identify the file, to specify their agreement to CC-BY-SA-3.0, and optionally to specify their attribution requirements. They did all that, and more. So what in the online WP documentation for average Wikipedians like me who convey recommendations to non-Wikipedians for sending permission Email, did I overlook/miss/get wrong?) Thanks for a clear answer. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
      • @Ihardlythinkso: I can see the entire conversation. It is not necessary to duplicate it here. I have not handled this ticket, but I think that is correct and I will not disclose any details. But what I see from the information published by you here. For example. This file is called File:George R. Dekle 2016.jpg and permission received from George R. Dekle. This is a selfie? If not, the copyright holder of the file is photographer. Only he can issue permits. Any other must have an agreement with him and send it to us. For the future I recommend you to specify your address in copy of email (CC) from the client to us. In this case, you will be aware of all correspondence. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
        • sasha, re your "For the future I recommend you to specify your address in copy of email (CC) from the client to us. In this case, you will be aware of all correspondence", no, you are assuming that wasn't done, but your assumption is false, the client *did* include my Email address as CC in their permissions Email sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on June 27. After that I never received any copy of any correspondence on the matter. IHTS (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
          • @IHTS: Yes, I see it. I apologize, it's our fault. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Oh God. (Don't take my exasperation personally, it isn't intended re you, only the process.) WHERE OH WHERE OH WHERE does it say in Wikipedia documentation on donating materials to COMMONS, that "the copyright holder of the file is photographer"?? (I don't see that anywhere. And I don't recall reading that anytime. Where is this specified??) p.s. That's my main Q (i.e. how was I supposed to know that when making recommendation to client??). Beyond that, are you sure it is correct? (If the client hired the photographer for the photo, gosh, I'm not attorney but I think that transaction conveys to the client all rights. That is why no doubt the client specified they are owner of the image. That wasn't good enough for OTRS?!? That seems so weird ... that OTRS informs a prominent career attoney & law professor, that his assertion he's the image copyright holder and owner is ... "illegal [permission]"?! [Wow that seems so extraordinary, are you sure?! And too, just curious, what if the photographer is no longer living?]) IHTS (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Am I understanding correctly ... "Only he [the photographer] can issue permits." ... means that if in the contract between client and photographer, the photographer sold all rights including copyright and ownership, that you need to receive a copy of that contract!? (And if so, again, where is that requirement in WP documentation for reg users like me to know about?) IHTS (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
          • IHTS, I have also replied to you at my user talk page. As to the "work for hire situation", it depends on the country of origin of these photos, and usually only the photographer is the copyright holder anywhere in the world. Under US law, a regular work for hire can only be made by employees, and freelancers can only create such works if the work falls into certain categories that do not include photographs. "In other words, mutual agreement that a work is a work for hire is not enough." So while I can see the entire file history including deleted versions I cannot see the OTRS email in question, but it could have been be that the extent of the copyright transfer between the photographer and Mr Dekle was only mentioned insufficiently or not mentioned at all. Since we require irrevocably free licences at Commons (and Wikipedia too) it may also have been relevant that "an author, after transferring a copyright, can terminate the transfer under certain circumstances". And please keep also in mind that we are all volunteers and may not even have heard of Mr. Dekle and his legal expertise.
As Fae told you on JCB's page, it is fairly common that images get deleted again when the OTRS permission turns out to be defective, but once a valid permission has been processed, the file is usually restored on that same day. De728631 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Now for your other question "where does it say in Wikipedia documentation on donating materials to COMMONS, that 'the copyright holder of the file is photographer'? If you read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials then I have to agree that it there is no such obvious clue. But the text makes it clear that it is about the donator's own works which should be read as "created by themselves". And the photographs section reads: "If you have taken photographs ..." (my emphasis). But if it causes so much confusion it should be rewritten. De728631 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • See also Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: "A license can only be granted by the copyright holder, which is usually the author (photographer, painter or similar)". --sasha (krassotkin) 20:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • sasha, surprised you feel my Qs have been satisfactorily answered and this section is ripe for closure!! I would like to receive a *copy* of the OTRS response mail to the client's June 27 permissions Email. (Then I can know, without guesses or assumptions or "probables", the basis for OTRS rejection of the permission, and what if any response OTRS gave to the client's request to hear back what if any deficit there is to the permission given. You've conceeded OTRS dropped the ball in not CC'ing me in that communication, so I'd like to receive a copy of that OTRS mail.) p.s. I must confess I'm still amazed and confused how OTRS has apparently taken the position that the client - a notable US attorney & law professor - is mistaken when claiming in his permissions Email to be owner and copyright holder of the image. (You did mention that the permission given, quoted above, was "illegal" for OTRS purposes.) Perhaps the OTRS response mail will clarify this for me. (Or not. Please don't close this thread until resolved. Thanks for consider.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @IHTS: I explained everything to you above. But BU Rob13? --sasha (krassotkin) 10:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Huh? I'm asking for a copy of the OTRS response Email to the client, which you said I should have received but did not because OTRS dropped the ball. (So what are you saying?) IHTS (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      • sasha, why no reply? Don't any and all OTRS members have access to the OTRS response Email to the clinet? And cannot any and all OTRS members forward me a copy of it? (OTRS actions and responses have not engendered trust & confidence: operation seems cloaked in ambiguous WP documetation, skipped communication, assumptions & guesses & probablies in lieu of facts when facts are available. This thread is long but the issue is simple. Please send me a copy of the OTRS response mail to client, the communication I should have received in the first place. Is there some reason that request cannot be serviced by any OTRS member? Clarity please.) IHTS (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Any OTRS-agent can do it if he thinks it is necessary after the aforementioned explanation. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
          • This is getting a bit tedious! (Are *you* an OTRS agent? If so why not send me the Email? If not why did you apologize for OTRS not CC'ing me in the first place?) "Necessary" or "unnecessary" is really not applicable. (I am *asking* for a copy of the Email you said I should have received in the first place. Perhaps that Email can answer Qs I've asked in this thread, for which there have been no answers -- just guesses, assumptions, "probablies".) How much darker & secretive & incommunicative & non-transparent & frustrating can this be?? Please don't make me repeat my request a third time. IHTS (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Please just send me a copy of the OTRS response mail to the client's permissions Email. It has already been established that OTRS should have CC'd me that Email, but dropped the ball. (I do not want to escalate this beyond my request here. The back-and-forths have absorbed enough of my time already, without concrete answers, as I have explained more than once. I will attempt to escalate further if I get more runaround. Please just send me the OTRS Email rather than complicate this further! [Is OTRS embarrassed to send it for some reason??? Why???]) IHTS (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

OTRS agent (verify): We as agents are not obligated to CC anyone. We are only obligated to have contacts with the original email sender (also refered to as customer). CC'ing third parties is a practice which some agents do, and some agents don't. The privacy and confidentiallity policy agreements which all agents have signed is very grey about this area, regarding if we are even allowed to do so or not. So, it has not "been established that OTRS should have CC'd" you. In fact, you will not be CC'ed since it has been discussed between agents that CC'ing this ticket response to a third party may contitute a breach of our agreement with the WMF regarding confidentiality, and as such the agent does not want to CC a third party. If you want the email, contact the original sender (customer) for a copy.
We as agents can not disclose why a ticket isn't sufficient to third parties, such as on this noticeboard, since that may be interpreted as "nonpublic information", and I urge you to stop this crusade. No more information will be disclosed on this noticeboard by agents than have already been done (and streached the policy of what we can disclose past its limits). Josve05a (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Josve05a, your answer is fine, and I accept it. (But, don't blame me for asserting I s/ have been sent the Email, when in good faith I took sasha [an OTRS agent] at her word that it was OTRS's fault for not CC'ing me in the first place! The fact that CC'ing was/is a "grey area" is nothing that I could know. The fact that some OTRS agents CC and some don't because the policy was/is grey, is also something I could not know. The only "crusade" here was my continued puzzlement for getting a runaround when asking for an Email copy that sasha had informed me that I was entitled to originally. It's the grey area that apparently created an unintended runaround, not my fault. And bumping into that in the dark produced an amount of waste of time/puzzlement/frustration. [Which doesn't speak to me, it speaks to OTRS re consistency & communications.]) Now that you have made the situation clear, I'm appreciative. (Curious though ... you say above that "the agent does not want to CC a third party" -- why didn't the agent inform this earlier, and why, and save me a headache!? Again, the obscurity and inconsistency is OTRS's, not mine. [Also curious if agents will continue the "some do CC, some don't CC" due to grey area, or if the grey area has become now less grey; and if the latter, was the new clarification the result of discussion stemming from my request for CC in this thread!? Again, I don't need to know; just curious.] Thanks for consider.) IHTS (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: Crusade may have been a poor word choice, and I appoligize for that. The grey area is still, unfortunately, grey. This situation will however be continued to be used as an example for further discussions regarding the policy to try and clear it up. Josve05a (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Josve05a, thanks for that. (Nice to know. Even I have only ever a rare need re OTRS.) p.s. I want to follow up w/ the client, as you suggested. If I have any issue or Q (which I doubt, but maybe), may I address it at your Talk directly? (Thanks.) IHTS (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: Sure, feel free to send me message on my talk page, or using the email-function on the left menu on my userpage. Josve05a (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Great! (Thx.) IHTS (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: I think when non-OTRS agents reply here, extra care should be taken to avoid giving off the appearance of a "customer service runaround," as it may have appeared to someone who doesn't know the inner workings of OTRS like IHTS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: OTRS agents have given all the information possible, here. The issue needs to be resolved by the copyright owner. Reventtalk 00:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Reclosed: Josve05a (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Bruno Fornaroli at the City Football Academy.jpg

Ticket:2016091310004738, File:Bruno Fornaroli at the City Football Academy.jpg.

I posted this on wikipedia commons, and have the photographer's permission. I told him to email the filled out template, and he did that rightly so. How long does it take for the email to be confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtalic (talk • contribs) 09:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Shtalic: ✓ Done. --sasha (krassotkin) 11:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @(krassotkin): Is there a way I can request a license for every photograph posted by that photographer? I have his permission to use all pictures on commons, but it'd be inconvenient to have to send an email every single time. Shtalic (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Homebase.jpg: , please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard.

File:Homebase.jpg (?); ticket:2014022210011738 (?)

Dear Hedwig in Washington, This is my note to the OTRS noticeboard. Sincerely, Nancy Wong aka Edmunddantes San Francisco 63.92.245.169 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

OTRS[edit] Pictogram voting info.svg Info Before tagging uploads as copyright violation, please check OTRS! This is a verified account. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

OTRS Wikimedia The verification of the identity of this user account has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Full documentation is available only to OTRS volunteers. If you are a Commons user and wish to confirm the verification, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2014022210011738

File:Homebase.jpg[edit] Pay attention to copyright File:Homebase.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page. Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/− —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.92.245.169 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is all about. The case is closed, everything is settled. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Exkursion_Kindermuseum.JPG

Ticket:2016081610009061

ein lapidares OTRS Freigabe ist erfolgt. Könntet ihr bitte die Ticketnummer nachtragen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - I have reviewed the ticket and added the templates. - All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 07:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Scope of DJI ticket:2015032410008762

Does #2015032410008762 cover anything else by DJI, or just the files currently on Commons? (Ex. File:DJI-Phantom-FC40.png, File:DJI-Phantom1.png) Sunmist (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question. Sunmist (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sunmist (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:David Gilmour 2016.jpg

I have been uploading my own images for many years and giving full permissions as the owner for their use. I recently upload a picture I took on my own camera of David Gilmour only to be met with demands of having to complete OTRS permission emails, both for this and several other images I have taken, some several years ago. Can you tell me when did having to do OTRS emails become policy for own images and do I now need to do same for the dozens I have previously uploaded?--Egghead06 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @Egghead06: Usually you don't have to send OTRS permission for your own yourself uploaded work. In this case it is enough to discuss with the editor who placed the templates. @Mlpearc. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks. I've sent OTRS emails for all the images anyway. Just wanted to make sure I didn't have to go back and do the same for 10 years worth of my own work.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 14:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2008071610010477

File:Брикетний прес.JPG is a scan from ISBN 966-7804-14-3 and it has Template:Білецький license. I want transfer more images of the same book since uk.wikipedia uploaded by uk:User:Білецький В.С. like uk:File:Радіоізотопний густиномір.jpg (they are tagged with {{Move to Commons}} by the uploader), but that files was tagged with {{PD-self}}. I want to know what says ticket:2008071610010477, if it applies to ISBN 966-7804-14-3 and under what license you can upload these images. uk:User:Білецький В.С. really have the copyright of the encyclopedia and your artworks? Would appreciate any help in this regard. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 22:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, apparently Volodymyr Biletskyy is a member of WMUK and Білецький В.С. is your account, at the same time he was the editor from the Concise Mining Encyclopedia. However I am confused about what license should I use. The ticket:2013051610006556 is cited for him in your user page, has it some connection? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 19:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 14:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Wassa schelesnowa 9237-Michelides.jpg

Ticket:2016020310014071

An IP added an OTRS permission to the File:Wassa schelesnowa 9237-Michelides.jpg [10]. Could someone please check if it's ok. thanks --axel (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 14:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016101110011132 for File:Henrik von Scheel.jpg and File:Industry 4.0 Emerging & Disruptive Trends.png

I am wondering if an OTRS volunteer wouldn't mind verifying the ticket for these files. The ticket link is ticket:2016101110011132 and it was verified by OTRS volunteer Rachmat04.

The description for File:Henrik von Scheel.jpg states the it was published in en:The Times and it seems a little unusual for a newspaper to freely license one of its images. The file is also listed as "own work" by the uploader who also is claiming to be the subject of the photo. This is obviously not a selfie, but it might possibly a commissioned photo taken by a professional photographer. In such cases, it seems that the copyright holder would be the photographer and that attribution should be given. Does the OTRS permissions template mean that a transfer of copyright ownership has taken place?

The description of File:Industry 4.0 Emerging & Disruptive Trends.png says it comes from a pubished book cowritten by by two other authors besides the uploader, so the "own work" claim seems a bit suspect. Does the OTRS permissions template mean the these two other authors have agreed to freely license the graph depicted in the file?

Finally, both of these files were tagged with {{Npd}} for just a single day before OTRS permission was verified. This seems quite fast given that the current OTRS backlog at is listed as 89 days. I am just curious if there's a particular reason verification was done so quickly and smoothly this time. Thank you in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Rachmat04, please could you comment on these issues. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly. To the best of our understanding, the person itself (believed from a legitimate email address) has sent permission email to OTRS to confirm that both of the media are available in free license. And I believe that the person (who sent the email) is aware that he has received other related people's agreement to release those works to the free license. This is the reason I verified the files according to the ticket. Thank you. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 02:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Rachmat04 for further clarifying this matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 02:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vesoul Théâtre Edwige Feuillère 6.jpg

It is possible, that the architect gives permission to take photos about his building, but I am not sure, what must be said in the permission letter. Please help me to answer. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Your answers are right there. Nothing to add. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Hamilton image status

Ticket:2016092110003198 (en)

Hi all. There was recently a discussion about deleting an image of Margaret Hamilton. My opinion is that the decision to close discussion was ended prematurely, but regardless, I also subsequently followed up and obtained the licensing information that others were requesting; sent a notice to OTRS on Sept. 21 asking for an un-delete; and have heard nothing back. The image should be allowed on Commons, as the legal team of the most recent copyright holder, Draper Laboratory, has made clear that it is now in the public domain. Can someone help? I can provide documentation if needed. OTRS ticket number is 2016092110003198. Thanks. Girona7 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Girona7: there is quite the backlog. I will handle the ticket. One question/issue however: Looking in the Commons:Hirtle chart I can't see which reasoning/template would apply. Based on the date only PD-US-no notice seems to apply, however in the mails an expired copyright is mentioned. However for PD-US-not renewed to apply it seems that the file has to be published before 1963. Basvb (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb: Thank you very much for the speedy reply. I've just gotten clarification from Draper's legal team, and the reasoning should indeed be PD-US-no notice. I've sent the lawyer's note in response to yours via the OTRS email address. Thanks again! Girona7 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough investigation, I've made the necessary changes. Basvb (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
And thanks to you for your help! Cheers :) Girona7 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Locked ticket

Can somebody help me by looking at https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=865219 and providing the source the image was from if it is in the ticket. The ticket is not in the permissions queue so I can't access it. It concerns File:Rivka Miriam - Israeli poet.JPG. Basvb (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ticket in now in a permissions queue. --Krd 12:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Basvb (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Facebook and Google Bidder Avatar Galleries

This section was unrelated to OTRS and has been moved to COM:Undeletion requests. Storkk (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright notice sent.

Also just for the record and no offense, I've been browsing through the featured images and I must admit that there is nothing educational or new to me. We have chickens and cows in Finland too. --MikoFilppula (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Files from kozarskadubica.net

Can someone check this File:Bosanska Dubica Center.jpg and ticket number stated there (2006050810011015). If it's ok can someone add template and check if can it be applied also for this File:Bosanska dubica-center.jpg. --Smooth_O (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smooth O: the ticket shows what appers to be a discussion (tldr) but, no permission release on Template:OTRS ticket A second opinion would be helpful. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Flominator: Ist da irgendwann mal irgendwas positives entstanden? café --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Flominator: I'm not sure if you noticed the above ping. I've had a look at the ticket and I think it looks applicable to the above file but I'm not sure if I've read parts of it correctly. Please could you clarify for us. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

File deleted without discussion

Deletion request for the image Sanki_King_portrait.jpg was posted by User: Ruff tuff cream (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sanki_King_portrait.jpg) and his comment was that the metadata shows the author as "Taha" and copyright holder as "amr and trk photography". The photographer Taha signs all of his emails as "Taha Rizwan Khan https://www.facebook.com/photography.taha.mohsee", where TRK stands for Taha Rizwan Khan, it should be no riddle. I have also taken a copy of the email that was sent to wikimedia from the photographer himself and the email clearly shows the photographer's signature there. I previously uploaded this image, taken with permission from Mr. Sanki King's team, whose managing team emailed wikimedia with the permission but some Robert Bruce insisted that the photographer and Sanki King email wikimedia commons personally, even though Sanki's managing team clearly explained that the portrait was a part of a paid photoshoot and Sanki King had the rights of all those images and since the team who represents Sanki King had given permission for the image to be used, why were personal permissions required?

Robert Bruce still insisted for personal permissions but the photographers and Mr. Sanki couldn't email wikimedia commons in time and the portrait, along with another image of Sanki King and his work, were deleted. After that I took permission from Sanki King's team, and the photographers of both the images a few days ago and I re-uploaded the images as my own work. Emails of transfer of copyrights of these images have already been sent to wikimedia commons by both photographers & myself. The other image is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solitude_WIP.jpg. Now please tell me why was the image deleted in such a hurry and with no research when a signed email by the photographer was sent to wikimedia commons? Ticket numbers of the emails: Ticket#2016092310000866 and Ticket#2016092310000866, and I havent received any reply from Commons.

The photographer is a part of a duo, AMR & TRK, first person is Mohsee, second is Taha. The name of the author on the image was Taha, as Ruff puff said, and the copyright holder was AMR & TRK Photography, please pay attention to the facebook link of their page if you will "www.facebook.com/photography.taha.mohsee". His full name was in the email and first name is in the link of their page. Most importantly, the file was deleted without any discussion with the uploader. It was nominated for deletion but it was deleted just like that by User: INeverCry. Now please tell me will I have to reupload the image on wikimedia or will the deletion be undone? Looking forward to a prompt reply. Cheers SameStruggle (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Those ticket numbers have yet to be processed. OTRS is never quick. If the permission is accepted, then any deleted image will be undeleted. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Statesman

Hello, if by some happy chance you should rec'v an email with permissions release for famine photos from "The Statesman" (newspaper), please do ping me. I sent them a request for it. I have my fingers crossed. Thanks for your help.Lingzhi (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This is beyond our capacities, please ensure that the related issue is mentioned in the permission release. --Krd 11:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

ticket #2006092710009217

Hi all, could you please confirm me that this ticket covers any picture taken from the http://www.cngcoins.com website. Best regards --Discasto talk 00:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what it says 18/05/2010. See Template:CNG Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks --Discasto talk 13:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Prompt Resolution of Ticket#: 2016110810005304

Hi There,

Please I'm making inquiry to find out when Ticket#: 2016110810005304 will be resolved regarding the deletion of these two files I uploaded?

1) File:Alex Okoroji.jpg

2) File:Alex Okoroji In Black.jpg

Both images do not violate any copyright as they are free for public use. They have been used numerously by news publications, media websites, blogs, podcast shows and even on her own official website in different variations. Our cousin Chika Obodozie took the photos using her camera, as an intern at our media company, (also co-owned by Alex Okoroji). But he doesn't own the copyright to the image. The copyright solely belongs to Alex Okoroji who has it clearly stated on her official website HERE, and allows free use of her images as a public figure, but credits him as the "photographer" where necessary, as a favor to help him build his startup. Images owned by Chika are either displayed on his instagram page HERE or includes his watermarks for proof of his own ownership. None of her pictures are on his platform or watermarked because she owns the copyright. Alex Okoroji has written an email on OTRS releasing rights of use and requesting undeletion - a ticket has been issued - Ticket#: 2016110810005304. Could someone please check this on OTRS and kindly help to undelete the files? Or at least let us know when it will be resolved. Thank you for your time--Joykodiri (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Joykodiri

Fixed Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with picture deletion

Hi, I need some help. I put a picture up on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_John%27s_Owner_Jimmy_John_Liautaud.jpg and the owner of the picture sent the permission letter to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

At a later date I then also put the same picture up on Commons, here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_John's_Owner_Jimmy_John_Liautaud.jpg but did not have the owner send another permission letter.

Unfortunately, because there was a duplicate picture on Commons an editor deleted the picture from Wikipedia. But because three weeks passed and the OTRS tag was not replaced with a permission tag, the picture on Commons was also taken down. So now there is no picture at all, in either wikiproject. I wonder if you can please replace one of the pictures, I guess preferably the one on Commons. I have requested that the picture's owner re-send his permission letter to the correct address at commons: permission-commons@wikimedia.org. Thanks so much. Wineconnoisseur2016 (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: could you check for an OTRS tag on enwiki, please? Storkk (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
No tag - all there was - {{OTRS pending|year=2016|month=08|day=23}} - en-wiki can be a bit slow in deleting unresolved pending permissions. I'll go and look on OTRS, but with no number could be tricky. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone beat me to it - ticket has been added. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

waiting for permission to use picture of Eamon Rockey

On October 30th, I put up this picture of Eamon Rockey on Wikimedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eamon_Rockey.jpg

Both Eamon and the photographer of the picture, Signe Bircke, sent their permission forms to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and @Josve05a: was in touch saying he did not have time to resolve this request. He said that someone else should be doing so soon. I hope that someone can get to this soon. Thank you! Coffeecrutch (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Reventtalk 07:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Could I ask for a priority treatment of several images due to educational assignment?

Hey, as part of an educational assignments I am trying to teach my students to ask for permissions for images that are useful for Wikimedia projects and free them through getting bloggers etc. agree to Creative Commons, through OTRS process. I know that OTRS is backlogged, but if the class ends before we can discuss this, well, it defeats the purpose of teaching the students about copyright in practice. Students are asking me "when will we learn if we did things correctly" and me telling them "maybe this year if we are lucky" is not a great educational experience :D My problem is also compounded by the fact that my students are ESLs and I don't speak Korean/Chinese, and can't verify if their requests for permissions are properly formatted (I showed them Korean and Chinese OTRS email templates and asked them to use them, but...). The images in question are:

Even if you don't speak those languages, I'd appreciate if someone could tell me what the OTRS ticket numbers are. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I just tried searching for anything I could think of and it is not showing up. I also checked the permissions-ko and permissions-commons queues manually. I'm not seeing anything. When they sent in the emails they should have received an auto response that contained a ticket number. Perhaps asking the person who sent it in if they received anything back? Or at the very least, what email they sent it to so I know what queue I'm supposed to be looking in. --Majora (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll update you as soon as I figure things out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The Korean one - searching for the image source - ticket:2016110810010825 Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. 8th November - looks like no auto reply on that queue Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: The Chinese images were processed well (thank you), but the Korean one is still outstanding. Could you or someone else look into it? My student fwd me the email he sent to Commons, so I don't know the ticket number but he sent the email on 2016-11-14 to: <permissions-ko@wikimedia.org> (for privacy reasons, for now I just list his email topic which should be 안녕하세요 블로그에서 본 이미지 보고 연락드립니다). If there is a problem, please tell me what it is and I'll notify the student. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see the various permissions queues, but I don't read Korean. I only found it as the file name was given in Latin Characters. I'm sure there will be a Korean agent along sometime. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Ping User:-revi? Help please? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Reading the mail. (Ronhjones: Yes, no auto-reply on -ko.) — regards, Revi 06:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. Chinese ticket is already done and I've done Korean so it should be all set. (If you have something left to do remove the last line) — regards, Revi 06:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 06:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2016070110014824 - Nizar Nayyouf

Hi, I've recently been in correspondence with one Mr Nizar Nayouf (subject of the article of the same name), and he has graciously agreed to release a number of works and photos by him under a CC-BY-SA licence (ticket #2016070110014824). His article is currently a Good Article candidate on the English Wikipedia. I was wondering if this ticket could be expedited so the article can be illustrated in time for the review? Thanks, Intelligentsium (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that I don't know how long I can maintain correspondence with Mr Nayouf as I'm sure he has a very busy life, and will probably be more responsive to problems if raised now than in several weeks' time after he has already forgotten about this. Intelligentsium (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: from a very cursory look (it's late), the ticket seems unproblematic some articles in the ticket seem unproblematic except that it comes from a yahoo email address. Is that address known to be the artist's? Storkk (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The first few items I looked at, Mr. Nayyouf would appear to be the copyright holder, thus the release would be OK if we could establish the identity of the email account. The ticket also contains photos of Mr. Nayyouf that he is almost certainly not the copyright holder of, they will probably be rejected. Storkk (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I can confirm he is the owner of the account as it is connected to his verified twitter account, and I have used it communicate with him. I think it's likely that he employed a photographer to take the photos of him, and thus he would own the copyright, but I will follow up with him. Intelligentsium (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: In most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, that would only be true if the copyright transfer was explicitly stated in the contract. Storkk (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: I'm going to mark this as resolved, since it appears nothing more will come of it... the ticket was insufficient and at least one of the images of him was explicitly Wikipedia-only. The ticket was picked up by Sphilbrick but no response was ever received to his emails. Thank you for the time you spent facilitating with Mr. Nayyouf, and apologies that it didn't work out this time. Storkk (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2014121810020922 - OTRS wiki case

Please give opinions on otrswiki:2014121810020922. Josve05a (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Question Did you contact the uploader? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Not yet, because I wanted to establish that it would be needed first, or if I'm (e.g.) missing something. Josve05a (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Answered on OTRS wiki. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination Free Zone VS. Chicken and cow pictures.

Discrimination-Free-Zone image of me.

What are you guys trying to claim photographer rights to my discrimination-free-zone image too?

Why was that image deleted.

I must admit that I have been checking out the chicken and cow pictures that you guys have posted nicely on the site and I must admit that there is nothing educational about them.

We have nicer chickens and cows in Finland.--MikoFilppula (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)--MikoFilppula (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Very simple: You don't own the publishing / licensing rights. Further, Facebook is not a valid source, since the Facebook license and Commons license requirements are totally incompatible. Before you blow your top, have a peek here: Com:L and compare to [11]. You'll see that FB doesn't have a free license as required by Commons. And please refrain from comparing Commons to Nazis and calling users names. This will lead to nothing. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

#2009051410061605 (File:Radmor5100.png)

A few years ago someone had added a number which looks like an OTRS ticket number. So I just have added {{PermissionOTRS}} to it. Could someone check this? --jdx Re: 19:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @jdx: There is correspondence in Polish in Ticket:2009051410061605. But as I understand it, there are no satisfactory permissions. In my opinion, we should make deletion request for this image. But it would be nice if a Polish agent will check it before. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    • This issue has been put on hold and the ticket author was supposed to contact the copyright owner for permission. There seems to be no follow-up and as some of the uploaded pictures look like catalogue shots, I would doubt their origin. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 11:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx, Wpedzich, and Krassotkin: per your discussion above, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Quarth. Storkk (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ticket#2016062110010131

Ticket:2016062110010131

Heloo can someone help me to resolve the problem with my pictures, video and music? Before a few days its all gone , deleted. I send the copyrights but the problem its still there ....thank you Dispero Dispero Ras Siento 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dispero Ras Siento: My deletion of the files was not a comment on the material you submitted to OTRS, but just reflecting that the 30 day grace period had elapsed. Reventtalk 04:10, 2016 August 10‎
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2016012210015509

Ticket:2016012210015509 (nl)

Mr. Tobey Stevens has sent me a few more pictures, of better quality, of the same subject. I would like to add them to Commons and Wikipedia, but am not fully sure how to write the permission. Should I send the message somewhere for this? - Andre Engels (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andre Engels: If the files are better quality versions of the earlier uploaded images I do not really see a point in a renewed permission in this case. Given the context (images in possession of Tobey Stevens) and the previous permission (which does not put any limits on the quality) I see no issues with you re-uploading higher quality versions over the earlier images when these new versions are provided by Tobey Stevens. (also @Taketa: ) Basvb (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
No, they are different pictures, apparently from the family archive. - Andre Engels (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Andre Engels: is this question still active? If so, could you clarify what you are asking? Storkk (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2014051610000391

Could someone please check this ticket mentioned in File:WernerGenuit1969tour.png? Does it suggest that also the other uploads by this user are OK? --Leyo 20:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsure, the ticket is quite complex due a large amount of communication. It appears that the file File:WernerGenuit1969tour.png is also not specifically mentioned in the ticket. The uploader (Aldercraft) does however seem to be in a position to release works created by Hans Adler. Basvb (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think that we may add the OTRS template with that ticket number to File:WernerGenuit1969tour.png? Otherwise, we probably need to file a DR. --Leyo 18:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
→ Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aldercraft --Leyo 10:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Permission for File:ML-01 R0028230 red.jpg

This file was tagged no permission by me on 11.11.2016. Please check uploaders message from today on my talk and old message on uploaders talk to verify the permission for File:ML-01 R0028230 red.jpg. --GeorgHH • talk   22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ticket:2016111210005832 received 12/11/2016. In the queue (which is long) Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Took a peek and replied, ticket not sufficient as of today. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Image permission and deletion

Hello,

I sent an email for release of rights to a file for the following images 2 weeks ago, but they have been deleted nontheless, could you please restore them?

File:460EXP vessel.jpg File:Sanlorenzo expansion rendering.jpg File:SSY.jpg File:Sanlorenzo Viareggio.jpg

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federico Carozzo (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! The backlog is pretty big, ~120 days for the English queue. Please have some patience. C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Federico Carozzo: you should have received an immediate reply with a ticket number. Could you please let us know what it is? I have searched the database for each filename as well as your username, and there is no record of an email. Storkk (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ticket#2014030110004864

Could some OTRS agent check if this OTRS ticket introduced by the user Unique_Artist is valid? XXN, 00:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably - I'll ping the agent to reply, it was a bit of a long saga... Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@XXN: We received a seemingly-valid OTRS release for the files. I'll leave it up to you to decide if they're in scope or not. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ronhjones & Mdann. I will not be too bold for now, just adding a category to them. --XXN, 21:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --XXN, 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2016/12/09

Could an OTRS agent have a look at the DRs over there and comment? Several DRs have associated tickets, and I would just like to know the status of those tickets. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ticket to verify

User:Kagon~commonswiki uploaded several images in 2012 with self-applied OTRS ticked. Please verify it's valid as several look like pro shots. --Denniss (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Note Ticket is in Russian Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dogad75: не могли бы вы заглянуть и проверить если всё в порядке? --XXN, 22:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@XXN: Посмотрел, с разрешением всё в порядке, вот с оформлением не совсем верно, что и вводит всех в заблуждение. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Поправил и уточнил. С уважением,--Dogad75 (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Спасибо. Ping @Denniss: seems to be OK. ----XXN, 12:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --XXN, 12:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CSKA-Alania (1).png

Could an OTRS agent have a look at that DR and the referenced ticket? What does the ticket say, does it apply to all files from soccer.ru? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Ticket is in Russian. --Ruthven (msg) 08:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Sealle Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sealle (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Hedi Schoop, 028.jpg

TicketNumber=2015112410016569
Wenn das ein Bild von c:category:Trudi Schoop (oder Hedi Schoop) ist, warum steht dann da als Quelle Anthony Verebes und als Urheber Anthony Verebes ? Hat Verebes das Bild abfotografiert?
--Goesseln (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Goesseln: In dem Ticket bestätigt Anthony Verebes, Rechteinhaber an dem Bild zu sein. Es enthält keine Details dazu, wer die Reproduktion vorgenommen hat, aber die Bildbeschreibung nennt ja klar die Urheberin ("Ein Katzenbild von Trudi Schoop"), und laut de:Hedi Schoop heißt der Sohn von Hedi Schoop bzw der Neffe der Urheberin Anthony Verebes. Grüße, HaeB (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
danke für die Auskunft. Und warum steht dann in den Commons-Parametern nicht Urheber:Trudi Schoop?
Namensnennung – Du musst den Namen des Autors oder Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen (aber nicht so, dass es so aussieht, als würde er dich oder deine Verwendung des Werks unterstützen).
Dann nenne ich also, wenn ich das Bild irgendwo außerhalb von Wikipedia verwenden will, Antony Verebes als was? Urheber?? Rechteinhaber?
Könnte da die Benutzerführung für Dritte nicht etwas durchsichtiger gestaltet werden? --Goesseln (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Habe das Katzenbild entspr. geandert, Author ist selbstmurmelnd Trudi Schopp. Katzeklo, Katzeklo.... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Help uploading a photograph for which permission has been granted by the copyright holder

First experience uploading here, so I apologize for basic questions: I am trying to upload a photo of Caroline Warner Hightower, for whom we have a Wikipedia page in progress. The photograph is owned by the AIGA, the Professional Association for Design. AIGA has given permission by email. I think I understand that correct procedure is to post the photo with a notice of OTRS pending, and forward the email to Permissions-Commons. However, I cannot get the photo to upload, apparently it wants some license tag but I can't figure out what character string to paste into the application. Can anyone assist me with this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Laufer (talk • contribs) 00:58, 07 December 2016 (UTC)

@David Laufer: I see you succeeded in uploading the photo, however you may find the following worthwhile: you should select exactly the license that AIGA have stated... if you were having difficulty selecting a license, that suggests that the permission from AIGA may have been "Wikipedia-only" rather than an actual license. We only accept media that anybody can use for any purpose, and permission for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Also please note that your statement above strongly indicates that you may have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires you to disclose such conflicts of interest, or be banned. Please bring yourself into compliance with the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Storkk (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Book images

bonjour, j'ai envoyé ma demande par mail pour les deux liens suivants afin de pouvoir utiliser les photos et qu'elles ne soient pas supprimées de mon article. je déclare être le propriétaire de ses images.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_livre_de_mon_fr%C3%A8re.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L%27amour_et_la_mort_dans_l%27autobiographie.jpg

et j'attends la confirmation

j'ai besoin d'aide pour cette procédure , je ne sais pas si j'ai bien suivi les démarches

merci de m'aider

--RLEB (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

RLEB: ✓ Done --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sculptor gave permission and uploader is photographer

Hi, I'm hoping to help resolve the OTRS issue for the file Dalton-Bust-in-PIVA-LR.jpg. User:Amitie 10g told me to address my issues in the ticket, but I'm not an OTRS user so I can't see it. The file was uploaded by the photographer, Dwight Pounds. The sculptor, Daniel Fairbanks, filled out a release for the photo. A volunteer told him that the sculptor would need to release the photo, and Fairbanks replied that he was the sculptor and that the photographer already released the file (by uploading it). Are there any remaining concerns? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016051010026405

OTRS asked for a release by the photographer as well. Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I figured that if I got the photographer to make a commons account, that it would be pretty clear that he was releasing the rights to it. The other photos he uploaded haven't been questioned... why is the enforcement more strict for that one photo? I can get an additional release from the photographer, but the image is deleted now... am I basically back to square one (i.e., I'll have to upload the photo and get the releases again?)? Thanks for your help. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): the key thing to note about OTRS is verification. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is very easy to create a Wikimedia account. We, the Commons users, can't actually see what email address is used to verify any account, so we don't know if an account is genuinely the copyright holder. After all, wouldn't you be a tiny bit suspicious if I said I'm the real Green Giant? Equally we don't want people's email addresses to be visible by default because many of us like our anonymity (it makes us thick-skinned to abusive comments on here). Obviously there are ways around this but the best way is to go through OTRS and provide them with foolproof verification eg an email from an official website. Now as to unfair treatment of files, please let us know if you think they are not the uploaders own work and we will endeavour to delete them forthwith (I'm only kidding!) - it is entirely unintentional if it seems we are discriminating against one file. Let's just see if we can get this ticket sorted first. Green Giant (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Thank you for taking the time to explain OTRS verification to me. So I need to reupload the file and get the permissions again? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): You're welcome. Please don't re-upload the photo because our deletion policy discourages this. What's needed is for the permission to be sorted out through OTRS. As soon as that is done, any admin can quickly restore the photo because it is still here in the system but not publicly viewable. Restoring takes about two or three clicks in total. Green Giant (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I asked Dwight to release the rights through the OTRS system a few weeks ago--did it go through? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): - unless I'm mistaken there have been no further emails about this ticket since 11 May 2016. It might be worth checking with him again. Green Giant (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I e-mailed Dwight again and I think he filled out the form? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this OTRS still pending? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): No email from the photographer has been received on this ticket yet. It might have been added as a new one, buried somewhere in the queue... please ask him to make sure to use the subject line "Re: [Ticket#2016051010026405] Dalton-Bust-in-PIVA-LR.jpg" so the system will know to connect them, otherwise it might take a very long time for someone to connect them. Reventtalk 07:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I had him fill out the OTRS form, not send an e-mail--is it better to send an e-mail? thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): If you are referring to https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/index.php that tool only creates the 'text' of the release, it does not communicate it to us... the copyright owner still has to email it to OTRS. Reventtalk 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: wow, I can't believe I didn't realize that. I e-mailed the photographer, Dwight, again, with more specific instructions, but if you don't see the e-mail, perhaps it's time to close this ticket. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ticket #2016052310023527

Hello! A user contacted me on the german wikipedia about her deleted pictures. I promised to give her some pointers for help. Some of her pictures got deleted while there was an OTRS Ticket in the queue. You may reach out to her at her german discussion page. The Ticket: ticket:2016052310023527. --Ziegenberg (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ziegenberg: Commons policy is to delete images if the OTRS permission hasn't been verified by an agent within 30 days, and if it is later verified then OTRS requests undeletion. Most Commons admins aren't OTRS agents, but she should have been contacted by email by an OTRS agent if there were questions... otherwise, it might just be backlogged. Reventtalk 06:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Ticket not yet processed (arrived 23/05/2016 17:14), and in German queue - must be large backlog Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ticket #2014081410020312

Ticket:2014081410020312

A document was sent in the correspondence for ticket #2014081410020312 which is an evidence for permission to reuse copyrighted material, I need the document so that I can make a new ticket for this file File:Falastin newspaper 18 June 1936 issue featuring a caricature.png or we can include this file in the same ticket. Helpǃ --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I forwarded a copy of the email with the attachment back to the email address that originally submitted it. Reventtalk 13:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Isn't it possible to include this file in the same ORTS ticket? --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: If you reply to the email I sent you, with the ticket number in the subject line, the system with attach you email to, and re-open, the existing ticket. You will still need to address the concern raised at the DR, however. To be honest, I think it would probably make more sense to open a new ticket, and just reference the previous one, since the previous discussion was rather long and the concern is simply about the drawing itself. Reventtalk 02:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I made an undeletion request, I hope that is suitable.. [12] --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: What is there to do now? I don't think the documents required exist. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have found a document, will upload it soon. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Found documents in both English and Arabic. The Arabic one is better, can it be used? --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: Presumably, yes, but we might have to hunt down an agent who can read it. Reventtalk
@Revent: Should I open a new ticket or attach document through reply on previous email? I have an Arabic book saying that all the content on this newspaper was public domain. --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: Since it's regarding a different image from that in the original ticket, a new one would probably be best. The source that says it's all PD is going to need to be fairly authoritative, however. Reventtalk 23:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ticket# 2016082810006961

Ticket:2016082810006961

Hello, could a volunteer assist me by providing the status of this ticket? Thanks. Swiftos (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It still hasn't been acted upon :(
Platonides (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Any chance that this ticket can be expedited?
Swiftos (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure - if you can clarify why it is more important than the roughly 300 tickets that were submitted earlier than it and are still waiting in the queue. Storkk (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's more important, but the process should take less than 30 seconds (which begs the question, why not do the easy ones first). It's a simple undelete as we have licensed the images for free use. Thanks in advance. Swiftos (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Swiftos: Hi!

Unfortunately, there's a lack of OTRS volunteers, and there's a months-long backlog. Because the procedure to sign up as an OTRS volunteer is a cumbersome procedure, and because OTRS work is annoying and sometimes frustrating, I expect that there may be too few volunteers even years from now. I'm not an OTRS volunteer and don't think I want to sign up to volunteer to undergo this particular type of pain. So I can't view the OTRS ticket.

If you become a frequent editor of the English Wikipedia or Yiddish Wikipedia, with an editcount of thousands, maybe you yourself can one day become an OTRS volunteer and help to shorten the backlog! But I don't think you'd enjoy it very much.

Painful and thankless tasks can take a lot of time to happen here on Commons, unfortunately.

Please be patient. Give it four more months. If you don't hear back after four more months, feel free to ping us again.

Wishing you all the best, and a good and sweet new Jewish year 5777, —TealHill (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tim Holmes and User:Musegaze

Tim Holmes is an American sculptor and filmmaker. He often uses the Internet handle Musegaze (for example, Flickr, YouTube). User:Musegaze uploaded a number of Tim Holmes images to Category:Tim Holmes, marking them as "own work". One of them, File:TimHolmes2007.jpg has an approved OTRS ticket, https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2009121110023881 The others don't. This has confused several people, including an experienced Commons administrator. Could someone please check that OTRS ticket and see if, for example, it says "I, Tim Holmes, am User:Musegaze" or the equivalent? Because if so, we could spread that OTRS ticket to Musegaze's other uploads, since if it's him, he has the right to release photos of his work that he took. Several are up for deletion right now, for example File:CycleCross.med.jpg. --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@GRuban: The ticket does not apply. As can be seen on the file page, the author of File:TimHolmes2007.jpg is not Tim Holmes. Sorry. Reventtalk 20:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Familyplanningmalaysia.jpg

Licensing at File:Familyplanningmalaysia.jpg states: Personal photo by Stephen Codrington uploaded with permission for the benefit of geography on Wikimedia projects.
Can you verify? Request originates from GA Reviewer on Women's health Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Added written permission from author to file Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dutch Creative Commons license confirmations

Hi, the Dutch Creative Commons foundation has recently published license confirmation letters that a person or organization can use to get a proof of licensing. Most useful if the rights/license release was not part of the original contract for the work. If an intermediate has such a proof, then that would avoid us having to go directly to the photographer to get OTRS permission. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Rami Al Ali - Profile Image Deleted

Dear OTRS,

I contacted the user Jcb that told me I should raise a complaint with you for a profile picture I posted.

You can find the conversation below: Jcb Conversation

The profile picture was apparently taken down because of copyright violation. I found the author of the image/source and asked if I can post the picture of Rami Al Ali. He told that yes you can post it because Rami Al Ali owns this picture now, and that I have nothing to do with it now. Photographers info whom I spoke with that took the picture: Saeed Khalifa (artist & fashion photographer) DUBAI +971-52-9612993.

The link up top shows the photographers email to me. I can also send you proof of the email.

Please let me know :)

Best, Timepoverty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timepoverty (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timepoverty: We will require a specific statement of permission in order to undelete the image, as the author must provide us a valid license to publish the image. The simplest way of producing a statement of permission is through the Wikimedia OTRS Release Generator, which you can access here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/. This tool will guide you through the process of creating a release statement for the author to sign or froward us, and which we will be able to readily accept.
Once we have a clear statement that the copyright holder is willing to releasing this content for redistribution under a suitable license, we will mark the file accordingly and the content may then be freely used on Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. The statement must be sent to the OTRS volunteers (check the former link for the e-mail address, etc.), Thank you! --Ruthven (msg) 06:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Ticket#2016121110006341]

Hello any Volunteer,

Please review uploaded file and place OTRS stamp in permission under summary - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ad%C3%A9_Olufeko_speaking_at_Harvard_Business_School_circa_2014.jpg

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightnisan (talk • contribs) 11:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done ↔ User: Perhelion 09:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of this uploader images have a ticket and others don't

Three of PINSupport's uploads] have ticket #2016120710022849 added but the rest of the images don't and seeing as they are all from different organisations but are of a similar style perhaps someone can see if the ticket applies to all. Personally I suspect the images are copyright to different copyright holders. Please check this uploader's images as that is the only way to determine the answer. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ww2censor. This ticket cites only File:Adrenal Insufficiency PIN.png & File:Canavan Patient Insights Network.png. But two others tickets about the others pictures are in backlog : ticket:2016121410029301 & ticket:2016120710022689. Have a good day --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I took care of these two tickets. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

[Ticket#: 2016121310006837]

Good day. Somebody please review my ticket. I already sent the email granting me permission for this file.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shaira_Luna.jpg

Best, 

Bluesphere 15:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
As stated at the top, the current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 68 days. For extremely straightforward tickets, an exception will sometimes be made at the sole discretion of the OTRS agent handling the case, however this ticket appears to be quite deficient and will require some time to resolve. One way to speed this process up on your end would be to get the photographer to email an actual license directly to us. Storkk (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing OTRS permission templates by non OTRS volunteer - can be vandalism

I am an OTRS volunteer on permissions-he . To be an OTRS volunteer that has the permission to add the templates I need to apply on OTRS/Volunteering. But to remove an OTRS permission, the user do not need to apply. It can be done by any one, even by anonymous. It does not make sence. Lately the famous troll from Hebrew wikipedia User:יעל י removed many "OTRS permission templates", again and again. This is pure vandalism, but the system allows her to do it, see for example 5.22.134.238 (talk · contribs) edits here.

I think that it would be better if the system wiil prevent such edits, at least those that was done by an non registered users and new users. I hope it can be done. I would appreciate your comments on this subject . Thanks. Hanay (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have created a new abuse filter, with more relaxed rules, for detecting the removal of the OTRSPermissions template. In addition to OTRS members, bots, admins and patrollers won't hit this one, so it won't trigger when reverting wrongful additions of the template. Platonides (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. And if new abuses can be added to notification system as well it would be wonderfull (OTRS meembers). -- Geagea (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Platonides, but if I understand you correctly the filter do not prevent the removal, it is only give us a list of problems. Hanay (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It requires the user to press "Save changes" twice - after the first attempt, they receive a warning not to remove valid OTRS permission templates, if they stop there, no changes are made to the page. That should hopefully be a sufficient deterrent and will certainly slow down any rapid vandalism to a level we can more easily manage, should it remain an issue. We can monitor the edit filter for the next few days and weeks, and if it results in very few instances of permission templates being removed, we can leave it at that. If it's not sufficient, we can change it to allow only admins, licence reviewers or other combinations of user permissions to remove the OTRS permission template. Nick (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
PS - the edit filter to monitor is 164 - here. The only hits so far are my testing it, btw. Nick (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this what Hanay means. Not to allow to ip users. At least autopatroller.-- Geagea (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you Nick; as Geagea wrote I do not want to allow to IP users and new users to do it. In this case of this problematic troll, her IPs were range blocked for a month but she wiil return. See User talk:Geagea#Vandalism of 141.226.218.29 (שיחה · תרומות). Hanay (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: - Reventtalk 12:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've sent another email with a valid proof

Hi everyone, concerning this file "https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra-Jessica_Koban#/media/File:Sandrajessicakoban2016.jpg" I've sent a second email concerning the problem but nothing changed/updated on the page... I've sent a valid proof, the original file with the EXIF info (copyright infos which shows the website) via an email adress that can be checked on the very website... Please update the page, that is not the first file i'm importing here and everything was always fine, not this time. I don't want my photo to be deleted... Thanks all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprgrr (talk • contribs) 22:24, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

:@Tprgrr: Your upload was to the French Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons. You need to address this to the OTRS noticeboard there, which is at fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux agents OTRS. Reventtalk 01:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

(further) You should also make certain that your email was sent to the proper OTRS queue... it should have been sent to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org. Reventtalk 01:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Disregard, I was misled by the link provided. The file is File:Sandrajessicakoban2016.jpg. Reventtalk 01:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer, what should I do to make it "sufficient" in order to properly valid the file ? I don't really understand, sorry to bother you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprgrr (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tprgrr: There is an OTRS backlog. The agent that processes the ticket will either contact you by email (if there is a problem) or request that the file be undeleted, and tag it as verified. - Reventtalk 05:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 22:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Adam-Yourist

Hi, Could someone review the permission added by Adam-Yourist (talk · contribs) please? (Russian?) Regards, Yann (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yann: The ticket was for files that were on the net elsewhere, and the agent instructed the uploader to mark them when uploading here. It's legit, IMO. - Reventtalk 04:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 22:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Permission for File:Wes Bentley in Chicago.jpg

This file was deleted as Missing permission, but temporary restored. The source indicates that the photographer is Tony Zierra (the director if My Big Break movie) and he given the file under a Creative Commons license (but not the exact license).

Therefore, is possible to contact Zierra via the OTRS system to request permission and the exact license for the file?

Thanks in advance. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: This is a quite belated response, but it is not the practice of OTRS to proactively contact presumed copyright owners. - Reventtalk 12:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Justice Shri. B.N.Srikrishna, former Judge of Supreme court of India.jpg

This is obviously not a selfie, so either the file description needs to be corrected with information from the ticket, or the ticket should not have been accepted. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ticket may be OK (probably needs clarification), author field is definitely wrong, but looking at the ticket I'm not 100% certain what the author field should be. @Sphilbrick: would you clarify with the client please? Storkk (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
1½ months later, I'm still waiting for that clarification. Meanwhile, the uploader has been blocked for sockpuppetry.
I'd like to think that we have a higher standard than "may be OK". And if you don't know who the author is, there is obviously no evidence of the author either approving the PD release or transferring the copyright to someone who could subsequently do so legally. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Three months and still no response. I know there's a backlog, but I hope you can forgive me for not waiting even longer before filing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Justice Shri. B.N.Srikrishna, former Judge of Supreme court of India.jpg. Thanks anyway, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ticket:2016120110008251

Could a Norwegian speaker handle this ticket? Thanks. -- MCMLXXXIX 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jeblad and Jon Harald Søby: Could you have a peek? Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington and 1989: It says that they have permission from NRK to use the listed pictures as long as photographer and NRK are credited. It doesn't mention a specific license though. I have another thread going with the same user, so let me know what more you need for these images, and I'll bring it up with her there. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@1989: Ball is in your court. ;) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 18:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Scott Milne – Vermont businessman and politician.jpg -- OTRS Ticket# 2016122010026991

The subject file has apparently received its licensing permission, as verified by User:JuTa. However, the Permissions field doesn't reflect that the permission is sufficient. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt't verified the persmission. I cannot, because I'm not a member of the OTRS team. User:1989 set the {{OTRS received}} - see here. This means the mail arrived at the OTRS team, but there are some questions open which needs to be solved. --JuTa 23:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Ju. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@HopsonRoad: Just checked. The ticket is being worked on, but has remaining issues to clear up. - Reventtalk 03:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This image was deleted without my receiving a clear explanation as to why. One source expressed concern that the subject, who presented the OTRS permissions, might not be the copyright holder—the photographer may be the copyright holder. However, the subject of the image duly testified to being the copyright holder in his OTRS submittal. Shouldn't that be authoritative? HopsonRoad (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No. If the permission comes from the subject then there has to be a formal release of copyright from the photographer (who normally gets the copyright by taking the image) Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 20:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Artwalker Limited's Posters

The following photos I had uploaded a similar, Refer toTicket:2015022710005181, Ticket:2015022710005298, Ticket:2015022710005323:

Artwalker Limited is also authorized. --Photoyi (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Photoyi: We need an COM:OTRS ticket for the other files as well. --Ruthven (msg) 10:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese speaker

Hello, can a portuguese speaker with an OTRS access check those files please?

@Christian Ferrer: I don't speak the language, but ticket is not valid - just an auto acknowledgement dated 16/03/2016 - looks like Portuguese OTRS is very well behind! The images have already been deleted once (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Osório Caveirão) and re-uploaded by User:Osório Caveirão. The ticket text looks OK, but it's a very plain e-mail address, and I have no way or linking it to the copyright owner. So there will need to be some dialog, which I can't do. Ideally we should delete them until OTRS approves the ticket. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: The ticket was not answered by an agent, but the release text is good. Platonides (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Platonides: Oh ok, I deleted its because they have been reuploaded without consensus, when I posted the message here I did not notice that, it's Ronhjones who makde me aware just above. I've no access to OTRS ticket, and if the permissions are ok, you can restore the images, I'm ok. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment No confirmation yet from a verifiable e-mail address. Files stay deleted. --Ruthven (msg) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Spanish ticket check

Could the ticket (ticket:2015020310012351) on File:Museo_del_Bicentenario_-_Revista_PBT.jpg be checked by a Spanish speaker, please? I cannot understand how the ticket's customer is claiming they own the copyright, but it could be a language issue on my part. @BrightRaven: who kept the file at a previous DR. Storkk (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As stated in the file, the permission comes thanks to an agreement between the Bicentennial Museum and Wikimedia Argentina. Hint: check the e-mail address of the customer. --Ruthven (msg) 06:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Yes, thank you... I am (still) unclear on why the museum would own the copyright of a book cover. Storkk (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: On that, I cannot help you :) --Ruthven (msg) 23:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ruthven: as an es-4 speaker, could you confirm that there is no explanation of this in the ticket (that's really all I was asking to confirm initially)? I'd be grateful if you could form an opinion based also on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Museo_del_Bicentenario_-_"Retrato_de_Juan_Domingo_Perón_y_Eva_Duarte",_Numa_Ayrinhac.jpg, which may or may not be relevant (this doesn't seem to be a work referenced in that DR as "commissioned ... for the Presidency of the Argentine Republic", but I could be wrong? Storkk (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: I left a note in the ticket. In any case, if the portrait in the magazine cover (or the magazine itself) has the copyright somehow transferred to the Presidency of the Argentine Republic (it represents Peron, if that matters), then the museum owns the rights. However, PBT was privately edited by ALEA.
Doing a little research, ALEA was supervised by Carlos Aloé, then Minister General Coordinator of Government (Jefe de Despacho de la Presidencia), so a link with the government exists. --Ruthven (msg) 08:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

HHV-6 inclusion bodies

The files File:HHV-6 inclusion bodies.jpg and File:Inclusion bodies.jpg have an incorrect caption. I contacted NCI's Visuals Online (the source for both images) about this issue and received an email back confirming the caption information is in error. NCI has removed the image from the collection because the correct caption could not be documented. I have a copy of the email for OTRS. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Froggerlaura: could you please clarify what you are asking us to do? If the caption is incorrect, please fix the caption. Storkk (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that no one at NIH knows what the correct caption is supposed to be, so the image was deleted from the collection. The image title and caption are no longer correct on the Wiki entry, and as the image was taken in the 1980s, it is unlikely the correct caption can be found. Would it be appropriate to delete the image or say that the information is no longer valid? As the linked page at NIH image database no longer exists, I have a confirmation from them that the caption is incorrect. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Froggerlaura: If it is impossible even to write a generic caption, you can ask the file to be removed via a DR because it is impossible to use it for any educational purpose. But I reckon that you should do your best to describe it, e.g. "inclusion bodies of generic cells" - if it sounds stupid, keep in mind that I don't know anything about medicine :) --Ruthven (msg) 12:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed the description to reflect the above.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hakan Duran

Hi, Hakan Duran (talk · contributions · user rights management) has added quite a lot of OTRS permissions while is not a OTRS member. I can't read the tickets or I don't have access to them. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yann. I am not OTRS member. I know because Turkish Wikipedia's reviewing pending changes (Rapsar) let me for collaborations.--Hakan Duran (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't see and understand most of them. One I was able to, 2009052010051757 turned out to be a bit complicated, with permissions from three sources, and the Palomar Observatory images are clearly unfree. ☹ Platonides (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I too looked at ticket:2009052010051757 and it does not give a usable license based on my review. A commons administrator who is capable of reviewing OTRS tickets like Revent may want to take a look. Cameron11598 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The short of it is that every OTRS template added by Hakan Duran should be removed. Individual files can be reviewed as necessary. You cannot see the tickets, and so you can't evaluate whether the permission is proper. Only OTRS members should be adding permissions templates. I've received some additional context that these were tickets previously approved and in use on itwiki. It appears certain individual tickets should never have been approved in the first place. We'll need to comprehensively check these over. ~ Rob13Talk 05:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

To make a list, for reference....

I have to say that, based on what I 'can' see, and general principles, I'm quite uncomfortable with these transfers of OTRS-verified files by people who cannot read the tickets. - Reventtalk 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: Um, did the client at ticket:2014030310010433 stated the version of GFDL? There are two versions of GFDL used here, which are 1.2 and 1.3. If they didn't specified a version, then I don't think that the image is legally licensed under GFDL 1.2, since no version was specified. We can't automatically assume that it is GFDL 1.2, since we don't know whether they really read the legal code of that license. Thanks, ★ Poké 95 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: I'm looking at a Google translation of Turkish, you understand, but it appears so simply have been along the lines of "I have chosen the GNU Free Documentation License". I think you have a valid point. - Reventtalk 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Oh, hey, this isn't like CC licenses. If you will read section 10 of GFDL 1.2 and 1.3, it says that if the document doesn't specify a version of the license, you may use any version of the GFDL published by the FSF (except drafts). There's still one problem though, we don't have consensus on what version we should use by default when the copyright holder doesn't specifies a version of the GFDL. We can't decide by our own whether to use 1.2 or 1.3. There are still differences between those versions, it is not only dual licensing which was made on 2009, there's also a change in section 9 and section 10. See their FAQ about GFDL 1.3 here. ★ Poké 95 02:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: It had been years since I had actually reread the GFDL, lol. I think, however, that given what it says in section 10, we would be perfectly safe to, if the licensor is not specific, just make the most generic statement that is correct (i.e, under any version of the GFDL). - Reventtalk 02:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I just made a thread at the village pump regarding this issue, but seeing your suggestion here, it seems it is better than making the community decide what version to use. :D I reverted my thread at the village pump right away, if you will see. ★ Poké 95 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: I created a new license notice text here. If you see any errors or improvements, please fix/do it, since I am not a native English speaker. Thanks, ★ Poké 95 03:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: I copy-edited it to make it parse a little more clearly in English, and also added the 'template stuff'. - Reventtalk 05:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! :D It is ready to be moved to the template namespace, I think. ★ Poké 95 09:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: moved to templatespace. - Reventtalk 11:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving files with OTRS permission from local projects to Commons

Hi all! As I mentioned in here, I organized a collaboratio in Turkish Wikipedia with the aim of moving all files that were uploaded to Turkish Wikipedia with OTRS permission. Within the project, editors moved 104 files in three days. You can see the project and contributions in here. Chansey, Bulgu, Hakan Duran and By erdo can were the contributing editors of the project. I post this message because User:Yann told me that it is better to do this :) If there is anything wrong, please send a message :)--Rapsar (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mediha Didem Türemen.jpg

A ticket #2016081110003502 was applied to this image by the uploader. Is it valid? Please give it a good review or remove the ticket if false. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: , plese see this section.--Rapsar (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
While using Google Translate (the ticket is not in English) I'm not thrilled with that ticket. - Reventtalk 04:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016&oldid=576668126"