Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2015

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:Blausen 0797 ShoulderJoint.png

Is the file available for use with attribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.112.158 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ignore the OTRS box. Further down there is a box with a CC-BY-3.0 license. Green Giant (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request to confirm permission of File:VVVVVV - The Tomb of Mad Carew.png

Hi - I want to use this image in a book, but I need to confirm the license for my publisher. Can someone verify that the source is Terry Cavanagh and that it's under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported? Details:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VVVVVV_-_The_Tomb_of_Mad_Carew.png https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010030210056386

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.7.36 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The permission seems fine. Be sure to credit the author (including the URL) and give the URL to the license as well. (This is a requirement for all Creative Commons licenses.) Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review several files

TekkenJinKazama (talk · contribs) is indeffed for copyright violations, lying about image sources, sock puppetry and falsely claiming OTRS permission on images. Indian Karl Marx (talk · contribs) is [blocked on the english Wikipedia] as a sockpuppet of TekkenJinKazama but they are unblocked here. Most of IKM's uploads have been verified but two are still pending - file:Steven_Quale_2003.jpg and File:Danny_Chan.jpg. With Jin's previous history of deception (and I think the Danny Chan image was previously uploaded by one of his earlier socks claiming it was his work), I'm extremely suspicious of any OTRS permissions they claim to have received. Ravensfire (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Steven Quale image had a ticket, which was insufficient for permission, so I've marked it as such and the uploader has 30 days to get permission sorted out. The Danny Chan image had a ticket which was also insufficient and since there was no response for over 30 days, I have deleted the image. Green Giant (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - thanks for the review. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review ticket number

Please see

and review the OTRS number listed on those pages. The format is not the usual, perhaps they are missing a template or something. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: who handled ticket:2013062010002201. I believe the ticket gives blanket permission for images from three related websites, of which one appears to be the source of these images. I would fix them but I'd prefer to have confirmation from Jcb that all seems well. Green Giant (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seems fine to me. Jcb (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katherine Mansfield 1918.jpg

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We received a deletion request claiming this file is not PD in UK. [1]. J e e 05:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the file information page, the painting was created by w:Anne Estelle Rice, who died in 1959. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and who was British. Painting made in the UK. No reason why a PD-US claim should be applicable at all (especially without information about the publication history). If Rice died 1959, this is under copyright in the UK until the end of 2029. If a pre-1923 publication can be asserted, this could be moved to the English Wikipedia as PD-US-1923-abroad. Lupo 15:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; DR started. J e e 04:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures deleted on 28 Dec, but permission sent 20 Dec - please check

Hello, I received a note on Wikimedia Commons on 20 Dec from JuTa saying the author of the 2 pictures I had posted needed to send permission. The two photos appear on my WMF report page (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Anderson/Script_encoding_proposal_for_Nepal/Report). The author (Sonika Manandhar) send her permission on 22 December, but on 28 December the pictures were taken down by Fastily. (JuTa reported to me that I need to post my request here.)

Here are the comments on my WMF report page (link above):

(cur | prev) 02:36, 28 December 2014‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,104 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (Removing NLG_Encoding_4.jpg, deleted on Commons by Fastily because: No permission since 20 December 2014: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email o...) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:36, 28 December 2014‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,165 bytes) (-72)‎ . . (Removing NLG_Encoding_3.jpg, deleted on Commons by Fastily because: No permission since 20 December 2014: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email o...) (undo)

Can you check your email files for [email protected] ca. 22 December from Sonika Manandhar? If there is something further I need to do, please let me know. Dwanders14 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2014122310002227 covers these. I'll endorse the undeletion request. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Croce 4.jpg and co ... deleted files

I have a question regarding some files that have been recently deleted. I'm sure to have sent the email with the autorisation of File:Santa Croce 1.jpg, File:Santa Croce 2.jpg, File:Santa Croce 3.jpg and File:Santa Croce 4.jpg (I think ticket:2014112610018243). By the way I have resent another mail some hours ago. Could you check and (I hope) revert the deletion? Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)--Lkcl it (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is still open and waiting for an Italian speaker to process it. --Krd 12:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Krd. --Lkcl it (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tickets

Can you do the OTRS tickets for the files listed here to prevent from being removed? The majority of them are re-created with Inkscape with some on Paint (all of them are recreated by myself.):

Don't know the email works.

FreshCorp619 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do the ticket for this as well: File:Tabor Park VS Logo.svg Thanks. FreshCorp619 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission sender got a reply email. --Krd 12:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

anti-rumour and careless talk

I recently used this picture for one of my school assignments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.63.180 (talk • contribs)

Do you mean this one? In which case, it's public domain so there's no problem! I hope it went well for you! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status of File:Glamboy P in February 2014.jpg, File:Glamboy P in September 2014.jpg (plus two more)

I'd like to ask the permission tickets' status for the following files:
- File:Glamboy P in September 2014.jpg: This file has been deleted, but permission email was sent on 17 December 2014 (from email starting with riikkajaaska or myntelagoni). Is there a need to send the permission email again, or is it in the queue?
- File:Glamboy P in February 2014.jpg: Permission email has been sent 17 or 18th December 2014 (from email starting with martindanolsen), is the file in the queue?
- File:Glamboy P at DM Poledance, November 2014 01.png and File:Glamboy P at DM Poledance, November 2014 02.png (by the same author): Is there a permission email received of any of these (probably from an email starting with jojofoto)?

I've taken a note that the backlog of the queue is 20 days, but as I'm not the author myself and won't receive the emails directly, I'd like to know if there is some action I need to take in order to the files to be handled as they should.
--Oneandmillion (talk)

Found tickets #2014121710013594 and #2014121810007303 for the first two photos, but I couldn't find anything for the DM Poledance photos. They have not yet been replied to; I will mark the second one as confirmed and ask to restore the first one. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for usage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jamestown_excavation.jpg

May I use this for a textbook I'm editing, with due attributions, of course?

Regards, Paroma Maiti [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.133.26 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission from OTRS. The license means that permission has been granted by the copyright holder. Green Giant (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reusing an image that needs clearance by an OTRS member

Hi,

Wikimedia Commons is one of the greatest things Wikipedia has initiated especially the Public Domain category. However sometimes one need an image which says that permission to reuse it can be achieved only through an OTRS member, and this is my case.

I would love to use the following image: File:Spanish_jewellery-Gold_and_emerald_pendant_at_VAM-01.jpg in a textbook about art and design which I am writing. I'll greatly appreciate it if you can help me get the permission to use it.

If I am applying to the wrong address, please tell me to whom I should apply.

Thanking you,

Prof. Tsion Avital — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.171.177 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You don't need permission from OTRS because the box just lets you know that permission has been received from the copyright holder. All the permission you need is in the license, which I have moved up to a more prominent location. Green Giant (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed "Wiki Loves Small Museums" Workshop procedures

I'm organizing a workshop called Wiki Loves Small Museums to be held at the Small Museum Association conference next month (Feb. 15, 2015.) In preparation I'm putting together some guidelines for volunteers, to ensure that we're doing things fairly consistently at the event. I have some questions regarding best practices that I'd like to get feedback on here!

The intent of the workshop is similar to "Wikipedia loves Monuments", the idea being to upload images from conference attendees. We've asked people to take photographs of their institutions themselves, or to bring public domain images, for us to scan and upload to commons. We don't know how many attendees will participate; we do have several volunteers with knowledge of copyright issues to review the submissions. We plan to:

1) check submissions for copyright status

2) have people who took photos themselves sign an on-paper copyright permission form giving cc-by-sa-3.0 permission for their photos (see the sample form, based on the Wikipedia OTRS example, at page 2 of the attendee handout)

3) scan photos that aren't already digital

4) Wikipedia volunteers would upload the digital images

5) Wikipedia volunteers would scan and email the permission forms as needed

I'm putting together guidelines for volunteers, to outline what they need to do and how, so that people are doing things consistently. If possible, I'd like to have people use the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Can someone confirm that this would be an appropriate set of choices for uploading a cc-by-sa-3.0 work by a person who is not the uploader, using Upload Wizard?

This file is not my own work.

Source: ~~Wiki Loves Small Museums 2015~~ {{author source}}

Author: Copyright holder's Name

Rights: Choose option "Another reason not mentioned above" adding

     {{Cc-by-sa-3.0|Copyright holder's Name}}  {{subst:OP}}

Questions:

Would it be appropriate to put the workshop as the source of the upload? What might be preferable?
Is {{subst:OP}} preferable to {{OTRS-pending}}?
Is putting {{subst:OP}} in the licensing line the right thing to do?
Is it acceptable to scan a signed form and have someone mail it in who is not the signee? Paper forms give us a trackback; relying on the signee to email something almost certainly means that some emails won't be sent. I'm thinking that having one person do all the OTRS emails (probably me) would be preferable to them coming from a variety of sources. Would that meet OTRS requirements?

I appreciate that this is likely to increase the OTRS workload, if briefly, and I'd like to be sure that as many issues as possible are worked out in advance. Any feedback you can give on this, either here or on the project talk page, would be much appreciated. If there are things I can do that would be helpful, please let me know. Thanks very much, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I would recommend that you try to keep a list of such files that you could post to a user subpage here so that at least we are aware which files are involved. In answer to your questions:

The workshop isn't the source but where the author has given their own work you could use the {{Author source}} template.
Please use {{subst:OP}} because this adds a time stamp which helps when trying to work out the status of a particular file.
Obviously there are two places you could put the {{subst:OP}}: the Permissions line or the Licensing section. Everybody has their preferences and both are equally valid, but I prefer the Permissions line for three petty reasons. Firstly it is my experience that uninformed users tend to notice the Permissions line first and often don't look at the Licensing section. Secondly, Mediaviewer still doesn't seem to show the Licensing section whereas it always shows the Permisisons line if there is one in the file page. Thirdly, the script some of us use for adding the OTRS_received and PermissionOTRS tends to add those templates to the Permissions line.
Yes, a scanned signed form is acceptable but the crucial element is verification. Generally, we would be suspicious of a scanned form without some confirmation from the copyright holder. However, in this instance, as long as the emails are sent by someone trustworthy, it shouldn't be a significant obstacle.

Green Giant (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback,Green Giant. I've put together a handout with proposed procedures, incorporating your suggestions. Re: 3 above, Upload Wizard seems to put information into the Licensing section rather than the Permissions line (or am I missing something?) but possibly we can edit that later. I'll take on the job of handling emails of the OTRS scans. That makes sense since I'm the person who would need to deal with any followup. Also, we have a category, "Wiki Loves Small Museums 2015", which we can use to tag and track all uploads from the event. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The handout looks good. Don't worry about changing from Licensing to Permissions; the important thing is that the image is PD or licensed. Having the category will help enormously for sorting out the OTRS tagging. Green Giant (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2013061010006654.

Hi,

I'd like to reuse the following image for non-commercial purposes in a blog entry about hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blausen_0166_Cardiomyopathy_Hypertrophic.png ticket #2013061010006654.

Could you confirm permission?

Yes, I can confirm the permission. You can use this for non-commercial and commercial purposes as long as you give credit (as stated on the page, a suggested citation is Blausen.com staff. "Blausen gallery 2014". Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 20018762.). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ADR1FT development team.png

Hello. The file that I recently uploaded, File:ADR1FT development team.png, was flagged for lack of permission and later removed. However, I contacted the copyright owner and he has sent permission to OTRS, yet I'm not quite sure if he received a reply (he has not contacted me about it). Can anyone help me? Thanks in advance. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 04:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the ticket, it's fine. I asked for undeletion. Eitan96 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is covered by ticket 2011041310026732?

Hey there. I see that pictures of several Minnesota legislators are covered under ticket:2011041310026732 and am wondering whether this ticket extends to all Minnesota legislators' headshots from the official state website or if it's just the specific 6 or 7 whose pictures are already uploaded. Is it more broad to cover all images produced by the State or is it just those headshots? Thanks, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase this ticket: Images of Minnesota legislators taken from by official state photographer are in PD. The ticket verified that specific images on the website were taken by the official state photographer. In my opinion, the ticket would extend to other similar photographs, if there was a way to verify that they are by the same photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iiiiinteresting. Thank you! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm permission: 1969 AT&T Picturephone

It was stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone#mediaviewer/File:AT%26T_Picturephone_-_upper_RH_oblique_view.jpg that I need to leave a message here to confirm the permission. The ticket is https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2009101910061435

Whwb (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Whwb. You do not need to leave a message here unless you have specific questions about the permission for this image, which has already been accepted and archived. As you can see on the image description page, the file is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licensed, meaning you simply need to attribute it as specified in the license tag ("Courtesy: LabguysWorld.com") and note the CC-BY-3.0 license. I hope this helps. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strangers Within film poster.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Liam Hooper, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://farm8.staticflickr.com//7482//16348623451_d5817f049e_k.jpg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work 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 I always retain copyright of my work, and retain 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 me.

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

Liam Hooper Copyright holder 27.01.2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamhoops (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. You've been asked to read Commons:OTRS. Where on that page did it say that you should post the declaration above on this page? Doing so proves absolutely nothing (and neither does uploading the file to Flickr long after it's been published elsewhere, including your first attempt at uploading here). What we need is an e-mail from an @2050films.co.uk e-mail address. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LX Thanks for the reply. I have already emailed from my business account but we actually don't have any working email addresses set up on the 2050 domain, the [email protected] address is currently down while we raise funds to pay for more google apps. I can provide personal identification if that's a suitable alternative? —liamhoops

A web page hosted under the http://2050films.co.uk domain with a licensing statement identifying the image in question would also work. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LX http://www.2050films.co.uk/#!wiki-licensing-statement/c4y5 How's this? If that's OK please let me know what I need to do next.

Done. I've restored the file, reviewed the license and linked to the emails. Nothing more needs to be done from your end, Liamhoops. Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia. Green Giant (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khm22

Photos uploaded by said user back in 2009 looks very dubious to me becuase of low resolution. I found some high resolution photos over web. --Saqib (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, could you provide some links to the hi-res photos? Green Giant (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ŠimekMT

Hello OTRS. Robert Šimek from Cezch Republic here. I´m original member from the metal band MALIGNANT TUMOUR. Few days ago I uploaded some pictures from the band to wikimedia commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MALIGNANT_TUMOUR.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_1995.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2000.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2005.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2010.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MT_2013.jpg

Please cancel "nominate for deletion".

Thank you.

Best regards

Šimek & http://www.malignanttumour.com/

This has been handled at OTRS by me and all the files were kept. Green Giant (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the copyright owner of all that deleted pics

Hi, two of my pics just got deleted. But... I, René Kamenz, took all the pictures, I edited them, I created the final pics, CD Covers, Logos or whatever. In this case the deleted files are: File:Cover neu.jpg and Wiki PKusGE.jpg

I am the only copyright owner of each picture with "Peter Kamenz und seine Goldenen Egerländer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiegfriedWhite (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was unclear about the instructions given here, here and here. If you designed these logotypes and CD covers, you need to follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Of course, if you simply took some photos of copyrighted, non-free CD covers and logos created by other people, then doing so does not magically "liberate" them from their legitimate copyright holders and make them your own works. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concept art

Could anyone check the permission for this file? The copyright owner has already sent two emails making a clear statement that he releases the image under the terms of CC-BY-SA-4.0. Hakken (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found both emails, merged them and sent a reply. Before we can accept the license, we need some clarification, mainly to do with whether Eugene is the copyright holder or whether it belongs to Epic Games. I have marked the file with OTRS-received. Green Giant (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The game is being developed in the open in close colaboration between Epic Games and the Unreal community.[2] That said anyone with an Unreal Engine 4 subscription can participate in its development, however people will still be able to share ideas on the company's forum. This image in particular was made by a member of the Unreal community.[3]. Hakken (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Commons the most important aspect of a file is that it must be either in the public domain or freely and irrevocably licensed. The Unreal Forum linked to above has a link at the bottom to Epic's terms of use, which states in the Intellectual property section that:

"You must not reproduce, sell, or exploit for any commercial purposes any part of the Website, access to the Website or use of the Website or any services or materials available through the Website. Epic’s Fan Art and Fan Site Policy, found at http://epicgames.com/about/fan-art-policy/, governs non-commercial use of such content."

Commons can only host images that are free for reuse by anybody and for any purpose (even commercially), and thus the Epic terms of use are incompatible with Commons. The Fan Art policy adds further restrictions in sections 1.1 and 1.2:

"Epic grants all of its fans ... the revocable permission to create Fan Art and Fan Sites based on Epic IP (Intellectual Property) ... Epic, in its sole discretion, can terminate and revoke your permission to create Fan Art and Fan Sites at any time, for any or no reason whatsoever."

"Epic granting you permission to create Fan Art and Fan Sites in no way alters or lessens Epic’s ownership of all rights, title and interest in and to the Epic IP."

It is clear that fans do not have sole rights to fan art because Epic can revoke the permission at any time. Therefore Eugene cannot license this work on his own, and unless you can persuade Epic to license the image, the image will have to be deleted in thirty days time. Green Giant (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pauli Vahtera maratonilla.jpg

Hi, i would like to ask if there is OTRS-permit in the system for picture File:Pauli Vahtera maratonilla.jpg. It should be sent by Niina Vartiainen (user Varttiniina) and it is written in finnish. Also because i know that there is too many finnish people handling the OTRS permits i only want to know if it is there and if it looks all right without understanding the language? If it cannot be found or if it is clearly not filled with proper information i will notify Niina and will ask her to send new one and help her to fill it properly. --Zache (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zache. The message has been received with the number 2015012810006555. It looks all right, but of course someone who speaks Finnish should verify it. Anon124 (+2) (✉ ⚒) 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for checking. I am good with information that the permit is there. --Zache (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to confirm release from the artist, rather than the gallery

Five images have been undeleted today due to ticket:2014122310013261.[4] Could I have some public confirmation that in the above example the release was unambiguously from the two different artists and not only from the gallery or photographer? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further precision have been asked. To be clear, I don't see what has a copyright in this picture. These are simple utilitarian objects. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaavous Clayton is from 3D Design and Craft. He is a Minories Curator too. J e e 12:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yann - To avoid confusion, on Commons it has long been our viewpoint on copyright of modern art installations that if a mass produced product is either customized, used in performance art, or in a unique artistic configuration, then yes, the artist has a perfectly valid claim of copyright. Deleted images should not be undeleted if the copyright release is not clear in these cases.

Sorry, but I don't see any art installation here. I just see a fan on a table, as anyone else. I personally regard a claim of copyright on this as pure bullshit, whatever others may think. I also think that our current practice regarding copyright is much too strict compared with usual legal standards. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have run into issues on interpretation myself, having uploaded many modern works. However when you are making these decisions as an administrator please adhere to existing policy or as you feel so strongly, perhaps avoid being the one making the final decision and instead lobby to get policy and guidelines changed by consensus. Could you please re-delete these images in the meantime, I feel foolish raising a deletion request on them. --Fæ (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jee - your response does not answer my question. For the 2 artists concerned, have they personally released the rights to photographs of their artworks and do we have this evidence on record in OTRS? If this is not the case, then the images should be left deleted until this is clear.

Note for future OTRS requests, under UK law there is no automatic presumption that all creative works of an employee are the intellectual property of the employer. If executed under their employment contract for the terms of their job, then we normally presume this to be the case, however even in these situations it is rare for employed artists (frequently termed a residency) who create unique works beyond simple craftsmanship (by 'craftsmanship' I include cameramen and stage designers) to have irrevocably released full rights to their works unless this is specifically in the terms of their contract. In these latter situations either published employment policies, an unambiguous and hence legally meaningful statement from the employer, or in the case of government agents and suppliers, an act of parliament are sufficient to give an OTRS volunteer confidence. --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; waiting for a reply. J e e 13:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take this as a no, I am sorry that this has been a source of doubt after you spent time working on it. As above, these should be re-deleted as the community cannot have confidence that the OTRS ticket was correctly verified. --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four out of five have already been reviewed according to the permission received. So I don't think there is a need to delete anything at this stage. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. J e e 11:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: J e e 02:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to confirm release from the artist, rather than the gallery - Joep van Liefland

ticket:2014120910010905

These 3 files of modern artworks were deleted on 20 Dec and undeleted on 12 Jan by Fastily, then marked with the OTRS ticket by Jkadavoor. As with the previous example, could someone confirm that the release was by the artist, Joep van Liefland, and nobody else. If the release was incorrect then these should be redeleted until such as time as an unambiguous release from the copyright holder can be verified. --Fæ (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; by Joep van Liefland. Thanks. J e e 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick confirmation. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big & Small Photo

Okay I am a newbie to this. This is what shows up with a photo of 'Big and Small" Haven't come across this message previously. So, not exactly sure what my next step is supposed to be to be sure I can reuse the photo. Maybe I just need to be pointed in the right direction.

thanks!

ted

The permission to use this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Full documentation is available only to OTRS volunteers as ticket #2010030810028244. If you wish to reuse this work elsewhere, please read the instructions at COM:REUSE. If you are a Commons user and wish to confirm the permission, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010030810028244

2601:8:3200:6A9:21E:C2FF:FEAA:BE8B 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That just means that the image was licensed by the copyright holder by email, which being a confidential system is only accessible to certain users. On the same page you should find a license which will tell you the conditions for re-using the image. Green Giant (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr uploader

Could someone confirm whether ticket:2014070110000717 is relevant for File:Hyoyeon Mr.Mr. 2014.jpg? This is in the context of several copyvio deletions after an upload was flagged at User:Faebot/Flickrstreams of concern. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@-revi: J e e 14:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, {{PermissionOTRS}} is transcluded on {{Korea.net}}, and Korea.net flickr stream owner has relicensed and agreed with the CC BY SA terms. OTRS ticket is the record between Russavia (now banned) and Jeon han, the photographer behind the flickr account. — Revi 14:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very helpful as otherwise these look highly suspect. Perhaps a couple of helpful people could watch the uploader's help page to avoid them appearing to be Flickrwashing or similar? I'd qualify the mention of Russavia as "banned by the Wikimedia Foundation" as this is outside of any project process and so not a Wikimedia Commons ban by a representative of the community. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: J e e 17:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tymoshenko 01.jpg

Could I please have a second opinion on the OTRS permission for this file, keeping in mind the concerns raised in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugenia Tymoshenko.jpg, namely that User:Megamario1 is not Alehander Prokopenko as claimed on their user talk page (and implied by the link in the author field of the file description), but is in fact a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Lidaz (who happens to be female)? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to very the email address. If he is this and that, we can contact at the address provided here. J e e 13:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, recommending deletion then. Please be more careful in the future. The previously deleted copyright violations probably should have raised some red flags. Thanks for acknowledging, though. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LX, it is not a ticket handle by me. But I've no problem to acknowledge the mistake on behalf of out team. :) J e e 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood the "I failed" part, sorry. Thanks again, —LX (talk, contribs) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that a release is from the artist for a catalogue cover

File:Mental Adventures.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could we have confirmation that ticket:2014122010001073 is from the artist of the painting on the catalogue cover. The artist does not appear to be named on the image page for the book cover. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is from [5] who confirms he is the copyright holder. J e e 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you appear to be misled. Vincenzo Ciccarello may be the copyright holder for the catalog, but not the artwork that makes up the cover. After a little research to consider your reply, I find this to be a crop of a famous Kandinsky painting (Composition, VII, 1913). If you agree this is the case, then a licence of public domain should apply and the OTRS ticket is irrelevant as no other creative work makes up the book cover. It is rare that a book author is also the artist for a book's cover artworks or photographs, and cannot be presumed to be the case without a specific claim being made. I have put the book cover next to a (rather poor quality) photograph of the Kandinsky painting original below.

--Fæ (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The permission says "I have the copyright of the image of the cover book catalog"; not of book. But as you already provided evidence that it is a derivative of a PD work, feel free to change the attribution and license. We OTRS volunteers have a difficulty to process deleted contents. May deletion log only says "permission missing". It is not clear what permission is missing. It can be from the photographer, artist whose work is depicted there due to copyright or lack of FOP. Guessing everything from a deleted ling is like walking on a rope. :) J e e 13:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you withdraw your ticket first please? If I do attempt to correct the image page, I do not want to be flagged as a non-OTRS volunteer tampering with your official tickets.

Should you have difficulty understanding the deletion log, the best thing is to ask the deleting administrator, in this case Natuur12. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there was no evidence that the painting at the cover was free. There was no evidence that the artis released this image under a free license nor was there evidence that the painting is PD. Luckly this is now solved :). The photograph (pd-art) and the text are not creative enough to have a copyright of their own of course ;). Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Natuur12 and Fæ: I did an edit. Is it OK now? J e e 15:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Natuur12 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: J e e 03:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings

A number of portrait drawings done from photos and/or video stills. See

All clearly derivative works of the photos; photos taken at different times by different photographers and published on different sites. Somehow I doubt that the tickets cover the base photos. (Would need to include a release from photographer giving his OK to creating derivative works and publishing those under a free license.) Could someone please check? Lupo 11:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus

Lupo 14:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you got no response here Lupo. In any event, it seems that action was taken as all the images were deleted last month. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayers Rock - Angel - Violin part.jpg

Enquiry re File:Ayers Rock - Angel - Violin part.jpg OTRS ticket number not yet available.

Completed permission form sent 20 Dec 2014 from [email protected]. Form sent again today (23 Jan 2015) UTC from the copyright holder [email protected]

Does the template showing "image is missing verification of permission" need to be altered to avoid the image being deleted? Thanks CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been dealt with. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore the file. The confirmation was sent to your email. Tribunus (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being dealt with by an OTRS agent under ticket number 2015020710014084. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water Polo in Monmouth College.jpg

ticket:2014102110018343

Could someone with OTRS access investigate why this upload from en.wp is marked as "This file is missing essential information needed to confirm validity of the OTRS ticket"? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the file was marked that way. The ticket is from an official Monmouth College email address and the sender claims to be the authorized copyright holder for the images. Tiptoety ^talk 20:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. --Fæ (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodek Architects

File:Bodek Architects Tiberias Football Stadium AA.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could someone check the ticket linked on the image and amend the attribution so it is not anonymous? It is incongruous to verify an architect's drawing and not mention the architect or other copyright holders when the name of the firm is in the filename and the uploading Commons account has their full contact details openly on their user page. Anyone without OTRS access is unable to do this without risking going against whatever has been agreed by email. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. User page can also be confirmed (after verification) to avoid further OTRS. But I'm in a small break now. :) J e e 06:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution requirement is correct as of 06:34, 10 February 2015‎. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lawrence Hill professional.jpg

Could someone check that ticket:2015012010024513 includes a specific release from the photographer? Nigel Dickson is a well known Canadian portrait photographer and the image page appears to imply that the release was from the subject. If not, it may be worth making this a bit clearer, such as by adding the attribution to the licence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work for hire confirmed. (info updated) J e e 06:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I handled this ticket, and we do have confirmation of the release directly from the photographer. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I should have said "confirmed by the photographer". :) J e e 06:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Microtus canicaudus

There are four color images in the Category:Microtus canicaudus which I uploaded after getting approval from a University professor to use them. I emailed OTRS at the time of the upload from my YAHOO account and never heard back. I sent another email today from my GMAIL account. I would rather these files not get deleted, since I have done everything on my side and they are critical to the article on en:WP. Please advise. --Gaff (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have found your emails on the OTRS system. Will reply by email. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: Thank you for your help with this! --Gaff (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vuk-Jeremic-cirsd-2014.jpg

ticket:2015013010019733

The image is probably commissioned by the USNSDSN and appears on multiple other website pre-dating its upload to Commons by several months. Could the ticket please be checked so that the image attribution is clear, rather than a single purpose anonymous account being the required attribution? This might be okay for personal photographs, but an official portrait should be credited to the photographer or the commissioning organization that claims copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission appears to have come from an official CIRSD email address. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:OpSavannah1.jpg

Hi all,

User:JuTa recently tagged one of my images with a pending OTRS as of 11 January with this notice informing me that said photograph is "missing verification of permission". Apparently, permission has not been received by the Commons OTRS team for verification. The message also requests that I "Please forward proof of permission it to [email protected]...."

There's just one problem. I forwarded said permission to OTRS on 11 January. Here's (redacted) and here's an (redacted). The date and address of the receiver are clearly marked. In addition, I posted a text-only version of the permission (redacted) here.

To then receive a default message claiming that the permission has not been received and reiterating to have it sent to OTRS - after waiting a month for verification - is nothing short of frustrating. Does the OTRS board just lose messages all the time in the clutter? I've resent both e-mails just to be sure. If the problem is on mine (or Yahoo's end) kindly inform me so we can this sorted.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay: there is I am afraid always a backlog at OTRS, with too many emails and not enough agents. Anyway, I have found your emails and responded under ticket 2015021110003301. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the revised notice simply directs me back here, or to whichever volunteer updated the template (which happens to be you). Not to be a bother, but if this is the right forum for continued discussion what was the problem with the permission? I can resolve this with Mr. van den Berg if some more detailed elaboration besides the default message is given. --Katangais (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email via the OTRS system a few minutes ago. Could you reply via that route, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that I have renewed correspondence with the author and have replied to the OTRS system accordingly. For more details see e-mail. --Katangais (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. All seems fine and I have updated all the files with the OTRS approved tag. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded images - threat of deletion - File:Resurrection by George Chakravarthi.jpg and File:George Chakravarthi Portrait.jpg

I uploaded two images on 11 Jan - File:Resurrection by George Chakravarthi.jpg and File:George Chakravarthi Portrait.jpg - the copyright owner (George Chakravarthi) sent his permission on the same day or the day after, but these emails still haven't been linked to the images. I am surprised because I uploaded another four images belonging to George Chakravarthi between 11 Jan and 16 Jan and permission for these has been logged or confirmed. The images have now been tagged for deletion in 15 days, as I am fairly sure George Chakravarthi has sent his permission more than once for these images I am confused - shouldn't the limited resources at OTRS focus on getting through the permission backlog rather than tagging/deleting? I hope someone can search for the permission for these images as they are being used in a wiki page, and they are important for it. Emerald (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have found the two tickets and processed them. Then first is OK but the second needs confirmation that we do have a proper release from the true copyright owner (probably, the photographer). The files have been updated. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What do I need to do about the second image? George Chakravarthi is the subject and photographer of the image? There is some information about his email address etc. in the discussion associated with the image.Emerald (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I now have formal confirmation from the photographer/subject via OTRS and I have updated the file.

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samito1050: Request for ticket number for "Request/s to undelete files"

Hi, fellow Wikipedians and volunteers to OTRSǃ

First, I thank you for making this community self-regulated. If I had more experience, I would volunteer to help you with your backlog. As is, I lack the hours, but I am gung-ho to fortify my knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Currently my issueː I'd like to request ticket numbers for Requests to undelete images, sent via my email, samito1050̊(at)̜-------, to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org.

Attached in two emails, with the headings "Request to undelete files" and "Request to undelete file," are proofs of permissions from Cheryl Tiu and Anton Del Castillo releasing their images to Commons. These attachments are as followsː

Letter for Wikipedia.pdf (from Cheryl Tiu), and Letter from Anton Del Castillo.jpg

The email was sent last January 23.

May I request for a ticket number? Many thanks.

Samito1050 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samito1050. The ticket number is #2015012210018464, but I'm afraid it will not be very useful to you, because we use it mainly for our own purposes. However, I am leaving it here so other OTRS volunteers can find the messages quickly. Anon124 (+2) (✉ ⚒) 16:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samito1050, I have picked this up for processing but there are some queries. Could you please reply to the email you will have received from OTRS? No need to continue on this page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm Permission Please for File:Msc2012 20120204 413 Clinton Hillary Frank Plitt.jpg

Hi, can an OTRS member confirm the permission for File:Msc2012 20120204 413 Clinton Hillary Frank Plitt.jpg It says you can use it and adapt it even commercially as long as there's attribution for the photographer. Its ticket #2009020710020785.

Thanks --Wesknight (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info The source website has removed the photograph and it should be noted that the site has a general statement of "© Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz (gemeinnützige) GmbH", which I read as all rights reserved. --Fæ (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is the picture no longer available for use? I noticed File:Seco49_US_Vice_President_Joseph_Biden.jpg had the same ticket number from the same source. It was checked and was found to be ok. --Wesknight (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I checked the source site (Munich Security Conference ) in their Media Library and it looks like they only have pictures going back to 2013, which means they deleted the 2012 pictures and before and which the file in question belongs to. Their Legal Notice under the heading 'Authorized Use' says photographs are under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany License. Does the license still cover photos from previous conferences that have been deleted? --Wesknight (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket basically consists of a pdf with the legal notice at that time (twice, 2009 and 2014, still obtainable). --Didym (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then the pre-2013 photos can still be used as long as the license is followed? I noticed wikimedia has Munich Security Conference photos going back many years with archived photos from those years. --Wesknight (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks OK. The image was freely licensed and that licence does not change even if the source website decides no longer to host it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot.--Wesknight (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure when we don't have any OTRS members for a language

(ping: User:Spiritia)
What is the procedure when we have OTRS requests come in through a language we don't speak? Specifically, in this case, Bulgarian, of which I cannot find any volunteers listed. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: then they are stored in the main Permissions queue & a volunteer will handle it in English (probably). Trijnstel_talk 16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albuquerque Mendes 2014 Round 1.jpg

ticket:2015020210014379

Could someone with OTRS access clarify who the release was from and add that information to the image page? I believe this would need to include the artist as well as the photographer as this shot is characteristic of Albuquerque Mendes as a performance artist and the photograph appears to have been used in this specific format for illustrating interviews. Refer to artecapital.net. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to verify the email address of photographer. No permission from the artist too. May be Sphilbrick verified it; but not any notes. Waiting for further comments from him. J e e 06:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does look potentially problematic as permission is just from a gmail address. Am following up with ticket owner. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow up with a question.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response received via OTRS. Seems OK now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:16. Apokalyptische Reiter2.JPG

2015011310022921

The image page lacks information about the apocalypse sculpture. Consequently there is no way that a reuser knows that the release is from the photographer or the sculptor and whether the CC0 licence can be applied as stated without attribution.

If the piece is out of copyright can that be stated please? If the sculpture is in-copyright then the release from the photographer and the sculptor may be required depending on location. As the country is not given, there is no clue as to what copyright laws apply and whether it is relevant to be concerned that this was taken on private land, or whether the sculpture is permanently located. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it comes from Maikammer, Germany - {{FoP-Germany}}. -- Geagea (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Should be fixed. — Pajz (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurelle Brooks Mehus Courtesy of Design Forum, Pivot Point International Inc.7.jpg

This image was just nominated for deletion for several reasons, including "uploaded under dubious copyright license". Could someone please check the ticket and then offer input at the DR? Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of permission for File:80217616 afghanvideo.png

Hi, I'm trying to find out how to post copyright information for a still from a video, as shown in this this BBC article. It depicts a Taliban/ISIS commander in a still from a video released in January. The video was taken by an unknown Afghan militant. Is there a way to assert fair use of the image? Thank you. Morrowulf (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Commons does not accept fair-use images, but it might be possible to upload it to one of the Wikipedias. You would have to make sure it meets all the non-free criteria, e.g. en:WP:NFCC. Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphatic system

Hello My name is Dr Saade - i would like to take the permission to publish - Lymphatic system illustration (ISSN 20018762) on our Website for educational purpose - please let me know it this permissible

Thank you

Hi Dr Saade. Your note was not specific, I find 2 possible images:

File:Blausen 0623 LymphaticSystem Female.png
This has a CC-BY licence, so you must credit Blausen.com staff as noted on the image page when you republish the image.
File:VEGF receptors.png
This image is public domain. You are free to republish as you wish, it would be nice if you gave an attribution when you do.

In both cases, yes, you can take these images and republish them for any purpose, including commercial reuse. This applies to all images you find useful on Commons.

--Fæ (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supercatwalk

The uploader has had multiple files deleted for copyright reasons (File:Victoria barr.jpg, File:Victoria Barr Profile.jpg, File:Bobby Johnson Films.jpg and File:ClaudiaCoulter.jpg). Nevertheless, they also have multiple uploads which have supposedly had their authorship claims vetted by OTRS. The verified files were supposedly all personally created by the uploader; the verified file descriptions list the uploader not only as the copyright holder, but also as the author, and the files are described as the uploader's own work.

Were the deletions that had been made at the time factored in when these files were verified?
The supposedly verified files were taken by at least three different cameras (Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Samsung Galaxy S2 and Panasonic DMC-TZ10) in addition to a fourth that the uploader also claims to have used (Canon EOS 60D). The photos display a range of photographic styles and abilities and seem unlikely to have been taken by a single individual. Were there any questions asked regarding this?
Several files have watermarks from metparties.com. Did the permission come from an @metparties.com e-mail address?
Some of the photos are clearly selfies (e.g. File:St tropez Bobby Johnson.jpg), meaning the uploader must be the subject, Bobby Johnson, for the authorship claims to be true. Others are clearly depict Bobby Johnson but are not selfies (e.g. File:Venice Film Festival Movie Producer Bobby Johnson.jpg), meaning the uploader must not be Bobby Johnson for the authorship claims to be true. How was this contradiction addressed?
According to Tineye, File:Bobby Johnson film producer red carpet.jpg is a cropped version of File:Dr GL Johnson Venice Film Festival Red Carpet.jpg, which was previously deleted according to consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Files by user Dr GL Johnson. The uploader claims to have created this photo in February 2013 – a year after the less tightly cropped version was uploaded. It would be interesting to know what the deleted file description said about who took the photo. While this file has not been through the OTRS process, does the credibility of this authorship claim affect the credibility of previous claims, including those made in correspondence with OTRS?

Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On #5: File:Dr GL Johnson Venice Film Festival Red Carpet.jpg stated source:{{own}} and author=[[User:Dr GL Johnson|Dr GL Johnson]]. Lupo 12:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: all of the OTRS files I have checked so far, including those watermarked metparties.com, have releases from "Bobby Johnson Films", but there appears to have been no discussion of any of the points you raise. Supercatwalk obviously cannot be the author of all of them, as claimed, but it's unclear to me whether the 'own work' statement is something that can be corrected if the purported permissions are in fact valid. The issues you raise are serious enough to question all of Supercatwalk's uploads, including all the OTRS permissions. Specifically, further enquiries should be made of Bobby Johnson Films, including queries as to how the company or Bobby Johnson personally has acquired the copyright from what were obviously a variety of different photographers. I don't feel minded to do that myself, and perhaps you might just put the whole lot up for deletion to see if anyone feel strongly enough to put in the work that will be needed to save them. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MichaelMaggs and Lupo! I've started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Supercatwalk. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015021010012801

ticket:2015021010012801

These were uploaded to Commons today and look harmless, with the benefit of having been put immediately into use. However Gouwenaar does not have OTRS access and these do not appear to have been previously approved on another project by an OTRS volunteer. The ticket is in use only on these four images on Commons. Could someone explain what was agreed in the OTRS correspondence to allow this?

Note the related discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#OTRS_tickets_added_by_non-OTRS_volunteers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These images were "organised" by a known Wikipedia user, and the museum did publish these four images under a free license. At the moment the ticket/mail was sent, the images were not yet uploaded (as far as I was aware), so I did not put the OTRS-template myself at that time, but returned the ticket number. I myself handled the ticket this morning, and confirm that the OTRS-template is applied correctly. Edoderoo (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. --Fæ (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014110110014651 and related photographs

File:Al Walser Profile.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Al Walser Live.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2014110110014651 (Jcb)

Examining the uploads from Special:ListFiles/Blo100, this is a single purpose account uploading photographs of Al Walser. Existing uploads were created on two separate days, one this year and the other in 2013.

Al Walser.jpg
Al Walser in Hollywood.jpg

Two other files have been deleted as having "no permission":

Looking more closely at the validated images:

Al Walser Profile.jpg

This image has no EXIF data. It was published in The Hub in December 2014[6] and appears to be an official PR shot.

Al Walser Live.png

The image has no EXIF data. This is clearly a studio produced image. It has been created by blanking the background of the CD cover of "OCD". Refer to http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/alwalser2.

A check of the attribution claims for the 4 images shows User:CHR!S (though this was an overwrite of the original image, see [[:]]), User:Blo100 (note that on [[:]] the EXIF date shows 2006 but the photograph date is claimed as 2012) and Jeff Knight.

In the light of the odd record of this account, and the fact that both the above OTRS validated images have versions being used in music interviews, could an OTRS volunteer please take a careful look at the OTRS correspondence and confirm that the release is from the artist/producing company rather than someone anonymous?

Addendum Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#CHR.21S_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 is related to this thread.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I processed this ticket carefully and that the permission is in order. Jcb (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandra Paul Photo.jpg

I see that we have a release by Alexandra Paul as subject, but what about Mikel Healey as copyright holder according to EXIF data? Please clarify. Thanks - - Tuluqaruk (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuluqaruk: She says that the photo was a work for hire, so the rights were transfered to her. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Tuluqaruk (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use Kyshtym image

I would like to confirm permission to use the Kyshtym image at the Techa River, found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mayak#mediaviewer/File:Ecodefense_Mayak_Exhibition_31_Techa_Barbed_Wire.jpg I am illustrating a presentation on the IAEA's International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) and wanted to use it to illustrate the classification of Level 6 (at which the Kyshtym disaster was classified). The final presentation will be in the public domain and attribution for the photo will be included. ticket #2011072510005745 Thank you. Miriam Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.219.49.14 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The image permission is correct and you are free to re-use the image for any purpose as long as you attribute it in the way the author requested:

Attribution: Ecodefense/Heinrich Boell Stiftung Russia/Slapovskaya/Nikulina

Green Giant (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jens Zimmermann by Olympics.png

ticket:2015012710014502

The photograph appears to have been taken from a website rather than being an original, and lacks any original EXIF data as well as being at a small 'web-safe' resolution PNG. Could someone confirm that the release was from the photographer and that there is a rationale for whether the Olympic Committee have released the rights for the rings that provide the background for the portrait? Refer to OC FAQ.

Five photographs are released to Commons under the same ticket and two different account names are used for the photographer attribution. Some photographs are at web-safe resolution, others are large and include EXIF data. Can we confirm that the release is from both photographers or that the copyright holder has separate releases of copyright under work for hire or similar? --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is from the manger on behalf of 24passion GbR (Stuttgart, Germany). No special permission from IOC. J e e 11:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear what action is being recommended as my question was not answered. If the release is from 24passion then the image pages appear to be misleading as this is not mentioned. If there is no evidence that the photographers released these 5 photographs for free commercial reuse then this needs follow-up. If the Olympic Rings image was never queried then it is likely that the copyright release is insufficient and the image should be deleted. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fully understand that case. The licensor mentions a contract between the company and subjects. So it seems all photographs are part of their brand promotions. If true, photographers must be in work for hire. It is stated that their brands are covered in this release. The IOC rings is a different issue though. J e e 11:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the information seems unclear there can be no deduction that the photographers gave a free release or were covered by a work for hire contract. It is more likely that professional sports photographers or celebrity portrait photographers retain rights to resell images to the press, so the question needed to be asked explicitly. I shall raise a DR for the Olympic rings image. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jens Zimmermann by Olympics.png

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps by Ron Blakey

I've been communicating with CP Geosystems through OTRS #2015020710010999 (info-en), and a request has been made to remove these maps. There were some issues with the permission in the past, but these seem to have it confirmed now. I am soliciting some input from other agents before proceeding with a possible DR. Anon124 (+2) (✉ ⚒) 20:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a lot of history, and I have not read all of it, but if I understand correctly the critical issue is whether the 2012 email discussions at #2012111610010344 resulted in a valid release being given. The November 2012 email that is being relied on is a one-liner which 'approves' a CC licence using the exact words that were suggested by the agent. But there is previous correspondence which to my mind makes it obvious that the person sending that email did not understand the consequences of what would have to be agreed to. I do not think there has ever been informed consent, and would support your suggestion of opening a DR. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DR already opened at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blakey 20moll.jpg. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 02:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the loop for deleted images that were OTRS verified

File:Bling Bling.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015020210010846

As the file has been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling Bling.jpg could the ticket be annotated to show that there was a copyright problem that led to deletion from Commons?

Note that I have asked for a generic report based on this case. Refer to Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Report_of_OTRS_verified_images_which_are_later_deleted. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted on ticket; thanks. J e e 15:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image and jewelery are released and I would call the logo's DM. It's a pitty that I wasn't informed on that DR since I can't bring that argument up during the DR anymore. (For the non-admins, I confirmed this file). Natuur12 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natuur12, then why not make an undeletion request? :) J e e 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or I could just re-open the DR and you could comment there instead. Green Giant (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). Commented. Natuur12 (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015020410010093 Ron van der Ende

ticket:2015020410010093 (Natuur12)
File:Veneer Theory (2013).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Voiture Balai (2010).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Peekskill (2008).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Fly over (2002).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Holocene (2013).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Chevelle 65 (2000).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could someone with OTRS access please confirm that the release is from the artist as well as photographer (unless a work for hire by the artist) for these artworks? The image pages state these as own work of User:Heinonlein, if the artist is to be credited in line with the CC-BY-SA licence chosen, then these should be corrected. I note that the EXIF data states the author is "Picasa" which may be a software default rather than a true declaration. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission OK; attribution improved. J e e 03:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images are made by Heinonline and he asked the artist for permisison which he send to OTRS. The atribution was correct enough imho since the discription stated clearly who made the artwork. Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natuur12, we need to mention the attribution is Source, Author or License field; then only in and off wiki tools pick it properly. BTW, I noticed an uncertainty in our boilerplate template and tried to improve it. Any suggestion or correction is welcome. (Here, in this case, if Heinonlein is the photographer, I can re add it as "Photo: Heinonlein".) J e e 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I cannot see the correspondence, it is hard for me to know the precise copyright requirement beyond what has been stated here and on the image page. I would assume (please correct me if this is not the case) that van der Ende would not have released the rights for images of his artwork without requiring or expecting that his name as the artist would persist with the images, i.e. equivalent to CC0. If this assumption is correct, then a reuser must be told what the legally required attribution should be. On Commons image pages, this is interpreted as the entry for the author or an explicit permissions statement. Having to guess that the artist must be attributed, based on a free textual description, does not seem fair on the reuser, nor an accurate representation of the legal requirement. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would have been better to list the artist in the author field. However, the artist knew what the atribution etc looked like before he sended the permission to OTRS. This is no a legal matter but merely a policy matter. If you want to adapt te field that would be great Jee :). The change to our boiler plate statement seems to be an improvement. Natuur12 (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done J e e 12:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Natuur12: Just to make clear the issue; complying with a Creative Commons attribution is a legal requirement. A deliberate or unintentional failure to honour this requirement may result in claims under moral rights. The valuable work of OTRS volunteers to verify that the attribution statement is both accurate and precise has legal implications for both the copyright holder(s) and our reusers/republishers. This is critical for any OTRS volunteer to understand and take seriously. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: J e e 15:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014122610009322 C-SPAN Student

File:Pelosi Confrontation.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:StudentCam Award.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2014122610009322, ticket:2014122610009368 (Natuur12)

The first image appears to be a screen capture from a C-SPAN's student video competition and the second appears to be the winner standing infront of a C-SPAN bus which itself includes multiple screen shots, presumably all copyright by C-SPAN. The videos are covered by the release to C-SPAN: "All entries become the property of National Cable Satellite Corporation, d/b/a C-SPAN." Could someone with OTRS access confirm this has been addressed in the release from User:CSPAN. Could the author be named as either an individual or C-SPAN as the company, the account name being confusing as it is not "C-SPAN". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further background at:

Please add ticket:2014093010009651 File:Andrew Demeter.jpg for a review of who the copyright holder should be. I note that in the file history the person in front of the camera was claiming to be the photographer and on these photographs 3 different single purpose accounts are active.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:POLITICAST.jpg is part of the same set of images. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images I confirmed are a bit messy, perhaps I should have left a note at the ticket. The reason why I undeleted the files is because the license at Flickr is okay and the account looks valid. I added the OTRS ticket because it came from the subject. Not to confirm the copyrightstatus but to confirm that the subject gives his concent for using this image. I didn't remove the 4.0 license since it is likely a promotion account from C-Span. When it comes to the image not confirmed by me, the subject claims that his dad took the image. Natuur12 (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully examined the Flickr account[7] before raising the issue here.* It is not an official C-SPAN account and its single purpose is to display the same images uploaded to Commons. There is no evidence that the single purpose account on Commons with the name "CSPAN" is in any way a legal representative of C-SPAN the company. The subject may be keen to give consent, however there must be verification that the copyright holder has released these images. The OTRS ticket is a stamp of trust for the Wikimedia Commons community and the reuser that this has been done.

These are basic questions to check who the legal copyright holder is of broadcast material, that should be raised during OTRS correspondence and which appear to have been missed during the undeletion discussion.

Addendum It should be noted that the Flickr account, CSPAN, uploaded the file Pelosi Confrontation to Flickr on 26 December 2014. The same photograph was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on 23 December 2014, i.e. 3 days earlier than the Flickr account seems to have existed. Similarly the Flickr account was created after the photograph was marked as "no source" on 25 December 2014. Retrospectively using the Flickr release as evidence to validate the Commons upload licence is inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that this is a Flickr washing account, than a DR should be started. No point in contactin the subject again if that is the case since he can't be trusted if that's the case. I can't exactly remember why I forgot the note and the {{Disputed}} template for the 4.0 icensing tagg and the {{Consent}} template but the only reason I can think of is that something urgent catched me atention. Anyways, I only accepted the image because the Flickr account seemed valid to me at the time. Perhaps a CU would not be a bad idea as well since I got the feeling that we got fooled by Andrew Demeter big time. Natuur12 (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no claim about Flickrwashing, I have only presented the facts rather than my beliefs. It would be a nice gesture if you could make the effort to summarize the issues here in a group deletion request, rather than relying on my volunteer time. It would be smart to go back over your past OTRS tickets where you relied on the evidence of Flickr accounts existing in order to make your decisions about whether the copyright holder had been verified. Without OTRS access it is not possible for me to audit your tickets for you.

As someone with a current application for Steward rights, it would be super if you could take on this work as a demonstration of your future reliability. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here. This is the second time that I relied on a Fickr account and the first time was a long time ago but that permission seems to be okay. I checked the last couple of hundred OTRS-tickets I proccessed globally and fixed two errors. Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the DR and withdrawing your OTRS tickets. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: J e e 03:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackbird image.png

File:Blackbird image.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2012030710008273

Hello, could an OTRS volunteer please confirm ticket:2012030710008273 and indicate the exact author to whom this file should be attributed to? Thank you for your attention, Ariadacapo (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The (forwarded) eMail comes from Stephen Morris, but he does not explicitly say it's his (no standard eMail template). FDMS 4 17:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the authorization complete enough to allow for CC BY-SA licensing? Has Stephen Morris explicitly released the photo under that license? Ariadacapo (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the forwarded eMail is "Blackbird photo for Wiki" and he wrote "the photo in question is released under a free license CC-BY-SA 3.0". FDMS 4 12:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This sounds like he understood the licensing terms. I will update the file page. Thank you FDMS4, for the prompt and precise answers. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ariadacapo (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015022510017136 Point totémique Campbell's Soupe

File:Point totémique Campbell's Soupe.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015022510017136 (Yann)

Could someone please clarify who is making a claim of own work on the image page? The account may be a pseudonym for Gaspare Di Caro, however I believe it would be better for the legally required attribution to be for the artist were against their legal name (including the other images of artworks this ticket has been applied to). Could it also be publicly explained how the issue of a potential claim by the Campbell Soup Company for this derived work has been addressed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, you should look after real problems, not playing games and trying to undermine the system. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, I respect your views on copyright. It is unfortunate that you seem to be taking this case as a personal issue. If one of our reusers wanted to use this image on the cover of a book, or for publication in a journal, I would have to advise them that the image page is potentially misleading. I doubt that the artist, who presumably wishes to promote his work, wants to do so under a name made up for convenience on this project. For this reason the legally required attribution statement is misleading and could result in good faith publications reliant on this statement to have to be withdrawn.

Though in validating this image with an OTRS ticket you have responded to the artist's email, the rights of the copyright holder for the original work have not been considered. The Campbell Soup Company have a particularly famous iconic brand, and it is entirely credible that they would object to having derived works released for commercial reuse.

If you are unable to address these issues, then I believe a deletion request would be a reasonable next step.

It is worth noting that the same account has uploaded the newspaper scans File:El Mundo, Madrid.jpg and File:El Pais, Madrid.jpg, which are very clearly copyright violations. For this reason the uploader may need more support in understanding how to best respect copyright when using our systems and templates. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal issue, i.e. between you and me. The issue is also not my view of copyright, but your systematic questioning of some contributors OTRS tickets (and not only mine). I don't know the details, but I see now why you were removed OTRS access... *sigh* I deleted the scans, but this doesn't change anything about your actions. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible to question images with apparent copyright issues. For the most part these have proven to be real issues with images being deleted or having details changed.

As for my removal from OTRS, your guess is as good as mine as to why this happened. I still do not have a straight answer.

I am not "questioning of some contributors", in fact I am looking at all images regardless of which contributor it was, apart from Jee. After Jee raised an AN/U thread against me where direct legal threats were made by an administrator, who is still both an administrator and an OTRS volunteer despite this, I have been frightened off asking any question, even if there is a copyright issue to fix.

Please address the issues raised for this image. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution improved; thanks. J e e 12:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link for the archive Commons:Deletion requests/File:Point totémique Campbell's Soupe.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: J e e 12:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing OTRS?

Missing OTRS? Copyvio? -- CFCF (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: This noticeboard is for enquiries that need the attention of OTRS members; for questions about procedures on Wikimedia Commons, please use the Help desk. FDMS 4 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015021310011879 León Gómez Alonso

ticket:2015021310011879 (Edmenb)

File:LeonGomezAlonso.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - scan of printed photo, date given as 25 Dec 2014
File:JovenLeonGomezAlonso.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 1940s (?) photograph
File:LeonCuerpoEntero.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 2000s (?) magazine/newsletter print scan
File:EntregaGalardon.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 2005 event photo colour print scan
File:GalardonRecibido.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - award photograph, Feb 2015, artist not given
File:LeonVendiendo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 1962 photograph with silver decorated frame
File:PortadaLibroGrandesEmpresariosCCM.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Book cover, author not credited on image page
File:FachadaTalavera.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 2002 shop front digital photograph

This ticket appears to be a submission of several photographs related to León Gómez Alonso and all are claimed as own work under the pseudonym Abrahamag83 and all have been added to es:León Gómez Alonso. The photographs are claimed as own work by the same photographer from possibly the 1940s (based on File:JovenLeonGomezAlonso.jpg) through to the current time. Some photographs have dates on the image page which are not the create date of the photograph, but the date of a scan being created, such as File:EntregaGalardon.jpg which is dated as 2014 but is clearly dated in the scanned print as 2005.

Could someone please check the correspondence to assure that the submission had a release from the verifiable copyright holder in each case, including the publisher or original photographer of the scanned printed photographs that show distinct moiré patterns and the author or publisher of the book (Grandes empresarios de Castilla-La Mancha, Garcia et al, ISBN 9788483563960)?

Unless there is a clear reason not to, could we change these images from using a pseudonym so that the required attribution for CC-BY-SA is more legally meaningful?

P.S. I note that that Edmenb has made 41 uploads to Commons in 8 years (353 total edits). In that context, I would not expect them to be familiar with Commons policies on copyright (such as photographs of 3D frames) or our norms for completing image pages accurately (such as declarations of own work). I am surprised if OTRS volunteers without suitable experience are granted access to process the relevant permissions queues though. I note that their apparent experience is well below the minimum threshold that the Commons community has agreed for the image-reviewer right. Perhaps this context can also be assessed?

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having briefly looked at related images, I note that File:Estrenolaberintica.jpg ticket:2014090210014421 is copyright of Paco Villalta in the EXIF data, but this does not match what is stated on the image page text. Could this be checked? If these haphazardly found cases are of concern, then I suggest a more complete audit by someone with OTRS access. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is not written in English. But it looks dubious. Apart from that the ticket says "CC-BY-SA-3.0." but all files are tagged with CC-BY-SA-4.0 and the Author is wrong too. Pinging @Edmenb: --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As over 24 hours has passed, I have marked what currently appears as a critical copyvio for speedy deletion - File:PortadaLibroGrandesEmpresariosCCM.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias Fæ por sus comentarios respecto a mi experiencia con el sistema OTRS, estaría encantado de que se hiciera una auditoria de mi trabajo, posiblemente me haya equivocado en mas de una ocación. Respecto a la imagen Estrenolaberintica.jpg podrá notar que se encuentra en la galería de la CIA Marco Flores quien da la autorización para su uso.

Respecto a las imágenes de la usuaria Abrahamag83 que para mi es una cuenta de propósito particular con un claro conflicto de interés, es la hija de biografiado, todas las imágenes están dentro de su sitio web y el titulo de su correo es " Autorización a publicar cualquier contenido del dominio[...]", esto es, del sitio Almaces León, su articulo lo podrá leer en Wikipedia en español y al cual le coloqué la plantilla de "problemas articulo".

Quedo a la disposición de cualquier decisión que sea tomada a favor del proyecto. Saludos cordiales Edmenb ^{(Mensajes- es)} 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to File:Estrenolaberintica.jpg, there is no link to the source you have now mentioned on the image page, could you add this please? Note that the copyright claim apparent in the EXIF data may still contradict an independent website release statement.

In respect of the photographs that were published on 24th December 2014 on http://www.almacenesleon.es/blog/leon-gomez-alonso-1928-2008, this source was not mentioned on the image pages, and though there is a claim on that blog of the CC licence, there is still no rationale for how the scans of printed images which were taken by unnamed photographers, some of which appear to be clipped from magazine articles, are now the copyright of either the estate of León Gómez Alonso, or the company that he founded that is the registered owner of the website you have linked to. It should also be noted that some of the files uploaded are timestamped as being created after the 24th December. It certainly seems unlikely that any of the parties claiming copyright have the rights to reproduce the book cover that you marked with an OTRS ticket.

In line with your suggestion of an audit, it would be useful if an alternative OTRS volunteer with more experience in assessing copyright for Wikimedia Commons to review these licences. As I have no access to OTRS, this is not possible for me to take on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ tienes razón, estoy buscando la imagen en el sitio web de la CIA Marco Flores y no la consigo, pero te aseguro que si aprobé la autorización es porque el día que se procesó yo verifiqué la imagen. No dudo que en este caso debe de borrarse de inmediato. Yo podría escribir a CIA Marco Flores y solicitar se procese un nuevo ticket por la imagen en el futuro.

Respecto al blog León Gómez Alonso entiendo que ¿hay una reclamación por derechos de usuario?, no observé esa reclamación, ¿dónde puedo leer sobre eso?. Gracias Edmenb ^{(Mensajes- es)} 18:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Edmenb: Do you speak english or other languages? Can you add a lang-bable to your userpage? Would be helpful :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the ticket "CC-BY-SA-3.0" is written as license but NOT CC-BY-SA-4.0. This is not the second time that i point you to it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is sufficient doubt over the remaining photographs that a deletion request is the best way forward. It seems unlikely that the copyright holders for the original photographs have been identified in the correspondence, or on the blog mentioned above, and to keep these image it will be necessary to walk through each case. --Fæ (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DR raised at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Abrahamag83. --Fæ (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Ante las dudas que se presentan y siendo el usuario que subió las imágenes una cuenta de propósito particular, estoy totalmente de acuerdo en el borrado de todas ellas. Sigo sin entender la denuncia de violación de derechos de autor en el blog, lamentablemente no lo he podido encontrar.

@Steinsplitter: Hola, hablo solo español por ser mi lengua nativa. Gracias por sugerirme colocar el userbox.

Por otro lado me encantaría que un administrador de OTRS que hable español pudiera revisar el caso y también el ticket. Gracias a ambos. Edmenb ^{(Mensajes- es)} 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold Revisando / Reviewing.

@Edmenb: Lo reviso entre hoy y mañana y os cuento algo.

@Steinsplitter: I'm here! Thanks for the advice :-P --Alan ^(talk) 11:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

I deleted (DR closed) all images per COM:L and COM:PRP policies. OTRS isn't valid, not provides sufficient warranty.

More info in a note in Spanish at ticket:2015021310011879.

Regards. --Alan ^(talk) 18:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Alan ^(talk) 18:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verify my account

Good day!

I want to verify my account. My photo has received OTRS permission, do I need to provide more proof?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Anoubis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoubis (talk • contribs)

Done J e e 06:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: J e e 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 files

These files (1 and 2) are to out of multiple files coming from the nl service Wikiportrait. I doubt that these OTRS tickets (ticket:2012111610016053 and ticket:2012072210004973) are legit, so to say, and is from the original photographer for various reasons. Can someone that knows nl confirm werther these are "legit" tickets (with permissions from the copyright owners etc.) for me please? If it would turn out that these two would be invalid, I would ask that the rest of the files from this service, processed by this OTRS-agent, be also checked for their validity. Thank you for your time. Josve05a (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I send a follow-up on both email threads, asking for a more detailed explanation. I see no further need to examine all Wikiportret tickets though - please Assume Good Faith. Ciell (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

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

I submitted this to OTRS, and I'm sure it's near the end of the massive backlog, even though it's pictured in this DYK nomination on Wikipedia. Is there any way this could be moved to the front for DYK purposes? (I do admit I'm a little unfamiliar with OTRS.) StewdioMACK (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StewdioMACK: I've responded with a request for clarification. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StewdioMACK: I've received the clarification and permission is now confirmed. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeani Lei

(ping: FredWalsh)
Some of the photos in Category:Keeani Lei carry an OTRS ticket, but it seems a bit strange that Keeani Lei is the author of these professional looking photos. Some of them are fairly small or cropped from larger shots like File:Keeani Lei 3.jpg and the shots at porno run. Could an OTRS person check if the ticket is correct? I don't know the ticket number because there just seem to be links. FredWalsh (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is 2007081810007834. Ownership of the copyright in at least some of those images was asserted in 2007 by Keeani Lei, with a view to them being used in Keeani Lei, an article since deleted as being about a non-notable person. Although I don't see any reason to doubt the identity of the person purporting to grant the licence, I very much doubt that she understood the copyright issues at all. Certainly, there was no discussion about how she came to be entitled to release the photographer's copyright. I would suggest putting those images that rely on OTRS permission up for deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Michael. FredWalsh (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS tickets for thumbnail versions of images

During the review of some of the OTRS verified images of artworks in the past month, I have noted many releases of low resolution versions of what were obviously originally higher resolution photographs or scans. An example in the last day is the 300px wide image File:Blessed Feathers Wikipedia.jpg. This raises the issue as to whether the copyright holder understands clearly that their release of the thumbnail version under a CC license gives them no protection against future Commons volunteers uploading the highest possible version they can find and using the same license legitimately as the release. In this particular case of the Blessed Feathers, I immediately find a version on-line that is more than 3,000px across. I am avoiding the temptation to upload it, that would seem unnecessarily pointy.

Can we check that the related correspondence on ticket:2015010810014002 makes it clear that the copyright holder understands this potential consequence and has not made the release with the intention that it is restricted to the thumbnail size?

I believe that OTRS volunteers should make the situation explicitly clear to donors of low resolution version images to avoid future complaints or embarrassment of arguing for courtesy deletions in cases where we fail to honour an obvious expectation of a release limited to the original resolution. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that OTRS agents should point that out when the low-resolution part comes up in the course of the correspondence. They should, and not just as a courtesy, but because at least in some jurisdictions, it might have to be interpreted as an additional content-related limitation clause to the license (e.g. § 31(1), 2nd sentence, UrhG [Germany] [with currently unknown consequences for the validity of the licensing act itself]). However, I disagree in cases like the one you mention. First, it's not practical because, generally, OTRS agents do not know whether a higher-resolution version exists, and I see no reason they have to do all sorts of research for every ticket. That's not a reasonable expectation. Second, it's standard business practice to illustrate release forms with a downscaled version of an image, and if you, say, submit a hardcopy of your photograph to the Copyright Office, you would likewise not expect it to only cover the image in that specific resolution, so it really is a rather counter-intuitive understanding anyways. Back to your specific case: No, the correspondence does not make it clear that the copyright holder understands this potential consequence and has not made the release with the intention that it is restricted to the thumbnail size. However, it doesn't mention anything related to image sizes/resolutions at all, so in my opinion that's fine. — Pajz (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, high resolution version now uploaded.

With regard to "reasonable expectations" for OTRS volunteers (they are not agents), when I was processing tickets for Commons, I used to regularly use Tineye and Google image searches to double check for any complications. A significant proportion of images I dealt with had an existing long term internet footprint, including copyright claims by other parties. As an OTRS volunteer I felt it sensible to spend a couple of minutes doing these background checks for internet footprint and domain ownership (where relevant) before putting my name against the verification.

I admit, I am comfortable with Tineye and Google searching, but I expect all other OTRS volunteers to be competent to do these sorts of basic background checks. We even have these image search links built into the Wikimedia Commons interface these days. If OTRS volunteers need special tools, or a dashboard to make an obvious and intuitive workflow for basic checks, then that may be something to ask for funding to improve. It concerns me greatly that OTRS volunteers are not expected to take a personal duty of care for reasonable easy checks against incoming emailed legally significant statements of ownership. --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGM Exhibit FdUp.jpg

File:AGM Exhibit FdUp.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015010610011358 (Sphilbrick)

Could someone check the attribution on this image and the nature of the release? This is an exhibition of apparently multiple artworks, so the release should be from the artist(s). I can find no evidence of "Mark Chen" or similar on the website that the image came from. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the atribution but permission comes from the art gallery and permission from the artists is missing. Natuur12 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an area that galleries promoting themselves often seem to overlook. For a free commercial reuse, the rights of the artists need to be explicitly released when publishing photographs of their works. Could an OTRS volunteer commit to following this up please? --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP? Or am I missing something here? Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anon126: Yes you are missing something. There are two problems. A) some of the artworks could be on a non permanent display. B) I'm not sure if a gallery is a public building in Canada. Likely not. Natuur12 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I suppose I could take this up. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 22:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a communication about this case while processing another ticket and the reply was ""We have written consent from each artist that we exhibit that we are allowed to photograph and distribute their work but given that a photo may contain up to 10 or more artists, would be sufficient to show that this image is on our website as well?". "allowed to photograph and distribute their work" doesn't permit granting a free license though. My only question is how De minimis work on a picture of a hall contains a lot of artworks? J e e 03:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo was taken for the purpose of showing the artworks, then one can't really argue for de minimis of the individual artwork. KTC (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely needs the artists' permission. Not yet received as far as I can see. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current use is to showcase the facilities. But anyway, we asked for further permission from individual artists. J e e 09:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More than 2 weeks has passed with no confirmation, so DR now raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AGM Exhibit FdUp.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011051110007737 FIFA trophy

File:FIFA Womens World Cup Trophy.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2011051110007737 (Lokomotive74 (No OTRS access))

Could someone with OTRS access please confirm whether the release includes FIFA's trophy. A background on FIFA's approach to copyright can be found at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/marketing/brand-protection/intellectual-property/. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is in German so needs a German-speaker for this one... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ I've heard of something like this. But in this case there is picture of the WWC trophy used widely on Wiki already. My picture is just a newer and better one. So the quesiotn is, where is the difference to the other picture. File:Germany vs Canada in Dresden (pic14).JPG

Comment The ticket indeed applies on to the photographs. I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lokomotive74. Эlcobbola _talk 20:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the counter example appears to have unfortunately been released without consideration of the design rights, I have raised Commons:Deletion requests/File:Germany vs Canada in Dresden (pic14).JPG. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015012710020362 Picasso derived work

File:Måken av Pablo Picasso Y-blokken Regjeringsklvartalet.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015012710020362 (Nsaa)

The etching into cement is a faithful reproduction of Picasso's 1957 drawing "The Seagull". Could someone with OTRS access confirm that the copyright release includes Picasso's estate? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be in a permissions queue anymore. Might need an OTRS admin to look at depending on where it's been moved to? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ticket is in the Norwegian queue and available, and I'm a bit surprised that no one asked me about it before it was deleted. The owner of the building (en:Norwegian_Directorate_of_Public_Construction_and_Property/no:Statsbygg) has given accept to publish it under CC-BY-SA. Nsaa (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Måken av Pablo Picasso Y-blokken Regjeringsklvartalet.jpg raised. --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015020510019903 Risa Ferman

File:DARisaVetriFermanBookReading.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015020510019903 (Barras)

The book making up half of this photograph is all rights reserved by Diccicco Battista Communications, the proceeds going to Mission Kids, which seems a good reason to ensure that the rights remain correctly protected. Could someone with OTRS access confirm that the release of the book was part of the correspondence? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A message was sent asking about the book, but no response has been received. So, there does not seem to be any permission for the book. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the ticket should be removed. I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:DARisaVetriFermanBookReading.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015022410019225 may be relevant here. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015020510010742 Andy Parant

ticket:2015020510010742 (Sphilbrick)

File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 01.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 02.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 04.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The credited author on the image pages is a pseudonymous account, yet both the file names and the EXIF data make it clear that the photographer is Andy Parant (http://andyparant.com). Could someone please double check the OTRS ticket and add the photographer's name so that the legally required attribution is correct? --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:School Girl by Ilgvars Zalans.JPG and several others

Dear OTRS experts: I came across a group of images, of which this is one, of paintings by Ilgvars Zalans, which have been uploaded by a user Katya.pogrebnaya, claiming "Own work". This one has OTRS ticket #2013031110009459. It seems unlikely that Ilgvars Zalans has chosen this username, and more likely that a person other than the copyright holder has uploaded this image. If the OTRS ticket confirms that the author is licensing these images, should the text accompanying the image file be changed to something more accurate than "Own work"? If the two are indeed the same person, would it be appropriate to note this somewhere, since it would indicate a conflict of interest when editing the draft article in English Wikipedia about the artist?Anne Delong (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected; thanks. J e e 12:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Although this particular ticket has been looked at by an OTRS volunteer before, it has been several years. Anyone with free time is welcome to weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/OTRS ticket 1011940 - Animal Liberation Front. Kelly (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melissa Wolf

Could an OTRS volunteer please check the permission for the files in this category? They all give the author as Melissa Wolf but this is unlikely because she is the model in the photos. FredWalsh (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FredWalsh: She released ten images to us under the proper licensing (one of which was split into images, giving us the eleven there), but did not specify an author in the process of doing so. If anyone wants to search down the photographer and figure out who actually took them, be my guest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FredWalsh: If the OTRS correspondence did not address the copyright of the photographer, and no OTRS volunteer is prepared to sort this out, then these should be raised for deletion as the rights of the copyright holder have not been assured. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, she stated explicitly that she owned the copyright to the images and released them to us under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Models frequently do not understand issues such as what a work for hire is, and often assume that photographs in their portfolio are their personal copyright. At the same time it is common for professional photographers to use a standard contract that is specific for the intended use, and neither transfers copyright to the subject, nor allows for free commercial reuse. The images uploaded have no EXIF data, which immediately leads to concern as to whether the photographer has even released the originals to the subject, rather than being scraped from a secondary website.

As an example, File:Melissa Wolf 6.JPG has been given OTRS verification (presumably under the same ticket number, unfortunately this is not quoted on the image page) however it is the image for the front cover of an 'adult' film (Pajamapaluza 2). The image uploaded to Commons actually looks like a scan of a paper print, possibly taken from a DVD insert. It seems likely that the production company commissioned the photograph, not the model. These are questions that should have been raised during the OTRS correspondence. --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is invald. Permission comes from the subject who send some random photograhps to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Melissa Wolf. Yann (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I have gone ahead and voted for delete as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the responses, even though it seems to have created an argument. I have !voted to delete unless the model turns out to be the copyright holder. FredWalsh (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring image

Hello. I am wondering how I can restore an image I have the rights to, which has been deleted from my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beforsythe (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beforsythe, if you represent the museum, you will have to grant everyone permission to copy, redistribute, and modify this image. This is Wikimedia Commons (welcome/velkomið), which allows only images that are free to use by anyone for any purpose (under certain conditions like giving credit). If you are willing to grant that sort of permission, please send us an e-mail according to this page (English).

If not, then you will have to upload them to the English and Icelandic Wikipedias, but only if it meets the the local rules (English/íslenska).

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Esquivel Sánchez

Hi, I have a question, I want to use some photographs of Roberto Esquivel Sánchez. His family donated these photos. I found this ticket OTRS (don't know exactly the usage of it, I am new in Wikimedia Commons) 2014092210003412. I am not sure how to proceed with the usage of this photos. If they only need a credit, a licensed signed by the family (INDAUTOR in Mexico will ask for it), or a license made by Wikimedia Commons, and also a payment. Hope you can help me with this.

Best, Jeanette Russ [email protected]

PS, this appears inside the information of the photographs:

This image of Mexico City 1985 earthquake was donated by Roberto Esquivel Sánchez family, and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Wikimedia Mexico

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanitaruss (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've received a response on your talk page. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for restore file

Hi! How or where can I ask for restore an file that was deleted? I answer many e-mails with full declaration, and I can't see. Thanks in advanced. Vitor Mazuco^Msg 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitor Mazuco: COM:UD. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much. Vitor Mazuco^Msg 14:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a picture I uploaded

Hello,

I recently uploaded this picture: File:Redhead Express in Utah while filming a music video.jpg. I forwarded a conversation email to the OTRS team with informal consent for releasing the image, I added the OTRS pending tag, and I promised that the owner of the picture would send in a formal declaration of consent soon. Could you please tell me how many days OTRS volunteers usually wait for the formal declaration of consent from the author before the picture is deleted? This issue is causing me stress. I customized the letter so that the author would merely have to copy and paste what I did so that the declaration of consent would only take a couple of minutes to send in, but it hasn't been sent in yet, I don't think, and three days have past. So, again, please, in how many days would the image be deleted if no formal declaration of consent is sent in, and would this damage my reputation here at Commons? For example, could I get a permanent warning? Many thanks in advance for your reply and for your hard work. Have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found your email and tagged the file. Usually we give 30 days for emails to arrive but as the system is backlogged it may well be a while before the file gets deleted. However, if a license is received, even a deleted file can easily be restored (it takes three mouse-clicks). If there is no email from the author after another two weeks, it will be worthwhile sending a polite reminder just in case they have simply forgotten. Don't worry too much about your reputation, because we always assume good faith until there is a good reason to assume otherwise. You're reputation cannot ever be damaged by following community-agreed procedures. Green Giant (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Green Giant, for your reply. I feel much calmer now. It has taken me more than two months of extreme diplomacy and a lengthy explanation of the process to obtain informal permission from the author (and from his mother, who is the manager of the band) to use that image under an acceptable free license. I was worried that everything might be lost if the author did not send in the formal declaration of consent very soon, and I was also concerned that I could be "blacklisted" here on Commons. As you know, there's a bot that lists files uploaded by newer users (up to 150 edits), and some of those users have been sort of marked for not following the rules. I'm very glad you understand that I have done my best to follow community-agreed procedures. It's also good to know that even if the file gets deleted, it can be restored easily. I'll let some time go by before I contact the author and the manager again. Truly, I'm very grateful for your generous response and for the time and work you dedicate to Commons. Have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ANewEraOf Thought2.JPG

I grant permission to use my picture file File:ANewEraOf Thought2.JPG.

Regards, Hierax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.243.169.149 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that book is in the public domain and as you licensed your image of it into the public domain also, you needn't confer with the OTRS queue. All is well! Thanks for the upload! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sea Grain Conference photos, help needed :)

Hi,

My uploaded photos were deleted. Again. They had the neccessary license teplates, cc-by-sa-4.0, and the company sent the email with the permission to use them in articles. There is only one file left (File:Audience at on the Black Sea Grain conference sessions.jpg). I thought all of them had everything right. Could someone please help me and explain how this system works? :) It's pretty obvious i'm not quite doing it right. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinkaua (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19. Mär. 2015‎ (UTC)

Hi Alinkaua, the problem is/was not your permission mail, but the backlog. We are doing this job as colunteers in our spare time. I looked into the ticket:2015030210017516 and started an Undeletion request. Let's see. --Emha (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alinkaua, all files are undeleted now thanks to User:Yann. Can you categorize them or do you need help, too? --Emha (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Emha. Thank you for your help and also thank you, User:Yann. If somebody could categorize 1-2 of the pictures as an example for me so I could see what I should be doing, I would greatly appreciate it. --Alinkaua (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alinkaua, I put all files in the Category:Black Sea Grain Conference 2014. Not all pictures are from 2014. You could generate the other Categories (2012, 2013) after this example and sort the suitables files in these. Ping me, if you need help. --Emha (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Emha (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File von Huberbe hochgeladen

Am 13. Nov. wurde folgende Dateien hochgeladen und die Genehmigung am 20. Januar 2015 per Mail [[email protected]) zugesandt. Bitte bearbeitet das Ticket, damit das Bild verwendet werden kann.

Datei 1

Danke, --Huberbe (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Emha did it 13 March. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMG OF Faustina

Could i have the permission to use this image? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aureus_%C3%A0_l%27effigie_de_Faustine_la_Jeune.jpg

You are welcome to use that image so long as you follow the terms of the license. See COM:REUSE for more. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015012310007401 Otto Robert Nowak

ticket:2015012310007401 (Martin Kraft)

Could someone with OTRS access explain the context of how these images have been released? A licence of cc-by-sa-3.0-de has been used, with "self" attribution being required to the photographer rather than the estate of the artist. This appears a misleading legally required attribution as these are all faithful reproductions of 2D works.

As Otto Robert Nowak died in 1945, his estate may have a valid claim to images of the artworks. This does not expire until the start of 2016, at which point a public domain release would be correct. If the photographer is representing the copyright of the estate, it would avoid any confusion if this were stated on the image pages.

File:Otto Nowak.jpg and File:Renovierungen in Schloss Schönbrunn.jpg, appear to be reproductions of prints of a photographs from the 1920s/1940s. The claim of "own work" for the photographs seems highly unlikely. If this is the case, then neither the uploader, nor Nowak's estate can be automatically presumed to be the copyright holders. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Dr. Gustav Szekely claims to be the copyright holder of all this works. The author of the paintings and drawings was Otto Nowak, his granduncle. And I guess like most artist he also had the rights to use some photographs, showing him and his work. That, sounded plausible to me.

But, you are right about the self-Template - I just corrected that. // Martin K. (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply and improving the image pages, it makes sense. Interestingly, I have a Great-Uncle who was an established British artist and died without any children but leaving a partner. I have no idea if the copyright of paintings he gave to me during his lifetime are now transferred to me or not, I doubt anyone else in the family would either know or care.

--Fæ (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS release

The images form this photographer on canovu.com it's now under free license to uploaded on commons. For more information, users can look at here. Willy Weazley 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edy_Ganem2.png and File:Edy_Ganem.jpg

2 images i uploaded (File:Edy_Ganem2.png and File:Edy_Ganem.jpg) have been removed, i added them to edit the image in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edy_Ganem as requested by the person in said wiki page, the photographer gave permission by email to use the image but i dont understand what i need to do to be able to use the image so it does not get deleted.

thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moisesganem (talk • contribs)

@Moisesganem: Hi,

Please forward the permission to [email protected]. See COM:OTRS for details. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing "A swarm of mandaçaias around an artificial beehive installed in a house´s backyard in Brazil" photo by José Carlos W.

May I please reuse this photo on the peoplefoodandnature.org website with credit to the photographer?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.128.68.170 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you mean File:Mandaçaias.jpg. All the information you need is on the file description page:

"This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." So read that license. Note that attribution is only one of the requirements of the license.
"If you wish to reuse this work elsewhere, please read the instructions at COM:REUSE." So do that.
"If you are a Commons user and wish to confirm the permission, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard." That doesn't apply to you, so I'm not sure why you've posted here. If you have any suggestions as to how to make the instructions clearer, we'd love to hear them. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015031610002998 Infinitus

File:Infinitus logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Infinitus Plaza hong kong.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015031610002998 (Willy Weazley)

Could information about the photographer and copyright holder please be added to these uploads? Source as "website" (unspecified) and author "unknown" seems undesirable. --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the copyright's holder; there is only their website as source.Willy Weazley 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoneWilly Weazley 02:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pinkham Headshot Image

Can someone please confirm the permission on the ChrisPinkhamHeadShot.jpg. The file says it was transferred to the commons by a bot script and needs to be reviewed. Thanks.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ChrisPinkhamHeadShot.jpg

Hi there. If the OTRS was approved before when the image was hosted on Wikipedia, then it remains good even when the file has been transferred. I tidied up the page and completed the transfer review. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File Claus Tully.jpg

Dear all users,

I would like to send an inquiry about the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Claus_Tully.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1. What is the status of this permission request? I contacted the author Dr. Tully through his own personal website, and he should have sent an email to [email protected] for using the image freely, is there any news about this request?

Thank you. Andrearosso.it (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the ticket (2015011510007337) and have picked it up for processing. The permission given so far cannot be verified, and I have had to go back to the sender with some queries. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the copyright owner again to check the email and I think he wrote you back from the right address, is it possible to check? Thank you Andrearosso.it (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, address is confirmed now. One issue still outstanding which is with the sender. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, now the file will be available again or not? Thank you Andrearosso.it (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. The sender still needs to reply to one query. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there news at the moment from the photographer?138.246.2.61 13:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrearosso.it: I asked him again, this time in german. Hope that helps, --Emha (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrearosso.it: quick reaction: he wants to send a new photo within 8 days. --Emha (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When he sends a new photo will it be replaced to the previous one? Does he have to upload that or shall I do that from my side? Andrearosso.it (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Mr. Tully and you Andrearosso.it we have a new picture with a valid permission. I put it in the german WP-article. Regards, --Emha (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: Emha (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pebble watch trio group 04.png

Original file with OTRS permission was overwritten by a different file. Please check whether this new file is covered by the original permission, if not the page has to be reverted to the previous state and the other image deleted. --Denniss (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denniss, the permission of 2012 included all the files in http:// ksimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/PebblePressPack1.zip. In File:Pebble watch trio group 04.png I can't see a version that is different from the originally uploaded one. Can you compare the new version with the pics in the zip-File? Thanks, --Emha (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniss and Emha: I dealt with this, I odviously forgot to include a link here. The file appeared like it was not eligible to be retained, so it was deleted as a copyright infringement. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so it's resolved. Thanks, --Emha (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Emha (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old OTRS pending on File:Filmosto Color Box Slide Projector diag by kaefergeyer.JPG

I'm not sure what the status of File:Filmosto Color Box Slide Projector diag by kaefergeyer.JPG is; it's from an eBay user and it's had an {{OTRS pending}} template on it that was missing one bracket since 2010. This seems to mean that it never registered as pending (it was likely never placed into the OTRS pending category) so I'm not sure if anything was ever received. Would someone mind checking? Thanks, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobamnertiopsis, I couldn't find anything in OTRS concerning this file, but I asked the uploading user in de.WP. Let's see. Regards, --Emha (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi friends, that is too long ago. if in doubt, axe it. bests --Trinitrix (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File deleted. Ankry (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that's over and done with! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:AAGL039.jpg

Ilmagicomondodilenzuoli claims that an e-mail containing details of the permissions for this file's licensing have been sent to OTRS. Given that the uploader got the file from a Google search result that's obviously using copyrighted photos without a license from the legitimate copyright holder and given that the uploader thinks that the photo was authored by a URI(!), I'm suspecting that the OTRS claim is false, and that the uploader is simply trying to delay deletion of an obvious copyright violation by making that claim. Was anything actually sent in? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I can find. Suggest it's deleted as a copyvio now and if a ticket shows up that is valid it can be reinstated. Nthep (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Balloon Race, 2007.jpg (author, date, location unclear)

can please someone check information and permission for this image, and correct if possible?

EXIF info: "RENO, NV - SEPTEMBER 11: A general view of the Mass Ascension Launch during the Great Reno Balloon Race at the Rancho San Rafael Park on September 11, 2009 in Reno, Nevada. (Photo by Donald Miralle)".
contrasting informations (added on upload or later): author = Nod Berns, year per filename = 2007, location = Category:Louisville, Kentucky

Holger1959 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Holger1959: Permission looks ok, no more information in the ticket. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: thank you. was the permission given by Donald Miralle (see enwiki, World Press Photo award winning), by Nod Berns, or by an unknown third person? Holger1959 (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have asked to remain anonymous, CC licences respect that, so you'll have to put that in the author field. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: sorry, but did you really have a look at the file (description and exif)? there are two different authors named, which can't be true. now you tell me "they" (plural?) wanted to stay anonymous, which makes no sense when you read the public information at the file page. do you now get the problem? (at the moment, for me this looks very much like a "stolen" image, where someone claims copyrights for a photo taken by someone else.) Holger1959 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the email again, and have misunderstood the comment they made. The name on the EXIF data has contacted us to confirm they are willing to release the copyright, along with the person named as the author. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can an entertainment company that owns a picture release it under a free license?

Hello,

I'm trying to help someone that wants to release an image. This person owns an entertainment company. In this gallery, some of the pictures (such as the second and the third from left to right) are owned by BSE Media (which is actually the same as BlackSkirt Entertainment), as you can see by clicking on them. BlackSkirt Entertainment has a website with an email account "associated" with the website. So, can a declaration of consent be sent in by the owner of the company to release one of those pictures that the company owns? Unlike big photography companies, there are no individual photographers that can be contacted. Instead, no credit is given anywhere to persons, just to the company. Many thanks in advance for your help. Dontreader (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dontreader: Yes - if the rights are owned by the company, that's who needs to contact us - if they can provide proof the copyright has been transferred, or explain how it was, it would help. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news, Mdann52. For a while I thought there was no solution. I will tell the owner of the company to read your reply. Many thanks for your kind help, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just confirm the reception of a declaration of consent for the release of an image?

Hello,

I uploaded File:Redhead Express in Utah while filming a music video.jpg around three weeks ago, and you can see in the file history that Green Giant received my email, but could you please let me know if you received the declaration of consent sent in by the owner of the image around a week later, whose name is Sean Walker? I'm almost sure that the answer is yes, and that it's just a matter of waiting for permission to use the image on Wikipedia since you have tons of letters that need to be examined, plus you have other tasks, but on rare occasions something can go wrong with the system. Many thanks in advance for your reply, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still open. Willy Weazley 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Weazley, thank you for your reply, but I don't know what "still open" means. I apologize for my ignorance. Does that mean that Sean Walker sent in the declaration of consent, or not? Thanks again, and I appreciate your patience. Dontreader (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still open cause' the copyright's owner (Sean Walker) didn't send the permisson yet.Willy Weazley 04:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Willy Weazley, but something went wrong. Sean Walker sent the permission to you on March 23 (USA time), and he included a cc sent to me, as proof. Please, what can be done? Perhaps you could check letters from that date again? Thanks in advance for your reply. Dontreader (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don, I did find the email. We have too many of them, so it's easy to lost it. I merged the emails, but since I'm not the original agent, I won't closed so just wait the first user does it. I left him a note. BR. Willy Weazley 04:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Willy Weazley. I will patiently wait for an OTRS volunteer to give permission to use the image on Wikipedia. I know that you have a huge amount of emails. Your work is very much appreciated. I'll keep on finding copyvios in the meantime so they get deleted from Commons. Thanks again for your generous help! Dontreader (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:D Willy Weazley 05:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Willy Weazley 05:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Postscriptum123

Postscriptum123 uploaded several files apparently as copyvios, but he asserts represent Peloponessian Folklore Foundation. Is possible to confirm this information? Rodrigolopes (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigolopes: There are no eMails containing "Peloponessian" or from a @pli.gr address in any of our permission queues. FDMS 4 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michel Bouillot Img032.jpg

For this image an email has been acknowledged by OTRS ( {{OTRS received|2011020810003118}} ) in February 11, 2011[8], but a permission has never been finally confirmed, as an IP had removed the incomplete ticket[9], which had gone unnoticed until now. Eventually Sreejithk2000, who had processed the ticket, could look into it again. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: the ticket is not valid, as the copyright holder never got back to us with a valid licence. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mdann52. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:SBB Bahnhofplan InfoStele.jpg (ticket #2012111910013131)

An image of this name was uploaded on the 22 November 2012‎ by transfer from wp:de, and an OTRS ticket listed for it at the same time. On the 12 November 2014, the image was overwritten with a completely different image. The images are/were accredited to different photographers, but both working for the Swiss Federal Railways. At the same time the image was changed, the author name was changed, but the OTRS ticket number was not. Does the ticket cover the current image, or just the original?. If the latter, is it ok to revert the image and the associated descriptive changes -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris j wood: The new picture was taken in 2013 (according to EXIF data) while the last OTRS ticket eMail is from 2012. Therefore reverted the overwrite, thanks for bringing this to our attention. FDMS 4 12:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 12:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS access

I would like to request OTRS permissions verification. I noticed on Commons:OTRS/List of members by language that svenska (Swedish) is missing. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, you can do it here.Willy Weazley 15:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 18:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015020410013527 Powers

File:Mosaic Nude by Susan Mohl Powers.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015020410013527 (Mdann52)

Could someone please add some public information about the release, such as how "Grand'mere Eugene" legally represents the artist? --Fæ (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a email from the original artist in the system - I've reached out for clarification on an email address, but this all looks genuine. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed permission was granted. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the attribution. --Fæ (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file appears to be missing a license template now. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed,

fixed. FDMS 4 18:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 18:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using a photo of swans by Heino Ruiso for the Eesti Looduse fotovõistlus at 2012 for a school paper.

It will be used as an example for the physice of the bird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7d0:8486:9e01:94b8:23cd:8724:2e27 (talk • contribs) 8:50, 5 April 2015‎ (UTC)

I assume you mean this one? See COM:REUSE and make sure you observe the terms of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} but you're otherwise completely welcome to use the image. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:SKZ-KFE

As you can see here Special:Contributions/SKZ-KFE, the user uploaded some pictures with copyright (for example File:Vergleich_Phase_Amplitude.jpg from [10]). I think a OTRS is needed? --Minihaa (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tagged. Yann (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he should be asked with some kind of template to give a ticket and not that is work is deleted... He won't understand and most likely he does not know OTRS... --Minihaa (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted photo of Wendeen H. Eolis

Hi, can you please help me with restoring the following file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WHE-portrait-2015.jpg Creator/copyright holder agreed to publish this photo under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). The permission letter was sent to [email protected] on 03/25. I can resend it if need be. Thank you. --Ildar2013 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by INC and tagged by Willy Weazley. Green Giant (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Land Rover Desert Sunset.jpg

I contacted Land Rover to confirm the license on this this image, through email <[email protected]> and this form. I told them to reply at <[email protected]>. Can I know if an email has been received by the OTRS volunteers? --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 10:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzan: Nothing has yet been received. When it is, an OTRS volunteer will attach a link to the permission to the file description page. Out of curiosity, what about the image made you disbelieve the stated license? Nothing appears suspicious about the Flickr account, which by all evidence is held by the Land Rover company. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huntster, This discussion. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask to a OTRS volunteer to send the first email to have more change to a properly answer and to have a more clear ticket and do be deleted by a volunteer as a spam...

Fauzan, could to share with us the content of your email?

And Huntster, of course that is hold by Land Rover, we not even close to this discussion, the point is, this Flickr account have the copyright ownership of this photos? The Land Rover UK holds the trademark and copyright of Land Rover, and they do not release their photos under a free licence [11]... So LR MEDA is authorized to do? -- RTA 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even fully convinced Land Rover MENA is an official account of a subsidiary. The website link provided on the profile page doesn't even work. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So convince yourself: [12] click at the Flickr logo on top...

The problem remains at the photo, if we take one image under cc-by and googling it [13] it will apear in some websites...

In other hand, some photos, as this one, nothing appears that looks like a local thing... -- RTA 19:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzan, thanks for the explanation. RTA, I don't understand the "nothing appears that looks like a local thing", considering the vehicle in the photograph carries a Dubai license plate. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any ticket about this at the moment. However, Land Rover has a set of a regional options, from which you can select Middle_East/North_Africa, United_Arab_Emirates and English. This takes you to LandRover-ME.com, where there is a set of links at the bottom to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Youtube. If you go to the Youtube page and select the tab there is a further set of links including one to the Flickr account in question. It is a tenuous link though, because it would help if the Flickr link was on the website rather than Youtube. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go,

Extended content

Dear Sir,

I am a contributor to Wikimedia Commons <http://commons.wikimedia.org/>, a repository for images which are used across Wikimedia sites, such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is among the top 5 visited sites on the Internet.

We would like to confirm permission to include resources created by your organization on Wikimedia Commons. Specifically, we are interested in this image accessible at <https://www.flickr.com/photos/landrovermena/15778859956>. The image on flickr is licensed under CC BY 2.0, which is allowed on our website.

Please notify us at <[email protected]> if you are interested in licensing the image under CC BY 2.0, using the format given here, <http://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=669661#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries>.

Regards, Fauzan

--Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huntster, what I mean was, if you search some images the result don't let us to another websites, in this case, the can produce this content, and maybe some of this images are property of Land Rover MEDA. But, this is not valid to all of images...

Just a thought, as they already have made available images under a cc-by, can be a opportunity to really talk to Land Rover and ask they to free their images, exposing all the benefits of a free license.

Fauzan A little bit confuse, some mistakes, as Wikimedia Commons is not the repository for the Wikimedia sites... this is just one small use, and they don't need to send the full OTRS email, they already have a third-part confirmation, the Flickr, we are just checking. And for future records, 2 links are essential: About Wikimedia Commons, and another a link to the license used. In theory they now were this images are, and too many links can be a problem.

My suggestion (a raw and poor English one :P):

Dear all,

My name is xxx, I am a volunteer of Wikimedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome>, a community responsible for one of the biggest on-line repositories of free works <http://freedomdefined.org/Definition>, and part of Wikimedia Movement, that includes Wikipedia.

We would like to confirm if the images available at Land Rover MEDA on Flickr are licensed under CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/> allowing the free share and adapt. If it is, could you pleas send a confirmation email to <[email protected]>, the implication of that, as this are one of the compatibles licenses, we could import the images to the Wikimedia Commons, allowing, for example, the illustration of Land Rover articles at Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and if you have any question, let me know.

XXX

NOTE:We already can use as we want, all the implications of CC-by are already on, so we don't need explain the CC-by, unless they ask; -- RTA 05:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if one of our volunteers sent the email. Here is my attempt at improving the language a bit.

Extended content

Dear Sir,

My name is xxx, I am a volunteer of Wikimedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome>, a community responsible for one of the biggest on-line repositories of free works <http://freedomdefined.org/Definition>, and part of Wikimedia Movement, that includes Wikipedia. We would like to confirm if the images available at Land Rover MENA on Flickr are licensed under CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/> allowing free share and adaptation. If it is so, could you please send us a confirmation email to <[email protected]>, the implication of which is; this being one of the compatible licenses; we could import the images to the Wikimedia Commons, allowing, for example, the illustration of Land Rover articles on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and if you have any questions, let me know.

XXX

--Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've had the bulk of their images on Wikimedia Commons for a couple of years now. There should be a ticket somewhere on the OTRS system as I believe someone did check to confirm it's an official site and that the licensing is correct. I'm sure an agent can see if they can find it. Nick (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huntster, can you verify? --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 03:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fauzan and Nick: a search for "Land Rover" (exact term) returned nothing that I could see. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWII period music score

File:March Impromptu Code.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could we have confirmation that the release verified by ticket:2014121410005223 has taken into account a potential claim of copyright by the musician (the image page makes no declaration of who that is) or the estate of Martin Bormann rather than the creator of the photograph of the analysed derived version? --Fæ (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a page from his book The hunt for the Nazi Gold. I don't know Martin Bormann is a musician. J e e 13:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a problem. According to this page, the music is by Gottfried Federlein, who died in 1952. We don't appear to have any release from the composer. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As the uploder has a verified account, I think we can talk him on his user page. J e e 13:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright anymore on the musical score itself which was originally by composer Henry Charles Litolff who died in 1891. It was then held in the Collection Litolff (parchment dates from the year 1189). Gottfried Federlein was born 1883 and could - in 1189 being 6 years old - in retrospect not be the composer. The (alleged) encoder was war criminal Martin Bormann. It is a wartime document and as such his encoding cannot count as copyrighted material (or else we would have a very serious problem with all the other wartime documents, letters, briefings, FBI, CIA and all other intelligence files). I also note that the book, containing the musical score in print, was first published in 2006 and sent to all relevant parties. No copyright claims have been made. Hope this resolves the issue. Karl Hammer (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karl. There are a few issues that need to be unbundled.

When it comes to the copyright of WWII works there is a huge difference between IP law in Germany, the UK and the US. It is not possible to presume that the same principles apply between these countries. In Germany, even though works may have been originally commissioned by the state, the author (and their later estate) may have a valid claim as the creator of a work. This is quite different to how IP law in the UK and US during WWII is interpreted. For this reason I asked about potential claims by Martin Bormann's estate, even if the only asserted "creative" component is Bormann's encoding marks on the music score.
I am unclear why available sources state the music composer is Gottfried Federlein, if you assert that it was not. Even the Amazon entry for your book states this is the case, and electronically searching the same book only finds one mention of Litolff's archive, without appearing to make a claim that Litolff was the composer. Could you provide a clear source for who the composer would have been? Note that if the composer is uncertain, this is not the same thing as presuming the work was anonymous, and this may still introduce difficulties on copyright as further research may provide evidence as to who the composer was. 1889 is not so early that a copyright claim may not be reasonably valid, on the basis that the copyright expiration date is 70 years from the date of death, not composition.
A moment searching through the published works of Gottfried Federlein as held in the British Library catalogue shows that his main works were the wording of music scores and particular arrangements. Even if Federlein's creative contribution to this score was the arrangement or the particular printed German words, both are reason for his estate to have a valid claim of copyright on the score.

--Fæ (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I see a claim here that the Marsch Impromptu from Collection Litolff No. 1189 is by de:Josef Löw, who died in 1886. I do see a volume II of a book by Löw here which in its index does show a work by the same name on page 40 of Volume I, but I can't find a version of Volume I online with a quick search. Does Gottfried Federlein's name appear on the work in question? Most Google hits are in association with this news story; it would be good to see some independent confirmation. If Federlein modified a work by Löw, then there would be a question of how much of the modifications were present on this sheet. Hm... I see here on loc.gov an attribution to *Gottlieb* Federlein on a work of that name published in 1876. Gottlieb Federlein lived from 1835 to 1922[14]; Gottfried wasn't born until 1883 (obviously didn't publish anything in 1876) so the news stories may have the incorrect attribution. I can't find any hits which combine "Gottfried Federlein" with "Marsch Impromptu" outside of this news story. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the research available, perhaps the best we can say is that we have not verified the composer, nor addressed the potential creative modifications that may have been made by Federlein or Bormann. As there has not been a deletion request for the file, I suggest the OTRS ticket is withdrawn and discussion moves to a DR so that there is a time limit for hosting the file, the OTRS noticeboard not being a good channel for inviting community comment. If further research can provide a definitive answer, then it can be easily undeleted.

Addendum. The statement from Karl confused me as to the Litolff number being a date (appearing to presume that "1189" was the year "1889"). The printed score has "Collection Litolff No. 1189" in the footer. This appears to be an indication that the score was printed by "Collection Litolff" with "1189" being an edition number, not a date, nor indication that this was a composition by Litolff, but rather Litolff's publishing company. The company "Collection Litolff" continued to run after Litolff's death and I find plenty of references to ~~prints~~ new editions of scores in the middle 20th century. --Fæ (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a DR and move this contents. The status of OTRS has nothing to do with it. (eg: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugenia Tymoshenko.jpg) An OTRS ticket only discourages speedies. J e e 10:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Seems related. J e e 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: Thank you for withdrawing your OTRS verification.[15] --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My note to the year 1189 was meant to show that the work was already available at that time and therefore no later musician like Federlein could have composed it. I agree that Josef Löw was involved (note to Carl Lindberg; the page number 40 is on the image so this is the file you are looking for) but it is unclear if he was the original composer since he also made arrangments and 'improvisation'. Anyway, I've made a scan of the page many years ago during my research as a journalist and it has since been readily available my book(s) and all over the Internet. I merely uploaded it to Wiki as a courtesy and have no problem with it being removed again if you guys have any issues with it. Thanks fort all you time and efforts! Karl Hammer (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS; I forgot to mention that, prior to the book publication(s), my publisher's lawyers of course also looked into the copyright issue and found no problem, also not internationally. Nor did the editors of news agencies like Reuters, NBC, ABC etc etc., and magazins.

(Edit conflict) Your use of the year 1189 seems confused with the edition number, 1189. The image you uploaded to Commons is a 19th or 20th century print of a music score using mass produced paper and print techniques of that time, along with what appears a later added typeface (from a modern ink-tape impact typewriter in Courier font) for the words in German, hand adding marks (in a dark blue pen or pencil) and digitally added red circles to highlight the hand written marks. It would be highly unlikely to be parchment, mass produced paper being consistent with all other printed works from the Collection Litolff printers.

Should you have new evidence, please do add it to Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Impromptu Code.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DR filed to ensure that this gets resolved one way or another in a timely manner. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Like I said (wrote) earlier, I truly don't care if it is deleted or not from wiki. If the professional international copyright lawyers at my various publishers - as well as international Media agencies like Reuters, ABC, NBC, Yahoo etc. - think it is fit or publication, but some moderator(s) here think these professionals are all wrong, so be it. Here ends the discussion for me. Karl Hammer (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelMaggs, could you update the attribution, date, license, etc. according to the DR (provided by Carl Lindberg), please? Thanks all. J e e 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permiso enviado el 22 de enero de 2015

Moved from Commons talk:OTRS/Noticeboard

Estimados Voluntarios, gusto de saludarles. Paso por aquí para solicitar su ayuda. Entiendo que habido algunos problemas con la verificación de permisos, y la verdad, es que no quiero ser una molestia para ustedes. Pues bien. Me he encontrado con esta planilla de verificación de autorización en este archivo. Se envió permiso por su autor el 22 de enero de 2015, 18:20 y hoy se ha vuelto a enviar. Espero ustedes me pueda ayudar con esta confirmación. La verdad no quiero ser una molestia para ustedes. Desde ya muchas gracias. Un saludo.--Deucaleon (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is redundant to the above (as of yet unresolved) message so I'm marking this one resolved for now to keep things tidy. Hope that's alright. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias Bobamnertiopsis, usted ha sido muy amable. Un saludo.--Deucaleon (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2014112610018243

Could someone verify if the ticket:2014112610018243 is still open? I've uploaded the files on Decembre 2014 and after few weeks they have been deleted. I just want to know if I made some mistakes uploading the files or if I have just to wait. Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkcl it: Yes it is (Italian). When uploading files with pending OTRS permissions, please tag them using {{subst:OP}}. How did you find out their ticket number? FDMS 4 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4: First of all thanks for your fast answer. I know my ticket number because when I uploaded the four photos I didn't add the licence because I thought tath it wasn't necessary for an OTRS. Obviously the photos had been nominated for the deletion by User:Jarekt. I wrote to him explaining the situation and he replied that the ticket was correctly sent and told me his number. Unfortunately after some hours another users, JuTa, deleted my files. So now I'm waiting for someone that verify my request and undelete my files. --Lkcl it (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused by this ticket. I undeleted the files which were deleted because OTRS did not processed the ticket. The files are sitting in Category:OTRS received as of 27 November 2014 but the ticket is still not processed and they might get deleted again. I do not feel comfortable processing tickets in languages I do not know, but we should find some Italian OTRS member to start working on November tickets. --Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like OTRS members who speak Italian are: User:Trixt, User:Vituzzu, User:Melos, User:Laurentius + User:Steinsplitter (it-3), however most did not have many edits on Commons lately. --Jarekt (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jarekt for having undeleted the four photos and for the reply. Don't worry: I completely understand that you don't feel comfortable processing tickets in Italian and now that I know that everything should be ok I'll wait for an Italian that process my file (I need the photos on September when it:voy:Monte Isola will be promoted on the homepage, so I can wait for over 4 months!). Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie mille Melos. --Lkcl it (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Lkcl it (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vithun Ravindran

Moved from Commons talk:OTRS

I got photographer Vithun Ravindran to mail OTRS about using his image (the full image was uploaded as File:RJ Balaji Hiphop Tamizha Adhi.jpg, and it was cropped into File:RJ Balaji Music Academy 2013.jpg), yet the cropped image was deleted while the original remains. Can someone please explain what more I could have done to stop the deletion? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I believe we already received the mail, but a response is needed. Please, check and answer your mail so we may proceed. Thank you. Allan Aguilar (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Allan Aguilar (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nemzszinh-spiralcivertan.jpg avail at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nemzszinh-spiralcivertan.jpg

Hello! I am interested in using the above available picture on a blog/website with an appropriate attribution. I am writing to confirm that this image is available to use, and that all I need to do is attribute it to the creator/copyright-holder. The source refers me to request the terms of the license here, but states that such information is available only to OTRS agents. The ticket number referred to in the source is ticket #2010051210043699.

Hello! You are correct that you are able to reuse this image, provided you follow the terms of the license. You also don't need to contact us here to do this. OTRS is just a confidential way to verify that non-Commons users who claim to be the copyright holder of a certain image really are the copyright holders. Once permission is confirmed, you'll see the OTRS template appear on a page and you'll know it's good to go. Good luck with the image and thank you for following the terms of its license! Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS check

This section was archived on a request by: Rjd0060 (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check to see if File:Tracy Ann Oberman in 2015.jpg is listed under ticket 2015030510023503? I just see it as a touch suspicious that we have an OTRS ticket in place on it. Tabercil (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bystander selfie, created by a non-anonymous person. I've set author to Tracy-Ann Oberman in accordance with the original eMail template; the customer should clarify how copyright was transferred or how the photographer released it (ping Mdann52). FDMS 4 23:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FDMS4. Just so it's clear, there is an expressed opinion by a WMF lawyer that copyright on a true bystander selfie (which does not require that the "photographer" be anonymous) is owned by the subject. See Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie for a draft guideline, and the evidence on the attached Talk page. --Abd (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, to clarify, based on the research I did into this issue, if the camera was Ms. Oberman's, this is a true bystander selfie and should be simple.

If, on the other hand, the camera belonged to someone else, who then provided the image to Ms. Oberman, we have a more traditional copyright issue, and the permission of the photographer should be required. The photographer would ordinarily retain a copy of the image in this case, and could, in fact, make a successful claim of copyright. --Abd (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And do note that it can be found on Flickr as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and per discussion on my talk page on enwiki, the user in question had uploaded many images of the actress the last 2 months and added to her enwiki article and i have marked all of them and promptly removed as copyvios. He took images from her IMDb page (one of which is on his flickr stream), her personal website and when all else failed, he tried the easiest way to get his image added, via OTRS...--Ste moc 04:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc (talk · contribs)I'm confused by this on several levels. (1) [16] says that :en:user:Davedwards1954 has no uploads, deleted or otherwise. (2) [17] says that Commons Davedwards1954 (talk · contribs) has two uploads. I'm not a Commons admin so I can't see them, but that's "two" images, not "many". (3) This OTRS email looks to be 100% legitimate. Yes, it is uploaded to Flickr 2 months before it was uploaded here, but the Flickr user "Dave Edwards" is presumably the same Davedwards1954 (talk · contribs) who (says here) that he is in communication with Ms. Oberman. The OTRS ticket is not from Dave Edwards. From looking at the ticket, I 100% accept the ticket as authentic and concur with the OTRS volunteer who processed it. --UserB (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4: I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the (somewhat tortured) logic for saying we can accept "bystander selfies" as "own work". Under en:Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc., prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, if the only tangible embodiment of a copyrighted work was transferred, then the copyright was transferred. So if you have a (hot tub) time machine and travel back in time to the early 1970s, then yes, you own the copyright to a bystander selfie taken for you. But congress, in their (complete lack of) infinite wisdom, decided to change this rule. So I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this. HOWEVER, that said, there is a much better argument for why this permission is acceptable. It's a work product. If I take a "bystander selfie" of my boss during the course of my duties at the office, he owns the copyright - not because it's a "bystander selfie", but because he owns the copyright to things he pays me to create. --UserB (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UserB. Yes, there are arguments. Sometimes it has been argued that a bystander selfie is a work for hire. That's normally a false argument, a red herring. It is true that a bystander selfie is not entirely "own work." However, most people routinely think so, so that's what they may say in an upload. With a bystander selfie, the bystander is (1) arguably a sole owner, -- that was the WMF lawyer's cited conclusion, and nobody has argued to the contrary on meta or requested clarification from the lawyer -- and (2) is at least a co-owner and may therefore, in the U.S., release copyright. (Outside the U.S., the first argument still applies.)

No court anywhere in the world would be sustained in refusing the subject of a bystander selfie the normal exercise of copyright. A photo in the course of employment is a completely different situation.

If the evidence and arguments on Commons talk:Own work/Bystander selfie are incorrect, please supply correct law, case law, legal opinion, or on-point argument. I have also reviewed actual Commons practice, which has been greatly variable. The idea that "the photographer" -- the one holding a camera -- always exclusively owns the copyright (absent written agreement), and must therefore always give permission, often stated on Commons, is simply incorrect, and case law shows it. It is a general rule, which has exceptions, and employment is not the only one.

I'm hoping for the bystander selfie issue to become routine, in the narrow circumstances involved. It has been, sometimes, highly disruptive, with a user being called a "liar" because he claimed "own work" for a bystander selfie.

As to this case, I do not know if this was actually a bystander selfie, or something else. If the subject verifiably claims bystander selfie, as narrowly defined, and there is no contrary evidence, we'd accept the claim. But if this was not a bystander selfie, but a photo from an employee, a different case, but we would also accept the claim. If the photo was made by an independent contractor, not a legal employee, and not a bystander selfie (camera and "film" custody are important to that), then it could be more complicated, and co-ownership may be relevant, depending on circumstances. Photographer release would then be the easiest resolution. --Abd (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abd (talk · contribs) To clarify, I'm not arguing that a "bystander selfie" is an example of a "work product" and I 100% do NOT believe that. If you are standing on the street and you hand your camera to a passerby and ask him or her to take your photo, he or she owns the copyright - not you. That said, in this particular case, the image in question was, according to the OTRS ticket, created by an employee of Ms. Oberman at her direction in the course of the employee's official duties. This is not an example of a "bystander selfie". It is an example of a work product. Whether or not there is such a thing as a "bystander selfie" has no bearing on this particular image. --UserB (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UserB. If the photographer was an actual employee (in the U.S, are employment taxes being paid? -- and there are other legal criteria), then, yes, work for hire. If an independent contractor, as many "computer consultants" are, then, no. (I have no idea if the computer consultant who actually uploaded the file was also the photographer, very possibly not. Maybe a maid. Working for her or for a cleaning service? I don't need to know, but if OTRS wants to nail this down, those are questions to ask. Many people will be unclear on this, and will call a contractor -- or the employee of a contractor -- an "employee." After all, "S/he works for me.")

This was called a "bystander selfie" by [[User:Mdann52|], which you now state is incorrect. That was my reason for comment here, in case the issue of "bystander selfie" was important. The case you give as if it were clear, the person on the street, is a classic bystander selfie and this is the issue to be resolved (for me and in general for Commons), by more than common opinion. I have looked extensively and have repeatedly asked for evidence from others. There is no case, ever, anywhere, sustaining the opinion you just gave. The idea comes from a misreading of copyright law, and, as well, for our purposes, a missing of the rights of a co-owner. The WMF lawyer very adequately covered the case, and that should be read carefully. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "computer consultant" is not the photographer. In any event, even if the employee who took the photo is not actually an employee, but is a a contractor (which is possible, I suppose, the ticket doesn't say specifically), the OTRS ticket also asserts that this person gave their permission. The ticket is submitted by someone who would understand the legal ramifications of that claim. So whatever the case is - it's a "bystander selfie" (a legal fiction, but whatever), a work product, or a contractor who gave their permission, we're good with all of the above. --UserB (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UserB (talk · contribs), the first image was uploaded by Astipalea from IMDb which was promptly deleted, the 2nd by Davedwards1954 which was stolen from her website linked above, then a 3rd image was added which can be found both on imdb and her website and now a 4th one which you have accepted which is again by the same user as you can see on his flickr stream linked above which was uploaded by an OTRS agent..and what is this 2 months you speak of?, see the date, its Feb 18th 2015, its the 2nd image he uploaded which i promptly got it deleted citing 'flickwashing' which is what it is, and then he went with the same image to OTRS who added it to commons ..i never said the ticket was fake. I said the REQUEST was fake, whoever sent it..Dave Edwards says that he is Tracy's computer consultant on enwiki which basically means he stole the current image of her from her computer and claimed to own the rights of it ....well done OTRS..and people wonder why i think lowly of our OTRS agents..--Ste moc 13:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stemoc: I'm not sure why you use the word "stolen". 99.99% of people on the planet don't understand our copyright rules. They originally started out submitting one of their press photos, found out we don't allow that, and then submitted a photo that Ms. Oberman most certainly personally owns the copyright to so as to not run afoul of our rules. I'm not sure what you think "computer consultant" means. Why in God's name do you think it means he stole the image from her as opposed to she ASKED him to upload it? Computer consultants who steal things from their client's computers don't tend to stay employed very long. Good grief, that's just absurd. I'm a computer consultant and I'm going to steal something from your PC and then advertise the theft by publishing it on one of the most highly trafficed websites on the planet? We have a whole bunch of hoops we make you jump through to donate a photo. It's obvious that Dave Edwards was trying to jump through these hoops on her behalf. I'm not sure what "request" you believe was fake in regards to the OTRS ticket. You (I'm assuming) don't have OTRS access. I do. FDMS4 does. The OTRS volunteer who originally processed it does. We've all looked at it and told you the same thing. I'm all for cleaning out copyvios from serial copyright violators. But when someone who is, in good faith, on behalf of the subject, trying to navigate our processes to submit a photo, we should make their task easier not harder. --UserB (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think a celebrity would tell her computer guy to add an image of her to her wikipedia page? and how would one know if someone "stole" something off one's computer?..its not like you cut and paste it; you, copy and paste it so no ones the wiser..the quality of the image and lack of EXIF tells me that the image is not directly provided by her, its either taken off her instagram, twitter, tumblr or facebook. This isn't the first time i have come across images which were passed by OTRS even though was deleted as copyvio or flickrwashing..this is not jumping hoops, its fastracking copyvios and making it legit....Where was the email from? a far as i know, her talent agency is independent talent and unless the image was sent from there, it should not be allowed.....at all..btw that image is not even from this year but somewhere between jan-sept 2014--Ste moc 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, OTRS messages are confidential and we cannot reveal the sender's identity. I can only tell you that I'm highly confident it's authentic. And I'm not sure why you think she wouldn't ask a computer consultant to upload a photo to Wikipedia. I moonlight as a "computer consultant" (by day, I'm a software engineer and largely work with imaging and licensing issues) and, though I've never had that particular request, my customers are largely non-technical people who ask me to do anything remotely technical for them. Most non-technical people's eyes glaze over when they look at wiki markup or our hoops to jump through for contributing an image. Nothing whatsoever about this seems suspicious in the least. --UserB (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UserB. I have warned Stemoc for incivility. (permanent link) He is also biting newcomers, a variation on incivility that can cause great damage. --Abd (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biting newcomers?, rich coming from you Abd, the user violated our copyright (and flickrwashing) and he gets away by getting his stolen image added to wikimedia, well done..he was warned not to do that and yet he gets it way, the user's request to undelete the copyvio failed so he sent a FAKE (let me bold that for the blind) request to OTRS and yet OTRS is siding with the person that should actually be banned..from now on I will NO LONGER report any copyvios cause i'm tired of talking to people who neither do anything useful on commons or are the reason why commons is failing ..."OTRS: The legal way to add your stolen images to Wikimedia"--Ste moc 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that ticket 2015030510023503 is "fake" or that he sent in some other ticket and that other ticket is fake? I searched and find no other relevant tickets for any photos of this person going back to 2012. (I did not look beyond that and it is also possible that a ticket exists, but has a misspelling or some such thing that makes it difficult to search for.) Ticket 2015030510023503 did not come from Dave Edwards. While I cannot definitively prove it is not a fake (how do you prove a negative?) because I'm not going to fly to the submitter's geographic location and visit the submitter's office, I am as highly confident in the ticket's veracity as one could possibly be. Sure, it's possible that the entire thing is an elaborate ruse, including someone making a fake website for the submitter ... but it's more likely that the license is legitimate. --UserB (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying whatever is on that ticket is FAKE..anyone can file a ticket and claim to own the rights to anything, i was on OTRS before, i know how it works..to tell me that that image was not sent by Dave Edwards even though it was clearly available on his flickr long before it was added to commons by MDann52 is a lie ..If you can't prove its not a fake, then what are you doing on OTRS?..ironically, people on commons who know about these things have been systematically removed from OTRS...I don't see you listed as an OTRS-member (global group) so why do you even have access to OTRS?..or are enwiki admins exempt from it?--Ste moc 23:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So there is nothing that could possibly be said in an OTRS ticket that would not be "fake"? Surely, for any image, no matter how much of a copyvio it is, the exists a real copyright holder somewhere and that real copyright holder, or their authorized representative, could make themselves known to us, could they not? (To answer your other question, please look up two threads.) Please tell me what facts are in contradiction with this timeline: February 17: Ms. Oberman says to Dave the Computer guy, "hey Dave, my Wikipedia photo sucks, can you put something better up there for me?" February 18: Dave picks something off of her website and uploads it. It gets deleted. February 23: Dave explains Wikipedia's copyright policy to Ms. Oberman. She hands a camera to Bob the Employee with orders to take a photo. Bob takes the photo. Dave sticks it on Ms. Oberman's website and on his flickr page, confident that if he hits the right buttons, Wikipedia will take that as documentation of permission. February 24: unfortunately, because the image was posted on her website, there is no proof that the permission is authentic and so it gets deleted. February 25 - March 4: A frustrated Team Oberman explores every avenue for trying to figure out how to jump through all of Wikipedia's hoops to submit a photo. March 5: Finally, now that they have figured out what hoops are required of them, Ms. Oberman tells Billy the Emailer to submit the photo along with a statement of permission to the photosubmission or permissions address. April 2: Mdann52, a dutiful OTRS volunteer looks at the ticket, decides that it is clearly authentic, and uploads the photo. April 15: just another day on the calendar for everyone involved in this story because they are from the UK. Meanwhile, frantic Americans do their taxes at the last minute and struggle to get them in on time. April 16: We spend most of the day arguing about what is a clearly valid OTRS ticket that is not suspicious in the least. There we go. That's the whole story. What has happened that is inconsistent with this retelling of events? --UserB (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whats inconsistent is that a celebrity will ask her computer guy to add her image to wikipedia instead of her "paid" publicist and talent agent, people to whom she PAYS money to find her jobs and promote her image online and via other media..I heard George Clooney told his Gardener to add a new pic of him on wikipedia cause he didn't like the current one, the poor gardener tried a few times but was blocked for uploading copyright images...the image is definitely a by stander selfie and seeing that Dave's used his IPhone to upload other images to his flickr account and seeing that this image of Tracy has no (EXif), its taken/stolen from elsewhere, not to mention a poor photographer if you look at his images in his flickr feed..If you don't it suspicious that a user who tried to upload a few copyvios claiming as his own manages to get one added via OTRS, then I don't think you know what 'suspicious' means..the image is stolen off instagram, i just don't know whose.. --Ste moc 02:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that this request has been completed - and everything else was a side-discussion. This thread has served its purpose, in that several OTRS agents have confirmed the file permission. Additionally, it was brought up amongst OTRS agents themselves and no further input was brought forward. Therefore, per the OTRS practices, the license has been verified as okay. We've done our part here. If it is still disputed, there is always DR. Arguing here won't change the licensing, the verifications nor (clearly) the mindset of some participating in this discussion and will probably just make things worse. So, to reiterate, the verification appears valid, according to the information we have available (which is the best we can do with any permissions verification). That information is contained on the wiki and in various e-mails stored in OTRS. In any case, this isn't the forum for the argument - once the permission was verified (and double, triple, etc. checked). Rjd0060 (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanjose1956

Estimados Señores OTRS

Por lo que me informo Eugenio Zelenko , envie mail con los datos solicitados para la reposición de las fotograias sibidas por mi

Mi mail es [email protected]

Esperando su respuesta a los mail enviados Saluda a ustedes --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanjose1956: No vale reenviar el mensaje por mútiples veces. Encontré el mensaje y solicité que las fotografías se restauren. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know Spanish :-( Could you please clarify, did you ask somebody for files restoration of you need help with that? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored images, but OTRS ticket still need to be added and deletion template removed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anon y Eugenio , muchas gracias y espero seguir contribuyendo a su distinguida enciclopedia en forma correcta

--Juanjose1956 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No hecho: Deseo notar que esto no ya se ha resuelto. Existe otra discusión en Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanjose1956 y User talk:Anon126#fotografías subidas por mi. No sé cómo proceder en este caso; por eso pido que otros lo repasen.

Not done: I wish to note that this has not yet been resolved. There is other discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanjose1956 and User talk:Anon126#fotografías subidas por mi. I don't know how to proceed in this case, so I ask that others review it.

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All files restored, marking as resolved. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status of 2014051410017493

Hi! A set of 46 photos were uploaded in 2014 by two users (Ombra + Mazzarò), sourced with http://www.divisionecalcioa5.it/ (links). Could somebody please checkup on ticket:2014051410017493 and see if it is applicable?. Thx in advance. Gunnex (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were two separate tickets (combined into the above ticket number) but it will require an Italian agent. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My sensei Delfort may explain the status better than me :) --Ombra (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinned (to prevent archiving). Gunnex (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have not yet responded, nothing more for us to do - it is in their court, not ours.

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 19:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavillon de l'eau

File:Pavillon de l'eau.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015021210008554 (Yann)

The required attribution on the image page is to "Eau de Paris". The reuser may presume that this is a release of the billboard artwork on the front of the building (L'eau sur Mars). The EXIF data shows that the photographer was Caroline Paux. Could someone check that the release explicitly covers both the photographer and the organization that commissioned the poster? It is normal to credit the photographer, as Paux's name is visible on the image page already, shouldn't she be noted in the required attribution? --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added Caroline Paux in the credit. In this case, Eau de Paris uploaded the picture and gives the permission. It seems quite obvious that it also commissioned the picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be so obvious when you consider that based on her internet presence, Caroline Paux sells her services as a freelance photographer in France/Paris, and does not appear to be an employee of Eau de Paris (the uploader). I believe rights of the photographer would be protected under the law in France and not subject to an automatic presumption that contracted employment transfers full rights to works during that time.

If there is not a direct statement that the photograph is subject to a work for hire contract that transferred IP rights, could you or another OTRS volunteer ask for one please? Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, it seems you don't really realize what you are asking for. Do you want them to send a copy of the contract between Eau de Paris and the photographer? Obviously, you won't get it, it is confidential. So you have to content yourself with their word. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My experience on OTRS shows that many organizations that donate photographs have no clue about the way the photographer was contracted before releasing images. We have many cases where the photographer later objected to a free commercial release of their works and we had to delete files.

OTRS volunteers do not ask to see contracts, and this is not what I have asked for above.

I have asked for verification that the photographer has released their works in accordance with the licence. So far, based on the responses above as I cannot see the correspondence, someone representing "Eau de Paris" but not the named photographer has given a release, but they have made no statement about this being a work for hire (if they have, then fine, we can "content ourselves with their word"). This needs to be followed-up, or the image removed from Commons under the precautionary principle. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our business to check what is the agreement between Eau de Paris and the photographer. I remain you that the agreement specifically says that the party sending the permission do that if necessary on behalf of the copyright owner.

I think you are outstepping your role here, and since you pursue this matter, I am starting to question your good faith. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just an unpaid volunteer, I have no "role" here. If you are saying that the Commons community is assured through OTRS and your review of the facts, that the freelance photographer named on the image page has irrevocably released their rights so that the photograph can be commercially reused, that's fine. At the moment what you have said in this thread is not actually this, and I am puzzled as to why no OTRS volunteer is prepared to write a brief email back to the correspondent and check.

Considering other uploads by Eaudeparislf include File:Ancienne pompe à feu d'Auteuil.jpg, which appears to be a very old archive photo but is claimed as their own work, I remain concerned that the statement of this account cannot be questioned by the community without assertions of bad faith.

Hopefully you will reconsider the finality of your point of view. Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eaudeparislf (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has uploaded 5 files to Commons. I have now marked two of these as lacking evidence of permission as they are clearly modern scans of black & white archive photographs rather than the own work claimed. These are File:Usine d'Auteuil.jpg and File:Ancienne pompe à feu d'Auteuil.jpg, both were added by the uploader to fr:Pavillon de l'eau, an article that appears to have been mainly created by the same account and is marked for deletion review and with a promotional warning notice. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could also check other uploads by this account. Some images don't have a license (now tagged), and some are derivative work, and there is no FoP in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that File:Usine d'Auteuil.jpg was deleted and then restored based on further OTRS correspondence. However I have raised Commons:Deletion requests/File:Usine d'Auteuil.jpg due to on-going significant and evidence-based doubts about the claims made about copyright status. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 19:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil

Hi! Above template was created in 03.2012 by Dafranca (talk · contributions · Number of edits). Link: http://www.fab.mil.br. Per Template talk:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil I could not verify any related license infos or permission. Per User talk:Dafranca#Template:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil, Dafranca claimed to have sent an email to COM:OTRS ("It was sent and received").

The question is. Did OTRS received an email coming from http://www.fab.mil.br (or Dafranca) which would support above template? Please see also File:Agata 4 - Super Tucano.ogv (uploaded by Dafranca in 09.2012) versus my info: "Considering also wayback: before and after upload date: "Copyright © 2008-2012 Portal da Força Aérea Brasileira ® 2012 República Federativa do Brasil - Todos os direitos reservados.". Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Super Tucano - Operation Agata.ogv some email traffic is stored but most likely sent by a person who had answered is not really knowledgeable about copyrights (...). The whole case sounds like a complete license fail... Gunnex (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ticket is #2012102310009166. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a forwarded mail and no action taken. I noticed that they are maintaining a Flickr stream too. So the easiest way may be to request them to re-license their Flickr stream. J e e 03:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for checking and commenting. I will try my luck with an email to fab.mil.br in the next days to obtain a related permission. Gunnex (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the permission is not confirmed, we need to delete many files J e e 13:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they were all confirmed PD. Nothing more for us to do here. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 19:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File: Aya Saad Eldeen ٍٍSayed.jpg

Dear, Why the photo of File:Aya Saad ELdeen Sayed.jpg is deleted, the Author Aya send and email, and I send also another email to the email : [email protected], I want to restore the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk • contribs) 08:42, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Commons talk:OTRS

Ticket: 2015022410007881. FDMS 4 12:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natasha-Zinko-jewellery-designer2.jpg

Hi! Natasha has sent license information to otrs-commons email. But status is still {OTRS pending}. Do we need to send some more information? Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkrymov (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Dkrymov: Please be patient, we have a high backlog of e-mails. But I searched for your message and I could not find it. May I ask: On what date did you send it, and to what address exactly? Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket

Can anyone help me with the OTRS for these two pics,

Thanks. Ssven2 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of help? KR.Willy Weazley 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I searched and could not find a relevant ticket in the permissions queues for these images. --UserB (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

I know you all are as backed up on stuff as the rest of us admins here on Commons, but... we have sixteen days of images dating back to March 15, with over 100 images waiting OTRS approval in Category:Media missing permission, please take a look and see what if anything can be cleared! Thanking you in advance for your help in this regard. We get over 1/2 month behind in that category very rarely, so thank you also for keeping up with it 99.9% of the time!! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo de Pierre Karl Péladeau [Ticket#2014121310011085]

Hello!

Can you please check if the email of autorization for this picture have been received? Thanks!

Picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PKP2015.jpg

--SharQc (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SharQc: We've received the messages, but the sender was informed that the e-mail needs to come from an official address (for example, one that ends in

pkp2015.quebec). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on it comes from his office! --SharQc (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SharQc: Sorry, but we've had problems in the past with this sort of thing. Anyway, I didn't respond to this message (je ne parle pas français), so you can appeal to Elfix (the user who responded) if you want. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate though, but I cross my heart that the messages you received were form the owners of the picture. Can you please do something else? Please I've been working on that for two months! I even asked to the photograph Jean-Claude Lussier and he told me that I needed to ask to the office of Pierre Karl Péladeau for the picture! :(

--SharQc (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

À qui de droit, je crois avoir trouvé la solution: j'ai transféré à Wikipédia la conversation que j'ai eu avec Jean-Claude Lussier, photographe. Dans cette conversation, M. Lussier dit qu'il doit recevoir l'autorisation de l'équipe de M. Péladeau. L'ayant devancé dans ses démarches, je les ai obtenues les autorisations et vous les ai faite parvenir. Donc vous comprenez que les messages reçu consentent à ce que quiconcque utilise la photo. Même M. Lussier dit avoir besoin de leur accord, ce que je vous ai fait parvenir.

Lien vers la photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PKP2015.jpg Ticket:2014121310011085

--SharQc (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reply to the last email sent by OTRS volunteer (26 February 2015) Green Giant (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Dahl

On Wikipedia, actress Arlene Dahl has an OTRS confirmation number reflink which I cannot access or open despite twice requesting a password. Whatever, the year she gives (1928) is bogus. The Minnesota records clearly show that she was born in 1925 (see [18]; insert DAHL as surname; Swan as mother's maiden name and Hennepin as county of birth). I don't want to change anything that OTRS has handled but leaving a bogus year of birth is not cool. RobSieger (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to access ticket:2014081810016418 because that website is only accessible by OTRS volunteers. I would have thought that the obvious answer is to include both the OTRS note and the MNHS reference, even if it is a primary source. However, you are correct that such information has to be verifiable. I can't view that ticket either, so I have asked for help at the OTRS wiki (which is also limited access). Green Giant (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RobSieger and Green Giant: A representative of hers contacted us and said that 1928 was the correct date. English Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons states that government documents should not be used as sources of information (the representative was advised of this) and that kindness should be shown to subjects. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A representative of hers contacted us and said..." -- said!! Did he/she proffer any evidence than can override a birth registration? RobSieger (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my previous message about English Wikipedia policy. But at the risk of revealing too much private information, the representative presented different government documents. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notify RobSieger. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help in uploading a file from Behindwoods.com

I wanted to upload an image of Allu Arjun from Flickr but refrained myself from doing so as it appeared to be Flickr washed. Later i observed this file and thus sent a mail requesting permission from Behindwoods by filling for uploading this file. I have a few doubts which i request you to clarify.

First, that template states that the copyright holder, Behindwoods.com in this case, should send the declaration of consent to [email protected] whereas this template states that the consent should be sent to [email protected]. So, when Behindwoods sends the email to the first email address, can i upload the file at Wikimedia commons or i should do it at Wikipedia.

Second, how can i know whether Behindwoods sent the declaration of consent to OTRS if the website's team does not send me a mail acknowledging me about the same? Will OTRS send me a mail about the same? How can i know whether an OTRS ticket has been generated? Should i register at OTRS or i will get a mail?

Third, after adding an OTRS pending template (if i upload it), the file gets deleted after thirty days i believe. But, if OTRS ticket is delayed, the file will be deleted. After the ticket is validated and archived, how will the file uploaded by me be undeleted?

For further reference, i am hereby attaching the text in the email i sent to Behindwoods.com requesting permission :

To the team of Behindwoods.com,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project <http://www.wikipedia.org/>, an endeavour to build a fully-fledged multilingual encyclopaedia in an entirely open manner, to ask for permission to use your copyrighted material.

Your organisation has on its website content which would undoubtedly enhance communication with our target audience; in order to do so, I should like to ask for your authorisation to use such content, namely the photograph located at - http://behindwoods.com/new-images/photo-galleries-q1-09/tamil-photo-gallery/vaishali-audio-launch/vaishali-audio-launch-shankar-01.html, under the terms of Wikipedia's licence.

Wikipedia licenses all its content under the licence developed for purposes of free documentation by the Creative Commons, the text of which can be found at <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>. It should be borne in mind that if you choose to allow Wikipedia to use the stated [photograph, illustration, etc], it will remain copyrighted to you; however, the said licence stipulates that third parties must be permitted to reuse the licensed work so long that they retain the licence of this work and any derivatives from it. Consequently, you may wish to consider carefully whether you are prepared to compromise some of your rights granted to you by copyright law by licensing your work as suggested.

That said, allow me to reiterate that your material will be used to the noble end of providing a free collection of knowledge for everyone; naturally enough, only if you agree. If that is the case, please copy the form at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries> into the e-mail by which you grant us permission to use your content, and make any necessary amendments before sending the e-mail to our email response team ("OTRS") at [email protected]

We shall greatly appreciate it.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours Faithfully,

Pavan Jandhyala

Please do reply soon. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is permission-en or permission-commons, it will still reach us - personally, at least, I always check both Commons and enwiki for the file when the email is sent to that address. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: That implies i can upload the file either here or at en wiki. But, how come i will know whether the mail from Behindwoods reached OTRS? Will i get a mail with the ticket number? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: at the moment, you won't get anything straight away, it'll take a few weeks before it is processed and you get a response (the wait appears to be around 5 weeks atm) --Mdann52talk to me! 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: That means, i will get a mail with the ticket link in April / May and then i should upload the file here at commons. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to prove that I own the image rights

Hello, can anyone help me please, I am trying to prove that I own the rights to this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grayson_Hoffman_with_his_wife_Jamie.jpg

It is listed on my website here: http://www.graysonhoffman.com/about-us/

I am ready to provide any documentation needed, please tell me what needs to be done.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odmitrieva5005 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Odmitrieva5005: You need to send an e-mail according to the instructions at COM:CONSENT. Please read them carefully. The e-mail should come from an official contact address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon124 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No email received yet at OTRS. File was deleted but can be restored if the license is received. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permition to use the image

Dear friends, In these days I completed writing a book about the “Flower of the Holy Land”. The book is a guide for Christian pilgrims, with botanical aspects of the plants, along with the religious context of Christian tradition, the New Testament and Jesus in Proverbs. During the collection of materials, I exposed to your website and found an appropriate image of "The Nazarene" by Antonio Sicurezza. I would be grateful if you allow me to use this image as the cover page of my book, of course while maintaining the credit and rights reserve for the artist, as required by law. Sincerely yours, Ami Tamir [email protected] 972-538289572

Shalom Ami,
I don't know how you got to this page, but issues of this kind may be forwarded to a local team dealing with them. You may send an Email in Hebrew to the address [email protected] and get the appropriate response. Good luck and good night, Ldorfman (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is about File:Il Nazareno.jpg. If that's the case, there is no need to ask anyone for any permission. As is stated on the file description page, the author is dead, and his heirs have waived all copyright and released the image into the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings of Armand Cardona Torrandell

Please, could anyone confirm whether or not the OTRS ticket 2014012710005729 for File:Retrat imaginari de l'Esperanceta Trinquis.jpg does also match the uploads recently done (same uploader, same source & location) in Category:Armand Cardona Torrandell? See also File talk:Mort de l'Esperanceta Trinquis.jpg. --Achim (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission covers the 18 works exhibited at the library named after the painter. User has uploaded 19 and I asked for clarification about the 18 files specifically authorized. --V.Riullop (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, any sysop around can delete File:Cornudo Jubilar.JPG and restore File:Mort de l'Esperanceta Trinquis.jpg? This way I can finally close this ticket. --V.Riullop (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vriullop -

Done - sorry it took a week to get to this. Green Giant (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot it. Thanks. --V.Riullop (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --V.Riullop (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thennappan photo

Moved here from Commons talk:OTRS —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has any man named Thennappan mailed commons his consent to use his image? If yes, I can upload it. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any emails that include "Thennappan". Maybe contact the copyright holder once again to send a permissions email? Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobamnertiopsis: Oopsees

I checked the above-linked photograph again, and the watermark reads "Thenappan". Please check again. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! It's ticket:2015042010003389 and it looks like FastLizard4 is handling it. They might be able to help you from here. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FastLizard4: any update? At least can I upload the image, now that permission was granted by the owner? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the owner of the image did not explicitly request us to upload the image for them, I closed the ticket with a reply asking the owner to upload the image or provide a URL for it, and they never responded. The copyright grant provided by the owner may not be sufficient (I have to do some searching to see if I can tie the email address with the photographer), but you can go ahead and upload the image and I can tag it as pending verification. Once you've uploaded the image, please ask the owner to check their email as I may send the owner a request for more information, if needed. --FastLizard4 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the image; please tell me if there are any corrections to be made in it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)

Thanks! I've verified the OTRS permission grant, and everything is in order. I've already made the necessary tagging and changes, so we're good to go here. Cheers! FastLizard4 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FastLizard4 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

File:Broken Horses Poster.jpg waiting--Motopark (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing as yet. Green Giant (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MacBook Pro Retina.png

This file has OTRS ticket #2012110210009284. However, in this edit, OTRS permission was added by the file's uploader. I doubt evidence of permission to use the file here is valid. It is claimed in its source's license details that "[a]ll [their] resources* are royalty free for use in both personal and commercial projects".[19] If you are an OTRS volunteer, can you check whether the ticket number is validated? --24.6.161.63 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket mentions five files but a further five files including this one have had the same ticket added. I have nominated them for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheMostAmazingTechnik. Green Giant (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help close as "kept" ...

Greetings: There is an ancient deletion nomination where a large pile of files will be KEPT due to PermissionOTRS|id=2015042310003016 as stated at the bottom of the section. I don't know why the reporting party didn't close the DN. I just closed the three above it by adding that tag, but I'm not an OTRS volunteer so I'm generating "your action will be reviewed" warnings which just means double work for us if I try to do all of them. Thank you for your help, I know you are as behind as we are, but it will be great to try to close out the March Deletion Nominations sometime in May, perhaps. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done by assorted admins. Green Giant (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dilemma

This image File:Porto de Paranaguá.jpg has both a deletion notice and an OTRS. Could a volunteer please look and resolve? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellin Beltz, the uploader was notified that the file had not received OTRS verification and by her own granted the permission. Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt requested more information to the uploader in 2009 and no response was received. Rodrigolopes (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the file. Thanks for the information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:BOH&MOR-1-Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia-1 Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg

I would like to aks an OTRS volunteer to check the permission for File:BOH&MOR-1-Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia-1 Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg. The license says: This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous. So why was sending a permission to OTRS needed? The authors were Bohumil Heinz (died 1940) and Bedřich Fojtášek (died 1990!). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, thank you for the question and apologies it took so long to answer. The ticket was created because it is essential to provide a source for each image, and obviously these images were created by Godot13 by digitizing the currency in the Smithsonian collection. Green Giant (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much time it takes for a confirmation of OTRS ticket validation?

Hello. I sent an email to the team of Behindwoods.com requesting permission for using this content on Wikipedia page of actor Allu Arjun after i observed a similar grant of permission by the website for this file. I've sent the mail on 23 March and its 23 April today. Can i know almost when i can get an email confirming the validated OTRS ticket link? Or, can any OTRS volunteer confirm the fact whether the ticket on this file, just like Bollywood Hungama, is valid for all images of the film related / other celebrity related events available in their website or just limited to that particular file? Please do respond. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any open ticket about Behindwoods.com. Would you know the ticket number? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: For this file, it was #2013081810003844. I've sent an email for using this content and want to upload it after the OTRS ticket link is sent to my email. Can you please verify whether #2013081810003844 applies only for that particular file or for all images of the film related / other celebrity related events available in Behindwoods.com just like "Parties & Events" in Bollywood Hungama? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from Pauli Vahtera

I’m not authorized to publish photos sent to me by Pauli Vahtera on Common or on Wikipedia, because with the first photo I uploaded came some meta data that belongs to the studio. What should I do? The studio naturally has no rights to those pictures whatsoever on the account that they were purchased by a private person. Now those photos have been handed to me for the purposes of retouching and publishing. The conversation relating to this issue can be found behind this link (This discussion is Finnish, so you need a translator) : [[20]] Does this mean that the OTRS by Pauli is the only option if one by me is not acceptable even though I’m the one editing the pictures into a form they can be published in? This same set of pictures is now, besides this incident, used on www.paulivahtera.fi. All the pictures on that site are edited by me as Pauli Vahtera’s campaign assistant and graphic designer. What can I do to have those photos put back up on Wikipedia and Common?

Waiting for further advises, with best regards Niina Vartiainen, graphics designer and campaign assistant Varttiniina (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Varttiniina[reply]

Hei, kirjoitan tämän Suomeksi, etten vahingossakaan ymmärrä enää mitään väärin. Minä en saa Pauli Vahteran, hänen itse minulle lähettämiään kuvia julkaistua commonsissa tai wikipediassa, sillä ensimmäisessä lataamassani edustuskuvassa tuli mukana studion metadata. Mitä teen? Studiolla ei luonnollisestikkaan ole oikeuksia kuviin ylipäätään, sillä kuvat ovat yksityishenkilön ostamia tuotteita jotka ovat delegoitu minulle muokattavaksi ja julkaistavaksi. Keskusteluketju löytyy tästä linkistä, viimeisen otsikon alta (Älä' lataa poistettua kuvaa): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Varttiniina#.C3.84l.C3.A4.27_lataa_poistettua_kuvaa Eikö Paulin OTRS-lupa ole nyt sitten ainoa vaihtoehto, mikäli minun lupaani ei hyväksytä, vaikka itse kuvankäsittelijänä muokkaan kuvat julkaisukelpoiseksi? Tätä samaa kuvasarjaa löytyy nyt myös tämän episodin jälkeen osoitteesta www.paulivahtera.fi mihin olen kaikki kuvat itse tehnyt Pauli Vahteran avustajana, joten mitä voin tehdä kuvien palauttamisen suhteen wikipediassa ja commonsissa? Ohjeita odotellessa, ystävällisin terveisin - Niina Vartiainen, graafikko ja Pauli Vahteran avustaja. Varttiniina (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Varttiniina[reply]

Varttiniina, apologiers for the late reply to your request. Normally the copyright to a photograph is held by the person who made the creative decisions. Usually that means the photographer is the copyright holder but the rights can be transferred by operation of law or by a contract. Simply buying a copy of a photo does not give the buyer any copyright. The only solution you have is to identify the copyright holder and ask them if they will license the photo(s). The best route to do that will be for the copyright holder to send a license statement to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org, preferably based on the sample statement at COM:ET. Once an OTRS volunteer has checked and verified the license, they can either request the file(s) be restored or in the case of an administrator, they can restore the files themselves. Please note that there is a significant backlog in the email system, so patience is advised. Please also note that if the same copyright holder wishes to license two or more files, they only need to send in one license statement, with a list of the files and where they can be found. If they have not been published before, then it is sufficient for them to attach the largest copy of each file to the email. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001-2008 Société Générale tower, La Défense, Paris.jpg

File is tagged for deletion but has an OTRS permission, please verify permission is for the image and the depicted building and state this info at the DR page. --Denniss (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the file was deleted because no OTRS agent had seen the deletion request. Should the file be undeleted again? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a DR also aplies to File:2001-2004 Headquarters for the press group Le Monde, Paris,.jpg. Rodrigolopes (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody from OTRS able or willing to answer? --Denniss (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters now but the permission seems to come from the photographer and not from the architect but my French is even worse than my German so probably best to ask a French speaking OTRS-speaker to second me of prove me wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Natuur. The permission is only from the photographer but not the architect. Green Giant (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image file of reptile has wrong name and taxon group

In OTRS I found a mail from a person who claims that a picture of a reptile does not belong to the taxon group it is named as.

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=8248830#9783213

regarding this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amphisbaena.jpg

The person who sent the mail is the same as the one who made a delete request of the picture back in 2011: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Amphisbaena.jpg

Im now awaiting confirmation from reptile experts who should be able to provide an answer, but I'm not sure how to deal with the picture.

Id say that the indication that this picture is not an Amphisbaena at all, is rather large, and that we should remove links from the different articles to the picture. I already removed the link from the taxon article on Wikispecies. I'm not sure weather the file on Commons should be deleted or renamed, but its not good that the file has remained where it is, not renamed, in possible error for almost four years, after a deletion request?

How to deal with this?

Regarding the OTRS issue, I have answered politely and asked him to wait for confirmation. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ask him why he believes that the ID is wrong? Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He writes:

The animal in the photo is

> probably an Scolecophidian (thread snakes), which are totally different to

> amphisbaenians. Amphisabena caeca should look like this:

> http://www.kingsnake.com/westindian/amphisbaenacaeca3.JPG.

This has been preliminary confirmed from Wikispecies user and reptile specialist Faendalimas, and we await full confirmation from his collegues, who are specialized on Amphisabena. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds convinsing. I'll replace the file cross wiki. I'm not an expert on reptiles but I know enough about them to tell that the mailer is probably correct ;). Natuur12 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To bad, there is no replcacement. Natuur12 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I checked with one of our students at MZUSP showing her the photo, she specialises in Amphisbaenids, I do not, she agreed it was not an Amphisbaenid but could not be sure what it is. So best option is the one you have gone for. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the latest correspondence, I had this messagem which gives a suggestion for a rename of this file, so we can go on and use it:

> I talked to my PhD thesis advisor, Dr. Richard Thomas at University of Puerto Rico, and showed the photo that was mistakenly labeled as Amphisbaena caeca. Dr. Thomas is specialist in Caribbean amphisbians and reptiles. He told me that the animal in the photograph is Typhlops platycephalus, indeed an scolecophidian as I stated in previous communications. Maybe you could assign that photograph to that article.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great :). I renamed the file and placed it in the articles about Typhlops platycephalus cross wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support that decision, it was a good choice, and thanks for putting the work into this and update cross-wiki. Ill take a look on Wikispecies as well. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we should change some details in the meta data for this picture, since it has been renamed, just to avoid any confusion? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014120810020067

File:Alesso profile.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Elijah Blake.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2014120810020067 (Mdann52)

The ticket appears to be limited to the two music PR photographs above. The Blake PNG appears a "web quality" crop which exists at larger resolutions and in different crops elsewhere on the internet, for example here. The Alesso image exists at higher resolution elsewhere, such as here. It is unclear why Def Jam would want to release lower resolution versions.

Presumably the production company Def Jam have made a claim of copyright on both photographs, however as we only have PNGs with no EXIF data, could they provide information about the photographer(s) to be credited and be asked if original files are available? --Fæ (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright does appear to be held by the production company - I suspect it is because it is better from their point of view to give us a low resolution image, then they have the high resolution version to sell on (as it is basically impossible to increase the quality of the file). I've emailed them again noneless asking if they know. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:TORTA185.jpg

This has an OTRS ticket. On the file information page, it says that the Italian Wikipedia uploader is the author (of both the photograph and the cake I presume). Does the OTRS ticket explain how a different user managed to upload the file to English Wikipedia three months earlier, and does the fact that the file was there earlier somehow invalidate the OTRS ticket? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info: The ticket is in Italian. FDMS 4 21:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan4: I don't speak Italian, but from reading it using Google translate, both licenses (for the images uploaded to :en and this image uploaded to :it originally) appear to be authentic in my judgment. (If you google the :it uploader's name, it's the name of a company, not a person's name.) --UserB (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Löschung der File:Dirk_Schmidt.jpg

Hallo leider wurde die Datei File:Dirk_Schmidt.jpg gelöscht obwohl ich als Rechteinhaber entsprechende Freigabe an die [email protected] gesendet habe. Können Sie nocheinmal nachschauen ob die EMai mit der Rechtefreigabe empfangen wurde und können Sie die Datei wieder einstellen? Dreihundertbilder (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Krd. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by SanaBasharat

SanaBasharat claims that an e-mail containing details of the permissions for File:Nick blood 2.png (by Birdie Thompson/AdMedia), File:Ruth Negga.jpg (by Samir Hussein/Getty Images) and File:Max irons.jpg (by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images) have been sent to OTRS. This seems rather unlikely given that the uploader claims to be the copyright holder of all of the photos despite the fact that they were clearly created by multiple different people, given that the uploader thinks that URLs can author photos, and given that Getty Images and other for-profit photo agencies typically don't allow publication of their content under free licenses. Was anything actually sent in? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LX - I cannot find any emails concerning these images. Green Giant (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tagged them as copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luke Ford - A History of X 2.jpg

The file summary states that this image is by Luke Ford, but it is a page from a book, which says the photo is by Stefan Valero. Could someone please check ticket:2007111210016632 and confirm whether Valero licensed this photo? FredWalsh (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FredWalsh (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket: 2015050810021863

Georgivac (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Hi, I am a Commons user and wish to confirm the permission as it states to please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard. The ticket #2015050810021863 and file is File:Tom Ricca aka Tony Ricca Autograph Signing.jpg. I confirm the permission. Thank you Georgivac (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgivac: {{PermissionOTRS}} means that no further action is required from you. FDMS 4 22:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 22:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was permission not recorded here?

Can someone look into the case described at User_talk:Piotrus#File:Zeal041015A.gif? Ping User:Túrelio. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the user talk page. Green Giant (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of picture Leon Mba in a coin

I would like to use the picture. I am creating educational materials to teach about Africa.

Presumably this file? Check out COM:REUSE and follow the terms of the license and you're good to go. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to confirm use of image (ticket #2013061010006654)

Hi there, apologies as new to this system. Simply wanted to "confirm the permission" for this image for a free educational video being made at Stanford University. Thanks!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Blausen_0144_BreastSelfExam_3Methods.png

Just follow the terms of the license and make sure you check out COM:REUSE and you're good to go. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket check

Ticket:2013062810002679 was initially issued for File:G-AWWX One-Eleven 509 Caledonian Aws LGW 30APR69 (6785547637).jpg in 2014. The author subsequently created a higher resolution of his original image to his Flickr account, the two files are very similar, but are not derivative works of each other, rather both are derived from an original source image, a slide. This high res version was uploaded to Commons by a globally blocked user as File:G-AWWX BAC One-Eleven 509 Caledonian Airways LGW 30APR69.jpg 3 days ago, reusing the original ticket. Can I ask for confirmation that the ticket has been modified to include permission for the use of the the new high res file.--KTo288 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KTo288! It looks like the ticket gives blanket permission from the file's creator to use any of his files at this link under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (in spite of the All rights reserved on Flickr) so the new upload of a better quality file that is included at that link (as this one is) is covered by the license. Thanks for checking! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bobamnertiopsis, for your speedy reply.--KTo288 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TicketID=8187117 ZURPICTURE

File:ZURPICTURE.jpeg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:? (Ldorfman)

The source and author is given as "WEINSPEN" which appears unnecessarily cryptic. Could the name of the copyright holder please be given and the full OTRS ticket number added rather than the internal database link please? --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info: The ticket is in Hebrew and its ID 2015031010021479. FDMS 4 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I added more information to the file details. As I mentioned there, the OTRS release approval was received from the picture's owner, in response to a request sent to the uploader. The link is to the mail received from the owner. Should I add anything else? I added the link the way I always do...

Ldorfman (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015020610007709 М Ишмаметов

File:М Ишмаметов.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015020610007709 (Mdann52)

This photograph appears to be from a Russian "family archive" and though presumably taken over 60 years ago, this iPhone image is marked as "own work" with the date in the information template incorrect. Could the details please be confirmed, and the legal name of the copyright holder added rather than an anonymous uploader account? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: The author value is correct according to the customer's eMail (standard template from a freemail address). @Mdann52: The customer hasn't received a response eMail yet. FDMS 4 13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "GREGI" does not seem appropriate as a way of explaining who is the copyright holder or photographer for the family archive "Баишевых Урманче". It is far more likely that the uploader wants to release their old family photographs but is only the person doing the digital scanning, rather than the photographer. The OTRS correspondence can provide an explanation of project guidelines, but must take reasonable steps to verify the claim of copyright that we all rely on, and ensure that the attribution, dates and basic details on the uploaded photographs, is correctly stated.

Similar questions should be addressed for File:Ильдар Урманче, 1980г..jpg (EPSON scanner image, 2011). --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4: My internet connection is intermittent at the minure, I've replied asking for clarification on the dates. However, it does seem he is the heir to the works, so therefore the copyright holder, however I've asked if he knows the authors names (otherwise, "unknown" may have to do). --Mdann52talk to me! 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Logo_First_Strike_1.2.png

That Image is made by us, Team First Strike and we have all Rights on this Image, please undo this deletion. --Moritz Gerber (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritz Gerber: Please follow the procedure described on COM:OTRS. (The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team has not received any eMail from a @firststrike.mobi address.) FDMS 4 00:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blanchard-Laville 2010.jpg

Hello, I met this problem when I upload a file on wikimedia Commons. As I explain, I am the owner of this photograph, but I downloades it in 2014 on Amazon's Website to improve the page of Claudine Blanchard-Laville, at her request. How could I be allowed to put it on Wikimedia Commons now ? I copy/paste the conversation here below. Thank you for your answer.--Pierrette13 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC) File:Blanchard-Laville 2010.jpg "The image is here: http://www.amazon.fr/Claudine-Blanchard-Laville/e/B007T1N1PY I think the uploader must prove that he or she owns this photograph, or must obtain permission from the owner."[reply]

Claudine Blanchard-Laville - Hello, I took this picture in 2010 and I gave it to Amazon, at the request of Claudine Blanchard-Laville, in 2014, while helping her to improve her page on Amazon's website. I don't know how I can prove my rights on this picture. I put it on Wikimedia Commons in an attempt to have it available for everyone. Have a nice day --Pierrette13 (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OTRS volunteers, please read the message I left on this user's discussion page. I gave a couple of suggestions but I asked the uploader to come here for expert help. The claim is that the uploader owns the picture but gave it to the subject to improve her Amazon page. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014121810000328 Tony Ricca

File:Tony Ricca video screenshot.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2014121810000328 (UserB)

Could the background of this ticket please be added to the image page? The image appears to be a screenshot taken from a TV screen, based on the line striations and visible glass reflection. If the claim of authorship is from a member of the family, it would have to be spelt out how this video screen capture is property of the family, rather than a broadcaster. Note that a Google search shows derivatives of the image exclusively in spam twitter feeds. It remains unclear how UserB has access to the OTRS ticket which pre-dates this image by several months.

I was alerted to this image from User:Faebot/Flickrstreams of concern. Note that the two images illustrating Tony Ricca appear to be doubtful for copyright and have been marked for review. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Message #3 in ticket Ticket#2014121810000328 seems to be saying that this video was from the grantor's private recording, not from a TV broadcast. That was the basis under which I accepted it. If you believe that I am misinterpreting what they are saying or would prefer to ask a follow-up question to verify, please feel free to do so - I'm not territorial about such things. --UserB (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is ambiguity, then the copyright ownership should be made unambiguous. Someone ought to check that out and as I do not have access to OTRS it cannot be me. I did not catch on to the fact you access OTRS under a different account name than the one you used to add the OTRS ticket to the image page. --Fæ (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Sometime this week, I assume, the obnoxious problem with my user name will be resolved when they move conflicting names out of the way and everyone uses their SUL username on every wiki. The current process is really annoying - I have to use one browser for Commons and one for Wikipedia because if I log in using my "B" account, it logs me out of Commons (since the B on Commons is someone else) and if I log in using my UserB account, then I lose my admin buttons on :en. So my solution is to use Firefox on :en and Chrome on Commons. Anyway, to answer the question about the ticket, yes, I completely agree with everything you said, and if another OTRS user would like to look at the ticket and see if they reach the same conclusion I did, I welcome the review. ~~Random side note: both permissions-en and permissions-commons have unacceptably long backlogs. Have you considered volunteering to help with the permissions queues?~~ --UserB (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was abruptly kicked out for still unexplained reasons, so I have little doubt that applying would just be a humiliating experience. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to step on toes, I try and steer clear of the drama. --UserB (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Follow-up: http://www.tomricca.com/ has what looks like to be a broadcast video source for this image (click on the first circle icon). I have sent a follow-up message to the emailer seeking clarification, but I am no longer inclined to accept this without a really good explanation. --UserB (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. Certainly wider searches show this primarily in spam type use and the Wikipedia article was using problematic images (more being recently added). If the family are involved, then they may benefit from being encouraged to scan and release original personal photographs where they can get a release from the photographer (or make a reasonable claim to be the inheritor).

Problematic related images without verified copyright claims include:

--Fæ (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed those as well and included those in my message to the emailer. --UserB (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: , Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Ricca video screenshot.jpg --B (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone at permissions-commons-es?

Can anyone validate the authorization sent to OTRS regarding the uploads in here? Best regards --Discasto _talk 19:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket number is 2015041410023342, but I don't speak Spanish so I can't help beyond that. I looked quickly at the uploader's talk page (which I can't read) without Google translate. The uploader gives [21] as his website and that website proclaims a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. So, it isn't a question of validating that the uploader is the photographer, since even if the uploader were an imposter, the website has a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license for the images. There certainly needs to be some explanation (whether in the ticket or otherwise) as to the circumstances of, say, File:Maria Uriz y Alfredo Kraus, La Favorita.jpg, which is watermarked with what I guess is a theater name. Ditto for File:Maria Uriz y Placido Domingo en Adriana Lecouvreur.jpg. From what the uploader said on his talk page, is he actually the original photographer, or are these scans of photos he has collected? --UserB (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UserB, isn't there any Spanish-speaking person in charge of the Spanish-speaking queue? I do know that the requirements for being a member of the OTRS team are rather demanding (I offered to help but it seems as if authorization checking for commons must be assessed according to what goes on outside commons (see meta:OTRS/Volunteering#Discasto). When it comes to the issue, Klaus Dolle is the photographer, as he's explained many times. He's also the husband of María Uriz and the pictures were made by him. The logotype was added afterwards in order to identify the pictures towards the fans (so that they could know where the promotional pictures were taken). The point has been discussed in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Pictures_by_Klaus_Dolle. Is that enough? --Discasto _talk 08:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the queues take a little time to be processed. Nobody is going to imminently delete the photos on Commons. I realize it can be frustrating. If you would like to let Klaus Dolle know (in Spanish) that his message has been received, please do so. --UserB (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already talk to him (in fact he's really upset because most of his pictures were deleted -Yann restored them after our discussion in the the Undeletion Noticeboard-), but it seems as if not even with the standard procedure (the OTRS authorization) it's possible to have a smooth experience. Mr. Dolle's pictures are extremely valuable (given the restrictive IPR laws in Spain) and after so many deletions, discussions and the like I'm still wondering how he's still willing to contribute. With regard to time response, it's up to you (in my particular case, and provided I've been an admin in commons for years -therefore I know well copyright regulations- and that I have the reviewer flag, I offered to help with the permissions-commons-es queue, to no avail). Best regards --Discasto _talk 13:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Discasto: Please note that there is at least a seven-day period for comment on OTRS volunteers before your application is approved or rejected, so that hasn't quite elapsed - unless you have received an email telling you that your application was rejected, the fact that you haven't had an official reply does not mean anything. I can certainly understand Mr. Dolle's frustration. Since the source website has the license on it, I don't see a reason that any license reviewer (you included) couldn't tag these images as having been "license review"ed if you are completely convinced that the claim of authorship is truthful. Since he has the statement of license on his website, there is no magical blessing with which an OTRS volunteer can endow these images that would make them any more okay to use than they already are. Eventually, a Spanish-speaking OTRS volunteer will look at them, but that can take time. My biggest concern is that it needs to be explained very clearly (an OTRS ticket, on the image description page, whatever) where any of the remotely questionable ones are from. For example, File:Venecia, vista diferente.jpg does not look like a photograph. Is it a painting or a drawing of some kind? If so, is he the original artist? If it is a photo and he used some sort of sepia filters to make it look like this, that's fine - it just needs to be clearly stated. The ones like File:1972-La Coruña (Recital para Francisco Franco).jpg that are clearly old scanned photos, it needs to be clearly stated (if it is not already) on the image description page that he is the photographer of the original photo. If someone is looking at this and has only the information on the image description page and the OTRS ticket, they need enough info that they can reach the same conclusion that the license is legitimate. --UserB (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@UserB: Why is {{Own}} not enough? Klaus Dolle uploads pictures to commons and states Own work... so, authorship is clear, isn't it? --Discasto _talk 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Discasto: (Please keep in mind that other people may have different opinions - I am only giving you my opinion.) There are (at least) two reasons that having more than {{Own}} would be a good idea. (1) A lot of people incorrectly believe that if they see a creative work and scan it or take a picture of it that they own the copyright and can now license it. If you upload an image that doesn't look like something you created with a 21st century digital camera (complete with EXIF data), then it is a really good idea to clarify that you understand that just scanning someone else's work doesn't make you the copyright holder and that you are actually the photographer of the original photo. (2) Twenty years from now, Mr. Dolle may not be available to answer questions about the image and his website where someone can see that he is a professional photographer might not be accessible. So if some future deletionist Wikimedian looks at the image description page, you want that person to have enough information that they will conclude that the license is valid. Does that mean it's a requirement? I don't know, but it just seems like a good idea. --UserB (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note his sentence in his talk page: "All [photos] are made by me or made for advertising (free of copyright) by the photographer or photographers in theaters where my wife has acted". It is not clear which photos are own and why promotional ones are copyright free. --V.Riullop (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right, @Vriullop: . I hadn't read such a paragraph and I've asked Mr. Dolle a clarification. Best regards and thank you for your attention --Discasto _talk 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with ticket

Can anyone help with this? I don't think he can affirm he is the copyright's holder.Willy Weazley 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note for you on the ticket. The article the content is for was deleted at AFD so regardless of copyright, it is likely not useful for any Wikimedia project. --B (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee Jordan Field in the snow.jpg

File:Lee Jordan Field in the snow.jpg an email was sent to OTRS, please restore the image. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone looking at this, the ticket number is 2013070110002511. The email that I assume User:Evrik is referring to is from 1/13/2015. I'm slightly confused by what I'm seeing here in this ticket and I would have handled it differently, but I think this is sufficient. --B (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please restore it ... Thanks! Evrik (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: You need a Commons admin to do that (I am not one). Pinging @Magog the Ogre: who is a Commons admin and OTRS volunteer. --B (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undeleted the file now and updated it to "OTRS received". Could an OTRS member please update the description file asap. Thx. Ju Ta 16:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate clarification from OTRS people at deletion discussion (Bollywood Hungama)

I would appreciate clarification from someone involved with OTRS at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gauri Pradhan Tejwani- Disney Princess Academy.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:HitenTejwaniGauriPradhan.jpg. They're basically the same point but different images. I'm basically asking:

whether or not we have really obtained individual OTRS permission for use of specific those images, as seems to be claimed; and
if not, because the point is that OTRS is satisfied by the overarching BollywoodHungama release, then how have reviewing volunteers ascertained that images meet the release requirements when there seems to be no evidence on the linked source web pages to support that assertion

Sorry for being a pain but this is an issue that has irked me for ages. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we already have had this discussion. IIRC, the conclusion was that all pictures on their website which are made in India are OK, except movie stills, posters, etc., which are not made by Bollywood Hungama. Bollywood Hungama does not organise parties or events, it only sends photographers to parties or events organised by others. The permission is for all pictures taken by its photographers. My 2 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request use of photo

By Marjorie Kaufman, old car in Cuba. File:Antique_car,_Havana,_Jan_2014,_image_by_Marjorie_Kaufman.jpg To insert in a post in the Google Earth Community. Rough draft: http://googleearthcommunity.proboards.com/thread/new/13

(Sorry if I'm not doing this right. The instructions for all of this stuff are mind-boggling.

Diane Putnam

We do not grant permission to use photos; we simply confirm the permissions that have been sent to us. In this case, I can say that the permission is legitimate.

You are free to use this photo for any purpose, as long as you follow these terms. Essentially, you have to give credit give others permission to use any changed version in the same way. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 00:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olga Havlová - portrét.jpg

Hello, please undelete File:Olga Havlová - portrét.jpg as the permission came to OTRS under ticket:2015050410020602 (I already verified it). I don't have admin rights on Commons. Thank you. --Mates (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mates -

Done. Green Giant (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Archie Kao HK Film Awards 2015.jpg

An IP has added {{CopyvioOTRS}} to this file[22], which had OTRS permission from the day before[23]. Could someone check, please. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Túrelio and Krd (who answered the ticket), it is from the copyright holder, so I don't think this is a copyvio case. Green Giant (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

restriction removal

Hi! recently i uploaded a photo (Yuval_Diskin_.jpg), but it took a while to get the creator's permission so it was deleted. I now have the permission and uploaded it to the hebrew wikipedia server. However, I can't move it to wikicommons, since it was deleted. Could you please remove the restriction so I could upload it? Thank you. (the link to the photo on hebrew wiki: here). Goony663 (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File already uploaded as File:Yuval Diskin .jpg? Green Giant (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to use image in OTRS archives

I have submitted an OTRS permission request for the https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Mark_Angelo_at_Britannia_Creek.jpg file. It is being used on the Britannia Creek wiki. Can you confirm that I am allowed to do this? It was reinstated upon the proper request for permission to wikipedia but I want to make sure it is useable on the page given the notice on the file's page. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The permission appears to be from the copyright holder, the license is a free one. You can use it in any Wikimedia page, provided it is appropriate to that page. I assume you are talking about Britannia Creek, where the photo has been added to the "public awareness" section. Commons does not editorialise where such files are used but as a Wikipedian I think it is fine there. If anyone disagrees, take it up on the article talk page. Green Giant (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS received?

File:Dream_back_to_Guiyang_No.6_High_School.svg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Guiyang No.6 High School.svg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Can any OTRS agent confirm that emails regarding to these files have been received? It has been almost a month since the uploader tagged the files with {{OTRS pending}}. --Wcam (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this request. --Wcam (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 21:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS cm-pvarzim.pt

Hi! Is there any OTRS ticket available for files from http://www.cm-pvarzim.pt, uploaded by user PedroPVZ (talk · contributions · Number of edits)? He claims to have forward a related permission per "permition was granted, and wikipedia informed by email." (see also :User talk:Gunnex#not true). Affected files: weblinks and/or all files tagged by with no permission at User talk:PedroPVZ. Pinging @PedroPVZ: which will provide more details soon. Gunnex (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket: 2012050910008426 from 2012. The mail is in Portuguese language. -- Geagea (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geagea. Is there a way to put that in the pictures. I get doubts about it all the time and it is not pleasant. ---PedroPVZ (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need OTRS volunteer that speak Portuguese. -- Geagea (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to: @Beria: , @Lijealso: , @Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt: , @Waldir: . -- Geagea (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I'm unsure why the responding agent didn't acknowledge the validity of the granted permission by the original author (and yet closed the ticket as successful), but I can confirm the original authors understood the parameters of the license and agreed with them. I'll add the template to the images if it hasn't been done yet. Thanks for the heads up. --Waldir ^talk 08:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please check to see if everything looks ok. --Waldir ^talk 09:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an image on an official website of a band has a suitable license, can I upload a cropped version of it?

Hello,

Please, if the official website of a musical band has a page with a gallery of pictures, and a specific picture has the license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International next to the author of the image, may I upload a cropped version of that picture, and provide the link to that page with the gallery as the source, and specify the author? Or would I have to upload the entire image? I ask the question because if I crop the picture then I am altering it, so it's no longer exactly what the author created. So I don't know if that causes a problem. I don't fully understand the attribution aspect of that license. Many thanks in advance for your kind help! Dontreader (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dontreader, you can upload a cropped version because a -BY-SA license permits derivatives as long as you credit the author and use the same license. It is also worth requesting a {{License review}}. Green Giant (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Giant, many thanks for your very clear answer, and also for suggesting that I request a license review. I had no idea that such a thing existed, and it's clearly ideal for a picture that I have already uploaded because I do worry that the source I provided might disappear because the musical band seems to be changing their website to a different domain (or server - whatever it's called). This is awesome! Thanks so much again for your kind help and advice! Dontreader (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Green Giant (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring 2 files

Hello, please restore File:Eva_Francová_spisovatelka.jpg and File:HF-purple-with-chair.jpg. Permission came into OTRS, see ticket:2015052210007871. Thank you. --Mates (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. @Mates: You can continue with the ticket. And please use COM:UDR in future. Ankry (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: Thank you. I'll do next time. I didn't now about that page. Sorry. Regards --Mates (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket for Tamannaah Blender's pride 2011.jpg

Hi. My username is Namma Pillar, Nice meeting you all.

On March 16, 2015, i have uploaded this file and User:Fae told me that it missed permission. I asked its owner Subhash Rajali to mail the consent for using this file on commons at [email protected] and he did the same which i know since he sent a mail saying the same. After User:Fae suggested me to place OTRS pending tag, i placed it on March 19, 2015. Today is May 1, 2015 and till ow, the ticket is not placed there. Thus, i request the volunteers to let me know thgat did Subhash Rajali sent a mail to commons for using this image from his Flickr account? Here is the link : https://www.flickr.com/photos/130270806@N08/16807112556/

Any volunteer reading this please respond soon. I dont want to see my first upload being deleted.

With hope that i can get the ticket link very soon Yours sincerely Namma Pillar (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Open Access logo PLoS white.svg

File:Open Access logo PLoS white.svg is listed on its description page as being CC0, but the SVG itself indicates that it is CC-BY-SA. Can someone check otrs:2011083010020725 to see which one it really is? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: CC0 according to the ticket. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 00:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also ping JakobVoss, who added the metadata, ~~but that may not be fruitful judging by the contributions page~~ still active on the German Wikipedia. If there's no objection, I'll change the metadata.

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

你好，可以像您问一个问题吗？

Hi, I'm using an image with ticket #2014032410003278 for a Faculty newsletter. Thanks.

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2015051810023664

FYI: I created the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constantine_Maroulis.jpg I had submitted an email from the photographer with text from an email from him received via Facebook, which was deemed insufficient permission. Today I received an email from him where he explicitly gives permission for the photo to be used under the license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. This email has been duly forwarded to you. I hope this resolves the issue. Thank you. Sincerely, Vickmeister (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Vickmeister, aka Vicky Welfare[reply]

I have looked over the forwarded message and confirmed permission. Thanks, Vickmeister! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sorry Day poster.jpg

Could someone please check on File:Sorry Day poster.jpg. The image source given is the webpage of a College, and the webpage istelf is copyright, but for some reason the image is listed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Since the College is selling these posters on the website, it's surprising that they are apparently copyright free. The other problem I have is that the author is listed simply as "Scarlet23". It seems strange that a commercial image from a college has been produced by someone under their Wikimedia user name. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a ticket from the author via offical email confirming the license. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#: 2015052310007547]

In reference to the images listed in the ticket above, will someone at OTRS correct the attribution or should new images be uploaded? TIA VTflatlander (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, the artist who created the works depicted has given her permssion to use the photographs of the work. The Wikipedia article about her is basically finished except for the photos which I feel are central to the overall piece. VTflatlander (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience, VTflatlander. The copyright release was acceptable and I've made the subsequent modifications to the images in question (File:Steel little h covered in red velvet.png, File:Little m child's chair.jpg, and File:Little h in birch.jpeg). I've also mentioned this at the deletion discussion so hopefully that will be closed soon. Thanks for interfacing with the artist on these to secure the permission and for working on the article about her. Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help.VTflatlander (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dish-Stirling_Principle.png

Hello, I got permission to upload that file under CC licence from owner by email and forwarded that email to [email protected] and [email protected] but I didn't get back any OTRS code or any response at all. Image is now deleted and probably other images from that mail will be deleted soon. What should I do? Interlooks (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did you send the email?Willy Weazley 16:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shaun Foist.jpg

Hi. I'm not entirely sure this is the place I should be asking this question, though I figured I'd go ahead anyway: Is keeping the logo on the image in-tact part of the license agreement? The ticket number is 2015021210021146. If it's not, I'd like to edit it out so it can be used on the English Wikipedia. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be the watermark you're referring to! You can already use the image as-is on Wikipedia if you'd like. That said, watermarks are discouraged on Commons since theoretically all the author data and everything should be contained on the file's description page. Because all acceptable free licenses on Commons allow for derivative works, you are allowed (some might suggest encouraged) to go ahead and crop out/black out watermarks. The resulting watermark-free file is a derivative work, completely allowed per Commons policy. Hope this helps! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jacedc (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fassbender - Cannes 2009 Photo

Hi, I'd like to use a photo of Michael Fassbender from Cannes 2009 for an article.

Thank you.

Presumably this file? So long as you follow the terms of the license then you're free to do so. See COM:REUSE for more info. Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimmy Doyle musician 1990.jpg

Can someone please confirm that the permission email for File:Jimmy Doyle musician 1990.jpg that I uploaded on 2 April 2015 has been received? The copyright holder sent the permission statement either in the evening on 2 April 2015, or early on 3 April 2015. I am sorry, I do not know the OTRS ticket number. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much for your help. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniele Radini Tedeschi.JPG

This photo does not appear to be a selfie, yet the subject is listed as the author according to the file description, which has supposedly been vetted by OTRS. The photo itself was sourced from a Google search result, which usually isn't a good sign that the uploader has obtained permission from the real author. Second opinion? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: The ticket contains a forwarded eMail from the depicted person's (former, checked Wayback) official eMail address releasing "photo that portrays me and cover images of my publications and my personal data" (machine-translated) under the CC BY-SA 3.0 IT, no requests for clarification. What is a bit strange about the eMail is that the original message Mr. Tedeschi replied to appears to have been manually removed. Ping User:Mike V. FDMS 4 14:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{section resolved}} Green Giant (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not resolved. Still waiting for a comment from Mike V. Still waiting for credible authorship information. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A forwarded email came from the article subject. He asserted that he was the copyright holder and provided the proper permission release. The email address used was verified as belonging to the subject. The original image was also provided in the email. While it's true that the original message was manually removed, that's not really relevant for a permission release. It not unreasonable to believe that this is a self-portrait. (After all, not all "selfies" are photos taken on your cell phone with your arm outreached.) It was taken with a common point-and-shoot camera, the photo could easily have been taken on a tripod or set on a shelf while using a timer, and quite frankly, the image doesn't look like it's of professional quality. Just because the image shows up in a Google search doesn't mean he isn't the copyright holder. He could have authorized someone else to use the image. Are there any known uses of this image that claim a different copyright holder? Mike V • Talk 18:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the file's metadata to suggest it was taken using a timer. One would expect a "Shooting mode: Delay" or similar entry if that were the case. I'm not saying it looks professional. Most professionals would not use a point-and-shoot camera. I'm saying I'm not convinced this photo was taken by the subject of the photo. The most likely scenario in my opinion is that it was taken by a family member, friend or acquaintance and that the subject believes that being the subject of the photo makes him the copyright holder. That's a common enough misunderstanding that it really should be on the OTRS volunteers' checklist to rule out for any permissions where the person issuing the permission is the person depicted. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, thanks for responding. Based on the information above, I decided to initiate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Daniele Radini Tedeschi.JPG. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015042910005094 Summery Mind

ticket:2015042910005094 (Reinhard Kraasch)

File:Summery mind Gruppenfoto 03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could the photographer please be clearly credited, or it verified that all creative rights were released to the band? The current attribution of "Summery Mind, Fabian Schmidt" seems unlikely as Schmidt is in the photograph. This image is used as the lead illustration for the German Wikipedia article on the band.

File:Summery mind Album logo Belonging 02.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could the album artwork artist please be credited? The credit of "Summery Mind" does not appear to be a valid credit for such an artwork.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The band represented by Fabian Schmidt claims to be the copyright holder (or, according to German law "Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts" since "Urheberrecht" in German law is somehow different from the British/US "copyright"). As such it is not necessary to further credit or attribute the artist, and the support team usually follows the wishes of the copyright holder regarding attribution. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate that UK and German law differ with regard to moral rights. I was under the impression, based on my reading of online sources, that the 'author's rights of personality' cannot be waived, so it would be expected in a German attribution statement. Is there a Commons policy that explains this approach taken of skipping this attribution for the works of German artists who may have been on commission? --Fæ (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a big difference. The UK copyright holder is also completely free in his decision which kind of attribution he wishes, the same applies in Germany, the only difference is in the institution of "copyright holder" - according to German law you cannot give up the author's rights ("Urheberrecht"), but the author can waive all rights of usage ("vollumfängliches Nutzungsrecht"), this is what happened here. To leave the kind of attribution in such a case up to the holder of the rights of usage is the regular practise within the support team. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caitlin Canty.jpg

I believe this image is referred to by Ticket:2015042410004559; if an admin+OTRS agent could take a look at them it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015050610016097 AVIA Oldenzaal.png

File:AVIA Oldenzaal.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015050610016097 (Sphilbrick)

I noticed this photograph in particular as it is a png and has minimal EXIF data on Commons, this often indicates being taken from a website. I find copies of this image being published on the internet with a conflicting copyright claim back to Aug 2014, with the Commons upload being this month by a single purpose account, the same account being used to add it to the Dutch article on AVIA. Could the correspondence be double checked please to account for these oddities? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to detail. I, too, was puzzled and still am puzzled that it is a .PNG image rather than a.jpg image.

There are two related reasons why I am comfortable with the permission. The permission came from a corporate email associated with the company. Second the image appears identical to an image which appears to be associated with the company and has a.PNG extension.

image

Please let me know if this does not satisfy you and suggest steps if it does not.

If anyone has any reason to think that avia.nl is not associated with the Avia company, please let me know.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, in the course of reviewing the long email chain I noticed that they identified the photographer early in the discussion so I edited the file to include that name. And in addition, I changed the source entry to refer to the online version.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I think the red flags for this case have been resolved by publishing the name of the photographer and confirmation of a corporate involvement (though obviously this is a potential issue for associated Wikipedia COI, not something to concern us for the image alone). Using the same methods I used to apply for my own OTRS ticket verification, it is obviously a sufficiently credible claim. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Dressing

File:Well-dressing-train.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015031810029475 (Sphilbrick)

Could we have confirmation that the correspondence was from the artist/designer as well as the photographer (who appears to be the organization)? If confirmed then it would be great if this were added more clearly to the image page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear when I first read it (referred to "media work") but upon reflection that may not be definitive. I'll ask.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response that the Mayfield Heritage Group is the copyright holder of both the photo and the underlying art object. --Sphilbrick (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)ticket:2015031810029475 [reply]

Thanks for adding the information to the image page. --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Androgen receptor 3-d model.jpg: resolution check

File:Androgen receptor 3-d model.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2012070510009358 (JuTa)

Can someone check and see if there is a low resolution restriction on this image? The one on the actual website is much higher resolution, making it much easier to read the labels and such. Plus, usually low-resolution restrictions are for photographs that are intended to be sold, which this is clearly not.

Or, if it's unclear, could you ask them? Such a low resolution version just seems strange. --Trlkly (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trlkly: my reading of the ticket is that permission was specifically granted for the image appearing at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Androgen_receptor_3-d_model.jpg . I have sent a follow-up message to the copyright holder to ask for permission to use the higher resolution image. --B (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trlkly: You will be happy to know that the copyright holder has granted permission. I have uploaded the larger version over top of the existing File:Androgen receptor 3-d model.jpg image. --B (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015020910003029 SwordSaga

File:SwordSaga Icon.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015020910003029 (Whym)

The image page does not explain who is releasing this all rights reserved image (see http://www.swordsaga.com), presumably with authority of the distribution company and website owner (Proficient City) apart from the single purpose anonymous account that uploaded this image in February 2015. Could the verification be confirmed and the image page updated with these details please? --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ:

Done. Fæ was right. Both LyHara and ProficientCity were mentioned in the email, but LyHara was the agent and ProficientCity was the copyright holder. whym (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: whym (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket for a class video project

I help to manage Wikimedia activities with Tec de Monterrey, recently recognized as a user group with the WMF as Wiki Learning see here [24] and here [25]

One of our projects this summer is the creation of instructional videos for basic or common tasks performed by classes and other activities at Tec de Monterrey classes. I have a group of 6 students working on this for community service hours. My question is how to go about uploading these videos to Commons, making sure that these students have credit for their work and that you are satisfied that they have released their work under a CC-by-SA 4.0 license. I can have them sign a document to this effect and with photocopies of their student IDs (all are over 18) and mail it to you from my Tec de Monterrey email address. Would this be sufficient for verification purposes?

Thank you!

Thelmadatter (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of options here, Thelmadatter: First, if your students have Tec de Monterrey email accounts, a message from those with the standard permission language would be sufficient. Your students could also create their own Commons accounts and upload the files directly in that manner. Your proposed method, scanned signed permissions, would also be acceptable. I hope this helps! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see something I didnt make clear. The students are working collaboratively on the videos, so each video will be credited to multiple creators. They all have accounts.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! In that case, since everyone has accounts, simply indicating each of the students involved by username in the |author= section of the description template. I think that should be sufficient. If you want, you can make note on each uploaded file that they were created collaboratively for the class but it's certainly not required. Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015053110008861 Smithvane1976

File:Smithvane1976.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015053110008861 (Sphilbrick)

There are 12 photographs of weather vanes on Commons with this ticket. They appear to be the work of David Smith as one is used on en.wp with this stated. Could this be made explicit in the image page text rather than pointing to a pseudonymous account? --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming (based on the uploader's user name) that the uploader is David Smith. If the uploader prefers to be credited on Commons with his pseudonymous account, why do we need to force him to use his real name? I have uploaded lots of photos that I took and all of them credit UserB, not my real name. If you upload something from Bob Public's website, then yes, we need to say "Bob Public" is the author, not Fae. But if you, in fact, are Bob Public, then it's up to you whether you want to be credited as Bob Public or Fae. --B (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, however the artist uses his real name in other places and one of these photographs is credited to his real name on the English Wikipedia. If the artist asked to have their copyright attribution to an alias that would be fine, however obscuring the attribution unnecessarily ought to be avoided so that reusers can be assured that they are correctly respecting moral rights. --Fæ (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask @Smithvane: how he would like to be credited on Wikipedia and Commons - whether he would like his real name or his user name used. If the uploader is the copyright holder, then they are fully capable of editing the image description page to attribute themselves in whatever manner they please. --B (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, correct and accurate attribution is fundamental to the OTRS correspondence and should be in place for the license to be meaningful. A non OTRS volunteer doing this later undermines the point of OTRS verification. --Fæ (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean we should out the uploader in this case? That doesn't seem just to me. Btw, there is really nothing wrong with this atribution. The copyright holder is per the licensing terms allowed to chose how he wants to be attributed. It is not up to OTRS to change the kind off attribution he has chosen. Natuur12 (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be particularly stupid for me to be asking to randomly out people. Please do not polarise discussion this way.

At no point has anyone claimed that the existing OTRS correspondence states that David Smith has required use of a pseudonym. If that is the case then we can discuss that conflicting issue. My presumption is that David Smith has made no such request.

Any reuser can Google the image and find the Copyright statement Description text and images Copyright © 2001-2015 David Smith here. The upload to Commons makes no attempt to explain this. So that any reuser can proceed without doubt, the image page should give sufficient information to assure that both copyright statements are correct. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how does this give us the right to change the attribution of the rightholders choise? Natuur12 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot sensibly answer without knowing if this was explicitly required in the OTRS correspondence. Was it? --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to know is that the copyright holder picked this attribution and there for it is legally correct. When and where he picked this specific attribution doesn't matter. You are free to ask him if he wants to use his real name or his account name. But really, it is getting annoying that people need to argue with you over minor details after the rightsholder told the OTRS-team that they are happy and when there are no real legal problems in place. This makes OTRS-work less fun and it frustrates the copyright holder. Natuur12 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness you found that statement! There seems no problem of correctly adding "David Smith" to the attribution as we have "I am David Smith, creator and owner of the images" already published on Commons and your earlier concern "So you mean we should out the uploader in this case?" is now made irrelevant.

--Fæ (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculptures by David Smith now created and added to the 12 photographs, most of which had no categories, as nobody with OTRS access seems interested in taking responsibility. It would be sensible if OTRS volunteers confirmed the required attribution, before marking images as verified, where the artist is using a pseudonym in conflict with their publicly declared copyright statement elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: Natuur12 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agro.jpg

Hello, my school has sent a copyright email to [email protected], the ticket number is ticket:2015052210004766. I just realised that following this ticket, somebody has undeleted File:Hunnan-1.jpg (Thanks!), whereas File:Agro.jpg has not been restored. Is there any particular reason? The school has declared the copyright for both of them in their mail... Could you please double check? Thank you!--Neyc.alumni.france (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Green Giant: , who restored File:Hunnan-1.jpg and @Wong128hk: , who processed the ticket. FYI, this statement of permission is in Chinese so I'm reading it using Google translate. The statement of permission purports to cover these images for a CC-BY-4.0 International license:

Unless Agro.jpg is something patently unrelated (e.g., a typo), it does look like it should be restored under this ticket, but again, I don't speak Chinese and I am not a Commons admin, so I can't see what the file actually is. --B (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is done... Thank you very much...--Neyc.alumni.france (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: B (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use photo

Hello,

I am interested in using the following image for to accompany an article I am publishing on thewittyagent.com: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amy_Schumer_by_Mario_Santor.jpg

Please can someone let me know if I may use this image? If so, please advise on the proper person in which to give credit to.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.252.33 (talk • contribs)

Please see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for general information about using Commons images outside of Wikimedia projects. The photographer of this image is "Mario Santor". The copyright holder granted anyone (including you) permission to use this image so long as you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. --B (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: B (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed photos - Żubrówka

Hello

I've received and sent permission for some of deleted files - and, since a Ticket:2015060110013258 awaits for over two weeks now - I'd love to have some feedback.

Sincerly --Navias (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied through OTRS --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jarekt (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Magic Wand (picture from the Walters Museum)

I would like to use the picture on my blog to promote different museum exhibits that students can visit during the summer.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Egyptian_-_Magic_Wand_Depicting_a_Procession_of_Deities_-_Walters_71510_-_Back.jpg

Thank you,

Judith Munger

Alexander Galt Regional High School

Library

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.188.2 (talk • contribs)

Hi Judith, please see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for general information about using Commons images outside of Wikimedia projects. This particular image should be credited as "Walters Art Museum". The copyright holder has granted anyone (including you) permission to use this image so long as you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. --B (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I have contacted this user via email. --B (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2006021910002279/USCG C130 Hercules.jpg

Date: 6/15/15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_HC-130#/media/File:USCG_C130_Hercules.jpg

I need to confirm that this photo can be used commercially for no charge under the Creative Commons License listed on the page. Dpeterson085 (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see COM:REUSE and follow the terms of the license (CC-BY-2.5) and you are welcome to use it, even commercially. All the best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use a photo

Hi,

I'd like to use this photo File:Bogdan_Klich_66._posiedzenie_Senatu.JPG. never done ORTS before, so please forgive me:)

Rafał Madajczak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.235.53.122 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16. Jun. 2015‎ (UTC)

Hi, if you want to re-use this file, please have a look at Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia as stated in the box at the top of this page. Regards, --Emha (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Emha (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stella_Artois_Logo.png

I can believe Stella sent OTRS permission to use the logo, but did they _really_ send permission to use it under Attribution 3.0 Unported? That seems remarkable. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did. Ticket checks out. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jr_makupu.jpg

Hello there! Pictures file:jr_mapuku.jpg and file:veselin_penev.jpg have been deleted although I have send an email to [email protected] declaring that the author of the files is OK with publishing them to wikimedia on March 10th 2015, which was within the deadline. What can be done so that these files be undeleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neyche (talk • contribs)

E-mail reply was sent at 11 June 2015, without any answer yet. --Krd 09:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noel Coward 2008.jpg

Could somebody please check whether the OTRS-ticket for this image gives permission from the photographer or from the sculptor. In the latter case, please remove the FOP-unknown template. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Krd 10:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015051610020456 Saugatuck Cures Official Poster

File:Saugatuck Cures Official Poster.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015051610020456 (Sphilbrick)

No doubt the release was from Matthew Ladensack, the producer. Could the image page be amended to state that so the copyright owner is unambiguously clear? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct the release was from Matthew Ladensack. However after reviewing the permission statement it isn’t perfectly clear to me how to fill out some of the fields so I will follow up with an email to him.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Natuur12 (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015061810015448 Nagorno Karabakh

File:Nagorno Karabakh (in four languages).pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015061810015448 (Sphilbrick)

As pure printed text, this four page document appears to be out of scope. Was there a rationale in the email correspondence that makes it in-scope? --Fæ (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples of pure text in Commons. To answer your specific question, there was nothing in the ticket providing an explanation of how the image would be used. That said, when I am or viewing an OTRS ticket, I have quite a number of things I am looking for, and reviewing scope is not high on the list. If I saw a series of photos that were clearly family vacation trip, I would probably challenge it, but generally speaking I like the Commons deletion process where an image is proposed for deletion and several editors have a chance at weighing in.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagorno Karabakh (in four languages).pdf. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Natuur12 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015051910026347 Sigmund Freud ... issuing tickets for anon photographs over 100 years old

File:Sigmund Freud as a child with his father.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015051910026347 (Natuur12)

As the photograph has an unknown photographer and was taken in the 1860s, why does this need an OTRS ticket number for a confidential email correspondence with the copyright holder? Can the OTRS ticket be removed please? --Fæ (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly;

File:Sigmund-Freuds-daughter-Anna-1920.1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015051910026347 (Natuur12)

Why is a ticket needed for this 95 year old photograph taken by an anon photographer? Presumably whatever is in the OTRS correspondence is irrelevant to the photograph's public domain status. --Fæ (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it cannot be removed because the ticket confirms that the "Freud Museum London" - the source the photographs are taken from - is okay with the fact that the files are hosted here. Plus they confirm that the museum also believes that the files are PD. Valuable information. Natuur12 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible use of OTRS, amounting to pointless information hoarding[26]. The facts are that on both image pages linked above:

No mention is made of the Freud Museum London.
The sources given are not the Freud Museum London, but http://www.diningwithdestiny.co.uk and an Amazon hosted service that appears owned by http://www.digication.com. Neither of these sites has anything to do with the Freud Museum as far as I can tell.
Any release from the Freud Museum London is irrelevant to copyright as the museum has no claim on the copyright. These are public domain images regardless of what the Museum has to say about it.
The OTRS ticket has been put in the information permissions field with no explanation, giving the impression that someone has secretly given permission via OTRS.

If there is supplementary information from the email correspondence this should be added publicly to the image page, not held in secret on OTRS. I doubt these poor quality scans ever originated from the museum, they were far more likely to have been scanned from other publications, especially as a version of the photograph of Freud with his father used on the Freud website appears quite different and a much higher resolution scan can be found on GettyImages.[27][28]

I have uploaded a new image for the 1920 photograph, one ten times higher resolution, directly from http://www.freud-museum.at. The London museum does not host the image on their website. Consequently I have removed the apparent claim of a permission statement, as the Freud Museum London is irrelevant to this digital file or the original photograph.

Please remove the OTRS ticket from the 1860 photograph as pointless, or give it context and move all relevant information publicly from the OTRS correspondence to the image page where it should be for public domain images. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the uploader feels confortable if it is there so I see no reason to obay your orders. If you want to frustrate uploaders you can do that without me. Natuur12 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre reply. The uploader account that you are taking instruction from has a history of sloppy uploads that had to be deleted, including File:Anna Freud.jpg as a copyright violation, the original uploading account being since blocked.

As with the 1920 photograph, I'll be bold and just fix the image page by removing the OTRS ticket that can only be misleading for this public domain image and uploading a better version of the image from a more authoritative source. Please try to be less fixed on defending OTRS regardless of the facts, when this is to the detriment of unambiguously public domain images. This is not a war, we are preserving public knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Natuur12 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015060810008859

Hi,

Can one of my fellow agents review this ticket? I dealth with it but I get the feeling that I screwed up on this one. We have more tickets from the same author: ticket:2015060810019052, ticket:2015060910021725 and ticket:2015061310008634. I post it here because there is nothing secret about this request so best to keep it transparant :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User has 20 deleted images (copyright) and did not answer my request for clarification: ticket:2015052310005987 I have just realized, that all but one images I linked for clarification have been deleted. User does not know much about copyright! Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Started a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anniespider20. Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DR has been closed as delete. Natuur12 (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Natuur12 (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiring about permissions for File:"Noos", Bea Richmond Park, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.jpg...

Hi!

Earlier yesterday, the author of the work that is in the photo I took - File:"Noos", Bea Richmond Park, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.jpg - send his permission to have his work used in my photo, but worded it in such a way that... well, that it almost sounded like he was laying claim to the photo I took (not sure if he read my instructions on use of the permission template I provided or not). I forwarded his email along with my correspondence with him to you guys... how do you read it? From your perspective, do I need to work things out on the wording with the permission form with the artist? Just want to make sure...

Also, he had requested a different license. Do I keep my CC-SA-whatever 4.0 license for my photo and include his requested license, or would my photo only fall under only license - the one he requested. I'm a little vague on this part. Thanks much! Hanyou23 (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanyou23, I've read the email as him licensing his work. The file can have more than one sets of licenses, one set for the sculpture (from the sculptor) and one set for the photo (from the photographer). Use the {{Art Photo}} template instead of {{Information}}, because it is designed specifically for this situation. I've added the templates but have a look at the file page and fix your license because we cannot accept GFDL on its own - please add your CC license inside the {{Self}} wrapper. Green Giant (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for that! I've learned something new today - which is a good thing

. The documentation on FoP and the like is a little hard to come by... so I really appreciate the help! Ah, I can now go through the day feeling a little better (and now I realize I have one other image to correct with the correct templates - yikes heh!)... cheers!!! :This section was archived on a request by: Hanyou23 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Алтаир1978

Any russian speaker can take a look in this DR and restore the files, if it´s correct? thanks Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahonc: can you? Natuur12 (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two are restored, third is from different site.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using a picture

Greetings! I'm not quite sure if I should ask this here, but there's a picture I'm interested in using in a presentation. It's a public defense of a specialist academic study work at my University, I would just like to put some pictures on so the pres looks good. The pictures are 3d versions of some cells (an eosinophilic granulocyte, a basophilic granulocyte... etc.). Am I allowed to do so? Can someone help? All the best! --Jankovic.marko.md (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User talk:Jankovic.marko.md, we have an instruction for you at COM:REUSE. In short: every content on the Wikimedia Commons is under a free licence. On what terms and how it works you can read at this page and on every file description. There is an "Use this file" link above every picture. Kind regards and good luck with your presentation, --Emha (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Emha (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:On-the-verge-poster-2015.jpg: OTRS permission and the alligator photo

According to this Village pump/Copyright discussion the File:On-the-verge-poster-2015.jpg image incorporates an alligator photograph from a professional photographer, Matt Field. Given the nature of the poster and the way that the alligator photo was purposely incorporated, it seems doubtful that the alligator photo is de minimis. As such, it would be useful to know whether OTRS ticket #2015021510008147 covers just the poster (the photograph and visual design is credited to Kyle Cassidy) or whether the ticket also includes the Matt Field alligator photo. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I get every point of the widespread discussions, but I don't see any evidence in the ticket that the alligator photo has permission, so I'd consider the ticket, as it stands today, as invalid. --Krd 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fichiers Paul Zinsli : DrPaulZinsli1, DrPaulZinsli2, DrPaulZinsliPeint

Bonjour, suite à la demande de User:EugeneZelenko voici ma requête:

Les fichiers DrPaulZinsli1, DrPaulZinsli2, DrPaulZinsliPeint ont l'autorisation de Paul-Erich Zinsli pour être sous la licence Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0. Ce sont des photos de famille, P.E. Zinsli étant l'ayant-droit il a envoyé le mail d'autorisation le 23 mars 2015 à 23h01 (GMT) à [email protected]. Eugène Zelenko n'a apparemment pas vu ce mail et propose d'annuler les photos avant 7 jours (il ne reste plus maintenant que 5 jours). Vous pouvez voir la discussion ici sur .

Merci d'avance, --Amage9 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permiso enviado el 22 de enero de 2015

Estimados Voluntarios, gusto de saludarles. Paso por aquí para solicitar su ayuda. Entiendo que habido algunos problemas con la verificación de permisos, y la verdad, es que no quiero ser una molestia para ustedes. Pues bien. Me he encontrado con esta planilla de verificación de autorización en este archivo. Se envió permiso por su autor el 22 de enero de 2015, 18:20 y hoy se ha vuelto a enviar. Espero ustedes me pueda ayudar con esta confirmación. La verdad no quiero ser una molestia para ustedes. Desde ya muchas gracias. Un saludo. Deucaleon (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holaǃ el archivo finalmente fue borrado, alguien me puede ayudar por favor? Saludos.--Deucaleon (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review

Could someone with OTRS rights, review these uploads please? New user, earlier issues, please review! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellin Beltz: Hey, I've had a look and nothing is coming up, either for username or file names. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellin Beltz: Now the permissions are filed, but not processed under ticket:2015041310004525 and ticket:2015041510019846 (two identical emails). --Jarekt (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph deletion

Hello: can anyone help me to upload this photograph? http://www.historiasdeflamenco.com/chana_wikimedia.jpg It's a personal and familiar photo taken many years ago. I don't know why it has been deleted from wikipedia. I have written an OTRS twice. Thanks for the advise, --La chana15 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@La chana15: Hi La chana15. Can you please tell us where it was previously uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons? Or do you remember the name of the account used to upload it? Your user name - La chana15 (talk · contribs) - has never uploaded anything to Commons nor to the English Wikipedia. I tried searching and could not find a relevant email, but we really need more information to do a good search for the image. --B (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at OTRS status of Files Uploaded by Steve Mattu

Hi, Can someone please take a look at the status of OTRS for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SteveMattu . Files were uploaded and OTRS was sent by the copyright owner, but it was a bit late so the volunteers deleted the images. Please check the archive and let me know if there is something else that you will need. Thanks. Steve Mattu (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please take a look at this. Steve Mattu (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket: 2015032510023976

Could someone please look at the ticket associated with Alto's Adventure? It's stuck at GAN at enwp until the files are reviewed. I believe the ticket has merged several different requests into one, so they may need to be split back out again (Spelltower and Metamorphabet are different requests). czar ⨹ 12:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS tag added please review .

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

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

Permission Ticket: 2015042810006497

these were deleted and I uploaded again, please help with the procedure.

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hunnan-1.jpg and File:Agro.jpg

Hello, my school has sent a copyright email to [email protected], could you please restore first especially File:Hunnan-1.jpg and File:Agro.jpg? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neyc.alumni.france (talk • contribs)

Please provide a ticket number. Thanks! :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't know the ticket number... The mail to [email protected] was from [email protected], if it helps... Thank you--Neyc.alumni.france (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the ticket in question is ticket:2015052210004766 but it's in Chinese so it would be great if a Chinese speaker could handle it. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ticket number, it seems that @Wcam: speaks Chinese...

I'm not an OTRS member. --Wcam (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what if there is no OTRS member who speaks Chinese?

Don't worry, there are OTRS members who do...they just may not be immediately active on this page. One will deal with your ticket in time. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fred T. Mackenzie.JPG

This is the first time I'm involved in this system, so please bear with me! A picture for an article I helped editing was needed. After an email request from me to the subject of the article and the copyright holder of a picture on his website, the picture was uploaded and donated by the photographer. A more detailed description of this is given at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fred T. Mackenzie.JPG. Since the pic was tagged with a deletion template, I contacted Mr. Mackenzie again, who have sent an email with permission to use the photo to the WMF today (9 June 2015). I received a copy of it, it is titled "Permission" and contains the url to the article where the photo is used as well as the url to his website where the photo was first published. I hope this is enough to keep the file from being deleted. w.carter-Talk 09:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket ID is 2015060910000962. I have a follow-up question that I have sent to the submitter of the email that needs to be answered before we can accept the image, but I have added the ticket ID on the image page while we await a reply. --B (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a statement of permission that satisfies our requirements via the OTRS system. Can an admin please close the deletion discussion? --B (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help from a friend

I asked a friend to help me make a sketch for a wikipedia article. I have a Commons account. He does not. What must we do to donate our work to Commons? Comfr (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, Comfr! I've had similar situations and in those cases, I've simply asked my friends to fill out the standard declaration of consent for all enquiries and send an email to the listed permissions email address. That has worked for me in the past. Hope this helps! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blausen 0438 HairFollicleAnatomy 02.png

Hello, I'm looking to use this image on a client's website. They specialise in hair replacement treatments and want to use the image to show visitors of their website the hair folical and scalp diagram.

Please can you confirm if there is any specific attribution needed? Thanks!

Blausen 0438 HairFollicleAnatomy 02.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hair_follicle#/media/File:Blausen_0438_HairFollicleAnatomy_02.png

See the Author section under the Summary section for the attribution requested by the author, per its CC-BY-3.0 license. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Gujarat flood taken by Indian Air Force

I intend to use images published by w:en:Indian Air Force rescue ops during w:en:2015 Gujarat flood. Here are images [29] and here license policy almost identical to CC-BY-SA. I think OTRS volunteer could contact and upload images to commons if possible. -Nizil Shah (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like {{Attribution}} might apply? Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already a discussion about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Images of Gujarat flood by Indian Air Force. Better to keep it in one place only. Beside, this has nothing to do with OTRS (yet). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I'd like to receive permission to use the following file for educational and commercial purposes: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:6_Day_War-Amos.jpg. Thank you in advance.

And you're welcome to do that; the uploader has already released the image for anyone to use, provided you credit them as רפי רוגל. Members of this noticeboard can check permissions for authenticity but we don't grant them. Please check out COM:REUSE for more. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting permission

We are a non-profit organization working on a video project that encourages youth toward better lifestyle habits and would like to use the following picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_artery_disease#/media/File:Blausen_0257_CoronaryArtery_Plaque.png We are interested in showing the heart, artery, and words "Fatty deposits." We would appreciate having a picture that even the very young can understand.

You are welcome to use this file per the terms of its license, {{Cc-by-3.0}}, including that you attribute its author as requested: "Blausen.com staff. "Blausen gallery 2014". Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 20018762." See COM:REUSE for more. Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Ticket #2015042810006497

OTRS Team,

The Ticket for commons permission was raised as Ticket: Ticket#2015042810006497

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YashD_Shooting_BSB_Kolkata_profile.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YashD_full_profile_at_Bojhena_se_Bojhena_shoot.jpg

The files had been deleted by commons, please have a look and RESTORE the files In wiki commons. Please advice what steps are needed from user side. These were clicked by Me, as mentioned in permissions email.

Done by Sreejithk2000 - Taketa (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Hermelin.PNG and File:Paul Hermelin New Image.jpg

Does the OTRS ticket for File:Paul Hermelin.PNG shed any light on why the authorship claims differ between these two versions of the same photo? Surely the photo wasn't taken by Sunil Nat and Vishal Wadkar. (In fact, I suspect it wasn't created by either of them.) According to Linkedin, Sunil Nat is a consultant at the Mumbai branch of Capgemini. Is there any compelling reason to believe that a company of Capgemini's size would use their their India-based consultants to take official profile portraits of their France-based CEO, rather than employing a professional staff photographer or hiring a professional third-party photographer? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone unanswered for 1½ months. Is there anything unclear about what I'm asking for?

Based on the file history, the OTRS ticket was approved by NahidSultan. Would you care to comment? —LX (talk, contribs) 23:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LX: , Sorry for replying late. Actually, I'm not very active in wikis these days because of my real life but will be in full swing by end of this month. Actually, I accepted the permission from Sunil Nat in the first place because it came from one of the official email of Capgemini. Usually we accept permission when email comes from an official address. There's always a reason to believe that the permission is legitimate until proven otherwise. However, I'm agree with you that the current situation is totally doubtful and we have to verify the authorship again not only for these two but also for this (Permission for this file was also send by Sunil Nat in a same thread). I'm changing the ticket status of these files from confirmed to pending & also sending an email to Sunil Nat asking for the explanation. Regards! ~ Nahid ^Talk 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Nominated all uploads by both users for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ManishK236 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vishal.wadkar86. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick ticket check

The OTRS-tagged image File:Polypores Fountain. Jean Yves Lechevallier.jpg has been nominated for deletion because it's a copy of a certain webpage, which isn't given as a source. Could you check the ticket and leave a note at the DR stating whether it's a valid permission? Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Jcb (the ticket is in French). FDMS 4 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket seems fine to me. Jcb (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission

Can you please check ticket #2015072210011147 for this file? Thanks in advance for your help. --Bundesverband Deutscher Leasing-Unternehmen (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2015060110013258 - undelete request

Good day for all interested.

Since all required confirmations has been sent by the copyright owner (09-07), I'd like to ask for undeleting following files:

NOTE: Permission was in polish (pl)

Sincerly --Navias (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Navias, thank you for your question. The OTRS volunteer you spoke to earlier still needs to approve the permission. They will have the images restored if they find the permission to be good. I do not know why it is taking so long for them to respond. I have send them a reminder by email. I hope this helps speed up the process. Please let us know if you do not receive a reply from them in the next week. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--Jarekt (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 04:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File von Huberbe hochgeladen

Am 8. Juli wurde folgende Datei hochgeladen und die Genehmigung per Mail zugesandt. Bitte bearbeitet das Ticket, damit das Bild verwendet werden kann:

Datei 1

Danke, --Huberbe (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 19:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 04:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zoë Skoulding (bw portrait).jpg

Uploader stated that permission for this photo is stored in the OTRS. Can someone please check. --Smooth_O (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done added the ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 04:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket

Can you please check OTRS ticket #2015080310007605? Thank you. --Dirk Stettner (CDU) (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. FDMS 4 04:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: FDMS 4 04:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About File:Lai_Ying_Tong,_Hong_Kong_Songwriter.jpg

Hi! I've uploaded a photo on commons a few weeks ago, I've ask the owner to send the email to [email protected]. However, the photo still got removed. It's been more than 2 weeks since deletion. I really hope you could help me to restore the photo as this photo is for one of my wiki articles for class assignment. Thanks! Tvchan (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no record of this in our system unfortunately. Please ask them to send the permission again, clearly stating the file name and completing COM:CONSENT. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Izikson

Dear Sir, could you please check if the email about permission for these files have been received? It has been sent by copyright holder (Alexey Gusev) at 10 April. Is it too early to any answer, or, maybe, something is wrong?..

List of files:

Две сестры.jpg

Letrilla.jpg

Day desert.jpg

Алексей Гусев.jpg

SHOT009.jpg

Promo of Gusev's 858.webm

These files have been deleted (by EugeneZelenko, I suppose), but, as I know, it is possible to just restore them after the permission will be granted (is it true?). I'm sorry so much if I did something wrong, but, as a newcomer, I'm a little confused. Sincerely yours, Izikson (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Izikson[reply]

All restored already. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files Affiche Le Mur.jpg and SophieRobert.jpg

The above two pictures have been recently deleted. I'm trying to help the owners of the copyright for these two pictures. They sent in February this year emails with all the required information requested in the Wikimedia commons procedure. They asked me to convey to you their surprise that the images were deleted without notice and wonder why the email they sent was not considered. I understand there is a large backlog, so perhaps the "grace" period could be extended to take into account this backlog. Best, Dessources (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dessources: The email received a reply around 3 hours after it was sent in, and no reply has been received from that enquiry yet. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dafna Lemish (2).jpg

This file has an OTRS ticket but no copyright tag. Can this be investigated? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geagea: The PDF contains a link to w:he:WP:CC-BY-SA, which is {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}, not {{CC BY 4.0}} … FDMS 4 22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it gives a link and says: "or choose other..." etc. -- Geagea (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geagea: If it's under a license "of our choice" (no attribution or sharealike requirements), why didn't you choose {{CC-0}}? FDMS 4 00:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned on he-OTRS noticeboard to recommend the new {{CC BY 4.0}} instead of {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}. -- Geagea (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar Luigi Scalfaro 2.jpg

OTRS-permission is incorrectly written into license. As this is the uploader's only contribution, I ask: is the permission OK? Taivo (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Paginazero. FDMS 4 01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket doesn't look valid. Can't see clear consent. @Paginazero: Can you please explain? Please don't ask the user to add tickets self. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another one

Could someone check whether the ticket, added by an apparently non-OTRS user to File:Mattarella Chiellini Coppa Italia.jpg, is valid. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made a subsection as it concerns the same ticket. FDMS 4 01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paginazero: Ping, can you please explain why this is in pd? --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reply, asked him on his itwiki talkpage to reply here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's years that I'm no longer active on OTRS - I even think I no longer have an account there (I just tried to log in and failed, I asked for a new password and nothing came). If I well remember this should be the official portrait of the former president of the republic and - as such - considered public domain when first uploaded on it:wp. If you need to verify the ticket (of which I have absolutely no memory), please ask another italian-speaking OTRS operator. I apologize for not being more helpful than this.

For what concerns File:Mattarella Chiellini Coppa Italia.jpg I never saw that image before and I strongly doubt it can be a public domain image. Please ping @Caulfield: , maybe it's only a mistake in reporting the OTRS ticket number. As before, please ask another italian-speaking OTRS operator to verify the ticket, if necessary. --Paginazero (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo and Steinsplitter: This authorisation from Quirinale was given at a time (November 2006) when all of us were less precise in requiring explicit authorisations. As of now, this is no clear consent, while at the time it kinda was. By the way, I would suggest to wait for us to contact again the Italian Presidency and get an answer or a confirmation. It will be likely to require some time, unfortunately. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012011710005331

File:Bojan Radej 2015.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2012011710005331 (Sporti (No OTRS access))

There are currently 288 journalist quality photographs using this 3 years old OTRS ticket, with the above being a recent example. The tickets are applied by an account without OTRS access (which generates warning flags). As the ticket appears to have no added value, the website source gives a clear free release with an attribution requirement, can the uploader please be advised to default to start using the weaker process of license review? This has the benefit of not needing to rely on old secret correspondence where it is unnecessary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied licence and OTRS from older files. Licence is CC-by-3.0 (which is from the OTRS?), based on the release under images licence should be {{Attribution}} (although it doesn't specifically allow modification or commercial use). So maybe we should create a specific template for this source with licence, OTRS and explanation which images it covers? --Sporti (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret the website as sufficient to justify CC-BY as there is no restraint against modification or commercial reuse. Where website terms of use exist they must to be explicit as restraints on reuse cannot be retrospectively interpreted for a claim of damages using copyright, even though an absence of terms would be interpreted as equivalent to all rights reserved. An improvement to the source website would be if they could upgrade their release statement to a CC one. I would avoid custom templates, these are likely to create a headache for some future time when folks try to harmonize image data on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this would be OK [30]? --Sporti (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's see what a license reviewer does with it (I'm a license reviewer, but I'll stay clear as I raised this discussion). --Fæ (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Well it didn't work so well - file got deleted as a copyvio. So other ideas? --Sporti (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged at User_talk:Thibaut120094#File:Bojan_Radej_2015.jpg --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the file, I don't see explicit release under CC-BY on this webpage so I added {{Attribution}} instead... Feel free to correct and sorry for the deletion. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the generic attribution template seems like a good one to apply. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamaica-netball-sunshine-girls.jpg

I see that this photo, which was previously deleted as a copyright violation, has been restored along with several other uploads by the same user. According to the file description, which has supposedly been vetted by OTRS, the author of the photo (i.e. the photographer) is User:Sixpacz (who apparently also personally designed the logos that were also restored). However, as I pointed out in the {{Copyvio}} tag (which was removed after the file was restored), the author according to the file's metadata is Cameron Spencer/Getty Images. The photo is available in higher resolution at Getty Images' website. Given that Getty Images also claim copyright, was any attempt made to contact them? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ankry: , who handled the ticket. Although the OTRS ticket does look legitimate, this is clearly a Getty photo and the photographer who took it [31] seems to be a freelance photographer, not someone who works for "Netball Jamaica". This photo is unquestionably a copyright violation and should be deleted. It may be an "innocent" copyright violation - the source website might own the other photos and just not this one - but a follow-up email needs to be sent seeking clarification about whether or not a staff photographer took the rest of the photos or whether they were submitted by or purchased from a third party. --B (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody except Netball Jamaica is claiming copyright to these images, it is a valid reason to delete these particular images. The permission is from Netball Jamaica (verified) who claim copyright and wish to atribute User:Sixpacz as author. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: Another upload from Sixpacz (talk · contribs) — File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg — is made up of three constituent photos. The third credits "Collin Reid", who, from googling, according to [32] donates the copyright of his photos to Netball Jamaica (probably not a problem). The other two credit "zimbio.com", which looks like a stock photo company. The middle one even has a watermark of some sort (look right under the ball that the girl is holding). I don't think we can take this uploader's claim of copyright at face value. Though I'm sure that they probably purchased rights to use these photos for their website, I'm not sure that they realize that purchasing rights to use a third party photo on your website typically does NOT give you the ability to sub-license the photo as needed by Wikipedia/Commons. Another one: I find File:WinningTeamUnder21Medals1024-e1413347441714.jpg at [33], which credits "PHOTO: COLLIN REID, COURTESY OF SUPREME VENTURES, COURTS AND SCOTIABANK". File:Jamnbryan.jpg is cropped from [34]. Without a really really really good explanation, I'm not sure we can trust their claim of authorship. --B (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@B: the uploader was asked for more explanation about photographers and the agreements few days ago. No response till now. If there are any doubts concerning copyright owner, feel free to delete apropriate images. In such case, the images can be restored later if they provide satisfying information. Ankry (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two other constituent photos of File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg were created by Getty Images photographers Christopher Lee and Sandra Mu. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg for speedy deletion as an obvious copyvio. I have nominated File:Jamnbryan.jpg for deletion as a possible copyvio. File:WinningTeamUnder21Medals1024-e1413347441714.jpg is concerning because I can't tell who or what "SUPREME VENTURES, COURTS AND SCOTIABANK" is, but Collin Reid seems to be Netball Jamaica's staff photographer, so I'm more or less okay with that one as probably legitimate, despite the odd credit. --B (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Magistretti Emilio, Quasi aurora consurgens.jpg

Emilio Magistretti died in 1936, surely his paintings should be in PD? Brightgalrs (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not in all juristictions so a release is nice anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{PD-70}} to this public domain image (noting that the source is hosted in Italy). @Natuur12: could you explain in more detail why you believe a legal claim of attribution is required in the USA for the Artgate Fondazione Cariplo? The advice from WMF legal always has been that faithful reproductions of public domain artworks have no new copyright in the USA. I disagree that "a release is nice" when this introduces a false claim of copyright to a public domain work. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ticket they are the copyright holder. I am not familiar with this organisation but it could very well be that the rights where transferred to them before the file/painting became PD in Europe. I trust that the agent who dealth with this request investigated this properly. I don't speak Italian so I can't validate everything. There are juristictions with a longer duration of copyight, there are countries where PD-art is a really grey area or some countries might not even support PD-art. (I know that PD-art is not a legal term of course but this way it is clear). People livng in those countries should be able to use the file safely after there has been a release. More people can use the file and isn't that ultimatly our goal? Spreading free knowledge? Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correspondent appears to be subject to European and Italian copyright law, these are not special jurisdictions where there are longer copyright durations or where this is a grey area. Granting the work and potential income to the institution by use of copyright cannot exceed the 70 year rule, as the artist's copyright remains unchanged; if they want money then falsely claiming copyright is not the way to go about it. The image is public domain. By all means if they are the source this can be explained on the image page, but using a Creative Commons attribution requirement is a legally enforcable claim of copyright (i.e. they can sue for damages if a reuser fails to provide moral rights), and in this case is inappropriate as they have no legal claim on the artwork.

I will go ahead and remove the misleading {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} template unless you can provide a clear reason as to why it is required and this is not a public domain work. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs? Sure, this file is likely PD in the US but is it PD in Scandinavic countries? In my home country this would be a borderline case. And please also read the section about Italy. Of course stuff can be made more clear at the file page but that is not the actual point. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that guide is rambling and out of date; it is NOT a commons policy and is wrapped in disclaimers. Nobody, in the entire history of Italian law, has ever been prosecuted for failing to provide moral rights for the creator of a faithful reproduction of a public domain work. The reason is that they would have suffered zero damages (there can be no case where there is no exchange or loss of property). The CC-BY-SA in this case (especially for a low resolution image) is misleading, and Wikimedia Commons should stand against propagating false claims of copyright. --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have any evidence that there is no copyright involved under Italian law I suggest we leave this be. Or we (with me I mean you want you want to chang the status quo) invite people who have deep understading of Italian law to discus this case in com:VP/C. Natuur12 (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to prove a negative. However we know that on Commons where there are PD and CC license, not only can reusers ignore the CC license, our community routinely deletes the weaker surplus licenses.

Rather than a self reflective copyright debate, I am happy to start a general policy thread on the VP, requesting that projects like this fix their licenses to respect public domain images, and positively discourage institutions from using CC licenses in a false way (or for volunteers, such as OTRS volunteers, giving poor advice), when what they really want is to tag images they have donated.

In my view after working closely with several GLAMs and large mass uploads of PD material, we should reject donations with these expectations and instead work harder up front with the institutions to ensure they are not surprised when any weak CC-BY licenses are removed. --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, I am afraid that without you respecting your opponents view we get nowhere. An intelectual debate is impossible this way. The set-up you suggest is far from neutral. International copyright as you know can be complicated and even legal experts can have different opinions. Natuur12 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried about "opponents" as this is not a war. The general community norm is that if an image is Public Domain, then there can be no restrictions on reuse. The risk that a publisher might have to withdraw a book from sale because one of our public domain images has been used as a book cover, and it cannot be sold in a single European edition, is not one that anyone should find acceptable. Similarly Commons should not indulge organizations that attempt to retrospectively claim copyright over public domain images. Whatever license is chosen it should be legally correct, have legally enforceable rights (where there are any) and not subject to future unexpected changes apart from copyright expiration. I'll ponder how to express this on the Village Pump so that we might have a chance of turning the community norm into a solid documented consensus. --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wow, you actually didn't understood a single word of what I wrote. Natuur12 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully reviewed everything you said here, and the essay you pointed to. An image we publish as PD can be used anywhere. If it legally requires attribution in some countries then a PD licence should be avoided (this is what the community needs to discuss). If it requires attribution in either the source country, or the USA, it should not be marked as PD. The current multi licensing templates and guides can easily give misleading claims of PD such that a reuser could be sued for failing to comply with moral rights. --Fæ (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aurel Barglazan 1.jpg

The file was deleted by user:Fastily (now inactive), the reason being „no source”. The source is the Bărglăzan family's archive. As Romanian OTRS volunteer I received the permission #2015062210006575 (in Romanian). The license is CC-BY-SA-4.0 International (standard license). I cannot reupload the file. Please tell me what to do to recover the image. Thanks. --Turbojet (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with asking some questions about how they became the copyright owner. Based on this current ticket thi file should not be undeleted or reuploaded. Experience learns that the person wha manages a family archive is often not the copyright holder. Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the donor has very little knowledge about copyright, he could not understand the question. --Turbojet (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That happens a lot when dealing with family archives but in most cases the outcome is that we cannot accept the files. Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015040710024935 Gustavo Sebba

File:Gustavo Sebba.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015040710024935 (Hedwig in Washington)

There are two quite different uploaded portrait photographs in the file history. Here's the order of events:

12 March 2015, the first version is uploaded, Sebba wearing a jacket.
13 March 2015, file deleted as copyvio.
07 April 2015, OTRS email received.
10 June 2015, the second version is uploaded, creating a new page, Sebba without a jacket and the image has a digitally masked background.
11 June 2015, file deleted as copyvio.
24 June 2015, files restored, given OTRS ticket.

Can an OTRS volunteer please confirm that both photographs have been released, noting that the OTRS correspondence started well before the second version was uploaded to Commons? If this is the case then the overwritten image can be split to a new file as an alternate. If not, then it should be removed from the file history. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Fæ: Thanks for watching out! Both versions are covered by ticket:2015040710024935. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goof grief, the new one is hideous. @Hedwig in Washington: does the submitter express a preference as to which image is used in the article? (I have no idea if the pt Wikipedia takes the preference of the subject into consideration for photos or not.) Unless there is a really good reason to prefer the one with the blue background, it is an eyesore. --B (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@B: As fr as I remember they did not. The blue one is the newer one, current job. Other just a bit older. I'd use the older one, the blue is killing my eyes. :-) ---Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have reverted to the prior version. If the uploader or subject of the article really wants the blue background, I won't fight with them over it, but it's hideous and you can see that it doesn't even blend right - there is a light-colored fringe around the outline of the photo where the real background was cropped out poorly. --B (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Macnee - File:Patrick Macnee in Lobster man from Mars.jpg

Commons has 3 photographs of Macnee, with his death yesterday these will be much in public demand.

Can an OTRS volunteer please double check the details of the eight years old ticket:2007083110009978? The release is from the film director, so there should be sufficient in the correspondence to validate the release, though the other publicly available stills from the film appear absent from Commons. In addition there is no date on the image page, it would be good to be able to correct this using information from the correspondence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket contains a Wikipedia only permission. Do you want to start the DR or should I? Natuur12 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I create very few DRs in comparison to other things I do, so I've gone ahead and started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patrick Macnee in Lobster man from Mars.jpg. If this is clear cut, I suggest it is deleted in fewer than the normal 7 days, otherwise it is highly likely to be used in obituaries with reusers thinking this is public domain.

I suggest:

an OTRS volunteer double checks other tickets as old as this one where the same OTRS volunteer had made similar choices.
we carefully review the other 2 photographs on Commons of Macnee (I have a number real life commitments today, so only have time for a brief look), see category in thread title, there have been long running issues in the past attempting to determine if copyright marks were on reproductions of producer released film stills/posters.

@Deadstar: , if you are about, you may wish to take a look at this case and see if similar actions are needed.

@We hope: , as an uploader of other images of Macnee you may want to double check the alternative image pages are accurate and there is no linkrot. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These were uploaded close to 3 years ago and unfortunately the links are dead. I've always uploaded both sides of photos with the front uncropped and unaltered as the original upload. Since then, I've also taken to putting the eBay links and photo links into Wayback Machine. We hope (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking good care with your uploads. These examples of linkrot making it hard for us to verify old copyright statements, are why a long term reliable webcite like service is needed by all Wikimedia projects. --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used to use WebCite, which not so long ago, I'd heard WP was considering buying. I stopped using it some time ago when every time I went there to create a link, my A/V would go off, telling me it had just stopped a trojan download. Not long after that, the gmail addy I used to use for citing started overflowing with spam-sometimes more than 10-12 per day. An en:WP friend also used WebCite as I did, so I asked him whether he had A/V issues and spam. He was using a different A/V program and his was also issuing warnings; he also had a mailbox full of spam. We began thinking that the site was hacked for the email addys and stopped using it until Wayback Machine offered the same type of service without needing to use an email addy. No idea what was happening there or it it still is.We hope (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question-everything in the category Lobster Man From Mars seems to have the same OTRS number as the Patrick Macnee photo which is now at DR. Since the ticket number is the same for all of them, are there problems with the files in this category too? We hope (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so - this is a 1989 film, I don't see that these are in the public domain unless they have a specific release from copyright holder, which seems to be lacking. Is there a way to re-contact the film director for a clear release on the specific images we have? I will add them to the DR. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought they would be at issue because of the same OTRS number, but can't view the details as I'm not in OTRS. Someone who is an OTRS member should be able to see the director's contact information and ask him to consider changing the permission for all of these. We hope (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thomas Ebbesen par Claude Truong-Ngoc septembre 2014.jpg and ticket:2015062910016917

Hello,

I am not used to deal with Commons request (yet) and may have made a mistake by asking the deletion. Can OTRS agents gives their opinion and also tell me what is the normal process in such a case ?

The ticket has been quickly translated to english in an OTRS note.

(ping me)

--Scoopfinder^(d) 11:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scoopfinder: Bonjour,

Pour ce cas, je m'en réfère au photographe. C'est lui qui sait le mieux dans quelle condition a eu lieu la prise de vue, et si le sujet a donné son accord. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, In this case, I would follow the photographer's opinion. He knows best how and where the picture was taken, and if the subject has given his consent. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, thank you for your reply. It seems, in that case, that since the consent was given during the time of the shooting, there's no reason to remove that picture. --Scoopfinder^(d) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4X-AHC Martin Harrison - no ticket number

File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:? (Geagea)

The livery of the aircraft turns it into a giant flying fish. Could an OTRS volunteer check the ticket is from the copyright holder for the design and note this on the image page? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is from the photographer. Regarding to design please see Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet. -- Geagea (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good case study. However the Pokemon case had 8 cartoon figures and smaller items in the livery, the rationale being that DM applied as the image focus was the aircraft, not an individual Pokemon character from the group. In this case the single fish is the entire aircraft, thus if the aircraft is the focus, the fish must also be the focus of the photograph and DM cannot apply. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this in not case for OTRS noticeboard. If you still think that there is a problem here, you know the way. -- Geagea (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS volunteers are relied on by the community to place tickets on images that are not copyright violations, once a ticket has been given it is rare that anyone will think to check further as non-OTRS volunteers have no idea what has been checked or verified.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg.

--Fæ (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015063010010349 Gold medal

File:Gold Medal Award.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015063010010349 (Sphilbrick)

The modern medal design and certificate copyright in this image is likely to be the organizers of the LA international extra virgin olive oil competition. Could the release be confirmed and information added to the image page? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That permission is not on file, I have modified the permission tag accordingly and sent a request to the individual who provided the permission for the photo.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action.

--Fæ (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fertőd - The Eszterházy Castle or Palace.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fert%C5%91d_-_The_Eszterh%C3%A1zy_Castle_or_Palace.jpg?uselang=ko

can i use in CC2.5? there's CC license in that wikimedia page but, this OTRS is on the page, too. Can I use on CC? or Do i have to get a permission with OTRS?

Yes, the file is CC-BY-SA-2.5 licensed; you should feel free to use this license as all the OTRS tag indicates is a confirmation of the uploader's identity. See COM:REUSE for more. Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I use the picture "Cornell War Memorial" taken by Alex Sergeev?

I am working on a website to promote U.S. higher education.

You can refer to my LinkedIn's profile to know more about my job.

I am currently designing a new website to promote U.S. colleges and universities for Asian market.

Here is the link to my LinkedIn profile. https://www.linkedin.com/profile/preview?locale=en_US&trk=prof-0-sb-preview-primary-button

I hope to hear from you ASAP.

Tanya T. Gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.46.116.223 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the FAQ linked at the top of the page:

Can you give me permission to use a file?
No. Please don't post requests for permission to use content from this site. The content can be used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license displayed on the file description page.

The licensing terms for File:Cornell War Memorial.jpg are stated on the file description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check tickets

Special:Contributions/Jeollo have ticket number in many pictures, are the tickets valid.--Motopark (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motopark, thank you for taking the effort to have this checked. Jeollo uses this ticket correctly. Ticket:2011071910017502 confirms that user Jeollo owns the images he uploads from vfb-exklusiv.de. As such, no further action is needed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with ticket #2011102610023226

Hi, I have problems with this ticket:2011102610023226 because the autor not give us permission for upload all images of his accounts. He doesn´t like that all her photos are in commons free. The pictures have all rights reserved in his flickr account. I need help with the process of remove the images of commons. Thanks. --Nicop (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The ticket is from 2011. Why now? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author had not realized that the bot has been automatically uploading photos from his accounts since 2011 despite having all copyright, the author does not want all your photos will be free forever, because it wants to retain copyright on the majority. --Nicop (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the permission (from October 2011) says: I agree to publish any photos and other materials found published at:

in addition to any materials which may be provided by email, under the GFDL 1.2 licence.

The permission also says: I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. -- Geagea (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a pending OTRS

Is there a way to find a pending OTRS filed by the owner of the Irfanview logo File:IrfanView Logo.png. Being a third party to the request, I can only provide the emails from Irfan on the subject. His publicly accessible email address is [email protected] through which I contacted him. — Ineuw talk 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ineuw, thank you for bringing this to our attention. The permission was received and approved to use all images and logos on irfanview.com under CC-BY-SA 4.0. This can be checked in ticket:2015070710007556. Since the email did not specify any file name, the OTRS volunteer on duty did not take any further action. I have now added the ticket to the image. No further action is needed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carmi Gillon.jpg

Can someone on otrs check this file cause usually the otrs members should post the ticket number.--Sanandros (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanandros, thank you for your question. I cannot locate a ticket for this file. It was uploaded by User:Yonidebest who is a long term Wikimedian. It is possible they have an email in their inbox but did not send it to OTRS, or send it to the restricted hy OTRS system instead of the permission system. Yonidebest was active this month. I have emailed him. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yonidebest has replied that he no longer wishes to participate in Wikimedia, and does not care what happens to the image. I used his email adres and some Hebrew texts to try to find the permission in a second search. However I still I cannot locate a permission. There are alot of other permissions he send in though. I think we have to assume there is no permission. Maybe he forgot to send it at that point in time. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request for agent input (2015080210014199)

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:2015080210014199. Thanks in advance, FDMS 4 16:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the file in question. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS and UploadWizard

FYI: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Raise awareness of OTRS by including it in the Upload Wizard. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review and document improvement request

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for reliqushment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) (Form I plus an Affidavit is an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules); We request your support, so as Affidavit part of the document becomes accaptable to wikimedia as an email template also for OTRS purposes.

Rgds. Mahitgar (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015030210011512 Primorsky

File:NB Primorsky.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ticket:2015030210011512 (Sphilbrick)

I adduce that this is an VR plan of an estate, or planned estate, in Primorsky. However the copyright holder for the 3D projection may not be the promoter of the VR technology who is the uploading account holder. Could a clearer statement be added to the image page please?

A technical note, the TIFF seems to have the same image in its envelope twice, possibly a mistake with the rendering software using the image as its own thumbnail. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of plans regarding Caisse d'épargne de Bordeaux and Edmond Lay (french wikipedia articles)

Hi,

My files seem to have been deleted, even though the copyright owners have sent the e-mails to [email protected]. ticket:2015060610009101 and ticket:2015060610011198 will they be restored ? i'm seeing the architect which made the original files in a week, he will be very happy to see the wikipedia page about him, but even more if all the files are there.

Files concerned are :
Copyright holded by Brice Viricel: files on this page

File:Axonométrie Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:Coupe DD Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:Coupe BB Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:Coupe AA Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:Coupe CC Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R+5 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R+4 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R+3 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R+2 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:Rdc Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R-1 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R+1 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R+5 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck2.pdf
File:R-2 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:R-3 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
File:Plan masse caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
File:Façade sud caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
File:Façade nord caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
File:Façade est caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
File:Façade ouest caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf

Copyright holded by Amandine Colin: files on this page

File:Kenneth laurent house fluides.jpg
File:Norman Lykes house fluides.jpg
File:Agence Edmond Lay fluides.jpg

Best regards,

Klarggyjk (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This will be restored if the tickets check out. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sami-ninne-Sri ragam-Ramakrishnamurthy.wav Missing permission information

The recording can be linked to this source, instead of the current source.

this is not an OTRS matter. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ninnukori-Mohanam-ramakrishnamurthy.wav - Missing permission information

This link can be used as a source instead of the existing link.

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pussy versus Putin

Hi, the three files in this category are claimed to have a permission via russian OTRS by the uploader. I found ticket:2015062010013892 but can't read it and wonder wether there could by the OTRS-template in the file descriptions or not. If notz there should be a {{OTRSreceived}}-template. Is this permission okay? Regards, --Emha (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emha, I do not understand Russian either, but this is a standard release form for CC-BY-SA 4.0 permission, send by a confirmed owners email, specifying these three files. The Russian OTRS volunteer send back a confirmation email. I think this is confirmation and it can be tagged as permission received. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015062910018424 Dolorean band

File:Dolorean black and white.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 500 × 294 pixels
ticket:2015062910018424 (Hedwig in Washington)

I find a crop of this photograph in higher resolution at Partisanrecords.com (all rights reserved) and discovered an eight times higher resolution version (3,984 × 2,335 pixels), with original EXIF data, which I have now uploaded over the OTRS released image. Could an OTRS volunteer double check the discussion and update the image page with the name of the photographer (which is given elsewhere as Sarah Jurado), correct the date of the photograph (new EXIF data shows 23 May 2010), and check that the photographer has released their rights rather than a presumption that this is the property of the band or their production company? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: True that. On Partisanrecords.com, underneath the photgraph you find a list of email addresses. One of them was used to email OTRS. IMHO work for hire. The photographer has the same last name as one of the band members. Seems OK to me. Do you think we really need more? Sure, I can send another email out to partisanrecords if needed. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a question of whether the image page is a correct representation of the photograph and its copyright status. I have no idea if the photographer really was Jurado, whether she was on a work for hire agreement with DLpictures at the time (if she did take the photographs or if DLpictures is her company) and what relationship she had with the band in 2010. There probably should be enough information on the image page so that a reuser is not left in doubt when they find other versions of this image on the internet, with varying claims about it. Being unable to read the OTRS correspondence, means that I cannot really be expected to determine if further correspondence is needed. That must be an OTRS volunteer's call.--Fæ (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the information provided. But I'd be happy if someone else could take a peek? Pretty please?

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy clarification needed for images with {{OTRS pending}} but no license

I began this discussion at Village Pump. Please join. --Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS for IrfanView

This not urgent. Just want to know how to find/trace an OTRS whether it was filed with the Commons. I requested Irfan Skiljan of IrfanView to provide the OTRS permission to transfer his logo from Wikipedia, and just received an email from Irfan that he provided the OTRS. — Ineuw talk 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan should be aware that, for a single person, it will be enormously difficult to force take down of competitive products violating his IrfanView for trademark reasons, while it is often a lot simpler to get what he want through copyright. Unless you are a big company, you should probably not waive copyright. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. IrfanView seems to be a one person operation and Irfan doesn't seem to care. He wrote me earlier this year and I quote "anyone can use any IrfanView icon or IrfanView logo/image from my website." (I can forward this email to you.) His software is widely known the world over, as well as that it is of his own making. Truthfully, I only wanted the logo to be used in the infobox collection of my home page to indicate that for better or for worse, my contributions to the Commons were processed using his software. — Ineuw talk 22:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2010111110016299

Hi! Above ticket (added by uploader/non-OTRS member JzG}) is used for File:Shefali Chowdhury.jpg (a 1987 born British actress for the Harry Potter film series) and here (same uploader, appears to be related to a 1987 South Pole expedition) which does not fit. Could somebody please check the ticket? Thx in advance. Gunnex (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gunnex: he is the user who approved the ticket, so he was OTRS at the time. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for multiple images from organization

I am told that If a large number of images will be released by an organization/source, a special licensing tag can be arranged through OTRS, which can be added to each image. INeverCry This applies to most of my deleted photo uploads that had simply email permissions. Please send this tag to [email protected] Jzsj (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oskar Bandle (1926–2009).jpg (deutsch / German)

Nur als Hinweis, um die Zuordnung für das Team evtl. zu erleichtern: Ich habe den Uploader Freigut in Bezug auf die Vorgehensweise etwas beraten, es sollte inzwischen eine Freigabe-Erklärung der Fotografin Inga-Lill Nissas beim OTRS eingegangen sein, worin allerdings offenbar statt des Dateinamens die Bildbeschreibung "Oskar Bandle (1926–2009), Schweizer Nordist und Onomastiker (Photo: Inga-Lill Nissas, ca. 1985)" genannt ist. Ich hoffe, das passt so und ihr könnt das entsprechend eintragen :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related ticket is ticket:2015070810016866. Natuur12 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo sur l'article "Pierre Saint-Paul"

Bonjour, j'ai envoyé l'autorisation de publier une photo "Pierre Saint-Paul, photo André Morain 1999" le 28 05 2015 en courrier électronique à [email protected]. Mais vous semblez ne pas l'avoir reçu. Que dois-je faire??? Merci de faire le nécessaire ou de me renseigner. Bien cordialement --Philippe HENRION (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket processed. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of Lee Rigby

Hi, recently a Ministry of Defence released portrait photograph of Lee Rigby in uniform was deleted, along with a derivative version. Though the image has apparently removed from the source MoD website without explanation, the image had been successfully kept after a deletion review. The photograph is widely available on the internet, and was used by all major press outlets, for example the Metro sources this as "MoD/PA", showing they used the Press Association database for the MoD photo and Rochdale Council has different crops of the image on its website with no specific statement of copyright, meaning that their standard terms apply and the image ought to be free to reuse.

If an OTRS correspondence about this photograph has occurred, could this be explained publicly please? If not, then it may be appropriate to reopen the original deletion request to discuss our best approach. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no OTRS message in file page. Taivo (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read en:Talk:Murder_of_Lee_Rigby#Photograph of Fusilier Lee Rigby and decided to trust the deletion request. If you think, that this was mistake, I am not against restoring and opening a regular request. Taivo (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is unclear, but if a copyright mistake was made by the MoD, then they should be able to confirm that this was the reason for removal. If the photographer wishes us to remove the image for other reasons, then a case via OTRS would be a good idea. The webarchived version of the gov.uk page states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence, except where otherwise stated" and as no other licence was stated for this image, there is still a case that OGL applies. Could you undelete and create a second DR? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored file and talk page and created a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To make it easy for readers to follow, here's the link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drummer Lee Rigby.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cartel IV Maratón Fotográfico de Madrid.jpg

Five days ago, Josve05a asked for an email of permission at the orignal Flickr page. Did we receive any message yet? The file is up for deletion so we need a proof in writing other than the chat at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonides: , can you please help about tickets 2015051910014814 and 2015062310009114 ? Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That authorization was from May, when there was no upload here yet. I reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cartel IV Maratón Fotográfico de Madrid.jpg Platonides (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A second bite of the apple

I'd like to bring to your attention an unusual situation. An employee uploaded images to Commons in the course of writing and editing articles on en.wiki about the organization he works for, under orders from the organization. After I informed him about the COI problem, I have been working with him to edit those articles and, since he was not the owner of the copyright for the images, getting the proper permission to OTRS for the uploads. Now, however, the organization is apparently having second thoughts and only wants to give permission for one of the images, not for the original 5 that were uploaded. It's my opinion, that since the employee uploaded them at their behest, either all 5 images are kept, or all 5 are deleted. I do not think that the OTRS process should be used as a device to get a second bite of the apple and delete images which were uploaded under an irrevocable license. Either the employee had their permission, or he did not.

The relevant threads are here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that the uploader had been given permission/orders to publish all photos, but that the organisation was not aware of our free licensing requirements, and that the licensing was not authorised. That should not prevent the organisation from approving publication of a subset of the content under a free license. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want to open a slippery slope by which any organization can remove photos they uploaded previously? "Oh, we never intended for our employee to upload that one, now that it might hurt us in some way, so we rescind the authorization for that one photo" What a mess that would be.

Either he could upload them, or he couldn't, you really can't have it both ways. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what I said. And no, it's not as simple as either he could upload them or he couldn't. The critical point is the licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was given permission to upload them, but that was before they were aware of the free licensing requirements and the need to send a declaration of consent, which states that if we release the photos, we give anyone the permission to modify the photo. The organization is protective of those particular 4 photos because we use them a lot on other promotional collateral and are not comfortable with people being able to modify and manipulate the image. Editing the page and adding new photos to a wikipedia page is a learning experience for us and truthfully an honest mistake was made on our part for not being aware about the declaration of consent and what that all entails. It's really just the modification part that we were uncomfortable with. At this point, we are fine with you deleting all 5 photos. Sorry if this caused such a stir.n- ksumagit1

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acrofan.com

Would an OTRS member be willing to check the validity of {{Acrofan.com}}? The template says that ticket:2012112610002772 includes a blanket CC-SA-3.0 license for the photos at acrofan.com. However, it has been suggested at a UDR discussion that the template is not accurate and that the ticket actually only includes a license for a single particular photo, not all the photos at acrofan.com. It would be a shame, but if the template does not accurately reflect the ticket, we might have to delete the files that rely upon it. —RP88 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

plus: Although I personally cannot access OTRS, I think that the "a single particular photo" means an example the photos at acrofan.com, but does not mean the permission is limited to the single photo. --Puramyun31 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RP88 and Puramyun31: Two eMails mention only an individual image, the third the whole photo archive.

I hereby affirm that [sender] is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Photo Archive of ACROFAN( http://www.acrofan.com )
I agree to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0.

Not an explicit release, but the lack of "publish that work under the" has most likely been caused by confusing wording in the consent template from that time. The customer didn't respond to the agent's (Willy Weazley) request to "[provide] a link to the image based on the location [he had] uploaded to at Wikimedia Commons" or upload it first if he hadn't done so already. FDMS 4 06:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can we live with that? For how long? The website states Copyrightⓒ ACROFAN All Right Reserved. The owner of the website just declared that he actually is the owner, and agrees to CC-3.0-by-sa. But for what he agrees to this license is far from clear. No word about you can use everything on my website. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to keep all files, the template, and all further uploads sourced with acrofan.com --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) It seems that it means it is meant for all files generated by Acrofan.com (there are some non-acrofan self files), given #3 of ticket.. If you want me to do so, I can contact Acrofan on behalf of you guys. — regards, Revi 06:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks revi! That would be great. Speaking Korean surely helps. Let's put a pause on this until we hear back from you! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I send it from my personal email or otrs interface? (Just to be sure) — regards, Revi 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use OTRS.--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sent: ticket:2015080510004702. — regards, Revi 05:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Maybe a presume question, should we be mind-reading wizards? In principle CC license does not nomally require a licensee's further notification or contact to a licensor, once a licensor's work is declared that is released under the license. --Puramyun31 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, the license granting text is not clear, so we need clarification from the licensor. — regards, Revi 07:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response from Acrofan.com

ticket:2015080510004702 received a followup. Summary below.

If "editor" is set to '편집국' (Editorial team), it is not a material made by acrofan. (3rd party copyrighted)

If article's category is '뉴스' (News), it is not a material made by acrofan. (same here)

Even if the article is not classifed as '뉴스', there might be non-watermarked 3rd party materials. It will be credited inside the article.

CG shot and PPT/Keynote slides are (of course) restricted.

Otherwise all materials are copyrighted by Acrofan.com. I have requested furthur clarification so it is logged that he releases the material in CC BY SA 3.0.

— regards, Revi 10:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And furthur response has confirmed any images which does not fall under 4 criteria above are fallen under CC BY SA 3.0 as {{Acrofan.com}} says. Hooray! — regards, Revi 17:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job Revi! Thanks for saving those files! Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I've updated {{Acrofan.com}} to include the categories of files from acrofan.com to which the CC BY SA 3.0 license does not apply. —RP88 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just checked a few dozen or so of the 1000+ files from acrofan.com, and I only found one (i.e. File:2012 tving OSL JangBi victory.jpg) that fell into one of the excluded categories. So I suspect the vast majority of the photos in Category:Images from acrofan.com are likely fine. —RP88 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Excellent work and outcome! Couldn't be better!

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland Pavilion of Expo 2015

Ticket: #2015011510007195

Is the ticket from the architect of the building in Switzerland Pavilion of Expo 2015? The ticket is currently placed on a architectual model (File:Schweizer Pavillon Expo Milano 2015 01.jpg). If the ticket is not from the architect stating that he releases the copyright he owns for the architecture design, then all those images needs to be deleted per COM:FOP#Italy. I hate that law, fyi, but as it is right now it is still the law. Ping Martin Kraft the otrs-agent and uploader for the image mentioned earlier. Josve05a (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: The Permission for the renderings of Ticket 2015011510007195 was granted by the EDA, the swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, which also is the institution responsible for building and marketing the swiss pavillion in Milano. Imo there is no reasonable doubt about them, having aquired all the rights, that are necessary to publish these images under a free license. Btw. considering that this architecture renderings where created prior to the buildings themself, this is definitely no FoP issue.

Having said that, we do not have any permission about the other photographs in the same category and the usage of {{PD-Switzerland-official}} does not convince me. ping @John Jason Junior: // Martin K. (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for restoration of cartoons

(translated with Google Translate:) Hi OTRS team

Please could you restore the subsequent cartoons. The approval of the cartoonists went with mail from July 15, 2015 at 19:02 clock on [email protected]. Is there anything else that I can do in this matter? --Molgreen (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiewende-Rallye-Stromspeicher-Gerhard-Mester.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O11184.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O10944.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O11189.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O12816.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O12293.jpg

(Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2015 um 19:02 Uhr --- Von: "Gerhard Mester" <[email protected]> --- An: [email protected] --- Betreff: permission) --Molgreen (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

***********************************************

My German Riginaltext: Liebes OTRS-Team,

könntet Ihr bitte die nachfolgenden Karikaturen wiederherstellen. Die Zustimmung des Karikaturisten ist mit Mail vom 15. Juli 2015 um 19:02 Uhr an [email protected] gegangen. Gibt es noch etwas, dass ich in dieser Sache tun kann?

***********************************************

--Molgreen (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see also, please: [Ticket#2015081610002845] --Molgreen (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

***********************************************

Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. August 2015 um 22:43 Uhr

Von: "Gerhard Mester" <[email protected]>

An: [email protected]

Betreff: Ticket 2015081610002845

> MAIL AN: [email protected]

> MAIL BETREFF: Ticket 2015081610002845

> Ich erkläre in Bezug auf die Bilder:

> Energiewende-Rallye-Stromspeicher-Gerhard-Mester.gif - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiewende-Rallye-Stromspeicher-Gerhard-Mester.gif

> O11184.jpg - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O11184.jpg

> O10944.jpg - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O10944.jpg

> O11189.jpg - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O11189.jpg

> O12816.jpg - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O12816.jpg

> O12293.jpg - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O12293.jpg , dass ich

> a) dessen Fotograf/in (Zeichner/Karikaturist) bin oder ...

Ich habe keine persönliche Webseite von Gerhard Mester gefunden. Folgende Links sollten zeigen, dass [email protected], die offizielle Mail-Adresse von ihm ist:

Viele Grüße

--Molgreen (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was send, it will be answered ASAP. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS number received...

Greetings:

User:Wonderfl wrote on my talk page about three images I deleted.

He wrote "My contact at the company says Please follow up on ticket #2015080610020737. ... The original images are here:"

Would it be possible for someone to verify this number for Wonderfl and provide assistance relevant to this folder? Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wonderfl and Ellin Beltz: the license was from the organization; three files restored; OTRS template added. Please use the {{OTRS pending}} template if an email has been sent but not replied to yet. Green Giant (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Giant: -- Thanks. Please restore the 2 derivative images that I created. File:IOIO_V1_Pins.png and File:IOIO_OTG_Pins.png. Also, is this cropped image correctly uploaded? (license, etc) Wonderfl (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Account Verification

This account has been verified for German Wikipedia in 2014, see ticket #2014090110009401. Can someone please add the corresponding template to our userpage here on Commons? Thanks in advance for your help. --World Wide Fund for Nature (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked if the ticket is used at de-wiki and this seems to be the case so I added the template to your userpage. Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cornerstone_Promo.jpg

File:Cornerstone_Promo.jpg has been waiting for ORTS confirmation since April 2015. Was that ever received, or should the picture be deleted? --Nagle (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on that ticket. Please don't delete it yet. Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juliana Areias Profile Picture.jpeg and File:Juliana Areias singing outdoors.jpeg

For both images the uploader claims a permission under Ticket#2015080910001172. Could somebody please check the ticket and eventually add it to the filepages. Also, File:Bryan Todd image.jpeg is OTRS-pending since July 20th. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working on that ticket. I send a reply yesterday. Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barlettastemma.png

Hi, Please see this DR. This ticket is not valid, the permission is not sufficient. I wonder why and how this bot account adds this template, and if it didn't happen more. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is in fact an OTRS-ticket with for Wikipedia only license. @Wdwd: Have a peek here pls? Thx! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info File:Barlettastemma.png was original uploaded on de.wp, as noted in the section "Original upload log". The OTRS ticket ticket:2007090410009759 was added by user:JuTa (de:Benutzer:JuTa) on 2. Feb. 2011 on de.wp, with the remark "see it:File:Barlettastemma.png". Visible in the wiki sourcetext of OTRS template. I decided on 23 April 2015 to transfer this file from de.wp to commons via my bot-account (user:wdwdbot) and without any further check of the OTRS ticket. the bot-script copy given OTRS templates as part of the file transfer from de.wp to commons. I (or my bot-script) didn't add the original OTRS ticket. The original ticket was added by it:Utente:Elitre with this edit.

Because I'm not speaking italian, i would like to ask user:Elitre to have a look on this ticket again. As far as I can understand the permission is not valid - and it is not a simple PD-textlogo.--Wdwd (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images for Ayers Rock (band)

I am inquiring about a set of four images of former musicians in the band Ayers Rock uploaded at 09:38, 16 July 2015. They are:

I received these photos from Hamish Stuart, the former drummer with the band. Hamish sent permissions statements to Commons at the usual email address within 24 hours, and received email confirmations in return. Since then, about 30 days have passed without any communication from Commons. From what I have been told he has a legal right to sign copyright permission for these images, but that is for him to explain. Could an OTRS agent check the status of these files, please? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related ticket is ticket:2015071610013273 and I did send a reply the same day as we recieved the email. However, the client never responded to my question. Natuur12 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, so much for your quick response, then and now. I will follow up - soon. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had a peek at the ticket. Problem is: Question send 16.07.2015, no reply since. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am trying to contact Hamish at the moment. I put a message on his voicemail 15 minutes ago. I hope we will have something from him very soon. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish has found the emails you sent, and has replied to each. Thanks for your patience. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending license request since 30 June 2015

Hi,

On June 30th I uploaded this picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Champs_concert_in_Paris.jpg and got the author Julien Lepeut to send a mail to [email protected], in which he gives his authorization for GFDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0 license to this file.

Neither he nor I ever got an answer, despite my reminder mails, so I don't know the ticket number.

Could you do what's necessary to reactivate this request ticket? Otherwise, as I've been told, the file may be deleted. Please help.

Regards,

--Hervelam (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is rather a large queue for French permission tickets, but I can confirm @Hervelam: your ticket is in there. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little help

I need some help from other users with the list of files uploaded by me on March 13(Ticket#2015031210026238). I handled myself with the copyright's holder, and he sent me the permission, but another OTRS member has pointed that the files are uploaded at Flickr (The original source) as "All rights reserved, so it could bring some confusion, on his opinion, so the holder's will have to change on by one the files licensing at commons. I asked him to do so last February, but I think his very busy. I'd like to know if I can ask for the deletion, cause I don't think he's going to this soon. Can a sysop help here deleting?Willy Weazley 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Willy Weazley: has this been resolved now? If not, I'm happy to process these on the OTRS ticket alone if he cannot change the licence himself. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: , sorry about the delay I was on vacations! Yes, it was handdled by Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt.Willy Weazley 20:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mdann52talk to me! 06:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayers Rock (band)

Re ticket:2015071610013273. Could an OTRS agent, please, check the status of these 4 images? From a previous discussion, the client was sent 4 emails asking the question on 16.07.2015. The client, Hamish, has told me that he belatedly found these emails, and replied to each one. Could you tell me whether the emails have been received by Commons, please? These images are important to English Wikipedia because Ayers Rock (band) is currently nominated for GA review, although it could be a couple of months before that review actually begins. The editors working on this article have only one photo of one band member at the moment. We would like to display all of the images before the review process commences. Given that the images were uploaded on 16.07.2015, would it be possible to treat this ticket as urgent, please? Thanking you in anticipation. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion is archived here. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The final confirmation of the copyright was sent on 2015-08-19. I processed the ticket for you. Thanks for the upload and good luck with the GA! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: Thankyou so much. I have been working towards the goal of displaying images in this article for 18 months. However, there are another 3 images in the set, namely:

I am reliably informed that final confirmations were sent at the same time for these images. Could you help me out again, please? Regards CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found them all and

Done. Thanks for the uploads! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law for employee photographers

As the wikipedia article Copyright makes clear, copyright in a photograph taken by an employee is owned by the employer:

The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself, if the work is a "work for hire".^[1] For example, in English law the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that if a copyrighted work is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer which would be a "Work for Hire."

I was surprised to find a volunteer denying this when I and the photographer told him about it, insisting that the photographer rather than the department for which he works make the licensing declaration. Can the volunteers be properly informed in this and other regards, please? --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Where did you see that a volunteer said that? It may be a mistake, but it also depends on the country. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was in regard to Ticket#2015081810006829. I had written "As per [the photographer's] email sent to you previously, copied below as #1, he has confirmed what I previously told wikimedia that, in conformity to normal practice when photographs are taken by an employee of an organisation, it is the laboratory that holds the copyright." The response was

"in conformity to normal practice when photographs are taken by an employee of an organisation" - that statement is simply not true. I have marked the file as confirmed because of the statement from the photographer [whom I had asked to send in a statement as well, anticipating trouble]."

It does not depend on the country. I did a search and established that the UK, US and Canada all say exactly the same in this regard. But perhaps the volunteer is from Timbuktu or wherever where the rules may be different. This has all taken up a lot of time unnecessarily.

While I'm writing, I might as well refer to an earlier irritation, perhaps by the same inexperienced volunteer. This was a photograph taken by the wife of the subject, who did not want to deal with the formalities so she passed the copyright to her husband. I had been discussing with him the idea of including a photo on the wikipedia page about him, and volunteered to do the upload and deal with the formalities for him. There is a wikipedia page that appears to indicate that a representative of the copyright holder may make the appropriate declaration, and so having uploaded the picture emailed in the appropriate licensing declaration. It seems to me that that should have been an end to the matter, but the volunteer who contacted me insisted again that the photographer make the declaration, so in the end the wife had to send in an email to fix things. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The German copyright law doesn't provide for this. The copyright stays with the author in case of for hire. Transfer of the copyright is only possible by inheritance, at least in Germany. No idea about Timbuktu, tho. :-) Same in Portuguese AFAIK. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see! The volunteer concerned has a rather German sounding name (correction: he's from the Netherlands), so that may very well be the explanation for what happened. It should have been obvious however, with a little research, that this was a UK photo, and since two of us both said the same thing about copyright laws the person concerned should have looked into this before responding. But it seems pretty well impossible to find the relevant information on the help pages on this site, even on a page I found giving some country-specific information. I wonder if anyone can give more information in regard to the question of whether representatives of copyright owners can make declarations on their behalf. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier message I wrote: 'That's possible under some circumstances, but will need a comprehensive explanation. In most cases the photographer as a person is the copyright holder.' - you decided to be too impatient to come with an explanation. As you can see above, my statement was quite accurate. And no, I'm not inexperienced. I think nobody handled more tickets than me for the last six years, but there may be one or two at most who did more. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. If you did know that in many countries it is the organisation that holds the copyright when a photograph is taken in the course of a person's duties, you might have checked whether that applied in this case rather than rushing to presume that both of us were wrong in regard to the copyright situation for this particular photograph, especially as I had included correspondence asking the HoD if it was OK for the photograph to be used in wikipedia, which would rather suggest that some kind of official laboratory photograph was involved, to which the exception would apply. All right, the volunteers are very busy, but this does not excuse presuming that neither I nor the photographer knew what we were talking about, instead of checking up.

You mentioned saying earlier that a 'comprehensive explanation' would be needed to justify the organisation's holding the copyright. Wouldn't a very simple explanation, just pointing out that he was the laboratory's photographer rather than a random person, have sufficed? You must excuse my thinking that your writing in such terms suggested that wikimedia commons officials were busily engaged in making the approval procedure an unnecessarily tortuous one (as had happened also in the other case that I referred to above). --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this, we are getting nowhere this way. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, I'll leave it as well, as clearly you aren't prepared to admit that you might have handled the situation regarding copyright better. However on the picture page I have made an appropriate amendment, reflecting the situation as it is according to English Law, and trust this can now also be left as it is. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2007042610015988

Aloha! I need a ES-N speaker to verify Ticket:2007042610015988. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maqueta Tronador II.jpg Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is valid for files from presidencia.gov.ar. This file does not come from that site. Uploader seems to have realized his mistake and nominated the file for speedy five minutes after upload. I will proceed and delete the file. Jcb (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hopper works

An image I uploaded of Edward Hopper's Universalist Church was deleted, see discussion here. I forwarded to OTRS an email from the Princeton University Art Museum's Manger of Information Access asserting that the image was in the public domain. The response received was that the museum would need to prove that this is the case. Why is the museum's statement insufficient? What would constitute sufficient evidence. The museum is part of a world-renowned institution, is currently exhibiting this work by Hopper as well as others, and surely is a trustworthy and expert source of information on Hopper's estate. Why would Wikimedia Commons set itself above Princeton University, and the Whitney Museum for that matter, as a judge of copyright issues on Edward Hopper's works? A number of other Edward Hopper paintings, including his most famous work Nighthawks, have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with less accurate explanations than the one I received from Princeton and forwarded to OTRS. What evidence was required to allow those files? Djkeddie (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which part of this message you didn't understand. Please respond by email, not via the noteboard. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a private conversation? Are you the sole decider? I would like input from others to confirm to me that your decision represents consensus. I received other communications stating that the consensus was that there was a need for clarification from the museum of the question of whether commercial alteration was allowed. Before I received a response from the museum you decided to delete the file on basis of rejecting their credibility outright. You did not respond to my email, nor have you provided any clarification on what would constitute appropriate evidence, or explained why such strictures don't apply to other Edward Hopper paintings on Wikimedia Commons which would not normally be in the public domain. I would like input from other editors that your opinion is definitive as well as answers to my questions. I can't go back to the museum to ask for more information if I don't know what you will find acceptable.Djkeddie (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An OTRS ticket is not a private conversation, all members of the OTRS team have access to it. I did answer your message on my user talk page, before I saw that you sent the exact same message by email as well. You can just respond to our last email message if you have further questions. Please stop bothering the noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add ticket to picture

File:KariAronpuro99.jpg needs ticket from sourcepicture [35]--Motopark (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian navy

Hi, See Ticket:2013090610005872. The permission does not seem to come from an official from the Indian Navy. @Jcb: Opinions? See also request at UDR, past discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 52#Indian navy images, and User talk:Yann#Indian navy images. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for ticket

I've uploaded this file on June 21st 2015 >>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St%C3%A9phane_Pajot.jpg

I'm not the author but I had his agreement to put it under CC.BY.SA.4.0

He (the author) sent an e-mail following this template (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent) to [email protected] on June 22nd 2015.
I have a copy of this mail.

In August I've seen (by chance, no warning at all) that the file will be deleted because no email has been sent !

I re-sent (on 25th August) the original email to these addresses >>> [email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected] (I've found different ones but which one is the true one ?)

The image was deleted on August 30th by user:JuTa

So I'm asking for undeletion and an OTRS Ticket.

Thank you in advance.

Eric Brosselin (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket check request

Can someone check the OTRS ticket 4278892 mentioned here to see if it is also applicable to this comparable image from the same source? Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket will not stand up in a deletion request. Send by the webmaster of the Multnomah County Sheriff, no indication that this person actually has authority to publish and license under CC 3.0. Further: it is only a c&p email, sent from a mail.org email account. The text could have been everything. I'll go ahead and start a DR for this file. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brodeuses

I've got a problem with 4 pictures I took during the footage of the French film "Brodeuses" in 2003 (see all files in the Category:Brodeuses), for which I'm suddenly asked to give proofs I'm the photographer. At that time I spent one day working as an extra in the town of Fleurie, and the team allowed me to take some few pictures (although I have unfortunately no written proof of that authorization since it has only been an oral approval of my demand). At that time I was using an analog camera (a Canon EOS 300) and I scanned those pictures in 2007 to upload them on Commons. From 2007 to 2015, I lived in several places and I abandoned analog photography. Thus all my negatives are either lost or somewhere in the many boxes I have in my attic. And appart from the negatives I can't see any other proof I can bring to prove I'm the photographer, apart from my good faith and the fact that I've uploaded many other pictures which may show I could be considered as a trustful contributor.
Apart from that difficulty to give you any proof (I honestly have many more important things to do than emptying all my boxes !), I just don't understand why it's suddenly becoming a problem. Apparently there has been a complaint about those pictures ! I don't understand why someone would complaint about them. And I really don't understand why the complainer can ask any proof without bringing any proof him/herself that there might be a problem about my pictures !!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In ticket 2015082510013683 there has been raised a complaint about the pictures. Not really a copyright complaint, if everything would have looked fine I wouldn't have taken any action. But now I came across a weird situation: pictures in different sizes and resolutions with in the source field: 'scanned photography' (that statement was quickly changed after my nomination). I noticed these files were 2007 uploads of a user who found many of their 2007 uploads deleted already. Reason enough to doubt the copyright situation of these files. The first reaction of TwoWings was reverting the nomination. Not a brilliant first move if you want to gain confidence. Now in short, the nomination was based on what I saw on wiki, not on the ticket. So this is not an issue for the OTRS noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"pictures in different sizes and resolutions" > yes, because some of them were cropped. For File:E-Faucher-Brodeuses.jpg for instance, I can clearly recall the rest of the picture was just useless so I only kept the focus on Faucher.

"'scanned photography' (that statement was quickly changed after my nomination)" > yes I changed it because I thought my previous explanation may be ambiguous and may have motivated the OTRS demand.

"noticed these files were 2007 uploads of a user who found many of their 2007 uploads deleted already" > would you have examples ? If I'm right, the uploads that have been deleted afterwards were based on other reasons like the absence of FoP in France (I wasn't aware of those kind of rules and laws at that time - being a recent Wikimedia user in 2007 - and I am now more than cautious about those kind of problems !)

"Reason enough to doubt the copyright situation of these files" > well... what can I answer to that ?!!! It really seems unrespectful and unserious to me...

"The first reaction of TwoWings was reverting the nomination. Not a brilliant first move if you want to gain confidence." > You're right it wasn't the best thing to do. But as I wrote above, I just thought there was a misunderstanding because of the possible ambiguity about the expression "scanned photography". Couldn't you understand good faith ?!

And I still don't understand why it has to be my responsability to prove anything ! Does it mean that anyone who wants to annoy someone can claim there's a problem about a picture and ask for proofs even if the complainer has no proof himself that there's a problem ? I just don't understand what motivates the initial complaint ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem seems to be that you reverted a sysop and OTRS member with this edit comment: overzealous demand - I'm the photographer and uploader and I see no reason why I should prove it for that one <- doesn't speak misunderstanding to me.

No admin on any project would have accepted a revert like this, you have 40k edits here - you know better. Next time just drop a line on the talk page of the user and the problem can be resolved in no time flat. The deleted files refer to the unauthorized photos mentioned in the ticket I think. You probably are upset because of the headbanging over FOP in another DR and this thing here just blew out of proportion. I suggest AGF and s*it happens. on both sides. Most important: don't take it personally. My two cents. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't speak misunderstanding to me" > I can admit that (and I've already admitted the revert wasn't the right thing to do but I explained why I thought it was just a misunderstanding). But I added another comment in the next modification of each file (see here for instance). You say I shouldn't take it personally (which I don't) but your comment about my revision summary seems to say that my "overzealous demand" expression could have been taken personally (thus everything's quite ironic and overlooping, isn't it ?) The only thing for which I may now be a bit upset about is when Jcb suggests I've already had problems like that in the past, which is wrong : I have never been questioned about the fact that I'm the author of the files I claimed to be the author ! He's making wrong assessments about me and my contributions (it's almost defamation).

"You probably are upset because of the headbanging over FOP in another DR and this thing here just blew out of proportion" > Not at all ! How stupid would it be to connect such different matters ?! I actually noticed that OTRS problem/demand before, so there's no link with the other topic ! I just don't understand why those pictures are now questioned. The first problem is that, not that I reverted a sysop (that came afterwards). Will I have to pay my revert mistake while I have done nothing wrong about the pictures themselves since I'm the photographer ?! That would seem stupid and unfair to me !

"I suggest AGF and s*it happens" > I do ! But I realize it is not applied to me, both for the pictures themselves and for the reasons why I reverted Jcb !!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. There's nothing ironic about my statement, period. But I realize that you unwilling to to drop this issue anytime soon. Therefore I'll make my retreat and spend my time on more useful things. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahesh Babu at Selvandhan audio launch.jpg

I have requested for using this file on Wikipedia a month ago. Today, i have received the mail from the permission holder who gave his consent. Shortly, i have uploaded the file with an OTRS pending tag and forwarded the mail to [email protected]. I request the OTRS volunteers to confirm the ticket soon. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for your turn, there are about 700 messages waiting before you. If the file is deleted in the meantime, the OTRS agent will restore it if the permission is in order. Jcb (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Celebrity Chef and Dietitian Gina Keatley January 2014.png

Hi, The ticket for this file seems not to be valid. Grashoofd, who processed the ticket, was not active recently. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed the file for now and sent a message to the client to the client to hear their explanation. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of the statement of Szu-Wei Chen on Chinese Wikipedia conflict between Taiwan and China (zh-tw).png

see File talk:Screenshot of the statement of Szu-Wei Chen on Chinese Wikipedia conflict between Taiwan and China (zh-tw).png, email have send--shizhao (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a Ticket

On August 7, 2015, I uploaded the following image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rick_Shutter.JPG

I was not the creator of the image but I had the creator's agreement to upload it and assign it the CC.BY.SA.4.0 license.

The creator sent an e-mail following this template (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent) to [email protected] on August 7, 2015. I have a copy of this mail.

It looks like this email hasn't been processed yet because the page still contains the email-has-been-sent-to-OTRS template and the ticket number hasn't been identified.

I realise that the OTRS process is done by volunteers and that there's a backlog. It's fine if this image is still in the queue; I just want to make sure it hasn't been overlooked. If someone could check, I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Kekki1978 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd, could you have a look at ticket:2015080810000371? It was closed for no apparent reason. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have mistakenly moved it to the spam queue. Sorry for that. It's now reopened and waiting for processing. --Krd 16:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd and @Jcb, is there an additional action that I need to take? The template on the image's Commons page now says that the e-mail the image-creator sent to [email protected] was insufficient to confirm permission for this file. What needs to be done at my end to remedy that? Or should I just wait for additional OTRS processing? Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped that template there to prevent deletion for another 30 days. The ticket will be looked at soon. Jcb (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and the help. Kekki1978 (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bollanti

Hi, may I have details about ticket:2010042810017851? Years ago I discussed with User:Giuseppe Bollanti, who is an ambulance manufacturer in Italy, and I would like to know if the ticket covers just the two images uploaded at that time or all the images from his website/company. Could you please notify me here? :) Thanks,--Doppio M 14:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here and notify you there. Note that I don't speak Italian, but the ticket seems straightforward enough. The ticket explicitly puts three files into the public domain that were attached to an email ("...delle foto quì allegate..."). The files (and original filenames) were: E1bis.jpg, 3.jpg and Fronte.JPG. Hope this helps, Storkk (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as I remembered it is quite... narrow ;)--95.232.129.195 16:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Col Loughnan at Manly Jazz Festival

I'm inquiring about File:Loughnan Manly Jazz 3.JPG which is taking longer than usual to be approved. The [Ticket#2015082610000239] was sent previously, and the client has generously re-sent the permission statement today, with today's date at UTC 4:28 AM, 12 September 2015. I hope this information is helpful. - CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CaesarsPalaceDude! I've updated the OTRS and everything looks good. The reason this didn't happen before is because the author only provided authorization for File:Loughnan Manly Jazz 1.JPG but in the second email, provided permission for this second image. Thanks so much! Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk)`

That's great! Yes, something didn't quite go to plan, but it's all good now. OTRS is a fantastic service, thankyou. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJKAM BrandNEW bx5.jpg

Can an OTRS member take a look at this file and see if the OTRS permission filed for either File:DJKAM HeadShot2.jpg (OTRS ticket #2013110210005571) or File:DJKAM CoverArt Collage 700x700.jpg (OTRS ticket #2013110210005571) can also be used for it? The files were uploaded by Pati Rojas who claims she is acting on behalf of the original copyright holder Revision of User talk:Taivo. Since she's uploaded lots of similar images to Commons, I am wondering if there's a way that one OTRS permission could be sent in by en:DJKAM to cover all of the images uploaded on his behalf. For reference, my only connection to this is that I added a {{Npd}} to "DJKAM BrandNEW bx5" because the file had no OTRS permission and noticed that other file uploaded by Pati Rojas had also been flagged for similar problems. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An OTRS permission email found and been added for the image by Jcb, so this matter has been resolved. Thanks to everyone who checked on this. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a separate ticket covering this file and we have been in contact with DJKAM. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2015081310026791

File:Dvshumkov.jpg has been tagged with ticket 2015081310026791, which is mentioned in its deletion request, but I can't find the tagger, D.bratchuk, anywhere in lists of OTRS members. Could someone please check it and leave a note at the deletion request confirming or rejecting what D.bratchuk says? Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, D.bratchuk is listed at meta:OTRS/Users. —RP88 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Just FYI, please feel free to check the footer here: http://centrzakon.ru/about/chairman/. Per my request it contains the number of the OTRS ticket, so as to confirm that the approval has been sent by real Dmitry Shumkov, who can access the site of the company he owns. --D.bratchuk (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, D.bratchuk; I believed that only local OTRS folks could do OTRS work here, so I thought that you were faking something. No more questions, and I'm sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PicoScope

File:PicoScope6000CDLaptop.jpg

Why did User:Ellin Beltz delete this image? The rights to use it was received via OTRS from the manufacturer. When deleting it no proper reason was given except for "copyright violation". I had personally worked with the manufacturer to send the OTRS email. I don't see any "violation" that occurred.

"Leon Haanstra" accepted the OTRS, and the number was "Ticket#: 2015060910009491".

Wonderfl (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the file as soon as I woke up on Saturday morning, the first time I saw your note on my talk page whereis my reply. It's my day off and apologize for not having the time to write twice on same topic atm. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt action and your kind words. Its so hard to find a good soul on WP these days. Wonderfl (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect author on several picture permissions

Hi,

I just discovered recently that pictures which I put for OTRS via email sent 2015-03-05 21:53 GMT+02:00 at [email protected]

The files in question are:

These following pictures have marked Arto Sipilä as author but the correct author is Arto Sipinen

If you could correct the author information that would be brilliant!

Best regards,

Ari --AriLamminen (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Storkk (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Hello can you update this with this, tank you. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Binotto.jpeg.jpg (done)

Hello,

User:Spartanbu has left a message at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback containing a ticket number (#2015090710004966) for this image. Someone with OTRS access might want to have a look at that … --El Grafo (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DaB.: pinging the owner. Storkk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I waited for that picture. Thanks for notifing me. I added the permission and answered the mail. --DaB. (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files von Huberbe hochgeladen

Am 4. u. 15. Sept. wurden folgende Dateien hochgeladen und die Genehmigung per Mail zugesandt. Bitte bearbeitet die Tickets, damit die Bilder verwendet werden können:

Danke, --Huberbe (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for your turn please. No need to use the Noticeboard to pass the queue. Jcb (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French OTRS agent with access to Commons queue?

Hi. Any French agent with access to commons queue?

Copyright complaint
Ticket: ticket:2015090310014195
Image: File:Arles St Trophime night.jpg

Thanks. Alan ^(talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jcb: :-) --Alan ^(talk) 10:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Augsburg Zobelstraße 20a.jpg

Das Foto zeigt nicht die Zobelstraße 20a, d. h. nicht die Grovermann-Villa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 62.216.223.130 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18. Sep. 2015 (UTC)

I left a note in the description and on the uploader's talk page. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Datei_Tinta_Caiada.jpg

Hallo: Warum wurde die Datei Tinta_Caiada.jpg gelöscht? Wo liegt d. Problem. Die Eintragung war auf der richtigen Sortenbeschreibung Parraleta. Siehe [36]. Wenn notwendig kann ich die Freigabeerklärung nachliefern. Das Sortenbild von der Rebsorte Alfrocheiro Preto hat auch ein Bild von dieser Freigabe - Alfrocheiro.jpg. Könnt ihr die Löschung rückgängig machen oder muss ich mit der Freigabeerklärung die Datei nochmals hochladen (mit erweiterten Namen, damit nicht der gleiche Dateiname hochgeladen wird.)? HG Karl --Bauer Karl (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moin! Wiederhergestellt und OTRS Nummer eingemeisselt. Zum Wohl! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für deine Mühe. Herzliche Grüße aus der Wachau, Karl --Bauer Karl (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undelelion request

Please will someone restore File:Robin Lustig voice.wav; OTRS ticket 2015071710012361 refers. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, we have not (yet) received a confirmation that the author has assigned copyright to the subject. Without clarity on the status of the copyright this image cannot be restored. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to an audio (.wav) file, not an image. Its subject is the author. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The permission of the .wav is not yet confirmed. The file will be restored when we recive a valid permission. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from Mr Lustig, CCd to OTRS, confirming permission, on 17 June. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, two seperate permissions send to us that day were merged and I did not notice this. The ticket covers two files, a sound file and an image. Indeed we have sufficient permission for the sound file. I will ask the admins to restore File:Robin Lustig voice.wav. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have noted this case as an incident to the OTRS admins. We apologize for the inconvenience and will try to prevent anything like this happening again in the future. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:TSV Meerbusch emblem.svg - TicketNumber=2015090910020837

Ich habe den Urheberechteinhaber Herrn Peters angeschrieben, auf die Freigaben von Texten und Bildern und ihm den Text mit den entsprechenden Variablen übersandt. Er hat mir dann die Freigabe gesandt und ich habe ihnn gebeten, den gleichen Text an [email protected] zu senden. Was ist schiefgelaufen? Was kann ich noch tun? -- Maxxl² - talk 09:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der Urheber fehlt noch, der Verein ist bereits informiert. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No reply to OTRS email asking for more information. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011012010000439

Unclear copyright status:

ticket:2011012010000439 --> issued for User:Nehrams2020 and File:GenevieveHanneliusApr09.jpg, confirmed by OTRS staff (@Wikitanvir: )

Reused by Sauropelta1998 (talk · contributions · Number of edits) for File:Bandofhorses 0412.jpg + File:Villavicencio4.jpg (uploaded 2013), added by uploader. Could somebody please checkup on this ticket and see if it is applicable?. Thx in advance. Gunnex (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gunnex: The ticket is unrelated, so I have removed the template and added {{Npd}}. Thank you! Storkk (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: No, thank you :-). Gunnex (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Gunnex (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extracted file from Duncan & Chris Record Plant B.jpg

I have extracted a file from File:Duncan & Chris Record Plant B.jpg and called it File:Duncan McGuire Record Plant.jpg. I have added appropriate "Extracted from" etc templates. As an extraction from a file with copyright tags, I believe it is appropriate that the new file should have such tags as well. The ticket No. is 2015092310016039. Could an OTRS agent add the copyright tags to the extracted file, please? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Storkk (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verified account

This account is verified on German Wikipedia, see ticket:2015091510016205. Can someone please add the verification to User:Buw Holding, too? Thanks a lot. --Buw Holding (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015042810009725

ticket:2015042810009725 (Максим Підліснюк)

There appear to be several maps and other images on this ticket. The image pages appear to have different possible copyright holders.

I include two samples causing me concern, however I have not examined the several other images relying on this OTRS verification:

File:Russia Water 1909 Year.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) would be public domain if it were originally published in 1909. It has been labelled as "own work" of the uploader but it is unclear from the description on the image page how this is a valid copyright claim.
File:Papua VA Helicopters Contrast.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) seems to have a copyright claim of a book author/editor, however the artwork is the property of an airline.

The OTRS volunteer handling these has no doubt gone through the details, but the image pages lack the clarity needed for reusers to be certain of who the copyright holder is and if the given copyright license is the best to apply. --Fæ (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission seems fine to me, release of a whole book by its author. Jcb (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for OTRS ticket

Hello,

I'm working on the french page of the american sculptor Cecil Howard, and probably later, the english one. As his grandson I'm the right holder of his works and of a certain amount of images concerning him.

I posted yesterday 3 reproductions which have been promptly taken off, as they where suspected of violating copyrights, and I've been advised to ask Wikimedia Commons for an OTRS ticket. I have to precise that each of those 3 images (links listed below) have been taken by myself from objects witch are in my possession.

Could you give me the informations of what to do and where to go to do so ?

Do I need an OTRS ticket for each image ? Because I have some more to use...

How can I prove my quality of right holder ?

Sincerely

--Marsange (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cecil_Howard_-_Autoportrait_au_crayon_(1950).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cecil_Howard_-_Accord%C3%A9oniste_et_danseurs,_recto_(1915-17).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cecil_Howard_-_Accord%C3%A9oniste_et_danseurs,_verso_(1915-17).jpg

@Marsange: yes, please follow the steps at COM:CONSENT. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2015100110013053 received today - Jcb (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Account Verification

Unser Benutzerkonto wurde für die deutsche Wikipedia bereits verifiziert, siehe OTRS-Ticket #2015081010010098. Könnte bitte jemand die entsprechende Vorlage auf unserer Commons-Benutzerseite ergänzen? Vielen Dank!

This account has been verified for German Wikipedia, see ticket #2015081010010098. Can someone please add the corresponding template to our userpage here on Commons? Thanks for your help.

--Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft:

Done. Raymond 09:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change Email templates for automatic OTRS replys?

Hi folks, apparently the German queue for permission e-mails is currently longer than 1 month (Half of those pictures have not been processed yet even though permission was sent immediately, i.e. on 22 July, Ticket#: 2015072310004377). That in itselt is not much of a problem, but the confirmation that is automatically being sent by [email protected] is a bit misleading as it suggests that it usually takes just a few days: "Da alle E-Mails persönlich von freiwilligen und ehrenamtlichen Mitgliedern des Support-Teams bearbeitet werden, kann es vorkommen, dass bis zum Erhalt einer Antwort mehrere Tage vergehen." According to FAQ, > 1 month is quite common, so I suggest that the Email template is modified accordingly. Regards, --Mangomix 🍸 12:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The queue is now significantly below 1 month, so this is resolved IMO. --Krd 17:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image on the commons has an OTRS licence while this copy on Wikipedia does not

Can someone please link this image to Wikipedia, because here the image has an OTRS on file, but on Wikipedia it is still the old copy before the OTRS, and I can't use it in my user pages. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 20:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ticket owner, Natuur12. To me the ticket seems a touch murky: the license appears to apply to this html page and not specifically the logo, however it seems relatively clear from the language used that the copyright holder intended to freely license the logo. Storkk (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you get when the client is not very familiar with copyright law but in his first post he links to the entire website which includes the logo and from the language it indeed becomes clear that he means the logo. I would say that the ticket is valid but I can understand why people can disagree with that point of view. Natuur12 (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Transferred the logo from enwiki to Commons, ticket# added. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bild von Huberbe hochgeladen

Vor 4 Wochen habe ich folgende Datei hochgeladen und die Genehmigung per Mail zusenden lassen. Bitte bearbeitet das Ticket, bevor es der Robot löschen wird:

Datei 1

Danke, --Huberbe (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huberbe: Moin moin! ticket:2015090710014839. Am 11.9. wurde eine email geschickt, bisher keine Reaktion auf die gestellte Frage. LG, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Info, ich hake mal nach. --Huberbe (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Käser hat mir per Mail geantwortet: er meint die gestellte Frage beantwortet zu haben. Falls diese nicht im OTRS aufzufinden ist, lasst ihm die Mail einfach nochmals zukommen. Ich werde ihn darüber informieren. Danke! --Huberbe (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail nochmal geschickt, hier erleidigt. --Krd 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images containing copyrighted elements

There's a discussion here regarding the images containing copyrighted issues for which we can't apply "de minimis". A case is discussed as an example. Could one of the volunteers help us with this discussion? Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. Jcb (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karl Peters.jpg

This mentions what looks like an OTRS ticket, but the page has never been edited by an OTRS member. Is the ticket valid? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission in the mentioned ticket is fine, but didn't provide a link to the file, so that the processing OTRS agent was unable to find it. I have fixed it. Jcb (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is it correct that the file is dually licensed under two different variants of CC-BY-SA 3.0? Not just one of those? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket mentions the DE version. I have removed the other variant. Jcb (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Stefan4 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Stefan4 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this OTRS ticket valid?

The OTRS ticket, 2010101210006666 (ticket link) is added by a non-OTRS member Geregen29 on File:Alexandr Zinchenko.jpg, File:Marvin Pourie (1, FC UFA).jpg, and File:SylvesterIgboun 1.jpg. I think that the ticket is fake. Can someone check it? Thanks. Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also check OTRS ticket 2012011810007275 (ticket link) that is added to File:Maxim Goncharov (1).jpg by a non-OTRS member Geregen29. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Rubin16: --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First ticket - see {{FC-Zenit.ru}}, it covers photos from fc-zenit.ru only, files you mentioned are deleted now. rubin16. Second is wrong ticket, too. (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: rubin16 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trs 20150623 milwaukee jp 105.jpg

The photographer of this photo, Jim Pietryga, sent an e-mail containing his permission for the use of this photo to the e-mail address [email protected] on September 7 (or September 8, depending on your time zone). It would be nice if this permission could be found and confirmed because the photo got deleted the first time I uploaded it because I was accused of violating the copyright, although I did contact the photographer and asked him to send the permission to the e-mail address. If the permission is missing (if your team never received an e-mail with a permission), I will ask the photographer to send it again, but I doubt that he didn't send it since he clearly said to me that he sent it. Thanks in advance. IksDe (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Found it. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timor images

User:Smooth O has put templates into some of the images, I loaded up, but now he is telling me, he couldn't check, if there are permissions still send or not. It made me a little angry, because the emails have been send long time ago.

Photographs by Natália Carrascalão Antunes: The permission was sent in Feb. 2012. I do not have the mails in my backup anymore. Three years after upload it is a little bit difficult to retrace the former dialogue. Ambassador Natália Carrascalão Antunes seems to be a little busy, so I got no answer for a new request to permite the upload again, so it would be good, you can find the old one. Would makke it easier.

Photographs by Artur R. Braga: The permission for the pictures was sent to [email protected] on 2014-11-14. This information is written at the File pages. The subject was "hola bondia". Artur wrote: "mr. fischer is allowed to load up the photos at wikimedia under license CC-BY-SA-30. l the photograph." Two days before, he sent the photos to me directly. I still have the mail in my backup. I can resend all three mails, if needed. To get contact again via 12,000 km is not that easy. Done --JPF (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--JPF (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New permission of Mrs. Natália Carrascalão Antunes is sent to permission right now. --JPF (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ark: Survival Evolved images

Five images (File:Ark Survival Evolved flying dinosaur.jpg, File:Ark Survival Evolved riding dinosaur.jpg, File:Ark Survival Evolved logo - black background.png, File:Ark Survival Evolved logo.png, File:Ark Survival Evolved logo 2.png) were just deleted from Commons because they were not updated with the OTRS ticket number. I'm not very experienced in this field; can somebody please help me with this? The copyright owner sent an email to OTRS on 26 May 2015. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain1999: this might be ticket:2015052510018139, which was received on 25 May. It was replied to with a request for further information on 27 May and nothing further has been received. There are two issues as it stands: 1) the original email was sent from a gmail account, and so there is no assurance that the person who sent the permission is the copyright holder, and 2) The filenames referenced above appear nowhere in the email. There is a link to a google drive containing what looks like a press pack with multiple nested hierarchies of folders, with documents and pictures. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Выделенные Полосы в Москве, Инфографика.jpg

Good time of the day!

I've been by advised by user Motopark to apply for your assistance regarding my issue.

The issue is the following - when I created an infographics file (an image) and tried to publish it in on Russian Wikipedia, I, being myself creator and thus owner of this image, had filled in the form provided and sent it to [email protected] 11 august at 22.38 [Ticket#2015081110020914].

Please be informed the following about that image. This image is my own work and neither contains logos or registered TM signs, nor does it contain any works or parts or works of other copyright owners. Therefore I can publish it in Russian internet (in Russian Wikipedia in particular) without any restrictions, according to current Russian legislation. To my humble opinion even if it is considered as no-free content in some countries outside of Russia, it still seemed to me being in line with fair use rules for Russia in particular (those I've seen provided on the page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content )

So far I got neither approval nor rejection from OTRS directly regarding my request, but got a notification from user Motopark regarding probable copyright violation.

After having a mail exchange conversation with Motopark, been advised by him to apply to you, because he still sees my case as fair use issue. Am asking for your advice now, because my image been labeled for deletion by august 18.

Can you please kindly advise me how to solve my issue so that I can publish my work in Russian Wikipedia?

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance and support

Truly yours,

Raven Tao (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumental Urban Life.jpg

English Wikipedia had an OTRS template whereas Commons did not, so I copied the OTRS template over. However, I then noticed that the copyright tags differ. Is there some information in the OTRS ticket about which copyright tag the file should use? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan4: {{cc-by-sa-4.0|1=Roland Neveu}}. Confusion may have arisen because the license was contained in a pdf file with a slightly misleading filename. Storkk (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legnano, Contrada San Domenico, stemma.svg

Can anyone please review the OTRS ticket which grants permission for that image to be published? I have been contacted by the Comune of Legnano which claims to hold the property of that crest. Seemingly the authorization in the OTRS comes from the Contrada of San Bernardino in Legnano, which was only granted the permission to use the crest for their banners excluding any other use. The only institution which can release the image is thus the Comune of Legnano. If the OTRS ticket doesn't come from the Comune di Legnano, thus, the file cannot stay here. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Permission appears to have come from the president of Associazione Contrada S. Domenico, who claims to be the copyright holder (through the standard language of the email template). Storkk (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Storkk. This means that the permission was granted by someone that couldn't be grant it. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010 Nikolai Litvinov Nantional Branding C1 BM 4.pdf

This file has an OTRS template but has not been edited by an OTRS member as far as I can see. Is the OTRS template correct? Could a copyright tag be added to the file? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email is in Russian. Natuur12 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is OK, however ugly handled. The author wishes to publish his books on cc-by-sa-4.0 license gradually. And other tickets from this author are merged there. Permissions should be confirmed by an OTRS agent. Ankry (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flecker2005.jpg

Can someone check ticket stated in file description for this photo. --Smooth_O (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were doubts regarding the authenticity of the release, but the customer refused to ask the copyright holder or his representative to send it directly to us. Unsure why it was accepted although it was clear it did "not meet formal requirements", ping Pajz … FDMS 4 04:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Government of Free Lebanon.png

Is the information posted for "Permission" considered acceptable proof for Commons? Doesn't something more formal need to be sent to OTRS? I have no problem assuming good faith, but "yes u have the permission and thankyou very much" seems a little bit iffy to me. Moreover, even though the Mikrobølgeovn explains "This would significantly increase the quality of any SLA-related article and may be used on all versions of Wikipedia." in their original request, this could be miscontrued as meaning the image can only used being used on Wikipedia, couldn't it?

Finally, the same uploader has also uploaded various official photos of Israeli politicians, like File:Yitzhak Shamir Official portrait.png, under CC0 1.0 and given commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard as the source. Are official pictures such as these really so obviously public domain and can the upload wizard be used as a source? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged no source, started DR for Lebanon Flag. There's not much info about Lebanese (c)laws. AFAIK the logo is above TOO and there's no exception for Gov. works. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I received the confirmation via email. The pictures of Israeli prime ministers are official portraits from the Knesset's website and not subject to copyright. Feel free to email the Government of Free Lebanon to verify (yes, they are still very much around, believe it or not). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Mikrobølgeovn, but I things are the other way around when it comes to permission emails. Either you or the Government of Lebanon are supposed to send a "declaration of consent" (confirmation email) to [email protected] per COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder. The wording of the "declaration of consent" has to be quite specific, but there is an example given at COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the official portraits from the Knesset's website, you've provided no sources for images, like File:Benjamin Netanyahu Official portrait.png, other than Wikimedia's own "special upload wizard". A source is needed to verify what you say about the image being in the public domain. I'm not sure if knesset.gov.il/main/eng/home.asp is where you got the images, but it seems to say quite clearly at knesset.gov.il/about site/eng/copyright eng.htm that images from the site are not public domain, but require written permission of the Knesset and in some cases from the original photographer to be uploaded to Commons. Again, Hedwig in Washington or another editor will correct me if my reading of this is wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. I rarely contribute here, so I am far from as familiar with the rules as I should be. I'll be careful to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Feel free to delete the portraits, but I'd be very happy if we could put some effort into saving the flag through emailing them again. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction; Please DO delete the portraits asap. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. I realize I should probably steer clear of Wikipedia Commons in the future unless I make myself familiar with the rules. I again apolologize for the trouble. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Mikrobølgeovn. You can always ask first at COM:VPC if you have any questions about an image you're thinking about uploading. There are always editors there willing to help and answer questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error message trying to email Permissions Commons queue

I'm getting an error message back by reply email, trying to email Permissions Commons queue for seven files:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

  [email protected]
    local delivery failed

Is the email having some problems getting in?

Could use some help, please !

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay, now it gave me three confirmations of receipt, sorry guys, it produced 3 different tickets for exact same email:

Ticket#: 2015102010028191
Ticket#: 2015102010028225
Ticket#: 2015102010028314

If an OTRS volunteer could help tag these 7 image pages, it would be most appreciated -- it's part of a Quality improvement drive I'm working on at Wikipedia.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to Ticket:2015102010028191. If nobody has taken care of this by tomorrow, I will... but the bounce should probably reported... pinging User:Krd/User:Rjd0060? Storkk (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Storkk, it's an easy ticket if you wanted to close it and tag the images -- it'd be most appreciated. The copyright holder used the standard CC-BY-SA-4.0 license and form language from Commons:OTRS. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would need a more detailed error report, just "something went wrong" cannot be investigated. Please advise by private email, if possible. --Krd 07:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: It seems to be all fixed, now, just need someone to tag the image pages per Ticket:2015102010028191. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: just sent an email requesting direct confirmation from the photographer. This is purely to avoid situations like this one should the license be questioned in future years. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally forward it myself to OTRS as a way to help make things easier to facilitate with the copyright holder who may not be familiar with our confirmation process. But thank you very much, hopefully he will email you back soon ! -- Cirt (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ElenaLenina.jpg

Please check OTRS permission for this file. I've uploaded this photo after request in IRC chat, however, I don't have OTRS system access, just used number, provided by irc user. Recently this person led an agressive promo in Russian Wikipedia, used fakes and fraud, and now I am not sure, that it is all ok with this permission, bezik (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info: The ticket is in Russian. It contains an eMail from a freemail account forwarded using a freemail account, but also a signed document which isn't a release. The agent who dealt with, User:Lvova, is no longer active. FDMS 4 00:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual release is in the first email. I believe the document is a transfer of rights (upon payment of a certain amount). It is signed only by the photographer, and I guess it was just assumed that the amount was paid, thus the rights transferred. A native Russian speaker's opinion would be good. Storkk (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the ticket is ok for me: Storkk correctly described the situation rubin16 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: rubin16 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2015063010008898 for recent uploads valid?

Hi, I just noticed that the uploader himself added to a lot of "fresh" images this ticket from June this year. You find them (hopefully all) on 2005년 5월 서울특별시 강남구 코엑스 재난대비 긴급구조 종합훈련. Is this ticket vali for those images? --Ju Ta 11:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping -revi. Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: It's fine.

The authoratives of Seoul Metropolitan Goverment is releasing as the license. However you should watch the uploader's upload carefully since he tries to do these things:

Send OTRS for what he does not own. (One agent ACCEPTED it and I realized it few months later, which made me impossible to guess which pics due to the amount. (+500 iirc))
He sends it, but ticket includes nothing and he links to evernote.
Upload Out-of-scope images.

His overusing categories should be checked too, but his amount is really overwhelming. — regards, Revi 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ankry (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motobécane Z2C 125 cc OHV 1949.jpg

This photo can't be the one of a 175 Z2c. If it was a Z2c, there would not be so much space between the fuel tank and the motor head. So it is a Z46C the same model with a 125 cc motor. And it is a model that existed from the end of 1949 till the replacement by models with back swing arm, about 55/56. Precedently, it existed a Z46C (production beginning in 1946) but this model had no space between tank and motor head and had a parallelogram font suspension. Excuse me for my poor english, i'm French.

File:Motobécane Z2C 175 cc OHV 1949.jpg

ticket:2007071710013063

24/10/2015 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.166.193.12 (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your info. Description changed and image renamed. Ankry (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ankry (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turksoy Flag.jpg

3-4 days ago I was in Ankara. I wanted them. The organization sent me a picture of the flag ([email protected] - an employee of the organization). I have explained to them that this picture will be loaded Wikipedia. What do I do now? Thanks in advance. Idin Mammadof 7:19, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)

You have to get permission from Turksoy. See OTRS on how it works. Good luck! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission. Now, how do I prove that I got permission? Idin Mammadof 16:44, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries for the format of the permission and where to send it. --Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this logo (File:Turksoy Flag.jpg) should be sent to this e-mail ([email protected]) to your e-mail ([email protected])? Understood correctly? Thanks in advance. Idin Mammadof 18:35, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Idin Mammadof: don't send the logo again - what we need is a statement of permission and a license from the copyright holder (see Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries that Jarekt linked to above). Storkk (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StorkkIt was a little difficult. I can not explain it to them. Maybe you choose a more simple option. For example, they send you a letter with the following content:

I agree to publish the File:Turksoy Flag.jpg under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

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.
Prof. Dusen Kaseinov, the Secretary General of the International Organization of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY)

This is the correct procedure? Idin Mammadof 11:21, 19 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Idin Mammadof: Yes, it should come from Prof. Kaseinov directly to [email protected]. Ideally he would keep "[Ticket#: 2015101810010373]" in the subject of the email, so that the software puts it together with your previous ticket. Storkk (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They informed me that the letter was sent. Did you receive a letter from them? Idin Mammadof 12:20, 21 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see... I checked all tickets for "Turksoy" or "Kaseinov", as well as all tickets after yours in the permissions-commons queue as well as the permissions-tr queue (although I don't speak Turkish, it's definitely not there). Do they have a ticket number? If they forgot to add your number to the subject, they would have received a new one, and we could trace it that way. Storkk (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus tag

OTRS 2013042110000955 seems bogus and is heavily misused. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#.D8.B3.D8.A8.D8.A3 Please triple-check this tag.--Denniss (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ticket:2013042110000955 is in Persian. Pinging ticket owner, User:Mehdi. According to M:OTRS/Personnel, the only other people with permissions access who are also Persian speakers seem to be User:Mardetanha and User:Meisam. Could either of you please take a look? Storkk (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User has history of misuse and currently we are debating about deleting around 6K of his uploads in fawiki, thus I don't see any reasons to trust him --Mardetanha ^talk 21:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardetanha: Thanks... I can't read the ticket, so would appreciate it if you could clarify if you think that this means that all of these are dubious enough to bring to COM:DR? Thanks again, Storkk (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume user has proven to be misusing our trust for many years, there is no reason to keep his files on commons --Mardetanha ^talk 15:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see everything is clean now. Jcb (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I saw this section so late. We had discussion in other notice board.--Mehdi^Talk 20:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Nine, Eff Nine

File:Oh Nine, Eff Nine.webm

This time I had the author "reply all" back to both myself, and the Permissions Queue, instead of me just forwarding it to the queue.

Just checking if OTRS received this one ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 tickets merged.

Done, ticket:2015102910021751. Alan ^(talk) 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Alan ^(talk) 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help !!! -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion but OTRS claimed

Can someone please check File:Air Marshal PP Reddy.jpg mentioned in this deletion discussion? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid. See Special:Diff/177727687 --Alan ^(talk) 12:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Alan ^(talk) 12:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Groufie.jpg

Could someone please check whether an email asking for the deletion of File:Groufie.jpg has been arrived at OTRS. If yes, please drop a note in the above linked DR discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: Special:Diff/177721476. --Alan ^(talk) 11:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Alan ^(talk) 12:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Alan ^(talk) 11:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Cook pic hirez.jpg

File:John Cook pic hirez.jpg

It's possible separate emails from the subject himself and a reply-all from me, may have created two dup tickets for this one.

Ticket number OTRS ticket 2015110410016865

and possibly another one.

Thank you, OTRS volunteers, for your time and all your help !!!

-- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hazal Kaya.jpg OTRS permission

uploaded by SuhailAzaz from Pakistan that has a OTRS ticket is in copyright violations. uploaded picture isn't "own work," and not been taken in 2012. Copied from the original picture of the behind the scenes (promotion of "aski-memnu (forbiden love tv series) made by Ay yapim downloaded from haber3.com > http://www.haber3.com/yeni-dizisi-belli-oldu-foto-galerisi-24356-p8.htm > you can also download the (full-lenght) of the same photo from > https://www.pinterest.com/pin/367887863289696731 taken in Aug 2008. In short, picture taken in 2008 not 2012, and remains the property of "Ay yapim" the production company.

@Cirt: Pinging the agent who added the ticket.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt seems to no longer be a volunteer. I have taken a look at the ticket, and agree that the above is persuasive. I will drop Cirt a note, revert to OTRS received and request clarification from the ticket client. Storkk (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will respectfully defer to the judgment of Storkk and/or other helpful OTRS Volunteers, thank you ! -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LICENCE PHOTO BUSTE GENERAL DELFINO

Je souhaite de l'aide en Français pour le choix d'une licence pour la photo du buste du Général DELFINO que j'ai importée (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buste_G%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral_DELFINO_par_Marcel_MAYER.pdf) Je souhaite mettre une licence du même type que pour les autres photos de la page Marcel Mayer sur Wikipedia que j'avais importées mais n'y arrive pas . L'auteur de la photo est l'épouse de l'artiste qui est prête à donner son accord. D'avance merci pour votre aide en Français . --amazone 48 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: could you assist? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amazone 48: Ce fichier a été supprimé - si vous avez besoin de l'aide, s'il vous plaît envoyez un courriel expliquant la situation a [email protected]. Il faudra expliquer comment vous avez acquis les droits d'auteur, et exactemment quelle license vous choisissez. Pardonnez, s'il vous plaît, mes erreurs de français. Storkk (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure ab out the correct step to follow for OTRS verification

I recieved an email saying this template was added to my user page. {{verified account|1=2015100510004243|user=Mlaucke|realname=Michael Laucke|org=http://www.michaellauke.com|agent=Jcb}} Does this mean I can add it to each photo I uploaded where deletion was being considered? What are the next steps I have to follow? --Mlaucke (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlaucke: this means the identity of your account has been verified by Jcb. Please don't add OTRS templates to files as this activity is automatically flagged up by rule 69 of the abuse filter. Generally, I would suggest just uploading files and applying a license. If questioned, point to the template on your user page as evidence that you are who you say you are. Storkk (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this ticket

Can someone please check the OTRS ticket number on File:Matmos - Rose Has Teeth in the Mouth of a Beast - Martin mics cows.jpg? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Natuur12: This is for you. IMO ticket is valid. Alan ^(talk) 00:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look after my catnap. Natuur12 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still only see a non-standard number attached. Has someone checked this yet? Ww2censor (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hedwig and sorry Alan, some IRL stuff made me forget about this request. Natuur12 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lire un mail adressé aussi à l’équipe OTRS

Bonjour,
voici ce que je peux lire sur la description du fichier Bloc gnomonique. Lans-en-Vercors. Armand Destroismaisons.jpg : « L’équipe OTRS a reçu un courrier au sujet de ce fichier. Il peut être consulté ici par les utilisateurs disposant d’un compte OTRS.». J’aurai souhaité consulter ce mail (car il s’agit peut-être de la copie de celui que j’ai envoyé à l’artiste canadien) mais je ne sais pas comment ouvrir un compte sur l’OTRS. Pourriez-vous m’aider en m’adressant par exemple un lien en français.
Très cordialement. --6PO 14:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6PO (talk • contribs)

Merci de répondre en français : mon niveau d’anglais risque d’être insuffisant !

La consultation des mails sur OTRS est réservée aux membres OTRS, il faut candidater sur meta:OTRS/Volunteering. Après je vois que Scoopfinder a ajouté le bandeau {{OTRS received}} sur l'image le 7 novembre mais personne n'a répondu au ticket... Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir Thibaut120094 et un grand merci pour cette réponse. Il ne me reste plus qu'à attendre... ! Cordialement. --84.102.254.6 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Pedro de Atacama al atardecer, Región de Antofagasta - Chile..jpg

Can someone please check the OTRS ticket number on File:Iglesia de San Pedro de Atacama al atardecer, Región de Antofagasta - Chile..jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoloveiYegor (talk • contribs)

Valid. Alan ^(talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS tickets added by Jabavashadze12

Non-OTRS member Jabavashadze12 added PermissionOTRS to several files, in each case the date in the ticket number is years older than the upload to Commons. Would an OTRS member please check the OTRS tickets associated with these five files:

Thanks. —RP88 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RP88: Ticket covers only File:Lamara_Chkonia_-_Madame_Butterfly,_Kiev_1968_MB.jpg, File:Lamara_Chkonia_Tbilisi_1975.jpg and File:LamaraChkonia_Rosina_Kiev_1968.jpg. Storkk (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Storkk. Did you only look at one ticket? File:Igtg72dli3lz.jpg has a different ticket number on it than the others. Is is also not covered, like the rest? —RP88 (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, RP88. I actually checked each of the other four files, and skipped that one. The ticket on File:Igtg72dli3lz.jpg covers File:-Sanjeewa-Pushpakumara.jpg and File:FLYING_FISH_-Teaser_Poster-5.jpg (and is possibly invalid for those also, but not blatantly), so is invalid as well. Storkk (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All five files nominated for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan coins

Please could someone check the status of File:Rwanda, 10 Francs or à l'effigie du président Grégoire Kayibanda.jpg? It shows as having an OTRS ticket confirming that copyright is granted, but it suggests that the French numismatic organisation CGB owns the copyright and had the right to grant permission to Wikimedia to use it. Surely, however, as an image of a coin, it should be governed by Commons:Currency? And it's not at all clear that reproduction of Rwandan currency is permitted - the commons Currency page doesn't say either way. Thanks Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: confirmed: permission is from CGB. I interpret this to mean that insofar as CGB have had creative input into these COM:DWs of currency, their contributions are licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL. I think this should be taken to COM:VPC. There appear to be hundreds of other files, in multiple tickets (at least ticket:2013111910009223, ticket:2013112010013359, ticket:2013112010013402, etc. etc.) affected by this. Storkk (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: : Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:CGB.fr images of post-1900 coins has now been opened. I believe this gets most of the problematic files. Storkk (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: OK, thanks for looking into this. Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Вопрос о получении лицензии

Добрый день!

На адрес [email protected] были пересланы запросы на разрешение от Н.И. Мацкевич (фотограф конференции), редакции газеты "Наука в Сибири", от А.А.Давыдова (фотографа Института физики г. Красноярск) и от С.Г. Козловой на публикацию фотографий для создания странички для С.П. Габуды https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0,_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87.

К сожалению, мы не получили ответа на наши запросы, и участник JuTa удалила все фотографии со странички Святослава Петровича Габуды. На наш вопрос почему это было сделано, сказано обращаться к Вам!

Пожалуйста, помогите выйти из этого круга.

С.Г. Козлова участник SGKozlova — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGKozlova (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SGKozlova: когда отправляли разрешение? с какого адреса? Можете не светить адрес здесь, а отправить его по емейлу лично мне, я проверю - отправить мне емейл. rubin16 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@D.bratchuk: - 2015091110003824. Что в итоге? What's the result? rubin16 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to have been successfully resolved (in ticket:2015091710004821). Can this be archived? Storkk (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jon Cooper Lightning coach.jpg

The file description states that the author of this photo is the Tampa Bay Lightning Hockey Club. As noted in the metadata, that's not true. It was created by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images. Keeping in mind that Bruce Bennett is not a member or employee of the Tampa Bay Lightning Hockey Club and that Getty Images aren't in the business of publishing their content under free licenses, could I get a second opinion as to the validity of this license? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO fake own work. gmail address used, author (metadata) differs from name in email. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This OTRS permission was apparently accepted by Sphilbrick in August of this year. Are you seriously telling me that OTRS agents are still blindly accepting tickets from disposable e-mail accounts and still not checking the metadata of images? Is there no checklist or SOP designed to stop this sort of nonsense? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this would be a different error, as I just noted in the FFD. The image came to me directly from the media director of the Tampa Bay Lightning. I was a little too trusting of his own awareness of the differences between a work for hire and of the kind of arrangement Getty Images would have with the league. I'm not exactly a "disaposable e-mail account", which would in turn explain Sphilbrick's easy acceptance of it. Resolute (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(xpost) The uploader reached out to the Manager of Digital Media of Tampa Bay Lightning organization, to request a photo. The organization responded using an email associated with the organization (not a Gmail account). The Manager of Digital Media did not take the photograph nor claim to. Instead he explained that it was a work for hire, and that the Tampa Bay Lightning Organization is the copyright holder. They provided a photograph and affirmatively stated they released it under a creative Commons license.

Apparently, instead of thanking them for providing a photo for free which they had paid for, we should have accused them of not knowing what they were doing and rejected it. I'm not quite sure on what basis. Perhaps we should accuse him of lying when he said it was a work for hire.

I hope user:LX will apply to become an OTRS agent because the Commons OTRS permissions queue is creeping up again and it looks like I should work on other things. I'm not the only one who processes OTRS permissions but the last time I took a break the backlog got up to two months.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually change things, but the media manager actually reached out to a friend of mine who runs a blog that holds media credentials with the team. My friend got him in touch with me because I've been a longtime Wiki(p/m)edia editor and the team wanted an updated photo of Cooper. This was all instigated by the team itself. Resolute (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis

Please allow us permission to post images that have been removed by Yann so we can place it under the correct license. These are images that were uploaded in June and approved by you guys via the user HappySquirrel who was very helpful. This is a tiring issue. One image is from a newspaper and the other one from a college yearbook which both have been approved by institutions that are public images for public use as well as from Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis himself.

please go to the edit history to see Yann's removals and as he stated please classify them correctly and edit it again with the images being uploaded.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfellabear (talk • contribs)

@Goodfellabear: Unfortunately, there is no user with the name "HappySquirrel". I cannot see the images in question, but the newspaper would have to email us a declaration of consent, as would the yearbook photographer or college (whoever was the copyright holder). If they are photos of somebody called Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis, his permission is almost certainly irrelevant. Storkk (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2012051010007684

Hi, Can someone please check/confirm the ticket #2012051010007684 Copyright notice suggests work is free to use for any purpose, however National Archives website mentions non-commercial use for Wikimedia files only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphicfairy (talk • contribs)

@Graphicfairy:

valid for "INF 3 images uploaded as part of this “Wiki at War” project". Simply seems to be confirming works for which crown copyright has expired (see {{PD-UKGov}}). Storkk (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Furkan Tarhan Saul M. Levin Nevzat Tarhan Serdar Karagöz.jpg

Ticket with #2015112610006414 was opened, can you confirm validity?HakanIST (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If valid, file should be restored. Actually it shouldn't have been deleted as it was tagged OTRS-pending. --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HakanIST and Túrelio: Alan was the deleting admin. He is also an OTRS member, so you should probably ask him directly. Ticket looks OK to me (it doesn't reference the local file in the body of the email, but it's in the subject). Storkk (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done ticket:2015112610006414 verified and Image restored. Alan ^(talk) 15:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of a ticket for a British Pathe newsreel

I see that ticket #2010081310003868 is used for one still from a British Pathe newsreel. I'd like to use a sequence from the sinking of HMS Barham in 1941 for that ship's article. So what's the scope of that ticket? Does it apply to British Pathe newsreels in general or is it specific to that one example?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: ticket covers only the "< Great Portland Street 3 > still." Storkk (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, thanks for checking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kennedy-stewart-mp-burnaby.jpg

By a look at File:Kennedy-stewart-mp-burnaby.jpg, it can be seen that it has the typical look of the 2011 series of official, copyrighted, photographs of the House of Commons (HoC) of Canada. And, indeed, a search in the HoC website finds this photograph: [37], with its copyright notice. The HoC is not known to release its copyrights or to offer free licenses on its photographs. Normally, a file like this would be sent to deletion. How did the Commons description page get a public domain release tag and a OTRS tag (Ticket:2014011610015061)? If we look at the description page, apparently the uploader credits the authorship to... the subject pictured on the photo, who may also be the person to which the uploader refers in the source field by "sent by owner". Of course, the HoC probably allows the Members of Parliament to use the official HoC photos in their own communications and to distribute copies. That does not transfer the copyright to the Members. An individual Member of Parliament doesn't own the assets and rights owned by the HoC as an institution, and an individual Member can't unilaterally give away the Parliament buildings, the furniture of the HoC or the copyrights of the HoC. A so-called permission or release is worthless if it comes from someone who can't do it. It doesn't matter if the unauthorized person sends the non-valid permission through OTRS. Just because a non-valid permission arrives through OTRS doesn't make it less bad. Please review the ticket and, unless it is found to include evidence that the copyright was released by someone officially authorized to manage HoC copyrights, please note the ticket as not valid. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is invalid. Natuur12 (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and will nominate it for deletion. Storkk (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms licensing policy

Dear all
I write here because the more dealings I have with Wiki Commons Admins the more apparent it becomes that Wikipedia lacks coherent policy and application thereof with regards to heraldic images. For further info, qv. User talk:Mabelina and related discussions. Having no wish to engage in argy-bargy and simply wishing to enhance Wiki's provision of info, you'll no doubt appreciate how frustrating it is to have uploads of COAs deleted when their display accords with the law of arms in England and Wales (and moreover seemingly being compliant with Commons:Coats of arms - insofar as that policy is applied consistently)? I have sought advice regarding correct licensing but this seems so far to have caused more discussion than results. Since heraldry is an area where I would think I could help Wiki significantly, I should be most grateful for any guidance as to how to proceed constructively. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabelina: would you please clarify whether this confusion regarding COA copyrights has been explained to your satisfaction? Can this section be archived? If not, could you please explain what you wish us to do... I think this may be the wrong forum (see COM:OTRS for what this page is about). Thank you. Storkk (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: - much obliged for your asking me about this & yes please go ahead archiving these discussions. It would seem to me that the final answer about this could only really ever be tested in a court of law, which a) we don't want to happen, b) is most unlikely too, and would be entirely unfounded, in the case of those images uploaded by me, and c) let's work together to get a more watertight policy for heraldic images uploaded generally on Wiki Commons. Many thanks & let's be in touch accordingly. Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: - clearly there needs to be more discussion, qv: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor COA.gif, in light of recent posts? Please advise whether the commission of a QC's opinion would reassure any lingering doubts in Wiki further to the multitude of previous discussions. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabelina: you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page. We are simply users who have access to email queues and can verify (i.e. vouch for) emailed permissions. The access to these queues is restricted because they inherently contain private information such as email addresses, and so volunteers are vetted by their peers. We are not some kind of appeals court. Storkk (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: - I am well aware this is not an appeal court & nor am I in any way trying to use this page as such. Please view Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor COA.gif accordingly. Thanking you in advance for your consideration & looking forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there has been no email to OTRS regarding this file. If I am mistaken, please provide a ticket number. Otherwise, this section should be archived. Storkk (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File: Peter Plavsic Live and 3 others

I am User:CaesarsPalaceDude. I am enquiring about the status of :File:Peter Plavsic live Japan.jpeg, part of a set of four images related to a band, en:Sebastian Hardie. As far as I am aware the four files have the same OTRS ticket number. I am currently in hospital and am unable to access my email account or the OTRS ticket number. Could you please tell me if there is anything I can do to help these files gain copyright tags. I am being treated for leukemia, and I can only write to you via my mobile phone which l am finding quite difficult. Please help me. CaesarsPalaceDude 110.143.205.98 19:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CaesarsPalaceDude:

Done. Speedy recovery. Storkk (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: I'm still in hospital, but I'm in very good hands. I have been given a tablet computer, which is much more useful for editing than my phone. Thanks so much for your help. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the ticket for the pictures

Hello,

can someone check the premissions of the ticket, please: 1. File:Davide Spiga - Moderation TABU YUN!Q.jpg 2. File:Davide Spiga.jpg 3. File:Davide Spiga - STARTSHOW YUN!Q.jpg

Thank You--Medienspion (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Medienspion: please see the header notice at the top of this page: there is currently a backlog of 5 days' worth of tickets. The ticket will be processed in due course. Storkk (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fawzi Hariri.jpg

Request ticket check on this file. I've found indications such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:صدام و چند آمریکایی.jpg that this particular OTRS ticket may be bogus. Kelly (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fawzi Hariri.jpg is not covered by the ticket. Ticket itself is probably invalid as well: Ticket was accepted in 2007, clarification requested in 2012, and nothing received since. Unfortunately, it probably needs an Assyrian speaker to go directly to the source website, as the ticket was sent in by (and clarification requested of) an intermediary. Storkk (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(forgot to ping User:Kelly...) Storkk (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambio de licencias en la pagina de la Presidencia Argentina

En el día de la fecha los contenidos de la pagina de la Casa Rosada (http://www.casarosada.gob.ar/asuncion/) pasaron de estar en la licencia Creative Commons Genérica de Atribución/Compartir-Igual 2.0 a estar en la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 2.5 Argentina, la plantilla de copyright CC-AR-Presidency debe ser revisada. Saludos. .Juandedeboca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandedeboca (talk • contribs)

Hola @Juandedeboca: . No se debe modificar la plantilla ya que las licencias Creative Commons son irrevocables.

Este tema lo puedes encontrar en Commons:Café#Casa Rosada dónde está más explicado.

Un saludo. Alan ^(talk) 17:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @Alan: . A lo que me refiero, es que hay que actualizar la plantilla para los nuevos contenidos que genere la pagina ya que van a estar bajo una nueva licencia de Creative Commons.

Un saludo. Juandedeboca ^(talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Juandedeboca: No porque al alterar la plantilla se cambiaría a lo ya existente en Commons, lo que sería una violación de la licencia Creative Commons anterior al ser revocada. Como la web ya marca que es libre, el nuevo contenido se debe subir con la plantilla de licencia {{Cc-by-2.5-ar}}. Recomiendo acompañarla de {{LicenseReview}} para dar constancia en un futuro de que se subió con la licencia correcta. Un saludo. Alan ^(talk) 19:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PD: Lo que si es viable es crear una nueva plantilla, por ejemplo {{CC-AR-Casarosada}}, {{Casarosada.gob.ar}} u otro nombre para las nuevas aportaciones. De momento para no hacerlo mal he dejado un aviso provisional en la plantilla utilizada hasta ahora. Alan ^(talk) 20:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan: . Gracias Alan,lo comprendo. Aprecio tu trabajo, doy por finalizado el asunto.
--Juandedeboca (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estoy modificando la plantilla en sandbox para que acepte un nuevo parámetro para archivos nuevos, conservando la compatibilidad hacia atrás con archivos antiguos. Esto para no duplicar código. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La plantilla ya está operativa con los cambios de Amitie. Alan ^(talk) 10:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Alan ^(talk) 10:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent photo of Mark Kennedy

I have uploaded the cropped photo File:Mark Kennedy 2009.jpg, which is a derivative of File:Mark K and Col L cropped.jpg. The latter file already has OTRS permission with the ticket #2015092610005947. Could an OTRS agent, please, check that the new file is a derivative, and add the ticket number to the new file? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Storkk (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you guys rock! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billy Barty 1.jpg

I'd like to confirm this permission ticket: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1189297 JHVipond (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO not a valid ticket due to the shortcut in the statement given. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. If this was a CC licence, this would be ok, but not GDFL. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: deleted --Krd 16:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomba di luigi de' rossi, santa felicita.jpg

Can someone check is this OTRS ticket added by uploader valid for this photo, and if it is can someone add template. Thanks. --Smooth_O (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same for this File:Cerreto guidi.jpg. --Smooth_O (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smooth O: I don't speak Italian, but if Google translate is correct this appears to be invalid. I read it as a request from Wikipedia, not a confirmation of a license. Pinging Sailko, the uploader. Ticket owner appears to be Senpaiottolo~commonswiki. Storkk (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This OTRS is almost 10 years old, we can almost talk of Usucaption. The website of Comune di Firenze all, by the way, turned to be CC-BY licence about 2 years after (see at the end is CC-BY 3), so I really think if nobody complained in almost 9 years is it really urgent to check now? I mean, if the original web page with this image were still online, at the present the image would be CC-BY now. --Sailko (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sailko The problem is that the ticket consists of a request, from us, and no response. So the ticket (explicitly questioned above), far from having evidence of a license, has evidence that we asked and were denied (ignored). While I agree that it's an old upload, I don't think that fact or the fact that they currently license their site freely gives these photos immunity from COM:PRP. Are we even sure the city owns the rights to the photos? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tickets was probably registered wrong, but we have a copy here. many pages on Italian wikipedia were created with texts from that website.. nobody complained... "Are we sure?" I dont know, but in one more year it will be usucaptioned (10 year for items including immaterial for Italian law)... can we nevertheless just wait one more year and see if anybody complains for these 2 ridicolously small jpgs? --Sailko (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link appears to be a request from a Wikipedia user, and does not appear to contain a response in the affirmative from the Comune. Am I misreading something? Storkk (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The positive answer is in the last 2 messages. OTRS should have the complete email references, if they gave tickets and authorization at the time it should be all ok. --Sailko (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_under_OTRS_ticket_2006042110010172 is now created regarding these files. Storkk (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(C) and permission

The permission for this states 'This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose.' The image itself shows a clear copyright-symbol, stating the copyright belongs to 'Netstone S.C.'. It seems to me these do not go together very well. Does this require a second look, an adaptation of the image or am I misinterpreting things? Thanks in advance, RonnieV (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The email from the sender cannot be linked to Netstone but it can be linked to funfactory and therefor I would say that this ticket is invalid but perhaps one of the Polish speaking agents disagrees. Additional information about the watermark is required. Otherwise, we cannot be sure about the copyright status. Natuur12 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Odder: could you have a look at this please? you are the ticket owner. Thanks. Storkk (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: Sadly, I haven't got access to OTRS anymore, so I cannot help you. Still, I find it weird that I am the owner of that ticket; I see that the permission was processed by someone else, perhaps you confused me with another Polish-speaking person? odder (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Odder: definitely you, but if you're no longer an OTRS volunteer, I guess it doesn't matter. I agree with Natuur12 that the presence of the Netstone watermark is unexplained in the English portion of the ticket. The closing remark from Odder is also a bit strange for an accepted ticket (effectively "let's wait for another email"). Storkk (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would point out connections between Netstone S.C. and funfactory can be substantiated via Hurtownia24.pl - Dystrybucja (notice copyright at bottom of page). 50.126.125.240 03:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the ticket is not an example for how things whould be handled, I consider it as valid. --Krd 16:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files are not released

Why are the two files File:Auf Draht.2014-86.jpg and File:Auf Draht.1984-01.jpg not released? Long time ago WP has already received the permissions (Ticket#: 2015102610014461). --Jostes (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to permission-de. Sometimes it takes a while. We're working on it. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

copyright

my pictures are nominated for deletion, can sombody exactly tell me what email with what information i have to send where to resolve this please ? the otrs page is to complex for me. thanks (RomulusTheGreat (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@RomulusTheGreat: Hi,

Your pictures are derivative works of the board/posters/red box. The first one should be OK, as it is probably a permanent installation, so freedom of panorama should apply. On the last 2 cases, we would need a permission from the posters and box designer/producer, which you are very unlikely to get. Sorry. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks alot for the response. but i see that this one is also nominated now so u think this one will also be removed, or can stay ?. (RomulusTheGreat (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

File:Breendonk-memorial_9.jpg

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permissions for large quantities of files

Hi

Is there an alternative or an addition to listing all the file names in the OTRS email if I was to upload 1000s of files in need of OTRS permission? E.g could the email refer to files uploaded by a username on a specific date? Would this or something else make it easier for the person answering the ticket?

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can act as an effective copyright agent for the institution. This can be limited to the project in hand, and so the ticket can apply to just uploads for that project. The OTRS volunteer may want to check the bucket category afterwards to ensure there are no surprises.

BTW, there are alternatives to using OTRS for this, keep them in mind. In many ways ensuring there is a public statement (website, blog post etc.) explaining the scope of the project and promoting it is better, as this all remains available for public verification rather than on a special database with no public access. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fæ

I agree that a public archive with a clear licensing statement would be a preferable approach but its good to know you can do it by category as well.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usual approach is to create a custom license template that specifies the files by e.g. type, source and uploader so that the respective copyright holder can release the images by this specification. See Category:Custom license tags with OTRS permission for examples. --Krd 18:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think specifying a batch of files by a category is sufficient, since anybody can add a file to a category. I think OTRS should be for: all works from source, all works by author or all works by author uploaded by uploader. That way the copyright holder can precisely define which files are covered and which ones are not. --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2015112310013742

Hi, i've opened the ticket #2015112310013742 for this image, could you check if this ticket is valid? Thanks --Towerman86 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Towerman86: although the ticket contains a specific license, the license was not mentioned by the copyright holder (only assumed by the ticket submitter). Clarification was requested on 26 November, but no response has been received yet. Storkk (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bilder von Huberbe hochgeladen

Zu meinen hochgeladenen Bilder habe ich hier zur Bearbeitungshilfe die zugehörigen OTRS-Tickets:

Ticket#2015120110021237
- Datei 1
- Datei 2
Ticket#2015120410012303
- Datei 3
- Datei 4

Gruß, --Huberbe (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Account Verification

This account has been verified on German Wikipedia (ticket:2015050710011269). Can someone please verify it here, too? Thanks for your help. --Wolfsburg AG (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an OTRS volunteer with access to the info-de queue, I'm guessing: I have insufficient rights. Hedwig in Washington, can you help? Storkk (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't access this ticket either. @Krd: Kannst Du bitte aushelfen? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need for verification for this user at Commons, and the user shall be aware that account verification does not help at all regarding file permission. Besides that I don't see any need to doubt the dewiki verification, so no reason to double check. If I'm mistaken, please advise. --Krd 09:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd and Wolfsburg AG: could you clarify if the ticket names a single user for the account? Is it a role account? Does the user behind the account have the authority to legally act on behalf of the company? Storkk (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per ticket this is claimed to be a role account officially used by the company. I cannot verify if the sender has the authority to legally act on behalf of the company. --Krd 11:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can I verify myself ?

I want to verify my identity in commons. How Can I do that? Please suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnanaranjan sahu (talk • contribs)

@Jnanaranjan sahu: The answer is: Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, at the "I regularly publish my pictures elsewhere and want to avoid the hurdle of sending permission statements for every upload." part. Regards, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong License

The following file, license information is incorrect. Copyright is protected by the right.
Fikri_Sönmez_at_office.jpg copyright holder: Saim Tokacoglu, ticket #2015122510011301 --taysin (message) 20:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: De728631 (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need permission for the following file

File:Abhirami - Abhirami at Meiyyazhagi Movie Special Show.jpg ;

[Ticket:2015121810013143] ;

date of e-mailed : 17:40, 18 December 2015 (IST)

An OTRS volunteer has replied a few days ago. Basvb (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#: 2015120610000205_Permission to include screenshots images/text/photos from google maps

Hi admin,

May I have the honor to request permission to use maps images/text/photos screenshots from photographers of google maps. This will be published under this link: User talk:Chriz_moral#File:Kasaysayan at Genealogy ng Pamilyang Moral sa Pilipinas, 2015 Edition.pdf Thanks and regards,

Chris Chriz moral (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.130 (talk • contribs) [reply]

We do not permit Google Maps screenshot as their copyright lies with Google, as such this file can not be released solely by you without removing infringements. Basvb (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files from the Flightglobal archives (Flight magazine)

Dear OTRS volunteers,

have we received (between 2015-12-17 and today) an authorization from Flightglobal editors to publish images from their PDF Flight magazine archives?

At Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive we are awaiting this ticket to resolve the case of several hundred files. The Head of Strategy at Flightglobal, Mr. O'Toole, has contacted us and agreed to a release under CC-by-sa on 2015-12-17. I have redirected him to OTRS but have received no news since.

If such a ticket exists, can you please indicate what the exact scope of authorization is, and if there is a particular attribution required? Thank you! Ariadacapo (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find related tickets searching on: "flightglobal", "flight", "o'toole" and "toole", thus i'd say there is no ticket on OTRS. Maybe you could ask them if they have contacted OTRS and if so if they could resend the mail (cc-ing you)? If you get a reply please ping me and I will search again. Basvb (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Basvb. I will contact them again this coming Monday (2016-01-04). Ariadacapo (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! They have just sent permission for all files in Category:Images from the FlightGlobal Archive to OTRS, and copied me. Can you please verify it's OK, create a ticket with this? Then we will apply it to all the problematic files. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Received under ticket:2016010410016319. All 581 image files in Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive as of 17th December 2015 are part of the release (note that there are currently 583 files!). They are released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International with "The Flight magazine archive from Flightglobal" as proper attribution. Hope this can help, and curious which 2 files were appended after 17th of December. Basvb (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the ticket info to the category. Finding out which 2 files are not affected and then adding the information to the rest is something that I'm unable to do directly and will not be doing (not enough time to do that). If somebody can find which files were in the category at the 17th of December I might be able to tag all the others using VisualFileChange.js. Basvb (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Basvb! I have just reviewed all the changes made to members of Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive since 2015-12-17 and am certain that no file has been added to the category since that date. So I conclude that it was a typo or a small mistake (this number was intended as an example when I wrote the email, but people from Flightglobal did not edit it accordingly). All of those files do come from the Flightglobal archive and are low-res black-and-white. From my conversation with Flightglobal it was clear that the intent was to cover all 583 files, not just 581.

I have moved all 583 (!) files and the ticket template to a subcategory Category:Images from Flight archives licensed by Flightglobal. In the coming days we will also apply the template to each file and clean up the metadata. Please let me know if this is an issue. Greetings, and thanks again —– Ariadacapo (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok although not optimal. Basvb (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket on File:Ni lin-34342.jpg

The file File:Ni lin-34342.jpg is sourced to PalestineRemembered.com and relies upon the {{PalestineRemembered}} license template, which has an OTRS ticket number #2008122810014342. However, the Exif information for this photo identifies it as Agence France-Presse photo by David Furst. Does ticket #2008122810014342 really contain an agreement by AFP to GFDL license this photo? —RP88 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Tarawneh, ticket owner. Ticket is in Arabic. Storkk (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permissions for uploaded files

User:WolfgangDo (new German WP'ian) did upload a lot of files (see User:WolfgangD-2015-11-03 uploads) without having the right permissions @this moment. He got now the permission and was sending Email Monday, 2015-11-30, to [email protected] (MEZ 16:47H). Are there any news? Whom he or I might we have to contact for proceeding further? Thanks for any advice. Best regards --Commander-pirx (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Commander-pirx: please see the header notice at the top of this page: there is currently a backlog of 5 days' worth of tickets. The ticket(s) will be processed in due course. I would note that none of the images you linked to that I clicked are marked with the {{subst:OP}} template. Storkk (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for prompt answering, have send info to the new user; made an example for him... takes less than 38 days... ;-) hope that's fine. Regards --Commander-pirx (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded web chat as proof of permission

If someone were to record an online video chat with the copyright holder for a file that someone would want to upload, with the copyright holder giving permission with a free licence, could that qualify as a declaration of permission? —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 04:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please let them send an e-mail. --Krd 17:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015051910014814

Please, can anyone please confirm if the ticket in the image File:Cartel IV Maratón Fotográfico de Madrid.jpg also applies to File:1987 Fotomarathon Madrid Poster.jpg and File:1986 Fotomarathon Madrid Poster.jpg? Rodrigolopes (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigolopes: probably - the ticket is in Spanish, but it appears to be a release under the licence mentioned on the Flickr page, so OTRS is not needed here. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TicketID 4570581

Can you please verify if https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4570581 applies to File:Kuba2.JPG, now subject to DR, and if it is the case, place the OTRS ticket there? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DarwIn: the ticket does not explicitly cover that file. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: Ok, but does it cover something as "images I upload from arts-primitive.com" ? That user does not edit here for many years, and it seems they missed to put the OTRS ticket in this file. They say they are the copyright holder for that file File:Kuba2.JPG, but the OTRS ticket is missing, the website does not exists anymore, and someone now questioned the legitimacy of that license. Does this OTRS ticket, which sees to be present in their other files, confirms or supports in any way their claim that they are the copyright holder for the file? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DarwIn: it covers images uploaded on a certain day by a certain account. While it implies that all files on the site might be covered by it, it is far from watertight or clear, so I'm not satisfied that this is covered. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: - Thank you very much for that information, that's what I needed to know. I'll try to reach the uploader offline, if that would still be possible. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of the Fotosearch hompage September 14.jpg

File:Screenshot of the Fotosearch hompage September 14.jpg (original at w:File:FotosearchSep14.jpg) has an OTRS ticket and two revisions in the history. When the OTRS ticket was added, the second revision had not yet been uploaded. Does the OTRS ticket apply to both revisions or just to the first revision? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, taken care off. Natuur12 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The revision you hid was the original upload. The files are in the wrong order on Commons, see w:File:FotosearchSep14.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Restored it. But that said, I doubt that the ticket is valid. Natuur12 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you doubt the validity of the ticket, then maybe the file should be nominated for deletion... --Stefan4 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but not sure how I can motivate such a DR with the new OTRS-policy in place. Natuur12 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated it. Natuur12 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Natuur12 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Baroc and Ticket:2008042410024381

Hi, User:Baroc uploaded a lot of images from https://opc.mfo.de . For some of them he added Ticket:2008042410024381, for some not. As he is a non-OTRS-member I wish to ask if the ticket is valid for those images. I yes please add it to the other uploads, if not please "trigger" deletion of them. thx. --Ju Ta 00:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just to clarify that the pictures for which I added the OTRS ticket are the ones tagged with "Copyright: George M. Bergman, Berkeley" on https://opc.mfo.de. They are all contained in the category Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection (Bergman), where it is stated that they have been released under a free license. --Baroc (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access that ticket, could another OTRS volunteer or admin try? Basvb (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the info-en queue. Move to permissions? — regards, Revi 09:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to permissions::permissions-en. — regards, Revi 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving. ticket:2008042410024381 is also related, and mainly the same content. The information on top of Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection (Bergman) seems to summarize the contents of the permissions quite well. In the permission the images at this page on owpdb.mfo.de are discussed, and Bergman agrees with those being released under GFDL. Any images from other authors are not covered by this Ticket. If the other images are from owpdb.mfo.de, but not from Bergman, then evidence/permission for their freely licensed use has to be stated elsewhere. Greetings, Basvb (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gangwon-do Fire Service photos

[38] this is the link about it. I have sent more than 4 time as for this matter but cannot get an answer. Any volunteer OTRS workers who can give hands for me? Thank you very much. --최광모 (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

file:강원소방 심볼 (Gangwon-do Fire and Rescue Service symbol).jpg this file also. thank you. --최광모 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the ticket numbers? Are they in Korean? If so maybe we could ping a few Korean-speaking OTRS members. Basvb (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@-revi: , @Kwj2772: , @Sotiale: , @콩가루: , @분당선M: any of you able to answer/handle this? Basvb (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your history of sending OTRS without proper authority's explicit permission (only your vague comments), I do not think your email only is NOT sufficient. (So I think Alan's ticket:2015120310010316 should be reverted). — regards, Revi 15:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@-revi: , bit of a late reaction from me but that ticket has quite some files (343) attached (see files with 2015120310010316). They don't look strange, the set is a cohesive set all with large size and exif data. Searching a few (7 random) on Google I did find nothing. I tend to see that ticket on its own as acceptable, however do not know of any of the history. Is a follow needed on this, for example contacting the fire station, or should I close this as resolved? Basvb (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to handle it, I suggest you contact fire service. See also otrs-permissions-l. — regards, Revi 11:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting an organisation which does not have any English information or access online is quite complicated for me. I do not have the knowledge of the past of this situation to make a judgement on whether these files should be doubted. As such I don't think I'm in a position to do anything further to investigate whether these files permission is incorrect. Indeed a more solid permission would not be unwelcome here. As the original question is answered I will close the section. Basvb (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

↑ 17 U.S.C. § 201(b); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)

[1] 17 U.S.C. § 201(b); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)

[1]