Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2017

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:Leptopsammia pruvoti.jpg

I noticed after nominating this file for deletion that there are two other files with the same issue (File:Cristo degli abissi.jpg and File:Parazoanthus axinellae.jpg) and that they all mention "Ticket#: 2007051810005743" on the file description. Is this an OTRS ticket? Did OTRS accept files with non-free licensing? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: The ticket is from 2007 (I dunno if it's an excuse, but maybe the rules were different few years ago) and grants the usage of the files under double license: cc-by-nc-nd-2.5 and cc-by-sa-3.0.--Ruthven (msg) 17:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. As long as the non-free license is clearly in addition to a free license, there is no problem. I've clarified the file descriptions. Would you mind checking that the result is an accurate reflection of the ticket and adding the appropriate {{PermissionOTRS}} tag? I'll take care of withdrawing the deletion nomination after that. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can find part of the past discussion to obtain the ticket here (in Italian). Short history: on the blog the files were with a NC license, then an itwiki user asked for an OTRS permission to use the pictures with CC by-sa license, the ticket includes both CC licenses. Files are now checked and I added the Permission OTRS template. --Ruthven (msg) 22:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Thank you! —LX (talk, contribs) 08:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2012011210014367

Hello! I'm returning to an old project, and trying to upload a bunch of photos with Pattypan, with {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012011210014367}} in the permission field of {{Information}}. But I keep getting a <abusefilter-warning-otrs> error. Is there something I can do? I don't want someone else to have to go through each and every one of these photos (I've got another few hundred to upload), when permission has definitely already been granted. I never used to have this issue. Thanks for your help! (And your service.) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a registered OTRS team member you're not supposed to add the {{PermissionOTRS}} template. From a technical point of view this is probably why Pattypan produces an error. As a workaround I would suggest using {{OTRS pending|id=2012011210014367}} instead so we can later have a bot replace it with the correct template. De728631 (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You're brilliant. Thank you. It's working now. I've updated the docs :-) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 09:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#2017011310007999] : Jeet_Gian_Author_Photo.jpg _Wikipedia Copy of Written Permission

Hello Everyone,

An image of a person that I have uploaded has been marked for deletion in the next 5 days. I have already sent a mail to Wiki commons with the written permission: [Ticket#2017011310007999]. Can anyone please help me with permissions review of the photo that I have uploaded here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeet_Gian_Author_Photo.jpg Your help is much appreciated! Thanks! :) Pri D (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added the OR template in the file page. Now you just have to wait for the ticket to be processed (1-2 months). Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 16:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruthven. Thank you for adding that! Much appreciated! Regards Pri D (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Together, Giuseppe Inglese.jpg

Could an OTRS agent please review ticket:2016030210018095 in regard to this file and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-04#File:Together.2C Giuseppe Inglese.jpg? The file was temporarily restored, but no followup occured. Please either add permission and remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} or ping me so I can speedy. Thank you! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrburke: . Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Not sure what happened there, but at any rate I've tagged the file {{OTRS permission}}. --Rrburke (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rrburke. Meanwhile I asked for a more specific statement of permission for those two files. --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ruthven (msg) 22:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 1=Ruthven (msg) 22:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Number #2017010510015585

Recently, I put up a photo on Wikimedia Commons and the copyright holder sent in a permission email for the Bellamy Brothers (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Bellamy_Brothers.jpg). Soon after, an editor placed a tag saying that there isn't "sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license" in order to have the picture approved. Can someone please give the permission before the 30 day expiration or help me to understand what the specific problem is so that I may quickly remedy it. Icanseearainbow (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is there to indicate that the ticket has been received, and it is waiting to be treated. The permissions-commons queue has a backlog actually of 50 days approx. If deleted, the photo will be restored once the ticket is approved. --Ruthven (msg) 09:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a matter of time until the picture is approved, can I therefore place the picture on the Bellamy Brothers Wikipedia page while awaiting approval? Icanseearainbow (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, please. --Ruthven (msg) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 1=Ruthven (msg) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Ticket#: 2016121310006837

Ticket:2016121310006837

Hi, it's been a month since I've uploaded my OTRS permission. Any update on this ticket? Best. Bluesphere 09:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current backlog is ~50 days, so if you haven't news in two months, write us again. Thanks. --Ruthven (msg) 09:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#2016123110004439] Permissions

Hello Volunteer! Please review uploaded file (Josef_August_Senge.jpg | Ticket:2016123110004439) and place OTRS stamp in permission. Thanks, Max (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Max, the current backlog is ~50 days. If you haven't further news in 1-2 months please contact us again. Thanks for your patience. --Ruthven (msg) 07:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS for File:Bibi Bourelly photo 2016.jpg?

File:Bibi Bourelly photo 2016.jpg was uploaded in 2016 with the tag "Permission is being emailed from Def Jam. Expect it within the next 24 hours." The other uploads by the same user have proper OTRS permission, with different OTRS tickets, so I'm presuming this file was intended to be handled through OTRS. Can someone check to see if something came in for this file and slipped through the cracks? --Closeapple (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent 7 days ago; ticket:2017011010013139. --Ruthven (msg) 07:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The January 2016 photo date and January 2017 upload date threw me off; I was seeing 2016 for both. --Closeapple (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Number #2017010510015585

Would love to get the permission granted for the Bellamy Brothers picture. If it helps to speed things along, the photographer sent a letter giving his permission to use his picture on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. It would be great if the picture got its permission tag before the deadline. In the meantime, can I put the picture up in the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bellamy_Brothers) while we are waiting? Icanseearainbow (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can still undelete photographs that have been deleted. Don't worry. --Ruthven (msg) 13:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marzia Bisognin on Instagram.jpg

This file with the name File:Marzia Bisognin on Instagram.jpg and a ticket number of 2015071110007397 was nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marzia Bisognin on Instagram.jpg. Could you please verify the OTRS ticket? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket is ok. --Ruthven (msg) 15:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 17:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2014011410011988

File:International Hat Company Warehouse in Soulard, St. Louis.jpg was transferred from enwiki with the OTRS tag, so the history doesn't show an OTRS member confirming the ticket. Could someone confirm this please?

Sure, confirmed. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 17:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Ticket:2016122710006052

File:Csíki sör a II. Budapesti Székely Bálon (1).JPG (image containing label design) was uploaded with permission of the manufacturer, approved via Ticket:2016122710006052. If I upload another photo (made by me) of the products of the same manufacturer, will the permission be valid for the new image as well? Thanks, Whitepixels (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is only for this specific photo, so you cannot reuse it. However, check the notice on top of Category:Beer bottles; maybe your photo can be uploaded nevertheless. --Ruthven (msg) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it does not apply. Many thanks for your time and answer! Best regards, Whitepixels (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2017012210004582

Hello,

I have uploaded the photos of O.K.Stukalov artworks with his permission to Wikimedia Commons. Author has sent the permission to OTRS on January 22, 2017. On January 27 all the files mentioned in his permission were deleted as not having the OTRS. Should I upload them one more time or send them to [email protected] or should I do something else in this case.

Files affected:

File:Stukalov Domashny ochag.jpg
File:Stukalov Sadovy budynok.jpg
File:Stukalov Blagoustroistvo 2.jpg
File:Stukalov Catalog.jpg
File:Stukalov Blagoustroistvo.jpg
File:Stukalov Roman Fora.jpg
File:Stukalov Old Park.jpg
File:Stukalov Modern Berlin.jpg
File:Maksymovych sign.jpg
File:St.Georg Church Kyiv.jpg
File:Montazh Maidan.jpg
File:Stukalov Oleg.jpg

Thank you in advance for your answer. Aliole (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aliole: don't do anything! The current backlog is 43 days; thus I advice you of waiting a couple of months before writing back here, if nothing moves. When the ticket will be processed, the files will be eventually undeleted. Meanwhile you can check if O.K.Stukalov has wrote from a verifiable e-mail address, i.e. one associated to his name and that can be found online (e.g. in his website): this would speed-up the process. --Ruthven (msg) 19:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2016123110008739 - Undelete files

Hi,
We convinced and worked to release his book series (following 3 books along with 7 other books) to CC-BY-SA license.

But unfortunately writer forgot to include these 3 files in OTRS mail and these files got deleted. As per my request and effort he sent OTRS mail separately for these 3 files. Please undelete these 3 files on looking at OTRS mail. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavan santhosh.s: the files will be undeleted as soon as the ticket will be processed. I added a note to the operator about those files. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 12:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tuomo Puumala.jpg and ticket:4766089

Can someone please also have a look at this DR and ticket? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the ticket comes from the depicted person who states to be the author, which is obviously false. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pertti Salolainen Valtiosalissa.JPG and ticket:5529571

These two as well please. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the ticket comes from the depicted person who states to be the author, which is obviously false. Jcb (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maalavika Manoj January 2017.jpg

The owner of that image has sent a permission email via an ID containing the name "malimanoj93". Can someone please clear the image? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done tagged with OR. --Ruthven (msg) 14:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BTS-Locations.jpg and ticket:2014120210022558

Could someone have a look at the ticket and comment in the Deletion Request? EXIF refers to Shutterstock. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2017011210009864

Does this ticket cover File:Alexander G. Argyropoulos.jpg? DMacks (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. --Ruthven (msg) 19:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

著作权声明

我在此确认 [本人有权代理（陳起賢）] 是[附加与此信之图像或文字资料] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E9%9F%B3%E6%A8%82%E8%A3%BD%E4%BD%9C%E4%BA%BA%E9%99%B3%E8%B5%B7%E8%B3%A2.jpg 的创作者或版权唯一持有人。

我同意该作品以下列开放授权释出：创用CC授权－相同方式分享 4.0国际通用版

我明白当我以上述授权释出后，我便允许任何人在其他授权以及法律的限制下，对本作品进行商业或其他的再制使用、或根据他们的需求任意修改。

我理解这样的授权并不只限于维基百科以及其他相关站台之内。

我理解我仍有作品的著作权，而根据我所选择的授权格式分享。其他人对本作品的修改并不是我著作权的范围。

我理解我不能撤回这项协议，而这份授权作品可能会永久保存于维基媒体计划中，但也可能无法永久保存于维基媒体计划中。

[寄件者姓名] 李昭萱 [寄件者职称] 指定代理人 [寄送日期] 2016﹣12﹣22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAYENT (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taiwania Justo and Kuailong: I'm pinging you because you are some of the few Chinese speaking OTRS fellows. De728631 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631: Which ticket ID? This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 13:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the ticket and I can't read or speak Chinese either. I had hoped though you could reply anything to WAYENT's request because it hadn't been answered for several days. The affected file is obviously File:音樂製作人陳起賢.jpg. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-OTRS-agent observation) This is obviously an OTRS permission text, but instead of mailing, it's posted here. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is pretty useless. The whole point of OTRS is to have a verifiable connection to the original copyright holder via a distinct email adress. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2017020710022366

Would it be possible to get an update on this ticket? 14:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderstruckGames (talk • contribs)

Hello, we are all volunteers. Please take a look to the backlog at the top of this page. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate works for hire by employees / assigned copyrights

If an image was produced for a corporation as a work for hire by an employee (thus no paper agreement stating that all work by the employee is a work for hire since that is the presumption under US law) such that the original copyright holder was the corporation, and that image does not appear on the corporation's website, how can the corporation contribute it to Commons? Will the permission of the individual who created the article also be required, even though they own no interest in the copyright? Mechanically, how does the corporation give permission? Since a corporation is not supposed to create a role account, can an individual create an account and upload the image, then an agent of the corporation cut and paste the release text from Commons:Email templates/Consent into an email from the corporation's domain name? Need it be any particular agent? Must their authority be proved somehow or will it be presumed, for example, from their title?

Similarly, if a corporation owns the entire copyright of an image via assignment of that corporation from the original copyright holder (or prior assignee) and wishes to contribute the image, can they do so as the sole, but not original, copyright holder? Must the permission of the original copyright holder be obtained? How do they prove the assignment? Ditto all the mechanical questions asked above.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: Permission given by a corporation needs to be from someone who, from the available evidence, appears to have the authority to make legally binding commitments regarding the property of the corporation. Such permission needs to be given via OTRS. When a copyright has been reassigned, we tend to ask the original author to confirm the assignment, if there is any doubt. Under US law, copyright assignments are required to be in writing. - Revent^talk 12:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2013101910009556 - question about individual copyrights on portraits

Several files presently on Commons show a sign of the passengers and crew at the Flight 93 National Memorial which is a National Park Service site.

image1 by Stefan97 has an OTRS ticket, but it's not specified who OK'd its publication on Commons as the email is not shown and is not available to non-users. Was the email from the photographer of the sign (Stefan97), or the NPS which created and posted the sign, or all the individual photographers or copyrights holders of each of the 40 portraits (via a confirmation from the NPS workers at the site possibly)?

Other versions:
image2 by James Steakley
image3 by me

I've been considering a deletion request for my copy in case there was any potential copyright issue from any of the families or original photographers. Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is in German, as it was approved on de-wiki before moving to commons. Need a German agent to read it. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've submitted a deletion request for my version as it seems likely that the only permission to publish was from the German photographer himself. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German ticket check

Hallo, könnte jemand bitte die Datei File:Berlin_Kongresshalle_1958.jpg anschauen und nachsehen, was es für ein Problem mit der Lizenz gibt? In der E-Mail-Bestätigung, die ich bekommen habe, ist kein Hinweis, dass etwas fehlt. Danke! --Till (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Raboe001: . Wrong template added? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes apologize I have pressed the wrong button. Ja entschuldige ich habe den falschen Knopf gedrückt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Hast Du hier auch den falschen Knopf gedrückt? File:Berlin Französische Friedrichstadtkirche 1957.jpg --Till (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

diese Mal nicht, sondern erst die Nummer des Tickets eingetragen, an aber nach der Bearbeitung Tickets der Bilder diese Änderung nicht abgespeichert, danke fürs aufpassen. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion: Oliver Harrison.jpg. The licence agreement for photo sent on 11 Feb 2017

Richard Townshend has signed a Wikipedia licence for the use (permissions) of this photograph/s (he had already given permission to me verbally on condition that he was credited). Richard sent the email on 11 February 2017 to: [email protected]. (Underground Art (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Backlog is at top of this page. If image gets deleted it will be restored when the permission is sorted out. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English, Ticket#2017021510012629 review

First, thank you for taking the time to review this.

This isn't in place of the email I've sent already. This is just to request speeding this ticket review up, since the files listed below would be scheduled for deletion today (a week after posting the files).

Basically, I posted the photos on behalf of Karen Floyd for use on her Wikipedia page. We ended up needing to send a permission document afterwards via email to try to keep the image files from being deleted. Is there any way to expedite the review process?

All the details I have are below:

Ticket#2017021510012629

Email date/time: Feb. 15, 2017, 8:55 am EST

Files:

Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Floyd

Thank you again for taking the time to read this.

--Edev4 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog is at top of this page. If images gets deleted they will be restored when the permission is sorted out.Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me. I'll wait patiently for the ticket to be reviewed since the backlog is so long. --Edev4 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2016122710006052

This is an image permission request, I don't know that the process of this case. If necessary, this ticket can move to info-zh or permission-zh (I don't have info authorization). Thank you! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 08:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to info-zh Cameron11598 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott Milne – Vermont businessman and politician.jpg

OTRS Ticket:2016122010026991 was deleted from Commons by Jcb because: "No OTRS permission for 30 days." I inquired about what the missing information might be, but was not contacted with specifics. I am in touch with the copyright holder (also the subject of the picture) and have been in a position to rectify any problem of communication between that person and OTRS. Please review this matter and provide me with actionable advice that would allow this image to be reinstated, if fulfilled.

Please note that the copyright holder sent a message from (email address), titled "Ticket#2016122010026991", dated December 28, 2016, to [email protected] that read:

I hereby affirm that I Scott Milne, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image as shown here: File:Scott Milne – Vermont businessman and politician.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content 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.

Scott Milne

Copyright holder

December 28, 2016

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HopsonRoad: First you shouldn't write here private information about the copyright owner. Second, if you check on top of the page, you'll see that the current backlog is close to 2 months: the only answer that you can have now is to wait. The ticket will be processed when it will be on top of the queue, and the file eventually undeleted. --Ruthven (msg) 13:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:NickTheBoss11

...including File:Bellow.jpg. Given that Getty Images typically do not allow anyone to use their content for any purpose for free, given that the only source provided is a deeplink to a blog, and given that the uploader thinks that makes this his "opera propria", this looks like an obvious copyright violation. Nevertheless, the uploader claims to have sent in evidence of the supposed licensing permission from the copyright holders. Has anything actually been sent in, or is the uploader just abusing the tag to ward off the inevitable deletion? Also:

File:Camilo Cela.jpg
File:Alice munro2.jpg (Paul Hawthorne/AP)
File:Al madrid55 1024.jpg
File:Yasunari-Kawabata-204x300.jpg
File:Mario Vargas Llosa1.jpg

—LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Search for file names (with and without the "File:" bit), searched for the user name - nothing at all found. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You are right. There is no ticket for any of these. Deleted, user warned. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! —LX (talk, contribs) 21:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 21:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Approval ticket: 2017012510009214

The copyright holder for the following images granted permission for their use under a Creative Commons 4.0 International license on January 25, 2017. Here is the ticket number. ticket: 2017012510009214

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brian_P._Burns.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brian_and_Eileen_Burns_photographed_with_the_Brian_P._Burns_Collection_of_Irish_Art.jpg

I am requesting OTRS approval for these images to be appended to each of their License sections.

Atxondo (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queue length at top of this page. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 20:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation

is it possible to check the OTRS again as the user claims the File:Vineeth_Mohan.JPG is own work, but its shows as a copyrighted work of "Mahadevan Thampy" with his email provided on exif. ticket:2015110310013986)-...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little rough to me. Mahadevan Thampy is a pro Indian photographer. User claims "loaned camera", and the e-mail address is non-identifying. Probably worth a deletion discussion in my view. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Deletion Request is in place -...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 18:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

#2009100210033461

Could an agent verify the ticket #2009100210033461 indicated in en:File:Powerline_Kit.jpg to see if this file is ready for transfer? --XXN, 00:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XXN: The ticket seems fine, but the image is also under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license at https://www.flickr.com/photos/25695443@N06/3971748611/ so it's a bit redundant. The ticket was sent to the Commons queue, instead of the enwiki one, and the agent was apparently unable to locate the upload. - Revent^talk 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: Thank you! I just wanted to be sure if everythink is OK, due to the fact that the en.wp uploader is [apparently] the same with the flickr uploader, and he has on flickr only few related pictures uploaded back in 2009; I would be hesitant to transfer that image to Commons if the OTRS ticket would have been invalid or unconfirmed. --XXN, 13:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --XXN, 13:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I filled out permission request correctly

Feb. 19, 2017 I uploaded two photos (Larry Thompson (humorist) and Penny Thompson), with consent permission letter from the Miami Herald and emailed it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org but did not understand what I was supposed to put in the Category section. Also, your website said I should put {{OTRS pending}} template on "the file description page" but I could not find anything on the image submission form marked "filed description page." Thanks for your help and patience. Just let me know about those two items and what I should do to correct it (start all over for example). Larry Thompson (humorist) and Penny Thompson are already on Wikipedia btw. Fleejoseph (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file description page is the page with the picture - e.g. File:Miami_Herald_Humor_Columnist_Larry_Thompson.jpg - I've added the template for you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Air provence.jpg

Bonjour, Pourquoi le logo de la compagnie aérienne n'a pas été accepté ? Il y avait pourtant le lien vers le site où le logo a été trouvé. La compagnie aérienne n'existe plus. Cordialement --Nuiteux731 (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuiteux731: Le logo est protégé par le droit d'auteur. Cependant, la personne qui l'a réalisé peut nous envoyer une autorisation pour l'utiliser, pour des fins commerciaux aussi, à COM:OTRS. --Ruthven (msg) 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for permission to use picture

Hi, On Feb 19 I put up a picture on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map-17-Earth-City---Base-Map-01-small.jpg and I am awaiting permission to use it on the West Lake Landfill wikipedia article. The company has sent an email to permissions allowing use of the file under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. I am wondering if all is in order and when I can expect to see the OTRS permission tag appear on the file's page? Thank you so much. Foundationsend (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Foundationsend: check the backlog at the top of the page. --Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your assistance on this Ruthven. I've been so confused by this process. At this point, should the owner of the picture send in permission again or should I start from scratch and put up a new picture on Commons and get the right permission for that one? I'm not sure what to do at this point! Icanseearainbow (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2016122010008107

Ticket:2016122010008107, File:1 02 blog.jpg.

Hello, the Ticket#2016122010008107 Image Use Permission was sent to [email protected] for File:1 02 blog.jpg by the museum. Could you please advise if it's required to resend the permission about this file? Thank you.--Basak (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but an answer from the client is probably required. Ticket in Turkish anyways --Ruthven (msg) 07:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket got answered --Ruthven (msg) 09:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on Picture Permission

On January 5th, I put a picture of the Bellamy Brothers on Wikicommons and both the owner of the picture and the photographer sent in their permission to the email address for permissions. I was given this given this Ticket Number #2017010510015585. Editor Ruthven let me know, in response to a request on this message board, that there was a backlog of about 50 days and that if the photo is deleted it will be restored when the ticket is approved. The discussion was archived on January 20 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2017). The picture was deleted on February 10th (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Bellamy_Brothers.jpg) and I haven't been able to learn any more details since then. I don't know if it's just a matter of waiting now for the backlog to clear and for the picture to be approved and reinstated, or if I'm missing something in the approval process that I still need to take care of. Icanseearainbow (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icanseearainbow: Hi, it's me again :) I checked: the ticket has been answered on 20 Jan 2017, but the authorisation provided wasn't acceptable for Commons as it was an authorisation for Wikipedia only. --Ruthven (msg) 18:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help. I'm truly confused. Can you please explain to me how the following letter is not a good enough statement from the photographer to give his permission to use the picture on a Wikipedia article? It was taken as a template from Wikipedia/Wikimedia and sent to the correct email address on January 20. I would really appreciate either the OTRS tag giving the permission, or a clear explanation of what else I need to do. For the past almost two months I was led to believe we were just waiting in line for the volunteers to get through the 56 day backlog. And now you are telling me there is a problem with the permission. But the permission, below, seems air-tight. So what am I getting wrong here? Once again, Thanks. "I hereby affirm that I, ####, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:img_2988_img_8868.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 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. #### 2017-01-20" Icanseearainbow (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icanseearainbow: (conflicted) There are two possibilities:

certain projects (as it.wiki, but possibly en.wiki as well) do accept authorizations mentioning "for Wikipedia", so you can try to upload the files locally (just tell me, so that I move the ticket in the right queue);
in order to upload the picture on Commons, get the owner to send in the correct wording for authorization (following the schema in Commons:Email templates), answering back to the e-mail.

PS: The template used above seems correct, but it wasn't attached to the e-mail. Maybe he answered without indicating the ticket number in the subject? In that case, we should to dig a little.

--Ruthven (msg) 07:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icanseearainbow: Solved! --Ruthven (msg) 08:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see me dancing? Thank you so much for listening to me and solving the problem! I'm not completely clear what was done wrong - which I'd love to know for future work. But I really appreciate this getting fixed after such a long wait! Icanseearainbow (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icanseearainbow: What went wrong is that the first authorization was "for Wikipedia only", as I said, and that the CC by-sa authorization sent afterwards was from a different e-mail and without the ticket reference (and the image mentioned there, File:img_2988_img_8868, doesn't exist), so nobody could have figured out the link between the two without this discussion. I'm glad that everything was solved eventually --Ruthven (msg) 08:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:AUS-8c-Commonwealth of Australia-50 Pounds (1918, reverse).jpg

I hope I did right in extracting File:AUS-8c-Commonwealth of Australia-50 Pounds (1918, reverse).jpg from File:AUS-8c-Commonwealth of Australia-50 Pounds (1918).jpg, but someone who knows the OTRS processes better than I should check. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source/user verification ticket:2013030510011547 for the original image. In my opinion, OTRS-template should not be added for this derivative work if you specified authors, source and licenses. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please edit as appropriate, I'm out of my depth here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. --sasha (krassotkin) 16:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Also fixed link to source, and removed the assessments tag (since derivative works of FPs don't automatically become FP). ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#: 2017031010017088 - Doman LZ-5.jpg

Ticket:2017031010017088 - File:Doman LZ-5.jpg

I have just forwarded a Declaration of Consent in an effort to cancel the deletion request of "Doman LZ-5.jpg" on Wikimedia Commons. The Doman LZ-5.jpg image is scheduled for deletion on March 12th.

This Declaration of Consent was forwarded on March 10, 2017. The OTRS Ticket#: 2017031010017088

Please kindly arrange to terminate the deletion request of "Doman LZ-5.jpg as soon as possible. This image is scheduled for deletion on March 12, 2017.

Thank you for your assistance!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankemann (talk • contribs)

Hi Frankemann! There is a long backlog, but don't worry, even if the file will be deleted, it will be restored once the OTRS ticket is processed. --Ruthven (msg) 08:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 22:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of program editor Leif Jensson

Can someone plase take a look at this picture which Trondelag Folk Museum has granted permission for use: program editor Leif Jensson. I have received an email from the museum, but possibly they did not understand that the email also had to be sent to OTRS. I received an email from the museum, but possibly they did not understand that the email also had to be sent to OTRS. If anyone can look at this, I can forward the email to OTRS. Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We received letter about this photo with ticket:2017020610004379. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankemann: I confirmed this permission. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 08:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sasha! I am very happy to use the photo to illustrate an article about a honorary fellow, as there are few pictures of him. Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 06:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2017022710000664

Ticket:2017022710000664

Could someone please check for this ticket? I need to know the email from where the authorization was granted and if it has been verified by OTRS volunteers. Allegedly the person pictured in the photo itself, an Italian actress, has allowed the use of the photograph but we have an issue on it.wiki, so I must make sure it has been actually issued by her. Thanks. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio, il ticket è valido. Tutto regolare. Per motivi di privacy non ti posso dare il nome del cliente, ma è abbastanza chiaro dalla descrizione del file. Non ci sono motivi per bloccare chicchessia, né qui, né su it.wiki. --Ruthven (msg) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non esiste alcuna ragione di privacy, Ruthven, non si tratta di dati sensibili. Comunque mi basta che il ticket sia valido. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Nome e cognome del cliente sono dati sensibili. --Ruthven (msg) 10:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non quando è un personaggio pubblico. Dati sensibili sono quelli che rivelano l'origine razziale ed etnica, le convinzioni religiose, filosofiche o di altro genere, le opinioni politiche, l'adesione a partiti, sindacati, associazioni od organizzazioni a carattere religioso, filosofico, politico o sindacale, lo stato di salute e la vita sessuale, non altro. A me sta bene che il ticket sia regolare, era quello che volevo sapere, ma non voglio sentire certe cose :-) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 07:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status update for ticket 232017020710022366

Hi all, Would it be possible to get a status update for ticket number ticket:232017020710022366 please? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.120.201 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find a ticket with that number. Can you verify the number? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: it's probably ticket:2017020710022366: tickets numbers always start with the year. --Ruthven (msg) 10:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image can be found via File:Boundlesslogo.jpg, ready for use now. Basvb (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copie de 07 01 10 UGC LILLE 019b.jpg

Could an OTRS agent verify the licensing status of this file? There is plain text: "OTRS pending janvier 9 2010", without template. --XXN, 14:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find successful closed tickets for this photo in permission queues. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the file for deletion. Basvb (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mutan

Hi, Please check Mutan (talk · contribs) who has uploaded pictures from the web, and added OTRS permissions which doesn't seem to exist. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can open ticket:2008012510003504. The ticket seems fine to me, but @Howcheng: told the user to add the {PermissionOTRS} tag himself, which he should never have said of course. Jcb (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008 the process was different. We decided that only the OTRS operators were to add the permission template just few months ago. --Ruthven (msg) 12:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. When I started at OTRS (2009 or so), I already have been told not to say that. And we have an abuse filter for this at least active already for several years. Jcb (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe it wasn't the same for all queues. On another permissions queue, the regular process was to ask the user to upload the file and to add the OTRSPermission template. This changed just a couple of weeks ago. I modified the response boilerplate myself. --Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That being 9 years ago, my memory is fuzzy, but I'm fairly sure it was standard procedure back then. —howcheng {chat} 17:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks resolved, I remember that some queues until recently request users to add their own permissions, this should be done by OTRS-volunteers so we can check all the permissions added by non-OTRS-volunteers as they are sometimes incorrect (people adding before they actually get verification). User:Krdbot/af69 shows an overview of images which should be checked on the validness of their OTRS-permissions, but given the huge backlog in the regular permission-commons queue I doubt this will happen. Basvb (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 Files Deleted - Permission Already Sent

I uploaded 2 files that I received permission to use. They have been deleted so now I am here asking that someone can verify the permission that was sent and restore the files. I realize that there is sometimes a delay between permission being sent and actual review of the permission statement so I have empathy. But I would love someone to look at the ticket numbers and restore them as opposed to having me re-upload them as it will save me quite a bit of time. The following are the file links along with the Ticket #s provided when the permission statements were sent. Thanks in advance for looking into this. --DoubleuWW (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleuWW, thanks for arranging the permission, next time maybe use Template:OTRS pending to indicate OTRS is on the way (for the 2nd case). I reinstated the images. Basvb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of these. I actually left messages on all the files I uploaded stating that emails were being sent with permission statements. I realize that everyone here is busy and you receive a large number of permission statements, but there has to be a better process. Frustrating watching a file get deleted when you know the email is likely sitting in an inbox. Just my 2 cents. --DoubleuWW (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Basvb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images removed from Commons

Hi

The images bellow were removed from Commons on the 10/02/2017. Reason given (No OTRS permission for 30 days).

Permissions were submitted by the copyright owner on the 20/10/2016.

Ticket:2016102010020945.

Can they be replaced or do I need to re-submit the images and Permissions?

Thanks --Wolpat (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolpat: They will be undeleted when the ticket will be accepted. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 18:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolpat: A reply has be sent, but never answered. --Ruthven (msg) 18:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Who was the reply sent to?--Wolpat (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolpat: To the same address from which the authorization was coming from, on date 22/12/2016. --Ruthven (msg) 21:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Ok, thanks...........I'll look into it.--Wolpat (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 Days, 30 Songs

Hi. I made a permission request to following website about five weeks ago: [1]. Did they send a permission yet? --Clemens Stockner (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find anything given this information. Basvb (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Not a surprise to me. First they said Feel free to use it but when I sent the permission sheet I din't get any answer. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2017021810004098

I sent the copyright (received from: iyyappan madhavan <email hidden>) to use the photograph of Mr Ravisubramanian for use in the article of Mr Ravisubramanian in the following link, alongwith his photograph: https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%A3%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D (பா.ஜம்புலிங்கம் user link: https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE%A9%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%8D:%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BE.%E0%AE%9C%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%99%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D) So far I have not added to photograph in wikicommons. Under which rule I have to add the photograph. Please inform. --பா.ஜம்புலிங்கம் (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to use COM:CONSENT Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 23:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three tickets still pending

Hi, can someone check these three tickets? It's been over a month and they haven't been approved by a volunteer yet:

Thanks.Bluesphere 12:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One month is too short. Our current backlog is ~50 days. --Ruthven (msg) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third ticket has gotten approval just a while ago. Thanks for keeping me posted about the current backlog. Bluesphere 13:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes by me, I have seen this notice and get a look into it. Hope I will get to response to the others later today afternoon. Regards --Mates (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Mates (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2017032110023711

I sent a email two days ago, and I want to know that it has come a result or no. My file is File:National Anthem of Moldova 1991-1994 - 39 De teapt.ogg which it has been deleted. I wait to come a some result but it lasts long time ( sorry for my bad english ).--Honor et Patria (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honor et Patria, consider that the backlog (at the top of the page) is ~50 days. Expect an answer after that period of time at least.

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 23:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being notified about a new ticket

Hi. I asked a friend to send an email to the OTRS team to release their big collections of photographies of Moldova under CC. How can I know when the ticket will be approved (or rejected, for that matter)? Can I subscribe to some sort of a notification system? // Gikü said done Friday, 24 March 2017 10:44 (UTC)

Gikü , your friend should have received an automatic answer from the system. If you check at the top of the page, you'll see the current backlog: this indicates the average number of days that has to be waited for the authorisation mail to be read by someone. --Ruthven (msg) 23:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 23:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request from RussianTrooper

Hi, Could someone please check permission(s) claimed by RussianTrooper (talk · contribs)? See User talk:Yann#About "copyright violations warning". Regards, Yann (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything matching "Saiga i tigr-3-guns", "RussianTrooper", "Ak-74-izhmash". If it was sent properly, then normally the permissions queue send an auto-receipt with the ticket number. If he has not got that, it's likely his e-mail never arrived. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E-mails were sent from email <email removed> . I first sent the permision letters, than uploaded the files. --RussianTrooper (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last e-mail from that address I can find was ticket:2013090910013205 dated 09/09/2013 15:30. I suggest you resend it Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-sent the letter. Received as ticket #2017030410008297 , probably --RussianTrooper (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RussianTrooper: Two tickets merged. The ticket is now at the top of the permissions-ru queue. --Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files by North4future

Hi. I see that there's an OTRS authorization for some files uploaded by North4future but there's none for other files (like the four pictures in Category:Gravitation: Variation in Time and Space). Could the OTRS validation apply to those ? Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoWings: No. We have three different permissions for this user's uploads but none of them might be applied to files in specified category. --Mates (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Carrying over" OTRS notice from same file with different name

Ticket:2006062310011726

Hi, due to phabricator:T124101 (possibly a continuation of bugzilla:39615), File:Multicheck_Logo.svg is broken (except for the thumbnails) which means an updated version cannot be added to it under that name.

Therefore, following the final advice in that Phabricator thread of uploading under a new name (and deleting the borked original), I am uploading the latest update under File:Multicheck.svg. However, I receive the error:

Warning - You are trying to add a OTRS permission tag to this page. In general, such tags should only added by OTRS members. You should not add such tag unless explicitely [sic] instructed to do so by the OTRS member. You may press "Save page" again if you [would] like to save this edit. If you do so, your edit will be tagged for review. In case you aren't sure if your edit is okay, it's best to ask for help, on the OTRS Noticeboard.

Which leads me here. I have no idea how OTRS worked so I wanted to check whether this was kosher, and give a heads-up to volunteers about the situation. Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 01:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now I have purged the _Logo file page, and the thumbnails are broken too. I had saved the largest (2000px wide) one to disk just in case. Arlo James Barnes 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arlo James Barnes: I reviewed your upload. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 08:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012012910008413

There are a couple files here tagged with ticket #2012012910008413. Both were originally uploaded by User:AJHalliwell at enwiki and credited to Andrew DeFratis. There are other images at enwiki with the same uploader and photographer. Does this ticket apply to those photos, as well? - Eureka Lott 04:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EurekaLott: No, the ticket itself applies only to File:Garfield Heights High School.jpg and File:Garfield Heights middle school - demolition.jpg however it seems that according to this ticket the other files should be OK as well. Unfortunately I cannot confirm that because I can't unveil relations between real names and user logins which are still considered non-public information. I hope this will help. --Mates (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What do you think about transferring the other files here? First, is that a good idea? Second, should that ticket be used on the other files? - Eureka Lott 14:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EurekaLott: First, I think it might be a good idea but I would contact the original uploader before that. Second, no it cannot be used on the other files as it contains permission only for files described above. I'd prefer if another OTRS member checked this. Regards --Mates (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2017032110010546

@Krassotkin: Jbuket has uploaded large numbers of files with an "OTRS received" tag using your authorisation as in {{OTRS received|id=2017032110010546|user=Krassotkin}} here. Do you know anything about this mass upload or the ticket as such? With the current OTRS tag it is obviously insufficient and the files should probably not have been uploaded at all. De728631 (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631: Yes, it's a processed ticket. Everything is fine there. There are a lot of objects. I gradually put OTRS-templates. --sasha (krassotkin)

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 08:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tickets in Norvegian

@Jon Harald Søby, Nsaa, and Asav: There are several tickets in Norvegian that wait to be processed. They basically all have a standard CC-by-sa permission text attached, but in certain cases the authorisation comes from the subject of the photo, and not from the photographer. Check, for instance, Ticket:2016120110007895 and all the tickets from the same customer. Thank you! --Ruthven (msg) 11:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered ticket have been moved to the new queue permissions-no. --Ruthven (msg) 09:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch check

Hello all, is it possible for a Dutch to check ticket ticket:2009020710020785 and verify if it concern the rest of the files uploaded by ManfredFX ? Thanks. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Ticket is in German Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Framawiki: Ticket is being processed. --Ruthven (msg) 09:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hashemite University

Is the permit from the university itself (Including not breach FOP)?Because almost all Arab Wikipedians are ignoring and do not admit to FOP.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Omari, the author, is connected to Hashemite University. --Ruthven (msg) 09:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Pankaj Naram.jpg

Hi dear OTRS volunteers. This is regarding OTRS ticket 2017041610000207. I gave explicit release under the free license, and sent the email saying such from the same email that is associated with my account, which the content was originally published from.

The notice says I should post here, so someone with OTRS access can confirm the above and the accomplish the following steps in the notice which was left on my file page [[2]].

"Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS|id=2017041610000207}} Ticket link: ticket:2017041610000207 "

Can a volunteer with OTRS access help me? Thank you for in advance for your kind help and assistance in this matter. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. Kind regards, --DrIndia (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The permission is being processed, so please wait. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message, Yann. I appreciate your help. --DrIndia (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear @Yann: , someone posted a section resolved notice just above here - but I still see the same notice on the page with my image that the permission is still being processed. Is there anything else that I can provide which would be helpful in the processing of the permission for the image, or is it just a matter of time and all I need to do is simply wait still? --DrIndia (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources e-mail - Photos etc in public domain

I have received the following message in an e-mail from a staffer at the above agency which potentially could effect files associated with properties on the Virginia Landmarks registry: "That is correct; everything associated with Register nominations (maps, photos, and the form itself) are in the public domain." Thanks for checking on this! Lena Sweeten McDonald, National/State Register Historian, Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Please advise if the e-mail is desired for the benefit of the Commons. Hoppyh (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-04#File:Wigwam_Va_Dept._of_Historic_Resources.jpg, noting that I never heard back from the University of Virginia Help Desk on my similar query. I say we get the email into OTRS so it's on the record. — Jeff G. ツ 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The VDHR e-mail has been forwarded to OTRS and received - see [Ticket#: 2017041710001053]. Hoppyh (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Template:PD-VAGov-DHR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Thank you, Your Majesty. — Jeff G. ツ 23:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I volunteer here?

I would like to help as well as learn how to do this process. A ri gi bod (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A ri gi bod: Please see m:OTRS/Volunteering. — Jeff G. ツ 21:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jeff G.- I need more experience editing and learning the policies, maybe in the future. A ri gi bod (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A ri gi bod: I'm glad you realize that. Please "Show preview" to avoid adding pages to nonexistent (redlinked) categories. — Jeff G. ツ 22:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ThanksA ri gi bod (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A ri gi bod: You're welcome. I just happened upon your reply because you didn't ping me. — Jeff G. ツ 00:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance

The question has come up, in ticket:2017030110018022 but also generally, of how far we should go in verifying a customer's claim that they inherited copyright from a photographer, author or other content creator. This would theoretically be a stronger claim than someone who inherited a photo of their ancestor. — Jeff G. ツ 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move this discussion on otrs-wiki, as it is relative to all permissions queues. --Ruthven (msg) 19:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion here --Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licence libre pour photo

Malgré l'aval du concerné, je n'ai toujours pas eu la permission de publier sous licence libre CC BY-SA 4.0 le fichier https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MarcelLebrun.png

Ticket#2017041810021226 Celui qui a créé l'oeuvre a été averti afin que lui même il envoie son autorisation, il répondra, j'espère, dans la semaine du 24 avril Cordialement, --Rochik (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Rochik[reply]

@Rochik: Thank you. We look forward to receiving that permission. — Jeff G. ツ 08:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rochik: Je vous remercie. Nous sommes impatients de recevoir cette autorisation. — Jeff G. ツ 08:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rochik: une première réponse a été envoyée le 18 avril ; le ticket est maintenant clos. --Ruthven (msg) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2012112010011362

Question about file with this ticket in German: Commons:Forum#Archivierte, aber nicht beantwortete Anfrage. Maybe a German speaking OTRS team member can give some details on this ticket. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the permission appears to come from Israel, I'd say it would rather be in English or Hebrew. However, the question at the forum was also about the proper attribution in this case. David Rubinger as the photographer and the Israeli Government Press Office at Flickr as the source are two different parties. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"German speaking" was related to the ability of explaining the case in German at COM:FORUM. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 11:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thgoiter: I think that De728631 answered at the Forum as well --Ruthven (msg) 12:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De728631 was so kind and commented about Israeli copyright in general. But nobody explained what the ticket is about and why this image is under CC license. Nor what the correct attributing would look like. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven and Thgoiter: Well, the details regarding this information may actually be confidential under the privacy agreement the OTRS volunteers have signed. I.e. personal details or the actual content of any OTRS email correspondence must not be revealed to anyone else than the OTRS team. But it would be helpful to know if a certain type of attribution is required by the permission given in the ticket, and a simple statement from an OTRS clerk that the permission is in fact correct but cannot be explained any further would probably be very welcome either. De728631 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De728631 and Thgoiter: I can confirm that the owner of the Flickr account https://secure.flickr.com/photos/government_press_office/ agreed for his photos to be published with cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Now its up to you to translate that in German ;) Ruthven (msg) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --тнояsтеn ⇔ 19:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two tickets

... and not to paradise. Not yet, anyway.

No. 2017031710019439 (release to use file:Kona Lanes 1960.jpg): mailed to permissions on 17 March 2017; and
No. 2017031710018467 (question re release to use file:Kona comparison.jpg, top half): mailed to permissions on 17 March 2017.

Any way to get an update? Thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Handled off-wiki. — Jeff G. ツ 23:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: — Jeff G. ツ 02:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand logo.jpg

Would an OTRS volunteer mind taking a look at File:Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand logo.jpg and then User:Sir Anon/Green Party NZ and verify whether this is acceptable in lieu of an OTRS verification email? I understand that some older files uploaded prior to OTRS are grandfathered in per COM:GOF, but this file was just uploaded a day or two ago and the "permissions" email in the above link is from 2010. There's no information on the source url provided for the image which states that it has been under a free license and there's no way to verify whether that 2010 email was intended to apply to any future uploads or just one specific one. Moreover, the email seems to refer to photos of people and not logos per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: If we can't reach the author of the email to Sir Anon, we can try the https://www.greens.org.nz/contact Party Office address greenparty

greens.org.nz. — Jeff G. ツ 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that bit of info Jeff G.. If I'm mistaken then please correct me, but that seems to suggest that the linked email is in sufficient for OTRS purposes. Should a {{Npd}} tag be added to the file then? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: You're welcome. I find forwarded emails insufficient, even with full Internet headers. You may tag it {{Npd}} if you think that's best, or email the Party Office asking them to send permission via OTRS and tag it {{subst:OP}}. — Jeff G. ツ 22:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: There are a number of other files, such as File:Chlöe Swarbrick.jpg, File:Jack McDonald.jpg and File:John Hart.jpg, etc., uploaded by the same user under the same licensing rationale mentioned above. Is it fair to assume these photos as well as any similar ones such as these uploaded by this user under the same license are also going to require emails be sent to OTRS for verification purposes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I was populating Category:Green Party NZ Attribution before I was called away. Comms on the road and at my engagement may be iffy. — Jeff G. ツ 13:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do that Jeff G. Does putting them all in such a category means the will be eventually reviewed or does each file still need to be tagged? I know it's possible to tag individual files for lacking permission and even possible to nominate multiple files for COM:DR. Is there a way to tag/nominate entire categories for either? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: That makes them easier to do anything with, including adding a custom license or tagging for deletion. I have just emailed an official at Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand asking for CC-BY-SA-4.0 licensing, or at least clarification. Beware, they may want their logo taken down immediately due to a special ND condition on their old copyright page (the fifth bullet point here). I also removed the tags you and I placed pending a response to that email. — Jeff G. ツ 23:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jeff G. Thanks again for doing all of this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ 07:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also please have a look at Category talk:Green Party NZ Attribution. Schwede66 06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Per Ticket:2017042610025609, all 35 files are now licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. — Jeff G. ツ 03:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Jeff G. and thanks to you and Schwede66 for taking the time to sort through this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: — Jeff G. ツ 02:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image on an approved dyk

Is there any way the permissions for this DYK image can be expedited as it is an approved nomination but the OTRS is still outstanding? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_the_Spoon#/media/File:Barn_the_Spoon_Portrait.jpg (nomination here [3] Thanks, I know you guys are busy. Mramoeba (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Jeff G. ツ 02:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: — Jeff G. ツ 02:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#: 2017041010012634]

Hi, could anyone look at the Ticket#: 2017041010012634 - the file Юлія_Ковалів_портрет.jpg was deleted despite the permission was sent as needed. Here is the last message:

Original Message-----

From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons [4]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:56 PM
Subject: [Ticket#2017041010012634] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Юлія Ковалів портрет [...])

Dear Синиця Ганна Олександрівна,

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

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2017041010012634].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucraine for you (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucraine for you: As you can see above, "The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 51 days". Thank you for your patience. — Jeff G. ツ 00:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I processed this ticket. @Ucraine for you: please use Ukrainian ([email protected]) or Russian (Commons:OTRS/ru; [email protected]) queues, there we have no backlogs. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --sasha (krassotkin) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modern Phytomorphology Cover.jpg

The file description mentions a {{noncommercial}} and {{nonderivative}} license. Is the permission valid, and if so, shouldn't the contradictory information have been removed when the ticket was approved? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: Yes and yes. Thanks for letting us know, I fixed the description. — Jeff G. ツ 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 07:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 07:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Stimmwerck" German Renaissance Vocal Ensemble.jpg

Could an OTRS agent please review ticket:2009032910005106 and replace {{Cc-by-sa-old}} with a properly versioned template? Thanks! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same for ticket:731607:

--Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to the auto replies with the ticket numbers in the subjects and your request above, that will speed the process. Thanks, — Jeff G. ツ 16:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: I am not sure your reply is in the right section. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srittau: It is. We need email messages from the rights holders referenced in these very old tickets with subjects including "[Ticket#: 2009032910005106]" and "[Ticket#: 2007022510020031]", respectively, for automatic filing in our records, which should be processed quickly. A new email from each rights holder referencing them would would be queued. Sorry, we didn't have auto replies set up back then. — Jeff G. ツ 17:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff I think you misunderstood the request, I think Sebari is asking for OTRS agent to look up those 2 tickets and check what version of cc-by-sa did copyright holders agree to. Sebari in both tickets only cc-by-sa was mentioned, without number, which in 2007 ad 2009 would mean cc-by-sa-3.0. --Jarekt (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: I would think new emails with new agreements to specific newer licenses would clear this up. I don't think we let uploaders with OTRS ticketed files just change licenses on those files without emailing us. Sorry if I wasn't specific enough. — Jeff G. ツ 20:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to try sending followup email 10 years after original permission was given, but chances are that those people would be hard to find. Original permission was given for "cc-by-sa" license and current interpretation I guess is that that is cc-by-sa-1.0. To me cc-by-sa-3.0 which was the default when the permissions were given, sounds like a better guess. But if that is controversial than lets just keep cc-by-sa-1.0. --Jarekt (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: As the permission was given explicitely for "cc-by-sa" (without a version specified), and the mail is from 2009, I reckon that we can either use cc-by-sa-3.0 or cc-by-sa-1.0+. I would prefer the latter; what do you think? --Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0+ seems like a great substitute for Template:Cc-by-sa--Jarekt (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: I agree. Perhaps we should mention the former on the latter. — Jeff G. ツ 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I performed the substitution. --Ruthven (msg) 09:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar)

Many of the 767 uploaded images of Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) tagged as licensed via Ticket 2017021810013024 (to which I don't have access) like File:Tillsammans med Elias 1979 RU1569 1.tif apparently pertain to a museum, displays, artworks, book/poster covers and so on. Many have no indication of own work, but are licensed as such. Some images are from the 1960s, others appear to be more recent. Many of the uploads use the uncompressed (and therefore very bulky) TIFF encoding. Many are poorly lit. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) appears to have had no effect. — Jeff G. ツ 07:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The images are historical documentation photos from some of the production of Swedish travelling exhibitions – we have made about 1200-1500 travelling exhibitions during the last 50 years. I am mainly uploading images to those exhibitions that have an article written on Swedish Wikipedia. The institution "Riksutställningar" (Swedish Exhibition Agency) have had only two photographers employed from 1968-2006 and they worked very closed together. We do not have su much digitized material yet (of a huge collection) and we just started with some of the diapositives. I do not have the skills to work with the images so I have upload direct from the scanning/digitalization. It would of course be better if the pictures were in smaller size (.jpg) and in better quality. Is there any way to work for a solution to solve this? I will also look up the possibility for crosslink in description.

If there are any problems with some picture, like File:Tillsammans med Elias 1979 RU1569 1.tif I think it is better to have these removed. The article "Tillsammans med Elias" has not been written yet. -- --Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the permission is from a museum and has been accepted. Some Swedish speaker otrs agent can double check it and eventually request undeletion for the files that have been deleted. --Ruthven (msg) 19:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to be quite accepted as far as I understand the Google translation. It seems that the agent told the client that OTRS has nothing to do with it and gave the client the instruction to uploaded (whatever) files and add the {PermissionOTRS} ticket themselve. The involved OTRS agent is blatantly at fault here. Jcb (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Temp cat files Tore Danielsson. — Jeff G. ツ 08:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several files with other OTRS-permissions in this list that are not connected to the ticket:2017021810013024. For example:

I think they should be sorted out here because they have different OTRS-numbers. You also say that ” Probably many different copyright holders are involved here.” and I can understand that this could be a subject for further discussion. This is documentation photos from exhibitions produced by Riksutställningar (Swedish Exhibition Agency) so part of the images can be material with copyright issues. This is, in this context natural, and how much of an image/artwork/photo can be a part of another photo has to be judged in every image. I have done these judgement from my point of view with following the laws in mind.

This is a very important discussion and perhaps you already have some guidelines for this? How much of copyrighted material can be a part of a photo before it is a reproduce the artwork. Example:

The copyright of this artwork belongs the painter: File:Robottider - ROBOTTIDER 1989 - Björn Sjöstedt.jpg And have given the permission with OTRS-number 2017010510010437

The copyright for this photo with motive from the exhibition belongs to the photographer: File:Robottider 1989 RU2346 1.tif

This means that you can not crop and manipulate the image for the reason to reproduce the artwork itself. Or do you mean that it should not be any copyrighted image/photo/logotype/artwork etc. inside another image in all the files in Commons?

A solution for this problem (the deletion request) as I see it, is to start with the ticket 2017021810013024 and see if there are something wrong in the permission? After that we can judge the files from a copyright discussion about images in image – problem?

Or is there another way to solve this problem? Best regards --Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly seems that you do not have the competence to understand the situation here, and if you avoid further discussion about this issue, there is nothing more I can do. You are missusing the whole intent of Wikimedia Foundation here. Anyway if you want to delete all the files, I will suggest that you are doing this in a proper way. There are still 101 files in the category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Riksutst%C3%A4llningar – So please do your job properly and delete them as soon as possible. --Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jcb (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krzysztof Pastor, photo Łukasz Murgrabia.tif

Hello, I just want to ask what was wrong about the permission for this file, and if there is anything I should do about it. Best regards, --Bebronka (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann and Halibutt: - Ticket was closed as "no response needed", but file was marked as Permission Received... could this be clarified please? Ticket is in Polish. Storkk (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: It's the backlog biting us - again. The file was deleted before we processed the permission, so I closed the ticket and asked for the file to be undeleted, but did not notice someone undeleted it until now. Thanks for the ping. Halibutt (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the template. Unless @Yann: has any objections, I would consider the matter solved. Halibutt (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Halibutt, I can't read Polish, so it is up to you to decide and answer to the client. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Halibutt (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2017011110012094

This section was archived on a request by: — Racconish^☎ 20:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the requested photographer's confirmation for File:Bombe de Sardanapale.jpg by mail on 2017-03-09 8:34 GMT+01:00 to OTRS and sent it again today, with the ticket number. — Racconish^☎ 09:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: "you've got mail" . — Racconish^☎ 09:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racconish, That ticket is beeing handled by Reinhard Kraasch. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jarekt. Maybe you want to modify accordingly the user's mention here. — Racconish^☎ 08:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually added that after I look up this ticket. --Jarekt (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Essential Phone in ocean depths.jpg

This section was archived on a request by: Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image was posted on 19:33, 31 May 2017 by Daylen, and it appears identical to to this recently deleted file en:File:Essential Phone in "Ocean Depths" color.jpg, with the exception of the background colour. I was a bit surprised about this and wish to confirm that it has been sent in accordance with OTRS. P.S. Please ping me in the reply as I don't watch this page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emir of Wikipedia, I have contacted Essential Products and talked with the Head of Communications, who confirmed with me via email that they are okay with the file being released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 licence. I then sent instructions to them in order to complete the Release Generator hosted by Wikimedia Labs. Daylen (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daylen: My enquiry was based on the curiosity raising timing, I am grateful for you talking the Communications Head. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016123010010166

Could someone take a look at ticket:2016123010010166 and resolve it? Someone has asked me to look at it but I don't have the bandwidth at the moment. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the PermissionOTRS template in an accepted photo, and answered to the client. Should be closed soon I reckon. --Ruthven (msg) 10:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale, no answer after a few months. I'm closing this section. --Ruthven (msg) 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Hermanns

Could someone please comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manfred Hermanns Okt. 1999.jpg? The image description mentions that there should be an OTRS ticket, but unfortunately no ticket number. Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

w:de:Benutzer:Manfred Hermanns: ticket:2014031910014981. But I don't have access to this queue (info-de?). --sasha (krassotkin) 09:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not in a permissions queue, probably it is not a permission 0_O --Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: DR closed. Ruthven (msg) 06:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2009080110025404

Does this grant permission to use all images from the museum's collection? Or only some specific images? Trying to see if I can use [5] or [6] for Wikipedia. HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: I don't think so, unless you're part of the staff of the museum. Otherwise you can use this template tag only if the work is in the museum's collection and in the public domain. --Ruthven (msg) 11:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright License from Number Ten Architectural Group for ten photos - not acknowledged by Wikimedia

The following request has been moved from COM:Help desk ([7]) --El Grafo (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me. On April 18, 2017, the creator and copyright holder for ten photos of public buildings - Number Ten Architectural Group - emailed a Creative Commons License to [email protected]. I uploaded the ten photos yesterday and used them on a Wikipedia page concerning Isadore (Issie) Coop.

All ten photos have now been tagged for removal on the basis that they don't have a copyright permission.

I received emails from one OTRS person yesterday concerning most of the photos, and following the link he provided, he requested proof of License for each photo. I re-emailed the original email and License to [email protected] yesterday.

Here are nine of the ten photos:

In addition, yesterday and today, I posted the following explanation on my User Talk page in respect of each photo:

"On April 18, 2017, a signed Creative Commons License covering this photo was submitted to '[email protected]' by the Copyright Holder, Number Ten Architectural Group. I have re-emailed the Copyright Holder's email and license to you today. Please remove the tag. --Jack Coop (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)"

Today I saw that another OTRS person, Arthur Crbz, posted a template on the File pages for each of the nine photos explaining why they were rejected. So I started the following chat on Arthur's talk page:

"Hi, Arthur, you added a template to nine (9) of photos from Number Ten Architectural Group, which I uploaded to Wikimedia yesterday. In the Permission Summary, it says: An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user (Arthur Crbz) who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted. Please do not file an additional deletion nomination for permission reasons. Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with...

A tenth photo from Number Ten Architectural Group has been accepted by Wikimedia as licensed: File:Winnipeg Convention Centre, 1974.jpg (I now see that this photo has just been tagged.)

My problem is that the creator of all ten Number Ten photos - Number Ten Architectural Group, sent a signed Wikipedia Creative Commons License releasing copyright for all ten photos, to [email protected] on April 18, 2017. The license clearly followed, verbatim, the template for such a license as published by Wikimedia. It was signed by a duly authorized representative of Number Ten, Doug Hanna, who is partner of the partnership. So there was an "explicit release under a free license" given, contrary to your template statement, the above. Also, the email from Mr. Hanna came from his work email address, so the statement that the "email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published", is wrong.

I re-emailed Mr. Hanna's email and the Creative Commons License he signed to Wikimedia yesterday, because the OTRS rep who tagged the nine photos for removal said, in numerous emails to me, that proof of the license had to be sent. But, clearly, the original email and license was originally sent from a Number Ten Architectural Group email address.

Can you please let me know what the real problem is? Did Wikimedia fail to process the original Creative Commons License sent by Mr. Hanna on April 18? Or is it just a problem of correlating that original correspondence/license to the photos that I uploaded yesterday? Please let me know.

It has been an unbelieveable hassle getting Wikimedia to acknowledge copyright licenses for this website. Any help you can provide would be appreciated."

I would ask you for the same assistance I requested from Arthur - an explanation as to why the ten Number Ten photos were tagged/rejected, and what do I have to do to get them accepted?--Jack Coop (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Arthur Crbz: FYI --El Grafo (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Coop: I have already answered on my discussion page. It's unnecessary to copy and past this message again everywhere, just be patient. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Coop: To add more details, the permission has not been rejected as you said. It's just in progress. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Crbz: In that case I can totally understand the uploader's confusion: You added {{OTRS received}} which tells us that "the message was not sufficient" in bold typeface. Jack Coop's reaction is exactly what you can expect from a relatively new user getting this message. Don't we have a template that actually tells people "we've got the message, here's the ID, we're working on it, please be patient" instead of "you did something wrong"? Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: Template:OTRS pending states Please use {{OTRS received|id=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX}} once the ticket has been identified which is the case here. But I agree, Template:OTRS received content seems not appropriate to this case. I will add a reason next time to be clear. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient Rights

Looking through Category:Items with ticket OTRS permission confirmed I get "We are sorry, you do not have permissions anymore to access this ticket in its current state. " message for a lot of tickets, including:

Can anybody access those and look up 16-digit ticket numbers? --Jarekt (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to get only one of them (see above). Linedwell (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:tlp

The files found using permissionotrs insource:/tlp/ need fixing. --Leyo 13:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Ruthven (msg) 18:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Thanks, but there are still some left. --Leyo 12:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that all errors were introduced by User:JoJan. --Leyo 12:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I

Fixed the rest. --Jarekt (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2017061210014894

I took around 20 images of a mural in Cardiff on Friday and emailed permission to do so to ORTS: Ticket#2017061210014894. In my email I said:

I've uploaded a few photos I took; the mural's designer was Mark James, email with permission from him follows. The images are on *Category:Gwenno Saunders* here.

I also forwarded an email from the designer of the mural which said:

As the creator of the design for the Gwenno Saunders mural in Cardiff, I’m happy for it to be published on a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence.

Permission has been refused 'as the OTRS team could not verify that it was from the owner of the copyright of the image'. This does not make sense! For outside coverage on the mural see BBC website here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Dear Sir,

As the mural is located in a public place, no permission is required from the author/artists (read: Template:FoP-UK for more details),
So we need a permission from the author of the pictures/the photographer/you. As I told you many times, the permission you sent is NOT sufficient. For legal reasons, we need a FULL statement. You juste have to copy and paste the template provided: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Consent>.in your email. As soon as you send it, I will be able to add the permission template on the files.

This procedure can be constraining be it's necessary to insure copyright. Thank you for your collaboration, --Arthur Crbz (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Crbz: Arthur

The above is very confusing!

1. You say: "no permission is required from the author..." and then you say "So we need a permission from the author..." Can you please tell me which is true? You do or you don't?

2. What exactly do you mean with "author of the pictures"?

3. You say "As I told you many times..." No you haven't. You have twice told me different things. In your first email you said that you "require the copyright holder to provide a specific release under a free license (such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0)". I had already done that. Your next email was different. This time you said you needed "a full permission statement" from me.

I then questioned this, as the page <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Consent> does not agree with you. In my email to you I said:

"The important part of the statement has been done. He has said what licence he agrees to and that he is the owner / copyright holder of the design. I see that the link you sent to me (Commons:Consent) says that the template is only "useful as a work of reference, is now discouraged and should only be used in exceptional circumstances". Nothing on this page says that a template MUST be used. Having specified the exact licence he is very aware of the rest of the template (eg "I am aware...")! He does not need to state the obvious."

Can you please tell me where does it state that the copyright holder (or the designer of the mural) needs to say more than that person is happy for the work to be published on a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence.

Best regards, Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Sorry if I have been unclear in my emails or here. Here is a simple explaination:

Due to freedom of panorama, we don't need permission from Mark James (the artist of the mural),
But we still need an autorisation from the photographer (you),

I don't understand why you don't want to use the template. It's the first time I'm faced with this kind of "opposition" because the template is very easy and quick to use. You just have to send me the full statement.

Personally, I will not add permission to the file page based on your first statement. If another OTRS agent disagree with me, he can add the permission himself. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Crbz: Arthur

Many thanks for your apology. Now it's clear that you request me (not the designer) to send in a template. But I need to understand more. I could never do something without knowing exactly what I'm doing; I don't follow orders blindly...

Please help me to understand this further:

1. Why do I need to declare that I took these photos through sending a permission template, as the procedure of uploading (in my name, with specific licence) has already been done?

2. As these images depict copyrighted 2D works of art, are they not therefore derivatives of non-free content, which is forbidden on Commons? A declaration by the artist is therefore needed? Otherwise someone like @Fastily: will just delete them as he deleted this one?

Thanks for your patience. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Crbz: Unless you have doubt that Llywelyn2000 is the photographer, the declaration on upload should be sufficient for the photographer's license. Permission from the mural designer is necessary, please read the template you linked to, UK FOP does not apply to 2D artwork such as murals. The ticket looks fine to me, FWIW... Storkk (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I think that Llywelyn2000 is the photographer. Plus he provided permission from the artist. I have added permission tag on these files and emailed Llywelyn2000. Thanks for your advices. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both of you. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elisabeth Binder.jpg

Hallo OTRS-Team. Könnte bitte jemand nachschauen, ob es nicht ein OTRS-Mail zum File:Elisabeth Binder.jpg von anfangs April 2017 gibt? Mir wurde geschrieben, dass die Fotografin damals ihr Einverständnis geschickt habe. Dann geschah nichts und nun wurde das Bild gelöscht... Danke für eure Antwort. --Hadi (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hadi: Nichts gefunden

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Am3n3

Way back when we were all young and beautiful (in 2006), Am3n3 uploaded File:Surgeon-Unit-21Apr06.jpg and File:Surgeon-Womb-30Sep06-crop.jpg, stating that permission e-mails were sent in, but they don't seem to have been checked by OTRS volunteers. Wondering if a keen archaeologist could sift through the sediments and find something in ye olde archives? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: Performing a research of the word "Surgeon" ~~doesn't brought anything, but in 2006 maybe the OTRS system was with different queues and management~~ brought back ticket:2006102610007334, releasing the photos under Creative Commons license cc-by-2.5. But the OTRS volunteer wasn't able to find the photographs, so no tag was added. Some e-mail check should be done though.. --Ruthven (msg) 20:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2006102610007334 - I searched for the remote web site "http://www.dj-surgeon.com". Not that it helps, as the poster only included the remote web pages, and did not specify the commons file name. When asked for more details - he never replied. That was the only e-mail from that person, and I cannot see how his e-mail address relates to the web site content - as that does not exist any more and is on a domain in a different country anyway. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the information is not available anymore. Should be considered as grandfathered, imho. --Ruthven (msg) 20:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: OTRS permission added. Ruthven (msg) 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Hi. The question: regarding copyright. Over my professional career, I have asked strangers to take my picture, because of an unusual situation, with my camera, using my film. The images are of me and ordinary people, there are no celebrities or catastrophes in the image. In the past these images have been used by magazines and newspapers in the US and Europe to illustrate articles about my career as a photographer. They have not requested proof of copyright. I have not charged for the use of these pictures and everybody is allowed to duplicate them. Recently, 23 March 2017, an image of me, which has been on Wikipedia for 5 years, was “nominated for deletion.” Reason: “Unlikely that the photographer took picture of himself.” I have no idea who pressed the button on my camera creating this image but I contacted some people I knew from the time that the picture was taken 42 years ago. (1974) I received no reply. No one has ever claimed copyright on any of these pictures. I have googled this question and have been rewarded with many different answers. Now the question is what is the policy of Wikipedia Commons?--Gerundial (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is currently under discussion. Please see Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie and Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Bystander selfie. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it of any consequence if a “bystander selfie” was taken before the copyright act of 1976? --Gerundial (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerundial: Unfortunately, no. Section 41 of the 1909 Copyright Act specifically stated that 'the copyright is distinct from the property in the material object copyrighted, and the sale or conveyance, by gift or otherwise, of the material object shall not of itself constitute a transfer of the copyright'. - Revent^talk 00:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up of "Motion Elements Want to Donate 100 Multimedia Files Cooperated with Wikimedia Taiwan"

Hello permission agents. This issue was discussed in mailing list. However, @Shangkuanlc and Reke from Wikimedia Taiwan need the direct discussion with us, so I opened this topic here from mailing list.

According to the offline discussion with Motion Elements and Wikimedia Taiwan, all the permission e-mail from Motion Elements and its copyright holders will offered in one e-mail. However, WMTW and Motion Elements considered that the 100 multimedia files are videos and voices, and they want to transfer these files to .ogv and .ogg file types. It's need time, and the file names of these files were not decided. Therefore, they said that they want to send the copyright holder's permissions to OTRS first, then upload these files about 10 files/time. When uploading a batch of these files, they will send the file names to OTRS and take a note that these files have the permission in the first copyright holders' permission e-mail. If you want to know the details, members of WMTW will offer the information. Thanks. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 12:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Taiwania Justo. We hope that we can find a way, all file we upload in this program but different time can pass the copyrights evidence as Motion Elements just need mail the permission once. Just tell us how can we do if there is another way.--Reke (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be sufficient to give permission for "all files I ever upload with 'Author=Motion Elements'" for example, and then use the same {{PermissionOTRS}} tag for each such file? — Jeff G. ツ 06:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ME is not author, but I think that's a good idea. Maybe for "all files I ever upload with 'Category = Motion Elements Donate Project'" is okay?--Reke (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is too generic, as other users could use that category. But "all the files from Motion Elements uploaded by user=XXX" is enough. We can make a dedicated license template for these uploads. --Ruthven (msg) 12:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So WMTW should supply a list of users who will update these files, right?--Reke (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reke: I think that would be prudent. — Jeff G. ツ 07:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS request (from my enwp talk)

Moved this from my talk on enwp, I don't think I have Commons access. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can see you're a volunteer, can you please confirm the picture File:Anca Pop, May 2017.jpg from Wikimedia Commons? It was previously deleted, but I sent an email to [email protected] with the proof that the singer allowed me to upload that selfie that was never published on her social networks. The ticket is [Ticket#: 2017052610018124]. Thanks, lemme know if you can do something. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 15:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know someone able to do that? Love on the Brain (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(non-OTRS-member reply) The subject depicted in a photograph is usually not in a position to grant a free licence for such an image even if they own a copy of the photo. Only the original photographer would be able to grant a Creative Commons licence, so we need a permission from the photographer and not from Anca Pop. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, are you kidding me? The picture is actually a selfie. So Anca owns every right on this photo. Love on the Brain (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's why SHE has to send the permission, not you (ticket:2017052610018124). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 17:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collage ?

Hi! I received an autorisation for File:CDA Hall Of Fame.jpg with Ticket:2017033110015157. The client claims to be the author of the picture.
But I think, I have to consider this picture as a collage as it contains different pictures which are (according to dates mentioned) very probably not under PD.
What do you think about it? --Arthur Crbz (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a source/date/location for each image on the collage. Canadian copyright will be long (50 years post photographer's death). There won't be many that are PD. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me each single photo can be seen as de minimis, so the single photo of the collage board can be acceptable, --Ruthven (msg) 21:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: They are not de minimis when used on the photographed item.... they were deliberately included, and identifiable. Just taking a new picture of the object does not make them DM in that 'derivative' image....they are in no way incidental to the subject matter. - Revent^talk 01:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: I see: you're saying that the photographs are the ones that make the whole work, so their copyright determines the one of the File:CDA Hall Of Fame.jpg. My interpretation was that the photo was a "global vision" of the class, and not of the single photos... a little like copyrighted buildings in a panoramic photo, where the townview cannot be copyrighted (while single buildings can). --Ruthven (msg) 09:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Essentially, yes.... the photo at hand is essentially a 'reproduction' of the poster itself (though not a 'faithful reproduction' in the PD-Art sense), and the individual photos are inseparable parts of that work (the poster, which is a collage). If you take a panorama of a city, the individual buildings are all separate works (nobody has a copyright in the city as a whole) and you both cannot take that photo without including them and don't particularly care about any specific one... it's a photo of the city itself, and would still be a photo of the city itself if you cloned any particular building out. - Revent^talk 09:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven, Garamond, and Ronhjones: Thank you for your answers, I will inform the client --Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 17:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted before permission processed

File:Budapest Horse.jpg and File:Budapest Horse focus.png were deleted recently after the permissions email had been sitting unprocessed for 2 months. The photographer sent it on 6 April 2017. Can someone go through the ticket and undelete the photos please? Thanks. --Felcotiya (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No ticket in the permissions queues contains the string "Budapest Horse". The sender of the ticket should have received an immediate reply with a ticket number... that could help us find what happened, if for example, the photographer neglected to include the filename in the ticket. You'd be surprised how often that happens. Storkk (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I have a copy of the email, where he refers to only https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k6jbr-AWY7E/SrqACD5G2VI/AAAAAAAAJKc/mu-tc69Iro8/s1600-h/Budapest+Horse+-+2.jpg. That should find it. It's the url of the photo in his blog. --Felcotiya (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ticket:2017040610011698 and it does appear to cover both images (since the second is a DW of the first). Arthur Crbz responded to the email asking which image was referred to, but there was no reply back. In any case, I think it's adequate given the stated source. Storkk (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I was going to suggest a step in the permissions process to do a reverse image search on Commons when the name of the uploaded file hasn't been given, just to speed up the process, but with this jpg url both Google and Bing give an error message. Not so easy after all. --Felcotiya (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: Could you close this ticket by sending the appropriate answer ? Ty --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly necessary, IMO, but

Done per your request. Storkk (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About File:BD-Cepleanu-Malaussena.jpg

Hello. We Malausséna and Spiridon Ion Cepleanu [Ticket#2017060710015152], confirme that we wish to give the licensing « CC BY-SA 4.0 » for our creation [8]. --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC) and[reply]

Then you need to continue to talk to the OTRS agent by e-mail Ronhjones ^(Talk) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones ^(Talk) 13:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What email to send when copyright holder of the files allows to use all images

Hello, at the moment I talking with a representative of www.delta.gov.ge, we had previous talks as well and as a result we've placed {{CC BY 4.0}} on many pages (e.g. http://www.delta.gov.ge/exposition/sofex-2014/) but it looks ugly and we can't place it everywhere. What email to send or what to do in general if I have a private permission for all files but I don't know how to represent it?--g. balaxaZe★ 14:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an OTRS agent but I would like to give you some tips in terms of website layout. Yes, you can place a Creative Commons notice everywhere. It is totally sufficient if you use a small footnote at the bottom of a page. The note at this page is of course way too large and obtrusive and a small CC graphic image was upscaled to an impossible size which makes it blurry and pixelated. My suggestion is this:

If you want to include an icon, use SVG images to have vector graphics that can be scaled losslessly to any size.
You don't need a graphical icon at all to indicate a CC licence. Just use a simple sentence in small script at the very bottom of the page stating that "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." and a link to the CC licence text. Anything else is unnecessary.

This way they can keep granting CC licenses.

As to the "private permission" as you called it, all media at Wikimedia Commons must be free to use for anyone for any purpose, so it's not sufficient if you personally got a permission to use certain files at Commons or Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ugly because you have scaled up the image - see https://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license_code=by&jurisdiction=&version=4.0&lang=en to see how it should look. The image should be 88 x 15 (or 88 x 31 if you used the bigger one) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgi Balakhadze: De728631 and Ronhjones are right. Note that there is no translation in Georgian yet per https://creativecommons.org/choose/. — Jeff G. ツ 23:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that "private permission" means nothing special it is free for everyone. The web-site is not mine so I can't edit it, I've told them what to do, even gave them a code, but they didn't or couldn't do it.--g. balaxaZe★ 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lance_Selwyn_Cousins.jpg

Hallo friends, a collegue of mine, Robert Adkins <[email protected]>, has uploaded the following photograph: Lance_Selwyn_Cousins.jpg, 15. April 2017, and in an email to [email protected] he declared his ownership and wrote:

"I hereby affirm that I am Robert Reginald Adkins, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lance_Selwyn_Cousins.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent#cite_note-5> 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. Robert Reginald Adkins Copyright Holder 15th April 2017"

So I added this photograph to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_S._Cousins Now you've deleted this photograph :-( So what have we to do, to make this photograph available again? Thank you for your help - sincerely Mbs0 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait approximately 40 days and 40 nights. — Jeff G. ツ 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media Credit

Hello,

ticket:2017061310025451 is one the first tickets which I am dealing with, so I need your advice. If the author requested to be credited by his/her social media pages, should we comply with that request? This is what I found at Commons:Credit line: "iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work"? The requested URI is a general one and has nothing to do with the specific image. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the license guarantee the authors to decide the way they want to be credited. In that case, I think that putting his contacts on the social media in the "Author" field is fine. In the CC template, you can just mention the author's name. --Ruthven (msg) 19:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan Briskin.jpg

I looked at File:Alan Briskin.jpg and OTRS ticket:2015032310018682 that relates to it. I see an assertion of ownership of the image, but I don't see any any permission from the photographer nor evidence of how copyright was transferred. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious? Ping Angus Guilherme. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree there seems to be an error here - there is nothing about the photographer. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless these was communication outside of the ticket itself, there clearly seems to have been no explicit grant of the claimed license. - Revent^talk 20:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers; you are right. There's no permission.Angus Guilherme¶ 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 11:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrato de Guillermo Silveira

Saludos: En relación con el mensaje recibido de ORTS sobre mi retrato de Guillermo Silveira https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Retrato_de_Guillermo_Silveira.jpg y que, sinceramente, solo entiendo en parte, vuelvo a insistirte en que se trata de un dibujo del que soy autor, que se publicó en mi libro Cien artistas de Extremadura (Badajoz: Carisma Libros. p. 156. ISBN 8488964110) en 1996 y del que CEDO EXPLÍCITAMENTE TODOS MIS DERECHOS a Wikimedia Commons. En cuanto a la localización del archivo, de la que también se habla en el mencionado mensaje, he de decir que al no haber incluido por desconocimiento en mi primer correo a [email protected] la URL correspondiente, lo hice en uno posterior con el [Ticket#: 2017050510008835] y que es la que figura más arriba. Espero que con toda esta información sea suficiente. Un saludo de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mperezreviriego: Miguel, hay que contestar a lo que pregunta el agente en el ticket 2017050510008835; o sea si hay un sitio web oficial u otra forma de conectar tu usuario al autore del libro. Entiendes que cualquiera puede decir "Soy el autor del libro" y aprovechar de los derechos de autor. La solución está en ayudar el servicio OTRS en aprobar el ticket. --Ruthven (msg) 19:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

En relación con los últimos mensajes sobre "mi" retrato de Guillermo Silveira, debo indicar en primer lugar que, efectivamente, entiendo sobradamente que, sin otro tipo de pruebas más exigentes, cualquier persona podría atribuirse la autoría de cualquier obra y la consiguiente propiedad intelectual sobre ella o cualquier elemento de la misma.

Así las cosas, creo que, en el caso que nos ocupa, debo incidir en dos preguntas o cuestiones fundamentales:

¿Existe un libro titulado Cien artistas de Extremadura (Badajoz: Carisma Libros. ISBN 8488964110) del que es autor un tal Miguel Pérez Reviriego?

A esta primera pregunta, puede contestarse simplemente accediendo al Catálogo de la Biblioteca Nacional de España http://catalogo.bne.es/uhtbin/webcat e introduciendo en el campo AUTORES el ya mencionado Miguel Pérez Reviriego.

Asimismo en las web:

https://www.iberlibro.com/Cien-artistas-Extremadura-P%C3%A9rez-Reviriego-Miguel/1484706741/bd

y otras…

Queda por demostrar, pues, que ese Miguel Pérez Reviriego autor del libro titulado Cien artistas de Extremadura es el usuario Mperezreviriego, o sea, yo…

A este respecto, debo destacar que mientras que el DNI de Miguel Pérez Reviriego es el *******, la contraseña del usuario Mperezreviriego es ******; es decir, mi número de DNI invertido, sin la letra y sin el 0.

Si todo lo dicho no ha sido suficiente, ruego me indiquéis a la mayor brevedad posible la naturaleza CONCRETA de otras pruebas de que Miguel Pérez Reviriego es el usuario Mperezreviriego. Lógicamente, no tendría ningún inconveniente ni problema en presentarlas. Saludos de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ítem más

Abundando en lo dicho anteriormente sobre la naturaleza de otras pruebas que demuestren INEQUÍVOCAMENTE que Miguel Pérez Reviriego es el usuario Mperezreviriego, podría, lógicamente, enviaros cualquier dato, fecha, etc., que me pidierais al respecto. De nuevo, saludos a la espera de vuestras indicaciones. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mperezreviriego: Supongo que ahora querrás cambiar tu contraseña de inmediato para evitar que te "roben" la cuenta. De todas forma, ese tipo de duda se soluciona por correo a OTRS: yo no puedo hacer nada.

@DarwIn: , as long as you added the OTRS received, I suppose that you want to check this discussion. Cheers, --Ruthven (msg) 07:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Por ejemplo, si fuese necesario, podría enviaron a la dirección de correo que me indicarais una imagen escaneada de mi DNI o cualquier otro documento acreditativo de que Miguel Pérez Reviriego, autor del retrato de Guillermo Silveira, y el usuario Mperezreviriego somos la misma persona. Saludos de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

En mi torpeza para todo este tipo de cuestiones no sé a qué operador que me haya contestado por email se refiere el usuario para enviarle la imagen escaneada de mi DNI. ¿Podrían concretarme un poco más la dirección del envío? Saludos de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De todas formas y, ante la duda, acabo de enviar un email a [email protected] [Ticket#: 2017050510008835] con la URL de la imagen en cuestión https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Retrato_de_Guillermo_Silveira.jpg y la imagen escaneada de mi DNI. Saludos de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Gracias por la llamada en este tópico.

@Mperezreviriego: Hola, no era mi intención causar todo este problema, pero solamente proteger los derechos de usted. Porque mismo que yo crea que todo es legitimo, la verdad es que sin una prueba concreta de que usted es quien dice ser, podríamos estar ante un embuste, lo que no seria la primera vez en OTRS. El documento sirve perfectamente para esa confirmación, voy a busca-lo en los emails recibidos y pronto todo estará resuelto. Saludos, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muchísimas gracias, entiendo perfectamente tu postura inicial y un cordial saludo de --Mperezreviriego (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luiz Fernando Carvalho Credito Melina Dalboni.png

Hi, the photographer sent an email to [email protected] 30 days ago with a declaration of consent and release of rights to a file - Ticket#2017042610011981 File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luiz_Fernando_Carvalho_Credito_Melina_Dalboni.png How long does it take to review requests in portuguese? Thank you for your help --Bia2017 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would an OTRS volunteer mind checking the ticket for this file? The photographer sent the permission email 60 days ago, on the 26th of April, and had no answer until now.--Bia2017 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, they have answered already (and the answer is negative)... You can close this notice--Bia2017 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: ★Poyekhali 09:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohammed Bin Salman al-Saud.jpg

Hello. I noticed that a user recently uploaded a copy of this photograph with a much higher resolution, so it seems prudent to check OTRS ticket #2013022310005656 to confirm that the stated licensing applies to it (i.e., that the copyright holder didn't intend to release only the lower-resolution version under a free license). Thanks in advance. —David Levy 21:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is in Arabic and seems to come from a professional photographer. Maybe an Arabic speaker can confirm it. --Ruthven (msg) 12:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it, the ticket number is wrong, it is about something else, I have searched in old messages but couldn't find anything, the user who reviewed this ticket is a former admin in Arwiki and he is inactive since 2015 (he also no longer OTRS member), I think we should delete this file, there are many free alternatives. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ibrahim.ID. I launched an universal replace on the file. When it's finished, I'll delete it as "OTRS permission missing". Ruthven (msg) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nttc

These are images attributed to Imagegallery Tourism NT. File:Wangi falls5456.jpg has an OTRS tag, but many others like it do not. I need to know the scope of ticket:2007020110002631. Is it just the one image or all such photos from the gallery? Guanaco (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: It's relative to all the files from the website, as long as Tourism NT - owner of travelnt.com - is cited as the copyright holder/source. --Ruthven (msg) 16:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Thanks. I'll go ahead and make a template for the purpose of handling these, linking the ticket. Guanaco (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Attribution-TourismNT}} is the template for these. I've tagged Category:Tourism NT with the OTRS permission template, similar to other multi-file cases. Guanaco (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven and Fastily: What happened to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Darwin 6796.jpg, mentioned in the ticket? Is there a good reason not to undelete it? — Jeff G. ツ 04:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: File was not deleted; cf. File:Darwin_6796.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 09:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: I understand that, but the deletion of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Darwin 6796.jpg looks like it was not based in policy, the deleting Admin is no longer an Admin, and it appears that discussion could help explain your contention that the ticket is "relative to all the files from the website, as long as Tourism NT - owner of travelnt.com - is cited as the copyright holder/source." I don't see that in the ticket. Perhaps Yonatanh could shed some light. — Jeff G. ツ 15:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what part you are referring to, I can see in the ticket that more than just that file is mentioned, there are several references to "all our images", with an invitation for images to be downloaded from that site and stored on Commons. I don't think there is much in contention here. seb26 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Of course it was based on policies, don't look for conspirations everywhere. It was a deletion for maintenance, as the whole DR happened at Commons:Deletion requests/Darwin images. For the rest, I agree with seb26: I don't think there is much in contention here. Guanaco's question has been eventually answered I think. --Ruthven (msg) 16:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26 and Ruthven: I'm sorry, I was confused by the lack of breadcrumbs to follow. Had Fastily's deletion summary or the ticket indicated the target of the redirect, I would not have been confused. — Jeff G. ツ 22:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Jeff I agree, I only saw it was a redirect as well after your post on COM:UDR. Just another reminder to all to not delete redirects, I guess (for the confusion it can cause years later, heh.) seb26 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening :) @Seb26: as you say, a good practice would be not to delete redirects (in terms of kb they do not cost anything), but on top of everything to leave some link in the File's talk page, so that it would be easy to trace back the past discussions. --Ruthven (msg) 07:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Srikumar Rao.jpg

This file has unacceptable conditions of use: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that it is used only as a representation of the subject under fair use conditions." But there's an OTRS tag for ticket:2014033110019579. The correct license is probably in the email. Guanaco (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: License in ticket is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed the license tag on the page to match the contents of the ticket. seb26 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Thanks. Guanaco (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hesch Jerome.jpg

Requesting verification of the copyright terms on this one, ticket:2014040410002135. Currently the license is displayed as "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that photo is only used to represent Jerome M. Hesch." Guanaco (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco and Sphilbrick: License in ticket is "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I changed the file description page to match. — Jeff G. ツ 16:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guanaco (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017051610025206: Coat of Arms images and others

Ticket:2017051610025206

This concerns all files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Baltvilks. 10 are coat of arms designs and 4 are photographs. Note that much of the contents of the email sent at this ticket, has also been largely duplicated and crossposted to the page of this deletion request as well.

I wasn't initially sure in what way we should confirm a permission for these coats of arms designs, and to some extent the photographs which are explained as having come from a personal collection.

I wanted to open this up to more experienced agents to see what is the best way to go ahead.

seb26 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, This user is very uncivil, I doubt the claims of authorship, and I don't see any evidence of a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would advice to ask for proofs (email, authorship). For the files that he pretends are works for hire, it's up to him to produce the contract that binds him to the artist. Then, we recover only the files for which we have a certain proof of authorship and release under free license, and only if they are in scope. --Ruthven (msg) 14:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irvington statue of Rip van Winkle.jpg

This is ticket:2011012710010317. Is there a specific free license for this? Guanaco (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco, in that ticket the copyright holder agreed to GFDL and CC-BY-SA-all (3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0) asking that the attribution that specific caption "Life size bronze of Rip Van Winkle sculpted by Richard Masloski, copyright 2000". I'm not sure why the OTRS agent at the time interpreted that and updated the page without GFDL/CC, but that's 2011 for you. I've adjusted the file page. seb26 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upload by a user who has given OTRS-permission in the past, don't know if it's possible to apply this permission to the new file

We have a OTRS-permission for File:FELDER-Gruppe.png. The same user-account has uploaded File:Felder Gruppe Logo.png. Please copy OTRS ticket to the new file, if possible. (I made a deletion request for the old file, because it is obsolete now.) Thanks.--Zaccarias (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One person's obsolete is another person's history. The ticket does not mention future uploads, we would need another ticket. — Jeff G. ツ 01:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the upload is done by the copyright holder itself and we've got confirmation of the true uploader identity via OTRS, do we still need another ticket then for every new file? (this is the case here)

I am also asking, because I would like to know in general. I had found identical situations in the past. --Zaccarias (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaccarias: That is my understanding, unless we make a template for them with specifically one source, PermissionOTRS template, license, attribution, and approval by the customer. I've done this a couple of times. — Jeff G. ツ 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :This section was archived on a request by: Zaccarias (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#2017071210011341] traité par l'agent OTSR Fabien Arnoux, Équipe d’information de Wikipédia

Bonjour,

Désolée, je ne suis pas sûre de comprendre si les discussions doivent être en anglais... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildiko Dao (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)--ildiko Dao 05:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J'au un petit souci avec les deux fichiers que j'ai importé hier. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jerôme_Leuba.jpg#file et https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jerôme_Leuba_-_Portrait_dans_la_nature.jpg Voici comment j'ai procédé. J'ai envoyé un message à Jérôme Leuba, la personne qui est 1) l'auteur des photos, 2) qui est représenté sur les photos, et accessoirement, l' artiste suisse pour lequel une illustration est demandée sur sa page wiki. Il m'avait accordé par email le droit d'utiliser des images qu'il m'a fourni. J'ai forwardé à <[email protected]>son email. L'agent OTRS Fabien Arnoux me répond que l'auteur doit envoyer lui-même une autorisation. Je forwarde cette réponse à l'auteur (donc Jérôme Leuba) .Celui-ci m'informe plus tard (hier) qu'il a suivi la procédure. Je lui avais suggéré d'utiliser la double licence GFDL et CC BY-SA. Je ne comprends pas comment on peux me réoondre par email : " Nous ne pouvons nous baser sur une autorisation transmise par un tiers" . Il ne s'agit nullement d'un tiers mais de l'auteur de l'oeuvre et titulaire des droits !

Tout les mails sont en date du 12 juillet ainsi que l'importation des fichiers. Merci de votre retour, en espérant que cette question d'auteur va se résoudre au plus vite. --ildiko Dao 05:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildiko Dao (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ildiko Dao: Tout simplement parce que le courriel de Jerôme Leuba ne contenait pas la référence au ticket d'origine (ticket:2017071210011341) et n'a donc pas été "connecté" aux autres messages. Maintenant c'est fait et Fabien Arnoux probablement vous répondra pour clore la question. Cordialement, Ruthven (msg) 12:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#2017071210011341] traité par l'agent OTSR Fabien Arnoux, Équipe d’information de Wikipédia

Hi again and lets' try in english. I have imported/uploaed 2 files (see above) concerning Jerome Leuba, a swiss artist. He is the autor and also the peron represented on the pictures. He allow me by email the right to use it and also send an email to "[email protected] " according 2 licenses (GFDL et CC BY-S) as required. I do not understand how it can still be problem with that permission ? Thank for your help --ildiko Dao 09:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildiko Dao (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above. --Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duki Dror.jpg

This file contains two completely different photos uploaded by two different users, both of which were restored by Sphilbrick when confirming the permission. According to the approved and restored file description, User:Binizem is the author. According to http://www.imdb.com/media/rm560840448/nm0238283, the author is Nitzan Makover. Does the ticket actually cover both revisions, and does it actually confirm that User:Binizem is the author? Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail was sent 06/07/2014 15:05 (UK style 6th July), so just post second image upload. Ticket does not specify which user. Ticket is also a gmail address, which I (cynically) don't like. In view of the IMDB data we might need a more explicit confirmation of copyright ownership. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first file can be found in he.wiki he:File:Dukidror2009.jpg. The uploader, User:Abyssinia north clams to be the author (from 2009). Also please take to your consideration that the link says: Photo by Nitzan Makover - © Zygote Films The copyright owner (©) is Zygote Films which established in 2002 by Duki Dror. -- Geagea (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'm just very cynical of anyone who uses a gmail address rather than a nice identifying domain. Once bitten, twice shy. It's a great way of faking a permission e-mail. I always want to see either an identifying domain or the e-mail address on a web page. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: . -- Geagea (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geagea: I sent an email to the person providing the original permission asking for further details so we can sort this out.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little confused

I seen that i was banned from having a login about a comment or something my immature younger brother was using my phone for"a school project" i am a 32 year old mother of 2 who happens to love your page and refer to it almost daily i would never do something bad and apologize for what exactly my brother has done please give me another chance an please u will see that i will never again cause you a problem thank you Erin Korzeniowski (btw i tried to contact u but didnt know how im sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:fb90:297c:5b2:9910:e503:cbd0:58ab (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Korzeniowski, what username were you using when you got blocked? --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArchiVol and User:Sphilbrick

User:ArchiVol has been taking paper photos in the South Carolina Political Collections of The University of South Carolina Libraries, scanning them in, uploading them here with "author=Photo scanned by South Carolina Political Collections at the University of South Carolina", and following up with legit-looking emails to permissions-commons. No mention of actual author/photographer is made. In OTRS ticket 2017022410011952, one out of the four sets was actually approved by User:Sphilbrick, who tagged each of the 17 images with PermissionOTRS. This behavior is not ok (in that it infringes the copyrights of the actual photographers and rightsholders and makes the WMF a party thereto), and I have reversed the PermissionOTRS tagging, replacing it with "{{subst:OR|id=2017022410011952|reason=email}}". — Jeff G. ツ 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Affected files are as follows:

— Jeff G. ツ 00:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these scanned photographs were contained within the collections donated to the University of South Carolina by the individuals mentioned in each item. In the case of USC (this is not the case at all, or even most universities), copyright has been transferred from the donor to the institution during the donor agreement. Specific permission was given to me, an employee of USC at the time, from the institution to disseminate these items under the mentioned CC license. Of the files I have uploaded, when a specific author was identified on the front or back of the photograph, credit was given. In almost all cases, the photographs did not contain this information, in which case I used my generic "Photo scanned..." message. These photos should generally be considered part of the individual donor's collection and thus subject to the aforementioned copyright transfer.

As further evidence, some of these photos appear to be those created by the government as official portraits of public figures, which are free from copyright restrictions as I understand it. Also, in Managing Congressional Collections, the standard "bible" on all things congressional archives, it states on pg. 18, "“The records generated by a congressional office—including all materials produced by the office staff—are the private property of the member of Congress. The member is free to dispose of the records in the matter he or she deems most appropriate."

If there is a better set of text to place in the author tag, even "unknown", I am happy to change it in order for these valuable photos that likely cannot be found elsewhere to be made available to the public.

- ArchiVol (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to the auto replies with the ticket numbers in the subjects and your information above (specifically including "copyright has been transferred from the donor to the institution during the donor agreement") for our records, and I will process your tickets. Thanks, — Jeff G. ツ 16:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I'll be sure to clarify these things in future additions to Commons. ArchiVol (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I have one file left, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Rembert_Dennis.jpg for details. — Jeff G. ツ 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I imagine that Jeff G. and Sphilbrick are already on this, but I'm not seeing where we received any information about how copyright ownership was transferred by the photographers of the various works. Superficially, it looks as if there is some (mistaken) idea that the subject of a photograph has the right to donate the copyright in it. Should we perhaps ask ArchiVol to clarify whether the university has a release on file for each of those that were not created by a US Government employee as part of his/her employment, or even to send us a copy of that release? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: what, you don't trust Members of Congress? :) Seriously, the vast majority of these look like they were photographed as work for hire official portraits either by employees or contractors who would have transferred their rights. Karsh, on the other hand, was good and smart enough to hold on to his rights and make arrangements for people to look after those rights after he was gone. — Jeff G. ツ 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I do! :) Seriously, Jeff G., I don't want to interfere and I haven't looked at them in detail. What struck a warning note was the sentence "In the case of USC ... copyright has been transferred from the donor to the institution during the donor agreement", since presumably those donors were the subjects of the pictures. That looks like an all-too-common misconception. As I understand it, that copyright transfer by the subject would only be valid for our purposes if it included documentation of how copyright was transferred by the photographer (such as, e.g., "work of a US government employee as part of his/her official duties", "work-for-hire" etc) – and I don't see that it does. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArchiVol: would you care to comment in what Justlettersandnumbers wrote? Also, did the congresscritters donate the negatives too? — Jeff G. ツ 16:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attention to detail you all are giving to this. This is my first experience uploading to Commons, and I've learned a lot. In regards to the copyright, I believe Jeff G. is correct that the large majority of these would have been commissioned portraits or otherwise taken by government employees in the service of their work. I don't think any other conclusion seems likely. I suppose is would have been better to mark these with that option in the 'copyright' section of the Upload Wizard?

There are five files I've uploaded that I'm less sure about and that were simply contained in the donor's collection under a 'photographs' folder, listed below. If I haven't mentioned them here, I consider it likely that it's under one of the government-so-free-from-copyrights we discussed earlier.

In most of these cases, I find it likely that a staffer or contractor would have been photographing the event in service of the donor. The size of political/congressional collections dictates that some sacrifices are made in tracking down the provenance of every item, and assumptions are made based on what we've seen in past collections. From my knowledge, USC does not have any documents from photographers transferring copyright. And yes, a number of the donors have negatives to their photographs, but the collections are not described at a sufficient enough level for me to know easily. If you have further guidance for these items, I would appreciate it. ArchiVol (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArchiVol: Those five should probably go, but I am going to defer to an Admin at this point. — Jeff G. ツ 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent flags for deletion

A number of images I've uploaded on behalf of my clients were recently flagged and deleted for improper permissions. In reviewing their submissions to permissions, I've realized that there are some that never received ticket numbers. I initially emailed the permissions team about the issue [Ticket#: 2017040610021061] but I know the queue can get quite long. Can anyone help me sort this all out? I realize that copyrights are serious and you're all pressed for time; I'd just like to resolve this to the best of my ability as quickly as I can. I'm very appreciative for any help I can get!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of File:Darius Adamczyk high-res.jpg, we have been waiting a week for permission from the actual photographer or details on the license transfer. Re the rest, if you got an auto reply, permission is being processed, so please wait. Providing such information for the other tickets by replying with the ticket numbers in the subjects will speed the process. Thanks, — Jeff G. ツ 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: thanks for the help. The ticket numbers I could find are:

[Ticket#: 2016101110022013]
[Ticket#: 2016092010017943]

In reviewing the emails sent to Permissions from my clients that I was cc'd on, I realized that more than a few never received ticket numbers. Would it be helpful to include those email addresses along with the dates they were sent? Or would it be more prudent to resubmit releases with the photos in question?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: Sorry for any confusion. In both cases for which you gave ticket numbers above, no filename or URL for one was provided, we couldn't find such, and we replied asking for such. In the case of Ticket 2016092010017943, our reply bounced at the destination domain's mail server. In the case of File:Darius Adamczyk high-res.jpg you mentioned above, Ticket 2017032410024311, we also need the text of the attribution if it is to be changed (it is currently "Honeywell" in plaintext). Attribution is absolutely required by the terms of all Creative Commons Attribution "CC-BY" licenses. In your reply re Ticket 2017032410024311, for those "more than a few never received ticket numbers", please include the email addresses, dates, times, and filenames or other distinguishing features (subject lines, photo subjects, etc.). Do you normally get autoreplies when you are CC'd on emails to permissions-commons? — Jeff G. ツ 22:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Looking back on it, I see that some things got lost in the shuffle, and I'm just going to resubmit everything with the proper permissions. There was one that I tracked down that seemed fixable, though; the email was dated 11 Oct 2016, subject: Wikimedia Commons - AIG HQ Photo. The photo was released for use on the AIG Wikipedia article. Is this reparable? Thanks again for all the help.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: I found ticket:2016101110022013 above meets those criteria. In it, the customer gives permission, but doesn't specify the exact filename. I'm guessing it's not File:Los Angeles Valley, Warner Center, AIG Towers.jpg, currently in that article. So what's the exact filename? I resent the requests. — Jeff G. ツ 02:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: I really can't express how grateful I am for your help in all this. I just sent a reply via email in regards to the AIG photo. I was also looking at a number of my recent uploads for Jesse Richman.

Filename	Email address	Subject line	Date
File:Jesse Richman - Pierre Bouras.jpg	pb.photographiegmail.com	photo release	8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Pierre Bouras 1.jpg	pb.photographiegmail.com	photo release	8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Pierre Bouras 2.jpg	pb.photographiegmail.com	photo release	8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Nuit De La Glisse 1.jpg	tdonardnuitdelaglisse.com	Picture copyrights granting	9 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Nuit De La Glisse 2.jpg	tdonardnuitdelaglisse.com	Picture copyrights granting	9 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman 1.jpg	kitingjessegmail.com	Wikimedia Jesse Richman Photos	8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman 2.jpg	kitingjessegmail.com	Wikimedia Jesse Richman Photos	8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman 3.jpg	kitingjessegmail.com	Wikimedia Jesse Richman Photos	8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Whistler Bike Park 2.jpg	heathercoastphoto.com	Permissions for uploading Jesse Richman images to Wikimedia Commons	9 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 1.jpg	infocraigkolesky.com	Image Permissions	14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 2.jpg	infocraigkolesky.com	Image Permissions	14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 3.jpg	infocraigkolesky.com	Image Permissions	14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 4.jpg	infocraigkolesky.com	Image Permissions	14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 5.jpg	infocraigkolesky.com	Image Permissions	14 Mar 2017

I noticed that these never got any kind of response, automated or otherwise. Would you mind taking a look, or do you have any insight into what could have happened there? Thank you so so so much.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: They have responses now. However, most of your tickets specify non-commercial use and no derivatives, in conflict with the licenses they allegedly grant, and I replied as such to each one of those and removed PermissionOTRS tags as necessary. — Jeff G. ツ 05:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: The files listed above by Pierre Bouras have been properly licensed — Jeff G. ツ 14:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#: 2017041910018354

Hi, could anyone look at the Ticket#: 2017041910018354? Seven images were deleted despite the permission was sent as needed (OTRS letter). These images were initially uploaded in 2013 with the links to the sources where it was explicitly stated that the copyright owner releases them to the public domain. Please help me to fix it. Alexandra Goncharik (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in approximately 44 days. — Jeff G. ツ 01:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Gilbert

Lynn Gilbert, an American photograph, has donated several of her own photographs of great women to Wikipedia.

May you please help LynnGilbert5 (talk · contribs) to release her own pictures? Quite funny that such an act is even necessary.--Philippe Stelly (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If any of these pictures were previously published, a formal written permission is necessary. It is also best practice to protect the works of professional photographers, since anyone could create an account and claim to be her. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate file tagging

I believe Mlpearc has been inappropriately applying the {{No permission since}} template. Specifically, here and here, Mlpearc claimed that these images, which are clearly snapshots taken by a private individual and are not previously published (at least not demonstrably so, via a Google image search), have no evidence of permission. Are we now requiring that every image uploaded by a private individual taken by their own camera be accompanied with an OTRS ticket? WikiDan61 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MonkeyKingdom regarding these files and their uploader. — Jeff G. ツ 05:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonije Đorđević.jpg

While I can't read Serbian, the ticket ticket:2009072410055859 seems to indicate that this file was transferred with the wrong license, and should be {{GFDL |migration=not-eligible }}. @Ранко Николић: - Revent^talk 00:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: Okay, thank you. --Ранко Николић (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ранко Николић: Thank you for fixing that.... I looked at the other files you had moved that had OTRS tickets, and they look like they all have the right license (or at least, the one actually mentioned in the ticket). Before transferring files, please check to make sure that the license hasn't been changed without explanation at some point. - Revent^talk 01:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My files taged for deletion--- please advice!

Hello there, I need urgent help from somebody who is expert in this. I have some files uploaded in wikimedia --- I guess everybody can see. However, user:EugeneZelenko has just tagged my files to be deleted (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asuas). I express my willingness to submit any form or email, whatever is needed in order to have these files preserved and survive, because this is my hard work I have been contributing in wikimedia commons eagerly and I don't want to get it lost. Please advice. I am trying to figure out now what needs to be done,but after I write this here I will email the confirmation of my authorship via Commons:OTRS (example: Commons:Email templates). Would this be enough, or do I need to do anything more? Please help me out here. Much appreciated. Asuas (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asuas, kindly please relax, no deletions are permanent deletions of the files forever, they can always be restored by administrators if correct permission is received. If you are emailing the permissions-commons email with the correct template, then you have done all you need to do and someone on our team will respond to you soon. Please note we have a backlog of requests so it may take some time before you receive a reply. Apologies for the inconvenience but we need to make sure that the copyright holder is respected with regard to decisions that release their work under free licenses, and in some cases email correspondence is the only way we can properly confirm they have done so. For future reference, if you want to publish work on Wikimedia Commons, I recommend also posting it online using a personal website, portfolio page, gallery hosting site or blog to upload your work that is clearly associated with your real name. Then on that site, you can declare a free license for the photograph by including a caption like "CC-BY-SA-4.0". Some photographers here also put their real name in their camera metadata settings so that each camera raw file is associated with their name, and shows that their license tags are valid. These are other ways of verifying the identity of a work that are quicker and easier than emailing us for future reference. Cheers. seb26 (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seb26! Much appreciated! I just sent emails to the permissions-commons email with the correct template (I hope!). I was using this page as EugeneZelenko suggested: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/index.php. I think this is OTRS release generator link. I was choosing "I want to release the media work" and than choosing: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I hope I did right? Please advice. By the way, in regards to OGG.files (audio ones) I was using the same https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/index.php. I also don't know how to add performer for those audio files. Could you please help me out, because user EugeneZelenko asked me who is the perfrormer, I wrote him back saying that perfromer on the piano is GIORGI LATSO. Thanks in advance for your kindness and help! If there is anything I need to do please let me know. Cheers Asuas (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asuas, as I said, there is nothing else you need to do except wait. To attribute the performer, I had a go at inserting his name into the "Author" field on one of the OGG files. Look at my example here. You can access this by clicking the Edit button at the top of the page. Although I'm not sure if his name is Giorgi Latso or Giorgi Latsabidze. Cheers. seb26 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seb26! Many thanks. I just did. I hope I will get answers back to my files from Creative Commons admins. I really appreciate for your help! Let's see what happenes. Cheers, Asuas (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 images of historical objects, free to upload with permission from the copyright holder.

There is a popular collection of websites regarding Silk Road Numismatics and Chinese Character Numismatics called Charm.ru, and Zeno.ru, these websites cover everything from Oriental “good luck charms” to ancient valid currencies used in Ancient China. Technically I already have Mr. Belyaev's written consent (or permission) to publish his work, however because they number around 200,000 it would simply be too much work for me personally to start, and a bot would simply be able to do it more efficiently (I would however patrol its uploads and make corrections wherever possible, and add relevant categories).

The e-mail I sent to Mr. Belyaev: 📧

“On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 05:47:40 +0300

 [sender (that’s me) censored.] wrote:

> Dear Mr. Belyaev, > > I would like to request of you to upload pictures of all the Oriental coins >and charms you have (and/or know of) to Wikimedia Commons to not only improve >the current Wikipedia articles on Asian coins but to preserve those images >for future generations and illustrate those coins for the curious and >interested. > > Yours sincerely, > Mr. [Censored] > > Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. > “

Mr. Belyaev’s response: 📧

“Dear Mr. [Censored]

Thank you for your letter. Your thoughts are quite useful and I appreciate it. However, all my free and non-free time I devoting to support and developing of my project zeno.ru, where are uploaded dozens thousands of Asian coins and charms. So I simply have no time to upload pieces to Wikimedia Commons. If somebody will do it (with reference to the source), I will highly appreciate it.

With best regards, Vladimir”

As someone who has written and maintained websites in the past I can perfectly understand the effort it takes and his reaction, and I have to note that his latest website has this on the bottom:

Copyright 2002-2017 charm.ru No part or portion of this page, text(s), image(s) or code(s) may be copied, reproduced, published or distributed by whatever way in any medium without the expressed written permission of the copyright holder, unless you are the owner of the uploaded image or you use the above mentioned matter for personal educational or scientific purposes with no intention of publishing it by whatever way under your or any other name.”

The articles that cover these coins, charms, and/or other exonumia count in the hundreds, thousands “interlingually” as E.G. Vietnamese Wikipedia has articles titled “Lê dynasty coinage”, “Lý dynasty coinage”, “Nguyễn dynasty coinage”, Etc. Japanese Wikipedia has (often large) individual articles about almost every Japanese mon coin ever cast with even several local mint articles, Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia has articles about not just every denomination but most individual coins cast from most “mainline” Chinese dynasties. The information found on English Wikipedia pales in comparison to them, in fact every Japanese coin page has a full metallurgical analysis of the same coin from different eras. Wikipedia as a whole could greatly benefit from the hundreds of thousands of coins hosted by Mr. Belyaev.

What could happen are a few suggestions I have regarding this issue...

Mr. Belyaev can be contacted here on Charm.ru (by simply “clicking” on his name) or here on Zeno.ru (on the top, the “postman” e’mail-address.-).

After the “ticket” has been “fetched” I suggest the following. 🎫

Someone with the programming knowledge and authority writes a bot specifically to fetch images from Charm.ru, and Zeno.ru as there are about 200,000 different images of coins, the bot should also be able to add descriptions (if Mr. Belyaev and/or the other current copyright holders allow) to maximise the educational value of the images.

The bot must always link to page of origin, and name the original uploader, not unlike what the bot that uploads Flickr images does now.

Simply put, 200,000 images would not only be a treasure trove for the Wikipedia articles that cover them, but for historical preservation in general.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --1.55.183.244 11:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly requesting for a creation of a bot based on the ticket 🎫. --1.55.183.244 11:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1.55.183.244, good work getting in touch with him to find out about this. If it can be done, it'd be a fantastic contribution. There are some concerns however. We'll need to make sure these are addressed before a single file is uploaded. Since this is on the OTRS noticeboard, here are the permission related ones:

His email seems to permit Commons & Wikipedia to use the images. This isn't sufficient as an intention. Permitting Wikipedia is not a free license like is required by Commons:Licensing, anyone for any purpose needs to be permitted to use the works. Most photographers/copyright holders I've communicated with seem to be over the moon about Wikipedia using their works, but sometimes they don't agree to the other conditions, like the potential for other people outside of Wikipedia to use the works, and for commercial use. But it is essential. The person needs to agree to license under a free license (listed at COM:L) or give a statement that says "free for any purpose as long as attribution is given". There are organisations that have done this second option in the past but free licenses are generally easier/more welcoming for reusers to understand.
Are you sure that he is the owner/sole copyright holder of the photographs? Have they been contributed by anyone else? You mention something about that. Mr. Belyaev has to be in a position to properly relicense them. If he is not and the works still legally belong to others, that really taints the whole operation because we shouldn't accept works by other people when we don't know if they themselves are in support of that particular license arrangement claimed by the webmaster.

seb26 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am fully aware of those conditions which is why I requested that someone from the volunteer team would take the time to contact Mr. Belyaev and explain in detail that once the images have been posted here that they'll be to be used by anyone for any purpose. Further from what I can tell from the websites others post images too but the bulk are owned by Mr. Belyaev but indeed further investigation must be made, and a bot must clearly be able to discriminate between them (like what the Flickr upload bot does now with Flickr images), however I do not have the authority to add the tickets myself which is why I suggest that a volunteer with such permissions would "fetch" the ticket 🎫 if Mr. Belyaev agrees to others being able to freely edit and publish his photographs. --1.55.183.244 14:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A minor addendum

From the e-mail I had received (see in the original message) he did require attribution which I originally wasn't sure of if it would make the images legal here as a freedom "to do whatever you want with them" is a prerequisite and attribution seems like a limitation. --1.55.183.244 14:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1.55.183.244, this is not a ticket, it was not sent to us (according to my reading of your messages), it is a reply to personal email sent from you to them. Was this forwarded by you to <[email protected]>? I could not tell. It only becomes a ticket when it is sent to that address. OTRS does not reach out to copyright holders, that is something that interested volunteers do. Please ask that person write directly (not forwarded) to <[email protected]> using the Interactive Release Generator at COM:CONSENT. They should specify which images it relates to, and they need to specify the license. If there are large numbers of images, then the person needs to individually specify all of them, or indicate that there is a clear way to distinguish between who took who (e.g. he could say, "Images I took are denoted by a credit next to each thumbnail saying my name", so that we can look individually on the web pages to find those that are denoted as such). It would be perfectly fine if they were to include a long list of URLs, that would be better and clearer for everyone. They need to specify a license, and not just continue using the language used in their email like "Wikipedia is allowed" or "free for any purpose except commercial". The generator gives them the option to do so. It is then up to the OTRS agents to determine if that person is actually the right person to give such a release, and if it's appropriate, then we can discuss uploading. seb26 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also just encourage them to edit their web page to say "Images by Mr. Belyaev are available under CC-BY-SA-4.0", that is going to be a much quicker, easier solution than going via OTRS. seb26 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, I shall contact Mr. Belyaev and tell him what you said and disclose his legal rights if he were to give permission. --1.55.183.244 15:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You may mark this paragraph as "resolved" ✅ . --1.55.183.244 15:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017053110013601

I want to talk about ticket:2017053110013601 before I do anything, because it concerns a user who was globally banned for copyright violations. See ticket notes. I think the evidence provided (high resolution scan of a non-digital photograph) is sufficient. What do others think? seb26 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to otrswiki:Banned users. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonatan, thanks. seb26 (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Hexagon EP.jpg

Over at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Super Hexagon EP.jpg, we're trying to determine if the Super Hexagon EP album art was included within the scope of ticket:2013052510006593 (which is the ticket that released most of the other images in Category:Super Hexagon). Could an OTRS member please check the ticket and clear things up over at that deletion request? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and commented on the DR. seb26 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exif data

Why should we ask for original photos with Exif data, if they can be easily modified? I am processing ticket:2017062010015636. I am not claiming that metadata has been created/modified, but just considering it as a possibility. Please advise me how to deal with this ticket. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4nn1l2, I replied in the ticket asking them to provide contact info for the photographer, so we can hear a "Yes" from them if that photo is part of the contract. seb26 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for handling the ticket. I am watching it now to learn the process. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:TAM small.jpg

Ticket:2014031910014169. ticket handled by Harold

The file is the Czech version of poster for film That Awkward Moment - an American movie from 2014 (English version, Hebrew version). The copyright owner probably is the director or the distributor company. I have checked Ticket:2014031910014169. As far as I understand using Google translate, The mail sender does not seem to be the copyright owner of the poster and he do not claim so. Also there is no proper release under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or any other free license applicable to us.
Taging @Harold: and @Mates: czech speaking admin and OTRS member. -- Geagea (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That company is probably in charge of distribution in the Czech Republic, and only there: that film is an American one being produced by numerous other companies: Treehouse Pictures, Aversano Films, etc. These companies have more than likely provided distribution companies in other countries the rights to distribute the film and its posters, but it is unlikely the rights given included the right to relicense under CC and even more unlikely that they gave them ownership to be in a position. This permission should not have been accepted in my opinion because of this, also I am less convinced because it does not make explicit mention of the CC license on the page. I suggest that this ticket should be removed and the file should be deleted. But I await the insight of Harold & others. seb26 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm no longer OTRS member.) As I remember a person from a Czech movie distribution company sent permissions for a few movie posters (and maybe with a notice about their authorship, I don't know anymore). Now I see both of you are probably right though, your arguments are reasonable. In that case this file should be deleted along with other movie posters uploaded by Special:Contributions/Mr paranut. I'm very sorry for my mistake. --Harold (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geagea, Seb26, and Harold: I agree with removal considering Seb26's arguments. Still I'd not blame Harold so much because it was discussed in this discussion. The contributor there claims that the company has its own graphic designer who prepares Czech versions of promotional posters and in the permission in OTRS they basically say they are sure they have right to do it. Personally, I doubt that they "hold the copyrights to all elements involved in your new poster" based on a quick check on the web where I found the same posters in different language versions. Should we go through DR with this? --Mates (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mates, seems that DR is the best way for all the posters uploaded by Mr_paranut. -- Geagea (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fair enough Harold, in some respects I think it was OK for us initially to accept the intention of the distribution company as perhaps it was within their rights to distribute the movie posters on Wikipedia like they said. But again like everything we can't do Wikipedia-only and we can only do free license, which was out of their legal means. seb26 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geagea, Seb26, and Harold: I started a deletion request as we agreed. --Mates (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. --Harold (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to know the ticket number

Hi, I am Pavanjandhyala. I requested Silverscreen.in to provide permission to use three images on Wikipedia, whose copyrights they own. They responded positively and gave the consent to the OTRS team. They got a reply that they wanted to know the files' URLs which I forwarded. Now, they are asking me the ticket number. Can you please help me in knowing it? The files I have uploaded are: Nani at Aaha Kalyanam audio launch, Naga Chaitanya at CBL Telugu Thunders team jersey launch and Esther and Nivetha Thomas at Papanasam success meet. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala, if you were the one who sent the email to OTRS, you should have received an automatic reply from the email address. The automatic reply says "thank you for sending us a message, we will endeavour to respond to you as soon as possible but we have lots of other inquiries". The subject line of this automatic reply has the ticket number in it. However, I tried searching in the system for some of those photos but I couldn't find such an email. Did you get the address correctly? Was it <[email protected]>? seb26 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seb26, thanks for the response. Silverscreen.in has sent the email. The email id I gave (as a part of the template text) was <[email protected]> update: Silverscreen.in has sent their consent through mail to <[email protected]> Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You actually don't need the ticket number, but it's ticket:2017071410012587. --Didym (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Permission was confirmed and ticket closed. seb26 (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A guide to Russian propaganda

I've emailed the video uploader. Alya Shandra of Euromaidan Press responded: "Thank you for the notice! Yes, we can keep the videos under Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, Alya"

Ticket # 2017071210002636

Can an OTRS member please update the pages accordingly, and promptly, as there is an ongoing deletion discussion and attempt to delete all three files ?

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26: Thank you for your wiki help [9]. I'm in touch with the copyright holder who has agreed to license all the video files by a free-use license. The copyright holder wants the video files to be kept and available on Wikimedia Commons. Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In general, I would encourage you to please not be too concerned if the files are deleted before permission is processed, it shouldn't be considered a race against time kind of arrangement (although your interest in acquiring and preserving third party content for the project is appreciated). With the co-operation of admins, it is relatively straightforward to have them restored again once permission comes through. This happens all the time with files processed by us. I will add {{OTRS received}} to the above files but since a user has nominated them for deletion, that discussion will have to be respected until it reaches its close or an admin makes a decision. seb26 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26: Understood, but can you understand how it's frustrating to have a user remove the entire license section from those file pages, during an ongoing deletion discussion [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] ? I can see how you are helpfully trying to explain how there's not a hurry, but I'm just worried such actions will make it a risk for a "speedy" delete instead of abiding by the OTRS process and letting the deletion discussion run its course, and I hope the user's actions won't lead to such a "speedy" risk ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, absolutely it would be frustrating, the particular behaviour that you have outlined does not appear to me on first glance to be very productive at all, it is a shame you have had to deal with it. When I speak about the lack of hurry, it is because I know that files literally remain inside the database with full history preserved at all times when they are "deleted". No, they won't be viewable on articles during the time they are deleted, but it is so simple to flick the switch and bring them back. So what I mean is that your contribution is not and will not be lost. This would not be the first of this particular type of case that an admin has seen, they understand the importance of looking over the full picture and understanding the actions of all users involved. Any speedy delete tags placed at this point would likely just be rejected. On another note, if you have dialogue with the copyright holder, you could request that they just go on their YouTube channel preferences and edit the video's settings to read the CC license tag. I didn't look deeply into the ticket or the issue myself but I just wanted to reassure you about what we do to make sure you are OK and are not rattled by the threat of deadlines or by the debate that is going on on the DR pages. This is indeed bureaucratic in a way but in the end we are all volunteers of our own time, a resolution will be had eventually. seb26 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26: Yes, in my communication with the copyright holder, I specifically asked them if it is okay to use the license, Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike. They said Yes. I sent them another email to ask them to also change the file licenses on YouTube. That is not necessary since we already have their answer by email as to the licenses here for Wikimedia Commons. But I did that anyways also. What else can I do ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them to fill in the email template as at Commons:Email templates; this is the best way to ensure that the OTRS ticket is successful. If the total content of the copyright holder's email is "Thank you for the notice! Yes, we can keep the videos under Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, Alya" it is not likely to be sufficient. - Ryk72 (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sagecandor, you have done all the right steps, you just need to have patience. The permissions queue for Commons has a backlog at the moment, so it might be in the interest of many OTRS agents to respond to older queries who have waited weeks before getting to this one. When it is reviewed you will be informed. seb26 (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26: Thank you for acknowledging, "absolutely it would be frustrating, the particular behaviour that you have outlined does not appear to me on first glance to be very productive at all, it is a shame you have had to deal with it." I hope that, especially due to such types of disturbing behavior patterns by such users in what appears to be a strong motivation to remove free-use files from being available as a resource on Wikimedia Commons, that the OTRS volunteers will be able to help and advise on this soon. Sagecandor (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor: Please stop adding license details for which we have no evidence. It is disruptive to do so. If we have privately emailed details of a free-use license which have been submitted by OTRS, then let the OTRS process proceed. - Ryk72 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with comment by Seb26 about this at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seb26's comments are largely in accordance with my own previous statements. We either need the copyright holder to publish with a free-use license or the OTRS process to run its course. The files, if deleted, will not be lost and can be recovered if & when permission for use is determined. Frustrations or not, we should not knowingly include incorrect licensing details; and it is not disruptive to remove them. - Ryk72 (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in direct communication with the copyright holder. The copyright holder wants the files to stay on Wikimedia Commons. We are, therefore, most certainly not knowingly including incorrect licensing details. I agree with this comment by Seb26: "the particular behaviour that you have outlined does not appear to me on first glance to be very productive at all, it is a shame you have had to deal with it." Sagecandor (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CC-BY-SA licensing template is for works published under that license; these works have not yet been so published. They may be one day; and, if so, we can use that template then. The process for licensing provided by private email is OTRS, which is in progress. I acknowledge your frustration, as I hope that you can understand mine; but we need to get it right. - Ryk72 (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User is incorrect as they have been so licensed in agreement with questions in email submitted to OTRS. Further clarification can be provided by the copyright holder to OTRS. Sagecandor (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the copyright holder has changed the licenses on YouTube to "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". This is can be confirmed per ticket:2017071710018012. Thank you to Jeff G. for the helpful input. The videos with the licenses by the copyright holder can be see at [16] and [17] and [18]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance someone can look at this, please, as the copyright holder has cleared up the situation by changing the license to Creative Commons attribution ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sagecandor, an OTRS agent commented on the deletion discussion with their findings, that is all OTRS can do. So as I mentioned before admins will close the discussion. seb26 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Seb26: Who is the OTRS agent that commented on the deletion discussion with their findings? Sagecandor (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sagecandor, it was Jeff G. seb26 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Seb26 and Jeff G.: Ah okay, I hadn't realized Jeff G. was a member of the OTRS team. So can the 3 image pages be tagged as confirmed with OTRS now? Sagecandor (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sagecandor and Seb26: Not yet, the files are still tagged {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, rather than the appropriate {{Cc-by-3.0}} per YouTube. — Jeff G. ツ 19:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jeff G. and Seb26: Changed all 3 to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, can you confirm now ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sagecandor and Seb26: Done, can an Admin please close the DRs now? The PermissionOTRS tool autoremoved the delete tags on the files. — Jeff G. ツ 20:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result was Keep. [19] [20] [21]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Result was Keep. [22] [23] [24]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2016123010006653

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg @Kvardek du: added a post-closure question regarding the two files in this deletion discussion. Apparently we got an OTRS ticket from one of the uploaders. So I'm wondering if any of these files could be restored. Pinging also @Srittau: . De728631 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad if this file could be restored. Nice artwork that was in use in quite a lot of pages. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ticket really 'proves' anything, but having just skimmed through the scanned covers of 900-odd editions of this book over at Goodreads, I don't see anything even remotely resembling this artwork. - Revent^talk 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is also why I was a confused by the description of File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg that said something along a "cover of The Hobbit" in Polish: "okładka książki J.R.R. Tolkiena 'Hobbit, czyli tam i z powrotem'" and was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves e-textbooks contest in Poland. But if the ticket contains a claim of original authorship for File:Un hobbit.jpg we should check if this file passes the COM:FANART test. Evidently it was used in a lot of pages before, so it was in project scope. The former file with a misleading name "Hobbit by Tolkien" and the text "Hobbit" added to the drawing seems now more like a fake cover artwork to me that was based on File:Un hobbit.jpg and should rather not be restored. De728631 (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donald Trump Official Portrait

I've recently removed the use rational of {{POTUS}} as that wasn't the source of the image. I'm dealing with these images in Ticket:2017050810015705. Posting this here incase anyone raises some red flags. - Cameron¹¹⁵⁹⁸_(talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effected Images

Ping me if there are any questions. - Cameron¹¹⁵⁹⁸_(talk) 01:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request of versions deletion

Per request of the author as she only gives limited resolution permission. I hope this is valid!?

-- User: Perhelion 23:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Perhelion: Yes, it is fine: the agreement is on "800 px for all pictures". I deleted the older (hi-res)revisions. --Ruthven (msg) 11:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the discussion (I may have been inactive at the time) where we changed our stance that higher resolotion of images did not reach TOO, and was licensed the same way as lower res. versions. When did we change this stance? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: Here, it's the customer that explicitly asked for a 800px resolution. So, it's independent to whatever the community consensus is (or was). --Ruthven (msg) 10:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remember when WMF legal got email from an institution that tried to threaten to sue/send DMCAs(?) to WMF or hosting large resolutions of PD-arts they had photographed, but that they offered smaller resolutions instead. The overwhelming consensus was that the larger versions had the same PD status as the smaller vrsions. I don't see why we would act differently in this case and allo a photographer to only release a specific version of a file, but not allow larger versins (which could be seen as DWs). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donation of a batch of personal images by a time-short published author

I have been asked to help a London academic to donate his personal collection of high quality images to Wikipedia and to upload them on his behalf onto commons. It looks if I will have to do all the legwork- as he is very time-short. He has emailed me the first four so we can establish a system. The project has the support of Wikimedia UK. He will be quite happy to release them under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and confirm that in one email, I think as he is emailing me the images- he will be happy to cut and paste whatever statement we provide him with into each accompanying email (which may include 20 differing images)- asking him to write separate statements for each image I think will be a step too far. I sure this can't be the first time this has occurred. Can you give me guidance on the optimum way to proceed. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) (contributions)[reply]

@ClemRutter: The academic should write a single statement authorising the publication under CC-BY-SA 4.0 of the photos from his collection, and specify that it will be you that will upload the files (the email address should be the "academic" one). If he already has a list with the filenames, it's better as he can send everything in a single email (without attaching the files), otherwise, you can upload the files and then send back to OTRS the list of the uploads. Just be sure that there are no works under copyright in his collection. If he plans to ask you to upload more files from his collection in the future, please specify it, as we will make a custom template for this series of donations. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 10:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- that is clear and simple- I can upload the test shots- we can talk about templates later- I suspect that will be the way to go.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 7 test shots up,File:East Village September 2013 (2).jpg and Dr Watt is about to send an email worded:

To OTRS: I am releasing photographs from my personal collection to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA 4.0. I confirm I hold the copyright on each one. They will be uploaded on my behalf by User:ClemRutter or User:Jwslubbock during the period 30 May 2017- 30 October 2017. They will be displayed initially in the Category:Social housing in the United Kingdom. I am following the advice given in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&oldid=245646512.

Photographer: Paul Watt <[email protected]>

If this is correct it will be a simple system to operate and extend. However I do think that using a template will be helpful in the long run-can you have a think about it and get back to me when you have somethng concrete- or to tell me that I am barking up the wrong tree. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: Fine for me. Maybe check if Dr Watt wants his email written in clear letters on a website and/or how does he wants the photos to be attributed. --Ruthven (msg) 19:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:YellowheadShield.jpg

Would an OTRS volunteer mind checking the ticket for this file? While the copyright on the photograph itself may be "owned" by the photographer, I'm not sure if the same can be said for the copyright underlying imagery of the road sign. The reason I am asking about this is because of en:File:Alberta Yellowhead Highway.png, en:File:Yellowhead Highway (Saskatchewan).svg and en:File:Yellowhead.png uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. Those files are licensed as non-free content, but they need not be if Commons is willing to accept the imagery as PD or otherwise freely licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is an agreement from the Ministry for publishing this file and several others on the same subject on Commons, but without an explicit license specified in the email. Quite a borderline situation, imho. --Ruthven (msg) 19:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking Ruthven. Do you think the file has a strong chance of remaining on Commons? Could the OTRS ticket also be used to cover the files uploaded locally to Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: For me, the file can stay on Commons, but another admin might have another opinion… which is fair in that case. So, I wouldn't say "strong" ;) The ticket can surely be used for uploading the files as "non free" on local wikipedias. --Ruthven (msg) 07:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glenfell Tower fire images

Would someone be able to check if a recently submitted ticket #2017061410005819 is valid? It's for the files in Category:Grenfell Tower fire, which is currently topical. --ghouston (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not as it stands, unfortunately. I've taken the ticket but don't feel super confident about a positive resolution. Storkk (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghouston and Storkk: I DMd more directly. — Jeff G. ツ 14:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Licensing Document

Dear Sir / Madam,

We are a reputed website and mobile app development company.

We are creating variety of informative mobile applications on Bollywood subject and to make it appealing, we wish to use image of bollywood actors or actress along with description and information about the subject. We are using images from wikimedia, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shraddha_Kapoor_at_Luv_Ka_The_End_Audio_release_at_Marc_Cain_Store.jpg

However, our application is constantly getting rejected by Google saying we DO NOT have rights to use the content. Upon referring the page above which mentions licensing information, they say that they can only accept it if they see some kind of document which mentions that bollywoodhungama has approved it.

So I would be grateful if I can get some of that sort, I understand from ticket #2008030310010794 which will help me use the image within my applications.

Looking forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

Keyur —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 43.248.34.54 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the Marc Cain store launch at which Ms Kapoor was pictured was in India (I'm having trouble verifying this), then while the image is indeed free, I am not sure how you could convince an Google of that fact, since they are not required to take our word for it. In order to safeguard confidentiality, we will not forward bollywoodhungama's permission statement to you or Google or any other party. Tangentially, I would note that using someone's image commercially without explicit consent is often fraught with legal (and moral) problems, since you may be implying they endorse your product. This is quite aside from the license of the image itself. Storkk (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: Ticket:2017043010010278

Have been waiting to hear back about this one since April 30th. I don't know if the file was misnamed, rejected or just buried? [25] Any help much appreciated. - CompliantDrone (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, there was a reply sent by the agent asking for the Commons URL but there was no response. But anyway I approved it. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - :This section was archived on a request by: CompliantDrone (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SIB

Template:SIB is protected due to being a custom OTRS license tag, with ticket:2007122210011572. Currently it uses {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}. If it can be changed to {{Attribution}} or similar, please do that.

Otherwise, change {{Copyrighted free use provided that|1=the source and the author are mentioned}} to {{Copyrighted free use provided that|1=the source and the author are mentioned|reviewed=yes}} so the images aren't in a backlog category. Guanaco (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26: Could you take a look at this? Guanaco (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text is in French. @Ruthven: if you had a moment free. Would you mind also reviewing the protection level on this template page? It has a total of 3 transclusions on file pages and I can't see the reason given (custom OTRS template) being valid according to Commons:Protection policy. seb26 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26 and Guanaco: In the ticket it only says that the photos are released "free of rights" (or "Copyrighted free"), with no attribution requested. I was then thinking about using {{PD-author}} instead of {{Attribution}}. What do you reckon? --Ruthven (msg) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: I tend to prefer {{copyrighted free use|nowarn=1}} over PD templates when the word "public domain" isn't used. Guanaco (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco:

Done --Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touch-up

Hello. I searched this on Internet but could not find an answer. Is a separate permission needed from a touch-up expert who slightly photoshopped an image? This is the ticket in question: Ticket:2017080210016497 Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Better categorization is needed, too. — Jeff G. ツ 04:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images sur Commons

Images sur Commons[modifier le code]

Bonjour, Etant rédactrice de l'article sur Paul Viaccoz dans Wikipédia, j'aurai besoin SVP d'une information concernant une série d'images (14) que j'ai téléversé dans Commons . Selon vos conseils j'ai d'abord publié l'article sur wikipédia et maintenant qu'il est accepté je souhaiterai pouvoir intégrer des images. Pour cela Paul Viaccoz lui-même a fait une demande certifiant être l'auteur de ces images, le 31 juillet 2017 à l'équipe OTRS qui a répondu en demandant un nouveau contrôle d'identité ce qui a été fait tout de suite par mail.

Ticket:[Ticket#2017073010006974] Wikipédia - Dossier Paul Viaccoz. Paul Viaccoz a traité sa demande de permission avec Monsieur Arthur C*, Équipe d’information de Wikipédia.

Depuis lors, sur les 14 fichiers image il y a ce même message suivant: voir pour exemple: File:Boîte de conservation 2-Livre d'artiste-Paul Viaccoz, 2016.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bo%C3%AEte_de_conservation_2-Livre_d%27artiste-Paul_Viaccoz,_2016.jpg Un email a été reçu à OTRS concernant ce fichier et peut être lu ici par des utilisateurs ayant un compte OTRS. Le courrier électronique n'était pas suffisant, car l'équipe OTRS ne pouvait pas vérifier qu'il s'agissait du propriétaire du copyright de l'image. Une réponse a été envoyée décrivant les étapes suivantes requises. Pour une mise à jour sur le problème, contactez l'utilisateur qui a ajouté ce modèle à la page, ou quelqu'un d'autre avec un compte OTRS ou le panneau d'affichage OTRS . Si une autorisation valide n'est pas fournie dans les 30 jours suivant la première réponse d'un volontaire OTRS, ce fichier sera supprimé. Veuillez ne pas déposer une nomination de suppression supplémentaire pour des raisons d'autorisation. Note aux bénévoles d'OTRS : si le courrier électronique contient une confirmation suffisante de la validité de la licence, remplacez ce modèle par OTRS icon Le contenu de cet article est issu en tout ou partie vous devez définir au moins l'un des deux paramètres source ou auteur. La permission de distribuer ce travail sous la licence Creative Commons paternité partage à l'identique 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0) a été reçue sur OTRS, via le ticket ID #0. Ce modèle est utilisé par des volontaires autorisés sur le système de suivi de tickets (OTRS) de la Wikimedia Foundation. Il ne doit être apposé qu'après la réception d'une autorisation claire de permission, via [email protected]. Pour demander une permission, n'utilisez pas ce modèle mais consultez Aide:Republication. En cas de doute sur une autorisation, vous pouvez demander sur le bulletin des agents OTRS de vérifier la validité de celle-ci.

Lien de billet: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2017073010006974

Que faut-il faire? je n'ose pas utiliser ces images dans l'article de Paul Viaccoz dans Wikipédia craignant qu'elles ne disparaissent au bout de 30jours . Pouvez-vous ,SVP, m'aider et m'indiquer la marche à suivre pour leur utilisation correcte. Merci d'avance pour votre lecture bienveillante et vos conseils avisés. Cordialement. VIACCOZ Anne-Marie (talk)VIACCOZ Anne-Marie (discuter) 3 août 2017 à 14:57 (CEST)

@VIACCOZ Anne-Marie: il a été demandé à l'auteur des photos d'envoyer un courriel de confirmation depuis son adresse officielle, cependant les réponses qui nous sont arrivées sont d'une adresse "gmail.com", impossible à vérifier. Veuillez bien envoyer un courriel depuis l'adresse liée au site web. Merci --Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Ruthven,

Merci pour votre message. Je vous informe que l'auteur des images à conserver, Paul Viaccoz, a envoyé le 7 aout à 14h29 un courriel à OTRS, depuis son adresse officielle pour confirmer son identité. Ci-joint l'envoi depuis sa boite de contact,

Bonjour Monsieur Arthur C*,

Par ce mail, ( ce que j'avais déjà fait à partir de ma messagerie gmail et qui semble être une erreur) je viens vous re-confirmer que je suis l'auteur de toutes(14) les images hébergées sur Wikimedia Commons. Vous les trouverez à l'adresse suivante: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=paul+viaccoz&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1&searchToken=4yxzjiyr6e8ujp43froagkjp2 ainsi que sous le nom de Paul viaccoz.

"[Ticket#2017073010006974]"

Je souhaiterais mettre dés que possible ces images dans mon article publié sur wikipédia. Auriez-vous l'amabilité de me faire savoir si je peux les utiliser sans risquer de les voir disparaitre. Dites-moi, svp, s'il y a un problème majeur. Avec mes remerciements de bien vouloir prendre ma demande en considération, je vous adresse mes cordiales salutations. Paul Viaccoz En espérant pouvoir prochainement utiliser ces images, je vous adresse mes remerciements et meilleures salutations. AM ViaccozVIACCOZ Anne-Marie (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VIACCOZ Anne-Marie : Bonjour ! Merci pour vos messages. Les agents OTRS sont des bénévoles et il peut y avoir de l'attente (actuellement certains tickets attendent depuis plusieurs semaines) avant que ceux-ci soient traités. Merci de patienter et de ne pas multiplier les requêtes : cela risquerait de créer de la confusion. Enfin, M. Viaccoz doit transmettre un courriel depuis l'adresse affichée ici ou changer temporairement cette adresse avec l'adresse qu'il a utilisé avec OTRS jusqu'à maintenant. (ping Arthur Crbz) --AntonierCH ^(d) 16:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonierCH and VIACCOZ Anne-Marie: Une réponse a été apportée à ce ticket par email. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copyright holder requirements needed

The copyright holder (Carolyn Dollar) sent an email with what she thought was all the required info ...but has heard nothing back. I heard nothing either, and was waiting...but today I looked at the photo images I submitted and found the note that an email was receieved from her, but that more info was needed and that it was sent. I just phoned her and she said she got no email asking for more info from her. I asked her to email the commons again to ask what more you need. I don't want it to be more than the 30 day grace period it mentions. Hate to have to load the 24 photos again later. Please let me know if there is more I need to do...thank you...Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabet Stacy-Hurley, I will look for her email but please just be patient. While I appreciate your energy in acquiring the images and liaising with the copyright holder, your inquiry is not the only one we are responding to. Note if anything is deleted you do not have to upload it again, deletions are not permanent and can easily be undone by our participation with admins. So that being said, what is required? Simply one email using the text of a boiler template found at this page, copied and pasted into the email with the person's name filled in, mentioning the URLs and/or attaching all of the relevant images, sent from an email account professionally associated with their identity (i.e., if they work for a company, it should be sent from an email address @thecompanywebsite.com).

Is this copyright holder also the photographer? If they are not strictly the photographer, please also write in the email explaining how the copyright was transferred from that photographer to the copyright holder (i.e., what agreement was signed between them). We would prefer an email directly from the copyright holder containing the above information, but if you want to write the email from yourself, you can do so but please include their email address in the Cc line. This is all the information that is needed to successfully process images that are being released under a free license to Wikimedia Commons, you should not need to have anyone email to ask for what else is required, this is it. Thanks for your patience. seb26 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Seb26, I will start working on this as soon as I possibly can....and hopefully I will get it right this time....I know you volunteers are busy, and appreciate your quick response and advice....Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabet Stacy-Hurley, I looked into it more and found an email from her with no response. Please hang on and don't send anything else, I don't think there's more that you or her need to do. For our reference: ticket:2017060910015069. seb26 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the ticket. — Jeff G. ツ 00:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great news...thank you very much again Seb26....will be waiting to hear again....Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the permission template on these files. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Mr.Crombez....now I just need to learn my next step....Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:-2011PaulViaccoz-PortraitphotographiqueAvantlavidéoLeCrayonRougeBleu.jpg

Bonjour, Je vous confirme que ce fichier est une photographie que j'ai prise moi-même de mon époux Paul Viaccoz en 2013. Je suis bien l'auteur de cette photographie. En espérant répondre à votre message , je vous adresse mes meilleures salutations. AM ViaccozVIACCOZ Anne-Marie (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requête traitée. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check ticket number

Can anyone check this ticket #2017060410005856 for these files: File:AdamirJerkovicVisitsChina.jpg, File:Jerkovic And Kostunica.jpg, File:Kucan and Jerkovic.jpg, File:Izetbegovic and Jerković.jpg, and add templates as necessary. --Smooth O (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done by another agent. --AntonierCH ^(d) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: AntonierCH ^(d) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images paul Viaccoz

Bonjour Ruthven,

Merci pour votre message. Je vous informe que l'auteur des images à conserver, Paul Viaccoz, a envoyé le 7 aout à 14h29 un courriel à OTRS, depuis son adresse officielle pour confirmer son identité. Ci-joint l'envoi depuis sa boite de contact,

Bonjour Monsieur Arthur C*, Par ce mail, ( ce que j'avais déjà fait à partir de ma messagerie gmail et qui semble être une erreur) je viens vous re-confirmer que je suis l'auteur de toutes(14) les images hébergées sur Wikimedia Commons. Vous les trouverez à l'adresse suivante: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=paul+viaccoz&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1&searchToken=4yxzjiyr6e8ujp43froagkjp2 ainsi que sous le nom de Paul viaccoz.

"[Ticket#2017073010006974]" Je souhaiterais mettre dés que possible ces images dans mon article publié sur wikipédia. Auriez-vous l'amabilité de me faire savoir si je peux les utiliser sans risquer de les voir disparaitre. Dites-moi, svp, s'il y a un problème majeur. Avec mes remerciements de bien vouloir prendre ma demande en considération, je vous adresse mes cordiales salutations. Paul Viaccoz En espérant pouvoir prochainement utiliser ces images, je vous adresse mes remerciements et meilleures salutations.VIACCOZ Anne-Marie (d) 12:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)VIACCOZ Anne-Marie (talk)

@VIACCOZ Anne-Marie: Oui, mais il l'a envoyé de son adresse gmail, quand on lui a demandé maintes fois d'utiliser l'adresse indiquée dans son site web. Cependant, il peut modifier les contacts du site web pour faire apparaître l'adresse Gmail: l'important pour nous est que les deux adresses soient les mêmes. --Ruthven (msg) 08:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VIACCOZ Anne-Marie: : Bonjour! Je ne suis pas sûr de comprendre pourquoi vous persistez alors que je vous ai déjà indiqué clairement : "Merci de patienter et de ne pas multiplier les requêtes : cela risquerait de créer de la confusion" tout en précisant qu'il y avait de l'attente pouvant aller jusqu'à plusieurs semaines. Votre requête et celle de votre mari ne sont pas plus importantes que les autres. --AntonierCH ^(d) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, Là, nous nous sommes faits grondés!

Nous sommes vraiment désolés pour notre insistance et impatience dues au fait que nous sommes "nouveaux" dans le monde du wiki et que nous prenons, seulement maintenant, conscience du travail formidable que vous faites ainsi que celui de tous les bénévoles. Ne nous en tenez pas rigueur et encore merci pour votre aide et dévouement. Cordiales salutations.AM Viaccoz et P. ViaccozVIACCOZ Anne-Marie (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VIACCOZ Anne-Marie and Ruthven: Une réponse à ce ticket a été apportée par email. A l'avenir, merci de ne pas multiplier les envois d'emails ou de messages sur cette page. Nous sommes une équipe de bénévoles qui travaillons sur notre temps libre et nous recevons un nombre très important d'emails à traiter. Le fait de multiplier les emails et les messages allonge notre délais de réponse pour vous mais aussi pour les autres personnes qui nous sollicitent chaque jour. Je pense que vous avez pris conscience de la chose... --Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: AntonierCH ^(d) 19:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2010032110008071

I would like the OTRS community to review this ticket. It's history is as follows:

March 2010: A user on the Russian Wikipedia asked to confirm their identity with the author of various texts placed on a certain website. The ticket appears in queue. The first OTRS volunteer started communicating with the user. Ticket closed as successful.
April 2010: The user sends another letter, willing all the images (including photographs of paintings of recently deceased artists) from their website to become covered by the ticket. The first volunteer gives reasonable answer that the user must provide permissions for every photo of every painting of every artist. The user reacts nervously.
April 2010: A second volunteer appears, demonstrating a willingness to help. The user uploads a scanned copy of a single copyright assignment agreement, signed (probably) by heir of the only artist, with no particular works specified in. This inspires the second volunteer to create a template, allowing to publish unnamed works of unnamed authors under a free license.
May 2010 till now. Since that moment the template is placed on hundreds of file pages, containing low-res photos of paintings by dozens of artists.
March 2012. The third volunteer publishes a lengthy letter (by a person calling themselves a "patent attorney"), containing references to Russian and US legislation and indicating the illegitimacy of the authorization granted, but fails to answer it due to the lack of knowledge of the Russian language. Nothing more happens on Commons.
April 2012. An arbitration case started on the Russian Wikipedia with a detailed and well-reasoned request on this issue, which was declined with the following message: "The functioning of the OTRS system is outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia".

Any comments and feedback are welcomed. Sealle (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Арбитражный комитет русского раздела в апреле 2012 рассмотрел в рамках своих полномочий этот вопрос с участием как действовавших на тот момент, так и бывших уполномоченных OTRS и не нашёл нарушений при выдаче разрешения. Это было единодушное мнение не 1-2 человек, а не менее 10. К сожалению, спустя 5 лет участник Sealle решил по непонятным причинам реанимировать этот вопрос, но излагает его с большими неточностями. В частности, им не упоминается, что по просьбе уполномоченного OTRS мною представлялся в фонд в качестве образца Договор на передачу исключительных авторских прав, подписанный художником Р. и правообладателем С.В. Ивановым. В Договоре перечислялись картины (во множественном числе), исключительные права на которые художником Р. были переданы правообладателю Иванову С.В. Также мною было предоставлено письмо Иванова С.В., подтверждающее наличие аналогичных Договоров на все картины, опубликованные в его книге и размещённые на сайте. И что лишь изображения таких картин в низком разрешении могут быть участником Leningradartist с разрешения правообладателя загружены на викисклад. Лишь после этого OTRS выдало мне разрешение на загрузку не каких угодно изображений, а только размещённых в книге или на сайте под знаком копирайта, на которые у правообладателя имеются соответствующие документы. Поскольку уже долгое время я не активен в проекте, мне непонятны причины, по которым участник Sealle без обсуждения со мною решил номинировать к удалению сотни изображений. Может быть у кого-то возникли претензии по поводу прав на загруженные изображения? Или обнаружились неточности в оформлении загруженных изображений? Никакой информации на этот счёт от Sealle у меня нет. Может быть фонд Викимедиа что-то выиграет от удаления многих тысяч изображений из десятков языковых разделов? Мне кажется эта номинация в высшей степени поспешной и неразумной. Leningradartist (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Поскольку независимых мнений нет, закрытие обсуждения преждевременно. Также с учётом обсуждения на форуме в рувики считаю целесообразным, чтобы итог здесь подвёл более опытный и нейтральный администратор. Leningradartist (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Уважаемый Leningradartist! Из указанного тикета очевидно, что разрешения от автора и их наследников предоставлены только на работы одного художника. И да, оно было ошибочным: нельзя было подтвердить разрешение по всем работам разных авторов, основываясь на примере одного договора. Но в OTRS работают обычные люди и ошибки неизбежны, главное вовремя их исправить. Викисклад — это хранилище произведений, перешедших в общественное достояние или распространяемых под свободными лицензиями. И дело тут не в количестве потерянных для Википедии изображений. Википедия не может подставлять своих потенциальных пользователей. Должно быть всё предельно ясно: автор передал АП — вот договор. И так по каждому художнику. Да, скорее всего, это длительный и тяжёлый процесс, но по другому с произведениями нельзя. Спасибо за Ваше понимание и хочется сотрудничества от Вас. Волонтёры готовы принять от правопреемника договоры от авторов (или наследников) о передаче исключительных АП по каждому художнику. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Коллега, неужели я так бестолково излагаю? Ещё раз повторю: меня не интересует, были или не были допущены ошибки при выдаче тикета, которым я пользовался при загрузке изображений на совершенно законных основаниях. Если кто-то спустя 7 лет посчитал, что кто-то плохой(?) при оформлении разрешения действовал неправильно - это предмет для обсуждения и переписки с ПРАВООБЛАДАТЕЛЕМ, а не с загружающим участником. Как я вижу из хроники развития событий, к правообладателю обратились после того, как ВСЕ файлы были удалены. Что тут комментировать? Новые загрузки по этому тикету давно не производились, никаких нарушений с его использованием нет. Было вполне достаточно попросить участника не производить новых загрузок до прояснения с правообладателем возникших вопросов и уж никак не удалять файлы, не поставив даже в известность правообладателя о возникших вопросах. Сделано всё наоборот. Вам это кажется нормальным? Мне - нет. Впрочем, здесь я давно ничему не удивляюсь. Leningradartist (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
для человека, которому уже раз 20 сказали, что доказательства по лицензии - это головная боль загрузившего, бестолковее некуда. Также как и неуклюже изображать, что речь идет о разных людях. --85.26.233.250 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Не в моих правилах отвечать анонимам, но в данном случае сделаю исключение. Норма, на которую вы ссылаетесь, справедлива для тех случаев, когда загружающий участник является и правообладателем, или когда загружающий представляет в службу OTRS подтверждение от правообладателя. Когда же правообладатель, не являющийся непосредственным участником проекта, сам ведёт переговоры со службой о передаче принадлежащих ему прав на изображение - эта норма не применима. В этом случае загружающий лишь использует выданное OTRS разрешение. Любые изменения, касающиеся выданного разрешения, могут вноситься путём переговоров Фонда с правообладателем, без участия загружающего. Правообладатель в принципе может делегировать права загрузки любому участнику проекта. Leningradartist (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Любопытная теория. Кто-нибудь еще в курсе того, что вы ее изобрели? --141.101.227.10 13:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

The template has been deleted in the meantime, rendering this discussion moot. In any case, Sealle appears to have acted correctly. Like everyone else, OTRS volunteers are fallible, and decisions are never final - they are subject to revision at any time when new information or interpretations come to light. Storkk (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying OTRS tags to derivitive works

When I create a derivative work from a Commons file that has an {{PermissionOTRS}} tag, should I copy the tag to the derivative work, or does an OTRS member need to do this?

I recently did this when I posted File:Dafydd Iwan from Emynau album cover.jpg, which is a cropped and retouched version if File:Emynau, album cover.jpg. Did I do this correctly?

I suspect that I may have erred because when I attempted to crop File:Ceidwad Byd, album cover.jpg using CropTool I got an Abusefilter-warning-otrs error which appears to relate to the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag. I have reported this at Commons talk:CropTool#abusefilter-warning. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't. First, it's better to have these tags inserted by OTRS agents only, then, if you correctly source and license the modified file, the PermissionOTRS in the page of the source file will suffice. --Ruthven (msg) 22:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me as well: one version of the file gets confirmed by OTRS as being under a license that permits derivatives with attribution, then any derivatives or crops can follow these requirements afterwards by simply linking to the file page and quoting the author, without the need for any additional tag baggage. seb26 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I understand correctly, derivative works (including cropped and retouched images) based on other Commons files do not need an OTRS tag, and a link to the source image is sufficient. I suggest you add this to Commons:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary. This runs counter to my usual practice of copying the licensing information from a source image file to a derivative image. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your practice is not "a mistake", but just useless in many cases. However I've to admit that, sometimes, I add myself the PermissionOTRS tag to cropped versions that are in use in the projects, to avoid incomprehensions. But the policies require that only OTRS agents add the permission template, so it is preferable that you do not continue with this practice. On the other hand, this has nothing to do with contacting OTRS, as OTRS has already been contacted for the original file. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 09:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I updated CropTool to remove the {{PermissionOTRS}} template when a crop is uploaded as a new file. [26] – Danmichaelo (δ) 12:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Danmichaelo: Thank you, but would you please further patch CropTool to remove all these redirects in such situations, and consider avoiding the removal for OTRS members? — Jeff G. ツ 15:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Please have the global filter check for all those redirects. — Jeff G. ツ 23:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the check already includes the redirects. Making the template removal optional for OTRS members is a good idea, but adds complexity. – Danmichaelo (δ) 09:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:550601-DenverMayorWill_NicholsonTaking_Oath_Of_Office.jpg

I noticed that the Permission has been added to the file, but the ticket is still unanswered. @Jeff G.: can you fix it please?

As a side note, I am not very happy with the email account of the customer, also because the photo was taken in 1955, and seems taken from a newspaper. That's why I am posting here: I wasn't able to find any evidence linking the photographer to the photograph, maybe Jeff or some other agent can help me understand if the authorisation can be accepted under those terms. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 13:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: It appears this user took lots of photos with film cameras over many years, and has been scanning some combination of paper photos, slides, and negatives to English Wikipedia, and more recently to Commons. I answered the ticket before I saw your post. It appeared my first answer was lost, so I answered again after some time. I'm sorry, I will pay more attention to comparing names in releases and "From" fields. What makes you think this photo was from a newspaper? — Jeff G. ツ 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: it looks like scanned from a newspaper because of the grain, but I can be mistaken. If there are other tickets from the same customer where the ownership of the files has been sorted out already, it is a good practice to link them to the current one. In that way, a newcoming agent would find some clue. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: This customer's email address has but one ticket. — Jeff G. ツ 17:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: so I have misunderstood something. Are we accepting his contribution on the basis on his long history on Wikimedia? Maybe we should first clarify well that he's uploading unpublished material of which he is the sole copyright holder, and then prepare a custom license template, so that he will no be bothered with permission requests anymore. What do you reckon? --Ruthven (msg) 18:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Yes, and maybe. I have typically waited for a second contact or an emailed declaration of intent to upload further before I offer to make a template, perhaps I have been too cautious in that. I have emailed the customer for clarification. — Jeff G. ツ 18:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader added an OTRS ticket number

The uploader of File:Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi.jpg added an OTRS ticket number that looks suspicious being one of the only two edits and both by the uploader. The image is claimed to be the copyright of the subject of the photo which seems unlikely as it does not look like a selfie though it has metadata and is high resolution so maybe it is a good file. Can someone please verify the ticket? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ww2censor: ticket:2017032010018415 was received and an agent responded to it to ask for more clarification, 2 months ago. There was no response so it was unsuccessful. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Thanks for posting this. @Huon: hi, the template you might have been looking to use on this file was {{subst:OP}}. This places a notice on the page to let others know OTRS permission was sent. Only OTRS agents are allowed to add the actual approved template. In this case, the ticket was not successful so it was the opposite of approved. Please keep this in mind for next time. Thanks, seb26 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs by C. Michael Hogan

Is there a ticket confirming permission for all photographs by C. Michael Hogan uploaded on WP/Commons? See an older post on en:User_talk:Anlace#Getting permission to release C. Michael Hogan photographs. As I see, some of these files share the same ticket number, e.g. ticket 2007032110001968 (File:Tchaacrmacal.jpg, File:Schaamaya.jpg, File:Schaamacal2.jpg), and perhaps there is a permission for all related uploaded files or not? --XXN, 21:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XXN: I could find 5 tickets from Michael Hogan:

We have another ticket which is not from Mr. Hogan, but from us to Mr. Hogan; Ticket:2016060410007052 is about all photos uploaded by User:Anlace. However, Mr. Hogan did not reply and I do not see any confirmation. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: Thanks for investigating this case. Sad to hear that the ticket covering all these photos is unresolved. --XXN, 22:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment error?

I'm trying to give the benefit of doubt here, but this seems like an utterly inexplicable error of judgment, which indicates the agent in question needs to dial the credulity way down. Second/third opinions? Ticket:2017081710005168. Note: Image is NSFW. Storkk (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, this is so clear cut, I don't think a second opinion is necessary. I'm going ahead and speedily deleting all of the uploader's files as obvious copyright violations, and requesting Taiwania_Justo to follow up with any tickets, requesting evidence that the uploader was the photographer/copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungarian Parlament.jpg

Dear OTRS volunteers,

could someone please check File:Hungarian Parlament.jpg and append an OTRS tag to it, in case it is covered by ticket #2010051210043699? If not, I will tag it with lack of permission. Thank you! Ariadacapo (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariadacapo: It's fine, and I've added the customized license tag. --Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 11:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Wong, American photographer (User:Edmunddantes)

Hi I wanted to verify that the picture of Dave Toschi is of Nancy Wong's work (Username:Edmunddantes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Toschi#/media/File:DAVETOSCHI.jpg I wanted to know the licensing policy on the photo? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.184.224.180 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. While there is no ticket addressing this photo specifically, it has been verified that Edmunddantes is Nancy Wong, and there is no reason to doubt this photo's authorship. The license is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Storkk (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 10:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakian stamps image

I don't know who is dealing with #2017062910020864 for File:Marek Sobola Stamps with a personalized coupon.png and File:Marek Sobola Prepaid envelopes – with imprint.png but as an FYI, I suspect the stamps themselves were not designed by the artist of the sculpture labels (they call it a coupon) whose permission is apparently being provided, in which case I doubt they can provide a release that covers the entire image as uploaded. If needs be I suppose the envelope could be cropped to exclude the stamps, but all Slovakian stamps, seeing as the modern Slovakia only became independent in 1993, appear to be copyright for 70 years pma per COM:CRT#Slovakia. Maybe someone can check it out. Ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: These are official Slovakian stamps, with a personalised coupon. E.g. check https://www.pofis.sk/en/catalog/products/stamp-with-a-personalized-coupon-2017-print-sheet-of-stamp-with-personalized-coupon-jan-nepomucky. The OTRS agent is sorting this out. --Ruthven (msg) 09:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ruthven I researched this further since making this post and also discussed it with the OTRS agent. The stamps themselves are still in copyright but the labels are also which is a issue because imho these images will actually require two permissions, one from the artist Marek Sobola, which seems to be forthcoming, and one from the stamp designer Adrian Ferda. Thanks for the input. Ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has been notified, and will provide a separate, his own work in the future. I guess this section can be closed if there's no objections. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Ali media

I had the original photographer submit a permission email for

I'm wondering if this was done correctly, and if they can be restored or will I have to upload them again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfameous (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please wait for the permission to be processed. It can take some time, as there is always a backlog. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MinorHotels.OM Contributions

Hi Team

Regarding my contributions Special:Contributions/MinorHotels.OM . I've requested the permission from the authority from the owner of these images and they need little more time to send the email to OTRS. since there is a lot of images. Highly appreciate if you could gives us a little more time before deletion of the emails.

Best Regards MinorHotels.OM — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorHotels.OM (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MinorHotels.OM, since you have put the {{subst:OP}} template on them, they have been clearly marked as OTRS pending which means admins will give them a grace period. Please ensure the correct owner sends the release at their earliest convenience. I can see that it appears each photograph has a different author. Proper documentation of transfer of rights is required (e.g. attached signed PDFs), we can't accept on your word that your organisation is the legal owner. Note that just being given "unlimited usage rights" as you wish for example, is not sufficient to then go and relicense the works under a CC license which is what you have done by uploading them. So please clarify in your email which is the case. There is more info at Commons:OTRS. Thanks, seb26 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kriss Sheridan und Helmut Dietl.jpg

The following comment was made as a DR, which I closed so any on-wiki discussion can be moved here:

Jessica McBride, Kriss Sheridan's manager is urgently requesting to remove this file from Wikimedia. The copyright holder Kriss Sheridan has never allowed to upload this picture to wikimedia. The picture is unattractive. This file stucks since 5 years already and we are struggling with his deletion. The last time was unsuccessful because I was requesting from an "anonymous" IP address. Well, now I have an account. To confirm identity you can write me anytime at jessica@kriss-sheridan,com, the official email-address on the artist's official facebook. If the deletion process will still be unsuccessful, our next step will be a lawsuite file !!! And last, but not least: There are hundreds of better and more current photos of this artist I was offering for upload, and those are the pictures with our copyrights. Sincerely Jessica McBride -Manager- [email protected] JessMcBride (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user has made legal threats, I'm inclined to suggest we block them and wait for a DMCA notice if it comes. But if you guys see anything wrong with the ticket, now's the time to act. Guanaco (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's Ticket:2012020810004213, in German. seb26 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the user talk page of that account to ask them to write to info-commons queue. For other agents: I am leaving some notes in the the above mentioned ticket with some information that I have found. seb26 (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the OTRS noticeboard is the right place to ask for further attention from OTRS volunteers, deletion discussions should imo be held in a DR whether they are related to OTRS or not (unless they involve confidential information, in which case otrswiki:Special:Redirect/page/18 should be used). Responded on Otrs-en-l. FDMS 4 17:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account of JessMcBride due to the legal threats above. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support User:Hedwig in Washington. We need zero tolerance for legal threats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Guanaco and Hedwig. BTW, don't we already have a guideline on legal threats? (On it.wiki it's specifically said that Wikipedia has to be a pleasant environment for volunteering, so there is no tolerance toward harassment, personal attacks and legal threats) --Ruthven (msg) 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are (unfortunately, in my opinion) not grounds for blocking on Commons; see Commons talk:Blocking policy/Archive 1#Legal threats. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to "close" that thread, I'd interpret that we have consensus for blocking people who make legal threats which constitute harassment or intimidation, with the caveat that we should be more forgiving of good faith attempts to resolve copyright problems. In this case, we appear to have valid consent on file, and the manager wants it gone because "The picture is unattractive." CC-BY-SA is of course irrevocable. There seems to be no valid claim here, only intimidation with the intent of protecting her client's image. Guanaco (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So for agents' information there is a conversation ongoing in the notes of Ticket:2012020810004213. I have suggested that the ticket does not come from the photographer (well, it doesn't). We typically only accept copyright permissions from photographers or unless the person writing in also accompanies their request with information about how the photographer turned in their rights. This ticket doesn't detail that. Note that in my opinion this is an evaluation separate from the actions of the block user listed above, and that if anybody happened to look into the ticket they would see the flaw it has. I await others' thoughts before going ahead with what I think is rational, a proposed deletion. seb26 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seb26: Go for it. I trust you to make a more convincing case than JessMcBride. Guanaco (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK for everyone's interest, I started a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/2012 photograph of Helmut Dietl and Kriss Sheridan. seb26 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request above was closed as delete on 1 September 2017. Ticket:2017072710022613 remains open, which while it is not strictly related to the same photograph in question, some of its correspondence is intertwined with the 2012 ticket but has since been split off. (For reference it concerns File:Kriss Sheridan photo made by manager J.McBride during his performance on 13.06.2017.png and the (cropped) version.) seb26 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add otrs template

Please add ticket number "2017031410007251" to File:Prof P Schvartzman.jpg--Mikey641 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also "2013081510001486" to File:Jacob Hecht.jpg--Mikey641 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID= 6752254 to 1, 2 3 4 5 I would add it myself by since I'm not an OTRS agent it won't let me.--Mikey641 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And "2013081810002489" to File:לוגו נגטיב.jpg--Mikey641 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:הרב מרדכי ברויאר מעביר שיעור בבית וגן.jpg - 2013020210007765--Mikey641 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info: The tickets are in Hebrew; ping Hanay. FDMS 4 21:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done In any case, @Mikey641: if you have the ticket number, you can add {{subst:Or|<ticket no.>}} yourself. --Ruthven (msg) 09:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: I was told not to add it by myself for some reason. I don't really get what {{Or}} has to do with this.--Mikey641 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikey641: {{subst:OR|<ticket no.>}} adds a dated version of {{OTRS Received}} to a file description page. If nothing happens with the ticket after it reaches the front of the queue, the file is automatically tagged for deletion as missing permission. The OTRS customer who gets the ticket number by email is allowed to add {{subst:OR|<ticket no.>}}. If someone or some existing page advised you differently, please provide details of that advice so we can correct it. Ruthven appears to have used a lowercase "r", referring to a different template entirely. — Jeff G. ツ 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: I transfered many files from hewiki to commons but the move2commons did not add {{OTRSpermission}} so I added it by myself, and I was told not to. I didn't know of {{OR}}. thanks--Mikey641 (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikey641: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ 11:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kevinkhu123

This user has uploaded several book covers, some of which have an OTRS tag. I have no access to that correspondence, but the pages for these files indicate the book author (Chris Impey) as both author and source. However, these book are published by commercial publishers (Cambridge University Press, Random house, etc), which generally hold the copyright to books that they publish. Perhaps somebody could check whether it was indeed the publishers giving permission or, alternatively, that there indeed was evidence that the author of the books indeed holds the copyright and was entitled to release these images under CC. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty. Ticket:2013052210000308 was sent with a free license release, and with some attached correspondence from Cambridge University Press. In that correspondence, it is a bit unclear on Cambridge's part if they authorised (a) use of the covers on Wikipedia, or (b) authorised the ticket writer to release them under a free license. I can follow up if you would like. Note that there is no mention at all of the other publishers. If you can mention which books were not Cambridge published and link those files below, I will mark them as Pending while we query the ticket writer about this and they'll be auto deleted in the case they never respond. Thanks, seb26 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! There are 4 images left (several others did not have the OTRS tag and have already been deleted): File:Talking About Life.jpg and File:Frontiers of Astrobiology.jpg are from Cambridge University Press; File:How It Began.jpg and File:How It Ends.jpg are from W. W. Norton & Company. --Randykitty (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty and Jcb: I have marked them as OTRS pending and have initiated contact with the original ticket writer. Will keep watch. (For my records, I link to File:The Living Cosmos.jpg, another Cambridge book cover initially mentioned in the 2013 email but as you say may have never had the OTRS tag so it got nuked.) Jcb I ping you as the agent who initially responded to the ticket, for your information. seb26 (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for trying to sort this out. If nothing happens, the blue OTRS received tag will take care of deletion somewhere in the first half of September if no further action has been taken in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need permission confirmation for photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Petty_2.jpg

I have been sued by the copyright owner of the image below. Can you please provide any details on the permission that you received that may be helpful?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Petty_2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.98.77.234 (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

216.98.77.234, I don't think we can provide any further details. I can confirm that the contents of the file page is correct: the photographer name, the license (CC-BY-SA-3.0), and the required attribution (Larry Philpot - http://www.soundstagephotography.com). Please see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en for the full license agreement and its required conditions. For further inquiries please also make sure you see Commons:General disclaimer and Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia first. Thanks, seb26 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is suing you? — Jeff G. ツ 04:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hetty Pangel

Hi all, some of my edits concerning OTRS permissions were reverted lately, which is highly appreciated, because I am totally unknown on Commons. Indeed I am not using my real Wikipedia name while answering OTRS tickets, but but the name Hetty Pangel. Please check I am a trusted OTRS person, for instance through this ticket ticket:2017080910008162. OTRS readers can find my real Wikipedia nickname there, so you can convice yourself that Hetty Pangel is a nickname for the trusted OTRS user. Perhaps somebody can add my name to the list of OTRS-users to avoid future warnings. Thanks and my kind regards, Hetty Pangel (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know who you are. Please make sure that this account gets the OTRS-member flag at Meta before you use OTRS tags at Commons. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And then please put {{User OTRS}} onto your userpage here. --Ju Ta 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hetty Pangel: The full template, without "tl|". :) — Jeff G. ツ 04:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission for 2 pictures arrived

Hallo, wäre wohl jemand so freundlich, die unter Ticket:2017081310009617 im OTRS angekommenen Bildfreigaben in die Bilder File:Rietveldite, Gypsum, Ferricopiapite-805470.jpg und File:Rietveldite, Bobcookite, Ferricopiapite-805465.jpg einzutragen. Ich würde dem Urheber gerne meinen Dank für die Freigaben übermitteln und dabei auf die Freigabevermerke in den Bildern verweisen. Er hat nämlich bei Bedarf weitere Freigaben in Aussicht gestellt. Danke im voraus für die Mühe und viele Grüße -- Ra'ike T C 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mail ging auch schon an den Urheber. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS files with questionable licenses

I'm starting this section because I expect there will be several more of these, which I'll add below. I'm requesting verification of the license terms. Guanaco (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

ticket:2010112410009022 - File:JG Logo 210.jpg
- This ticket is in German, but I could see a direct mention of the {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} template. We should await the input of a German speaking OTRS agent, because I don't understand the wording of the condition that the person provided. seb26 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  The ticket is invalid as the provided condition is invalid. I deleted the image. --Krd 04:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2008082510017648
File:Korean pancake-Jindallae hwajeon-01.jpg

File:Korean pancake-Jindallae hwajeon-03 cropped.jpg
- Ticket says CC-BY-SA-2.0. There was a third image, and the OTRS agent back in 2008 adjusted that to include CC-BY-SA-2.0 [27], but appeared to have forgotten the other two. I adjusted them now. seb26 (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2009120910082848 Does this ticket apply to these images? Guanaco (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:MakerFlow - Exemplo 001.jpg

File:LogoMaker150x150.jpg
- That ticket was sent initially making mention of File:LogoMaker150x150.jpg and four files (1, 2, 3, and 4), but in a format where its usage terms were not clear. The agent requested that the person agree to a CC license, and the person responded in a second message agreeing to a CC license explicitly for the four files but this time lacking any mention of the logo. It is not clear whether this was an oversight or intentional on the part of the copyright holder. File:MakerFlow - Exemplo 001.jpg is not mentioned at all in this correspondence. seb26 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2015092810008208 - File:OlfaHamdi LeadersInterview.jpg
- CC-BY-SA-4.0 was agreed to, but the agent forgot to include that at the time. I updated the file page. seb26 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2011081410006031 - File:PatrickMesse.jpg
- This is ticket is in French. seb26 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  It's fine: the ticket confirms the license used when uploading. --Ruthven (msg) 06:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pinging the first two French-speaking OTRS agents that come to my mind: @Framawiki and Ruthven: . if they can provide assistance clarifying the contents of this ticket & its license. seb26 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2007031810005014
File:SurteesTS20BarryBoor.JPG

File:SurteesTS19BarryBoor.JPG

File:SurteesTS7BarryBoor.jpg
- This ticket (which indeed applies to all three files) is from March 2007, but it actually contains a message forwarded from December 2005. It does not use the standard template language and does not specify a license. The only words to the appropriate effect of a free license in the entire email are: "Please go ahead and use the pictures in any way you wish". It remains unclear if derivatives are permitted, or attribution is mandated, or if there are any other limitations, because these are not mentioned or alluded to at all. If it interested you I could reach out and see if the original holder would agree to a free license. seb26 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Seb26: That language does seem to suggest {{Copyrighted free use}} but a more specific license is always good if you could obtain it. Guanaco (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2014041110013735 - File:Stephan R. Leimberg.jpg
- I'm not sure this one should have been accepted, the ticket doesn't clarify who the photographer is. I'll look into it more. seb26 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @Sphilbrick: From what I have read from this ticket, and a few related ones from the customer email, there is no follow up or probing to the subject about how they are the owner of that photograph of themselves. Do you have any other information on this? I plan on sending a new email in the ticket to ask that person. seb26 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a followup email today. --Sphilbrick (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response as of today.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stephan R. Leimberg.jpg. seb26 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2005091610001532
File:Rhythmicgymgroup.jpg has OTRS tag and no standard license

File:Rhythmicgymgroup A.jpg has standard license and no OTRS tag

File:Rhythmicgymgroup B.jpg has standard license and no OTRS tag
- This ticket is an info-en one from 2005 so it does not use the standard template language. There are suggestions from the agent to use "Creative Commons BY or BY-SA licenses or a similar copyleft" license, but then the respondent's reply only says they are OK with a free license. They do not specify which one or use any other words in clarification of that. The agent suggests CC-BY-SA, but no reply (to date) has been received to clarify which free license or if they were in agreement with CC-BY-SA. In my opinion in this case, it seems safe to treat it as if they were. The A and B images are derivatives created after the upload in 2012, so they shouldn't need OTRS tags as long as they have a working link to the original OTRS-approved image. seb26 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've changed these all to {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} because that was the common license available throughout 2005. Guanaco (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: All items by Guanaco were resolved. seb26 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Unknown Iris cultivar with yellow to orange colour gradient.jpg

Hi,

I don't know if here I must write, but does someone here got a permission letter/email from my sister Emoke Denes? Please someone answer. DenesFeri (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is the ticket number: Ticket:2017083110036563 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @4nn1l2: . Thanks! But what should I do with it? Please guide me. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nothing. It was intended for other OTRS agents. If nobody responded to your inquiry after a while, I may handle it myself. There is a backlog of 60 days. Please be patient. If the file was deleted meanwhile, admins will restore it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @4nn1l2: . OK, I will waite. My sister wrote to me, but in Hungarian; can someone translate in English for you? Írd meg hogy pontosan milyen license nevet kell beírjak (angolul ) - az amelyik szabad, de kell a nevemet használjak. DenesFeri (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff Monson.png

The description alleges that "permission is on file with the WMF" but I can find no such ticket in OTRS permissions. Can someone check the info queues? Guanaco (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything either so I tagger it with {{No permission}}. --Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Westmclaren

Please review the uploads of User:Westmclaren. Unless he is w:Anatoly Shariy, he cannot possibly be copyright owner of the uploaded logos. OTRS required? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Npd}} to File:Logo Sharij Old.png and File:Sharij net LOGO.png. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2016120410011651

This ticket was added to File:Ahrix main.jpeg by the uploader. So it looks like it is either invalid or hasn't been processed yet. Can you tell me if the alleged ticket and the image are even related? De728631 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De728631, They are not related. The ticket is about File:Alan Walker.jpg, and has been closed successfully. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De728631 In addition to the above, uploader Siddiqsazzad001 has been playing fast and loose with that PermissionOTRS tag. I removed it from four of his files and tagged them as appropriate. — Jeff G. ツ 16:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff. I have deleted the obvious copyvios. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De728631 You're welcome. I also created Commons:Deletion requests/undefined2016120410011651. — Jeff G. ツ 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that one too. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Michelle De León's consent of personality rights

Does File:Patricia De León.jpg (otrs:2011100510018941) also have an assessment for consent of identifiable persons?

I'm wondering if {{Consent|full}} can be added to the file description. Else {{Consent|published}} can probably be assumed, since it was used for a PETA advertisement. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 06:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full, of course. :This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 16:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Déclaration de Jonathan Kerr

Suite à ma demande, Monsieur Jonathan Kerr a envoyé la déclaration du 2 août avec ses photos attachées à l'adresse permissions-frwikimedia.org. J'ai besoin d'utiliser ces photos dans l'article Jonathan Kerr. À quel stade cette procédure se trouve-t-elle ? Quel est le statut de cette déclaration ? V2016

Bonjour V2016 et merci pour votre message. Je ne retrouve aucune trace dans les files francophones ou dans les spam de votre courriel du 2 août 2017. Était-il écrit en français ? Avez-vous vérifié que l'adresse était correcte ? --AntonierCH ^(d) 19:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L'expéditeur de la lettre est Jonathan Kerr. Il est français et écrit en français. Voici mon article à propos de lui :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Kerr
Il m'a dit qu'il avait envoyé la déclaration le 2 août.V2016

Je vais poursuivre mes recherches... V2016: quels sont les fichiers concernés ? --AntonierCH ^(d) 20:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cherchez, s'il vous plaît. Le courrier électronique contient 2 ou 3 photos de lui
(l'un d'eux, probablement:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1484751551542135&set=pb.100000219128454.-2207520000.1500737533.&type=3&theater)
ou les liens vers eux. V2016

J'ai fait une recherche également et je n'ai pas trouvé de tickets correspondant... --Arthur Crbz (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour V2016, il est vraisemblable que Jonathan Kerr ne nous aie jamais transmis de courriel ou s'est trompé d'adresse courriel. Il faudrait lui demander de nous en écrire un en vérifiant que l'adresse est correcte et ne contienne pas de ponctuation impromptue. Cordialement, AntonierCH ^(d) 23:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merci.V2016

This section was archived on a request by: AntonierCH ^(d) 15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licence droit d'auteur OTRS

Monsieur, suite à ma demande du 6.11.2013 OTRS m'a attribué une licence permanence des Droits d'auteur et Droits de les faire connaître par l' intermédiaire de la Page WIKIMEDIA, uniquement et pas Wikipedia. Veuillez confirmer la publication de ce droit et de cette licence depuis novembre 2013. Je me souviens parfaitement d'email ORTS envoyé, voire les excuses pour le retard de la réponse d'OTRS. VEUILLEZ RETROUVER LA PERMISSION DE CET LICENCE DANS VOS ARCHIVES. Donc, ma licence et permission OTRS À ÉTÉ BIEN RÉELLE EXISTAIT DE NOVEMBRE 2013 jusqu'au AOÛT 2017. Or, elle dit d'être permanente dans son contrat.

Monsieur, Veuillez remettre le visuel de mes tableaux sur Wikimedia commons. La Page de existe toujours.http://elisabeth-seweryn.eu/

Le Vendredi 8 novembre 2013 0h47, Elzbieta Seweryn <[email protected]> a écrit : Monsieur, Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif des droits d'auteur attachés aux œuvres publiées à l'adresse https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Seweryn Je donne mon autorisation pour publier ces œuvres sous la licence: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Licence_Ouverte Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre, y compris dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia. [DATE: 06.11.2013, NOM CIVIL DE L'AYANT-DROIT - SEWERYN COORDONNÉES: [email protected]

 180 bd de la Villette, 75019 Paris, France

File:FleursBlanches-ES.JPG File:IndianSummer-ES.JPG File:Musique-Couleur.JPG File:Sur l'étang.JPG File:Les Pavots 1.JPG File:"Les Pavots 2".JPG File:Art at Marygrove.JPG File:Tallin Portail.JPG File:A la montagne.JPG File:A la Recherche.jpg File:Autoportrait2111.jpg File:Yale Graduation.jpg File:Nude, oil on canvas,18"x30".jpg File:Autoportrait.E.S.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.97.111.96 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solved via OTRS, no undeletion will be made. --AntonierCH ^(d) 15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: AntonierCH ^(d) 15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, I just left a message to Primefac to know why this ticket had not yet been validated. If there is a problem, please let me know. Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ Georges: That tag just means someone has seen the email, but no one's reviewed it yet. It's in French, so I can't help much with this one. Guanaco (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Handled today, still in clarification. --AntonierCH ^(d) 15:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: AntonierCH ^(d) 15:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe somebody from the OTRS team could check that duplicate DR. Thx.--Sanandros (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

--Sanandros (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OTRS agent who processed Ticket:2017080610009416. I wrote some notes at the DRs. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"File:Libro las 101 recetas más saludables para vivir y sonreír.jpg" and "File:Showcoking ecoreus 28 novembre 2016.jpg"

Hello the"File:Libro las 101 recetas más saludables para vivir y sonreír.jpg" and "File:Showcoking ecoreus 28 novembre 2016.jpg", The athor of the photos sent the authorization of them several times, and the photos have been deleted a couple of times because they say there is no authorization, I can't understand why. ¿Could you check it please? Thank you very much

- Ticket#2017040910008848 - Ticket#2017021410019035 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidalova (talk • contribs) 09:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket received. Please wait for an answer from us in the next couple of months. --Ruthven (msg) 15:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 15:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remettre le visuel de mes tableaux suite à la permission OTRS

Monsieur, suite à ma demande du 6.11.2013 OTRS m'a attribué une licence permanence des Droits d'auteur et Droits de les faire connaître par l' intermédiaire de la Page WIKIMEDIA, uniquement et pas Wikipedia. Veuillez confirmer la publication de ce droit et de cette licence depuis novembre 2013. Je me souviens parfaitement d'email ORTS envoyé, voire les excuses pour le retard de la réponse d'OTRS. VEUILLEZ RETROUVER LA PERMISSION DE CET LICENCE DANS VOS ARCHIVES.

Monsieur, Veuillez remettre le visuel de mes tableaux sur Wikimedia commons. La Page de existe toujours.http://elisabeth-seweryn.eu/ Merci Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif des droits d'auteur attachés aux œuvres publiées à l'adresse https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Seweryn Je donne mon autorisation pour publier ces œuvres sous la licence: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Licence_Ouverte Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre, y compris dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia. [DATE: 06.11.2013, NOM CIVIL DE L'AYANT-DROIT - SEWERYN COORDONNÉES: (courriel masqué)

 180 bd de la Villette, 75019 Paris, France

File:FleursBlanches-ES.JPG File:IndianSummer-ES.JPG File:Musique-Couleur.JPG File:Sur l'étang.JPG File:Les Pavots 1.JPG File:"Les Pavots 2".JPG File:Art at Marygrove.JPG File:Tallin Portail.JPG File:A la montagne.JPG File:A la Recherche.jpg File:Autoportrait2111.jpg File:Yale Graduation.jpg File:Nude, oil on canvas,18"x30".jpg File:Autoportrait.E.S.jpg

.

Bonjour. Il est inutile de persister vous avez déjà reçu toutes les réponses nécessaires dans les 56 (oui, 56 !) échanges OTRS ! --AntonierCH ^(d) 15:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 20:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 photos à valider sur OTRS

Français : Hello les amis,

Petite demande de vérification auprès des membres de l'équipe OTRS : avez-vous bien reçu le mail de Ueli Frey (3 octobre à 8h54) envoyé à l'adresse [email protected], dans lequel il donne son accord pour 2 photos supplémentaires ? Il avait déjà donné sa permission pour 8 autres photos dans un précédent mail envoyé deux jours auparavant : les huit premières photos ont bien été validées mais pas encore les deux autres. Merci beaucoup si quelqu'un peu s'en occuper !

Plein de bonnes choses à toutes et à tous pour la suite

--ΛΦΠ (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ΛΦΠ: Pour valider un ticket OTRS il faut plus ou moins deux mois, à cause de la quantité de mails reçus. Donc... patience! --Ruthven (msg) 06:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 15:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libro las 101 recetas más saludables para vivir y sonreír.jpg" and "File:Showcoking ecoreus 28 novembre 2016.jpg

Hello the"File:Libro las 101 recetas más saludables para vivir y sonreír.jpg" and "File:Showcoking ecoreus 28 novembre 2016.jpg", The athor of the photos sent the authorization of them several times, and the photos have been deleted a couple of times because they say there is no authorization, I can't understand why. ¿Could you check it please? Thank you very much - Ticket#2017040910008848 - Ticket#2017021410019035 --Aidalova (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidalova: For ticket 2017040910008848, please wait 46 days approx (meanwhile, do not re-upload the files). For ticket #2017021410019035 we are waiting an answer since 02/22/2017. --Ruthven (msg) 15:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Aidalova (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 08:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foto von 1960

kann ein Befugter bitte mal feststellen, was in dem Ticket 2010122710017024 über den Bildautor von c:File:Ilka Gedő (around 1960).jpg steht. Angeblich ist das der Einsteller David Biro. Der ist allerdings ca. 1950 geboren. --Goesseln (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-OTRS-member note: Since this may be a ticket in Hungarian, I'm providing a translation of Goesseln's request for a broader audience: Can someone please check Ticket:2010122710017024 for authorship? Per the file description, authorship is claimed by the uploader Hungarian David Biro, but somehow Goesseln seems to know that this user was born around 1950, so the 1960 photo would have been taken by him at the age of ten. Without going into personal details and thus violating your privacy agreement, I think it should be possible to simply state if the author/copyright holder has been correctly identified.

@Goesseln: Mit 10 Jahren habe ich auch schon mal auf den Auslöser gedrückt, also so ganz abwegig ist die Autorenschaft nicht, und OTRS nimmt auch die Freigabe von geerbtem Bildmaterial an. Abgesehen davon, wenn Du schon das ungefähre Alter von Hungarian David Biro kennst, warum fragst Du ihn nicht gleich selbst? De728631 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is in German. These days, it would probably need another back and forth, but I think the claims in the ticket are reasonable. Storkk (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the information box to reflect the claim in the ticket. Storkk (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Storkk (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uvaterv's pictures from Fortepan

Hello! An user asked help in connection with File:Prepamat.jpg on OTRS, because (s)he found it on Fortepan under CC-BY-SA-3.0 licenc. I asked the donor company (Uvaterv) and they confirmed that they gave these pictures Fortepan under free license (ticket:2017100910009451). I'd like to ask help to

undelete those pictures which were deleted and the donor is Uvaterv
place the OTRS tickets on every images

I'm sorry to did I not write on the correct place, but mostly an admin needed for this task. Bencemac (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And accidentally I wrote it here, not on administrators' noticeboard; well done...Bencemac (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure you have searched Commons first, some or all may be duplicates. Example and Project page. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: The original uploader of the file was you. :) Bencemac (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --grin ✎ 07:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia Community cartoon.jpg

Hi! Can an OTRS member check this issue: [28] The uploader claims there is a permission email sent by author but she don't know the ticket number. Many thanks. -- Meisam (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The actual backlog is 59 days. Please wait --Ruthven (msg) 12:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meisam: Hi. If the permission statement had been sent 598 days ago, it should have been processed by now.

We do have a ticket which has been sent from that email address on the said date, but it has nothing to do with File:Wikipedia Community cartoon.jpg. I cannot mention the ticket number because it may disclose private information.

When I search the system by the author's name (which is Giulia Forsythe rather than Milan Jasenský), Ticket:2014021110008914 is the only result. Although it is in German, I can assuredly say it has nothing to do with permissions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:4nn1l2! -- Meisam (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm* this is not a permission ticket, anyway the file has flickr permission here: File:Wikipedia by Giulia Forsythe.jpg (I delete the file because 2 persons have mentioned this as dupe) -- User: Perhelion 14:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User: Perhelion! I realized it was a dup later and tagged it for speedy-delete! -- Meisam (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Meisam (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2017102210001531

Hello. User:طیبه محمدزمانی says that she has sent a permission statement to OTRS system. However, I do not have access to the mentioned ticket. If it is a permission ticket, please move it to permission queue. The user apparently lacks technical skills, and this makes communicating with her a little difficult. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It had been transferred to info-ar mistakenly. The ticket is in Persian, not Arabic. Besides, we do have an Arabic permissions queue (permissions-ar). Anyway, it's all settled now. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket validity check

The user have uploaded several photos and added an OTRS ticket. Can you please check the validity of this ticket added by the (blocked) uploader? Many thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meisam: The ticket doesn't even exist, so I deleted the image. Guanaco (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guanaco! I'll tag the rest of these images for speedy-delete. I hope someone checks his other photos. -- Meisam (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you've already done it! You are great!! -- Meisam (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a bigger issue here. I'm starting an ANU discussion. Guanaco (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Meisam (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket number request

Hi again! Can you please fetch the ticket number for this email [29] it is supposed to be the permission for fa:پرونده:Raami-011.jpg from "Arash Okhovat". Thanks in advance. -- Meisam (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meisam: : Here you are: 2006092410006225. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Mhhossein! -- Meisam (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Meisam (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File deletions, declarations of consent and permissions ignored, PLEASE HELP

I keep getting file deletion warnings, I send in necessary declarations of consent, OTRS etc etc ... and ... then it happens all over again. Very Twilight Zone; constantly says "permissions missing"--and I send them, they are NOT missing!! How can I get this taken care of once and for all? I now have so many ticket numbers I don't know which ones to send. What happens to the permissions I send in? Are they just ignored? Why won't anyone **continue** the communication after the initial notifications? This is worse than dealing with US insurance companies!

These are all my own photos, public domain, what specifically *is lacking* in the declarations I have already sent? Could someone tell me what I am doing wrong so this stuff can finally get published PLEASE? HELP!

There are 7 photo files, I have numerous ticket numbers for them all:

It has been suggested to me, several times now, that I am being ignored for politically-motivated reasons? (gasp) Is this a possibility? (Could I speak to the liberals, in that case?) Very desperate, please, please help! thank you. PumpkinButter (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinButter: There is a nearly two month backlog of tickets. All of them are answered by volunteers, unpaid members of the community such you and I. We answer them in our spare time, as a public service. I will help you finalize the process when I can. A legal cannabis product sounds really nice at the moment, as I'm writing this from my bed with the flu. Guanaco (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as they used to say, once more, with feeling.

I uploaded 6 out of 7 again... they are wearing me down! Here are the new filenames (some names are the same).. they are png because except for Mac (a good friend), they are all "photos of photos" (poloroids no less!) and I had to copy them to microsoft-paint to increase the color, which was all washed out. I assure you they are all MY (ancient) photos, taken by ME. There is *no reason* for all this melodrama and subterfuge. If there is something wrong with these uploads please tell me!!!!!!! xoxoxo thank you for helping! <3 PS Steve Conliff was my mentor in many things... this is very personal to me; this is my way of honoring him. I absolutely need his photo there, since so many people knew him without knowing his legal name... (Native Americans didn't particularly like their 'white names'--but I digress.) PLEASE help me keep his photos up--those are the ones most important to me. The Yippie photos are important to me because they were so important to him. Thanks again.

PumpkinButter (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: FYI: I got the mess sorted. All tickets done now. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anthony Ho.jpg and Ticket:2017082110010902

Hello. I have a problem about the ticket and situation.

@Gm King uploaded Anthony Ho's photo here from Ho's Facebook page, and Anthony Ho sent the OTRS permission. According to my investigation, the photographer of this photo is not unclear, so I talked to Anthony Ho finding the photographer and offer the evidence about the copyright transferring with Ho and the photographer. Then, Ho add the CC-BY-SA-3.0 declaration ([30]) on his Facebook page, so I take a screenshot for declaration. However, @B dash requested for deletion. I'm very confused about this case.

So, I want to clarify an question: If Ho adds the CC BY-SA 3.0 declaration for this photo on his Facebook page, is it valid? Or he must keep finding the photographer to get the copyright transferring and send the evidence to OTRS? If he cannot find the photographer, or said he cannot remember the photographer, should we delete this photo? Pinging @Gm King and B dash for further discussion. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 10:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taiwania Justo: The copyright laws are the same whether it's an OTRS permission or a license review. We have to get the license from the photographer, not the subject. If we can't, the image has to be deleted. Guanaco (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User: Christopher DOMBRES

Hi, he says that his uploads are own work and that he draws for Wikipedia, see here: [31]. Can you guys verify this? --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 01:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think OTRS permission is required here. See the Flickr account, where many of these were first published. Guanaco (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Paintings by Silvia Klippert

German-speaking OTRS crew needed.

Dieser Löschantrag betrifft Ticket:2012042010006444. Angeblich wurden mehrere Bilder ohne Genehmigung der Rechteinhaberin bzw. Künstlerin hochgeladen. Bitte überprüft mal das Ticket auf einen Zusammenhang mit der Malerin Silivia Klippert. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dort beantwortet. --Didym (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Didym (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC){Section resolved |1=--Didym (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didym, Would you kindly elaborate on how this issue has been "resolved"? There are active Deletion Requests pending, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marilyn Monroe I.jpg. JGHowes ^talk - 20:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the discussion on Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Paintings by Silvia Klippert (where I left the comment mentioned above) sufficient? I actually did not see the DR before, but left a comment now. --Didym (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As the discussion was entirely in German, it was a bit difficult for those without OTRS access and whose German is limited to understand a claim of Copyright Violation. JGHowes ^talk - 21:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2017102910005337

I have had several files deleted, I provided written consent and was asked to resubmit based on new format. Meanwhile my files were deleted in the meantime. Please re-upload.--Aganon77 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC) FYI: These are the files:[reply]

--Aganon77 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 77 days to wait for having an email read and a ticket processed, and the email was sent just 11 days ago. But do not worry: when the OTRS operator will approve the permission, the files will be restored. --Ruthven (msg) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS verification needed

I uploaded the following pictures taken from website photorail.com which is listed on the it.wiki page of successful permission requests (ticket 2007051610009234; see also Category:Photorail.com). Can somebody mark them as verified? Thanks in advance.

--Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 17:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Una giornata uggiosa '94: I haven't found any authorisation under CC by-sa 2.0 on the website, and the OTRS isn't valid (it has been rejected). Maybe we should start a DR for all the files in that directory. --Ruthven (msg) 10:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Are you sure? I don't think this is possible, almost all uploaders of files in that category are experienced and deeply trusted it.wiki users. Can you double check? This is the exact link. If you still don't find anything, please wait before starting any DR, I will ask for explanation to these it.wiki users. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 10:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague ticket. The OTRS ticket was not accepted because it could not prove authenticity. Moreover, though the ticket names a website, the actual permission does not. It does not say which files it concerns. Finally, permission is given for use "on Wikipedia", which can be misinterpreted and is not an acceptable wording of permission. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Una giornata uggiosa '94: I double checked, and all the OTRS permissions in the files in that category were added by no-OTRS members, and should be considered invalid. We will not have a DR, but the files without authorisation are deleted after one week generally. Can you please contact photorail.com, and ask them to send us in a permission to publish under CC by-sa 2.0 at permissions-it

wikimedia.org? You can also just ask them to add the license in the website, as shown at Wikipedia:OTRS/Procedura_2, and then write us back here. --Ruthven (msg) 10:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: It's no surprise OTRS permissions were added by no-OTRS members, as most of these pictures were originally uploaded locally to it.wiki! The OTRS permission tag was there in the first place, long before transferring them to Commons. As always, transferring files to Commons proves a bad decision which only causes trouble and bitterness. I'll write to the original uploaders on it.wiki to decide what we should do. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 10:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Una giornata uggiosa '94: It's not a problem with Commons, but with the authorisation. The very same files would have been deleted on it.wiki as well in this situation. --Ruthven (msg) 10:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: I can't agree as most of these files were uploaded by it.wiki administrators who fight every day copyright violations. The user who obtained the permission in 2007 was also an administrator. So, either the standard to rate an authorization as "valid" have changed, or it is a problem with Commons. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 11:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I wrote to Photorail asking to confirm the license CC by-sa 2.0 under which the files have been uploaded here. The answer we received in ticket:2007051610009234 is disappointing. He says that he regrets the permission given 10 years ago (the one that we consider unvalid now) and that he doesn't want his photographs uploaded under such a license. I fear that under such circumstances, we have to delete the files. --Ruthven (msg) 10:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2017102810006187

The webpage has been updated to reflect that all images are published under the license of CC BY 4.0. I just removed the {{OTRS received}} tag because its license had already been reviewed by an admin. Some similar images have already been reviewed, but what about other images that have not been reviewed so far such as File:Graphania beata female.jpg? Do we need to create a custom license template for this website to facilitate future uploads? 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in those cases a regular {{Licensereview}} is sufficient, as the website clearly states that its photos are CC by-sa 4.0. --Ruthven (msg) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Streckennetz_EVS_2017.jpg

Please verify permission and label accordingly.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Trockennasenaffe (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DC OfficialWhiteHouseAmandaLucidon copy.jpg

I may be right off-track again here, but I looked at ticket:2017062810019691, which relates to File:DC OfficialWhiteHouseAmandaLucidon copy.jpg and several others. I see a claim of ownership, but I don't see anything that proves the person has authority to make that claim; I don't see the permission of the artist, Jane Echelman; and I don't see any permission from the photographer nor evidence of how copyright ownership was transferred. Am I missing something obvious, or indeed several obvious things? Ping DarwIn for comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers and DarwIn: I think you are only potentially missing the domain name of the sender's email address, but I agree that's pretty thin, and would have preferred a follow-up email to ascertain the person's authority to license. Storkk (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My own works have been systematically eliminated

Hi, I think there has been an error and is that despite having sent the copyright statement to [email protected] stating that such works are my own which I did in Inkscape. These are my works, I think I have the right to accommodate them here to nourish encyclopedic articles. I have never uploaded the works of others without their permission or without attributing their respective license in Creative Commons. The deleted files were:

The files that I have created, mostly are versions made by me based on the original versions (such as: Emblem of the Army of Marshal López.svg, Flag of the Army of Marshal López.svg, Flag of the Army of the Paraguayan People, etc. ) In addition, all these are illegal armed groups which, in the legal framework, do not have license of their authorship for obvious reasons.

As for TKEP-L Rojava Flag.svg, TKP-ML TIKKO Flag.svg, Antifascist Internationalist Tabur.svg, RUIS Flag.svg and International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces flag.svg, I have contact with all of them (members of ancoalition internationalist) Who gave me permission to upload the files for encyclopedic purposes.--Mikelelgediento (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an OTRS member, but I can tell you that "for encyclopedic purposes" is an invalid license. Valid licenses must allow any purpose, as per Commons:Licensing. If at all possible, we try to get one of the standard licenses such as CC BY-SA. Guanaco (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikelelgediento: Do you have the response ticket number? --Ruthven (msg) 13:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarded permissions

Hello. Over one month ago, I asked a question about forwarded permissions at Commons talk:OTRS/Archive 2#Forwarded permissions. No answers, so I went ahead to reflect "our current" attitude towards forwarded permissions. I searched the OTRS noticeboard and I found this discussion: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2016#Inconsistent_instructions. I also found this one at otrs-wiki. We have two boilerplates regarding forwarded permissions, both of which were created on 21 December 2016. Recently, I had a correspondence with an experienced user of English Wikipedia at Ticket:2017073010002692. She reverted my edit at OTRS page. I opened this thread just to know how we, as OTRS agents, should deal with forwarded messages. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thread has been opened at Otrs-wiki by another user: [32] 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at the help desk

Hi there! Can an OTRS volunteer please look into Commons:Help desk#files deleted after release sent to permissions-commons.40wikimedia.org .5BTicket.23: 2017082910014984.5D. Thanks, Daylen (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnDerbyshire1.jpg

Just wondering if this type of email exchange added to the file's licensing is OK for Commons. Shouldn't personal correspondence such as this be filed with OTRS? Can't anyone ~~can~~ technically edit the file page and alter/remove the quoted emails? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out unneeded "can". -- 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)][reply]

@Marchjuly: It is not OK now, both answers are yes. — Jeff G. ツ 01:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking Jeff G.. FWIW, the uploader seems to be Magog the Ogre, who is a Commons' admin, but I am not sure if that is the "David Tribble" referred to in the email. Does the file need to be tagged with {{Npd}} or anything if they are both the same person? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files from that far back generally fall under Commons:Grandfathered old files. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Magog the Ogre. However, "grandfathered old files" seems to apply to files uploaded prior to 1 January 2007, whereas this file seems to have been first uploaded on 17 July 2012. The emails discussing permission, however, do go back to September 2006. Does that mean there are older versions of the file dating back to that time? If that's the case, then maybe the latest version of file can be tagged with {{Grandfathered old file}} even though it was uploaded in 2012. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally uploaded to Wikipedia in 2006. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derived of modern art. Otrs?

Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1955) - BEIC 6341250.jpg

Author of art works is Franco Fontana death in 1968
Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1958) - BEIC 6341427.jpg

Author of art work is Pablo Picasso death in 1973

Please check if otrs are for depicted art works too, thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierpao: The ticket itself appears to establish permission for the photographs. Nothing in there suggests we have permission from Picasso or Fontana. Guanaco (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be so sure, considering it was written in Italian as far as I know? --Nemo 08:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: Respectfully, you are wrong. The OTRS ticket (with a signed declaration of BEIC's lawyer) states that BEIC owns *all rights* on the photographs. Paolo Monti was one of the most famous Italian photographers of his time and he always worked under commission/permission of the artists and owners of the artworks (in this case, of the gallery owner Carlo Cardazzo), and of the publishers for catalogues, books and magazines. The related documentation is preserved in his historical archive and is publicly accessible (but not yet digitalized). --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco Chemello (BEIC): Thank you for this information. I find your explanation to be convincing, and I'll note it at the deletion request alongside my

Keep vote. Guanaco (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this delicate ticket was quickly handled by a novice agent. More permissions should be sent to assess what Marco Chemello (BEIC) is saying, i.e. that Monti had the copyright transferred from the authors for those photos. We're not in a hurry, so when the authorisations will be scanned, we will be able to restore the files if needed. --Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously said, Monti's archive is very big and undigitalized, so I cannot simply spend all my time doing long researches, and of course it's simply impossible for hundreds or thousands photos. But the friendship and professional ties between Monti and the committant Carlo Cardazzo (as with all artists represented) are historically well known and documented, so it is not necessary I prove it. Many informations have been made available directly on the digital catalogue: the images were catalogued by independent professionals (so we consider it a valid source), and many sources (like publications, committments...) are cited directly on the "description" field of the images. Of course it's impossible to cover every single photo with exhaustive documentation, because the catalogue was made only in recent years, and many decades passed from the original shots (and most people died). BEIC Istitution decided to share with the public this digital photo archive because:

BEIC acquired whole archive and all commercial rights.
Paolo Monti, a professional photographer, worked always under permission and he was always committed by artists, galleries, museums, magazines, publishers. There are many publications with many of these images to prove it. So BEIC states it has *full rights* an all photos. Consider that many of the images were also used in public exhibitions (the last in Milan few monts ago [33]).
The archive is a verifiable source itself.
No one claimed any right on artworks represented in the BEIC digital catalogue, where the Monti's images were published years ago (before being shared on Commons).

If a cultural institution (an archive, a museum, a library) states in written form it owns all rights, I think also it is an excessive request to ask further documentation. Did you ask a complete documentation for any artwork exhibited in a museum and photographed here on Commons? I think not. I's exactly the same. It's impossible for a museum to accomplish such a request (for evident reasons, beginning from lack of human resources), and it's impossible for us. Community decided to trust all declarations from cultural istitutions *with no further obligation* from these institutions (that are fully responsible for their good faith declarations). If not, hundreds of thousands of photos must be erased from Commons and Wikipedia. --Marcok (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While being sympathetic to the basic fact that no institution can be expected to do a full exhaustive copyright review for every image, there are some simple lines that can be drawn to aid planning. Photographs without artworks in them are much easier to assess, and where the photographer worked for the institution, is unknown, or died more than 70 years ago, no further assessment of copyright is needed. For these photographs of artworks where the artist did not die more than 70 years ago, copyright will remain problematic and these deletion requests are technically and legally correct.

Hopefully the institution will be able to take the discussion as constructive feedback on the images, and they may wish to continue to assert that there is No Copyright Known in other places. Deletion from Commons is not proof of a true copyright problem, that still requires an expert assessment, but discussions held on Commons are a useful reference.

This case is a reminder that OTRS permission is only verification of the claim made by the uploader, it is never legal advice, nor is it a guarantee that the upload can remain on Commons. From my experience of uploads from hundreds of institutions, the best way to have a copyright review for a significant donation, would be to encourage an open discussion based on a batch upload project page on Commons, and ping the Community with a notice on the Village Pump to aid with brainstorming the best licence to apply and if there are likely to be doubts about copyright post-upload. An open discussion in this way will avoid too many surprises, and may engage some of our very experienced volunteers in helping with early review and decision making. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately this delicate ticket was quickly handled by a novice agent." = i reserve the right to overturn previous OTRS decisions. you realize that such an attitude tends to undermine the credibility of OTRS? it is opaque, and now capricious. why should anyone trust your judgement as opposed to a novice when there is little evidence? and why would any institution want to donate images, when first they must run a gauntlet of copyright cynics? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You personal attack has no place here. If you have nothing to add, please refrain to comment a (somewhat) technical discussion on how to grant copyright for donated images. --Ruthven (msg) 15:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of photos in Wędziagolski Bronisław ,Wędziagolski Karol and Argasiński Tadeusz

I am a member of Wedziagolski family. My grand mother Jadwiga Rutkowska was from home Wędziagolska. She was sister of Wędziagolski Bronisław and Wędziagolski Karol. Argasiński Tadeusz was husband of her sister Anna. Photos which I attached to their pages were from my private family archive made other 80 years ago So why they were canceled? with best regards Andrzej Rutkowski —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:A31A:413F:D980:C9B6:8297:2B82:671C (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they were deleted as a result of this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by And.rut. We need correct and complete information about the author and date. If you have this information, you can request undeletion. You can also discuss the concerns with an agent at permissions-commons

wikimedia.org.

Andrzej, the files were deleted due to incorrect license statements, for example File:Bronisław Wędziagolski 1919.jpg stated that And.rut took the photograph in 1919 and released it under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, which seemed unlikely. The files could be restored if we can determine their copyright status. For example if they were published in Poland before 1990s they might meet conditions of {{PD-Polish}}. If they were "made available to the public" before WWII they can meet conditions of {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. If the pictures were taken by a known photographer who died more than 70 years ago than you can use {{PD-old-70}}. If the pictures were taken by a family member (even unknown family member) than you might have inherited the copyrights and can use {{PD-heir}} to release them. In all of those cases we need to know more about the photographs to determine the copyright. I can help with the process, just write to me at my talk page or add {{ping|jarekt}} to your reply. --Jarekt (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change of OTRS permission for Commons categories

As you're all aware, in Italy any property (object or monument) belonging to the Italian cultural heritage as entrusted to the Italian government needs a permission to be used for commercial uses. Since the Codice Urbani, we can upload them on Commons freely using the right template (see {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). In the past, some institution wrote to OTRS to request us to remove files that weren't authorised, like in Villa_Giulia (Rome) (read the top note referring to ticket:2008111010014047).

As times change, the new director of Villa Giulia National etruscan museum accepted for WLM to allow anyone to publish the photos of the artworks and buildings under his custody under CC by-sa 4.0 (ticket:2017100710194997). In the category page this is indicated by {{OTRS accreditation}}. It is sufficient? Do we have a way to eventually restore deleted files in that category? --Ruthven (msg) 13:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: We need to revise Commons:Freedom of panorama#Italy and revisit Category:Italian FOP cases. — Jeff G. ツ 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask to @Nemo bis: , @Jaqen: and @CristianCantoro: to share with us their opinion about this topic. Thanks --CristianNX 08:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the mistake was deleting those photos in the first place. The restrictions placed by the Codice Urbani law are non-copyright restrictions, so if Commons starts deleting all images that may have non-copyright restrictions on them we may as well delete all photographies of living people. Please note that what the director of Villa Giulia is doing with the OTRS is not authorizing the photographers to release a photo as CC-BY-SA, because that decision belongs only to the copyright holder (i.e., most times, the photographer) and, since those are Etruscan remains, there is no copyright on the remains per se (as per "freedom of panorama" which we do not have in Italy). What he/she is doing is declaring that he is waiving his right of requesting a fee for the publication (on Wikimedia Commons) of the photographs, meaning that photographers can post those photos online without paying a fee. The director can not decide that all the photos taken at Villa Giulia must be released under the CC-BY-SA or the GNU FDL or the WTFPL licenses. I have discussed (and challenged) deletions of WLM photographs from Italy that were marked as "non FOP" for a long time now, the only photographs that should be deleted for FOP in Italy are those from "modern" buildings (structures, sculptures, etc.), i.e. those whose copyright is still in force. --CristianCantoro (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CristianCantoro: I think that Codice Urbani kicked in after the first deletion episodes. I also think the Commons community is well aware that No-FOP in Italy refers to modern buildings because, for instance, the copyright holder of the Coliseum is long time dead. So, do you think that adding {{OTRS accreditation}} is needed to enforce the permissions like the ones from the Villa Giulia director's? What can we do, in order to avoid erratic DR about historical monuments in Italy? --Ruthven (msg) 12:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: , I don't know how to avoid erratic delegation because they are, well, erratic and they shouldn't happen in the first place. You can add {{OTRS accreditation}} and you should also add either {{Soprintendenza}} or {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} (I advise you use the former) --CristianCantoro (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copyrights to the music file

Check my copyrights to the music file http://www.imperiumlegionis.ltd.ua/MJ-PIA_-_Solarity_Acid-Techno_.ogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Петко Ігор Олександрович (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC) confirmation received, Ticket # 2017112010012567 add the template to the file please [[34]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Петко Ігор Олександрович (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file has already been processed and labelled accordingly. Nthep (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2017112010005977 otrs pending processing please kindly help

Hi there i am a photographer i came to know that you are a otrs active member please confirm the above ticket its been in processing stage for a longtime. I photographed those photos of actor vijay during a photoshoot and i have released it under creative commomns universal licence with no restrictions as iam the sole creator.thank you kindly update it into permission otrs in the archive. I have sent them mail regarding my confirmation of licence release no response.--Starunique (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Starunique: OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 5 days before the e-mail is processed. — Jeff G. ツ 12:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verification request

Before I mark a file for speedy deletion, could someone look at File:Governor Mary Fallin - High Resolution 1.jpg and see what that OTRS ticket goes to? I highly doubt that the ticket goes to this file and that User:JimmyJoe87 received a ticket before he uploaded it. This file has been deleted in the past for no permission and JimmyJoe87 has a history of uploading files that are copyrighted. Thanks, Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says that images by "the State of Oklahoma’s Legislative Service Bureau, Photo Division" are in the public domain. I don't think that it covers the works created by the government of Oklahoma. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe that was my rationale when I had the photo deleted the fist time. I'm going to nominate it. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 16:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to verify a Commons Account to be the account of an youtuber

Hello @all,

I work at the project b:de:Mathe für Nicht-Freaks and two youtube user (MJ Educations and Maths CA) share some of their videos under a free license so that they can be uploaded to Commons and can be embed in our articles. Therefore they have created an user on Commons (User:MJ Studies and User:Maths CA) and they have stated on the youtube's about site of their channels that User:MJ Studies and User:Maths CA are their own accounts respectively. What is needed to add Template:Verified account to their user sites? Shall they write a separate email?

Greetings, Stephan Kulla (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages tagged MorganKevinJ^(talk) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MorganKevinJ^(talk) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Sherwin (veterinary biologist), 2009.jpg

Ticket#2017091410011119 -- User:JuTa deleted the file and when I asked him to restore it, he said to come here. The OTRS volounteer forgot to confirm the release when editing the file description page. I received the following email (my bold):

"Please go ahead and upload the photo of Chris Sherwin. The permission has been accepted. All that's still required is the file on Commons so that I may tag it. Yours sincerely, Quintin Williams"

I uploaded the image and the photographer/copyright holder submitted a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license to permissions in a separate email. Please let me know when that's done as the image was used in the biography of Chris Sherwin, (deceased), and at DYK. Thanks in advance... Atsme 📞 01:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I looked up the ticket: best thing to do now is to reply with the link to the Commons image, so that another Commons agent can add the ticket number. We'll take care of the restoring on Commons if that's necessary. Ciell (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ciell The red link is File:Chris Sherwin (veterinary biologist), 2009.jpg (which I included as this section header) - are you saying I have to upload the image again, or can you revert the action and restore the image? Atsme 📞 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded it again - see thumb|2009 - Chris Sherwin, veterinary scientist - please just tag it. Thanks! Atsme 📞 21:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could have restored the image, but this is fine as well. I added the permission on Commons, so the image won't be deleted again. Ciell (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request

Please, verify this undeletion request. It is a clearcut case IMO.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 03:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emi in concert.png

Can anyone check ticket for this File:Emi in concert.png. --Smooth O (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the permissions queue's, but in info-ro, so not all agents have access. Let me try and find a agent who does have access. Ciell (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrei Stroe: @Turbojet: @Silenzio76: Can you have a look? And maybe transfer the ticket to the permissions queue? Ciell (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to permissions queue. The ticket seems ok. --Turbojet (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Starunique

I see that quite a number of files uploaded by the user in question contains a lot of movie screenshots and age-old photographs of the actor. It's very unlikely that the author is the real copyright-holder. Am I'm missing something here? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The permission email is from a free email account with unassociated with the original source of the images. I performed a mass delete and given the final warning. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 18:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:KATICA ILLENYI The Rose of The Breeze.jpeg

This may be the wrong place to ask, and I may anyway be completely wrong, but here goes: I looked at OTRS ticket 2015111110005514 for File:KATICA ILLENYI The Rose of The Breeze.jpeg. I don't read Hungarian, but I don't see any evidence of permission from the photographer nor of how copyright was transferred. This has already been nominated for deletion and kept, so I'm probably missing something obvious ... but what? Ping Pallerti, Hungarikusz Firkász, Ellin Beltz, Hazaffy and Yann. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I don't understand, I don't see any problem, the permission came from Gábor Kisszabó (Illényi's manager, and famous hungarian bassist formerly member of the popband Első Emelet) with IKP Music's (IKP=Illényi Katica Produkció) stamp and Kisszabó's signature, you can see in attachment (NYILATKOZAT IKP MUSIC.pdf), the permission is OK for this picture. --Pallerti (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Justlettersandnumbers: your OTRS template link is wrong, the correct link is: ticket:2015111110005514 --Pallerti (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the link, Pallerti, thanks for fixing. Yes, I saw those things in the ticket, though I'm not sure we should mention them here because of privacy. What I didn't see was the permission of the photographer or any evidence that copyright was transferred by him/her to the claimed owner. As I said, unfortunately I don't read Hungarian. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything I can add to this discussion, I am not on the OTRS team. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is that her manager says so. --Tgr (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also quite possibly the copyright never belonged to the photographer. Under Hungarian copyright law, if you take a picture in the course of your work, copyright belongs to your employer. Malatinszky (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's quite possible, Malatinszky, but it's also quite possible that it did. What we need to do is to be sure, and I don't see how we can host the image until we are. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarikusz Firkász, you have said this was OK in the previus deletion discussion. Do you have any comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte OTRS-Label 2006052910008436 ergänzen

Vor Jahren habe ich mal eine Erlaubnis für Werke des Malers de:Sigmund Strecker von seinem Sohn Bernhard Strecker eingeholt, um die Bilder ins Wiki stellen zu dürfen. Dabei haben aber zwei Bilder das OTRS-Label 2006052910008436 nicht abbekommen, was mir leider erst später aufgefallen ist:

Könnte bitte jemand das Label bei den beiden Bildern setzen? Vielen Dank im Voraus, --Abubiju (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abubiju: Done Three files tagged with ticket:2006052910008436. Green Giant (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

danke! Abubiju (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check request: uploads by Praktyk

Hi,

Praktyk has uploaded a few images of which some have been deleted (see User_talk:Praktyk) and some have OTRS tickets. I was wondering if one of those tickets wouldn't authorize all uploads from that account, among which File:Wilo-Star RS.jpg. The RedBurn (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see: No. --Krd 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yogi Adityanath.jpg

I was wandering if proper permission was received for File:Yogi Adityanath.jpg. --Muhandes (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven and Muhandes: The ticket is ticket:2017091310004718. I recall there being an uncropped version somewhere, which I'd like to examine before approving this. I recall there may have been an issue where the claimed copyright holder appeared in the photo. Guanaco (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My original concern was that the uploader uploaded 9 other files under false "own work" claims which made me worry about this one, which might still be perfectly legitimate. --Muhandes (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenco The Coffee Company

Hi JCB,

I am afraid you have deleted some updates we made to the Kenco page.

We are the advertising agency that works for Kenco and had been instructed to make these amend by our client.

Please revert back the amends we made.

Thanks, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.55.234 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is JacobsDouweEgberts. This is not Jcb's talk page (that would be User talk:Jcb). But neither posts there nor here can resolve the issue. What you need to do is to follow the instructions on your user talk page. You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Account Verification

Unser Benutzerkonto wurde für die deutsche Wikipedia bereits verifiziert, siehe OTRS-Ticket #2013013010011548. Könnte bitte jemand die entsprechende Vorlage auf unserer Commons-Benutzerseite ergänzen? Vielen Dank!

This account has been verified for German Wikipedia, see ticket #2013013010011548. Can someone please add the corresponding template to our userpage here on Commons? Thanks for your help.

--HSBiberach (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HSBiberach: There was no such a ticket, at least I couldn't find it. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: ticket:2013013010011548 (info-de), seems to be valid --Didym (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Didym: So that means that it was me who could not find it. I think that's because I don't have access to that queue. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the template to the user page. Unfortunately, the ticket has to stay in info-de, as it's also used on dewiki. --Didym (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image copyright

Hi, I'm the author and sole copyright holder of the image called "Poster for "The 1up Fever" mockumentary" listed at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_1up_Fever_(film)#/media/File:The_1up_Fever_official_poster.jpg As requested I've added under my personal website this sentence: "This website's content has been published under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 license". You can find my website here https://www.behance.net/gallery/21334355/Poster-for-THE-1UP-FEVER. I would also add the sentence to my other website, which was the one originally listed for the image http://cargocollective.com/symlink/Poster-THE-1UP-FEVER but I'm not able to do that at the moment. I contacted the user 4nn1l2, by sending him an answer on private mail on October 08th, 2017, but I still didn't receive any answer so I thought to write here. I'm sorry if I'm making any mistake, I'm new to wikipedia. I hope everything is all right. Thank you, Francesca —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.30.195.214 (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done ticket:2017100110006307

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:RedCoatTrail.png

File:RedCoatTrail.png was tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}} following Commons:Deletion requests/File:RedCoatTrail.png. However, it is claimed as "own work" by the uploader and licensed as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. This is incorrect. Can an OTRS volunteer look into the email to clarify who the copyright holder is? The Saskatchewan government? A graphic designer with a name? ℯ xplicit 02:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: The ticket doesn't specify the license, but rather states that anyone is free to take photos and post them without permission from the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Kolbert: The statement is... a little vague by Commons standards, isn't it? It doesn't address derivatives or commercial use. A look at the ministry's copyright page doesn't answer the question for these types of signs, and is rather restrictive in the topics it does cover. ℯ xplicit 02:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jcb: as the agent who handled the ticket. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The government agency responded to a message in which the license conditions (compatible with COM:L) were pointed out. Not how we would do it now, but fine in line with the common practice at OTRS 7 years ago. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: I see, the permissions procedure has simply changed over time, so the license seems fine for the time it was processed. I've edited the file description to better reflect the author information. Hopefully, this is an appropriate approach. ℯ xplicit 00:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antoni Tàpies "Rinzen" (1992-1993). Vista del llit.jpg

Can someone please verify ticket #2012071210004849 ? Is it licensed by Macba or by Tàpies ? @Vriullop: who handled the ticket. — Racconish^☎ 07:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is licensed by w:Fundació Antoni Tàpies supposedly in behalf of heirs of Tàpies, and licensed by the photographer. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks V.Riullop. — Racconish^☎ 10:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colette Mazzucelli 2.jpg

This file was uploaded by a sockpuppeteer, so I wanted to check the permission, but I don't have access to whatever queue the ticket is in. ticket:2016082710007096, probably info-en. Can anyone confirm its validity? Guanaco (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: You should ask to otrs-wiki admins to move it to a permission queue, so that everyone can check it. --Ruthven (msg) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: That ticket (with 41 articles) is in queue "info-en::Courtesy". It appears to contain valid permission for that file. You are welcome to request info-en access at otrswiki:Administrator requests. — Jeff G. ツ 02:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS abuse

These uploads [35] by a new user, appear to have been tagged with OTRS tickets which apply to others. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Secondarywaltz:

Done That uploader has been determined to be a sock, it has been blocked, and its uploads have been nuked. — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marie Luise Gansber IMG 7909.jpg

According to the exif data this picture was taken with an iPhone in 2016. The person shown on the photo died in 2003. The uploader obviously made a copy of the original and declared this copy as "own work" --Zxmt (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

maybe the same as the already deleted File:MLG Porträtfoto.jpg, marked as "passport photograph" here: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Luise_Gansberg&diff=159532740&oldid=159267622 --Zxmt (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Raboe001: --Zxmt (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Das hier ein Pass abfotografiert wurde ist mir nicht aufgefallen, da sich der Kontakt als Erbin ausgab.

I didn't notice that a passport was photographed here because the contact pretended to be the heiress. -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the image, no permission achievable. --Krd 11:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dossier en attente

Bonjour, je ne comprends pas, j'ai toujours le bandeau indiquant que la photo allait être effacée sous 30 jours alors que l'auteur de la photo m'a dit qu'il avait fournit les documents demandés et changé la taille de la photo. Il s'agit du fichier "Vincent_french_singer.jpg" ticket: 201730103010012764 Je suis ennuyée et je ne sais pas quoi faire, j'ai longuement discuté avec le photographe et je suis certaine que ce monsieur est bien l'auteur. Merci de m'aider et de me dire quoi faire --Ophélie Ravel (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ophélie Ravel: Le bandeau dit 30 jours, mais le temps d'attente afin que le courriel soit au moins lu est de 77 jours (indiqué en haut de page). D'autre part, le numéro de ticket ne correspond à aucun ticket connu. --Ruthven (msg) 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plushie copyright

Could someone please check the above ticket to see if the release covers the copyright of the toy? A statement about the release in the linked DR would help confirm how many images the ticket relates to, and if there is verifiable confirmation that the toy is public domain. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now have confirmation by IRC that the ticket is about the photograph, and gave no confirmation about the copyright of the toy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippines Ice Hockey Team.jpg

The file is uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license but the Author is credited as just "See the OTRS ticket in the Permission field below." The problem is it seemed only OTRS volunteers could access the tickets and the license demands attribution. The name of the author should be properly credited.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JGHowes: Should photosubmissions customers expect their names to be released pursuant to the BY clause of CC licenses? I think so. — Jeff G. ツ 18:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was briefly discussed and mentioned on the OTRS-wiki "Café" about a year ago. See otrswiki:Café/2017#What is and what isn't a violation of our privacy policy. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: Thanks, I added the author to comply with the Cc-by-sa-4.0 license. — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But we're not supposed to reveal personal information contained in OTRS communications. In this instance, the photographer publicly trades as "David J Photography", no last name given. I don't think his real last name should be revealed. Secondly, this is not the format shown in the template. JGHowes ^talk - 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JGHowes: Let's discuss that there. — Jeff G. ツ 15:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double check licensing

Can someone please review this image File:Laura Antonelli (Milan, 1974).jpg, not sure if the listed permissions are acceptable. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline, imho, but Italian PD is very permissive generally. We can keep it. --Ruthven (msg) 11:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lopez demetrius.jpg

Please check Lopez demetrius.jpg file currently nominated for the deletion. I've just got the confirmation from Rush University Medical Center that they've sent the official request to permissions-commons email, confirming that this file can be used under the Creative Commons license. Please advise what should be done to the file? Should I change something (description, author info) or it will all be handled by one of the OTRS team members? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbarmadillo: Multiple people with access to the ticket have posted at the DR and the file has been kept. — Jeff G. ツ 02:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Mladen Savić

The photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mladen_Savi%C4%87.jpg was claimed to be unverified. Is it OK if the person on the photo sends an e-mail with the text "I am the Mladen Savić on the photo, and I approve it's usage in my Wikipia article" or what exactly should I tell him to e-mail to the permissions-team mail adress? --Yukterez (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yukterez: Please have the photographer or copyright holder read OTRS. — Jeff G. ツ 02:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:AljndrOraa....jpg by Kike San Martin

File:AljndrOraa....jpg has EXIF data showing it was taken by Kike San Martin. This is a fashion photographer that we have a whole category of images for, Category:Kike San Martín. But all the images in that category seem to have different OTRS permissions, such as ticket #2013101710018095, ticket #2013101710018308, ticket #2013101710018031 ... and those are just the first 3 files in that category. Could someone please read those OTRS tickets and see whether they would apply to this file as well, or if it should be deleted? --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All tickets are ok. Different number ok ticket was simply started off by different otrs operator processed every ticket. I'll connect all tickets, but starts from now we will use the newest one (I'll report number after fixing). Thanks, --.av gas 11:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@.avgas: Sorry, didn't understand. Do any of the tickets apply to File:AljndrOraa....jpg? --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@.avgas: Excuse me? Do any of the OTRS tickets apply to the file? --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone? Bueller? --GRuban (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could someone who has OTRS access check one or two of the Kike San Martin OTRS tickets and say whether he is releasing most of his images, or just the specific ones he has listed? Because this specific file, File:AljndrOraa....jpg has EXIF saying it is a San Martin photograph, so if he released it, then it's good, but if he didn't, it should be deleted. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: I’ve been through about twenty related tickets but none of them mentions this file or Alejandra Oraa. I will delete it as a copyvio, particularly given the claim of own work by a user who only made one other Wikimedia edit. Green Giant (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with File:Gidon Kremer at Kammermusikfest Lockenhaus 2008.jpg

few days ago I uploaded a flickr-file of Gidon Kremer, because the photographer gave me permission by email to upload the pic under cc by-sa 4.0. I think, he has not given his permission in compliance with OTRS-regulations since then, because he did not response to my requests any longer. Please delete the file. It seems, that I acted too precipitately and there will be no OTRS-Email to you. Sorry. ....HMS 08:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulasBunt (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, few minutes ago the author of the file informed me, that he has send a OTRS-Email to the permission-jury right now. So things go one in a correct way and there is no need to delete the file. PaulasBunt ....HMS 14:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:201711221000723 approved. Green Giant (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File deleted - Alan_Duffy_and_Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_2017_Melbourne.jpg

Hello. On 12 November 2017‎, User:JuTa removed File:Alan_Duffy_and_Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_2017_Melbourne.jpg from Commons, saying it "has been deleted from Commons because: No OTRS permission since 2017-08-28". But I have copies of the email which the photographer sent OTRS to authorize it, so I am not clear what the problem is or how to address it. JuTa suggesting raising the question here: any suggestions? --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find anything to match file name (or part of file name - except File:Duffy galaxy gas simulation.png). If the e-mail arrived in permissions then there should be an auto reply with the ticket number. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No ticket found at OTRS. If it is received, the file can be restored. Green Giant (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tickets on "PD-author without author information" images

I've been reviewing images in Category:PD-author without author information and see some files with tickets but no license was added to the files and there are some other notices, such a missing a source, that the tickets may answer. Please check these and fill in the appropriate details or nominate for deletion.

File:Jennifer Thomas (pianist).jpg ticket #2015102210023941
File:Japan denaro.jpg ticket #2009011110013251
File:Melba rounds.jpg ticket #2010070810008268
File:Miike-Snow-2.jpg ticket #2011020910000208
File:Bassic.jpg ticket #2009072810060461
File:RHINO denaro.JPG ticket #2009011110013251
File:Guy Cobb Solar Greenbench.jpg, File:Ole Miss Cheerleaders at Houston Rockets.jpg & File:Guy Cobb Seismometer.jpg ticket #2010092210014015

Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience links:

— Jeff G. ツ 22:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor:

Done — Jeff G. ツ 23:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Pending tag for extracted images

Hi, how do I handle the OTRS Pending message on extracted images? I've noticed that when an OTRS tag is changed from Pending to Approved, the change does not flow down to the extracted (cropped) images. I am manually copying the OTRS approval tags into the cropped images, but doing so shows an error message: "You are trying to add a OTRS permission tag to this page. In general, such tags should only added by OTRS members" ... so what is the proper procedure here? Thanks @sikander (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Siqbal: It's best to not tag the extracted images with OTRS-anything. As long as the derived version is clearly linked to the source, we can follow the link and verify permission on the original. Guanaco (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance on OTRS ticket

Greetings: There has been discussion subsequent to my close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bart meijers-1489238923.jpg that perhaps there is something wrong with the ticket: "Because the OTRS permission was send by someone else than the rightful owner of this work and thus invalid. Sjoerddebruin." Next Jon Kolbert reported that the ticket is in Dutch, [36] and I am requesting the assistance of an OTRS editor with facility in that language. Please let me know the outcome. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sjoerd is a valued OTRS agent (but you couldn't have known that) and the handling OTRS agent replied in the DR: thanks user:seb26 for your explanation. indeed I did not recognize the "1" as a snapshot icon. Please delete this image. Elly (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So no, the OTRS permission is not valid. Please reconsider and delete the image. Ciell (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellin Beltz: Would you like to delete or want me to do it? Ciell (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciell: I got it. Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Copyright infringement

The photopgrapher of this file File:Josune Bereziartu.jpg is obviously the climber Rikar Otegui (date 2006 or before and not as in the Wikimedia Commons file-description declared 2010): Climbing.com & wspinanie.pl. Two other uploads from the same User raise questions too: File:Nalle Hukkataival.jpg and this one File:Nalle on James Giant Peach (V11) - Thailand.jpg, because both are from Twitter. The second one posted by Nalle Hukkataival himself on 5th January 2016. PaulasBunt ....HMS 06:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three files were deleted on 10 December 2017 per individual deletion requests. Green Giant (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS verification

Can a volunteer check if the ticket:2013082110009341 applies to the files File:Elephants_of_Kerala_L12_(5).jpg and File:Elephants_of_Kerala_L13_(2).jpg. I would like to see the files undeleted if the permission is covers these to images. -- Sreejith K (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sreejithk2000: It doesn't: the ticket authorises only the photographs by Joseph Lazar. --Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Are they the same person? I see the ticket in use for the image File:Nilgiri_marten_by_N_A_Nazeer.jpg but the image is attributed to N A Nazeer. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sreejithk2000: As far as I can see they are two separate and unrelated people (although I’d be happy to be wrong). I have raised the question with the uploader on their talkpage. I am assuming this section is resolved as far as the original matter is concerned. Green Giant (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Verification

Hi there! I wonder if you could help me verifying all of these images permissions Angelena Bonet related to the ticket:2017111110001891. The email was sent last night by the copyright owner and producer which is Angelena Bonet herself. (Giuliano Verducci (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Giuliano Verducci: Are you sure about the ticket number? Is it right? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was missing the 2 in 2017.... I've fixed the link. Guanaco (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket has been resolved at OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frage zu Ticket Nr. 2017111710008319 / Pneumobil_Award-Verleihung.jpg

Hallo, ich beziehe mich auf ein Ticket Nr. 2017111710008319. Es geht um das Bild: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Pneumobil_Award-Verleihung.jpg. Können Sie mir bitte mitteilen, warum die bisher eingegangene E-Mail noch nicht Ihren Anforderungen für eine Freigabe genügt. Was muss der Urheber noch beibringen? Was ist falsch?

Hello, I am referring to ticket no. 2017111710008319. It is about the picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Pneumobil_Award-Verleihung.jpg. Can you please tell me why the e-mail to permissions@ does not meet your requirements for approval. What else does the author have to teach? What is wrong?

Vielen Dank für Ihre Hilfe. / Thanks for your help. --LuBae (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LuBae: Currently the ticket is in a queue waiting for one of our German-speaking volunteers to answer it. Guanaco (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2017111710008319 has been answered at OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File deleted - File:David Klarner, George Polya, Nicolaas G de Bruijn.jpg

Dear Commons:

On 2 November 2017 User:JuTa deleted File:David Klarner, George Polya, Nicolaas G de Bruijn.jpg from Commons, saying it "has been deleted from Commons because: No OTRS permission since 2017-08-07". But I have copies of the email correspondence regarding authorization between the wife of David Klarner (who was the photographer) and OTRS. So I am not clear what the problem is or how to address it. JuTa suggesting raising the question here: any suggestions?--Toploftical (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toploftical: The communication was probably unsatisfactory, what is the ticket number? — Jeff G. ツ 18:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On searching, the last e-mail from "Toploftical" was about File:DIAS_1942_photo.jpg - 274 days ago. Nothing newer is showing. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No further emails received as yet under the photographer's name, the filename or the username. Green Giant (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of copyright requested

hi friend,

The magazine I work for is interested in using this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meena_founder_of_RAWA_speaking_in_1982.jpg

The site says that wikimedia has received documentation verifying that owner of the photo has placed it in the creative commmons: ticket #2009020710021864.

Is there any way I can access that verification?

feel free to email at simon.tikkun(at)gmail.com

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.164.129.134 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, but you may comply with one of the licenses on that file or construct an email address from User:Rawa77. — Jeff G. ツ 23:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify please

The Commons OTRS page continues to refer to "forwarding" permission from a third party. I have been successful numerous times over the years in persuading copyright holders to donate their work to Commons, and verifying this by forwarding an email received to OTRS. The last time I did this was in September. Today I received an email from an OTRS volunteer saying that forwarded emails are no longer accepted for "legal reasons". The volunteer refuses to discuss when this supposed rule was adopted. Is this a real thing? Perhaps if it is the wording of the policy should be amended, unless the intention is to catch out people like me who spend hours acquiring content, months in the waiting list, only to run into an unpublished "gotcha" and an unhelpful volunteer. John (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I don’t know about "legal reasons" and "gotchas" but please note item 3 at Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder, which is the procedure that should be used in such circumstances. I appreciate that persuading authors takes time and energy but it is only logical that either the permission should come directly from the author or if it is forwarded through yourself that it should include the author in the CC field, and the OTRS volunteer should reply to both you and the author to verify it. 99% of forwarded emails are genuine but in the past there have been a few people who have constructed email chains without the knowledge of the author. Verification is really intended to catch out such people. I hope that clarifies some of the mystery of OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So I guess from the response I received that I am suspected of being one of the 1% of fraudulent responders. That doesn't make me feel good about my efforts. I think I still have a problem with how my request was dealt with. John (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err... no, that’s not what I wrote. How exactly do you expect verification to take place if there were no precautions and volunteers didn’t use a little suspicion occasionally? What would be the point if we were to blindly accept every license statement? You probably don’t see it but we delete about 10-15,000 files every week, uploaded by people who claim copyright on files that are mostly authored by someone else. If we were to accept every claim of copyright, then Commons would probably have several million copyright-violating images. It is only because of verification by volunteers that we tackle so many files, here, at OTRS, and the other Wikimedia sites. I’m genuinely sorry if you feel targeted but perhaps you should look at the wider picture. Realistically, would you accept a claim by me that I am the Jolly Green Giant? I would be surprised if you did but that’s the scale of the problem - hundreds of abusers of trust making it difficult for the rest of us, not to mention the thousands of trolls and sock-puppeteers that have to be blocked regularly so they don’t cause chaos. Green Giant (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin at en:wiki so you may assume I understand the issues. The bit I have a problem with was where I asked "when did this rule come in?" And the reply was: "thank you, but I refuse to discuss this meta question." That isn't ok with me. John (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John and Green Giant: I did the research. It came in 14:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC), over three years ago. — Jeff G. ツ 08:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don’t recall exactly what prompted that change but thank you for looking it up Jeff. I believe it was a longstanding practice amongst most OTRS volunteers but it just hadn’t been updated on that page. Green Giant (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble. Two responses from me; one, I have had many uploads approved since 2014 by forwarding permission. How many have proved to be fraudulent? Zero. Two, it's unfortunate to keep using the word "forward" when this is ostensibly forbidden. What a mess. John (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve changed the wording at COM:OTRS to match general practice. In future please ask the author to contact us directly but that shouldn’t stop you from contacting OTRS anyway. Green Giant (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. It hasn't been general practice for me in the past three years but I will certainly do that for any future uploads I may make. For this time, could someone possibly approve File:Haroldstrachanvideostill.jpg unless they have serious doubts about the genuineness of the forwarded email? Thanks a lot. John (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Done. Green Giant (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. John (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change CC terms of my photo use.

Hi! I'm Alex Snow (this is one of my photo used in Wikimedia) and I want to change CC right for all my photos from CC BY-SA to CC BY-NC-SA because there is a lot of illegal non-attributed use of my photos in different resources lately.

Alex Snow —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.252.20.210 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not change the license because the license is irrevocable. However, if they are failing to provide attribution, that is already against the terms of the CC BY-SA and changing the license to CC BY-NC-SA won't prevent them from illegally reusing your photos. If you wish to stop them from using your photos illegally, it is up to you to send notices to them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, prohibiting those wanting to use the files in compliance with the licensing terms from using the files commercially will do nothing to change the behavior of those who already choose to ignore the existing license requirements. Anything that's published risks being used illegally, regardless of the licensing terms.

Here on Commons, we do care about license requirements and about free licenses. Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike is not a free license, and we don't host non-free content, so that license is incompatible with this site. Furthermore, Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked. This also means that you cannot impose more restrictive terms on content that's already been distributed under a free license.

You can of course choose to stop distributing new works under a free license. That means we won't be able to host them here. If you choose to do so, you should e-mail [email protected] from the same e-mail you used to send the original permission. Regards, —LX (talk, contribs) 00:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LX, sorry to budge in the discussion. However, can the author replace the existing larger versions with smaller versions as a compromise in order to preserve his own rights and retain the existing acceptable licenses? George Ho (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho: No. Opinions differ on whether it's even possible to grant different licenses for different resolutions of the same work, but if a high resolution version has already been published under a free license, there is definitely no basis for later demanding that it be taken down and replaced with a lower resolution version. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of ticket #2017042710014575

The file for OTRS ticket #2017042710014575 is listed as a non-free logo on the English Wikipedia (File:Ihg lkp vt rgb mango 200px.jpg). Can you please confirm the licensing, as the file seems to be eligible for Commons transfer? Thanks, Daylen (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daylen: That permission is only for English Wikipedia. However, the {{PD-textlogo}} template on File:InterContinental-Hotels-Group-Logo.svg should cover the transfer. — Jeff G. ツ_{ping or talk} 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, Jeff G.. I have went ahead and uploaded a new version of the 2017 logo to the Commons. Happy holidays, Daylen (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Daylen (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodney Bewes 2004.jpg

Ticket:2017121210005785
Cropped versions: File:Rodney Bewes 2004 (cropped).jpg and File:Rodney Bewes 2004 (cropped - headshot).jpg

The photographer has sent an email containing statement of permission. I have been waiting for (nearly) 14 days for a response from an OTRS agent. Not one response within those days I have received. Also, I have forwarded all email exchanges between me and the photographer while using the ticket number in subject headers, so the authorship is cleared up (I hope). George Ho (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 37 days before the e-mail is processed. — Jeff G. ツ 00:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket replied to via OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:JonathanGMeath.jpeg

Could someone verify this, please? This ticket has been already used in File:Jonathan G Meath portrays Santa Claus.jpg. --jdx ^Re: 13:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdx: the ticket only refers to File:Jonathan G Meath portrays Santa Claus.jpg but not the one you are asking about. The only other relevant ticket is ticket:2012112610008598, which refers to File:Santa Claus portrayed by Jonathan Meath 2.jpg, File:Santa Claus portrayed by Jonathan Meath 3.jpg, and File:Santa Claus portrayed by Jonathan Meath 4.jpg. Green Giant (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File deleted on 5 January 2018 because of No-Permission. Green Giant (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: 1Green Giant (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manaf Halbouni - Bus Monument

Es gibt eine Freigabe für das Monument 2017050310010139 und eine weitere 2017111110005109. Kann ich unter einer dieser beiden Freigaben meine eigenen Bilder vom Monument in Berlin hochladen oder würde das von keiner der beiden Freigaben abgedeckt??

--C.Suthorn (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can one of the tickets be used on photographs of the monument in Berlin? --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difficulty with this question? --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: ticket:2017050310010139 and ticket:2017111110005109

@C.Suthorn: The difficulty is a lack of time for a volunteer to attend to each ticket and request. As far as I understand it (note my German skills are minimal and I have relied on Google Translate), but the tickets appear to be only for specific images rather than a general permission. The temporary nature of the display of this work makes it ineligible for {{FoP-Germany}} to apply. If this is indeed the case, we might have to review the other files in that category. @Achim55: or @Krd: please could you confirm or more likely correct my guesswork? Green Giant (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55, Krd, and Green Giant: I had asked the same question some weeks ago an OTRS member via wikimail, but did not get an answer. The 201705 ticket came from a mail, Halbouni sent to OTRS. I had given him information on what to include to give permission for all his works at all places. But I do not know, if he gave permission for the busses only or all his work and for Dresden only or all places. A number of files (by me and others) were undeleted based on that ticket, there are still deleted files from Dresden, that are probably covered by that ticket. I have no idea what the 201711 ticket covers, but I wonder how quick it came, as I myself found the communication with Halbouni slow and cumbersome. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, but I'm no OTRS member. --Achim (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Suthorn: You can usually work out the date from the first six digits of the ticket number e.g. 2017050310010139 was sent to Wikimedia on 3 May 2017, and 2017111110005109 on 11 November 2017. @Achim55: thanks for replying. For some reason I thought you were an OTRS member. Green Giant (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still have images of the opening of the installation in Berlin, Halbouni being interviewed, and the dismantled installation. Can I upload the files or not? --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ähh, @Krd: ping? --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Die oben genannten Tickets gelten nur für konkret benannte Bilder, können also für neue Bilder nicht verwendet werden. --Krd 11:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Manaf Halbouni hat das Ticket auf alle Berliner Monument-Bilder erweitert. C.Suthorn (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Releases from prison inmates?

I reached out to the producers of the podcast Ear Hustle, which is created by inmates of San Quentin State Prison in California, to ask if they would be willing to release a picture or two with a CC license. They responded to my email with interest, with two images attached. Upon talking further, however, I found out the images were created by inmates (one an illustration and one a photo). Neither of the creators were paid for their work, so it doesn't seem likely that anyone other than the inmates themselves would own the copyright. Getting messages in and out can be challenging, though, and they almost certainly do not have access to email. What is the best way to proceed, assuming the creators do want these images released?

I can think of three approaches:

Is there a way the producers working with the creators could act as proxy to convey intent to release the images?
Perhaps the podcast's website could post a CC license with those images somewhere (although this is also a proxy act, since it would be the employees of PRX/Radiotopia rather than the creators themselves who maintain the website)?
Perhaps there's a postal address to send permission to OTRS?

Something else? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Apologies for the late reply but I needed to think of a possible solution (no point posting unless there is something to say). Firstly, I don’t think prisoners count as federal employees (involuntarily being in prison and all that), unless they sign a contract of employment, which might possibly be the case with some forms of work they do. Secondly, as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a postal address to send it to (unless they want to send it to Jimmy Wales's home address?!). Thirdly, not to cast aspersions on the producers but how would an OTRS volunteer determine that the copyright holder had indeed licensed the work? Normally when people send an email to OTRS, we ask the copyright holder to contact us directly because there have been instances of forged forwarded email chains. If the producers are the only channel of communication with these prisoners, I might suggest that they create a very short video in which the prisoner holds up a signed license declaration (see the template at COM:ET), identifies themselves as the creator of a particular work, and confirms that the work will be sent to OTRS by email from the producer. If that video were to be posted on the producers website, and a link provided so an OTRS volunteer could watch it, that would help the verification process. Perhaps it might even be better to just send the video as an attachment. Of course, we should bear in mind that the prisoners will probably need prison authorisation to engage in such a transaction, but that’s a different issue. I hope that answers your questions. Green Giant (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Giant: Thanks. I see the problem of receiving releases by proxy (via producers in this case). Video would not be feasible (the creators of the podcast actually started out thinking about a video documentary, but video involved too many bureaucratic challenges). If it's a handwritten sort of thing, I can understand where that wouldn't typically hold up since it's easy to forge, but if the intermediary is a very well known, reputable organization like the Public Radio Exchange, perhaps it would be good enough? An audio release is also possible, maybe. Ultimately, I suppose, the easiest way is going to be to just have update the official website to include a CC license. After all, if that were the case to begin with we wouldn't have any reason to call it into question, and if there were an issue where the actual creator didnt' release it, their issue would be with the publisher, not with Commons (as with any other official website)... tricky one, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]