Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/Archive 10

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

File:Amy_Pond.jpg

Would someone be kind enough to check File:Amy_Pond.jpg? Specifically if there is permission from the BBC as well as the photographer as this appears to be a derivative work of a copyrighted TV character. File:Karen_Gillan_as_Amy_Pond.jpg and File:The_Eleventh_Doctor_and_Amy_Pond.jpg are also questionable. Thanks! Daburow (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No permission from BBC, but I don't think the appearance of people in normal clothing is copyrightable. If they were wearing very elaborate customized costumes, or if it was a photo of a Dalek, there may perhaps be a copyright claim. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokie. Thanks again for the info.Daburow (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AC FCC.jpg

Here's a messy one for ya.

On 2009-10-29, Talklikeagentlemen (talk, contribs, log) uploaded a photo from Life Magazine, taken by Chung Sung-Jun for Getty Images, under the filename File:AC FCC.jpg (history, log).

Nine minutes later, they uploaded a completely different photo on top of that, taken from somewhere on http://homepage.mac.com/fsphotobox/ according to the edit summary. Some digging around reveals that it is this photo from this page, which says "Do not reproduce without permission."

After that, 71.234.26.244 removed all information related to the first revision of the file from the {{Information}} template and replaced it with a reference to http://homepage.mac.com/fsphotobox/ and the claim that an OTRS volunteer had verified the permission for this file, with a reference to otrs:2007070710003191. (Of course, 71.234.26.244 is not an OTRS agent, and no OTRS agent has gone near this file.) They then replaced the {{No license}} tag from the original upload with another OTRS tag for good measure. (They later removed the first one. However, they never added a license tag.) They then removed an {{Uncategorized}} tag (of course without adding categories) and added back the {{No license}} tag, only to put it back together with another copy of the {{Information}} template.

Phew! So: please check if otrs:2007070710003191 or any other permission applies to either revision and delete any revisions not covered. Please add an applicable license tag, if any, and clean up the file description page. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 20:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed does; also see Category:Photographs_from_Homepage.mac.com/fsphotobox. I'll delete the other revision--DieBuche (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Deep OTRS permission confusion?

Could someone check whether the OTRS permission for File:Gram4.jpg (non-explicit, no nudity, a cropped head shot) also applies to File:Sabrina Deep adjusted.jpg (uncropped, contains nudity, NSFW)? It seems that the "adjustment" here was to resurrect the uncropped original version of the cropped image. Is it acceptable to do this without checking with OTRS? Note that the cropping occurred immediately after upload of File:Gram4.jpg (in February 2009), and the OTRS permission was added after this, and the uncropped earlier version was uploaded separately in February 2010. The OTRS ticket number is 2517651. The original uploader doesn't have any other edits (apart from this), but I will notify User:Tabercil, the uploader of the later uncropped version. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Tabercil has commented here about this matter. Hopefully that is enough information for an OTRS volunteer to decide what to do here. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the assumption is right (I don't know) but that's a very, very "weak" permission anyway. Neither do we know who the copyright holder is, nor does the ticket contain information about the photographer. There's not even any mention of a specific license ("You [i.e. the eventual uploader, Pill] can make any use you want of it, including the four uses you asked it for (redistribution, creation and redistribution of creative works, etc)"). Ms., erm, "Deep" sent a picture along with the email the uploader forwarded to us, but, unfortunately, I have no idea if this was the original version of the image or already an edited version. Proposal: Delete -- at least -- File:Sabrina Deep adjusted.jpg. —Pill (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the OTRS permission was insufficient? If so, then yes, please do delete and is it possible to review other OTRS tickets that may have the same problem? How common is it for OTRS permissions to be as weak as this? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sameer Iqbal Patel.jpg

I tagged the image as missing permission a couple of days ago[1]. Today an OTRS ticket has been added by a user who doesn't appear to be an OTRS volunteer[2]. Could someone check that ticket relates to the image in question? --JD554 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket relates to it. But why was it approved? The guy writes: "the photo was taken by a friend", but only provides permission from himself--DieBuche (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am an OTRS volunteer. My mistake: I had improperly assumed that "a friend" was sufficient just as "my wife" has been viewed as sufficient in the past. I will refrain from uploading images sans direct permission in the future. However, I would appreciate a note at my talkpage so that I may take care of such a request personally. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 15:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't think you were an OTRS volunteer as you aren't listed at m:OTRS/personnel. --JD554 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail delivery failure?

I keep getting "this message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: 

[email protected]
  retry time not reached for any host after a long failure period"

Am I doing something wrong or is the email down?--Kolrobie (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The server was down last afternoon, please just resend the mail, it "should" work again--DieBuche (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2008030310010794 Bollywood Hungama/IndiaFM

We have an old ticket for images from Bollywood Hungama/IndiaFM. Ticket has an owner and new mails does therefore not show up like other new ticket as far as I can tell. That results in things like Commons:Deletion requests/bollywoodhungama uploads by Legolas + User_talk:MGA73#New_message. I have checked the ticket and I'm not sure what to do. If image is from www.bollywoodhungama.com and it is not of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters then it should be ok. But what should we do. Should we add a extra {{OTRS}}? And does anyone think we should NOT approve the new images? --MGA73 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole template, {{Cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}}, is a mess. The description specifically says that all images "must be verified, individually or in small batches, by OTRS". An image like File:Genelia D'Souza (cropped).jpg has an extra OTRS permission. So for this image the template is redundant, because bollywoodhungama.com can be credited without it and a link to the original image is added anyway. On the other hand, many users upload stuff from the website thinking it's all okay because the template shows an OTRS permission and it's not clear for non-OTRS users what is legit. The template should be deleted, it's just causing unclarity for anyone not able to read OTRS tickets - to me MGA73's seems to contradict the description for example. Hekerui (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contradict? The permission only covers images taken by their own photographers and that is why the permission does not cover screenshots, wallpapers or promotional poster because it could be copyrighted by others. If that is what you mean :-) But I agree that the approval process is a bit strange. Anyone should be allowed to upload images from that webpage as long as they are covered by the permission. Template should be so clear that OTRS volounteers do not need to check every image. --MGA73 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree with Hekerui in this case. That template is really a mess. If it is agreed between BollywoodHungama and Commons that only specific images by their photographerss are allowed here, then what is the need for extra permission? Hekerui's example of theGenelia image is a very good example. I have two proposals. 1) Can we have a consensus to change the template and reflect the fact that "for images taken by Bollywoodhungama photographers at parties and events" this template is fine and the image is acceptable. Else, 2) What we are doing, uploading a batch of pictures from their website, adding the OTRS pending tag and sending a mail, while waiting for gazillion years for a volunteer to come and update, since OTRS is slower than a 6 month toddler. I would like to have a consensus for my first proposal please, if its ok with you guys. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 09:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem that we were dreading of. Upon creating the licence, User:Riana and I had decided that an extra step needed to be added in order to avoid the mess that we had with the whole BollywoodBlog licence. With the BollywoodBlog licence, people would just upload an image and attach the licence with it (this caused it to be deleted), and apparently people are doing the same with the Bollywood Hungama licence now. In order to avoid the mess we had with the other licence, we decided that it would be better to upload an image from the site and add an OTRS pending template to it. Following this, we would then send a message to OTRS indicating that we had uploaded the following images that needed to be ticketed. The template documentation clearly states, "Don't just upload images from there and put this license on it - all images from Bollywood Hungama must be verified, individually or in small batches, by OTRS. This may be considered inconvenient, but it is a lot more inconvenient for people to have to delete all the images because one person may have done it wrong." -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, actually deleting wrong files is more convenient & quicker than having to check them all separately--DieBuche (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But no one is going through all the new images uploaded periodically to check, right? Which makes copyright violations unavoidable. I don't think Commons should (implicitly) encourage copyvios by being so convoluted - that does more harm than good, no? Hekerui (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there are 120 in the cat & seems unlikely it gonna rise immensely soon. I would be willing to check the cat monthly and nuke any "screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters"--DieBuche (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's doesn't address what I perceive as unclarity of the template. Can't we change this so the issue doesn't arise anymore in the future, independent of admins checking periodically (which is so backwards imo)? The template is so conditionally worded, whereas a proper OTRS permission on a page to me normally indicates a process of approval is finished and not "so lala" and dependent on continued checks? The second OTRS solves this but... well as said above, this is all so convoluted. Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about that:
I'll add a parameter status= to the template. Files then can be reviewed by admins or image-reviewers by setting status=reviewed & user=Signature of user. If the parameter is empty they go to Category:Unreviewed images from IndiaFM Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama, a subcat of Files for Review --DieBuche (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted to see it first so here it is. Compare this reviewed image with this unreviewed one. Not beautyful, but it does the job--DieBuche (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea but don't you think seven days is too short for an image to be reviewed. I raise this concern due to the previous method of uploading images. I had sent a message to OTRS indicating that I had uploaded a couple of new images that needed to be ticketed. It has been about a month and a half, and I have had no response from them. Anyways, I think it might help that admins or image-reviewers from Commons are reviewing the images now. I support this. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be simplified further, by a group of admins or volunteers. monitoring the IndiaFM category. Once a new image is added to the category, the admin can check to see if the image is from Bollywood hungama.com and whether it is a party/social event image. If so, then fine, if not, the admin deletes teh image. This can be pretty easy, instead of waiting for so many days for a silly OTRS. I can vouch myself as a volunteer if you want. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you check the addition of a new image to the category? No, I like the checking of the template by an OTRS person/admin better. Hekerui (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but then again we have the problem of time span. Seven days, as pointed out by Bollywood Dreamz, is too short a span for the images, and once deleted, admins woun't be able to check from the category. Anyways, if we indeed go by DieBuche's method, we need to update the template to reflect the category. Can we have a consensus on this? -- Legolas from Mirkwood 10:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the review part. I do not think deletion should happen as a "no think auto action". Just let it happen like Flickrreview and other review. Images stay in "Review needed" until someone reviews the photo. If the image fails because it is unfree then nuke it and if there is no link then add a "nsd" and delete after 7 days. --MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "It will be deleted within seven days if not done so." so we do not make someone panic or risk that admins start to delete the images. We can still see the red text but I suggest we do not add a deletion notice before we agre how/what/when. --MGA73 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, this sounds like a good idea as this method would prove to be a lot faster and helpful to everyone using the licence. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even i support this idea of having a Flickrreview like thing for the IndiaFM images. It would make things so much easier for the admins, uploaders and reviewrs too. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then we do it like as a review and no mail should be forwarded to OTRS. Unreviewed files are in Category:Unreviewed images from IndiaFM Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama and reviewed in Category:Images from IndiaFM Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama. --MGA73 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful MGA73. Now we need to find a group of volunteers and admins like Flickrreview, who can update the template after reviewing it. Do we create a proposal for it? Also there needs to be a link in the IndiaFM template page, regarding this consensus we achieved here. -- Legolas from Mirkwood 05:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to Template:LicenseReviewMenu and I think/hope that trusted reviewers in time will help review the files that needs to be reviewed. So I do not think we need a group. If we get the relevant script changed so it also "knows" the new template it should be possible to review with one click. We just need to make sure that the "rules" on the relevant page (perhaps Category:Unreviewed images from IndiaFM Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama are so clear that it is possible to review the files without reading the permission in OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much MGA73 for your help with this licence. I really appreciate it!! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note categories have been changed and links updated. --MGA73 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:Mygodorphan981023

Could I get a quick check on File:MKDD Toadkart.jpg and File:File-ToadracingMK64.jpg, which are both tagged as {{OTRS pending}}? I rather doubt that Nintendo gave permission for Mygodorphan981023 to claim to be the author of their work. I know there's a backlog, but I'd rather not see that exploited to delay deletion of obvious copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete them, if we should ever get permission we'll restore them.--DieBuche (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hallgrimskirka organ reykjavik.JPG

Could someone please ensure my permission to use File:Hallgrimskirka organ reykjavik.JPG is actioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougsim (talk • contribs) (UTC)

The image is nominated for deletion because COM:FOP#Iceland requires that the creator of that structur, which is the main subject of the image, either agree to the license added or be dead 70 years. Please see the deletion discussion. Hekerui (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check for Tim Okamura images

I see there have been three images uploaded by User:Nancynatalia of Tim Okamura paintings: File:01to2005King.jpg, File:08to2008Liberty.jpg and file:14to2009StayStrong.jpg. The user uploaded an image last month by the same person which does have an OTRS associated with it, albeit insufficient according to the tag, at File:La Familia for web.jpg. Would the wording present for ticket for La Familia cover the three new images, or would a new ticket be required from Nancynatalia? Tabercil (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dustbin Baby (film) photos

Can someone confirm ticket #2010021610040172 for me? It appears that it was uploaded by J Millburn (talk · contribs) who applied the ticket to the three files at upload. I would like to make sure because it appears that the license information was e-mailed and processed by this user. The photos in question are: File:Dustbin Baby- April in the graveyard.jpg, File:Dustbin Baby- April.jpg and File:Dustbin Baby- April and Marion.jpg. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket is valid (meaning the copyright holder indeed released those images under the license indicated). J Milburn is an OTRS volunteer (publicly disclosed at Meta). Эlcobbola talk 22:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just wanted independent verification, because it could be construed wrong for people to approve their own tickets. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

permissions to use CT image of head outside of Wikipedia.

My name is. . . and I just want to be sure that I can use a CT image for an article that I am writing the I found in wickpedia. I [[3]]

I am wondering where I need to look to use this file as far as permission from the original author and commons rights it is for attribute and share alike. Who is the contact person, Is what I need to know

Sincerely, . . .

See COM:REUSE. You do not need any more permission to reuse the image, as long as you follow the terms of the listed license. If you need different terms of release, then you can contact the copyright holder. You can find that info under the "author" and "source" fields on the image description page. This particular image is sourced to a Flickr user, so you are going to have to contact them through Flickr (assuming the existing license isn't good enough for you) if you need additional permission. -Andrew c (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

A few days ago I forwarded my email exchange with a photographer to OTRS. So far there has been no response. How long it usually takes to get one? Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About five weeks at the moment. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. sounds like you guys need an extra pair of hands. Ericleb01 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check please

Hello. Is there any ticket for the following files?

  1. File:Redondo.jpg
  2. File:Fernando Hierro.jpg

They're marked with {{OTRS pending}} and suspicions of copyvios, flikcrwashing and OTRS faking have arised. Thanks you in advance. --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything in permissions-queue. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Stalin.jpg

How was permission to use this picture obtained and verified?Kurzon (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the person who sent that permission pretends to be the son of Margaret Bourke-White, ticket is closed as successful but I don't see anything proving the fact that [email protected] is the son of the photographer Rubin16 (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackheadedhoneyater.JPG

Hi, File:Blackheadedhoneyater.JPG was uploaded by me on the 19th July. The photographer and copyright holder emailed through a permission at the time. Just nudging as I do have a cc of the request in case it got lost somewhere. cheers, Casliber (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons permissions queues are backlogged by about 5 weeks, so please have patience. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Are more OTRS volunteers required then? Casliber (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
received, in process Rubin16 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roberthurt.jpg

Can someone in the OTRS verify this image? Truthsort (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has a permission email been sent to permission-commons@wikimedia.org? If it was sent in the last 45 days, it is in a queue awaiting processing. Please be patient. Otherwise, please provide the first half of the email address it was sent from, or the ticket number if known. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
permission verified Rubin16 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian Constitution Act Signing.jpg

What is the status of the OTRS request for File:Canadian Constitution Act Signing.jpg (or was an OTRS request even filed)? The image was uploaded three months ago, and there is another editor anxious to nominate it for deletion if it turns out that there is no permission to license the image in accordance with Commons requirements. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find an OTRS request for that file after a fair degree of searching; would like another OTRS volunteer to confirm this as well though. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found it, too. Rubin16 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for trying! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scc orgcht.gif

I noticed that there is an OTRS ticket request posted on this image. However, the image is merely an accurate organizational flow chart of a government entity. It is highly unlikely that any sort of copyright protection would apply to this image. It should be treated as a public domain image based on its lack of copyrightable subject matter. BD2412 T 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still needs to be identified with the proper license and submitted with that license by the copyright holder. Incidentally, we encourage other file formats than gif for illustrations. Asav (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the submission and I'm giving it the proper credentials now. Asav (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Of course you may always label an image {PD-ineligible} if applicable, no matter whether OTRS is involved. @Asav: If there's no copyright protection at all, why would we need a license? —Pill (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gerard Pieter Adolfs - 1938 Nr 3 Passertoneeltje-Sidohardjo OOP 30 40.JPG

Hi, can someone check if the OTRS ticket on this file is valid (and fill in the correct ticket number)? The painting itself is not PD (the author died in 1968), and I'd like to know what the credit line should read. The license requires attribution, and right now, it's mis-attributed. –Tryphon☂ 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand German (so, I can't verify permission itself) but I see OTRS-number here - corrected the description Rubin16 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that one's been my ticket (as you can see on deWP). The one giving permission is the granddaughter of the painter and - according to her mail - the current copyright holder. I didn't see reason to challenge that claim (which she stated in her mail), and the sending email address matched the website that's given as "source" on the deWP as well. --Guandalug (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, I'll just use the author's name for attribution then, since there was no special requirements. –Tryphon☂ 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MargoRey02.jpg

Anything ok with this? The user who added the ticket is not listed on meta:OTRS/personnel. --Martin H. (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to tell him to add himself, then - for he's indeed an OTRS member, and the ticket's genuine. --Guandalug (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ill ask on COM:BN to add him to the OTRS group. Done here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tupolev Tu-95 Marina.jpg

Hello,

Sorry, I am new to this. I am looking for verification/evidence that this file:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tupolev_Tu-95_Marina.jpg

was licensed as the listed "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" by the copyright holder.

Thank you

Robert Morgan

I can't find any (aside, the license on the image page was wrong, so I've fixed it). Do you have additional information? —Pill (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slt,j'aimerais bien ajouter un logo a otrs mais je ne sais pas comment pourriez vous me reponndre s'il vous plait

Marina never gave permission under CC-BY-SA. She ONLY gave permission under GFDL 1.2. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence was added by another editor/bot as part of the licencing migration. This is NOT on, and all migration changes need to be checked and verified. I know this because I am the one who knows Marina and got her permission to use her photos on Commons. --russavia (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HersfoldOTRSBot to run later tonight

Hey OTRS volunteers,

Just so that you all know, I'm going to run User:HersfoldOTRSBot later tonight. This bot goes through Category:OTRS pending and marks for deletion anything that's been sitting there for over a month. If the image has an {{OTRS received}} tag on it instead, it sends the OTRS volunteer who put it there a note reminding them to follow up with the uploader. This bot hasn't been run in several months, so there will be quite a large number of requests for it to process; consequently, you should all expect a sudden influx of permission emails and/or talk page notices. If you have any questions, please let me know, and I'll try to get them answered before I hit the big green button. Hersfold (talk/work) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good (but isn't the button always red?)--DieBuche (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elmbrant.jpg

I sent an otrs email on 2010-06-07 15:58, and another one a minute ago. Please confirm it will not be deleted. See also this bot message on my talkpage. Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mail received, I've marked file with "OTRS received" but I don't know Swedish, so ticket is pending Rubin16 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gutenberg Bible, New York Public Library, USA. Pic 01.jpg

Permission just sent. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found it... when was it sent? Any additional information would be helpful Rubin16 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, it's now the 3rd time I am obliged to deal with this, and to the best of my knowledge I've always complied to the procedural rules.
  • Email title: File:Gutenberg Bible, New York Public Library, USA. Pic 01.jpg
  • Sent to: [email protected]
  • Sent at: 3 September 2010, 18:00 CET
  • See attachment (Word file) for permission. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket 2010090310007327, per permission header this file was released only for Wikipedia, which makes the file no allowable here, but on flickr is under CC-BY 2.0. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to 2010041710018727: in April you were asked to confirm that author\flickr-user is aware of that OTRS-ticket - there was no answer, so ticket is still pending Rubin16 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete it. I've wasted enough time with the matter. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it can be kept because I marked flickrreview there, there is no need to use OTRS Rubin16 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files you uploaded may be deleted

Dear friends, I received a message with a warning for deletion. Pls note, I sent the "permission to use" twice several months ago. Pls let me know what else should I do?

Regards, --Edwod2001 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "OTRS received", somebody, who knows Spanish, will handle the ticket Rubin16 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, asked a few things to uploader before proceeding. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your sopport --Edwod2001 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket?

Do we have a ticket for File:Jared Falk.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)? Thanks, --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found nothing Rubin16 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel McCoughtry with Geno original.JPG and others

I received a message from OTRSBot indicating that you cannot find record of the email.

I originally thought I was supposed to ask the photographer to send the email. However, he mentioned to me that when he sent one, he was told it was OK for him to send the email to me, and I could forward it. In the case of these files, I thought he sent me a courtesy copy of his email to you, but perhaps he only sent it to me. It was sent to me 9 May. I will have forward[ed] the email to you.

Files:

--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle Mountains and Joshua Trees.jpg

Dear Friends,

I received a message on my talk page that File:Castle Mountains and Joshua Trees.jpg may be deleted because it has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. I sent the permission via e-mail and on 2010-07-23, a Wikimedia volunteer indicated that everything was in order: 

On 7/23/2010 12:47 PM, Permissions - Wikimedia Commons wrote:
Re: [Ticket#2010062410003618] Permission for File:Castle Mountains and Joshua Trees.jpg
> Dear Matthias Blume,
>
> We have received the permission for the Castle Mtns Photo to be licensed as CC-by-
> SA and have made the necessary modifications to the image page.
>
> The CC-by-SA license allows anyone to use it for any purpose, including commercial 
> usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws), as long as they credit 
> the original author.
>
> Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to the Wikimedia 
> Commons.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Leo Koppelkamm

Please update the pages with issues and let me know if there is anything else I need to do to prevent the image from being deleted. Thank you!

Matthias

Ardor3d.png

I sent permission on August 8th to [email protected] but received no confirmation and got another delete notice today. I notice on this board there is a backlog, but just want to poke here to be sure I have not missed a step.

otrs received, asked for more information Rubin16 (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summer Lake Wildlife Area Map.jpg

Just got message that bot deleted image file I uploaded. I’ve submitted required Public Domain confirmation info twice now, but it appears no one reads submissions at "[email protected]". I spent time tracking down someone at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to confirm their maps are in Public Domain as stated on their web-site. I forwarded confirmation e-mail from ODFW staff person along with other required info...twice. Can you give me hint as to how I might get someone at "[email protected]" to read and archive an input or should I just throw in the towel?--Orygun (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, there was reply on your ticket - it was recommended to use {{PD-USGov-Interior-FWS}} Rubin16 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure where ticket info is located or how I get to it? Does that mean someone found my confirmation info or do I need to send it in again? What do I need to do now to fix this?--24.255.107.31 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

I would like to request a permission of an anorthoclase picture that upload in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Anorthoclase-219058.jpg to reprint in my textbook about dental ceramics in Thai language and publish in my country (Thailand). Would you please give me a permission?.

Yous sincerely, Boonlert Kukiattrakoon

This is one of our FAQs, linked at the top of this page: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/FAQ. Please see WP:REUSE. We only host free content, which means we don't own the rights to give you specific permission, but if you follow the terms of the free licensing listed on the individual image page, you are welcome to re-use the content (and if you need a different type of permission, or want different terms than the ones listed, you'll need to contact the actual image copyright holder, which should be listed on the image description page). -Andrew c (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Nolwenn Korbell

The author privately told me that he had forgotten to send the e-mail giving permission to use these photos and that he hadn't realised that the -nc clause was mandatory. He thus requests that these two photos be deleted :

He will shortly send an e-mail authorising the use of File:Nolwenn Korbell singing.jpeg under the CC by-sa licence. Thanks for your time. Oyp (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission addition

Had a pair of images tagged by the Hersfold OTRS bot, and I know there should be a ticket for both of them on file. The file File:Showbizz Bart.jpg was submitted in the same email as File:Kurt Rogiers.jpg (which does have OTRS received on it), so the ticket # for that should be 2010053110052518. And File:April Hunter GCW.JPG was sumitted at the same time as File:April Hunter dog.JPG, which I think is ticket 4875190. Can someone add the appropriate OTRS info to it? Tabercil (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tabercil, I can't find a mention of File:Showbizz Bart.jpg in ticket:2010053110052518. As to File:April Hunter dog.JPG, could you give me a hint where I can find the image? (There are dozens of images attached, do you perhaps have a name for me?). Thanks & sorry for the late reply, —Pill (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original file name for the April Hunter dog photo was kellydogIMG_4258copy.jpg - now you see why I renamed it. <G> As for the Showbizz Bart, it was sent at the same time as the other ones in the zip file. I'll see if I can dig back and find the original email to OTRS... maybe I missed passing notice of the one file along. If you crack open the zip file for that ticket you'll find Showbizz Bart in there under the exact same name. Tabercil (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing this up, I have tagged both images with the respective OTRS tags. You didn't mention File:Showbizz Bart.jpg in the mail body (it was only in the .zip aattachement), that's why I couldn't find the image name anywhere. —Pill (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have sent email on 19.July 2010 but you guys did nto receive any ? We have send it today again!


From: Mark Bosci <[email protected]> Date: 19 July 2010 1:00:28 PM AEST To: [email protected] Subject: Mick Gerace image & content for Wiki entry

Dear Wikipedia Moderator,

RE: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MG_Main_image.jpg

We hereby notify you of the copyright ownership of the above image belongs to Mick Gerace Enterprises Pty Limited.

We commissioned the photo shoot with justine Makes Pictures & we have used this image on the following websites & social pages among other promotional endeavours:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Mick-Gerace/5939147855?ref=search

http://www.myspace.com/mickgerace

If there is anything further you require from us please do not hesitate in contacting me directly at this email address.

M.

Best regards

Mark Bosci | Business Development | Mick Gerace Enterprises Pty Limited | www.mickgerace.c

OTRS received, but you didn't specify a license, a request was sent to that email. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permission received, thank you. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded photos listed for deletation

Today i have got an email where it was mentioned that some uploaded images has lack of permission informations.

In each of the emails i have just forwarded the Authors/ copyright holders email. Where he had mentioned that he is going to release the photos under GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). I think you might missed that parts. please recheck the emails. I have sent the email from the address [email protected]. for your convenient i am adding the email body parts of those authors emails.

for the image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Railway_station_(Old)_of_Chittagong.jpg i have forwarded the email to OTRS on the August 2.the author wrote : 

   >Hi,
   >This is the photo of 'Railway station (Old) of Chittagong' ,Bat tali, Chittagong. 
   >This photo is upload worthy in Wikipedia Chittagong page.
   > 
   > 
   >I release the photo under GNU Free Documentation Licence.
   >
   >Name of the photographer: Shahriar Md Arifur Rahman
   >
   >
   >Best wishes
   >
   >Shahriar
   [...]

about the following images the author wrote

email body: 

   >I release the photos under GNU Free Documentation License
   >
   >
   >by
   >M.A. Rased

-- -- Nasir Khan Saikat (Talk|Contributions) 03:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nasir, thanks for your note. Please be aware that permissions-commons currently is heavily backlogged; however, as far as I can see, the case you mention was dealt with just today. —Pill (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

permission for file File:Flinterzee ploughing through ice.JPG

An email confirming the permission to use the file File:Flinterzee ploughing through ice.JPG under the wiki commons conditions has been sent to the permissions board on Sep 8, stating that the file was created on board of MV Flinterzee, that the file is owned by the shipping company Flinter (Barendrecht, the Netherlands) and that the company is fully aware of the fact that the file is free for use under wiki conditions.

This note has been written by Omgevallenboekenkast

Hi Omgevallenboekenkast, thanks for your message, we have received your email. For the future, please see Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/FAQ, points 1 and 4. —Pill (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyright authorization has been sent - autorisation droits d'auteur envoyée

Message is in French.

Bonjour,

A propos du dernier message sur mon User talk User talk:Vedah Eulalia, l'auteur de la photo Francois_Gere.jpg a envoyé à [email protected] le message suivant, en date du 7 septembre 2010 :

J'atteste par la présente avoir délégué l'utilisateur "Vedah Eulalia" à téléverser sur Wikipédia Commons la photo "Francois_Gere.jpg" dont je suis l'auteur.

Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'oeuvre publiée à l'adresse <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francois_Gere.jpg>.

Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette oeuvre sous la licence Cc-by-nc-sa. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but non commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.

Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits expatrimoniaux 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.

Le 7 septembre 2010, Géré Marie-France, Paris France

Pouvez-vous me confirmer que le nécessaire est fait afin que a photo puisse servir d'illustration pour l'article François Géré et qu'elle ne sera pas supprimée ?

Merci d'avance !

Vedah Eulalia (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La licence cc-by-nc-sa n'est pas libre, et par conséquent pas acceptée sur Commons. –Tryphon☂ 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merci Tryphon ! J'ai donc été mal orientée... ou bien j'ai mal compris les démarches. Pouvez-vous me dire quelle est la licence que l'auteur doit mettre afin que je lui demande de refaire la démarche ? Est-ce que cc-by-sa-nc-nd convient ? Je ne comprends pas très bien pourquoi "CC attribution non-commercial share-alike" ne conviendrait pas, d'ailleurs. Cela me semble tout à fait libre : pouvez-vous m'éclairer ? Vedah Eulalia (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
La licence la plus proche de cc-by-nc-sa qui soit acceptée sur Commons est cc-by-sa. Sinon cc-by, mais c'est une licence encore moins restrictive, qui ne requiert pas le share-alike présent également dans la cc-by-nc-sa. –Tryphon☂ 08:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merci ! Je préviens l'auteur afin qu'elle renvoie le message avec cc-by-sa. Pouvez-vous juste me dire si cela suffira ou s'il faudra que je revienne ici pour en informer. Enfin, pour ma gouverne, pourquoi "non commercial" n'est pas accepté ? On doit donc mettre les images à disposition pour des fins commerciales pour être accepté sur Wikimedia Commons ? Cela semble un peu étrange... Vedah Eulalia (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non, pas besoin de revenir ici, l'email sera traité par un volontaire OTRS (de manière générale, il est préférable de ne pas copier le contenu des emails sur le wiki, pour des raisons de confidentialité). En ce qui concerne les licences acceptées, voici les critères et la justification (en anglais); pour faire court, une licence n'est pas considérée libre si elle restreint certains types d'usages, comme les usages commerciaux par exemple. –Tryphon☂ 09:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merci pour tout ça !Vedah Eulalia (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Die_Ermittlung_Staatstheater_Nuernberg_2009.jpg

Yes check.svg Resolved

I have been informed that a file I uploaded may be deleted at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KWa. The file concerned is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Die_Ermittlung_Staatstheater_Nuernberg_2009.jpg. I have sent the original photographer's permission to the e-mail address [email protected] already on March 15, 2010, but did not receive a reply. I have sent the permission of the original photographer from March 7, 2010, via e-mail to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org right now as well. If anything is not ok with the permission statement, please let me know, then I could contact the original photographer again. Regards, --KWa (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo KWa, grundsätzlich ist es notwendig, dass die Genehmigung durch die Fotografin an unsere Adresse gesendet wird. Aus diesem Grund hat der Bearbeiter eine kurze Mail an die Fotografin geschickt und nachgefragt, ob sie wirklich mit der von dir schon weitergeleiteten Genehmigung einverstanden ist -- leider erfolgte darauf keine Antwort. Im Grunde genommen ist das genau das, was noch fehlt: Sie sollte selbst mit einer Mail an [email protected] bestätigen, dass sie a) Urheberin ist und b) mit der Lizenzierung unter „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ einverstanden ist (du könntest zum Beispiel nochmal bei ihr nachfragen und bitten, uns ins CC zu setzen). Ich hoffe, das hilft dir weiter. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe die Fotografin darum gebeten, die Einverständniserklärung, die sie mir im oben beschriebenen Sinn vor über einem halben Jahr zugestellt hatte, noch einmal an die permission-Adresse zu senden. Ich würde mir allerdings wünschen, dass man freundliche Spender, die mit solchen Aufnahmen immerhin ihren Lebensunterhalt bestreiten, nicht durch mehrfache Nachfragen am Ende vergrätzt. --KWa (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo KWa, ja, das kann ich verstehen und du hast auch völlig Recht, aber es ist manchmal leider nicht immer uneingeschränkt möglich, Freigaben ohne Nachfragen zu akzeptieren. Was mit dem Freigabeprozedere bezweckt wird ist natürlich einerseits, die Wikimedia-Projekte frei von Rechtsverletzungen zu halten und Nachnutzer zu schützen, zum anderen aber natürlich auch, die Rechte von Urhebern zu wahren. Insofern ist es natürlich oftmals kompliziert, aber letztlich wollen wir ebenso wie die Urheber verhindern, dass ihr Werk unrechtmäßig zugänglich gemacht wird. —Pill (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy_Slaughter_MP_Photo.JPG

Yes check.svg Resolved

I can confirm that a representative from the office of Andy Slaughter MP has written to Wikimedia Commons confirming that this image is free to use on Wikipedia. I have received an OTRS notice despite having sent confirmation earlier.

Hi, as far as I can see, there is one email concerning http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andy_Slaughter_MP_Photo.JPG, sent to us 13 minutes ago. Please be patient, as there's currently quite some backlog, and take a look at our FAQ. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Hope that helps, —Pill (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jericho 941 FS 1.jpg

Yes check.svg Resolved

Email with agreement was sent to [email protected] Martin.Stursa (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please note that permissions-commons currently has a huge backlog. For the time being, I've added a note to the image page saying that an email was received but not yet processed. —Pill (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monopoly-heute_ausschnitt.jpg

Yes check.svg Resolved

I have (again) sent the E-Mails, that includes the permission for free use unfortunatly written in german language. I'm afraid the permission is not formally enough. What shall I do? --Mintje (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Mintje, ich habe die E-Mail zu [email protected] verschoben, da die enthaltene Genehmigung in deutscher Sprache verfasst ist (außerdem werden die Mails an diese Adresse in wenigen Tagen, die an permissions-commons in etwa einem Monat bearbeitet, insofern sollte es auch dir eine Zeitersparnis bringen). Der Bearbeiter, der sich um das Ticket kümmert, wird dir weitere Informationen zukommen lassen, was genau für eine Genehmigung benötigt wird. Ich hoffe, das hilft dir schonmal weiter. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, vielen Dank Pill, das ging fix - leider war die Genehmigung bei weitem nicht ausreichend - wie befürchtet. Wird das Bild jetzt gleich gelöscht? Ich habe bereits eine neue Anfrage an den Rechteinhaber gestellt... --Mintje (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Mintje, es sollte nicht allzu schnell gelöscht werden, da es nun mit einem Hinweis auf die laufende E-Mail-Korrespondenz versehen ist; auch in der Löschdiskussion findet sich ein Hinweis auf diese Tatsache, das ist dann in der Regel eine Art "Aufschub". Grüße, —Pill (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saadanius material

Yes check.svg Resolved

I have just emailed the release for the following Saadanius images/video:

I sent an email last night with an improperly stated release while I contacted the researcher who released them, asking for a more properly worded release. I just got the reply this morning, and forwarded his latest email along. If there are any other concerns, just drop a note on my talk page, either here or on enWiki. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Visionholder, thank you for your email. I just merged your latest email with the one from yesterday so that there won't be confusion when we deal with the case. Please note that there is currently a backlog of some weeks, so it may take some time until your emails will be processed. To avoid too quick deletion of the files, I added notes to the image pages saying that we do have an email concerning these files and that it just hasn't been worked on yet. I hope this helps, —Pill (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. I have confidence that it will be handled appropriately. Thank you for your time. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryan Tubridy.jpg

Yes check.svg Resolved

Hi. A bot has left an note on my talk page saying File:Ryan Tubridy.jpg is going to be deleted as there is not any OTRS recorded. I sent all of the relevant correspondence to the email address last August. Should I resend it or what? Thanks, 15:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cargoking, no, you don't need to resend. The email has been processed already (ticket:2010080510006166) -- the volunteer dealing with it sent out an email to Ms. McCormack about three weeks ago, asking her for a specific license for the image. She hasn't responded so far, and unfortunately I have the impression that this response from our side could have been somewhat confusing, among other reasons because she in fact has already chosen a license. So, in short, what we need is confirmation by her personally (sent from her email address) that she's fine with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en). Do you want me to get back to her or would you prefer to ask yourself? —Pill (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to you. It does say though in the email that she will go with the CC-BY option from here, which links to here.  Cargoking  talk  16:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's just about that we need this statement directly from her. —Pill (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up email sent. —Pill (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Received a response and updated the image page. There should be no problems with this file anymore. Thanks for your patience. —Pill (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magyarfutball

Yes check.svg Resolved

Hi, the uploads of Magyarfutball (talk · contributions · Number of edits) are from a website and one can see a ticket number without template in each, but not added by an OTRS volunteer. On the user talk page the user says he/she won't send new permissions and I wonder whether the existing number covers them all. Hekerui (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the website is 'magyarfutball.hu', then it indeed is covered. The ticket is for "everything the user Magyarfutball uploads".... Okay, I'd limit that "everything" to pics from that site, but other than that, I deem the ticket valid. --Guandalug (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons: Atilla Engin File:Atilla_Engin_1.jpg

Yes check.svg Resolved

Hello, I saw a warning notice today issued by Hersfold (t/a/c) respectively.

It said:

  • This image is missing verification of permission. It has an author and source, and it has been claimed that permission has been sent in by email. However, the permission has not been received by the Commons OTRS team for verification.

{{Noticket}}

I was informed that Atilla Engin did indeed send in three e-mails with attached doc, each granting the same permission needed for all photos in the Atilla Engin's Wikimedia Commons Gallery. First one was sent last month, on August 6 2010, second one on September 6 2010, the third one again on same day, September 6 2010. I am concerned about this matter. Would you please let me know whether you can locate these e-mails, so is the permission granted. Thanks a lot. Fusion is the future (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, seconds after I put this note here, I noticed again that the permission was verified and archieved. Thanks again.Fusion is the future (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ersterwähnung Fischen und Rauhenzell im Allgäu.jpg

The following text and the verification-email is in German. Hi, bitte geben Sie die Commons Erlaubnis für die Datei. Die E-mail mit der Erlaubnis des Stiftsarchiv St. Gallen wurde soeben nochmals von mir an [email protected] versandt, nachdem meine erste E-mail an [email protected] keinen Erfolg brachte. Danke, Dennis Keck

Dafür brauchts keine Freigabe. Der Text ist gemeinfrei, die 2D-Reproduktion hat keine Schöpfungshöhe und ist nicht geschützt. Die Datei wird auf Commons mit {{PD-scan|PD-old}} lizenziert und fertig ists. En: No permission required, the text is public domain, the reproduction is not eligible for protection. --Martin H. (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permission of the owner of the document also arrived (2010090510004835) --Neozoon (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, though, why the image page now contains a box saying it is PD and another saying it is CC-by-sa-3.0. This appears to be somewhat contradictory to me. —Pill (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drago Druškovič

Yes check.svg Resolved

Hi, I uploaded a bunch of pieces of art, a while ago, and did not have them "permitted" officially until now, although the artist had verbally promised to give permission, a while ago. I today get the forward of an email he has sent to [email protected], but instead of using "copy+paste" as I had proposed, he had retyped it, thereby creating wrong file names. The identity of said files, and the artist's intention are IMO obvious, anyways.

Question: Can such be handled without bothering the artist any more? I am talking about User_talk:W.#Files_you_uploaded_may_be_deleted and artist's mail sent to "permissions" as of Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:19:13 +0200 from dragoart@...

[w.] 12:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the artist sent a mail with correct data, on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:49:54 +0200, from his standard address. Thisone hopefully is OK now. [w.] 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo W., so wie es jetzt ist sieht es jedenfalls ganz gut aus. Bearbeitet wird die E-Mail allerdings wahrscheinlich erst in einiger Zeit, da derzeit bei [email protected] ein großer Bearbeitungsrückstand besteht. In Zukunft kannst du den Freigabeprozess übrigens auch gerne in deutscher Sprache abwickeln und die Mail dann an [email protected] senden (ist natürlich deine Entscheidung, aber viele Nutzer wissen gar nicht, dass das möglich ist - deshalb meine Information). Ich hoffe, das hilft dir fürs Erste weiter. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ich war einer von den vielen ;)) -- herzlichsten Dank. [w.] 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information required for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eddie_from_Ohio_Band_May_2004.jpg

I submitted an email to OTRS for the the file in the subject line for use in the article on the band "Eddie from Ohio." The ticket number is ticket 2010073010032065. I noticed today that the image now includes a template indicating receipt of the email/assigned ticket number -- but also indicates that the email I submitted did not include sufficient information.

While the email was very specific on the licenses (GFDL/CC-by-sa-3.0) I believe I may know the issue. I hope the following clears things up:

The email with permission from the copyright holder that I submitted came from [email protected] This is an email address used by the band "Eddie from Ohio." The email was signed by Michael Clem who is a member of the band and whose music publishing company is "Virginia Soul Records." Virginia Soul Records owns the image and since that is Michael Clem's publishing company, he has the right to release the image under GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0.

If this is sufficient to resolve the issue, please replace the template on the file with {PermissionOTRS|id=xxxxxx}

If further information is required, please let me know what's required and I'll attempt to run it down.

W0129 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W0129, your email was dealt with yesterday -- we sent out an email to the band asking for confirmation of their permission. This is because generally, OTRS needs the copyright owners/creators personally confirming the license status of their images. Hope this helps, —Pill (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pill -- Again, the original email *did* come from a band member but let me know if you need help if you're not getting a response/answer and I'll dust off the correspondence. Thanks again. W0129 (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that you sent us a forwarded statement of permission from the band -- but the email we have in our system was, as a matter of fact, sent by you, not by the band. We are regularly trying to get permission directly from the right owners, that's why we hope for direct confirmation by the band. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - I think ;) Is this a change from a previous process re: OTRS? I ask because I've previously received GFDL/CC permission from a copyright holder and then forwarded that email to OTRS which was sufficient. Looks like you're requesting a direct copyright holder --> OTRS email to ensure everything's on the "up and up." When I received the original permission email, should I have asked the copyright holder to cc: permissions-commons on the email? Would that have helped?

Sorry if I'm being thick -- just trying to understand so I can make this easier on everyone next time. Thanks! W0129 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definite rule on one versus the other; it is an assessment of "risk" that the OTRS agents make in each case. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stifle - understand, but kind of disappointing. Looks like I did everything correctly (i.e. got an email from the copyright holder, cited the proper licenses, copyright holder even included a signature block indicating his affiliation, etc.) but there's still an outstanding verification question. Again though -- thanks to you/Pill for your help and answers to my questions -- and the offer stands to help get any additional info needed. W0129 (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

أحمد محمد بسيوني

I have sent email at "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" for this 3 pictures

from more tham month and i have taking the agree for publish this picture. If I must send another 3 emails for the 3 pictures please tell me--أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How long ago did you send the email? Was it in Arabic? Stifle (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page deleted - please help!

Can you please tell me why the InfoPrint Solutions Company page was deleted? Thank you.

Can you please specify the filename(s) deleted? Otherwise we will not be able to provide an accurate answer. Thank you, --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And really, you need to be asking at the Wikipedia help desk; this is Commons, where we deal with free images. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aminetu2005.jpg

I dunno why this file is on the deleting list, I've send 2 e-mails to permissions, also it's the only file I've uploaded in this situation, the rest are ok, wether they are equal as this one.Can anyone help me???.HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2010090810006088 - reference to this ticket pending review added to the image page. Fæ (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreeneAlvin.jpg

This page has been around forever, can we get an update on it please? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ticket) - As far as I can see some information has not been provided yet. That information has been requested the 13/07/2010 and as of today we have got no updates on the issue. --Dferg (talk · meta) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:03-09-2010-TychoBrahe.jpg

Yes check.svg ResolvedSee http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A03-09-2010-TychoBrahe.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=43737959&oldid=43734406. —Pill (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Suborbitals HEAT 1X Tycho Brahe at Nexø 03-09-2010.jpg I have obtained the licens from it's owner. An email has been send to OTRS, but as it says that it will be deleted within 7 days (5 days gone) I ask you to check it as soon as possible. Kind regards. Rodejong--Rodejong (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Robert

Jeg, indehaveren af ophavsretten til dette værk, frigiver det hermed til public domain. Dette gælder globalt. Hvis dette ikke er muligt af juridiske årsager: Jeg giver enhver retten til at benytte dette værk til ethvert formål, uden nogen restriktioner, medmindre sådanne restriktioner er krævet i henhold til lov."

Billedet kan tages herfra: http://bornholmeren.net/Foto/Diverse/03-09-2010-TychoBrahe.jpg

Med venlig hilsen Laila Ellinor Stenby www.bornholmeren.net

OTRS verification request at FAC

A request has been made at en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1 for OTRS verification of File:Waldrip Dickinson.jpg. If someone could leave a note on the review page confirming permission, it would be appreciated. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to say the same here, and commented there, as requested. Problem most likely arose from en->commons - transfer. --Guandalug (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010081710005199

User:SGallery, who has previously been blocked for removing problem tags from their uploads (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 22#User:SGallery), and who is not an OTRS volunteer has been replacing {{No permission since}} tags with {{PermissionOTRS}}.[4][5][6][7].

Could I please get someone to check that ticket:2010081710005199 does indeed cover these images and that Галерея Современной Скульптуры и Пластики is indeed the author of the photographs and the depicted artworks as claimed in the file descriptions (keeping in mind that there is no freedom of panorama in Russia either indoors or outdoors)? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is in Russian. —Pill (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it covers this images Rubin16 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And is Галерея Современной Скульптуры и Пластики the author of the depicted artworks? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photos themselves - yes, artworks - no. If you want to discuss the FOP-question, you can open a delete-request Rubin16 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been discussed three times before with deletion as the outcome, but very well, here we go (again): Commons:Deletion requests/Photos of sculptures uploaded by SGallery. For what it's worth, I really think the ticket should have been rejected for these pictures if it doesn't actually apply to what's in them. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

verification

Yes check.svg Resolved

I wanted to ask for verification of the OTRS ticket / proper receiving of the email for the following files (for which a consent email has been sent):

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Detalle_de_la_exposici%C3%B3n_Lamazares_NY.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Pieza_de_serie_lamazares.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Exposici%C3%B3n_en_la_Galer%C3%ADa_Nacional_de_Jordania.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Detalle_de_la_serie_Domus_Omnia.jpg

Thank you very much! Elorodelostigres (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know, we received your email but please take a look at our FAQ, first point. You should remove the {{No permission since}} templates on the image pages, though—{{OTRS pending}} does suffice (and it eliminates the risk that the files get deleted before your email has been processed). Cheers, —Pill (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I just deleted it, sorry for the inconvenience Elorodelostigres (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc's Wikicommons pics

I e-mailed permission to use these files;

Request for permission: Would you be willing to allow a few of your better shots of Roger to be used on his Wikipedia page? The pics in use right now aer not good, and his page could use a few better ones.

I'll bet you're excited for the upcoming Wall tours...I know I am.

Best, Kirk

Permission granted: "Sure as long as the REG site is credited... no problem and yeah... I'm extremely excited. Michael Simone President of REG The International Roger Waters Fan Club http://www.rogerwaters.org


  • File:Coachella pigstage.jpg
  • File:Roger Waters Atlanta Georgia 22 May 2007 4.jpg
  • File:Roger Waters Philidelphia Pennsylvania 1 June 2007.jpg
  • File:Roger Waters Philidelphia Pennsylvania 2 June 2007.jpg
  • File:Roger Waters from the Bristow Virginia Show 23 September 2006.jpg
  • File:Roger Waters Grenada Spain 9 May 2008.jpg
Hi GabeMc, have you already sent an email in this matter to [email protected]? If not, you may want to take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#If_you_need_to_confirm_permission where you find a description of how to confirm permission (this is done via email, not on this page). Hope this helps, —Pill (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just found the email you cite in our system. Please have a look at the /FAQ, first point ("I just uploaded an image, and want to tell you that I've sent in an email"). You will receive a response as soon as your email has been processed. —Pill (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{OTRS received|id=2010091210006132}}
Please refer to this ticketnumber for further investigation.

Best regards Neozoon (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS tag placed in error?

Yes check.svg Resolvedresponded there, watching the page. —Pill (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it wise for me to remove a {{No OTRS permission since}} tag? Please comment at File talk:Complex solar eruption SDO Aug 1 2010.ogv --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS update

Just to let readers know that the OTRS permission backlog is down to about a week and a half. Thanks to all the agents who chipped in. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poster Kadetstvo.jpg

Official "Kadetstvo" poster released under a free license? sort of strange. And how it's possible to use attribution license, when the author is "Незвестен" (unknown)? File:Poster Kremlyovkie kursanty.jpg has the same problem. Trycatch (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me - ticket is completely invalid and permission can't be used: permission came not from copyright holder (en:STS (TV channel)) and it looks like "for Wikipedia" without defining any license. So I am sure that these images should be deleted. Rubin16 (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, marked the files for deletion. —Pill (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File verification: File:Azl20100914.JPG

Hello,

I am looking for verification to use this artwork. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azl20100914.JPG#file Thank you. Azol2010 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who took the photograph? If it wasn't you, where did you find it? Stifle (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My images and OTRS permission missing

Hello, I received a message on my discussion board that my images:

are to be deleted because and e-mail was not received. It is for sure that you did not receive it? It may be a long time ago. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the e-mail you sent 187 days ago. We replied, and asked you to list the images in question. You did not reply, so no further action was taken at that time. I also see an e-mail you sent 3 days ago. This one appears to list the images. I have merged your new ticket with your old, and re-opened it, and now it is at the top of the queue, so it is next in line to be handled by our agents. Hope this helps. You should receive a reply shortly. -Andrew c (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, now it seems to be resolved. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atilla Engin

Hi

and others all appear to have OTRS permissions. The authors are variously given as "Atilla Engin", Gemalmaz (talk · contribs) and Taysin (talk · contribs). However these files are so different in origin that I find it somewhat odd that magazine publishers, creators of posters, photographers etc should have all released their work into the public domain all of a sudden. Please could somebody verify the OTRS tickets for these and other recent uploads on the same subject?

(see also here and here.) Cheers.   pablohablo. 21:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted the first one because the uploader was the OTRS agent, and the ticket appeared to not have permission after all. The ones that are attributed to Taysin need to be fixed because I imagine the upload form was left blank or autofilled, as Taysin is the OTRS agent, not the copyright holder. All of these tickets are in Turkish. You may want to contact Taysin personally with any specific conerns. I cannot help further because I cannot read Turkish, but maybe someone else watching this page does (and has OTRS access)? If the attribution fields are corrected, I imagine these images would be OK, since another agent did approve them and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. -Andrew c (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andrew, I had asked Taysin here, and I note that he had tagged one of them for speedy. I remain sceptical that all these files have been released by the copyright holders though.  pablohablo. 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, First of all I'm headed to specify. Atilla Engin guided by a message from permissions-commons to permissions-tr then I knew. He is an artist of Turkish origin. This domain name comes from posts for permissions-tr. I've uploaded pictures on behalf of Atilla Engin. (2010090810012366, I carried a ticket commons) Deleted files can be deemed suspicious. If you want we can also come here to a Turkish sysop.
  • First picture > That's my fault. I saw the brochure. I tried to solve the problem.
  • permission to post these pictures: 2010092610004699 (permissions-tr)
  • Second Picture > He prepared an ad from a person's information. Rights belonged to him.
  • 3. and 4. Pictures > An ad designed for that person. The normal for him.
  • 5. picture > A simple poster. According to specify their own rights.
  • 6. picture > Atilla Engin and colleagues (second from the left). --taysin (message) 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/Archive_10&oldid=576667885"