Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/Archive 11

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

Verification of the OTRS ticket for photos from www.eastcars.ee

Hi,

The author told me that he had forgotten to send the e-mail giving permission to use these photos, but he sent it now.. (using CC-BY license) Is he too late and i have to re-submit the images?

files in question:

thanks, Jaak

If you are certain an e-mail has been sent in, you can replace the speedy deletion tag in each image with {{OTRS pending}}. There is no need to reupload. -Andrew c (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be OTRS ticket 2010092110005492. Fæ (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2007072210012812

Can anyone can clarify what the Ticket:2007072210012812 include? All workes by Gevork Nazaryan? All photos from: http://armenianhighland.com/  ? Geagea (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the ticket: "ArmenianHighland.com releases all our images" --Guandalug (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe it will be better to mention it on the ticket tag. Geagea (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Will Owsley

This message concerns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WillOwsley.jpg

I sent an OTRS request on June 2nd. A few weeks ago, "OTRS missing" was assigned to the file. I resubmitted the OTRS request on September 4th.

By now, the 15 days after which the "speedy delete" could be applied have passed, and there still is no OTRS approval.

Note that another image, for which OTRS was also requested on June 2nd, has been approved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WillOwsleyStudio.jpg

Please contact me about this, as I would love to resolve this issue. I deem to be extending my full cooperation to you.

Sincerly, Eddyspeeder (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

file:Bright College Years.oga

I just forwarded the permission email to permissions-commons. Thanks for doing this work. Oconnor663 (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Owsley or the same email address as ticket 2010060210039676 shows no other matches apart from the same ticket for WillOwsleyStudio.jpg. Perhaps you could double check the email address you sent to was correct and let us know the email subject line you used? Fæ (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to ask an attorney to review for libel, defamation, or age of consent?

I want to forward a request to an attorney admitted to practice in a U.S. court. The request is to delete an image in Wikimedia Commons. How do I direct the request so such an attorney considers it?

I requested image deletion involving alleged prostitution by an identifiable female because of potential libel, defamation may also apply, and a possible issue of being under the age of consent when the picture was taken. I argue that the pictured female's permission should be in Wikimedia Foundation's hands. I requested deletion; the decision was to keep unless the female herself requests deletion, but some of the reasoning is vague on facts. The response was inadequate and was by a German nonlawyer. The appeal process is to re-request deletion but that seems insufficient to get a lawyer's review. Since this is a matter of protecting the Foundation in case of a lawsuit, the decision should be by a lawyer familiar with U.S. law. Please let me know where to direct my appeal appropriately.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While IANAL and also no OTRS-member, let me say, did you read the related talkpage? In the :de wiki world the depicted is a well-known and respected person (whose name I will not disclose, however). If she herself would ask for deletion, the image would disappear within seconds. --Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've illustrated why a lawyer is needed. She should be known to the Foundation now (perhaps she is but that's very uncertain), the Foundation should have her written permission on file now (it evidently does not), and the Foundation should not simply wait to see if she requests removal in the future because she could sue for damage occurring prior to her request.
I respect her privacy but the Foundation should have the documentation in its files, not posted to the world with her name, address, and signature and perhaps a notarization but privately submitted. If that is too intrusive or entails risk she doesn't want to accept, I do not dispute her decision's rationality or justice but in that case the image should be removed, because her consent today is lacking and Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy supports deletion of captioned images like this one.
Whether she is famous is probably irrelevant, especially since her full real name (probably highly justifiably) is not published by her, at least as far as I've seen in direct connection with the image.
The talk page is not the place to request its removal; there is a procedure and I used it and am still using it. The talk page, in fact, has two posts reflecting some of the problem, because those posters do not exhibit the authority to say that she is known and gave permission, and one of the posts is unsigned.
Clearly, this is a legal issue and a U.S.-admitted lawyer is best qualified to decide this. That is why I want to know how to make a request so that it is read by one.
Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that OTRS does not handle or process subject consent. We have discussed the "age verification" question in the past, and that skill set it currently outside the scope of OTRS. It would involve the ability to not only recognize various forms of ID, but also establish if they are forged or not. There are many other facets as well, that would require specialized training outside the skills and scope of current OTRS volunteers. Therefore, I submit to you, that OTRS cannot solve this issue for you. We currently, in terms of "permissions", only make sure that permission statements regarding free licensing are on file from the claimed copyright holder. So I don't believe this is the appropriate venue for your request, especially because us OTRS agents are just volunteers like yourself, and not legal experts by any means. -Andrew c (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verification request

I request verification of File:Yeti AC-12 atmospheric water generator.jpg. Thanks in advance. 83.244.157.210 13:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. OTRS ticket 2009102510023054 on 2009-10-25 is consistent with the license shown and from a credible source. Fæ (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deutschsprachiger OTRS-Mitarbeiter

Ich habe vor gut 1 Woche die Genehmigung (pdf-Anhang) für File:MariusSchneider.jpg an die OTRS-de-Adresse gemailt. Passiert ist bislang aber nichts. Da es m.E. ein einfacher Fall ist, könnte sich mal jemand drum kümmern? --Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Túrelio, das Support-Team besteht aus Freiwilligen, und wir sind machmal einige Tage oder Wochen mit der Bearbeitung im Rückstand – deine Mail ist jedenfalls eingegangen (interner Hinweis: ticket:2010092010003665). Siehe hierzu auch die /FAQ dieser Seite. Danke für dein Verständnis, —Pill (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jaja, das weiß ich als auch nicht ganz untätiger Admin schon und habe auch durchaus Verständnis. Man wundert sich nur, warum dasselbe bei anderen :de-Uploadern weniger als 1,5 Stunden (Upload-OTRS) dauert[1],[2],[3],[4], usw. --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Túrelio, das liegt daran, dass nicht alle Support-Team-Mitarbeiter (insbesondere des deutschsprachigen Teams) die eingehenden Mails chronologisch abarbeiten. Ich verweise seit langem darauf, dass dies sehr problematisch ist und zu Ineffizienz führt, hier wurde aber noch kein Konsens erzielt. —Pill (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThorntonTownsite.jpg

I’m not quite certain how to go about giving permisions for ThorntonTownsite.jpg but I give permission.

What do I need to do? is this the right place to ask about it. The files listed below, which you uploaded, have been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have not sent the permission, please send it to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. If you have, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard, quoting the file name, so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. Please note that this message is being left by an automated bot, whose operator is not an OTRS volunteer, therefore please do not send this information to me, as it will not save your images from deletion. Thanks for your time! Please help translate this message! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

	+	
	+	*File:ThorntonTownsite.jpg
In what relation do you stand to the image? According to the information on the image page, it is public domain. —Pill (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS received photos listed for Delectation

Yesterday i have got a message at my talk page that some of my uploaded images have listed for delectation because they ate tagged as {{OTRS pending}} for 30 days.

but about a month ago i got the reply for my request to OTRS, please recheck the issue. The image list and the the contents of the email are as follows

image list:

contents of the email: ticket:2010080910011367

-- Nasir Khan Saikat (Talk|Contributions) 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Misc 134.jpg

Hello,

Concerning the OTRS permission to use the file I uploaded File:Misc 134.jpg I have sent the email to [email protected].

Thank you for letting us know. Please also take a look at our /FAQ (first point). Cheers, —Pill (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted two images, please double check

Per a request, I deleted File:Asiteamo.jpg and File:Les Katha.jpg as copyvios. They were both of celebrities, with the work listed as "own work" and referencing ticket number 2008100310024006, which seemed to be totally unrelated when I could not find the images in the Flickr stream that was licensed via the email. This is isn't my usual forte, so thought I would leave a note here to make sure I did it the kosher way. Steven Walling 17:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medv jelch.jpg

This file seems to have an OTRS ticket (added in this edit), but what is the license? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask that myself, since the ticket is in Russian. ZooFari 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Rubin16 about it. Trycatch (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CC-BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL, fixed description Rubin16 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game's (rapper) Picture

I would like to get an authorization to use his picture to an articule i am making on greek wikipedia.

Well, first you should say which image exactly you are talking about. --Túrelio (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS confirmation requested

Would someone please check OTRS #2006061810007652 to see the extent of the permission for images from Alex Sergeev (www.asergeev.com)? File:CentralAvenueCornell2.jpg seems to have OTRS permission, but is it just for that image or for all images from that website. --GrapedApe (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. This is a valid OTRS ticket, and the ticket is valid for all images by Mr. Sergeev on his website. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect contributions

Hello to all,
I would like to draw your attention on the contributions of this user. His pictures are stated to come from a friend (ami) and a pending OTRS ticket is sometimes indicated. I suspect there is no ticket and that these could violate copyright. Could I ask someone to check the existence of a ticket and, if there is none, to delete these pictures ? Regards Moumou82 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Taking the example of File:Centre d'entrrainement du l'esperance de tunis.jpg, I can find no record of an OTRS match to this file or variations of the name.
  2. For File:EST-CA derby tunisois.jpg, I find no OTRS matches for "derby tunisois".
  3. For File:EST-ESS, Classico Tunisien.jpg, I find no OTRS (subject or body) matches to "Classico Tunisien".
  4. File:Tifo des Esperantiste lors du derby de la capital.jpg, no match to "Esperantiste".
For these 4 files I have removed the OTRS pending templates. This seems to be all relevant files with OTRS pending claims. You are free to raise them for deletion if you find the images suspect (though checking on TinEye, there are no external matches so the claim of being the copyright holder may yet be correct). 4/4 is a fairly good indicator than something is amiss here. I have added a note to the uploader's talk page and they are free to provide an explanation or ask for help either there or here. Fæ (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:Musictechnologist

Could I get an OTRS check on File:DENAQ Satellite Photo.JPG and File:DENAQ Battery.JPG, please? The uploader claims that information confirming the licensing of both images has been sent to OTRS, yet neither file description actually specifies a license. Given that Google and its providers of map content do not normally issue free licenses to their works, I find it extremely unlikely that a valid permission is in place for the first file at least. Hence, I suspect that the OTRS tagging may simply be a way to delay inevitable deletion, but I would be pleased if someone can prove me wrong. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My search for "DENAQ" and the name of the author specified both don't return anything. Better delete the files. —Pill (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ✓ Done —LX (talk, contribs) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2007032610005277

This ticket include all photos fo Faik Sarıkaya from http://www.wowturkey.com her or only one of them? Geagea (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ticket lists the following files:
  1. File:FaikSarikayaIzmirBorsa.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Faik Sarikaya VARYANTTAN GORUNUS 2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Faik Sarikaya YEDIGOLLER FOTO 20.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. File:Faik Sarikaya mordogan 4.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. File:Faik Sarikaya mordogan 1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. File:Faik Sarikaya MEVLANA ANITI 5.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  7. File:Faik Sarikaya Karaburun goruntuleri W5 2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  8. File:Faik Sarikaya Karaburun Bodrum Koyu.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  9. File:Faik Sarikaya BUCA SIRINYER HIPODROMU 3.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  10. File:Bucaevleri.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  11. File:Buca evleri14.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  12. File:Buca evleri1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
—Fæ (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for your trouble. Geagea (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2008032610018431

Can anyone can clarify what the Ticket:2008032610018431 include? Geagea (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That ticket applies only to File:WwwWowturkeycomYuzbasiVolYukselWildHorsesRoaminginMountYamanlarIzmirTurkey.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) deleted in 2008. Other tickets have been applied for similarly named images. Fæ (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, two files claimed to be the duplicat of File:WwwWowturkeycomYuzbasiVolYukselWildHorsesRoaminginMountYamanlarIzmirTurkey.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Both of them from the same user :

  1. File:Bornova GeneralView.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:MountYamanlar WildHorses IzmirTurkey.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The file deleted because of the user (User:Cretanforever) request.

On the assumption that the second file seems to be a rename, I have removed the OTRS reference from the first image which is using a false rationale. Fæ (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I am not quit understand what you mean: If the ticket applies only to one file, how Other tickets have been applied for similarly named images? They have other tickets?

In the example I examined, yes it quoted a different ticket number. Fæ (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third. all the following files have the same ticket. Wthat to do with them DR?, {{subst:nopd}}?

Geagea (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After checking file histories I have removed the OTRS templates from all these pages without taking any other action. You are free to contest the files. Fæ (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Geagea (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should inquire on this ticket with User:John Vandenberg folks. Below is a duplicate of the the message I had sent him upon which the OTRS ticket was issued. "Hello, I am User:Cretanforever on wikimedia. Please find below the permission received from the image creator for uploading his images, also found in another web site, on Wikimedia Commons. The link for the one I uploaded today is below. I will upload other after having received a ticket."

Clear enough the ticket is for the source, not for one image. And that the first image of him I had uploaded later looked better renamed does not mean the permission has gone caduc. I can cross copy the full 2008 correspondence if need be. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have the full email in front of me and the release statement does not appear to unambiguously apply to everything on the website. The release itself uses the statement "release this file" rather than releasing all images from the website. The response you received from OTRS was clear, in that the email correspondence was interpreted as a release of the named image and it was recommended that you rename it (which you then did). There may have been some miscommunication due to your original statement "I will upload others after having received a ticket" which may have been inferred to mean that you would then raise additional OTRS requests for later uploads. If you require a release for all current and future photographs on website then I suggest you write to OTRS again with a clearer release statement and if necessary we can get an independent translation or confirmation of any statements in Turkish. Note that the scope of any release statement must be verifiably unambiguous in order to protect the interests of the copyright holder. I have flagged this discussion for the attention of the original OTRS volunteer, however there is no guarantee they will be available to comment. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cretanforever, can you ask the photographer if he could more clearly release all of his photos on wowturkey.com under the CC license. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm/clarify

Apropos otrs:2304489: Does this ticket evidence release under a free license by the copyright owner of the English translation? Notice: apparent template bustage needs attention: the source page, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_08's, links to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Noticeboard as the place to ask. --Elvey (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Holzer's artwork

This question rose with respect to this edit on BG WP. Can an OTRS member please check whether any of the tickets:

also covers other artwork of Adi Holzer, in particular:

which are tagged with the Template:OTRS pending. Thank you. →Spiritia 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question relates to all images in the Category:Adi Holzer, tagged with the "pending" template. →Spiritia 18:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phydroxide (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spiritia, unfortunately they are not covered by these tickets. See also the following section. —Pill (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see, however, my comment below. —Pill (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Holzer/Michael Gäbler: Withdraw PD-author?

Is it possible to withdraw a {{PD-author}} license by placing a {{Copyvio}} template on images? See this list:

Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, generally speaking, it is not normally possible to withdraw such a release (however, at least in terms of German copyright law there's quite some literature on when exactly it is possible, but most this cannot apply). However, in this case it's fine and follows a recommendation from one of our support team members. We do not have sufficient permission to use the images on Wikimedia Commons. Hope this helps, —Pill (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikimedia Commons and its contributors are not bound by Creative Commons' FAQ/What if I change my mind? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These images don't appear to be licensed, but released to the Public Domain. As the uploader is not the author, the author's permission would need to be documented in OTRS.
Even if an image is validly licensed under a CC license, Wikimedia Commons sometimes chooses to delete it. It wouldn't be available on Wikimedia projects, but you could still continue to use it obviously. --  Docu  at 06:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, uhm, that's a weird conclusion from my reply. No one tried to revoke any license here -- someone did just not agree to a free license. —Pill (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't draw that conclusion from your reply but from the added and removed templates to the images. For example, this added the template {{Copyvio}} with the text: "Adi Holzer und Lars Grunwald haben ihre Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung widerrufen, weil sie das Bild kommerziell vermarkten wollen." (Adi Holzer and Lars Grunwald have revoked their permission to publish because they want to market the image commercially.) Then, the the template {{PD-author|Adi Holzer and the photographer Lars Grunwald}} was removed. Sounds to me like a revocation of CC-pd.
Docu writes that Commons sometimes chooses to delete images regardless of their valid license; I can understand that, although a speedy deletion tag via a {{Copyvio}} doesn't seem proper. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, well, you're clearly right about that but I could not find in our system any permission by Adi Holzer to use the images under a free license. Thus we cannot keep the images, no matter what he told the uploader in the first place. Put into a legal perspective, it would probably be very easy for him to claim that he has not given sufficient permission to the uploader, but extremely hard for us to claim that we didn't know about his request for removal of the images. —Pill (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an administrator delete the above files (reason: not under a free license)? Thanks :) —Pill (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. However, what about the files listed in the first section of this thread? --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still {OTRS pending}, looks like the creator is willing to release them under a free license (ticket:2010092810009814). —Pill (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Bankhar

Hi, the uploader of the images in Category:Bankhar has included an OTRS ticket number 2010051810034214 with (most of) them already at time of upload. This seems unusual for a new user with no other (visible) contributions, and copying the text instead of using the template also looks slightly suspicious as well. On the other hand, the ticket may actually be valid. Can anyone verify which it is, please? --Latebird (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ticket is in Russian. —Pill (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User doesn't know wiki-code well - that's the reason. Ticket handles all content from mongoldog.ru and mongolbanhar.ru. I'll correct descriptions now. PS: If there are any problems with Russian tickets - notify\contact me :) Rubin16 (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know, thanks for the confirmation! --Latebird (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2006061810007652

Would someone please confirm that the template {{Alex Sergeev permission}} matched the OTRS permission in ticket #2006061810007652?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to give GDFL permission for any photo on asergeev.com; albeit somewhat implicitly. The correspondence is, of course, 4 years old. Fæ (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep files (images) from being deleted

I have e-mailed [email protected] in order to grant permission to use the following images on September 29th at 4:47 p.m. (e-mail from Vanessa Copeland):

• File:SCC bwseal.gif • File:SCCeFile logo.jpg • File:VES Logo.jpg • File:VES Logo.tif

What can I do so they can remain files in this directory and linked to my Wikipedia page where they are in use?

Also, how can I categorize them?

Thanks, (Pr geeks (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you have sent or forwarded the permission to OTRS, you should add the template {{OTRS pending}} to each image page. --Túrelio (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did that when I first uploaded the images in August. I resent the e-mail on September 29th, before I posted this question. I just added the OTRS pending status to those images in my gallery...but I am still confused on what to do next. PLEASE HELP ME! Thanks Pr geeks (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the .tif file I requested it be deleted. I have no use for it on my Wikipedia page. Thanks Pr geeks (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check permissions for related images

Could someone check ticket [5] for Gibson Ridge radar screenshots to see if the permissions request could apply to two screenshots I would like to upload and to the uploads by Aor20157? If they don't, then I will need to send another permissions request for the two I want to upload. Whether that ticket applies or not, we have a licensing problem with Aor20157's uploads unless that contributor is Mike Gibson; they are images off the grlevelx website. They are currently marked as public domain by the author/uploader, so either Aor20157 is Mike Gibson or they've been improperly tagged. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The ticket is for a few images uploaded by User:Southern Illinois SKYWARN. It specifically permits "screencaps of GR2Analyst output" to be used with the 'attribution' license tagging, attributed to "Gibson Ridge radar/National Weather Service" (if I interpret that right, it's not 100% clear, but it's most likely that attribution). No idea whether Aor20157 is Mike Gibson, the ticket doesn't look like Mike got an account himself (but it's from July 2009, thing might've changed). --Guandalug (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2010020610021891

This ticket include all photos fo Mr. Arif Solak from www.wowturkey.com. It include 50 files her. Does the permission include all files? Part of the OTRS permission added in 2.2010 most in 3.2010 and others in 6.2010 and 7.2010. If the permission include all files of Arif Solak please add the permission to File:Arif solak LakeCivrilDenizliTurkey.jpg also. Geagea (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been the agent that has accepted the OTRS ticket and, as far as I see, in the e-mailed permission Mr. Arif Solak agrees to release all his images posted to wowturkey.com under the terms of the CC-BY-3.0. I see that Cretanforever (talk · contribs) has already added the ticket template to the image description page you've mentioned. Best regards, odder (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Geagea (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 5048608

Could someone please check ticket otrs:5048608 (as used in Template:IUCN map permission). The template suggests IUCN released their material under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license whereas the inof on their page says no commercial purposes [6] also their terms of use [7] list a whole load of usage restirctions. It would seem that their "freely available to the public" [8] isn't as free as one might hope. /129.215.149.98 11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They agreed to publish the "static maps derived from this [http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatial-data] dataset [...] under the free license CC-BY-SA." —Pill (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Now to build a .gis -> .svg tool for systematic creation of range maps =) /129.215.149.96 14:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Chromy Goddess.jpg

Hi, the ticket on this image has been added by Jcb, who is not an OTRS member [9]. Can someone check that it really applies to this image? Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it applies to:
  1. File:Anna_Chromy_Goddess.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Anna_Chromy_Cloak_Of_Conscience.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Anna_Chromy_Alone.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. File:Anna_Chromy_Clown.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. File:Anna_Chromy_Ball_In_Venice.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. File:Anna_Chromy_To_Be_Or_Not_To_Be.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  7. File:Anna_Chromy_Eternal_Love.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  8. File:Cloak_of_Conscience_Closeup.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  9. File:Cloak_of_Conscience_Pre_Completion_1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  10. File:Cloak_of_Conscience_Side_View.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
—Fæ (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for checking. If Jcb is indeed an OTRS member, someone should add her/him to the group. –Tryphon☂ 20:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Their status as an OTRS member has now been flagged on the system. Fæ (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kekhvi_on_fire.jpg

Some three months ago a permission was granted by Human Rights Watch for the entire gallery http://www.hrw.org/photos/2008/georgia0808/ under the CC-BY license. The e-mail was sent to permission-commons[at]wikimedia.org on 29 July 2010 from dev_in17[at]hrw.org .

On 16 September 2010 I resent the request and included our entire communication with HRW, but the photo above is still not approved yet.

Can somebody take a look at it, please? Kouber (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The delay was due to a question being raised on the July email as to which specific images it applied to, there was no reply and so no action was taken. To make the record clear, I have merged your later email and added the ticket (OTRS ticket 2010072910045447) to this particular image. You should receive an email confirmation shortly. Apologies if the delay has been frustrating. Fæ (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fæ. From what I understood, the permission and CC-BY are granted for the entire gallery, which consists of 13 photos. Am I getting HRW's e-mail right and can we freely upload some of the other photos by simply citing the OTRS ticket number? Kouber (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the original scope does appear to apply to the gallery. I assume that this is a fixed set of 13 images. You may want to ask HRW if they would be prepared to release higher resolution files as these have probably been reduced for the embedded web-page display.
The process should be (1) upload the photos with the appropriate licenses and descriptions, (2) email permissions again (preferably using the same subject line) giving either a new explicit permissions statement or just quoting the original ticket number and asking for the same ticket to be applied to the new batch of images as they are covered by the scope of the original release (please include the full image URL on commons) (3) mark the images with {{OTRS pending}} to show you have sent in an email and avoid it being marked for a quick deletion. If you use the same email subject line they should get flagged for my attention but you could always drop a note on my Commons talk page to let me know what you have done. If several weeks pass with no action then do raise a note here for independent investigation. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm/clarify

Apropos otrs:2304489: Does this ticket evidence release under a free license by the copyright owner of the English translation? --Elvey (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a very clear release of the English translation. Fæ (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (Cool username!) --Elvey (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 3080333

Does otrs:3080333 from File:CrazY JulieT.jpg pan out? Lupo 11:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that ticket is exclusively about uploads of user BillyFckwards, regarding AKADO. This picture has nothing to do with that ticket. Jcb (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought so. Lupo 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verkkopoikalogokyltti.jpg

Uploader mentions OTRS ticket number 2010092910002435 but did not add the proper OTRS template. Please check if the ticket applies to the image. --Denniss (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I will place the right template. Jcb (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning dancer

Ok I'm a bit confused, but i think I'm supposed to come here to ask if i can use your Spinning dancer image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spinning_Dancer.gif ) on my website. I wish purley to show it on my illusions page, I will not print, reproduce or sell it on my website. http://the-carnival.webs.com/

Please can I use it? Rosy

This is actually not the right place, but I will provide you an answer:
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Jcb (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can someone chec ticket

in picture File:Cover pain.jpg are ticket number but not verified, can some check--Motopark (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Italian, in case there's someone who can read that who'll take a look. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK (you may read everything in English if you scroll down). Jcb (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help--Motopark (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

I want to move this file to Commons. It has an OTRS permit. So, is it legal to move the file to Commons? --Michael Romanov (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file has a free license which is compatible with Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA-3.0), so it may be moved to Commons. Jcb (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [10].

I agree to publish that work under the free license [ GFDL ].

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

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

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

[ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Galling_lump.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haraldwallin&action=edit&redlink=1 ]

Please send this to our mailbox instead of pasting it here. Jcb (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varify

I was having a chat with the photographer, as he told that This image have the tag, and he has given the authorization to all his photographs taken from naran shooting, I have included all the files on this category Category:Naran_Film. Please confirm whether i can add this tag to all images or not..as i dont want to disturb him again for each and every photos..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission ends with: "Please use this for all the files for Naran film shooting", so I think yes. Jcb (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2010092410010891

I would like to know whether the permission behind this ticket, that was put on File:Le bateau ivre par mv 2010.jpg, credibly covers the three currently unsourced photos (beyond the sourced Rimbaud photo) that are used in this "collage". Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not mentioned in the ticket. Jcb (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File Paul Solacolu

I have uploaded file Paul Solacolu.jpg on August 12. I have contacted the copyright holder of the image, requesting him to send the appropriate authorization to OTRS, which he did. As something appears to have gone wrong and the authorization has been lost, I have requested him to resend the form. Attached is the authorization form which he forwarded and has sent me in copy.


I hereby affirm that I, SERBAN SOLACOLU, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the photo of PAUL SOLACOLU, found here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C8%99ier:Paul_Solacolu.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license "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 acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. SERBAN SOLACOLU SON OF PAUL SOLACOLU and copyright holder 31.10.2010

I would kindly request that the deletion tag on the file be removed and replaced with the OTRS approval tag. Afil (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We received it today, but never before. I will process it now. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ever so much for your help.Afil (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Grosset pictures

I was about to delete File:Baldparrot7259.jpg which uses a wrong license as [11] allows non-commercial use only; however, I noticed we have also File:Pectoral Antwren.jpg, OTRS-confirmed freely-licensed image by the same author (and from the same website). I would therefore like to know whether the permission we received is general and applicable also to other images from the website (most specifically File:Baldparrot7259.jpg), or not (in which case I would have to delete the file). Thanks. --Mormegil (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is not interpretable as general, it's just about File:Pectoral Antwren.jpg. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Окрестности села Янурусово (Ишимбайский район).jpg

Hi. Could a OTRS volunteer please help in this DR? --Leyo 17:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UFO.jpg

I took the photo in the 1990s and hadn't released it before I uploaded it here. I had sent copies to other peaple (familiy, friends, etc.) with the permission of doing anything they want with it. One of them may have uploaded it to some sites, where it has been found by ceveral Users who think I might have stolen it. I assert that I am the creator and owner of the exclusive copyright of the picture. I published it under the free license GFDL. -- Boris Karloff II 12:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That would need some verification. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already sent an e-mail to OTRS. Ticket:2010110710003604 -- Boris Karloff II 13:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Rising-lewecke.jpg

{{PermissionOTRS}} added by non-OTRS-member, and it wasn't the uploader either. Ticket is #2010110810009973. Does it pan out? If so, would it also apply to File:Lewecke-gateport.jpg? Lupo 08:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is OK and Schlesinger is an OTRS-member. Jcb (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well, the edit was tagged "added by non-OTRS member" in recent changes. Maybe that tag filter should be updated. Sorry for the confusion. Lupo 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're talking about the right image? The linked images has been tagged after your message at this noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am: [12]. Tagged at 05:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC). Lupo 11:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This ticket is also OK. Stepro is a new OTRS-member. Somebody will have to add him to the right user group. Jcb (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stepro has been added to the user group by a burocrat. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS checks please

Can someone look at these which have an OTRS number on and also these which have the same OTRS number on... It may well be a record company or similar but there are also a few blocked puppet accounts and I'm a little suspicious - thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket does not exist at all. Jcb (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket #2010102110009495 exists. It's a info-it queue, and I personally managed it. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no acces, but I ask to another OTRS member and he said me the ticket exist. Should we restore again ? Otourly (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I understand why I can't access the ticket. Sannita, could you in future cases make sure you move the ticket to permissions-it where it belongs? Jcb (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do it. I asked the donor (the band's drummer) to send us also an english form, in order to be more than 100% sure in the future, after what happened. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - now we know the permission exists, the files may be restored. Luckily nothing is final at Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the ticket has thankfully been moved to permissions-it, I was able to read it. The ticket does not name the license under which it was uploaded ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}). Instead it states, if I understand it correctly, that the images are released for free use and free of copyright. Sannita, if you are asking the donor again, could you please ask him to clarify this, i.e. are these images supposed to be {{PD-self}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? Secondly, I would like to see the file list synchronized with the tags refering to it. File:MB 1980.JPG, for example, is not in the list of this ticket. From one of the notices in the ticket I understand that these images were re-uploaded under different file names. And then I find it confusing that we have multiple users related to this ticket. The first file in the list, File:Frigidaire Color.jpg was uploaded by User:FrigidaireGroup. Another file from the list, File:The Cock Cover FT.jpg, was uploaded by User:Bongo60. I find this extremely confusing and would like to see this clarified as well. Here is the entire file list of that ticket:

--AFBorchert (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already requested to send us an english-written authorization under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, but I think it will be cakewalk. The drummer declared that (translating from Italian) "[photos] are mine and I release them for free usage, without any copyright because they're made for being distributed for any legal purpose on web".
I requested him also to tell me which usernames he used for uploading photos, in order to reorganize them. Anyway, I think all the photos regarding this band are to be considered "ok", since they come from an "authoritative" source.
That's my opinion, of course. Let me know if you don't agree. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the phrase "are mine" troubling. This does not really indicate that the drummer or the band are the copyright holders of all these images. Take for example File:Frigidaire Tango.jpg: Is this a photograph taken by the drummer? How can this be {{Own}} work? Why does the photographer remain unnamed? To which extent can this photograph be used by this music group? Does this include the right to put these photographs under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and to let the photographer be unnamed in violation of his moral rights? It would be great if all this could be clarified. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for the input. I'm not that aware of OTRS systems/processes. However like AFBorchert I have some concerns on the actual image content. It seems highly unlikely that the images are the drummer's. Some are certainly promotional work which may be owned by the record company? Equally the ones of cd covers almost certainly will belong to the record company so any permission really must be very explicit in my view.
My other concern as a fairly long serving project CU is that the behaviour of creating a number of accounts to upload what appear to be copyright violations is something I come across quite often sadly. I've not come across that behaviour in someone who is happy to license their images validly. Regards --Herby talk thyme 08:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German ticket associated with File:Misnia.jpg?

I received an email from someone stating that the file above (now deleted) has permission in this ticket (2010110910007599). The ticket is in German I believe so if someone can verify this and possibly undelete the file, that'd be nice. Thanks, ZooFari 02:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ticket is confusing at best. I suggest to wait for the undeletion until this gets clarified. And I attempt to find a solution with one of the OTRS members who already worked on this ticket. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily restored the image and continued the OTRS process in the hope of a clarification. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ZooFari 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TravianVillage.jpg NOT CC or GNU, but Copyright Travian Games GMBH

Title says it all, the images is not as claimed.

Fair Use and Fair dealing are likely claims to be able to use the image, but in no way is it CC or GNU licenced

The "permission" of this file is in Dutch, but completely invalid. Travian just gave permission to use it in nl:Travian. Jcb (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please check this ticket 2010111310026953

I may have uploaded the picture from my home email and sent the license agreement from my web-based email (hotmail) address. Can I resubmit licensing agreement using the other email address? I would like to resolve this issue as I am also waiting for licensing approval for the related page "CP-823/U". Thank you Yukshmoog (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you resend the email from the other address, please use the subject: Re: [Ticket#2010111310026953] license agreement to make your new mail autoconnect to the right ticket. Jcb (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-sent licensing agreement using email address that I used to upload picture. Addressed subject line as instructed by Jcb above. Thank you. Yukshmoog (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guarulhense12

Please check the contribution of this user, he/she added OTRS permissions to several images but I got autotags the he/she is not an OTRS member. --Denniss (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and blocked, sockpuppet. This is new, last time he tried to fake flickrreview. --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keke Palmer.jpg

The license requires attribution, whom to attribute? Who submitted the photo? --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is unsufficient, I will nominate the file for deletion. Jcb (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Keke Palmer.jpg - another shocking example of what it means that "permission was verified." See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloaca Maxima 2.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overenie povolenia - potvrdenie

Foto_sosptn.jpg Wikipedia:Povolenie na užitie tohoto diela bolo overené a archivované pomocou systému Wikimedia OTRS. Je prístupné , ale iba užívateľom s účtom OTRS. Pre overenie povolenia prosím kontaktujte niektorého OTRS dobrovoľníka alebo zanechajte odkaz na OTRS nástenke. Kvetoslava: potvrdzujem povolenie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.52.20.202 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently about File:Foto sosptn.jpg which was tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}} without authorization. I had no success in finding any OTRS ticket related to this file, removed the {{PermissionOTRS}} template, and added {{No permission}} to it. If the permission has been sent to any of the non-permission queues, please let us know such that it can be moved. Please follow the procedures documented at COM:OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear permission granted by author, but not accepted by OTRS

I had requested the N.C.Zoo for a picture of a bird to be used in a wikibook page, which is a part of a graduate course project in McGill University(where I am a student). I had received permission to use it for this purpose from the zoo. Also, I had sent them the link to the wikibook page while requesting permission. Clearly, they have provided their consent to use it for this purpose after knowing where it is going to be used. But the OTRS has declined to accept this permission. I would like you to kindly reconsider the case. ticket 2010111710035052

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickting (talk • contribs)

I have re-examined OTRS ticket 2010111710035052, the key difficulty is the statement from the copyright holder "Our only reservation about anyone using any of our gallery photos is that they do not use them for personal gain [re-sell them for profit]." Any image released on Commons is free for commercial re-use and so we cannot accept an image with commercial use restrictions.
The situation is different on Wikipedia and you may wish to investigate the guidelines of en:Wikipedia:NFCI (or wikibooks:WB:FU), however my opinion is that you would be unlikely to be able to make a suitable case for inclusion under those guidelines either as the image is not irreplaceable with a possible free-use version if someone were to go and take their own photo of a Manakin bird. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I would like to delete the image from wikimedia commons. Can you let me know the procedure for the same. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickting (talk • contribs)

I nominated it for deletion. Jcb (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mukesh Ambani12.jpg

Can someone in the know check the status of this file please? It seems to have been marked as OTRS for a while, and recently had an OTRS pending tag attached. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a ticket mentioning this image. Jcb (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket details

I'm looking at a recent upload - File:Sonia-Dane-vintage-full-slip-sheer-brief-panties-stockings-stiletto-heels.jpg by User:Gravesb - and trying to figure out if this person is entitled to upload the image in question. One of this user's earliest uploads - File:Soniadane02.jpg which is the same subject - has an OTRS ticket associated with it. Does that ticket state that the user is Gravesb, and thus has the rights to make further uplaods?? Tabercil (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probable fake ticket

Got what smells like a certain copyvio with a fake OTRS ticket, but I just want to make sure before I go and blast it out of existance. The image is File:Allisyn Ashley Arm at fashion show.jpg and the Flickr account it was taken from is pretty much one giant copyvio; to top it off the license on the Flickr site is "All rights reserved". The only issue preventing a deletion is the "OTRS ticket" associated - ticket #2009062310020238. Strike three is the fact that the ticket # was added by the uploader and not an OTRS volunteer. Can someone check and confirm my strong suspicion that it's not a valid ticket? Tabercil (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I get no matches for 2009062310020238 in the permissions queue and clicking on the link on the image page gives an immediate error. I have removed the template accordingly. Fæ (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two images uploaded by the same account with the same ticket as well: File:Jemma McKenzie-Brown.jpg and File:Tiffany Thornton at Laguna Beach.jpg. Tabercil (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same action taken on these two. I'll AGF but the OTRS ticket process has not been followed correctly. Fæ (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the Tiffany Thornton image is IMO a clear copyvio from the credits part. As for the other two... I'm 99.99% sure they're 'vios as well, but that last .01% is keeping me from deleting outright. Maybe if/when I get some further search time to try and run down the (true) source... Tabercil (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DarkSideOfTheMoon1973.jpg

Can someone please do an OTRS ticket for the image. Thanks. GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no current emailed request that appears to be for the image, it looks like this is an issue you should raise with the uploader. In my opinion, I see no particular reason to doubt that the uploader took this photo at a public concert and consequently the CC3 release appears valid for an original image upload and does not require an OTRS ticket, in such cases we can safely assume good faith. Fæ (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By way of closure OTRS now rec'd and image is tagged I see. --Herby talk thyme 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

Please check uploads Special:Contributions/Ajayakumaar, there are OTRS-number but uploader has added it. All pictures are watermarked also--Motopark (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now restored the image after I had it deleted. However, what still troubling is that the uploader himself claims to have been the ticket-reviewer for File:Aditya striker.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a movie still and resuse is not allowed by bollywoodhungama.com in such cases. The review option was invented because of misuse, see the relevant discussion in the archive here. Hekerui (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be helpful to explain that it cannot apply to movie stills in the applicability in the template text. I'll revisit in a couple of days if nobody else gets to it first. Fæ (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Promiflash

User:Promiflash has uploaded several photos from www.promiflash.de. File:Jasmin-Gerat.jpg and File:Sila-Sahin-Joern-Schloenvoigt.jpg each have OTRS tags. Does that OTRS ticket apply to all Promiflash photos? Or just those already tagged? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 17:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2010111010011901 applies specifically to:
  1. File:Angelina-Jolie-Salt-Premiere-Berlin-2010.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Sila-Sahin-Joern-Schloenvoigt.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Jasmin-Gerat.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Any other files would require additional release statements (though may be by extending the current ticket). --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then ask directly for a general release. A website (in Germany) has an en:Impressum, all responsible people are written there, so it should be clear who to contact. A general confirm that the account User:Promiflash is allowed to publish this images with permission from the copyright holders - the photographers - to the license should be enough. I noted that http://www.promiflash.de/ reuses many agency photos, they should know what they can release (their work) and what not (WENN photos) and from what I see they clearly know this. If you want I can write them in German. --Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission Varification

Kindly varify this ticket and confirm that Wheather this file have the permissions of OTRS or not -- ticket #2010100710013364 --Kalarickan | My Interactions 04:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2010100710013364 - due to a lack of verifying emails (the only correspondence coming from a free email address), this ticket concluded as unsuccessful and so is not a verifying ticket. I find no other matches for "Mamu@Naran". --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ticket 2010112310024892

Wat is er mis met dit bestand? Ik wil het graag (blijven) gebruiken op de pagina van Michel Szulc-Krzyzanowski, maar ik weet niet waarom, na nadrukkelijke schriftelijke toestemming van de auteur, het toch als "twijfelgeval" wordt beschouwd?! Groet, Patricia Borger

What is wrong with this photo? I would like to use this image on the page of Michel Szulc-Krzyzanowski, but I don't know why, after clear permission in writing (email) by the author, this picture is seen as a picture that is open to doubt?! Greetings and kind regards, Patricia Borger

Wat er gebeurd is, is dat het mailtje is aangezien voor het verzoek om een mail met een toestemming te versturen. Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski heeft uw mailtje compleet naar ons gestuurd, inclusief uw verzoek aan hem. Hierdoor is de verwarring ontstaan. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification regarding the status of ticket #2010120210021182

I sought and received copyright permission from the photographer to use this photo of Margaret Hamilton (File:Margaret Hamilton 1995.jpg). I submitted the relevant correspondence to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org. Do I have the green light as far as OTRS is concerned to go ahead and link this image into a wikipedia article?

Thanking you, Annaamalia (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's OK. Jcb (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edithgonzales 1.jpg

Nel75 has previously been blocked for uploading copyright violations and seems to have chosen not to learn very much from the experience. Do they need another block for abusing the {{Otrs pending}} tag, or is there actually any merit to their claim that permission info for Edithgonzales 1.jpg has been sent to OTRS? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment permissions in English, Dutch and Spanish are always processed within 48 hours so in my opinion OTRS-pending files may be safely deleted after 7 days. Remember that we may always restore a deleted file after receiving a delayed permission. Nothing is final in Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:Twins0806449

Twins0806449 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is uploading files sourced from various websites, claiming to be the author of those files, and tagging them with {{OTRS pending}} in what appears to be nothing but a deliberate attempt to delay deletion. Could you please check if there's any merit to the tagging, and delete and block otherwise? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing related to that in the OTRS queue so deleted the earlier ones. I'll do AGF today on today's ones but feel free to prod me in 24 hours if I've not deleted the others (assuming nothing arrives in OTRS). --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They've all been deleted.--Chaser (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on confidentiality of OTRS. Is it safe enough?

Am I right that OTRS was established in purpose to store confidential correspondence, and to prevent revealing of private information, contained in letters addressed to OTRS? -- SerdechnyG 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but this applies in general more for article related things (like biography of living person) than for image releated things. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of its main purposes. Other reason it exists are to ensure we have competent volunteers dealing with these matters and that all letters are archived in a permanent and organized manner. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to comprehend, is it normal way of conduct, to disclose publicly: 1) Original sender of letter addressed to OTRS; 2) Content of this letter. -- SerdechnyG 18:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we won't. If someone asks us to check a validity of a permission, we check it and we just respond if it's OK or not OK. Jcb (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not all of you. But, user User:Rubin16 did. Here, in this thread ([13]) he disclosed sender and content of the letter respectively (you shouldn't even be able to read Russian text, to find there my username). That's why I'm asking, should it be considered as normal? -- SerdechnyG 16:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a native Russian speaking administrator to have a look at it. Jcb (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rough (edited after Google Translate) translation of what exactly Rubin16 said about the ticket: "The essence of the permission that SerdechnyG declares that such, such and such authors have given him the right to distribute photographs, which are hosted on Flickr. Prior to Flickr they have never been published, and there, in fact, have been published by SerdechnyG after obtaining permission from the photographers. They don't have the Internet, so they do not write themselves." I can't see anything confidential or any "private information" disclosed by Rubin16. Actually there was nothing new after the DR. Trycatch (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not surprised that you don't see there any "private information disclosed". It's no wonder, because you requested it. SerdechnyG 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up. Jcb (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that they'll get away with it? -- SerdechnyG 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why not? Jcb (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has nothing to deal with "OK or not OK" as you stated before. It's really no O.K. George Serdechny 21:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is discussion about a permission, OTRS people are free to share such non-private data. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not contested that. I contested that they did it publicly. George Serdechny 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura_Molina.jpg Ticket#2010120610020489

Paintdiva (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK - File:Laura_Molina.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic[reply]

If you wish to have the image undeleted and verified, please reply by email to the email sent to you on 7th December from permissions-commons. Posts on this notice-board cannot be verified as being from the copyright holder. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayala High School files

The files in Category:Ayala High School are tagged {{PD-ineligible}}, but I don't think they are what Commons considers "ineligible". Two of them have permission from OTRS #2010120810004485 but the permission field doesn't say whether the photographer explicitly considered the photographs "ineligible" or released them or what. Two of them are still being considered for deletion (one no permission, one deletion discussion). Can someone with OTRS find out what license the permitted ones were released under? The same uploader may know about File:Ayala High School View.JPG also (which doesn't yet have an OTRS tag). See also User talk:Blurpeace#File:Ayala BAC Picture 2009-2010.JPG and File:Ayala_Band_and_Color_guard,_2010.jpg Copyright. --Closeapple (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts on the "ineligible" bit: Could it be that the band photos are ineligible for copyright by U.S. standards because they contain are only plain straight-forward shots of school groups, of the same style used millions of times by photographers, and therefore don't meet the "originality" threshold for copyrightable work? --Closeapple (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket referenced gives a CC-BY release. The PD-ineligible template might be a misunderstanding of the templates as there is no particular reason why school group photos would not have rights for the photographer and I would have thought that {{CC-BY-3.0}} would be more appropriate. I suggest asking the uploader what their intention was and pointing out that the ticket referenced implies that one of the CC-BY licenses should be used. --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CT Scanner Line Beam.jpg

Can I get confirmation that OTRS ticket 2010113010013783 is for File:CT Scanner Line Beam.jpg? Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be, the release is explicitly for "... the blog and website for Jesse Garant & Associates (http://www.jgarantmc.com/blog/ http://www.jgarantmc.com)". The uploader needs some guidance on how to ask for the existing ticket to be added to new images and the need to make the source explicit. This particular image appears to have been created by the uploader and so adding the ticket reference is not needed and may be confusing. --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martin défilé 15 août 2010 Cambrai.jpg

This picture is tagged "No OTRS permission since" while File:Martine Défilé 15 août 2010 Cambrai.jpg is tagged "OTRS received". As far as I know permission to use was sent for both pictures at the same time (in the same email), so I think this should be checked. Thanks, Camster (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is correct, the ticket applies to both images. I have added the template for consistency. --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images by JGKlein

This user is frustrated because he has apparently sent several permission e-mails to OTRS but many of his uploads are still tagged for deletion as no permission (his father took many of the photos). Can someone confirm that the files he uploaded have been dealt with correctly, or that an e-mail was received at all? Check the user's talk page for example files that should have been included in the permission e-mail. Thanks, -Gump Stump (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the ticket and I found out that it has not been processed correctly. I will take care of it. Jcb (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/Archive_11&oldid=576667888"