Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/Archive 14

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

Photos by Tom Frost

There are several photos attributed to Tom Frost in Category:OTRS received as of 20 December 2009. According to a notice at User:Cullen328, these may have OTRS permission confirmed, rather than simply having communications received. If so, could an OTRS volunteer place {{PermissionOTRS}} on them? – Adrignola talk 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - all images OTRS permission confirmed - Taketa (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Di Wu headshot.jpg and 2010032910010544

I deleted File:Di Wu headshot.jpg because it had OTRS received - not confirmed - since last May. OTRS ticket is 2010032910010544. Uploader has asked for clarification. (Relevant archive: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 7#File:Di Wu headshot.jpg). Thanks for any update. Wknight94 ^talk 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The e-mail didn't contain an explicit release under a compatible license, and I can't find any follow-up to our e-mail requesting such a release. Courcelles (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might someone follow up with the subject? She voluntarily supplied the picture upon request, and I would think she'd be willing to issue whatever release is needed. BD2412 T 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a reminder now. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for authorization

The release by the copyright holder has been sent for the following files

File:Aristide Teodorescu 001.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 002.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 003.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 004.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 005.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 006.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 007.jpg File:Baraj Strimtori 001.jpg File:Barajul Paltinu 001.jpg File:Barajul Paltinu 002.jpg File:Baraj Ighis 001.jpg

Maybe it is too soon to have a response. Maybe the messages were not received. Maybe I did something wrong. Anyway until now nothing happened and I would like to avoid the files being deleted due to a misunderstanding. 151.200.13.150 22:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. We receive thousands of emails a day and they are all processed in the order they are received. Please don't resend the email; this will at best accomplish nothing and at worst delay response to other people's requests. Asav (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrasingly...

... I've forgotten how to do this! I obtained an en bloc permission from a website to use images from its gallery on Commons. I know there is a way to automatically grant the proper permission based on the OTRS ticket to all images from the gallery, and I believe it's done by starting a category and applying the permission, but I simply can't recall how to do it, and haven't found the relevant info anywhere. Could someone from OTRS enlighten me, please? Asav (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For such permissions, I create a template which includes the licence and the OTRS permission, and then use that on all uploads. Examples: Template:Albania.mid.ru and Template:EduardMarmet. russavia (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll take a closer look and copy what I need. Asav (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg

File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg is marked as OTRS received since last May. It was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg but then restored when OTRS was received. But there is no ticket # and OTRS was not confirmed. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 04:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no ticket related to the file or author. Taketa (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:El polaco Cumbia.jpg

Can someone check this image? The uploader added an OTRS ticket to this image and I'm 99% certain it's fraudulent... but I need a volunteer to confirm that. Tabercil (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - File and ticket do not match. -- Taketa (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Kunca files

I nominated File:Ciboria batschiana symtoms1415183.jpg and a few other images from Josef Papi (talk · contribs) for deletion. Josef Papi now says he sent OTRS but can't find the original e-mail. Can someone please check? The relevant files from "Andrej Kunca, National Forest Centre - Slovakia, Bugwood.org":

Just now, I notice three other Andrej Kunca files uploaded by other users so I didn't see them earlier. But Josef Papi is apparently not related to these so OTRS is less likely. They are likely targets for deletion as well:

Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 12:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pawlenty official photo.jpg and Dave Heineman official photo.jpg

Could someone verify ticket #2009092210000845 for File:Tim Pawlenty official photo.jpg and ticket #2009061610065007 for File:Dave Heineman official photo.jpg, please? The uploader has a handful of official state (not federal) government photos (most of which have been deleted). From the deletion log, some of the others had OTRS tickets and the images were later deleted as invalid. Could someone confirm that the permissions in these two tickets for these photos are correct and from someone having the legal authority to license the images on behalf of the respective states? (The user also has a whole slew of images of state maps that don't give credit to whatever blank map that they were made from, but that's a separate issue.) Thanks. --UserB (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First one has explicit permission. Second one has email of the government website stating the image is public domain. Taketa (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: since both permissions were a forward of an emailcontact I've taken action to verify the authenticity. Taketa (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --UserB (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:GrishaMaslov and 2008062610008141

GrishaMaslov (talk · contribs) has uploaded dozens of files from http://www.tattoo-world.ru. Only one of them appears to have an OTRS tag - 2008062610008141 on File:Tattooed legs.jpg. Could that OTRS ticket be used for all uploads from that web site/user? Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Worsley Man.jpg

File:Worsley Man.jpg has been marked OTRS received - not confirmed - for a long time. It was brought up at this board at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 9#File:Worsley Man.jpg but there isn't much resolution there. Can we get a final answer before I delete or bring to COM:DR? Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the uploader's claim, ticket:2008031910019747 is not sufficient by our standards. There is no explicit agreement to GFDL, and the request (which the rights owner responded to) seems to suggest that the image would only be used non-commercially. As I cannot find a follow-up to our reply, the file should be deleted. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dreamseller.jpg

Abarnard23, who found this file on Google, claims that the details of the permission of this file have been sent to OTRS. It's been tagged as missing a license/OTRS pending for over 14 weeks now and used in a Wikipedia article in that state. Time to actually do something about it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gone thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lauren Jones Actress Model.jpg

Could a volunteer checked this ticket # as it was added by the uploader himself. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum - I'm no expert at OTRS but that does not appear to be a valid ticket number - I get nothing on that. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd... That is the ticket number on this file which has been around ages so I imagine it is valid - any other OTRS person understand this? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, simple explanation, there is a "2" missing :) The ticket number is ticket:2006021910004964. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket does not apply btw -- Taketa (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are saying that the ticket number Pill provided (thanks) does not apply to the file that this thread is about but to the old one I found - just so that I understand. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the last part of that sentence, but yes, ticket:2006021910004964 does not seem to apply to File:Lauren Jones Actress Model.jpg. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've updated the number on the image it does apply to (the user with the image above had just copied it from another file and then blanked it...). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS e-mail lost again?

Has my permission e-mail to OTRS been lost again in the spam folder, as it has happened to me before? Because I don't see any change at File:Wilesco D366.jpg, File:Wilesco D32.jpg, and File:Wilesco D24 EL.jpg, all uploaded 5 days ago. Please tell me if I should send that e-mail again. --Morn (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morn, no, it hast just not yet been worked on (ticket:2011032110009649 in case you need the ticket number). Cheers, —Pill (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive OTRS ticket

Zirland added some doubtfull mention of OTRS Ticket 2008092910035253 at the category Stamps of the Czech Republic.

OTRS tickets are intended for licenses given by copyright holders, not for somebody's legal opinions. A discussion about the question whether a stamp issued by state ministery is an official work in sense of copyright act should be held transparently. No hidden tickets are relevant. It's unacceptable to hide somebody's opinion under the OTRS ticket and parade it as an argument. Author's or publisher's statement cannot suspend the legal exclusion of all official works from copyright protection. Only a judicious finding of the Constitutional Court can abolish a valid legal act. I suppose, the OTRS ticket doesn't dontain suach court finding. --ŠJů (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halloo! Is there somebody? --ŠJů (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for the ticket, but I couldn't find it. It is probably in info-cs which is only accessable to czech OTRS volunteers. On any note, OTRS/Noticeboard is not the right place to hold a discussion on legal issues. Please talk to the person that placed the ticket or discuss it at the local talkpage. Thank you. Taketa (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issue should be discussed elsewhere, that's what I want. But to check the content and relevancy of the OTRS ticket can nobody else than people with OTRS rights and this noticeboard is the right place for such requests. This noticeboard is declared as multilingual – no special separate national OTRS noticeboards are mentioned. --ŠJů (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have contacted Podzemnik who has access to info-cs. Regards, Taketa (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newmarket - Old Davis.jpg

MKCameron, who found this file on Google and who did not select a licensing template when uploading, claims that the details of that missing license have been sent to OTRS. The file has been without a licensing template (and for some reason hasn't been tagged with {{Nld}}) for over a month now. Time to actually do something about it. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the uploads from the same user also need checking. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a ticket regarding File:Newmarket - Old Davis.jpg. Same with File:Davis Drive Rapidways.jpg (searching for Newmarket), File:Uppercanadamall.JPG ("canadatrip" and "uppercanadamall"), File:5847726.jpg‎ ("5847726"), File:IMG 5099 pano.jpg ("5099", "durocher"), File:York Region Buildings.jpg ("Buildings.jpg", "ontarioarchitecture"), File:1752182 newlogo.jpg ("1752182"), File:3353178301 cc8fe9d576.jpg ("cc8fe9d576", "Christopher Watts"). Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for investigating. All tagged and bagged. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permision for image

Please allpow me to put a link into the Hungarian Wikipedia (related to kilogram) of the picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silicon_sphere_for_Avogadro_project.jpg JZ (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JZ, please note that OTRS is used to document permission for the licensens included on the image description page -- the OTRS template is used to indicate that such permission has been received. Thus, you do not need permission to include such an image in a local Wikipedia project; you may basically use any picture on Commons there without prior permission from anyone. Just make sure (as with every other Commons file) that its inclusion is in compliance with the applying jurisdiction. Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jakey-jake-t-austin-.jpg

Please verify the validity of the OTRS ticket - I suspect a fake and the user a sockpuppet of another serial copyvio uploader. --Denniss (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket does not apply to this file. I have nominated the file for speedy deletion. -- Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jasmine-Villegas-in-Concert.jpg

This file was uploaded by Wizard o775 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who found this photo by Tina Lau/Splash News on Google. Wizard o775 claims to be the author and copyright holder and that the details confirming this have been sent to OTRS. Given that Wizard o775 is known to be a persistent copyright violator, I suspect that the latter is only intended to delay deletion. Please check if there is any merit to their claims. If not, I think it's time for a block. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any tickets that mention the names 'Jasmine Villegas', 'Jasmine-Villegas', 'Tina Lau' or the filename in the whole OTRS system. I have additionally checked by hand all e-mails that have been sent to the OTRS permission queues in English and Spanish in the last 24 hours and was unable to find any e-mail coming from an e-mail address that may be owned by the user (no sign of the nickname). I have to agree that the file seems to be a copyright violation; I am going to delete it and block the user for a duration of a fortnight. Regards, odder (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ford permission

I thought the question of the permissions status of the images by Luke Ford was settled. There's an OTRS ticket for it - according to Template:CC-LukeFord, it's this one. Yet I'm hearing at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessica de Rooij, Julia Sandberg Hansson at Postal screening 3.jpg that apparently it ain't valid... Can someone please look into this and get back to me? I'm just really anxious to avoid another repeat of this fiasco... Tabercil (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Photograph.jpg ] agree to publish that work under the free license (BY) & (ND) —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.

Gary R.Englert, March 29, 2011 <Mooney1084v (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

FYI; we have received a ticket with the same content as the above post by Mooney1084v (talk · contribs) and it has already been dealt with (#2011032410013781); I am hereby marking this section as

Done odder (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author of Public Art

I'm seeking to upload some photos of public art in MBTA stations. I've received a tentative okay from the artist; he's willing to go through the official process, which is awesome. However, since this isn't reuse of a single image but of releasing the copyright to specific pieces of art, I'm not sure if OTRS is what I need. Do I:

Use OTRS as normal
Use OTRS but with some modification
Use some other system on Commons
Abandon the effort, there's no way to get permissions for public art

?

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds promising! Using OTRS to submit and archive the permission shouldn't be a problem. Our standard e-mail template doesn't really capture the specific considerations of this type of case, but we should be able to come up with something that does. For example, the author would not necessarily have to license or release the rights to his work as a whole. A jointly issued license or release by all involved copyright holders of the photo (the photographer and the author of the depicted artwork) should suffice. Of course, if they are willing to release or license the rights to the work as a whole, that's all the more awesome. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TITUS RIC II 115-2100253.jpg

Hi, the ticket on this image was not added by an OTRS member, so I'm wondering if it covers it. And if it does, does it apply to the description text too (taken from the same source)? –Tryphon ^☂ 11:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder has clearly stated that the permission for using all images from the website cngcoins.com given back in 2006 does apply to all images published on the said website after that date. There is, hovewer, no information about the permission for using the description text whatsoever. Regards, odder (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the original part of the description; could someone delete the older revisions, containing the non-free text? –Tryphon ^☂ 10:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. odder (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resized madonna.jpg

User:Sandraaa743 doesn't know what the license tag for this photo from the Associated Press photo should be but has supposedly sent in the details of the permission to OTRS. Either that, or they're trying to delay deletion, which seems more likely. Please check. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything in the permission queues (except for the shocking finding that there's way too many Madonna-related permission stuff in OTRS). —Pill (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither couldn't I find the alleged OTRS permission.

Done, photo deleted, thank you. odder (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Fugh.jpg

Hi , I see this was submitted through OTRS - is there any chance you could tell em who submitted this through OTRS? I've been trying to search for portraits of generals, and I'm looking for places to contact. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a fair bit of search I've finally found the ticket in question. The file was sent to OTRS by a relative of the subject; it is, however, a work from the US Army. Hence, I am sorry to say that I see no way to help you in your search. Regards, odder (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odder, I removed the OTRS template because there is no relation between the ticket and the current licensing status. —Pill (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right — my bad. Thank you for noticing that! This is

Done. odder (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atanas Zehirov.jpg

Could one of you, bulgarian speaker preferred, check whether this ticket does indeed cover this image, despite what had been written here by Oleola. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps odder can have a look. —Pill (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry for such a late reply :-). I did indeed have a look at the DR and posted an information about the confirmation of the permission that we've received recently on OTRS. This is

Done. Regards, odder (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChangiVillageBusTerminal2.jpg

"File:ChangiVillageBusTerminal2.jpg" has an {{OTRS pending}} tag on it, but this seems to be an error as the uploader asserts that he or she took the photograph personally and has licensed it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. Could a volunteer check? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a related ticket. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must be an error, then. I'll remove the tag. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! —Pill (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2010052010036986 and User:ThF

ThF (talk · contribs) left me a long note. It was in French, unfortunately, so I'm not sure what s/he said. But I imagine it is related to OTRS 2010052010036986 which was received, but not confirmed, so I deleted several files like File:Jean-Claude Fourneau. Pierres.jpg and File:Jean-Claude Fourneau. Céleste Albaret. Huile sur toile. 1957.jpg, etc. Can someone please check that OTRS ticket and advise ThF what the remaining issue is/was? Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's quite simple: The license chosen was "CC-by-nc-nd", and in another email they sent it was "Creative Commons" ... so we did no really know what do here. (It might be that the image descriptions were incomplete, too, but I don't know as the files are deleted). —Pill (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the effects of your intervention on a significant number of pages, of which I have created many, would you be so kind as to seek further into the problem until you obtain a single, clear and unquestionable answer (we did not know really... it might be that...), which could actually appear quite simple even to myself? Thank you in advance. Regards. --Thierry (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am waiting for an answer, at least for something like an acknowledgement, in case when the complexity of my question would set a delay for thought. In my mind, you should keep more tightly conscious of the consequences of your decisions. With a single click, one may not destroy a work that is the fruit of an obviously significant labour (such a labour in quantity, if it is not in quality). One may not do so without being sure about the reasons of one's own intervention. Last but not least, one may not do so without coming first to contact with the sentenced person (who is not an artificial person, but a natural one, in spite of our virtual environment), and clearly and personally tell the guy the law which condemns him. I do not feel very well, seeing people discuss my own case and cut it short over my head in various pages of the encyclopaedia, and receiving not a word on the subject (but one which tells me where they will speak about me !). Best regards. --Thierry (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry, if you refer to me, the only thing I have done here is to provide information that has already been given to the sender of the permission statement via email on 07/01/2010 01:47 (the ticket was not handled by me). In case you were the sender and have not received a reply from our side, I can of course try to resend it. Please also note that nobody was "sentenced" here, and that we cannot really do more than asking the sender for clarification. Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, Pill, and thank you for your answer. Obviously, I refer to the person who removed my pages, to whom I wrote first, and who answered me only to kick me away, unto here, where I suppose this person comes from times to times, and where, as you can see, I make some effort to be understood by English speakers. I consequently do not refer to you, since you just seem to note that the reasons that the first person had to suppress my images were not perfectly clear, and, "par-dessus le marché", since you are the first to speak to me as if I were a human being. So do I go on waiting for a single, clear and unquestionable answer to my question. Cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I handled the ticket in question, so I will explain why I denied OTRS verification in this case. The e-mail we received from (I'm assuming) you on 5/20/2010 was not appropriate, because you cited a Creative Commons license which is not compatible with our licensing here at the Commons. You stated "CC-by-nc-nd." Please see COM:L and Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons licenses. In short, all content on Wikimedia Commons must allow third parties to reuse, modify, and even commercially use our media. The only Creative Commons licenses which allows that are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. Any other descriptors, such as NC and ND are against the Commons licensing, and we cannot accept them. If you want to donate your images again, you'll need to resend your permission e-mail again (I can easily provide you with a copy of it), and just modify it to state one of the compatible licenses. However, I can understand if you don't want to allow Commercial or Derivative work. It makes sense in some ways to restrict your content in that manner, however, we don't allow those restrictions here, because we focus on FREE content. I hope this explains it in a clear, simple manner. I apologize I don't speak French, but perhaps we can find a francophone volunteer if you need further help. Also, I explained all this in my rejection e-mail which I sent you on 7/1/2010, but maybe you didn't see my reply because the e-mail software "bottom posts" or puts new messages at the bottom of the e-mail. Anyway, I'd be glad to help out further in any way, such as undeleting the images and processing a new permission e-mail, if you decide to allow commercial reuse and derivative/modifications. -Andrew c (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldlodgewh.jpg

This file has been pending OTRS verification since December last year. Please check. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No luck here either, couldn't find anything related. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serhiy kusnetsov.jpg

Is there any permission for this file? -- Common Good (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything. —Pill (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that -- Taketa (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abedi Ayew Pelé.png

The claims on File:Abedi Ayew Pelé.png seem a bit unlikely. Foot01.com credits the photo to Icon Sport. Has anything actually been sent in to OTRS to clarify the situation? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything. -- Taketa (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't either. Courcelles (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:El polaco 6.jpg

I suspect the OTRS tag is a fake - please verify. Uploader most likely just another sockpuppet of User:Candy475. --Denniss (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket does not apply to this file. -- Taketa (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New list of OTRS members by language

Since we periodically get people searching for someone that speaks a particular language (like Polish in the thread just above this one), I created Commons:OTRS/List of members by language. It is linked from the word "multilingual" in this noticeboard's header for easy reference. If someone is looking for a certain language, they can be referred to this list. Any help maintaining it would also be appreciated.--Chaser (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking legitimacy of an OTRS grant

Hello, I've recently received a communication from the person who took this picture

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

I'd like to know what the basis for the OTRS verification of this image and to know what the actual license status of this image is.

The license es cc-by-sa 3.0 according to the ticket --Ezarateesteban 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the basis for this: was it cc-by-sa on flickr at that time?

Bear up bison (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask if you referred him specifically to the license on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norfolk_Island_convict_buildings.jpg? —Pill (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мишка на Севере 009.jpg

Is there any permission at OTRS for this image? --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything. -- Taketa (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything, either. Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the uploader provided this ticket #. --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely in Russian, so I can't read it. There's a similar link there to chocolader.narod.ru, but it's to a different image (http://chocolader.narod.ru/gallery/guest_mkek/images/mk168.jpg). As above, I can't find any reference to the specific website or the specific images used as the source. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no permission yet rubin16 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

translation for ticket:2011040410008206 (polish) urgent needed

Since there is a huge amount of bird pictures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pkuczynski/Marek_Szczepanek/Birds that have been marked as copy rights violation, I think we need to know what the status of the OTRS ticket is. Can anyone with some knowledge of polish put a summary of the actual situation as a note to the ticket?

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didnt noticed this pictures was made for deletion. Marek Szczepanek grants all the rights to publish these photos under the license as it si marked on the photos (usually GFDL). I published most of them few years ago. However he recently offered some more photos asking if we could add a note and in case someone wants to get high-resolution pictures for publishing or printing, he can contact him to get the terms - I guess he might want to sell them in that case. I dont think that violates the license, as the media which got uploaded in that resolution are licensed under GFDL - am I right or wrong here? Regards Piotr Kuczyński (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sp5uhe and Wpedzich seem to be the best bets. I'll alert them both to this thread.--Chaser (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We now also have a comprehensive list by language: Commons:OTRS/List of members by language.--Chaser (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this is a misunderstanding. Would be best when Polimerek explain this. Sp5uhe (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done there was probably a misunderstanding, the deletion request have been removed --Neozoon (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS for mass upload

Hallo. Wir erwarten eine Bildspende für das Denkmalsprojekt von voraussichtlich 3000 bis 4000 Fotos, die ich in mehreren Schüben erhalte und hochladen möchte. Eine der technsichen Fragen, die sich hierfür stellt: Kann der Bildspender erst - je Paket - eine Bildfreigabe (@de) ans OTRS mailen, so dass ich das fertige Ticket bereits in den Massenupload einbinden kann? Wie wäre dann der Ablauf? Oder was braucht es von mir bzw. in der Freigabe, damit die Tickets nicht manuell an jedes Einzelbild eingetragen werden müssen? --Martina talk 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Martina, ja, der Bildspender kann die Freigabe auch im Voraus senden; dies schon allein deshalb, weil wir jede spätere Korrepondenz derselben Ticketnummer zuordnen können. Geschickt wäre natürlich, wenn sich die Bilder irgendwie eingrenzen ließen - zum Beispiel weil alle von einer bestimmten Internetseite entnommen sind. Dann könnte der Bildspender eine Genehmigung bezogen auf die dortigen Bilder senden (oder du schickst eine eingescannte, unterschriebene Genehmigung von ihm), du gibst uns (sofern möglich) Bescheid, wann sie geschickt wurde, wir legen eine Vorlage wie http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Images_by_Rob_Lavinsky an, und du lädst die Bilder dann mit Einbindung dieser Vorlage hoch. Wäre ein denkbarer Weg. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Pill, das klingt super. Es müsste auch schon eine erste Freigabe für diese Bilder bei euch eingegangen sein (warum für so wenige, wäre eine längere Geschichte). Kann ich in Zukunft also dieses erste Ticket wiederverwenden? Ich (oder der "abarbeitende" Supportteamer?) würde/könnte es in die bereits vorhandene (beim Upload gesubstete) Credit-/Lizenzvorlage einbauen, oder? Dann kläre ich als nächstes mit dem Bildspender, dass wir für alle weiteren Bilder möglichst nur eine Freigabe bzw. nur für größere Pakete zu diesem Ticket hinterhersenden. --Martina talk 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS zur schon vorliegenden Freigabe: Falls es an Inhalt oder Form der Freigabe noch Verbesserungsbedarf gibt, sagt mir bitte Bescheid. Wobei aber natürlich die weiteren Freigaben keinen Commonslink können, sondern einen Bildnamen/Bildtitel enthalten werden. --Martina talk 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Martina, die E-Mail (bzw. die zwei E-Mails) ist (bzw. sind) eingegangen. Ich habe auf der Lizenzvorlagenseite einen Hinweis auf das Ticket eingebaut, die Genehmigung ist formal o.k. Der Rechteinhaber sollte in Zukunft seine Mails mit Folgendem im Betreff senden: [Ticket#2011020910015121] -- die Mail wird dann automatisch dem Ticket zugeordnet. Grundsätzlich ist es o.k., wenn zukünftig kein Link in den Freigaben steht, zumal wir die Genehmigungen ja ohnehin nicht auf jeder Seite einzeln eintragen müssen. —Pill (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Vielleicht können wir, wenn der Freigabeprozess ganz abgeschlossen ist, dem Urheber [nebenbei: es ist etwas ungewöhnlich, dass da zwei Urheber stehen bzw. sich in der Mail beide als Urheber bezeichnen, aber gut] auch noch einen Link auf die Kategorienseite zusenden, sodass er uns dann nochmal, um ganz sicher zu gehen, seine Freigabe bestätigen kann.[reply]

ergänzung: die zweite mail enthielt auch genehmigungen für http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:11_Kurf%C3%BCrstenstra%C3%9Fe_13_(Eg[..]], http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10_Kurf%C3%BCrstenstra%C3%9Fe_1_(_Eg[..]], http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_der_K44_(Binsfeld).jpg [..], http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_der_L271_(Binsfeld).jpg [..] (die links sind kaputt, ich habe das jetzt nur aus der mail kopiert, aber die bildnamen sieht man ja -- die bildbeschreibungen enthalten die nun OTRS-getaggte vorlage noch nicht. kommt das noch oder muss die genehmigung dort manuell eingetragen werden? —Pill (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Pill, danke nochmal! Die bisherigen Fotos habe nicht ich hochgeladen. Ich bringe die jetzt alle in Ordnung (auch File:11 Kurfürstenstraße 13 (Eggersheim).jpg und File:11 Kurfürstenstraße 13 (Eggersheim).jpg) und subste bei weiteren Uplaods die Lizenzvorlage inkl. OTRS-Ticket. Weitere Freigabe-Mails kommen dann demnächst mit [Ticket#2011020910015121]. Sie werden einen Vermerk enthalten, dass das bereits vorhandene Ticket weiterverwendet wird und dass ihr nichts mehr machen müsst. :-) --Martina talk 10:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gut. Ich habe oben einen Fehler gemacht, der mir jetzt erst aufgefallen ist: Im Betreff sollte nicht [Ticket#2011020910015121] sondern [Ticket#2011040610021812] (also die Ticketnummer, die auch im OTRS-Baustein eingetragen ist) stehen, ich habe da leider die falsche Nummer im Zwischenspeicher gehabt. Tut mir leid :(. —Pill (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also [Ticket#2011040610021812]. Kein Problem.

OT: Das dauert jetzt eh eine Weile, weil ich noch einen Uploadbatch für den Commonist brauche, damit ich möglichst viele Bildinfomationen automatisiert aus Excel in die individuellen Bildbeschreibungen übernehmen kann. Sonst kommt da eine Menge Nacharbeit auf uns zu. Hat jemand eine Idee, welchen Programmierer ich auf sowas ansprechen kann? --> Commons:Batch_uploading#Monument_lists --Martina talk 12:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) edit 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to license an image

I received an image to post from the author of the image. What do I need to do in order to answer the request below? Thanks for uploading File:Sass Artist 001a.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ([email protected]). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Do I just need to get the author to put her name and date on the standard permission letter?

The image in question in the image in the Sasson Soffer wiki page, entitled File:Sass Artist 001a.jpg

Thanks,

New York Art Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by New york art editor (talk • contribs) 12:06, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

No... what we need is a statement sent to OTRS saying that The Sasson Soffer Foundation consents to the use of the image under the stated license. Read the section of text here for more details. Tabercil (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake OTRS ?

In picture File:Soyanna.jpg are OTRS-permission but only line in history are uploader, are the permission fake?--Motopark (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket seems OK to me, although it's in Polish, for which I used Google Translate to read it more or less. The OTRS volunteer instructed the uploader to paste {{OTRS|2011040710018744}} in the permission field, so at least the uploader acted with good faith. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And who sent the permission? The exif data contain another author's name than the description field. --Martina talk 15:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the ticket say, who is the photographer? The EXIF photographer name, Bartosz Klonowski, differs from what the uploader wrote in the author entry, Hadrian Kubasiewicz. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The permission seems to be sent by the uploader, but contains a scanned document, which contains the signature of the photographer. I think we need a PL speaker to tell us more. I will see if I can find one with OTRS access. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Odder. Jcb (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say why the EXIF data contain a different name of the photographer than the one which is mentioned in the OTRS ticket (maybe he's just borrowed the camera from a friend?). There is, hovewer, a formal contract attached to the e-mail in which the photographer, Hadrian Kubasiewicz, transfers his proprietary copyrights (because there are two kinds of copyright in the Polish copyright law) to the subject of the photograph, Anna Sochacka (Soyanna). The contract seems genuine so I've added the information to the image page; the case may be marked as

Done, I hope. odder (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Martina talk 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

Could somebody please check if the OTRS ticket for File:Actor Vijay on birthday.jpg (otrs ticket: [1]) is plausible/trustworthy? I'm wondering because the image is credited to a commercial news source, the original uploader on ta-wiki doesn't look like they are related to that news source in any way, and the OTRS ticket apparently only turned up quite recently, long after the initial upload. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket contains a direct message from kollywoodtoday.com to us in which they release all their images under CC-BY. Jcb (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Wow. Interesting things happen. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or... wait. Dang. Looking more closely at the site, I have strong doubts if kollywoodtoday.com site actually owns what it's giving away. I see no signs this is a responsible journalistic medium. It's a fan site. It's got a disclaimer page [2] that speaks about users freely submitting material in their own responsibility without systematic editorial control. Looking at its picture galleries: in this one, there are tons of pics that are evidently movie screenshots, all watermarked "kollywoodtoday" when they can't possibly be the copyright owners. In this one, we have a series of professional portrait shots with the copyright mark of another side, over which the "kollywoodtoday" mark is crudely overlaid. In this one, we have another series of professional portrait shots, several of which also appear (in better copies) on other sites [3]. All of these appear without any photography credits, source documentation or anything. I'm afraid we should not treat kollywoodtoday as a reliable source in terms of copyright claims. What's the easiest way to find out how many images have been uploaded sourced to them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission access request

Hello, I'd like to access a copy of the permission granted for the use of File:LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg, as I'm curious as to whether the entire series of maps on the original website is released under the same licensing. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket applies to "the Global Paleogeographic Views of Earth History" MorganKevinJ^(talk) 06:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, because the site's mother site by the same author says that all the paleogeophic maps are protected from commercial use by copyright. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's common. Copyright owners can override their own global site copyright notices.--Chaser (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So any maps featured on the daughter site are free for noncommercial use under Creative Commons, but the rest of them are all protected. Thanks for your assistance! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ariss-radioamateur-iss.jpg

Baftek claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for this file has been sent to OTRS. This seems unlikely given that the file was obtained through Google and that the stated "permission" is that the work is supposedly in the public domain because it was created by an employee of NASA as part of their official duties. Is there anything in OTRS confirming that this was indeed created by an employee of NASA as part of their official duties? (I'm a bit skeptical, since it seems that most ARISS project participants are not NASA employees and those that are participate during their free time.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search for both "File:Ariss-radioamateur-iss.jpg" and "ARISS project logo" in the permissions queue returns nothing but the file name is not always mentioned in the ticket. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that ARISS is an international program consisting of MOUs of ISS participating countries and amateur radio groups. I find it extremely unlikely that the uploader, or the website he cites as a source, has any right to license the image that way. I've found no evidence that NASA was the creator or owner of the graphic. If anything, I would suggest the likely holder of copyright would be AMSAT (http://www.amsat.org), though again, no evidence of this could be found. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've nominated it for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Básquet.jpg and File:CBF Cerdanyola.jpg

Claudia y Judith claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for File:Básquet.jpg (which permission – it doesn't have a licensing tag), which they found on Google, has been sent to OTRS. It's been over two months now, so please check this.

The same user also claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for File:CBF Cerdanyola.jpg has been sent to OTRS. For this image, they are claiming to be the author and copyright holder. However, http://www.esportfemeni.com/archives/440 credits the photo to Lídia Larrossa. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text searches on all the above file names return no tickets MorganKevinJ^(talk) 23:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bianca-mastenbroek-1301660437.jpg

Hi, could someone check if we have any information about this file in OTRS? The description page says uploaded to wikiportrait.nl by OTRS Ticket#: 2011040110014768, but I don't know if it's the same OTRS system or if the emails have to be forwarded to commons. Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiportret is a special Dutch queue; normal permissions agents don't have access, only info-nl agents. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket seems fine. Wikiportret is a system of the Dutch queue where people can send their images with information and we upload the files for them. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's now conflicting licensing information on that page. Could you check which of cc-by-3.0 and cc-by-sa-3.0 applies? Thanks. –Tryphon ^☂ 17:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Licence in ticket is CC-BY/GFDL. Best regards, Taketa (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Djslasher

Djslasher claims that an e-mail containing details of the permissions for File:Park Bom of 2NE1.JPG, File:2NE1.PNG, File:Sandara Park.jpg, File:Minzy-2ne1.jpg and File:DARA.jpg (which permissions – none of them have a licensing tag), which they found on Google, have been sent to OTRS. The files are credited to "AsianPopcorn" and at least two of them have different watermarks. Given the Google source, lack of license and range of watermarks, I'm suspecting the OTRS claims are false. Was anything actually sent in? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No ticket found for any of these files. - Taketa (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tagged for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

samborowski2 - 2011030910001974

OTRS ticket 2011030910001974 applies to "all images from samborowski2" including

File:Kevin_Jonas_2010.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Nick_Jonas_2010.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Nick_Jonas_2010_2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Lemonade-somebody.jpg (ticket now removed --Fæ (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The last of the images listed above was raised for my attention due to the Disney logo. A ticket appears to have been accepted in error as there is no properly worded release from the copyright holder (the email was clearly from someone else), the verification is for all current and future images upload to samborowski2's Flickrstream which, considering the stream is anonymous, is far too open ended and the original images appear to be 'all rights reserved'. I would like a consensus to withdraw the ticket and remove it from all associated images. --Fæ (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It is in no way certain that the ticket is verifiably connected to the copyright holder, and it is insufficient in other ways as well (ticket notes have been left which OTRS users can read). Stifle (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since further discussion on OTRS and no reply from the requester, I have withdrawn the verification from the first 3 images above, marked them for speedy deletion and left a note for the uploader. --Fæ (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who sends the permission?

Hi.

Is it mandatory for the copyright holder to send the permission email himself or can I forward the permission to the OTRS system myself (along with the conversation history)?

Also does the domain name of the email of the author need to match the domain name of the website where the images come from?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you should consider updating the page Commons:OTRS. Badzil (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful if the holder sends the email directly, and also helpful if the domain matches. In the event that this is not the case, the permission can still sometimes be processed anyhow. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mika Totem 2011.png permission

Can someone do a search of the OTRS permissions to see if this image has a valid ticket? The author is given as PR Photos, which is a photo service like Getty or WENN, so I strongly suspect it's a copyvio but given that there's a OTRS Pending tag on it... Tabercil (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagged A search on the file name returns no tickets. I also did a search on PR photos and found a copyvio ticket for a picture owned by PR Photos(Ticket#: 2011012910011072) MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - flushed. <G> Tabercil (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Janet Jackson at the Verizon Theatre at Grand Prairie.jpg

This image comes from Fame Pictures, Inc - Santa Monica, CA, USA - +1 (310) 395-0500 and copyright is claimed to belong to (c) 2011 Fame Pictures, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA. I doubt that an image agency provides photos via photo submission for free commercial reuse. Possibly someone tricked the photosubmission for license laundering. --Martin H. (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then they would have tricked me, since I handled the ticket. Tony Keith (listed as author on file) asserts quite heavily that he took the photo himself. Where are you getting the information above? Is there a ticket in the copyvio queue relating to this? – Adrignola talk 17:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, its written in the EXIF. And the photographer is Cindy Bar. --Martin H. (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no EXIF data for the photo linked above. I do not see where you are getting this information. – Adrignola talk 23:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploder manipulated the EXIF, he removed the visible properties that you see if you download the file. The file however still contains the hidden EXIF fields. And if you then search on the web for the caption you will come to a page like this where the full EXIF is preserved without this (IMO: criminal) email senders modifications respectively with that parts that he removed. --Martin H. (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a neat tool and I'm going to have to employ it on any future submissions without visible EXIF data. Criminal indeed. This person went through a lot of trouble to launder this license. I've deleted it immediately given your evidence. Ticket 2011040410025581 for future reference. – Adrignola talk 01:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. For the tool: If you use firefox (and possibly other browsers, but not IE) you see some very nice feature at the upper right of http://regex.info/exif.cgi. --Martin H. (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note translation

I was wondering if a German speaker can translate the note on ticket 2011041410018311. I got sent a copy of it because I merged tickets to it but my machine translation of it is not a positive one. – Adrignola talk 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a translation. cheers, —Pill (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My concerns have been confirmed. – Adrignola talk 01:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aynrand.png

Ticket 2010111410014437 has the uploader stating that the rights to the work and the work itself were purchased for $20 but there is no evidence provided to support the statement. Do we believe the uploader? My inclination is a deletion based on the precautionary principle. But a second opinion would be good as this is apparently being used by all the Wikipedias that don't allow fair use for illustration of Ayn Rand articles. – Adrignola talk 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions of Special:Contributions/Aehtna (not my account)

Tomorrow, the tolerated limit of time without a permission will be exeeded. I got an e-mail that the uploads were justified from this website by Prof. Dr. Johannes Breuer and forwarded it to [email protected] but I got no response and there are no OTRS-Tickets. I asked whether you will take the steps that are necessary to validate this and whether I should add an {{subst:OP}} to the files.

Here is the mailheader:

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Disposition-Notification-To: Rainer Rillke <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:23:53 +0200
From: Rainer Rillke <[email protected]>
User-Agent: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Antwort: Grafiken aus der Patientenberatung
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TOI-MSGID: f932f623-19e9-48c0-908a-1080891XXXXX

What I did wrong? -- RE rillke questions? 14:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Du hast nichts falsch gemacht, aber wie du den /FAQ entnehmen kannst, dauert die Bearbeitung oft einige Zeit -- nur selten können Mails schon nach einem Tag bearbeitet werden, in der Regel bewegt sich die Bearbeitungsdauer eher zwischen einer und zwei Wochen. Grundsätzlich ist angeraten, {{subst:OP}} zu verwenden, wenn man bereits eine Mail geschickt hat, ja. Da ich das Ticket aber ohnehin eben schon gesucht habe, kannst du in diesem Fall die Bilder auch gleich mit {{OTRS received|reason=processing|id=2011041410009375}} kennzeichnen. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meine Mail (nicht sichtbar) war aber ausdrücklich eine Vorab-Anfrage, das heißt die Antwort der Professors ist noch keine eindeutige Zusage. Wenn noch keine vorliegt, könnten Sie bitte noch entspechende Maßnahmen einleiten (Asking for explicit permission.)? Danke -- RE rillke questions? 15:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte entschuldigen Sie die Störung. Ich habe die FAQ jetzt gelesen. -- RE rillke questions? 15:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Nach Bearbeitungskonflikt:) Hallo, die Vorlage, die ich oben vorgeschlagen habe ({{OTRS received|reason=processing|id=2011041410009375}}) sagt nur aus, dass unter der Ticketnummer eine E-Mail vorliegt, die noch nicht bearbeitet wurde. Das Vorgehen ist also so, dass du die Vorlage auf die Bildseiten einsetzt (und einen allfälligen "no permission"-Baustein entfernst), wodurch die Löschung der Dateien zunächst einmal abgewendet wäre. Dann wird sich in den nächsten Tagen (ggf. Wochen) ein Bearbeiter aus dem Support Team (ich oder jemand anders) der E-Mail annehmen und prüfen, welche Schritte noch zur korrekten Genehmigung nötig sind. Sind diese schließlich erfolgt und liegen alle Freigaben in ausreichender Form vor, wird er den von dir eingefügten {{OTRS received}}-Baustein entfernen und stattdessen die finale Genehmigungsvorlage einfügen. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (vorgeschlagene Vorlageneinbindung korrigiert, 00:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:El rapto de Europa de Valentin Serov.jpg

Steleto claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for this file (which permission – it doesn't have a licensing tag), which they found on Google, has been sent to OTRS. It should be old enough to be in the public domain given that Valentin Serov died in 1911. Is there anything in OTRS that we need to be aware of before tagging it accordingly? It's been sitting around for two weeks now without a licensing tag, so please check this. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Text search on the above file name returns no tickets MorganKevinJ^(talk) 23:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tagged it as a duplicate of File:Europe serov.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which was reverted without bothering to correct the file description, leaving it in that state for yet another week until I noticed. Sigh. Done now. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong permission: #2008072810032949

The current mentioned source of these images is www.krg.org, however all of the images are from a different source, as watermark suggests, images are from Mehr News. please someone check the ticket, if the permission is from www.krg.org and there is nothing from Mehr News, then Images should be deleted. ■ MMXX ^talk 05:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket cites a forwarded email from the domain krg.org so we cannot be certain that permission email was ever sent.MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have removed the images from "Mehr News". ■ MMXX ^talk 08:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS - Mexican coins and banknotes

Can I please have an OTRS member take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Banknotes of Mexico 2? Currently, we are discussing the deletion of ~100 images, and ticket 2010031810059166 may be of assistance. Please leave any comment at the deletion discussion. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commented over there. Courcelles (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fukushima I by Digital Globe 2.jpg

Hi, I'd like to make sure that this ticket is valid, since it was added by the uploader and not an OTRS team member. A wider crop of this image is available on flickr under a cc-by-nc-nd license. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, uhm, the statement apparently refers to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fukushima_I_by_Digital_Globe.jpg, though at one point it says to apply to "images of the Japanese reactor from DigitalGlobe." As the OTRS member noted, that's a vary vague statement and hence he didn't find it sufficient ("Your subsequent dialog clarifies the licensing as to one image [...] but not as to other images in the photostream."). —Pill (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the ticket as it stands is not valid for this image, but it is valid for File:Fukushima I by Digital Globe.jpg, right? I will tag File:Fukushima I by Digital Globe 2.jpg as missing permission, because it's quite heavily in use and given the fact that the copyright holder granted permission for a similar image, maybe someone will manage to contact them and get them to agree to a free license on this one too. Thanks for your help. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I already tagged it "received but insufficient". As to the validity of File:Fukushima I by Digital Globe.jpg, it apparently is fine (also, from what I understand, in the opinion of the OTRS volunteer), though I am, as usual, sceptical of forwarded stuff, particularly if we have to rely on the forwarding user to tell us which image his correspondence with the author was about. (Note to myself: We really need to reach consensous on that among everyone working on permissions queues.) —Pill (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think forward is fine, given who forwarded it. I agree that these images (with the exception of this one) do not have valid permission. It took me some time to figure out that we're dealing with two images. It seems I presumed before that one of them was a crop of the other, but now I find they are actually two different images on Flickr. We only have permission to freely license this one, not the other one or its derivative works.--Chaser (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded two new images to replace these two derivative works. The new images are derivatives of the known good image, but are cropped to duplicate, as nearly as possible, the existing crops. If an admin could delete the problematic crops and replace them with redirects to the new ones (a link each is on the respective image description page), it would help to preserve the image links without any extra work on those wikis that are using these images. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megalodon image is not rights-free

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

This image is copyrighted by Karen Carr, www.karencarr.com. No agency or individual may release this image to Wiki Commons. This is copyright work and it is aggtressively protected in all countries of the International Copyright Union. Contact Karen Carr Studio at US 575-388-4505. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.102.112 (talk • contribs)

Please provide a DMCA take-down notice to legal-en

wikimedia.org and mail a certified copy to the address at http://www.wikimediafoundation.org. Emails on file have Karen Carr stating that the copyright holder is the Virginia Museum of Natural History, with Tim Gette providing the terms of the license currently shown on the image. – Adrignola talk 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitled.png

Forrestcohen claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for the first revision of File:Untitled.png (which permission – the uploader claims that it's ineligible for copyright protection because it contains no original authorship, which is isn't because it does) has been sent to OTRS. Was anything actually sent in? If not, please delete it along with the unrelated latest revision, which completely lacks source information. Also protect the file name, since it looks like blacklisting is staying broken. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No emails have been received. Deleted and protected. – Adrignola talk 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't seem to have worked. The name was revived again less than six hours later by User:Ingenio Angelina, San Pedro de Macorís, Republica Dominicana, who is a pretty obvious sockpuppet of User:Tundalia. Sigh. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the log only showed create protection and didn't include upload protection. So they couldn't create the page itself, but the creation of a page along with a file upload seems to bypass the intent. I created the page itself, then protected with upload protection (again). At that point it worked: log. – Adrignola talk 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Satoshi Tajiri 1990.jpg

Has an actual OTRS e-mail/request been sent for approval for this image? I ask because this image has been added to Commons and Wikipedia as a copyvio before, and I want to make sure that a legitimate process is being followed on it this time, since the OTRS pending template was added by the uploader. Scapler (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Stoshi Tajiri" returns no tickets. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2011041310016074

Hi, there is an issue on en.wp about use of a Commons image to which OTRS ticket 2011041310016074 relates. The issue is discussed here. Can anyone shed any light on what the significance of the OTRS ticket actually is? Rd232 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket contains permission by author for use of the image. Nothing else. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. To be clear: is it verified that the author of the image is Diego Arria, as the file description claims? Or is it merely verified that the person who took the image gave permission? Rd232 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The e-mail that was received comes from the domain erlingsson.com and it includes a forwarded message (with no header, however) from Diego Arria in which he confirms that he is the author of the photograph and releases the image under CC-BY 3.0. odder (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. That answers my question, thought it equally raises questions about how exactly OTRS verification works! What you describe sounds easily forged. I have no reason to think that it was here, but it doesn't sound enormously satisfactory as an approach. Rd232 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person that forwarded the email is a well known person. I assume good faith in this case. -- Taketa (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taketa, my thoughts exactly. Plus, there was the e-mail of the copyright holder given in the message from the sender so the ticket seemed more genuine. odder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rageh omaar 2.jpg

This image has been tagged as "OTRS pending" for a couple of months now. Has an email containing details of the permission for this file been received? Middayexpress (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. The OTRS agent who handled the ticket (no. #2011010510010377) requested an explicit permission from the copyright holder releasing the file under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 but no reply has been received. odder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mitchell photos

Could someone advise me of the terms of use stipulated under the OTRS tickets for File:Leontyne Price (b&w) by Jack Mitchell.jpg and File:Leontyne Price (color) by Jack Mitchell.jpg? I'd like to verify that the licensing requires that the "Photo © Jack Mitchell" attribution remains intact and that derivatives of the images are not allowed. Thanks, Gobonobo (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an OTRS member, but license is cc-by-sa, so it should be ok if you remove the watermark as long as you attribute the work to Jack Mitchell. ■ MMXX ^talk 16:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark ruled that licenses permitting derivative works (required on Commons) cannot require watermarks remain in the image. However, the OTRS exchange (ticket 2011030610011236) has forwarded emails between Jack Mitchell and the person who was communicating with him (the person forwarding to OTRS) showing that he was misled to believe that such a condition could be honored. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following this review, I have deleted the images as having prohibitions on derivative works. – Adrignola talk 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who: 1) obtained the original permission to use the image; 2) uploaded the image; 3) selected the license; 4) submitted the OTRS for review; 5) received OTRS acceptance; and 6) am now the subject of your discussion regarding the OTRS ticket, it seems it would have been useful - if not basic courtesy - to have informed me that this discussion was going on here, so that I might have contributed in a timely manner and prior to any final action(s) being taken. Just as I extended the same basic courtesy by providing notice on Gobonobo's talk page when I filed the speedy deletion request that precipitated this discussion. So it is very disappointing that neither Gobonobo nor Adrignola, an admin, felt the need to extend the same basic courtesy to me. Instead, the same admin chose to make false and irresponsible claims about an author being "misled". The OTRS record is clear to anyone who reads it. And since I don't have OTRS clearance, I obviously could not have approved it. I acted entirely in good faith and the record on that is also very clear. So exactly who was "misled" - and by whom, Adrignola? And again, where was my opportunity for a timely defense of myself and/or the ticket? Perhaps when you're busy maliciously defaming someone, and recklessly deleting images, it's just best not to provide people with the opportunity for a timely response? Shameful behavior, Adrignola. As an admin, one would think you'd know better - and conduct yourself better. X4n6 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by AdamMarz

AdamMarz claims that e-mails containing details of the permissions for File:Grachi-6-.jpg, File:1148 grand theft auto the ballad of gay tony-prev.png (the uploader informatively explains that they come from Template:Web page), File:ZonaNorte de visitante.jpg (from Google Imágenes) and File:Bsc(escudo).jpg (from www.barcelonascecuador.blogspot.com) have been sent to OTRS. This seems rather unlikely given the sources and given that the uploader hasn't specified which permission actually applies. Has anything actually been sent in? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any relevant tickets for the images above MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Tholoana23

Tholoana23 added the text "OTRS pending" to the Permission fields of File:Top billing.png, File:TopBillingMag.jpg and File:TopBillingLogo.jpg, perhaps suggesting that e-mails containing details of the permissions for these files (Creative Commons Share-Alike) were sent to OTRS (although they did not use the actual template). Given the sources ("Google" and "Top Billing Website") and the uploader's clearly demonstrated confusion about basic copyright concepts, it seems unlikely that a valid permission has actually been sent in. Please check? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any relevant tickets for the images above MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]