Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/Archive 15

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

Ticket confirmation needed

Could someone check the range of OTRS #2011042010005251, including whether it covers File:Р-7г.jpg, File:D-30.jpg, File:D-30KU.jpg, File:Д-25В.jpg, File:Avid Logo.jpg and/or more uploads by Solovei777 (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is in Russian. I have contacted Rubin16 to have a look. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this permission was given by Aviadvigatel' company (http://avid.ru). Everything is ok rubin16 (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More bogus OTRS claims by Plinio Cayo Cilesio?

Plinio Cayo Cilesio (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) has previously been caught red-handed trying to delay deletion of blatant copyright violations by abusing the {{OTRS pending}}. Now they are once again claiming that the details of the supposed Free Art License permission for File:Fusil FAMAS en Colombia.jpg (which they found on a web forum) and for File:MBT Carro de Combate Altay 2.jpg (which they found on another web forum and which they claim to hold the copyright to) have been sent to OTRS. Any truth to it, or is it time for a block? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any tickets related to the images you listed above.
--Dferg (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files by User:Bquadro

Please check ticket:2011042110005598:

-- Common Good (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An OTRS member asked the user to tag the images and those exact files are mentioned in the ticket, so the permission appears to be valid. MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pestbosje.jpg and Geriefbosje.jpg

I have rewritten the Dutch WP articles 'Pestbosje' and 'Geriefbos'. To illustrate those articles, I needed photographs of them. I frequently upload pictures of myself, but these landscape elements are not in my neighborhood. Fortunately I found someone who had these pictures on his own web site and he was proud to donate his photos to Wikipedia. He wrote to me that he did not claim any copyright to these photo's. So I uploaded his photos on WM Commons (with his name) and I forwarded his permission email to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org, but I received an answer that this was not enough. So I asked the photographer to fill in the official form and I explained him how exactly to do so.
Then I was satisfied and happy that I could use those nice illustrations. But now I discovered that something must have gone wrong: The images have recently been removed!
Please help me: How can I get those images back again? Can you tell me what might have gone wrong with the permission procedure? (Of course I can upload them again as if I had made them myself and fill in the right permission, but I prefer to be honest, although this seems to be a hard way...) Thanks in advance, --Erik Wannee (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2011012310011931 had the OTRS agent requesting an explicit release under an allowed license, as it appeared that permission was for Wikipedia only. No response was received, however, leaving the status of the images in doubt. Per the precautionary principle, after many weeks had elapsed, the images were taken down as having insufficient permission for use at Commons. – Adrignola talk 17:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:Siegle's steam spray inhaler (1864).jpg

Is the image en:File:Siegle's steam spray inhaler (1864).jpg with ticket 2011040410017974 a keeper? feydey (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket was created because OTRS was copied on a request for permission sent to the copyright holder. However, no response was received to confirm whether the image had permission, under any terms. – Adrignola talk 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr file approval outside normal process

I'm getting flack on my talk page and in emails where I've provided the stock response that Flickr images need to go through the standard review process, but people are pointing to images at User:Nehrams2020/Image Permissions that have not. The lack of consistency is undermining my ability to hold the line on this. – Adrignola talk 14:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imagebysafa2.jpg

Could someone please re-check ticket:2008090510037653? According to the file description, the file comes from http://www.safainla.us/, the author is Safa in la and the license is {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} with a required attribution of "GFDL". The attribution should be the name or pseudonym of the author or the name of the organisation that holds the copyright, rather than the name of another license. Which license(s) and attribution (if any) did the copyright holder actually specify? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is not in a permission queue, so I cannot check it. I have contacted the original uploader Mardetanha. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reply for a week. I have contacted the OTRS admins to have a look. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr John Liri Blues 2010 piano.jpg

Can someone do me a favour and check the ticket for this image? It was added by the uploaders and that just strikes me as curious (to say the least)... Tabercil 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is fine. An OTRS member asked the uploader to tag the file MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Four Continents Championships 2011 – Pairs.jpg

The ticket was added by the uploader; could someone check if it's valid? –Tryphon☂ 14:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is valid. Uploader has permission to use images from said website and author. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This kind of blanket permission should be documented somewhere though, otherwise people will constantly be coming here and ask about the ticket. –Tryphon☂ 09:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have experience with blanket permission. I noticed Category:Photographs from davecskatingphoto.com. Is this what you had in mind, or do you have any other ideas on how this can be best approached? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does "permission to use the file" mean? Has the copyright holder explicitly approved the stated license? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Taketa (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS member and ticket verification required

Please look at this edit. Is Edoderoo an OTRS-member? Does Ticket 2011042910009712 exist for this file? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. – Adrignola talk 22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Popups do not show any user right of User:Edoderoo. Please assign OTRS-member and autopatrolled. -- RE rillke questions? 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would if I could, at least for the former. The latter has been assigned. The former I've requested at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. – Adrignola talk 03:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ticket 2011050310011345

Please what have I do when the author who has sent permission has a different e-mail. I also sent a copy of the message, forwarded to me by the author but it does not work as an evidence. Please help I rodionov (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)i_rodionov 04 May 2011[reply]

hi I rodionov, what do you mean by "has a different e-mail"? apparently the otrs volunteer responding to the email assumed that the statement of permission was provided by the person displayed on the image, rather than by the person creating the image. was he wrong here? —Pill (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One email from subject (yes a different e-mail, but I spotted it), which had copied the uploader. The uploader also forwarded their copy to us as well. I still need permission from the photographer or an indication that copyrights have been transferred as a work of hire or through a contract. The original email did not clarify this. – Adrignola talk 13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:Littleboots (6).jpg

It looks like the uploader of this image actually is the license holder, but they were a bit confused about the OTRS process (they had been notified of licensing issues in the past). Is the information on the file info page enough for an OTRS ticket, or should the OTRS template text be removed? -Gump Stump (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2009090310023321

Please provide all details verbatim of this Ticket#:

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2009090310023321

no, emails are confidential and i will not give out "all details varbatim." if you have a specific question or want a certain image checked again, feel free to ask. —Pill (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket: File:Shavona.jpg

Would an OTRS member please check the ticket on File:Shavona.jpg? It was added by hand by the user on the image on en.wp by hand, has a date months before the image upload, and the user is now blocked for poor behavior (including copyvios). Thanks.

PS. Also uploaded by this user with that ticket is w:File:Bandana in swimsuit.JPG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither were covered by the email. I've tagged both as missing permission, notified the uploaders, and removed the OTRS tags. – Adrignola talk 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martafernandez.jpg

Ruqui05 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. Given the Google source, lack of license, and the watermark, the OTRS claims seem unlikely. Was anything actually sent in? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can't find anything. cheers, —Pill (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tagged and bagged. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2010030110055914

Is File:Vanesa Leiro 2.jpg properly tagged? Thank you. --RE rillke questions? 18:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please clarify this ticket. User:EstrelaMexicana has uploaded many possible copyvio files under the same ticket.   ■ MMXX  talk  19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It only applies to two files from Flickr that were once under a free license, but they were not named in the email so I don't see what use the ticket is at all to anything. You'll have to talk to MGA73 to find out which two. But it's definitely not anything uploaded recently as that's from March of last year. – Adrignola talk 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User randomly selected the OTRS template and copy&pasted it to his uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched for ticket number in Commons and I find this two images:
Tickets were added following this discussion. it seems some of images by User:EstrelaMexicana were also from same Google Picasa account by "PPMG".   ■ MMXX  talk  20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CienfuecloseupCalledelInfierno.jpg

According to the EXIF the author is wrong. Did the email declare that the author is different? --Martin H. (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No the email declares the same author that is given in the info template. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket 2011050510010477 was trying to cover five images. The name of the sender matches the EXIF data for four images, Ivan Marquez. However, one of the five, File:CienfuecloseupCalledelInfierno.jpg, shows Alberto Lam as the author, not Ivan Marquez (but the latter was trying to claim it was his). One, File:CIENFUEgritoFVCM10.jpg, has a watermark that could be from an image taken from a website. All try to state that they are copyright of Cienfue. The fields indicating author can be edited easily within my OS without additional tools so they're not exactly definitive. All emails from free providers. Too much ambiguity and so I've decided to retract my confirmation of them and leave them as received. I don't know what would provide definitive proof but it's a suspicious situation. – Adrignola talk 18:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification has been received stating that these were works for hire but the copyright holder likes to give credit to the photographers. It would explain the discrepancies. – Adrignola talk 19:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CV Pierre.jpg

Klaas03 claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for this file (which permission – it doesn't have a licensing tag), a screenshot of a video they found on Youtube, has been sent to OTRS. Given the source and lack of license, the OTRS claims seem unlikely. Was anything actually sent in? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing sent it. It's a copyright violation and has been treated as such. – Adrignola talk 18:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#2008100510027116

Please confirm if this ticket is correct to use for all images from http://www.soccer.ru.   ■ MMXX  talk  21:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs someone who speaks Russian and English to confirm. – Adrignola talk 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the soccer.ru ticket was ticket:2023558? (See archived discussions.) —LX (talk, contribs) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Your link was broken, but you've got ticket:2008100510027116 or otrs:2023558. There's both a number and an ID. And yet the number is the one when using {{PermissionOTRS|id=#########}}, not the ID. I don't like how it causes confusion but there you go. – Adrignola talk 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I think I knew that at one point. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alex for the link, I forgot to search the noticeboard :)   ■ MMXX  talk  20:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ElectricSineWave.jpg

Please could someone look into the OTRS status of this file? Uploader says he sent the email in weeks ago. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(on en.wikipedia... [1])

In ticket 2009062310002123, no valid license was provided to OTRS by the copyright holder in an attached document and the original email sender has not followed up. Nomination for deletion is recommended. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket of File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg

In Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg_2 some people have questioned the authenticity of the user filing the OTRS ticket. He/she thinks that the OTRS message from Hamid Mir was forged. Please look into it WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have read my comments at the undeletion request regarding this ticket? --AFBorchert (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments, I will add that one the deletion request page I suggested contacting the Facebook page of the group Hamid Mir works for, so he can confirm/deny if he really gave permission for that image WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that this permission came indeed from Hamid Mir. Please read my comments again. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I read the rest of your comments, I see that you believe that the OTRS was genuine.
One thing to keep in mind was that I posted this merely to let the OTRS know of this debate. I wasn't the one who originally doubted the Hamid Mir posting (User:Officer was) - it would be in your interest to get involved in the discussion page, and/or to redirect people on that page here, and/or to talk directly to the people who raised the doubts in the first place
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted a pointer to my comments in the current DR — but apparently very few people read this. At the current moment there is a lot of confusion to be found in the discussion. In summary, there are no doubts that this photo came through Hamid Mir but (within the ticket) the name of the photographer remained unknown and some doubts were raised (not by me but by others) whether the copyright was correctly transferred from the photographer to Hamid Mir. As I explained in my comment I refered to, Hamid Mir signed our standard declaration which assures that he has the rights to grant this photo under this license. In my opinion, this is good enough but I would have prefered the photographer to be named as some of the legislations require this. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. User:Officer read and has responded to your rationale, and he is still in favor of deletion. User:Officer is arguing that the uploader did not get permission to use the photo from Hamid Mir even though the uploader claimed he did, and that the uploader forged the e-mail sent to OTRS. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for showing here late, at the very bottom of this article, Hamid Mir's email is given as [email protected]. Did Hamid Mir use this email in his communications with the uploader? If the answer is yes I'm no longer going to press this further.--Officer (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the privacy policy probably doesn't let us answer that question, but I will say that I concur with AFBorchert that the OTRS ticket is valid. As he said at the undeletion request, this ticket included our general declaration. To my mind, we've done our due diligence.--Chaser (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request was closed with the reason "Hamid Mir in your email only give permission to use the picture to Saqib Qayyum but he doesn't specify the free license under the image should be released so the ticket isnt' valid." Is this really true? It sounds peculiar that the email had not been checked for a permission for us to use the image. --LPfi (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Ticket 2011050410012388 - permisson was sent, but what's wrong?

Hi!

On 4 May 2011 the author of File:Watchtower_Bible_&_Tract_Society_(world_headquarters).jpg sent a permission [email protected]. But in the permission section of this photograph is a problem.

Can anyone tell me what's the problem? There is written e.g.:

"...or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published."

Maybe because I uploaded the image via the german Commons location, the US author of the photograph instead sent it not to permissions-de@wikimedia.org but to [email protected].

What is the problem? How to resolve it?

Many thanks! -Fiorellino (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was received just fine. But Sergio Herrera (listed copyright holder) needs to change the license at Flickr as we received permission from a free email address provider. It's trivial to register a new email address and put in what you want for the display name. There's no point in granting us a more permissive license and having a restrictive license at Flickr. It's non-exclusive to us. So they should make the change at Flickr to prove to us that they are the copyright holder and also to allow us to use our standard Flickr review system. I emailed the instructions to the sender. You can see the procedure yourself at Commons:Flickr files. If the copyright holder has reconsidered then it will be deleted within a month. – Adrignola talk 13:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, many thanks! -Fiorellino (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Adrignola! The owner of the photography has changed the license at the(flickr source, too! But to CC BY-SA 2.0 instead of 3.0. I hope this is okay. -Fiorellino (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news: I have a picture and permission from the man who took it.

Sorry folks, but could someone please help me; I have enough trouble just submitting a picture taken by myself, of an inanimate subject in nature...

I am preparing an article on a notable, but frail, person who lives in a country remote from me.

I got some info from someone who had photographed the subject in its natural haunts (the subject's own home). The picture was consciously and willingly posed in front of a couple of the subject's works, for publication.

I want to upload the portrait for inclusion in the Wikipedia article I am preparing, and I got the photographer to send me a nice JPG attachment with HIS permission to use it, (he is all in favour of the article) and the permission of the subject (who also is in favour of the article).

I don't want to trouble my contributor, who is currently much stressed, with all the iterations that I normally have to go through when a commons submission flops (If I get anything wrong it all seems to flop, in such a way that I must start over from scratch; I have on occasion given up on my own submissions and nowadays avoid uploads, so I am by now too badly gun-shy to submit other works where I cannot in good conscience select or demand what the donor should do.) OTOH, I would not like to disappoint either subject or photographer by omitting the portrait.

I suspect that the appropriate option is for the portrait to be made available for public use with suitable attribution, but could someone please tell me whether to bother, or what I should do to make it so easy, direct and above all fail-soft, that I don't have to pester my remote friend more than once? I know I should have read everything, and for all I know I have done just that, but, reading or no reading, I have never once submitted anything that went through first time. And BTW, I have read your FAQ, which was the least thing I have read by now! JonRichfield (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The form letter at Commons:Email templates is something that, if received in the first email by most submitters, would greatly reduce the back-and-forth between OTRS volunteers and uploaders in trying to get the necessary permissions. Commons:First steps/License selection has information on licenses. From the sound of things you could suggest either {{Attribution}} or {{Cc-by-all}} to the photographer. – Adrignola talk 14:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks; I'll take it from there. At least I feel a little less lost -- for now...:-) JonRichfield (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 OTRS images deleted

Yes check.svg Resolved

I submitted an email ticket for 28 images on April 11, 2011 (to [email protected]). A copy of the email with headers (here), and original URLs below. Today, all the images were deleted, no warning or notice. I have no backups. I'm an experienced user of OTRS, I did everything correctly. Any help appreciated in recovering these images and why the OTRS was not processed.

..the files that were deleted:

Green Cardamom (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got valid permission, an administrator can almost always restore the files without problem. Anyway, I could not find the email with various search terms, including text from the copy of the email you provided. The Commons queue is only currently backlogged four days, so I'd wager that someone mis-labeled your email as spam or something along those lines. I suggest you send it again, log-in to OTRS to get the ticket number, and then contact Adrignola--who deleted most or all of the images--at his talk page with the ticket number and ask him to look into it. If the images hadn't been tagged with appropriate permission info, then deleting them was appropriate, since the deleting administrator was not aware of the permission.--Chaser (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Chaser. Is it possible my email is on a spam blacklist? I've re-sent the email, and followed up on Andrignola's page. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The email has been received and OTRS permission has been confirmed. – Adrignola talk 04:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GC, has this happened before? There is a spam filter, but I think whatever blacklist that exists is human-edited only.--Chaser (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS membership verification

Please look at this history. OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member? I am indeed a member of the Hungarian OTRS-team & that's why I put ticket numbers for the verification of received permissions. :) What could I do to remove such statements from my edit summaries? Tĥ in advance. Bennó (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested the flag be added to your account at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After that you won't see those labels in the history any longer. – Adrignola talk 12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1000 tĥ! Bennó (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:President Fraccari.jpg

Is ticket:2011041310015379 valid for this file? -- Common Good (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is so i have tagged it appropriately. MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antiga Estació de Cal Rosal, Catalunya, Espanya.jpg

"File:Antiga Estació de Cal Rosal, Catalunya, Espanya.jpg" has ticket number #2009022010022669 indicated on the file description page, but no licence. A brief search through the file history did not indicate any licence that had been accidentally deleted. Can you please verify the ticket and determine what licence, if any, the image was released under? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1955 at condon's.jpg

This image has both OTRS permission tag and {{No-source}} tag. This image page needs to be cleaned up and source provided according the OTRS email --Sreejith K (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you have access to the ticket? – Adrignola talk 13:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do. But I was not able to understand the email, that's why I asked for help. Thanks for fixing the image page. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian speaker

It's occurred to me that the permissions seen in ticket 2011050410007554 may be from the photographers, but the attached images of the signed statements are in Italian. The issue is that these are photos of sculptures, and if permission has only been received from the photographers and the statues are not yet in the public domain, then permission would also need to be obtained from the artists as there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. – Adrignola talk 12:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the list. I don't have time today.--Chaser (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they might still be uploaded on it.wiki under the "fair use" we usually apply to art works located in Italy. I'll ask Trixt to be sure, though. --Elitre (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attached permissions are for photographs only (no mention of artist's permission). However, after a simple question to the copyright holder ("Do you have the right to release them under CC-BY-SA, knowing that you need also the permission of sculpture creators'?" or something like that) and a positive answer, I think that photos can be uploaded on Commons with {{Cc-by-sa-all}} + {{GFDL}} and {{Soprintendenza}}. In fact, I believe that the sender, that is an "Italian citizen", has the right to publish them in high resolution without any problem with the government department responsible for the cultural goods - if they are protected cultural goods, of course). In any case, it.wiki should upload them locally in low resolution and under EDP with its it:Template:Soprintendenza (but this is a it.wiki affaire, not ours). @Adrignola: For the meantime, please tag them with {{OTRS received|processing}}.--Trixt (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the images as requested. As I'm not familiar with this concept of "Soprintendenza", please feel free to take ownership of the ticket if so desired. – Adrignola talk 15:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission from Bank of Brazil

Оne user told here that there was sent an e-mail on 21st October 2009. Is there any valid permission for Brazilian currency? --Shureg (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Smiling Sun" - antinuclear

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smiling Sun - English.jpg. Is the OTRS ticket really valid? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in one of the normal permissions queues as I can't access it to say. Maybe the info-nl queue? – Adrignola talk 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by Henk Helmantel

I question the permissions for the photos of paintings in Category:Henk Helmantel. Is there permission by the painter himself? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything related to this ticket is in Dutch. I don't speak it, so I can't help, sorry. Courcelles (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crissy Moran.jpg

Could someone kindly check this OTRS-ticket, that had been added by the uploader add upload, though nearly 3 years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sender claimed to represent Net227, Inc, as listed on the description page. The speedy deletion tag listed http://www.crissymoran.net (NSFW) as the source for the image. The bottom of that site lists http://www.mediumpimpin.com (NSFW) at the bottom of the page under "webmasters". The latter site matches the domain of the email address used. A whois for the former site lists Net227, Inc. as the registrant. – Adrignola talk 16:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Espero Katolika (4-6×2007).jpg

Good day, Can I use the picture "File:Espero Katolika (4-6×2007).jpg" in a magazine article? Is the consent valid? It is written there I should leave a note here. Thank you. Joseph. 188.82.223.58 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi joseph, from what i can understand in the related permission email (it's in esperanto ... unknown territory for google translate, apparently) it is sufficient by wikimedia commons standards (though the email -- ticket:2008110910023638 -- was not sent by the copyright owner directly but was forwarded to us by the uploader [this would usually not be ok by our current standards]). please note that particularly when it comes to commercial use of images, you do have additional obligations to look into the copyright status of an image (at least in german and swiss law, i'm more or less unaware of how this is dealt with in other jurisdictions) -- and it might in fact be necessary for you to contact the uploader or the publisher as to whether this file was indeed released into the public domain. we do our best to make sure that files are only stored here with permission from the creator/rights owner but i hope you'll understand that neither can we ensure this with absolute certainity nor can we (matter-of-factly) guarantee a certain file is indeed free to use. hope that helps a bit. best wishes, —Pill (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am much obliged to you. It's nice you understand and accept permissions in languages you don't speak - perhaps the Thai ones are really permissions and not jokes:-) --188.82.130.82 14:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, i would not accept permissions in languages i do not speak. (this one here already was accepted by someone who does speak the language. considering this and that the language reads like a mixture of spanish and italian, i'm quite sure i got the statement of permission nevertheless -- particularly because it was really short; i would not have replied here if not). —Pill (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto de Tubarão ES Brasil.jpg

Fake OTRS-permission (ticket: 2010122810018791)? I do not see any edits by OTRS-team. Can you please verify the ticket. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is regarding the image but It did not appear to be from the copyright holder and has no response since December. MorganKevinJ(talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removed the template, tagged the imag {no permission}. —Pill (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ellen Oléria.jpg

Any permission for this image recently (upload May 11) arrived at OTRS? --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2011051110000823 but it is written in Portuguese, so I am not certain that it confirms permission. MorganKevinJ(talk) 13:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and most importantly, it has not been worked on yet. —Pill (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Industrial Robot .jpg

Hi. Could someone check the OTRS ticket for this image: File:Industrial robots-transparent.gif? The deleted image linked in the header is an extraction of the image with OTRS. So if the ticket is okay, then we can undelete this image. Amada44  talk to me 08:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask a similar question, but specifically whether https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4345244 covered just a particular version. I see that File:Industrial robots-transparent.gif was originally sourced as being from File:Industrial robots.gif whereas the third file, File:Industrial Robot .jpg, is actually a separate version (I am assuming it looked like [2]). Edit summary [3] says permission was sent for 6 images, so what exactly did the ticket specify? --Tony Wills (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I know: deletion request
File:Industrial robots-transparent.gif
File:Factory Automation Robotics Palettizing Bread.jpg
File:Automation of foundry with robot.jpg
File:Robotics Cutting Bridge Building Parts.jpg
File:KUKA robot for flat glas handling.jpg
File:KUKA Industrial Robot KR10 SCARA.jpg
but it would be good if someone can confirm that it was specifically restricted to these. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was specifically restricted to those, and was prompted by the deletion request. – Adrignola talk 13:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allright. Tony Wills created a similar image from one that had OTRS permission. I created a redirect of that file to the deleted one. SO everything is fine. Thanks for the help. Amada44  talk to me 15:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to avoid deletion of image!

Yes check.svg Resolved

Dear sirs: Good day!

I am receiving several e-mails from Wikimedia Commons where there are allerts saying that the cover's image of the book of my authorship "Géa" will be deleted. I am the author of the book, the author of the image, the only publisher of the book and the only owner of the copyright of the book and all the images it contains, including that cover image.

The last answer I have sent to Wikimedia Commons is the formulary I reproduce below, which I imagine is correct.

Please help me in avoiding the deletion of that image (link in the copy of the formulary below)!

COPY OF THE E-MAIL WITH THE FORMULARY COMPLETE

[removing contents of email, it has been received, see ticket:2011052110007611 for users with access, —Pill (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you very much by reading this message and for helping if possible!

Cláudio César Dias Baptista - CCDB

Please forward any relevant emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so that we can compare your email to that listed on the site. – Adrignola talk 13:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adrignola! Thank you for answering! The copy of the e-mail I have sent to permissions-commons@wilimedia.org is already in the body of this topic, above. I think the e-mail perhaps is not reaching Wikimedia Commons, or you would be able to find it. You may also see here http://www.ccdb.gea.nom.br/english_pages.htm in my site (I'm the author of the image [ File:Capa livro primeiro 50 p cento.JPG ], here discussed, and of the book where it's the cover) a public permission to free publishing of all the illustrations, images and covers (so, including the one we are talking about) present in the books of my authorship. If you may need any other information, especially if you could not find the several e-mails I sent to Wikimedia Commons (as the above reproduced), please write directly to my e-mail (removed by myself due to your suggestion below) - which adresses I am here exposing as another confirmation that I am indeed the author of the image, the books and the only owner and webmaster of the site www.ccdb.gea.nom.br with access to it.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I have sent this same minute a new copy of my e-mail above reproduced to Wikimedia Commons. Here is the copy or the new e-mail, which I have sent by another of my e-mail adresses to assure reception:

[removing contents of email, it has been received, see ticket:2011052110007611 for users with access, —Pill (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cláudio César Dias Baptista, the emails have been received (and I've removed them from your post here accordingly). However, it may take some time for us to respond your email, see our FAQ. you do not in any case need to send in further copies. thanks :) —Pill (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC) (you may add {{OTRS pending}} on the image pages; you may also wish to remove your email addresses from your post here to avoid spam.)[reply]

Hi, Adrignola! Thank you very much for the answer and the instructions. I am removing the e-mail adresses from my text above and wait the procedures for image liberation without sending any more copies of the removed e-mails. Thanks. :).Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Handled via email and my talk page. – Adrignola talk 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

use of file rquest 22/5/11

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2011040110016141

Dear sirs, I am looking to use the above file for a commercial project and was wondering if I need permission or if I just attribut the file in the same way wikimedia has? can somebody please give me some advice as I am not overly familiar with OTRS. kind regards [email protected] 109.249.239.176 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi, as far as i can see, the related permission email it is/was sufficient by wikimedia commons standards and referred to these images (though the email was not sent by the copyright owner directly but was forwarded to us by the uploader). please note that particularly when it comes to commercial use of images, you do have additional obligations to look into the copyright status of an image (at least in german and swiss law, i'm more or less unaware of how this is dealt with in other jurisdictions) -- and it might in fact be necessary for you to contact the uploader or the publisher as to whether this file was indeed rightfully licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported". we do our best to make sure that files are only stored here with permission from the creator/rights owner but i hope you'll understand that neither can we ensure this with absolute certainity nor can we (matter-of-factly) guarantee a certain file is indeed free to use (thus we're unable to give you permission to use it). hope that helps a bit. if you have more questions, feel free to ask. best wishes, —Pill (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with an en:wp ticket?

After I deleted an image at en:wp, someone left me a note on my talk page saying that this ticket was good reason to undelete. Since I don't have OTRS access, I don't want to take an OTRS-based action, but I posted a request at en:WP:AN for anyone with OTRS access to review it and undelete if appropriate; however, I've had no response. Can Commons OTRS people help with en:wp OTRS issues? If not, could you suggest someone to whom to point me? Nobody in the list at en:WP:OTRS has been very active lately, so I don't want to depend on any of them. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on en:WP:AN MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the image deleted. That ticket was handled very poorly with no explicit statement of permission and no contact from the actual copyright holder. Free emails are not confirmations of identity and statements written by pseudonymous users on wiki are not definitive. A new ticket with proper procedure followed and the copyright holder providing an explicit release, from an email address listed as the contact address on the site of origin are necessary. – Adrignola talk 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again User:Aehtna (contribs), ticket=2011041410009375

I am just curious what's going on in this case. Did you already ask Prof. Dr. J. Breuer for permission? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ticket is in the German queue which is backed up significantly (permissions-commons-de not so much, but permissions-de up to 60 days). Too many emails, not enough people. More recruiting of people familiar with the strict interpretation of copyright and licensing required from OTRS personnel is needed. Only tickets sent in English have a decent chance of being processed in a timely manner. – Adrignola talk 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60 days ... That sounds horrible. Do you think I can help there when I am ready with my scripts here? But if i look around here, there is a lot to do, too ... all these copyvios and out-of-scope-media in category uncategorized ... Nevertheless, Thank you for your fast reply. -- RE rillke questions? 17:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming files subject to OTRS tickets

There are a number of files of the form "MG nnnn.jpg" which are apparently the subject of ticket 2011051710013531. For some reason OTRS pending has again been added to some of the files, despite and OTRS confirmed messages already there. This may just be a mistake by the uploader, but needs double checking. I think all the following files are included, perhaps others?

But my real question is, if the files are to be renamed, does this need to be noted in the OTRS system in case the redirects one day get deleted or over-written? Thanks. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are all valid under the ticket, which I handled. The uploader added a rename tag and the OTRS pending tag. But all the renames simply substitute the "MG" prefix for several words, which are all the same for each one, which really isn't that much better. The names should describe the actual content being depicted. – Adrignola talk 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes the suggested names are bad. But, if the OTRS ticket lists the files by name, is there a problem when they are renamed (they will almost certainly get renamed to something better)? Or should I send you a list of the new names to add to the ticket?
  2. Can I assume that there is no problem removing the second OTRS pending tag? He hasn't perhaps sent another message to change something?.
Thanks --Tony Wills (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All tickets from the customer have been closed out and no new tickets show up under the customer's email address, so that's a yes to #2. Regarding #1, if you provide a list of new names I will happily add a note to the ticket for anyone's future reference. (Otherwise I do hope people retain redirects as is the normal practice). – Adrignola talk 16:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, retaining redirects is a fraught business, especially with generic names which are liable to be over-written (hopefully the new upload form will minimize that). Thanks for the help :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DrV at en needs ticket verification

Hello, Could at OTRS volunteer please comment on the deletion review found here on en? It is related to ticket number OTRS ticket 2011043010584179. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it looks like the person who posted there is an OTRS volunteer. That wasn't plain to me (and isn't obvious from his en webpage). sorry. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anjem Choudary.jpg

Please delete this image. It's already been more than a month. The copyright holder initially expressed interest in providing permission, but has not responded to my emails ever since. Joyson Noel Holla at me 08:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ✓ Done, the file has been deleted. odder (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple use of OTRS-ticket 2008100510027116

Hi, searching for OTRS-ticket 2008100510027116 I got several hits (different files, uploaded in 2010/2011, all uploads by user Amarhgil (talk · contributions · Number of edits). Misuse of OTRS-tickets? Could you please verify? Thx. --Gunnex (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search the archives and you shall find. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Icon eek.gif :-) --Gunnex (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the question seems to come up a lot, I went ahead and made some changes to {{Soccer.ru}} to make it clearer that the OTRS tag is actually part of a template. Hopefully that makes it look less suspicious. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Oppegaard image

Hi there. A few days ago (I think it was this past Friday, the 27th) an author named David Oppegaard submitted an image directly to Commons via OTRS. I intend to use this image on pages relevant to him, but as he didn't submit the image through me, I have no idea what it's called. Ideally, it should be File:David Oppegaard.jpg or something. Does anyone know this image's title? Thanks much. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image you are looking for can be found here. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 23:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some answers

Hello Friends,

I am new to the OTRS thing, but wanted to educate myself more. First of all is OTRS for a single file or whole website (i.e if they release content under a single license type), for example I have seen various photos uploaded to commons belonging to BollywoodHungama.com/indiafm.com under the same OTRS ticket number.

My next question would be that I have uploaded various photos till now to commons I wanted OTRS verification and archiving for the same what shall be the procedure?

Fanofbollywood (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's for a file or a whole website depends on the release statement provided by email. OTRS is also only for images where it's thought that someone else took them or where the images have been previously published elsewhere. For images you've taken yourself and not published previously that also would not be doubted to be your own work, don't submit permissions to OTRS as it creates extra work for us. Otherwise, you can follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 18:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Diamond (H22).jpg

The image of this ship which was submitted to Wikipedia by me when I noted that there was no image available notes that it was 'Taken by a major in the British Army...'. My late father-in-law was a WOII in The Royal Scots (British Army) and stationed in Hong Kong where he was taken a POW when it fell to the Japanese during WWII. He was not a major in the British Army. Could somebody please amend the author in the description to correct his rank. Aileen Trinder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aileenjt (talk • contribs)

I have amended the description, please re-check it. You are quite welcome to edit the description yourself directly. It would seem appropriate to include your father-in-laws name there as the photographer, but I see that it is not included - is that what you wanted? --Tony Wills (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS#2007070210006625

Can someone tell me what OTRS#2007070210006625 covers (probably it is in Italian), I am supposing it is from Igor Baldacci, and is about text and pictures of Luigi Baldacci (painter), possibly from a website. Thanks, --Tony Wills (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, the email is about the text on http://www.luigibaldacci.it/Biografia.aspx (which appears to be no longer available). It was sent to clarify the copyright status of http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Baldacci - now moved to http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Baldacci_%28pittore%29. Hope that helps, —Pill (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:RockStar50

Uploaded images from Flickr and added OTRS tags. Please verify. --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the tags and warned the user MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket#2011051110007737 and User:Lokomotive74

Does this ticked exist? The user reported that the e-mail he received was truncated/ cut off. Is it possible to send your e-mail anew? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillke, sure. Please ask him to send the email either as a direct reponse to the reply he should have received or directly add [Ticket#2011051110007737] to the subject line. The ticket will be reopened then automatically and the volunteer who has dealt with it will be notified. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I change all the "OTRS-pendigs" to OTRS-received? -- RE rillke questions? 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rillke, after looking at the user's comment on your talk page, I noticed that I have misread you question here. I was under the assumption that the user's email had been incomplete as opposed to our reply; apologies for that. I will try to get back to him directly on your talk page. Replacing {OTRS pending} with {OTRS received} sounds like a good idea to me ({{OTRS received|ticket=2011051110007737|reason=email}}). Best wishes and thanks for your help, —Pill (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Thank you -- RE rillke questions? 06:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission

Hi. As of lately, whenever I link to a ticket via [OTRS:0000000000000000], I get a big red "No permission!". Something wrong with me, or something wrong somewhere else? :) Rehman 01:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

otrs: is for the TicketID in the URL, whereas ticket: is for TicketNumber in the URL and also the ticket number in the interface. Basically: swap OTRS for ticket in your wiki link. – Adrignola talk 02:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nairdeepajayan

Can someone check the OTRS queue for the latest contributions from this user? They've uploaded a number of movie posters and have add OTRS tickets for them. Mind you the ticket number added for them is 000000 so I'm fairly sure it's fraudulent, but I just want to confirm they're invalid before I nuke the lot... Tabercil (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can safely nuke em. Nothing found under the username nor any of the image titles. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 00:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing new script for lazy OTRS members

I know there are no lazy members :) . But I thought it would be better if you have the opportunity to batch-tag files without having to instruct a bot or need admin-rights:

Therefore I wrote User talk:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js (help page).

You can install it adding importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js");

Thanks to Neozoon and Pill who created a place to test, Alex who tested for patrolling purposes, this script is now stable enough that I felt bold enough to put this note here. Die Buche will check whether I worked correctly in the near future.

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask here or on my discussion page (really, you're allowed) or on User talk:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js (preferred option).

I hope this piece of script will help you to ease your job. But keep in mind: Scripts and bots can't replace a thinking human being. So always be careful. Yours faithfully and thanks for your great work -- RE rillke questions? 11:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zach Bonner

Yes check.svg Resolved

Would an OTRS volunteer review the three images in Category:Zach Bonner? The images are File:Zach Bonner head shot 2008.jpg, File:Zach Bonner receives the President's Volunteer Service Award from President Bush.jpg, and File:Zach Bonner with Volunteer Florida staff 2008.jpg. I sent the permission verification several days ago but have not received a reply. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard, we have received your email (ticket#2011060910012671) but it has not yet been processed. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This ticket has been taken care of now. – Adrignola talk 12:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angie Everhart 2.jpg

Looks like this ABC (correctly: Bob D'Amico for ABC) photos cropped directly above the watermark. Instead of starting a DR directly: Did the permission come from ABC? --Martin H. (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the OTRS thread, it is stated that Mrs. Everhart commissioned this image, and requested it be used on her article. It was uploaded by her PR agent at JAG Entertainment, with appropriate contact details. It seems to check out, and was probably distributed to other media outlets, hence the use by ABC. Also, while the resolution is quite low, that was the maximum the copyright holder wished to provide under a free license. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds unlikely, the photo appears to be a part of a photoshoting for a television series [4] and that shooting was unlikely commissioned by one person. I think it worth asking if there is/was any copyright by abc and (per en:Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission) what scenario of copyright transfer applies. --Martin H. (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Lowell Milken

Hello,

I'm inquiring about [5] in reference to the ticket [#2011061310014741]. I sent an email with the permissions information at 2 pm on June 13 with the email [email protected]. OTRS has received that email but has deemed it insufficient for the license. I do not know the OTRS's agent name that has been assigned to handle this matter, as it is not listed in the permissions section on the page. I just wanted to get more information about how to correctly resend the permissions email. What information is missing. Whether the permission will be revoked, etc.? Thank you so much for reading and responding. Sarahkeen (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred (via email)? – Adrignola talk 21:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I just spoke to the photographer and he is traveling until next week. He said that he would be happy to send in the free license release when he is back at his office. Is this going to be prompt enough? If you need something sooner, I'm happy to take the photo off Wikipedia until this licensing can be handled properly. Let me know. Much thanks. Sarahkeen (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 29 days remaining before the file is deleted due to insufficient OTRS permission. Should be enough time. – Adrignola talk 00:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo sessions

In ticket 2011061910008498 we have an individual whose picture was taken at a Walmart photography studio and who was provided a digital copy of the image. This was over two years ago so there is no documentation. Would there commonly be an expectation of a transfer of copyrights in those cases as a work for hire? – Adrignola talk 20:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is Walmart in the United States, I think the article you link to gives the answer quite clearly: unless you own the photo studio and the photographer is on your payroll, you need a written contract with the words "work for hire" in it. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the confirmation. – Adrignola talk 00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to check ticket:2011031910001222

ticket:2011031910001222 was added to various files by a non member. I do not have OTRS access so I can't be sure of this addition is legit. See Special:Contributions/Spaniel Thank you. Regards. --Ben.MQ (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I handled that ticket personally and it only applied to File:Kirill Fandeev.Symphony(2007) .ogv and File:Kirill Fandeev.Symphonic poem - `The gаrdеn`.ogv and maybe any works by this YouTube user, but nothing else. – Adrignola talk 19:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Latsabidze audio recordings - possible copyvio?

File:Giorgi Latsabidze Plays Mazurka.ogg has permission filed in OTRS. I would like to confirm the permission.

There are a lot of recordings by this artist on Commons. Although they have been uploaded by several different users, the permission and infobox templates look suspiciously similar between files. (Possible sockpuppeting?) I doubt Latsabidze has uploaded these files himself. I doubt he has even provided the appropriate permissions for Commons to host these files under the specified licenses.

All the audio recordings by him on Commons could be possible copyright violations. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aehtna (talk · contribs) - the third

Was there really no permission for File:ISTA-Korrektur.jpg and File:ISTA.jpg?

What went wrong with the contribs? Was there no response from the Prof.? Can I help somehow to get the permission? Thanks in advice -- RE rillke questions? 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For non-admins' reference, this is ticket 2011041410009375. There was no response received when the OTRS agent attempted to contact the individual for further information. I can't provide contact details due to privacy policies. – Adrignola talk 00:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to check permission for 2010090310006328

Hi I would like to confirm the permission for ticket number 2010090310006328, to be reused on a website. What are the exact parameters of this particular permission? Thanks, RH

I need to know which image you want us to check this ticket number against. – Adrignola talk 00:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is already done as I've seen a ticket yesterday asking about image reusing related to that ticket/file. But can't find it now. --Ben.MQ (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2010110810011004

Please check ticket:2010110810011004 and verify if User:ECMdoku is allowed to upload any content from DocuWare and release them under cc-by-sa 3.0.   ■ MMXX  talk  14:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verified to be true. – Adrignola talk 14:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I know what does the permission says? does it cover any contents from their website? for example their press kit or publications?   ■ MMXX  talk  15:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Files uploaded by User:ECMdoku which are related to DocuWare. Nothing more specific than that was provided. – Adrignola talk 15:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you.   ■ MMXX  talk  16:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PermissionOTRS

Interesting that 638 users have this gadget enabled when only 0 people are identified as OTRS members. Even if we include retired or inactive OTRS members that first number is somewhat shockingly high. This bit of info was from Commons:Database reports/User preferences#Gadgets. Killiondude (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some checks to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition#AuthorizedUsers to limit the number of people who would even see the gadget in their preferences to enable it. You can only filter based on user rights, not user groups, so this will be hidden for those without autopatrol. That is the only right assigned to the OTRS member group. It's also assigned to those in the autopatrol group and image reviewer groups, so it will still show for them (as well as any non-OTRS-member admins). But it's something at least. – Adrignola talk 15:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remembering that some OTRS agent do not have this gadget enabled (me, for instance :)) makes the first number even more shocking... odder (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GC_Portrait_7.jpg

Can someone verify the OTRS ticket on this image per Commons:Village_pump#DMCA_takedown --Grcampbell (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and on this image as well File:Gregory Colbert Portrait 3.jpg --Grcampbell (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As is noted in the Village pump discussion, the DMCA takedown notice overrules OTRS because the person submitting the OTRS permission did not have the rights to release the images. The images should be deleted. MacMed (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both deleted immediately. Real-world legal issues and liability for the Wikimedia Foundation supersede any Commons procedures or policies. Both would have been tagged as lacking permission had they been pointed out under other circumstances. They were transferred from en.wikipedia and the uploaders there were not the true sources for the files. – Adrignola talk 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket check

Can someone please check File:Raist spell.jpg? There's a reference to a ticket in the text (# 2007052310008945), which was put in place by the uploader. Tabercil (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation seems to indicate it's correctly applied, though the ticket is in Italian. – Adrignola talk 03:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picasso 4382.jpg

Can someone please review my use of this photo for my blog at www.betharnold.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso_4382.jpg It says the ticket #2009032510047417 was accidentally deleted. Anyway, I'd like to use the image. Thanks,Beth

The actual location of the file now is File:Picasso 4382.jpg. For using this content outside Wikipedia, please see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia --Sreejith K (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS aka. playground

One Commons user has serious misconceptions about OTRS permissions and he feels that anyone in OTRS can forge emails and make fake permissions since Commons users cannot view the emails. Although the accusation is directed towards me, I feel its applicable to all other OTRS volunteers. Can someone help him understand that its not the way OTRS works. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, last ruling maharaja of Travancore.jpg for his comments. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'serious misconceptions about OTRS permissions' about how OTRS system works, I never made such comments 'he feels that anyone in OTRS can forge emails and make fake permissions'. Infact i commented that Sreejith K was involved in the DR and irresistibly arguing for keeping the image as PD old, failed to find such evidences and currently working as a fair OTRS Volunteer to get permission and to keep the file in question. There is no question on his actions, Since he is involved in the DR for a keep status he need to give the chance to another OTRS Volunteer's..'suspect' and 'judge' is same, so the rule will protect the 'suspect' --...Captain......<style="font-family: Papyrus">Tälk tö me.. 08:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That he need to give the chance to another OTRS Volunteer is a good enough example of your misconceptions about OTRS. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, you don't need to be an OTRS member to mark an image as OTRS pending. Since I marked it as OTRS pending, you felt that I will make fake permissions and that's a serious allegation. Thats obviously not just applicable to me. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A plague on both of your houses[1]

  • Captain -- I think the paragraph beginning "What a beauty, Calling sheep into lions cave" went too far -- an expression of regret would be a good thing.
  • Sreejith K -- Captain had a legitimate concern that you were both arguing strenuously in favor of the image and dealing with the OTRS e-mail. After he expressed the concern too strongly, you said "to clarify the doubts on me, I do not normally approve OTRS in which I am involved". Perhaps if you had said that before his outburst, this unfortunate exchange would not have happened. It does appear that between telephone calls and e-mails you are doing many different things in this DR. Using the telephone to clear up such issues may be quick and easy, but it has the disadvantage that it has no written record. I do not say it was wrong here, but simply that it is unusual and could be abused.
I say "legitimate concern" because, while I have never seen an OTRS volunteer clearly abuse his powers, I have seen OTRS volunteers misread e-mails and keep images that should have been deleted. One such case is the reason I asked for and received OTRS status.

Both of you, please remember that we all have different backgrounds, experiences, and English language skills. We should not take offense too easily, because it may not have been meant. Equally, we should try to avoid giving it, as the aftermath just wastes a lot of time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ Wm Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
If my statement, make him feel bad i do apologize for such statement's even though its not a personal attack or a name calling, It was just a phrase on my POV and this is the best example that it was taken in a different way especially on such heated DR's..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verify image

My emails to OTRS are not being received for some reason. Had trouble a couple times now, don't get a ticket number back, and no record of my email being received by OTRS. Don't know what's going on. Anyway, can someone verify this image I found on Flickr that has a CC-BY license? File:Butter sculpture cow and boy.jpg .. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be no problem with the file and the license. Marked as reviewed. Usually there is no need to request for OTRS verification for Flickr files unless it is doubtful whether the uploader is truly the copyright holder. --Ben.MQ (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that looks like a derivative work of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama, thus requiring the sculptor's explicit consent in order to have a valid license. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I was not being careful enough... sorry about that. --Ben.MQ (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/Archive_15&oldid=576667909"