Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/Archive 17

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

ticket:2011030910013185

Does this ticket also apply to these two pictures:

Apparently they are from the same source.  ■ MMXX  talk 00:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket's in Russian but it only explicitly mentions File:0_42f2e_b9679c2a_XL.jpg], File:0_4ce88_e0664c76_XL.jpg, File:Trinity-Izmailovsky Cathedral.jpg. – Adrignola talk 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.  ■ MMXX  talk 11:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket check please

Do File:Skadarlija Belgrade.jpg and File:Skadarlija Blgrade 2.jpg have valid tickets ? --Denniss (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket in question (one for both pictures) is written in Serbian, but it seems valid; the OTRS agent appears to have accepted the permission received on OTRS. odder (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it apply only to these two images or to other files the user uploaded from the same source as well? I found some more while going through the no permission files. --Denniss (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the uploader got the ticket number in order to add it to his files, but the permissions given in the ticket seem to apply only for images included in fr:Grocka, fr:Kalemegdan, fr:Skadarlija, and fr:Belgrade... a native would be helpful here. →Nagy 12:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another ticket check please

File:Fernanda Brandao in Berlin.JPG uses a ticket, this is also used here. Is this ticket specific for these two images or for all images uploaded by this user from his website ? --Denniss (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is in German so I'd preferr if somebody that could read and speak it better than me could have a look. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 07:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket is specific for the two files and about ten more. Images by this user without any ticket are still pending permission, and most likely slipped through any control so far. Regards, →Nagy 12:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission not given

Hi!

I've sent permission of pictures of Category:Hyvinkään Tahko to [email protected] almost two months ago. Couple of fotos were marked with missing permission notice about a week ago, so I forwarded message again. I also send one message (between those two) and in it I linked where fotos are. I haven't got any reply, ticket number or anything. Messages are written in Finnish (I read somewhere that it's ok). Title: Fwd: Re: www.hyvinkaantahko.fi / Ota yhteyttä / anna palautetta and sender [email protected] (9.9. 14.59 GMT and 3.8. 12.24 GMT) or Ari Nieminen (28.7. 20.18 GMT). Permission request box (in 1st and 3rd message) starts "Vakuutan, että olen ainoa henkilö, jolla on tekijänoikeudet [Tahkon pelaajien rintakuvat http://www.hyvinkaantahko.fi/superpesis/joukkue/]." Please someone accept permissions or tell me, what we've done wrong. Kirjakas (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have your emails, both of them. For the no-permission tag to be removed and the images certified, we need someone who understands Finnish to handle the tickets. There are even older emails than yours still waiting to be processed. – Adrignola talk 17:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

Hello. I was wondering if the OTRS permission ticket for File:BurningUpReinventionTourMadonnaLicious has arrived and/or been verified? Thank You--Queen Rapsheeba (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrived with ticket number 2011090310012408, but it is not verified and you should not indicate such on the file's page. The email was from an address that has no clear connection to madonnalicious.com and doesn't match the one listed on the site as the contact address, so we have no way to confirm that the site's operator has provided permission. In fact the name signed on the email doesn't even match the name shown as the site's operator. – Adrignola talk 18:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we can't figure out who sent the email?? then i guess the image be deleted then. What do you think?--Queen Rapsheeba (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reply was sent to the person who emailed us. I don't know why this one person contacted us on the image. The normal procedure is for you, the uploader, to contact the site's operator and point them to this form to send in to us. Maybe you did this. But if the sender isn't veritably connected to the copyright holder, we can't accept a copyright claim. Otherwise that allows license laundering through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 00:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send an email to that person to try to clarify all this, however If you ask me I think that if we can't verify this the picture should be deleted.--Queen Rapsheeba (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Verification e-mail sent for images on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guide_Dog_Month

Hello I have sent an e-mail to [email protected] pertaining to use of images I uploaded to the Wikimeda Commons and currently in use at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guide_Dog_Month.

The written permission applies to the following images:

Please confirm that these now have permissions to avoid deletion from use.

Thanks Rjr9868 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Rjr9868[reply]

Can you please re-send it? I did a search and didn't see anything. Please remember the dash between permissions and commons. – Adrignola talk 12:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket verification for File:Porcupine Tree - Stupid Dream.jpg

Hello, could someone verify ticket:2006082110002647, which is being mentioned on File:Porcupine Tree - Stupid Dream.jpg? Mathonius (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It references a porcupine tree (no exact file name given), but the final response is in Italian, so I can't tell what license was desired out of those first offered. – Adrignola talk 12:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS for two templates

Has anything been received yet for Template:Jean-PierreTaboneAdami and Template:DmitryZherdin ? --Denniss (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the latter, ticket 2011082110005661 was received, but I could not get confirmation on the release by writing to the user on the airliners.net site through the contact form, specifying the permissions-commons email address as the return address (and told the emailer as such). We otherwise do not know that the forwarded email actually came from the user (anyone can register a Gmail address). It is not clear that the OTRS agent in ticket 2011082310014102 performed any confirmation of identity for a copied-pasted email applicable to Template:AlexBeltyukov ("From: Alex Beltyukov"; well I can compose a fake email with the same header). Looking at another older message, ticket 2011051710009046, we have another copied-pasted email for Template:RolfWallner with "From: Rolf Wallner" and while a document is attached, it's a plain-text Word document that anyone could write the guy's name into, not a PDF with a signature. And so on. None of these airliners.net templates can be trusted. It's more than slapping an OTRS tag on these things… – Adrignola talk 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adrignola, you are demonstrating extreme bad faith here with all of my uploads. The mere fact that I have managed to get so many photographers and websites to provide us with freely-licenced materials (as per User:Russavia#Resources_that_you_may_use), is not grounds for you to delve into extreme bad faith by all but accusing me of faking these permissions. For airliners.net photographers, I use a standard "form letter" that I send to them, and I also use a standard form permission letter (as is recommended at Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries). The fact that I tell people to send it to me, rather than to permissions, is to make the process less confusing and streamlined for the photographer----many of whom I have known for years, and a few of whom are personal friends. Would you like to retract your accusations above please? As to Jean-Pierre I will resend the permission---it appears many of my emails go astray, as it looks like I have to resend the Belarus, Burundi and Indian embassy permissions as well---in addition to adding one for the Hong Kong consulate who also gladly gave permission. russavia (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of anything and deliberately did not mention your name because my issue is not with you. I'm stating that we haven't done due diligence to make sure that the identity of the email addresses have been verified, otherwise we open it up for people to send in fake permissions to perform license laundering through OTRS. You did everything by the book, but others should have sought verification from the airliners.net users to prevent impersonation (and don't take this to mean that I'm saying you impersonated them either—I'm talking in general terms). – Adrignola talk 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That fact that I am the common demoninator in all of these permissions, plus the words that you use and the way that you use them, indicate to me that you are indeed accusing me of faking these permissions. They are all valid, and they have all been obtained and sent to permissions in the way that is recommended and always has been recommended. That there are "form" letters being used is not indicative of anything wrong. And the photographer having a gmail account is not grounds for denying the OTRS. I still have permissions from September 2010 which I have yet to send in to OTRS, as I have as yet not had a need to utilise any of their works...but these will also be sent in, in due course as well. And they too also utilise the same forms. Some have put them into word documents, and some have put them inline in the email sent to me. This doesn't detract from the fact that their permissions are valid. If you have any doubts as to any particular permission, email me and I will give you their direct emails for you to contact. russavia (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions have now been done on both template. And a note to the OTRS team -- get ready for another round of OTRS permissions - looks like I have just bagged permission from another lot of photographers, which equal over an additional 10,000 photos we can now utilise on Commons. russavia (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about bad faith, I'm getting tired of you deliberately pushing the GFDL-1.2 template on images. The additional 10,000 photos are pointless if our reusers cannot use them. en:Template_talk:GFDL-1.2-en#Deprecating_this_template_for_future_use. – Adrignola talk 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin at SMBAD images

Hi!

I received three odd messages on my user page that I'm hoping someone can help with. Each of the images referred to is covered by my request to SIMBAD (by email) regarding use of images on Wikimedia (as PUBLIC DOMAIN images). I received an affirmative e-mail. I can send a copy of this to a specific agent but I really don't want my e-mail address blanketed all over the place. Help! What would you like me to do? If there is a particular agent willing to serve as a contact, that would be great. Usually, if there's a question about PD I simply send the apparent copyright-holder an e-mail to find out the situation. Hopefully, this is not a bad thing. A specific contact would probably be the best but I'll try to do whatever is needed. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is right to tag the simbad images as missing permission, the email snippet does not talk about a specific license and, even worse, the permission seems to be only for Wikipedia. Please aks them again to forward a permission to OTRS, a usage permission just for Wikipedia is not enough. --Denniss (talk)
Please see Commons:OTRS for the process. Images without proper permission will eventually be deleted. -- 202.124.72.149 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion needed about ticket 2008031910023091

Hello, The OTRS ticket number 2008031910023091 was initially validated in March 2008 by User:~Pyb on fr.wikipedia and, as far as I can tell from some discussion pages, it seems that it was also verified by other volunteers who found that it was a valid permission from the architect Portzamparc for the files uploaded by the accounts specified in the authorization. However I see that, in one June 2009 discussion, User:Eusebius said that the ticket on one of those files was not a valid authorization, and his opinion led to the deletion of that particular file. Note that the file was uploaded to fr.wikipedia by one of the authorized accounts and the file was later moved to Commons. So a third (or fourth or fifth) opinion would be needed to clarify that, hopefully once and for all. Which opinion is correct? What exactly does the ticket say? Is it a valid authorization from the architect or not? Also, different licenses were used in connection with those files. So, can you please specify if the permission seems to be somehow restricted to the use of a particular license for the photos or if its meaning seems to allow whatever licenses might be chosen for the photos by the authorized accounts? Note: The authorization is probably written in French. Thank you in advance for your help. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in French. – Adrignola talk 17:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what I can using Google Translate and abiding by the privacy policy. What I do know is that {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr}} was specified, for several files whose names were cut off and any future contributions by User:Alanya_Knowles and User:Portzamparc_Francais at fr.wikipedia. One file explicitly specified was "2001-2004 Headquarters for the press group Le Monde, Paris, 01.jpg". This was specified by a representative for Christian de Portzamparc, coming from the domain his site is hosted on. – Adrignola talk 01:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

check ticket 2011012510017672

According to [1], this ticket "confirmed a copyright violation" for File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg. Was not deleted, apparently because of a syntax error but it may be better to check if this is valid (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg).--Zolo (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket mentioned two images, none of them is File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg. -Mys 721tx (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks--Zolo (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall, that image was tagged in conjunction to several others, which were confirmed copyvios by the same contributor. In these cases, it's usually prudent to nuke the whole upload series. Let me just quote from my reply to a previous inquiry regarding these images: "Some were confirmed copy violations. (If i remember correctly, the uploader even forgot to remove the EXIF info identifying the real photographer!) I checked them following an OTRS complaint, and they're lifted from a professional photographer's website, were they are clearly marked as copyrighted. It's possible that doesn't apply to all images, but it's just a matter of prudence to have suspected copyvios removed as well in such a case. I don't have the ticket no. handy right now, but I'll be happy to post it here if you have access to OTRS. Asav (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)" It would have been easier to contact me in the first place, since I handled the case and it's even mentioned on my WP talk page. I'm tagging the image as a copyvio again. Asav (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:FX-991DE Plus.jpg

Does #2011091510013984 come from a trustworthy sender-address? I am just confused because there are bigger images on the web. I hope you are not offended by my mistrust. It is not against anyone of the OTRS-personnel. You do a valuable and good job. -- RE rillke questions? 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email from Jörg Reddmann (on the description page) with a casio.de address. It's possible others have also taken straight-on pictures of that calculator at a higher resolution. Or maybe Casio/the photographer didn't want to release the highest resolution under a free license (the ticket is in German; I couldn't say). Finally, thanks for the compliments, but nobody's perfect and that definitely includes me. Trust, but verify. – Adrignola talk 22:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining blanket permission from copyright holder

Hi, I'm trying to get permission to use images of toys (scale model aircraft) on Wikipedia pages. This requires permission from the manufacturer of the toys. The OTRS template Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries assumes I'm asking permission for a single image and is written to include the URL of the specific image. I want instead to obtain a blanket permission to use any images of this manufacturer's toys. Can I change the OTRS email boilerplate to reflect this, or will this not be accepted by the OTRS group? Thanks,--Zounds011 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may use User:Russavia/Permission as a guide of how the template can be amended to suit your needs. Just out of curiousity, why are you getting images of scale model aircraft for use on WP articles? Are you intending on using them on articles relating to actual aircraft, airlines, air forces, etc? Reason I ask is User:Russavia#Aviation-related - we have permission to use, so far, over 60,000 images from a variety of sources. Consider uploading some of those ;) russavia (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I'd like to use scale models for a series of articles on cancelled aircraft projects (like the Hawker Siddeley P.1154). There are no photos of finished aircraft, and all drawings are subject to copyright, so many of these articles are currently without illustrations. --Zounds011 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2009101810000332

Can you please verify if this ticket also apply to the other images uploaded by User:Hhwginger or not?  ■ MMXX  talk 00:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only to works by Hannes H. Wagner. – Adrignola talk 04:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:krd added Ticket:2011092010011896 to one of the files, can you please check if it's correct. just noticed this, m:OTRS/personnel list is not updated...  ■ MMXX  talk 17:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the official list. Some people don't want it known that they are OTRS personnel. The official list is not public. – Adrignola talk 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copied from enwiki

File:Andre Julian Headshot 2.jpg has been copied to Commons from enwiki, but the OTRS permission which was added there by User:Adrignola hasn't been copied over from the original. Please could an OTRS member add this (I think I would trigger a filter if I did this myself)? January (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2007101210014074

Does that ticket applies also to the following graphic: File:Steam nowy.png ? Sir Lothar (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems no. Ticket pointed to 3 images specifically, but not related to this interface. I actually wonder if the person sending the ticket has the right to do so... You can find his position on LinkedIn with a google search.--Ben.MQ (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011092210024137

Please check ticket # 2011092210024137 File:Kyrstensinema.jpg Phoenician Patriot (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was added yesterday by myself, a current admin and OTRS member. What are you implying? Addendum: you're miffed that File:Kyrsten Sinema-05.14.09.jpg was removed from the article. – Adrignola talk 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:FominOnTheMuzTVAwards2011.jpeg

Paulchuk (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is not an OTRS agent, replaced a speedy deletion tag with {{OTRS|2010111910000031}} on this image, which was taken from http://www.glamour.ru/celebrity/parties/436022/. As far as I can tell from other images tagged with that ticket, it applies only to photos by Mikhail Popov/thebestphotos.ru. Please check (and delete & block as necessary). —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Russian, but it was clear that the ticket only had to do with http://thebestphotos.ru/ – Adrignola talk 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amy Pond.jpg

Can someone confirm the status of File:Amy Pond.jpg for me as the Flickr source says NC. Ticket. Agathoclea (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't normally accept forwarded Flickr mails, because they could be altered and do not allow direct contact, in this case not accepting them would be to state that Cirt (admin here and at other projects, as well as OTRS member) was engaged in deception. – Adrignola talk 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done Checked the tickets. In the mail from the user there is a clear statement that the license on Flickr for the images will stay at NC but that it is ok for the images to be published under the free license. Looks OK for me

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - good news. Agathoclea (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SeryDorcas.jpg

Could please someone check the ticket for this image, as it had been added by the uploader himself. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is in French but seems completely irrelevant. It's good if someone who speaks French can review this.--Ben.MQ (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket is completely unrelated, and this file is a copyvio. Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket check please

Please verify the ticket at File:Valeriya Russian singer.jpg --Denniss (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covered photos from thebestphotos.ru up to 300 pixels on a side under CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL. – Adrignola talk 04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another one

Please verify the ticket of File:Ednortongfdl.PNG and comment on the deletion request. --Denniss (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. It's bogus. – Adrignola talk 04:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bakel plein omstreeks 721 na Chr..jpg

Hi, a user told me the address ([email protected]) doesn't work? Discussions about this file on my and uploader's talk pages. Because I don't see any notices about it not working, I take it that there is no issue with the address itself. Can someone maybe check to see if something has been received in regards to the above file? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it seems that at least one other user is having problems sending emails - see above section [2]. I'll give the user the same advice Adrignola gave above about sending it to these other email addresses. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apostolos Vellios.jpg

Could somebody with OTRS access check the ticket for this file as it was added at upload by the uploader himself, who doesn't seem to be on OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ticket 2008100510027116 is on file and appears to support releasing any image from soccer.ru so long as there is attribution. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babe's Dream

This sculpture erected in 1996 is copyrighted; however, File:Babe Ruth statue.jpg bears an OTRS ticket (https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=475506) that states to be the sculptor's (Susan Luery) permission for GFDL release.

  • Could someone verify the ticket?
  • Should the licensing then be GFDL only, instead of "select either GFDL or CC"?
  • Furthermore, would her permission in that ticket extend to File:The Babe.jpg, which has no ticket of permission and is purely CC in license?

Three questions as above. Jappalang (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ticket only licensed File:Babe Ruth statue.jpg with GFDL, and does not mention File:The Babe.jpg-Mys 721tx (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that is not quite the answer I was looking for... To clarify, the subject is a copyrighted statue in the US, which does not grant freedom of panorama for works of art. The photograph is a derivative; hence, the permission of the statue's creator has to be considered. Supposedly Ms Luery has granted it for File:Babe Ruth statue.jpg. Thus, I am asking if Ms Luery was putting her statue under GFDL licensing in that ticket and whether the ticket should also be attached to File:The Babe.jpg. Otherwise, it seems either one or both photographs should be deleted (for an non-free subject). As it now seems this might be out of OTRS's scope, I am inviting comments from the Copyright and licensing noticeboard. Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I can't read the ticket, my comments must be general: It really depends on the exact nature of Ms Luery's permission. If she explicitly released the statue itself under GFDL (but GFDL only), then every photograph of the statue should be acceptable under GFDL, but no other license. If she only gave permission to release one specific photograph of the statue under GFDL, then, well, the license applies only to this specific photo. If this can't be answered clearly from the OTRS ticket, I see no other option than to ask Susan Luery herself this question. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the situation, to me. From the response earlier, it sounds like the OTRS permission was only in relation to the one photograph. That is certainly within her rights (to license one photograph of the statue but not others) -- authors are not forced to license all photographs of their statues or none; they can make any distinctions they want to. So based on the response from the OTRS volunteer (I can't read the ticket either), it sound like the first image is perfectly fine, but the second one is not, and the OTRS tag should not be added to it. The GFDL/CC licensing seems fine too, given when this was uploaded -- that was explicitly allowed by the GFDL license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it does sound a bit strange to me that one can make derivatives of File:Babe Ruth statue.jpg under the CC license (including 3D bas reliefs and mini-statues based on that angle—although the creator may "cheat" by using other photographs), but not allow for a photograph from another angle. But that would be a question in another forum, I guess... I will file File:The Babe.jpg under a current DR and point back to this thread for reference. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those would most likely not be considered derivative works of the photograph (even if the photograph was used as an aid), but rather direct derivative works of the original sculpture -- so no, I don't think that would be fine. The expression specific to the photograph would almost certainly not be present in such a work but rather just that of the sculpture. Using the photograph itself should be fine though (say in a collage deemed a derivative). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a useful parallel for thinking about it would be something like freedom of panorama -- while those laws typically grant the ability to take photographs of such works, permission does not usually extend to making 3D derivatives. We keep the photos, as derivative works of the photos themselves are allowed, even if you can't make 3-D derivatives of the depicted object (which would likely contain no expression from the photographs). To me, permission like the one apparently given basically amounts to allowing freedom of panorama just on that one particular photograph, instead of all 2D representations -- and we would keep it for similar reasons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Storky1.jpg

Hi, can someone check if ticket#2011060510008755 is valid for File:Storky1.jpg? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is in Dutch and has many exchanges, so I can't understand it myself. – Adrignola talk 15:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check ticket for ICC maps

An OTRS ticket is claimed for File:Map of Collserola.gif, File:Map of Serra del Cadí.gif and other ICC maps uploaded by same user: Webmaster ICC. Weitergeleitet an [email protected] [Ticket#2011020110007896]

Howewer, Institut Cartografic de Catalunya is well known for not releasing its products under free lincenses, and as far as I can remember another ICC map was found with an invalid OTRS claim some time ago. I suggest checking the thicket.Pere prlpz (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no agreement to a free license in the email. Repeated responses from OTRS agents for essential information went unheeded and a note was even placed on the ticket noting that the specific file referenced was marked as OTRS received for 30 days. I am removing all images where the uploader claimed the existence of a ticket number with no corresponding release under a free license that we accept provided them with justification for uploading. – Adrignola talk 21:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as ticket #2010120110017233

Is this file free for public use? I want to reprint it in my research on learning theories.

Don. Macddm (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Complex systems organizational map.jpg is freely licensed, but you must comply with the terms listed in the "Licensing" section on that file's description page. – Adrignola talk 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#2006032410005942

Could someone please check ticket number 2006032410005942. It is currently being utilised on:

and the same uploader says permission was sent for:

but no permission is there. does the permission from Philippe give us blanket permission for anything? Or only for those images? And what about the other images with no OTRS template? russavia (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This search indicates that OTRS ticket is being used on a heap of images. So need to see if this is valid or not? And is it blanket? russavia (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still need verification on this please. russavia (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ticket mentioned Philippe Noret, but given that it's in French, I can't tell if it's a blanket permission or only for the specific images the intermediary listed for us (none of which match the files above). – Adrignola talk 13:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we need a French speaker to advise what images have been licenced and what haven't. Otherwise, I will simply nominate the lot for deletion. I would hate to contact photographers to ask for permission for photos, only to be directed to photos which are basically copyright violations. russavia (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Согласие на использование пары фотографий с world.guns.ru

Недавно связывался с автором - и было получено согласие на использование двух работ на условиях CC-BY-SA. Приходило ли подтверждающее письмо от автора с разрешением использования фотографий под данной лицензией? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussianTrooper (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • в августе 2011 приходило письмо, касающееся этого сайта, но разрешение не было принято, на письмо OTRS-агента никто не ответил. Translate: The letter, concerning content of this site, has come in August 11, but permission was rejected. No additional comments were received rubin16 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Хмм...я запрашивал разрешение совсем недавно о.О. А почему разрешение тогда не было принято? --RussianTrooper (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • не было явного согласия на лицензирование на нужных условиях, после этого ничего не приходило rubin16 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Reeves photos

Can someone please check the two photos uploaded September 26th for clearance?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jason-Reeves-Infobox.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jason-Reeves-Colbie-Caillat-Playing.jpg

I had the photographers fill the forms out a while ago and I hope that they were able to send it to the right place. I had three photos submitted and the first one went almost instantly, but these two have been up for a while. Evan-Amos (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is not significant. If they have not been confirmed yet, then their permissions have not been received. permissions-commons@wikimedia.org not wikipedia.org and not permission without the s. – Adrignola talk 22:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I can't find any tickets that include the name "Reeves". Please try sending the e-mail again, including the note above by Adrignola (talk · contribs). odder (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I'll reach out again and make sure the email address is correct.Evan-Amos (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik van Leeuwen photos

Erik van Leeuwen is our main photographer in athletics. There are no less than 752 images from his hand placed on Wikimedia Commons.
Van Leeuwen has experienced some recent problems with the Dutch edition of Runner's World, that copied one of his images from Wikipedia without mentioning any source. He also directly delivers photo's to this magazine and in these cases he is normally paid and his name is mentioned. Not in this case, however. Now in my opinion this problem could have been prevented, if his images were licensed under Creative Commons (CC-BY-SA 3.0). However, all his images are licensed under GFDL.
My question is: is it possible to change the license of all his images from GFDL into CC-BY-SA 3.0 and if so, what do we have to do to get this done? Thanks in advance and kind regards, Piet.Wijker (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a release sent in by the email shown at http://www.erki.nl/index.php?item=contact releasing under CC-BY-SA-3.0. As a previous release was received for a license that is not revokable, a new release would dual-license the files, under both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. – Adrignola talk 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is perfectly clear to me now. I will take action towards the photographer to get this dual-license release fixed. Thank you very much for your advice. Kind regards, Piet.Wijker (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Npopok (talk · contribs)

Could a Russian-reader check all recent uploads of this user, as he had added an OTRS-ticket (valid?) at upload by himself, but had also added simultaneously a number of conflicting licenses, signaling that he might not know what he is doing. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also need a Russian reader for the ticket, but it does come from football.ua and seems to provide a release under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. The images are stated to come from football.ua. I can't tell whether it's for specific images or not, not having a command of Russian. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the ticket in general, but for one individual file Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Netherlands Uruguay 6.jpg help is needed. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC) And two other files: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nocerino - AC Milan 2011.jpeg --Martin H. (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ticket says that photos published in galleries of site football.ua are published under GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. We asked if rights were really transfered from photographers (GettyImages) to site football.ua and they claimed that it is so. So, ticket looks OK for me and you can use {{Football.ua}} for such images rubin16 (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As there are quite a lot of images uploaded from football.ua (Category:Photos from football.ua) and as Getty Images agency is well-known (at least in Europe) to sue anybody who infringes their copyright, the OTRS team might consider (or even consult our General counsel for his opinion) to ask Getty Images for confirmation, in order to avoid legal problems for our re-users, just in case there is some "misunderstanding" on behalf of football.ua. --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have forwarded a query on a copyright issue to the legal team before and got no response. To prevent liability, the Foundation only involves itself with take-down notices and that's it. – Adrignola talk 14:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a behaviour is unacceptable. They get paid for their jobs, but expect us unpaid users to make legal decisions that may have serious consequences for a lot of other people. --Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to contact me Adrignola, I can help with the Russian ticket. russavia (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scrub that, I didn't see that rubin16 had commented above. russavia (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete all images clearly originating from Getty images. All they sell are usage rights but they don't tranfer their copyright nor permit reselling/relicensing of these images. The mentioned template needs to be modified as the permission is only possible for images made by the website owners or direct contract photographers. --Denniss (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more related discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan Pardew Wolverhampton 1 October 2011.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Shaarawy - AC Milan 2011.jpg. And if you visit gettyimages.com, you can find all of the photographs in questions and Getty claims rights to them all. It simply makes no sense that Getty would release rights to photographs from recent, high-profile events and forgo all royalties (not to mention take away royalties from photographers). --Ytoyoda (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the images, please speedy all further Getty images uploaded via football.ua, template got a warning message as well. --Denniss (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Netherlands Uruguay 6.jpg may now be used as "reference" case/DR for the deletion of all Getty-originated images sourced to football.ua and alike. --Túrelio (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Factory 6 groß.png

Hi OTRS people, could please someone check this edit for File:Factory 6 groß.png? (Currently) the user is no OTRS member and the file page has a strange collection/duplication of licenses. Which ones are mentioned in the ticket? Is the author correct? Thanks! --Saibo (Δ) 00:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The email was received from Stefan Szczesny (the artist) and only specified GFDL (now migrated). The user was an OTRS member at the time according to the owner on the ticket. I'm not sure who the photographer was or how they are related to the artist that sent in permission for the artwork depicted within. Ticket is in German as a whole so I'm working off Google Translate. – Adrignola talk 14:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Well, if there is no permission regarding the photo please file a DR. Maybe some German can have a look? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan Szczesny claims to be the photografer, the email comes from the domain of his website and the license stated in the ticket is: {{Bild-GFDL}}. He also posted some standard text in the message: "Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild gewerblich zu nutzen und zu verändern. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.". I hope this is helpful. Jcb (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jcb! Okay, if he claims to be the photographer... I will believe it (to some extent). I have made a null edit to the file page mentioning the section here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC) ✓ Done[reply]

Query over ticket 2008102310028304

Ticket 2008102310028304 is attached to File:Mil Mi-8.jpg and File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29B (9-12B)..jpg. I would like to inquire if Dimitrije Ostojic has given permission in the ticket for:

  • Only the two uploaded photographs,
  • All his work on airliners.net,
  • Or all his work, regardless where it is hosted?

Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket number does not correspond to a sufficient release and was added upon upload by the uploader. A specific release requested by the OTRS agent was not provided. Permission for use with no further information as to the terms of use is not acceptable. – Adrignola talk 14:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query over TicketID 1058570

User:Kos93 (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Kos93 and possible serial copyright violations uploaded the following images from www.mycity-military.com in 2008 and attached https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1058570.

This ticket had been added by User:MECU (authorized OTRS handler) to the following, which were taken from www.mycity.co.yu (now dead):

Is the ticket 1058570 applicable to all uploads from www.mycity.co.yu and www.mycity-military.com or is it specific only to those uploaded in 2007? Jappalang (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket lists the 5 pictures from 2007 and does NOT mention specific websites or the "*recon*" pictures. --Krd (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding someone who owns the estate for certain artistic works

Question: I have a user posting on my talk page (en:User talk:Magog the Ogre#Uploaded image) who says he owns the estate for a number of art images. Would it be any more useful for him to send you an email or should we just go based off what's on my talk page?

What I'm trying to say is: do you verify the person's information? If it's just a Gmail/Hotmail/etc., it doesn't seem any better of verification than just someone posting on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket check request

Please verify the ticket applied to File:Logo Milandrpng.png. It was added by the uploader and I have some doubts. --Denniss (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Russian speaker. The email did come from http://www.milandr.ru though. – Adrignola talk 14:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ticket is valid for this image rubin16 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS pending from 2010

File:Martin Whitman.jpg and File:Carl Icahn.jpg were uploaded in 2010 with OTRS pending noted in the permission field, although not using the template. Was the permission ever received? January (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything mentioning those names. – Adrignola talk 14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#2008102310028402

Can someone please check ticket number #2008102310028402 to see if permission is valid. It is currently on the following images:

File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21.jpg, File:Soko J-22 Orao.jpg, File:SOKO G-4 Super Galeb.jpg, File:Dornier Do-28D-2 Skyservant.jpg, File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29UB (9-51).jpg, File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29B (9-12B) Serbian AF.jpg, File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21....jpg, File:Antonov An-26 Serbian AF.jpg, File:Antonov An-26.jpg, File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29B (9-12B).jpg

I have just obtained blanket permission from Dejan for use of all of his photos as per Category:Photos by Dejan Milinković -- if the above OTRS isn't valid, I can swap over the licencing to his current permission. Cheers, russavia (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no clear statement about permission to publish images under terms of free licenses, and OTRS-volunteer haven't accepted it rubin16 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. I've changed the licencing to the just recently obtained licencing -- beats deleting and reuploading. russavia (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket needed

Melvyn Rodrigues, Director of Operations for an Indian media agency, Daijiworld Ltd., sent OTRS permission on 24 October for the following videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEbD2aXs-XU
    • Attack on Mangalore Pub - Protest by Hindu Yuva Sena, Mangalore (2 February 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTRJbA9g6zU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgHszMD7Oqs
    • Situation turns violent at Kulshekar (15 September 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzaUHdrIdhw
    • Vamanjoor: Police cane mob, hundreds injured (15 September 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOWLh6voKbc
    • Permannur Tense: Police round up St. Sebastian Church (15 September 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob94LLq3BL4
    • Miscreants attack at St. Ann's friary grotto (15 September 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXTVtwBjaEQ
    • Protests continue around Mangalore (14 September 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWO_rynRMTo
    • Protest around Milagres Church (14 September 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwuRv3U0LS4
    • Police Not Co-operating With Tribunal: Justice Saldanha (17 October 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwEwaUyFjU0&feature=channel_video_title
    • Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa speaking to media persons (15 September 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DBSGqPd77E&feature=channel_video_title

Please issue a ticket asap. Joyson Noel Holla at me 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may quote {{PermissionOTRS|id=2011102410000683}}, or update this page for OTRS volunteer to add the template (preferred) when upload has finished. Regards. --Bencmq (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission letter sent

The copyright holder for File:Pregnant_asian_woman.jpg emailed permissions to permissions-commons, it didn't have a commons url link because it wasn't yet uploaded here, so the email had only a link to the image on Flickr. I uploaded the image to Commons for him and replied to the email he sent to both permissions-commons and myself with the link to the image here on commons. Let me know if you find it and if there's anything else we need to do! Thanks! Dreadstar (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 14:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bajrang Dal Aloysius.jpg

Hi, i would appreciate it if someone would issue an OTRS ticket for this image. The media agency sent OTRS permission for this twice, but so far no ticket has been forthcoming. Joyson Noel Holla at me 10:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a follow-up from an official email address in ticket 2011102610006791. When I receive sufficient confirmation from that address containing my text rather than from a Gmail address, I will swap the received for the confirmed template. – Adrignola talk 14:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violet Pereira, editor-in-chief of Mangalorean.com, has sent the permission again from [email protected]. Please do the needful. Joyson Noel Holla at me 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore deleted images that we own the rights to, permission emailed yesterday 10/25

Yes check.svg Resolved

Dear OTRS,

Several images that we have created and OWN THE COPYRIGHT to are being deleted - if you had investigated further you would have found this message I left on Courcelles' Talk page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Courcelles), who deleted the original images:

"Hi,

I uploaded several images to a page. We are the creator of the images, but you deleted them a few days ago.

I did try to grant permission, but I admit that I find the Wikipedia permissions process EXTREMELY confusing. I granted permission, yet afterwards it was showing me a red box saying that permission had been granted but there was some other problem I did not understand. I'm sorry but I was very confused. Please let me know what we have to do to give you permission to use the images.

I'm uploading new (different) images to the page and going through the file uploading process very carefully (one by one), and I am selecting the "This is my own work" option at the end. I hope this is enough to grant Wikipedia permission to use the images. If not, please tag the images (don't delete them as we can give you permission! We created and own all rights to the images!) and then let us know (here on your talk page, I will keep an eye on it) the necessary steps to give you permission to have them on your website.

Thank you very much and sorry for any trouble.

Sincerely,

pdbox"

Right after I left that message on their page, I sent an email to [email protected] granting Wikipedia permission to use the images. This is very frustrating that after doing exactly what Wikipedia wants the images are still deleted! I also can't get in contact with Courcelles since it seems they do not have time to investigate whether the images were wrongly deleted or not? How are we supposed to prove we own the images when we can't get in contact with anyone? This is very frustrating and confusing.

Please let us know, we followed all the instructions we found on the website, what more do you want!?

The original filenames are in the email I sent to [email protected] yesterday (October 25th, 2011). How can we even ASK for permission and PROVE our ownership if you DELETE the images less than 24 hours after we upload them?

Here are the 4 deleted files in case it is helpful after all, and they can be restored somehow: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Here are the 3 remaining files on the page that will probably be deleted because no one read our email to you: [5] [6] [7]

Please OTRS let us know what we need to do, we are new users of Wikipedia and have spent a lot of time trying to learn the website, but we think the image permissions process is very unfriendly to new users. We tried all options we could find and despite our best efforts our work was deleted. We need those images up as soon as possible and when we try to prove our ownership to the user who first deleted the images we get a "sorry I'm busy and don't have time to investigate" message - this is not acceptable! If a user doesn't have time to check to see if they deleted images in error or not they shouldn't delete them in the first place.

Please let us know what to do to prove our ownership and grant you permission and we will do it.

Thank you for your help. Pdbox (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. OTRS is backlogged because I am no longer devoting five hours a day to it. – Adrignola talk 14:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Adrignola! Pdbox (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papa ist zurück - Cover.jpg

Please check the OTRS ticket for this file as it was added by the uploader himself. --Túrelio (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but it uses a template, Template:Aggro permission (see also Template talk:Aggro permission). cheers, —Pill (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
uhm, it used. could someone please restore the file? —Pill (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all. --Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ticket check please

  • Most/all images uploaded by User:Olegda have an OTRS ticked added/placed by the uploader. Please verify the validity. --Denniss (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The about page seems to have a Creative Commons license notice applied to it as part of the discussions in the emails. Assuming that all the images are from http://olegda.pp.net.ua/ it would seem that these are okay. – Adrignola talk 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These permissions were not from an email clearly associated with the site and it appears that the site also takes user-generated content and therefore there is no opportunity to match the sender of the email with the provider of the content. – Adrignola talk 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use images from wiki commons for illustrating my book?

Hi, I am preparing my first book's publishing. My book is in Chinese and would be published in China. It is a collection of my essays about my experience and thoughts in living in America. So I need some images. I found some good images on wiki commons. Some of them in "public domain" which I understand are free to use, some of them are for users with OTRS account. I am a little confused what's the difference so I like to post my question and make sure that I could use them in publication as well. Thanks! Yunyi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.111.225 (talk • contribs) 2011-11-01T04:01:45‎ (UTC)

Hi Yunyi! I have moved your question over to Commons:Help_desk#Can_I_use_images_from_wiki_commons_for_illustrating_my_book.3F and replied there. Please let's continue there. Here is not really the correct place. :) --Saibo (Δ) 04:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2011061610011506

Hi, can someone check if ticket #2011061610011506 also covers File:Small GD5D1092.jpg and File:Christine Ohuruogu.gif - both files were uploaded by user:Londonyouthgames who uploaded others with that OTRS permission number. These however clearly state another author & do not have the ticket attached. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I had left at User:Londonyouthgames to handle future uploads by the user without me having to tag each one as they came in. The images in question were likely works for hire. – Adrignola talk 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that means they can be tagged with this ticket? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the difference in licensing between the two files above. Application of the ticket couldn't be reconciled with the fact that the licenses wouldn't be consistent with the statement in the original email. Perhaps the individual wishes to apply different licensing to different files. And these files weren't mentioned in the email, so tagging them with the above number would be disingenuous. – Adrignola talk 13:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the explanation. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please to be checking the permissions of this file

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Madison_Square_Garden_Transformation_Stage_1.jpg

Thanks! Nyr3188 (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are IP added permission valid

Are IP added permission valid File:Edie thumb 33 ft.jpg, could somebody check.--Motopark (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

And please check the abuse-filter. It has to tag edits like this appropriately. (OTRS permission added by a non-otrs-member) But it didn't, as far as I can see. Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also add all redirects to the abuse-filter. Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 16:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio Candreva Parma.jpg

Could somebody with OTRS access and/or knowledge about the soccer.ru permission, confirm or dismiss the deletion rationale for this image. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AKADO Iron Fist 3.jpg

Uploader-added OTRS permit - and no license at all - delete? NVO (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an OTRS agent who told them to add the tag when the OTRS agent should add the tag and check for the very thing you pointed out—no license and incorrect attribution information. That's a good lesson; do it yourself if you want to be sure it's done right. – Adrignola talk 00:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check ticket for image

Can you check that https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2011050510000406 actually supports the use of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Outback_Zack.jpg? The image is a screenshot of a TV appearance, "Filmed by KUSI News Good Morning San Diego" but "taken by Outback Zack Productions". I don't think "Outback Zack Productions" have the rights to this image. Fences and windows (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a forwarded email from KUSI but it does not cite a license. There is an email that does claim the image is owned by Outback Zack Productions but does not clarify how ownership was transferred. The latter email mentions the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license and not CC0. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did put the permission tag onto the picture. In the OTRS system there are two mails that grant permission, one from the Kusi TV station and one from Zack Productions. Looks ok for me. Groetjes 16:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Sahrana Djindjica1.jpg

Could the permission email, linked in the permission entry of the description, be "transformed" into a OTRS ticket? --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The email is writen in Srpski MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ОАО ИжМаш

Недавно было получено согласие на использование пары их фотографий под CC-BY-SA? Письмо их я переслал на ящик ОТРС. Вопрос - какой статус у подтверждения разрешения?
Кроме того - очень хотелось бы уточнить - на ВикиСкладе изменились правила по поводу получения подтверждений разрешения от авторов? Раньше было достаточно письма от автора, где он в свободной форме подтверждал авторство работы и разрешение ее опубликовать под соответствующей лицензией. Теперь же почему-то стали настаивать на длинной форме с кучей "страшилок", которая здесь приведена...странно это--RussianTrooper (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #1291135

As I could see, all contribution of user Claudio edinger come with OTRS-ticket #1291135. Is this a general OTRS-ticket valid for all contribuition of this user or is this a fake permission? In some cases the user removed problem tagsexample. I haven´t seen any edits by OTRS-volunteers in the file history The ticket #1291135 already was discussed in Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Ticket check please. As result, these files (uploaded by Roberta Rossetto (talk · contributions · Number of edits) and probadly related with pt:Claudio Edinger), were deleted. User Roberta Rossetto is the main contributor in the ptwiki-article Claudio Edinger...Gunnex (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check also the uploads of user Roberta Rossetto, using the same ticket:
Gunnex (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Ticket #1291135 seems to be related with uploads of user Nehrams2020 (talk · contributions · Number of edits) ([3])...
Ticket 1291135 refers to 19 listed images uploaded by Nehrams2020; "Claudio Edinger" isn't mentioned in this ticket, so these references are invalid. --Krd (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the info. I marked all related uploads with {{Npd}}. Gunnex (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

worldcoingallery.com

Can an OTRS member please tell me if OTRS:2006092610005366 refers to all images of coins from this site or only some of them? If only some, which ones does it name?

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle/World_Coin_Gallery --Krd (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Каков статус OTRS-разрешений

Недавно было получено разрешение от правообладателей на размещение на условиях CC-BY-SA нескольких фотографий. А конкертно
1) Ticket#2011110310006198 - от ОАО "ИжМаш"
2) Ticket#2011102810016954 - от автора сайта http://zonawar.ru
хотелось бы узнать, каков статус OTRS-запросов на данный момент? По второму по идее вообще должно было быть принято разрешение уже о.О --RussianTrooper (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2007081610000479

Ticket is used by Sodakan (talk · contribs) for uploading on 15 August 2007, and also by Horz (talk · contribs) for uploading on 28 January 2009. I wonder if the later uploading is covered by the ticket. --Martin H. (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket mentions 115 Flickr source URLs and the corresponding commons filenames which they have been uploaded to. The files uploaded in 2009 seem not to match, so I'd assume this is not correct. --Krd (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I removed the not covered files. --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some help with ORTS?

I recently uploaded a batch of images provided to me personally by the RAF Museum, with the explicit direction that they could be released under the CC-by license. I have forwarded these to ORTS, but looking now I see that only two of the eight images have received a notice back from ORTS, one of them is some sort of confusing pending message, and the other states that the message received was not sufficient. I cannot find any trace of anyone trying to contact me here, on en.wiki, or in email.

I also had Denniss undelete a number of other images that were also "silently deleted" some time ago. I have forwarded ORTS messages about these as well. Most of them have no update about the ORTS message, and the one that does once again says it's insufficient, again with no apparent attempt to contact me.

Can anyone help me out here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to File:Course Setting Bomb Sight Mk IA.jpg, the OTRS member who placed the tag about the OTRS communication being received but not sufficient is User:Odder. Perhaps you can ask him directly about the details of what exactly is missing. Or you can post the question at the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied this conversation over to the OTRS noticeboard in the hope that one of the agents volunteering there can shed some light on the situation. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to the person at the RAF Museum and I am waiting for them to confirm the forwarded email MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is that the email from the Museum covered several different images, four in one case and three in the other IIRC. However, it appears that only one of all of these was tagged. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please to be checking the permissions of this file

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

Thanks! Yestorday (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been tagged as passing flicker review MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo eyes.jpg

We have a reasonable looking OTRS ticket 2011111510080102 challenging the copyright of this image. Previous request to delete from the uploader has been rejected. The page is protected from any edit, so I am unable to raise it for a speedy deletion. Fæ (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo eyes.jpg and Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Photo eyes.jpg and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Please_Delete_File will be relevant here also. russavia (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though the OTRS request does not give much context, the uploader was an anonymous account. It is an assumption that these requests are from the same person, or indeed that any of these people are the copyright holder (the request is from gmail accounts, I can ask for verification from the official website domain http://www.lyndsywelgos.com/ if that would be critical here). As the image is a professional portrait of living artists, defaulting to a keep when challenged is an unusual position to take. --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me, at least from what is visible here, is that the uploader is the copyright holder, the uploader claims copyright in the deletion request, then says they want their name removed, and at the admin noticeboard, state they meant to upload another image (2 years ago). CC licences are irrevocable and I do believe this is made blatantly clear when they upload to Commons -- I know that I make it quite clear to people I get permissions from. This appears to me to be a case of changing their mind, two years too late. russavia (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Russavia that this should be kept. I suspect that this is a perfectly legitimate upload by Lyndsy Welgos with a CC-BY-SA license two years ago. Now, I am guessing, for some reason -- perhaps a falling out among friends -- the uploader wanted his or her name off of it. I responded that since the name is required for attribution under CC-BY, we could not do that unless the license was changed to CC-0. Rather than do that, he or she has taken the image off Mia Theodoratu, filed a note at ANB, and made the claim here.
I should add that I protected the image because the uploader had removed all of the description from the page.
Under ordinary circumstances we would take it down -- because we cannot prove that the uploader was actually the copyright holder -- Assume Good Faith doesn't help. In this case, though, where the uploader has himself acted against the image in several bad ways, I think it is fair to assume that this is a case where the uploader is in fact the copyright holder and has simply changed his mind. Your gmail request doesn't hold much weight.
If we actually get a request from www.lyndsywelgos.com, I would still like to keep it. Otherwise we are hostage to any photographer who uploads an image here with a CC-BY license and then two years later wants to take it down, claiming he wasn't the uploader. If he wasn't the uploader, then where did User:lyndsywelgos get the image?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't prove a negative or rather justify an argumentum ad ignorantiam, particularly as the uploader may not be correspondent on OTRS. I shall now ask for email verification to demonstrate the person asking for removal is unambiguously the legal copyright holder. I cannot consider this being a "hostage to fortune", if the original upload had been verified at the time, this would be a different scenario and I would reject the OTRS request on that basis. OTRS ticket 2011111510080102 --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that our rules call for us to take it down if you get a request from www.lyndsywelgos.com. To be valid, such a request must declare in no uncertain terms that the uploader User:Lyndsywelgos is not Lyndsy Welgos, the owner of www.lyndsywelgos.com and that User:Lyndsywelgos was not authorized to upload the image. That will of course, require that we permanently block User:Lyndsywelgos and his IP address from editing on Commons.
That being said, I don't have to like it. As I said above, I think this is a case where our uploader has changed his mind and is exploiting a loophole to negate an irrevocable license. If the OTRS message had come out the blue, that would be one thing, but as I said above, the uploader's actions before the OTRS message came suggests strongly that they came from the same place. It stretches credulity that two years after the upload, the uploader edits the image and calls for its removal because he meant to upload a different one and simultaneously the rightful owner, not related to the uploader, claims that the uploader is a copyright violator.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a confirming email on OTRS, this unambiguously verified that the same emailer controls the website lyndsywelgos.com. I have not asked about the relationship with the original uploader as I did not want to give too much guidance on "loopholes". I will send a follow-up now asking for clarification as to whether they claim to have made the original upload and release, or not. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now had a quick email back saying "It was not me !". My opinion is that verification should have been requested after the first deletion request in May. If the person requesting deletion had been asked to verify their identity as copyright holder at that moment, the outcome would have been to keep this image. I agree, the uploading account should now be blocked. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ File deleted, user blocked Don't like it much, though.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More help please

After they were silently deleted without notice, Denniss helpfully restored several images I had uploaded earlier this year. I re-posted the ORTS requests for these, but none of them were updated -- as I pointed out in my message above. Well, once again, without any notice, all of the images were deleted again! The list can be seen here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five of your uploads were deleted recently. They all had {{No permission since}} tags on them, and, as explained in that template, were subject to deletion without further notice in seven days, which had passed. So, I don't understand "without any notice" -- the record shows that you had the required notice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/Archive_17&oldid=576667925"