Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 3 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Main VRT-related pages

• Commons:Volunteer Response Team
• Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Commons:Email templates
• {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

Can someone check to see if this is Chanel Ryan's number for her deleted images? She just forwarded the permissions and that is the number I gave her. I think it pertains to all 8-10 images. One may have a spelling difference: Mike Brochu is the correct name but the filename may spell it Mike Brochut.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We received ticket:2013072110000324 on July 21st, but it was not sufficient. OTRS agent requested the photographers permissions, but there was no update after then. --whym (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe we can solve it ourselves as there are email addresses mentioned. Will look at it soon. Trijnstel_talk 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Trijnstel. --Krd 10:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Commons:Help desk

Please help to restore image File:Проект колористического паспорта. 1996-1997 гг..jpg. Permission {{разрешение OTRS|2012072010005154}}Висарик (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

END copied from Commons:Help desk Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Lvova (owner of the ticket). Trijnstel_talk 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check this ticket? As all Creative Commons licenses require attribution of the author, it seems strange that the author is supposedly unknown. (Then again, the uploader also claims that the photo of a person who died i 1990 was taken in 2006.) And if the author is unknown, who issued the license, and with which authority? —LX (talk, contribs) 03:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That ticket (#2009072410055859) contains permission to upload files from http://www.sanu.ac.rs/ - the permission was confirmed by an employee of the SANU. I'm not 100% sure which license they meant, but it looks like people may upload the photos under any license they wish. Please ask Dungodung if you wish to know more. Trijnstel_talk 10:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permission was asked for the photos to be released under GFDL (WM might have switched to CC by that time [2009], but our boilerplate request still contained references to GFDL), but the response says that all material (photos included) from the site can be used without limits (i.e. PD). The response also says that the material should be used in a way that won't jeopardize reputation of SANU or Serbia. Also, we are asked to publish the material in its entirety in order to avoid "wrongful understanding and putting facts in different contexts". Basically, that gives us broad usage. However, their website is still adorned with a Copyright clause, but I think it refers to the site itself, not the content. Hope this helps. --Filip (§) 22:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Used without limits" doesn't sound like it would be the same as public domain. It sounds more like {{Copyrighted free use}}, particularly considering the site's copyright notice. If it really is in the public domain (which would contradict the copyright notice on the site), then I need help with an appropriate {{PD-because}} rationale. Again, since the author is apparently unknown, can you confirm that the statement from the Academy contains an actual assertion that they are indeed the copyright holders of the content in question? (Also, I presume subdomains are excluded, since it's pretty easy to find content that they obviously can't license under www.mi.sanu.ac.rs, for example.) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a way to find out if the photos are really in the ownership of SANU or not, unless we ask them specifically. Bear in mind that this is a request from 2009, back when we were much more lenient when it came to permissions, so while it was good enough for that time, it might not suffice now. So, it might be worthwhile to send another request and to try to clarify these things. As for the Mathematical Institute (MI), funny you should mention it as Wikimedia Serbia is holding a meeting with them next week regarding liberation of some content. --Filip (§) 23:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected some of the obviously incorrect claims on the file description and tagged it for OTRS review. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several of this user's recent uploads include an OTRS ticket. They've had a lot of their older uploads deleted, so I wonder about these. Can an OTRS member check these out? INeverCry 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look, and a second look (in Italian). Note the original OTRS volunteer does not seem active on Commons recently. --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket looks relevant, it covers the following original file names:

• File:Lanfranco (Jacques Perrin) e Giovanni (Andrej "Kolya" Chalimon) in "Prima la Musica, poi le Parole".jpg
• File:Marina (Anna Bonaiuto) e Giovanni (Andrej "Kolya" Chalimon) in "Prima la Musica, poi le Parole".jpg
• File:PRIMA LA TRAMA, POI IL FONDO inquadratura del film inserita nel corto "Renata degli Abissi".png
• File:PRIMA LA TRAMA, POI IL FONDO inquadratura del film inserita nel cortometraggio "la bicicletta".png
• File:Fulvio Wetzl (Milano 2013).JPG (la foto è stata scattata da Laura Bagnoli, come dichiarato, che me la cede in uso gratuito)

I believe they have been uploaded with slightly different names like File:Andrej Chalimon e Anna Bonaiuto in Prima la musica poi le parole di Fulvio Wetzl.jpg, which matches the second on the above list, so I'd take any with similar names on good faith. I note that one of the above has been deleted by yourself and can be undeleted and ticketed on this basis. I am not 100% confident doing these, it would be better if someone who can read Italian were to finish these. --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is a list of Web sites whose material can be used on Wikipedia under a Creative Commons or GFDL license. https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5_%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%99%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9A%D0%B5

Владислава Крстић,

• vladislavakrstic.altervista.org,
• Овлашћење; Дозвола на OTRS систему.
• ID of tickets 7123003
• Number of tickets 2013091810015311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intermedichbo (talk • contribs) 11:07, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Is it possible to upload one of these pictures from davecskatingphoto.com with OTRS ticket number 2008012510003504 (like in Category:Photographs from davecskatingphoto.com)? Thank you very much, --Delfort (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Delfort: no. That ticket does not give an explicit release under any licence - it is just a "use my files on Wikipedia" type request. As I am not too familiar with policy here, can you let me know where these should be listed? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 22:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please have a look at this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Babri Masjid. This ticket is most probbaly not valid. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2013042110000955 seems linked to this discussion. I'm sorry I cannot tell more :( --PierreSelim (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at this ticket? What does it say? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need someone who can read Arabic to investigate further. What I can tell from Google Translate is that the OTRS agent accepted the license. whym (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dharmadhyaksha here User talk:Fastily#Commons:Deletion requests.2FFiles in Category:Babri Masjid, it is not Arabic, but Urdu. Could you please ask the person who validated it, or some OTRS admin to interven? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right! It could be Arabic too. I just said Urdu because the subject is in India where Arabic or other Nastaliq or Abjad script would be rare. But the user could be a traveller from anywhere. As said, i don't know the language. So its all same for me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly it's written in Farsi. Ping Mehdi (owner ticket), Meisam, Ebraminio and Mardetanha. Trijnstel_talk 16:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is about photos ownership. FOP problem is another issue images taken with no doubt are released under free license as user User:محمديان is well known, trusted, pro and old photographer and Persian Wikipedia user. The ticket is just indicating this and indicating User:سبأ is related to him. Thanks to their contributions −ebraminio^talk 16:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebraminio: There is no FOP problem in India in this case as architecture in 3D form is covered in FOP. The problem actually is that whether the claimed owner actually is the owner of the images or not. Its not new to see OTRS emails from non-owners claiming ownership. The language problem doesn't allow many of us to see if the ownership was undoubtedly established or not. Please note that some of the images whose ownership is claimed in the OTRS have already been deleted as other ownership was claimed elsewhere or possible copyvio reasons were provided at the Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Babri Masjid. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you should wait to see others comments specially User:Mardetanha as he has right to see what is deleted and investigate about them but as I said I do know user Mohammadian is writer of several books related to his travels and his career as a pro photographer so for me that would be more probable others just copied (or scanned with better resolution) his images as they thought these are old and in public domain so there is no need to attribute even. −ebraminio^talk 15:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been poked to check this case, as I checked thoroughly based on logs and internet search, It is not possible to clearly say if these images are copyvio, As Ebraminio mentioned above, uploader is long term user and history of donating thousands of images and as he said he and his family member were doing photography since 1964, to be on safe side, we may ask him for further information about images, if he fails to do so, always there is time to delete Mardetanha ^talk 17:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone to verify that Gvocale (talk · contribs) is correct when he claims to have sent a ticket through the OTRS system. Someone needs to tag all his files relating to Steven Goldstein with the various OTRS templates if that's the case. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a ticket (#2014012410012753), but we need more information in my opinion. CC Sphilbrick, who's handling the ticket. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H, this is the issue you contacted me about the other day. I followed up with an email to the person who sent in the permission, indicating that we needed more (following your advice). That email was sent on 19 February, as of this moment, no response.

I see the three images have been deleted, and it looks like they have been uploaded again. I will follow up with a note to the uploader.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have mentioned User:TeleComNasSprVen for notification purposes.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Sorry for not being able to catch up earlier here, was a bit busy. Perhaps its due to the time zone difference, but you noted the email was received on the 19 February, but I sent the request for license permissions to the user on 20 February, according to the timestamps on email inbox. Did you receive two OTRS tickets, or was that just the time zone difference?

I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to do. The last message I sent hasn't yet received a reply, and it was basically another confirmation request. I can email you the contents if you want, and you can look at the details. But I'm afraid I'm not seeing how I could be of further help beyond this point. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Houston at the moment, heading to Dallas, then back home Wed. I will look into this then.--Sphilbrick (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, sorry but I'm still figuring out just now slowly how to talk on this platform and I've found this message just now. As you can imagine, me, Valeria Mascarponi, Anke Luckmann and Steve Goldstein own all the rights about producing and editing the pictures uploaded. If you guys prefer I could resend all the picture to OTRS and CC on the email also Valeria, Anke and Steven asking them to confirm the release of the rights. Would that work toward the release of the pictures or would you prefer some other way? Thanks --gvocale (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2014 (EST)

Hello again, @Gvocale, Sphilbrick: just wondering if this is still being hammered out? I don't have the full details of the case as I'm not an OTRS agent, by the way. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the efforts, it looks like per this request File:Steven goldstein - Capital Club Magazine.jpg was undeleted thanks to OTRS ticket 2014021810015822, but some of the others remain deleted and/or in limbo. Can sphilbrick or another OTRS agent verify if sphil's too busy? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can a Russian-speaker check File talk:Голубой Логотип.png and File:Голубой Логотип.png. Thank you in advance. Ralgis (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, we would like to bring the according image online still. There has been an (rather quickly) archived discussion on this messageboard, but the last answer was not clarifying. See old discussion:

The last email was waiting for an origin version of the image to be sent back to be verified. You need to respond to that. I suggest not doing so here if you prefer the discussion to remain non-public. --Fæ (Diskussion) 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. I only got an answer about who the photographer of the portrait image was, clarifying that this was a selfie. After that response, there was no more response. Would be nice if someone could help out. --PaulBommel (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Fae was quite correct—the OTRS agent has replied to you, requesting that you send him the original file with EXIF data. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information, obviously this conversation got lost. I have just checked and there actually is an original file which is not cropped, but it also doesnt contain metadata. Its the same one like this one, but in higher resolution. This is definitely an image owned by Ian Wilson, as he is the chairman of this company. Best regards, --PaulBommel (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what happen again here. The email was sent on 7th January by Yohan Goutt Goncalves with the photo to commons@wikimedia.org. Later he answered an email asking, who is the photograph, that it was his mother. There was no further request anymore for another confirmation. So why was the file deleted? I resend the first mail, which I have in the archive to permission@wikimedia.org again. The others should be in your email-box. --Patrick (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last followup email from support team was at 26 Jan 2014 and stayed unanswered by the permission sender. Please let him contact us again if possible. Thank you. --Krd 13:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the last eMail? I got the information about his mother CC, but didn't save it. In the moment it is not easy to contact him, because he is visiting Timor-Leste. --Patrick (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last email was the one asking for permission by the creator or copyright holder, not by the depicted person. --Krd 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested Yohan Goutt Goncalves ro confirm, that his mother made the photo. --Patrick (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan have sent the Mail yesterday. Did you get it? --Patrick (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2014041410013971. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 12:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, can I reload it now? --Patrick (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reloaded it. --Patrick (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Patrick Fischer: Sorry for not answering earlier, but (as a non-admin) I couldn't compare the images. They are not the same. The image in the ticket has a much lower resolution, and the ticket also doesn't specify a free license, under which the image is released. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 13:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got the image from YGG directly. If you have the image in a lower resolution, you can replace the other one? Maybe YGG sent the lower res image in his second mail to Commons and didn't look for resolution. The license, I chose is the one wih gives lowest rights to others. That is what I told YGG, when I talked to him. By the way: He asked me, why the image was away from Wikipedia. I don't think there would be any protest because of the resolution. --Patrick (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, it is very helpful to delete the ticket number at the image, instead of changing the image to the other one. I do not have access to the mail to commons, I just have the image from YGG directly. --Patrick (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...as discussed here User_talk:Gryllida#File:BRUCE_LAWSON_OPERA.png, please check and reply in that relevant thread. Thanks. Gryllida 09:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could some check this ticket? In August and September 2013, Elifervil uploaded several scans of paintings by Emeric Tauss Torday who died in 1987, claiming "own work". The uploads were deleted in October here, but undeleted in December, presumanly because OTRS received a ticket roviding permission, see [1]. What kind of permission would allow us to treat this as CC-BY-SA? Does the uploader represent the heirs of the artist, or does the uploader otherwise hold some permission by way of a donation by the artist? I am dubious of this ticket because while the wikipedia editor with the same username here claims they have permission from the heiress, the wikipedia pages for the artist appear to be solely sourced by artprice.com and artvalue.com. If OTRS decides it is Ok, could someone add some detail to the first image to help clarify the permission, and to guide reusers how they should attribute (the uploader? the heiress?) -84user (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@84user: The ticket is in Spanish, but it looks like (with Google Translate), that the sender claims to be the heir (daughter) of the artist, who also owns the paintings. The OTRS-ticket contains, however, a release of the original works under the {{Cc-by-2.5-es}} license (missing from the file description pages) for the following files:

1. File:Gerardo Diego, Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-08-24 20-09.png
2. File:Jeune fille, Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-08-24 19-52.png
3. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-33.png
4. File:Judith Karolyi, Emeric Tauss Torday.jpg
5. File:Joven, Emeric Tauss Torday.png
6. File:Conde Károlyi, Emeric Tauss Torday.png
7. File:Normandía, Emeric Tauss Torday.png
8. File:Jean-Paul Sartre, Emeric Tauss Torday.png
9. File:Kees van Dongen, Emeric Tauss Torday.png
10. File:Chagrins d'amour, Emeric Tauss Torday.png
11. File:Emeric Tauss Torday y Kees van Dongen.png
12. File:Abdul Mejid II, Emeric Tauss Torday.png
13. File:Emeric Tauss Torday y Menéndez Pidal.png
14. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-40.png
15. File:El último refugio, Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-08-24 21-32.png
16. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 17-22.png
17. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-44.png
18. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-43.png
19. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-42.png
20. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-41.png
21. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-38.png
22. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-36.png
23. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-35.png
24. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-34.png
25. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-32.png
26. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-30.png
27. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-28.png
28. File:Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-09-09 16-26.png
29. File:Menendez Pidal, Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-08-24 20-24.png
30. File:Autorretrato, Emeric Tauss Torday 2013-08-24 18-55.png
31. File:Emeric Tauss Torday retrato.jpg
32. File:Emeric Tauss Torday.png

Marking them as "own work" is probably because the uploader took the photographs. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:2000.08.17 KASHMIR Sayed Salahuddin Letter to Clinton on Peace Offer.jpg

I removed the claim of "free use because created by employee of US government" - Ijaz was never an employee of the US government. [2]

Unless the OTRS communications involve something from "Salahuddin [who] was not fluent in certain aspects of the English language. ... Mr Salahuddin is a Kashmiri freedom fighter who does not frequent Wikimedia discussions of this type" confirming Salahuddin desire to release the copyright, or something confirming that Salahuddin as a Pakistani government official let a US citizen draft an official government document, or something that confirms Ijaz was a secret government employee on an mission that the government denies existed, its release as a free use document seems unlikely. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Uploader_asking_for_images_to_deleted TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I and Túrelio recently tagged some of the images uploaded by this user for deletion, myself perhaps a little hastily, and HJ Mitchell declined the speedy deletion for File:EyelashLogo.png saying I should contact the uploader first, since they seem to be editing on behalf of the corporation. They're also speaking a bit of Japanese, so could Japanese OTRS agents please assist in making the effort to contact them? I'm afraid I might not have the necessary skills to get past this particular language barrier, or if they would be willing to respond to my requests in English. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please could people review Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sanjay_dutt_department.jpg. I'm obviously confused about things but it seems to me that there are numerous holes in the Bollywood Hungama OTRS ticket. I'd appreciate some clarification. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked this ticket which was also reviewed by several volunteers. I see nothing wrong with it. This image seems to be taken at the press conference, I see no problem here either. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the following images? File:On the sets of OMG.jpg ; File:Jism 2 set.jpg ; File:Samantha Ruth Prabhu and Sudeep on the sets of Eega.jpg These were not from a press conference. Boseritwik (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of "film sets" images is discussed in the ticket, which was finally approved by Bollywood Hungama, so at least, it is not an oversight. May be some experienced OTRS volunteers might want to give an opinion. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that this image meets the ticket requirements. Furthermore, it seems to me that the wording of the ticket means an awful lot of other images also do not prima facie meet the requirements. The source is this page on their website. It certainly says that it is from a press conference for a film (although it is filed in the "parties" directory, which is another aspect of the ticket) but it doesn't say who took the photo, nor whether the photographer is an employee of Bollywood Hungama, which makes "created by their own photographers" impossible to verify. Also, the ticket says that the thing must have been "exclusively" created - where is the evidence for this? I'm not even sure what that means: if we find it on another website that claims copyright, for example, how do we know whether that site's source is Commons or Bollywood Hungama? And, if it is from the BH original, how can it be "exclusively" created if (presumably) they've sold it on via a stock library or whatever?

The ticket is worthless in this instance and in many others. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. No-one seems to care about this obvious legal problem. Maybe the various "Commons is broken" threads at Jimbo's en-WP talk page had a point. I can imagine that OTRS is a busy place here but maybe I'll raise this issue there. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2014031810011164 Löschung von File: Ruinenlandschaft.jpg und von File: Schiffe.Ölbild.jpg Freigabe der Bilder: File:Ruinenlandschaft.jpg File:Schiffe.Ölbild.jpg File: Porträt von Walter Maier-Kößler.jpg File: Petrefakt.jpg File: Gustav Kittler.jpg File: Aphrodite, Druckgrafik.jpg

Hallo Wikimedia-Support-Team, Am 15.2. habe ich die oben bezeichneten Bilddateien hochgeladen und am 22.2 ein Mail um Erteilung der Bildrechte geschickt, allerdings keine automatische Antwort und auch keine Ticket-Nr. erhalten.

Am 18.3. habe ich diese Mail mit den Bildrechteerklärungen nochmals losgeschickt und die oben angegebene Ticket-Nr. bekommen, worauf ich den Vermerk {{subst:0P}} im Artikel eingefügt habe. Am selben Tag wurde für die Bilder Ruinenlandschaft.jpg und Schiffe.Ölbild.jpg ein Schnell-Löschantrag gestellt, der am 24.3. vollzogen wurde (Löscher: Fastily)

Ich möchte Sie bitten, den Antrag auf Freischaltung zu überprüfen und die gelöschten Bilder baldmöglichst wieder herzustellen. Ich habe OTRS eine Erklärung als Autor (Fotograf)geschickt, eine als Erbe der Bildrechte meines Vaters und die Mail der Städtischen Museen Heilbronn, aus der hervorgeht, dass die Besitzer (Städtische Museen Heilbronn) mit der Veröffentlichung der Bild-Dateien auf Wikipedia einverstanden sind, ebenso eine Einverständniserklärung der Besitzerin des Bildes: Schiffe.Ölbild.jpg. Falls diese Nachweise nicht genügen, bitte ich mir mitzuteilen, welche Nachweise Sie außerdem benötigen. Vielen Dank, Maieruli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maieruli (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please, can someone copy the content of the above mentioned ticket to Template talk:OCHA map? See Commons:Bots/Requests/UN OCHA maps bot --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the Bangla language wikipedia article on University of South Carolina. please let me know in detail what I should do next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabih omar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you wish to use this pic on a Wikipedia (see en:Help:Files) or on another website (see COM:REUSE). Trijnstel_talk 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notice about uploaded images, so I put on the noticed images the Template:OTRS pending . I have got by mail the permission of the Author filled in the wiki template about their use (Author of whom I create pages on wikipedia and wikiquote) and I turned the e-mail template filled by the Author to the following e mail address,permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 24 march 2014 and permissions-it@wikimedia.org on 27 march 2014. I ask you kindly if there is still something to do or if I should just wait for your answer. Thanks.--Fabrizialeopardi (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have my photos deleted, can you explain me why? I have done all procedures to avoid it. I have the permission and i sent it to the address I say in the first message. Can you help me to restore the photos?? Thanks--Fabrizialeopardi (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago Dennis Lewin and Amherst Records sent you emails pertaining to copyrights on pictures they own. They both will allow the pictures to be put on the Beau Coup page but they haven't been restored yet. What is the status on that request? Thanks Mmcard59 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me the status of the copyrighted pictures for the Beau Coup page? I'm not sure if I am allowed to reload the pictures. Amherst Records sent permissions an email allowing the pictures to be use but I haven't heard anything as yet. Thank you for your time!! Mmcard59 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatzfeld (talk · contribs) claimed on File talk:Ángel Fernández Artime.jpg that they received permission from ANS releasing the images under CC-BY-SA and for Commons to use, so I'm currently holding off deletion of File:Francesco Cereda.jpg just in case they need time. Can anyone check to make sure the permission is in the OTRS queue? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 April 2014 I have sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with subject "Copyright pictures ANS Roma". The attachment of that mail is an email written in Italian by the legal representative of ANS, Jean Paul Muller, giving me the authorization to publish their pictures under the license CC-BY-3.0. For safety I have cited that mail on my homepage here in wikimedia commons. So I kindly ask you to undelete the files File:Ángel Fernández Artime.jpg and File:Francesco Cereda.jpg - Hatzfeld (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment a temporary undelete with the note "OTRS pending" would be enough, until my mails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org will have been read by someone. - --Hatzfeld (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please check whether this uploader-added ticket is valid for File:Przyjazn.JPG and File:Pani z torebka.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears so. User was instructed to tag them by the OTRS agent one they were restored/reuploaded. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For these files, I have a problem. The company Galerie Jolliet is dissolved since many years and I dont know who is the author of the pictures. So, if there is no possibilities to keep these files, you can deleted them.

File:FrictionsEnEffets05.JPG File:FrictionsEnEffets04.JPG File:FrictionsEnEffets03.JPG File:FrictionsEnEffets02.JPG

It's pictures from an exhibition in 1984. I bought all art works of this exhibition at this time. And, I don't remember where I got those pictures.

So!

--ViskaBertrand (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Tribunal_logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

we found no informations when and why this files was reported for deletion and the uploader Praxis Loewengasse got no information about this report, praxis loewengasse had all rights for this picture. however, a new picture was uploaded after deletion, but we want to know, where i v#can find informations about this file, the deletion-ticket and so on. thanx for help!--Abadonna (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)(and sorry, i know my english is not the best...)[reply]

If you click on the red link you can see this was deleted on 14 March 2014 by @Fastily: , seven days after being marked as not having permission. Praxis Loewengasse (talk · contribs) did receive a correct notification on 6 March 2014. There appears to be no email on OTRS about this file, so you may want to raise your question with Fastily if you believe there was adequate permission given for the upload, or have the copyright holder write to permissionswikimedia.org. There seems no action here for any OTRS volunteer. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank You very much, but when i search in deletion requests or on march 6 i can't see this file was reported, where can i see, who reported. i try to understand, how it works hier in wikimedia...--Abadonna (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deletion request discussion in this case. When a photograph has its permission challenged, if there is no response within 7 days it is considered reasonable to delete it. If you think Fastily has overlooked something, you can ask them to reconsider on their user talk page. In this case, the easiest thing is probably for the copyright holder to email in to OTRS and if verified then it can be undeleted. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,

Am 5.4. wurden unten stehende Bilder durch EugeneZelenko nominiert zum Löschen. Heutemorgen wurde eine Mail bzgl. der Bildrechte an 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' gesendet, in welcher die Lizenzfrage zu den Bildern:

• File:2255 3 MGD-Optimix-2G.jpg • File:2073 4 Z5.jpg • File:1573 3 SUMA Tauchmotorruehrwerk Optimix-2G.jpg • File:806 3 Stabruehrwerk-Ruehrgigant-FR-2012.jpg • File:345 4 SUMA-Elektroruehrwerk-Rekordmix.jpg • File:SUMALandkarte+Länder.jpg • File:Rekordmix No1.jpeg • File:Kühbach.jpg • File:Gerhard Thürwächter.jpg • File:Gewerbeanmeldung 1957.jpg

geklärt werden müsste. Wie ist dort der Stand? Die Seite ist durch das Unternehmen erstellt worden und die Rechte und Erlaubnisse liegen vor. Eine Löschung wäre demnach m.E. nicht nötig. SUMARührtechnik (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Es kann eine Weile dauern bis die Email bearbeitet und die Erlaubnis geprüft ist. Deshalb solltest ab Einreichung der Email folgenden Code auf die Seiten der betroffenen Dateien pappen: {{OTRS pending}} . --Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction "Any usage of the image outside Wiki needs to be approved by and licensed through epa – European pressphoto agency b.v. (www.epa.eu)" is obviously contradictory to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license and incompatible with Commons' licensing requirements. Was this addressed when handling the OTRS ticket? If yes, why was it not removed from the file description page? If no, the ticket needs to be reopened to sort out the problem. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping JurgenNL. He already send a follow-up email yesterday. (And FYI: Bmwz3hm is likely the person depicted in the photograph.) Trijnstel_talk 13:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heleenmees2.png. Trijnstel_talk 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Trijnstel_talk 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am a University of Toronto graduate student completing my Master's Thesis

My thesis will be available in full text on the internet for reference, study and / or copy. Except in situations where a thesis is under embargo or restriction, the electronic version will be accessible through the U of T Libraries web pages, the Library’s web catalogue, and also through web search engines. I will also be granting Library and Archives Canada and ProQuest/UMI a non-exclusive license to reproduce, loan, distribute, or sell single copies of my thesis by any means and in any form or format. These rights will in no way restrict re-publication of the material in any other form by you or by others authorized by you.

I would like permission to allow inclusion of the following material in my thesis: ticket #2013040410011627. The material will be attributed through a citation.

Please confirm in writing that these arrangements meet with your approval.

Sincerely

Ronnie Har

Restored Rohar's (mistakenly reverted) addition above. whym (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohar: You can reuse the diagram under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, if that is what you wanted to know. whym (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Sphilbrick restored all previously deleted revisions of this file and marked the permission as confirmed. Could I please get a second opinion on that?

The 2014-03-31 revision uploaded by Ombase was previously deleted as a copyright violation, as it was grabbed from http://news.yahoo.com/photos/image-distributed-ajb-images-image-released-wednesday-march-photo-172347774.html (Alex Berliner/AJB Images via AP Images), which makes it somewhat unlikely to be covered by a free license. That said, the latest revision is claimed to be the uploader's work and is also credited to Alex Berliner, whose name is linked to User:Ombase's (nonexistent) user page, so maybe the ticket covers both of these revisions and confirms that User:Ombase and Alex Berliner are one and the same?

Where it gets really fishy is the 2012-12-05 revision by Jessie cooper87x. That's a photo by Kevin Mazur/Wireimage. Surely that is still a blatant copyright violation which should never have been restored? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something doesn't quite add up. The person sending in the permission is not Alex Berliner (nor Robert Simonds). I am in the process of writing to the purported copyright holder to ask for more information.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a preliminary response, which is encouraging. I have asked for some additional information, including permission to share the response.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts from the response (after obtaining permission to quote)

Yes, I am a photographer and work with Alex Berliner. I posted the recent version of the Robert Simonds photo, which is indeed sourced to Alex in the press release but is the work of our studio.

In addition, please expect a response from Alex within the next day or two. --Sphilbrick (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the file be tagged with {{OTRS received}} rather than {{PermissionOTRS}} until the permission is actually confirmed? And I'm still puzzled as to why you've restored the Wireimage photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the confirmed tag because it looked fine when I first reviewed it. Then someone raised some questions, which were worth looking into, (and really relate to other images than the current one) but I got a response from the copyright holder in short order, so I didn't bother changing it. While we are still due a confirmation letter from the named author, I don't see the need to change the tag. If we do not get the letter, we might have to debate whether what we have is sufficient, but I see no need to open that debate now. Perhaps we should delete the older images. I'm open to that possibility.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the first version. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for OTRS TICKET about 4 pictures titled franz krauspenhaar. I ' ve got permission of the Author to publish and I sent mail to wikipedia office and put on OTRS pending one month ago. I would like to know the number of the ticket because I 've my photos deleted. Thanks.

This is the mail with the permission I sent to wikipedia 25 march 2014 .

Ticket OTRS

Inoltro al Vostro indirizzo fornitomi dal tutor wikicommons richiesta di convalida all' uso delle immagini in documento allegato in cui è fornito il consenso da parte dell'Autore. Già inviata richiesta a permission-it@wikimedia.org
Original Message -----
From: Fabrizia To: permissions-it@wikimedia.org Cc: inumle@tin.it Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:30 PM Subject: Fw: Licenza uso immagini In Wikipedia

Original Message -----
From: krauspenhaar To: Fabrizia Cc: permissions-it@wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Licenza uso immagini In Wikipedia


From: Fabrizia Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:10 PM To: krauspenhaar Cc: inumle@tin.it Subject: Fw: Licenza uso immagini In Wikipedia

Original Message -----
From: Fabrizia To: krauspenhaar Cc: inumle@tin.it Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15 PM Subject: Fw: Licenza uso immagini In Wikipedia

Original Message -----
From: Fabrizia To: krauspenhhar@fastwebnet.it Cc: inumle@tin.it Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:59 AM Subject: Licenza uso immagini In Wikipedia
Oggetto: Richiesta per l'utilizzo di immagini in Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera

Alla cortese attenzione/Gentile/Egregio [ Franz Krauspenhaar],
mi chiamo [ Fabrizia Leopardi] e sono un collaboratore volontario di Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org/), un'enciclopedia online a contenuto libero e multilingue redatta in modo collaborativo da volontari e sostenuta dalla Wikimedia Foundation, un'organizzazione non-profit. Il progetto Wikipedia si occupa di redigere voci rigorosamente da un punto di vista neutrale su qualsiasi ambito del sapere umano.
Le scrivo perché desidererei includere nelle voci di Wikipedia questa immagine: [1]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franz_Krauspenhaar_Roma.jpg.], poiché ritengo che Lei ne sia il detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright).
Il materiale multimediale che può essere caricato sui server di Wikipedia deve essere dichiarato dall'autore liberamente utilizzabile in conformità ad una licenza libera, che tutela il diritto di vedersi attribuita la paternità della propria opera ma che ne consente a chiunque la libera ridistribuzione, stampa e modifica dei contenuti anche per scopi commerciali. Esistono numerose licenze libere fra cui scegliere, ma il mio consiglio è quello di utilizzare la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo 3.0, abbreviata in CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.it)
Se desidera utilizzare una licenza libera diversa, la prego di specificarla scegliendola esclusivamente tra quelle elencate in questo paragrafo: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CI#Licenze_libere . Per maggiori informazioni, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CI, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licenze_Creative_Commons
Se è intenzionato a concedere l'autorizzazione, è sufficiente rispondere a questa email o inviarla direttamente a permissions-it@wikimedia.org indicando esplicitamente di confermare ciò che viene espresso nella seguente dichiarazione:
confermo quanto viene espresso nella seguente dichiarazione:
---
Dichiaro di essere il creatore e/o il solo detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright) di [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imagefranz_Krauspenhaar_Atelier_Vidocq_1.jpg,https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imagefranz_Krauspenhaar_Atelier_Vidocq_1.jpg,https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franz_Krauspenhaar_1.JPG,https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franz_Krauspenhaar.jpg,]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Franz_Krauspenhaar_Roma.jpg.]
Dichiaro di essere d'accordo alla pubblicazione di tale opera sotto la licenza libera CC-BY-SA-3.0, di cui ho letto il testo legale e di cui accetto le condizioni.
Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che concedo a chiunque il diritto di usare l'opera in un prodotto commerciale e di poterla modificare a seconda delle proprie esigenze.
Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che resto comunque titolare dei diritti d'autore della mia opera e che mi venga attribuita in accordo alla licenza scelta. Le modifiche all'opera fatte da altri non saranno attribuite a me.
Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che la licenza riguarda solo i diritti d'autore, e mi riservo il diritto di muovere azione legale contro chiunque utilizzi quest'opera in modo diffamatorio e calunnioso, o in violazione dei diritti d'immagine, delle restrizioni riguardo i marchi registrati ecc.
Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che non posso ritrattare questo accordo, e che l'opera possa o non possa essere conservata permanentemente in un progetto Wikimedia.
[ 26. marzo 2014 ], [Franz Krauspenhaar ]
---
Spero che apprezziate l'iniziativa e che possiate concedere l'autorizzazione. Resto in attesa di una Vostra risposta, disponibile anche a discutere eventuali dettagli. Per ulteriori riscontri potete fare riferimento al servizio informazioni della Wikimedia Foundation, info-it@wikimedia.org
Grazie dell'attenzione dedicata al nostro progetto
Cordiali saluti
[ Fabrizia Leopardi ] (su Wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:[ fabrizialeopardi])

--Fabrizialeopardi (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use the Photo linked below for the purpose of uncommercial souvenir 0f NGO's event for helping International refugees. This photo has the mark of OTRS, so I think it may need permission. Please answer me whether I can use this. We don't have much time for making souvenir. Please hurry to email me. Thank you!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zaatari_refugee_camp,_Jordan_(3).jpg

name: Shina Lee email address: slee.keys119@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 112.220.220.50 (talk) 04:54, April 15, 2014‎ (UTC)

Yes. Any works by the FCO are available under the terms of the open government license, and you may reuse the work in accordance with it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it is OK to use this image in my thesis. It was required to leave a note, here. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.137.20.17 (talk) 00:08, April 16, 2014‎ (UTC)

I assume you are referring to File:TPP riboswitch pdb-2hoj.png. Yes, the permission is valid; you may use the image under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

we like to use the photographie of thie nice couple on Vespa for a fashion boutique in Immenstadt (smal town in Germany. Is this allowed with the indication of source?

Please, a fast answer, thanks with kind regard Katharina Tomaselli vanlook

Hi,

You probably need to ask (through the photographer) the permission of the people on the image for such a usage, depending on German law. Otherwise, you can use any image on Commons for a commercial use. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an open copy of Clair de Lune, I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Claude_Debussy_-_clair_de_lune.ogg and was suspicious because it was declared to be beyond copyright because of it's age. Of course the score is quite old, but this is clearly a recent recording of it. It is important that Wikimedia Commons be a reliable source of open works.

A little Googleing turned up the artist robin@robinalciatore.com who declares that she is the copyright holder.

From: Robin Alciatore <robin@robinalciatore.com> Subject: Re: Clare de Lune Date: April 17, 2014 at 11:17:20 AM CDT

Hi Rob. I understand how you can be confused - years ago musopen.com incorrectly and inexplicably published some of my tracks as “public domain.” Since that time, it has been impossible to correct that error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.133.102 (talk • contribs)

I have opened a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claude Debussy - clair de lune.ogg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to reuse the image of the coronary artery bypass. Could you please kindly confirm the permission?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoham (talk • contribs)

See COM:REUSE. Trijnstel_talk 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Trijnstel_talk 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone help me find the license for this ticket # please! I would like to re-use it Outside of Wikipedia. Thanks!!! -Tuckertwo (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It mentiones cc-zero. Natuur12 (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Some time ago this picture was deleted due to lack of permission. It turns out that the owner had forgot to send a confirmation to OTRS. She has now promised to fix that. Could an OTRS-worker please tell me if/when a permission arrives, so that I can file an undelete request? Thanks, 88.89.62.105 05:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Now logged in: --GAD (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any e-mail from Selvaag in the OTRS system. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 10:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Armbrust. I received an e-mail from ma@selvaag.no on the 22nd that they would fix this the same date. Could you please recheck if there is anything. Regards, GAD (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I couldn't find anything from the above e-mail address. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permission was sent by author (Bärbel Stock) on Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:29:07 +0100 to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org with image attached. -- Michael F. Schönitzer 15:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to tidy up the permissions for these photographs. These have been uploaded by Carlofantom (talk · contribs), who I shall notify of this discussion. The photographs/covers are identical to those promoted on the internet, being low resolution versions with no credible EXIF data.

The approach by OTRS volunteers has been inconsistent over the past year, with some being accepted on good faith and others being rejected as unverifiable. As well as images uploaded to Commons, further photographs have been received on OTRS and yet to be uploaded. I propose that validation is only considered sufficient if either the album production company provides a statement (either directly of copyright release, or nominating their copyright agent as having legal authority) or on a case-by-case basis the original photographer can be verified and provides a release.

Though I have written to patricia-ocallaghan.com, should the artist reply with a personal release rather than a production company release, this would not be sufficient in consideration of the correspondence at ticket:2013072010003118.

1. ticket:2013072010003118 (closed as unable to verify)
   • File:Canadian singer Patricia O'Callaghan in 2011.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2. ticket:2014030110002901 (Pending correspondence with patriciapatricia-ocallaghan.com, 18 April 2014)
   • File:Patricia_O'Callaghan.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   • File:Patricia_O'Callaghan_(La_Perla_hosiery).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   • File:Real_Emotional_Girl.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   • File:Matador_(album).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
   • File:Broken Hearts & Madmen.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My action so far has to start merging all 2014 correspondence on album/professional promotional shots of Patricia O'Callaghan to the same OTRS ticket and where images had been marked with {{OTRS permission}} these are swapped to {{OTRS received}}. If further requests are received, I suggest we continue to merge them to the same ticket.

Please note, a number of OTRS volunteers have acted based on emails received through OTRS. There is no intended criticism here of past action. Certainly I have found the history confusing to follow, and as a pile of unlinked email requests, it was hard to make any judgement based on past correspondence. --Fæ (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A slight clarification of the background has been made here. This does not currently change the status of the above tickets. --Fæ (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can an OTRS agent please check a ticket sent in at approximately April 19, 2014, concerning File:Claude Debussy - clair de lune.ogg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claude Debussy - clair de lune.ogg? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2014041910003188 - It appears that musopen.com called them PD as the composers were long gone. However they did not realise that a new recording is subject to copyright. The copyright holder has not given a suitable license to allow them to be used here.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The copyright holder did not upload the recordings to musopen.com  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas tardes. Se ha puesto una planilla de verificación de permiso en el archivo Jorge Giglio Mieres. Se envió un correo con este permiso el día 24 de marzo de 2014, cuyo asunto es: Jorge Giglio Mieres, Gran Maestro del Gran Oriente de Chile: CC BY SA-3.0.

Además se colocó una planilla de verificación de permiso en el archivo: Juan Cid Valencia. Se envió un correo con este permiso el día 24 de marzo de 2014, cuyo asunto es: Fotografía de Juan Cid Valencia. De antemano muchas gracias. Saludos.--Deucaleon (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm that the OTRS ticket 2014030310014564 covers the poster as well as the photograph. LGA _talk^edits 03:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i read, The license seems to me a problematic one. Requesting further investigation experienced with Russian language. ~ Nahid ^Talk 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to a list of RU OTRS members ? LGA _talk^edits 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LGA: I left a note on ticket's page for experienced member & another agent also translated it from ru to en. But the ticket doesn't say anything about the poster. You may contact with Putnik, Russavia, Rubin16. Regards. ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket doesn't mention licencing of the poster, only the photographs by the author. russavia (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks everyone - DR started here. LGA _talk^edits 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2012120110006287 is used for the following twenty images which, as far as I can tell from the image description pages, were uploaded months or years after the date of the ticket. Could an OTRS volunteer please confirm that the ticket really does apply to them?

Thanks in advance! —Psychonaut (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the above files, and marked them according whether they appear in the ticket or not. However, I have to say, that the ticket looks a bit contradictory. The uploader, who ask kormany.hu for permission, states that he wants to upload the images under the {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} license, but in his next sentence says that they will be only used to illustrate the articles and they won't be used for commercial purposeses (effectively changing them to a non-commercial license.) Kormany.hu agrees to the use of the pictures under this conditions. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In light of the issues you discovered I have raised a deletion request for all images tied to this ticket at Commons:Deletion requests/2012120110006287‎. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else please look at ticket 2014032110009956 in its entirety. I'm not sure that we have permission from the correct person, but I really don't know where to take it from here. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with what you said in the internal note. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what we do with tickets like this. This is the first one that we have come across. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to report what appears to be an invalid permission, and actions taken upon this.

1. The movie series Hunger Games uses a 3D + gradient typography in the movie and every ad poster, as we can see on http://www.thehungergamesexplorer.com/us/epk/hunger-games/

2. An artist called Xiahre cropped this logo, add some black around and publish it on a fanart website, under CC-BY 3.0 license.

3. An es.wikipedia contributor, who on Commons uploaded during 6 months only copyrighted stuff, like Lord of the Ring ad posters uploads it on Commons, after a very rough détourage.

4. Jcb deletes it.

5. An OTRS ticket washes the derivative work issue, and Alan restores the picture, adding 2014021210011051 ticket. He notes in the undelete log there is a more permissive license (CC-BY), but is happy to keep on the picture the CC-BY-SA license offered by default in the upload wizard (I imagine this is also the license on the OTRS mail received).

6. I've deleted it, as work described in (2) is a derivative work. Xiah weren't allowed to publish this work under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, as a copyright infringement of works described in (1).

--Dereckson (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a youtube video for UC Berkeley about a professor studying the history of the term 'hispanic.' I'd like to add this photo in the piece: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Cesar_chavez2.jpg

When using any photo on Commons, you just have to adhere to the license on the file. On this image, the only requirement is that you give attribution to the author of the image (Joel Levine in this case). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody. Could an OTRS agent please confirm that this statement of permission is sufficient enough for usage on Wikimedia Commons? The largest part of the conversation is in Dutch, but the conversation with EPA is in English. See also this discussion on my talk page. Thanks in advance. JurgenNL (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the EPA, but as from their words as long as she pays the fee, there shouldn't be problem. I would still want evidence that she has paid the fee (since that is the condition). Looking at [www.epa.eu EPA's website] when you go to request a fee for a photo, you have to fill in a form about its use. I'm not sure that they really intend release the file under a CC license which would mean anyone could then use it for free for any use and they would potentially lose profits. Just my two cents. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would contact the EPA and explain to them the situation. You could use this ticket as an example on how to approach them. russavia (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Will do that. Thanks, Russavia. JurgenNL (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without compromising anyone's personal data, can someone please explain to me how the above ticket led to the deletion of several files uploaded to geograph? I had already figured out that the reason was because someone else other than the geograph uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder, but given that the images were obviously scans of old pictures, I wanted to know how that was verified by Commons (or indeed, if it was just taken on trust). I asked the deleting admin Steinsplitter (talk · contribs), but he refuses to explain anything to me at all, in the apparent belief that saying anything at all about this would be a violation of privacy, which is obviously complete and utter nonsense. Ultra7 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the ticket and can confirm that the decision was reasonable. Anything more has to be hidden because of WMF privacy policy. Ankry (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And which part of the privacy policy says that you can't tell me how you came to that decision? This is frankly ridiculous - it wouldn't violate anyone's privacy WHATSOEVER to tell me how this decision was arrived at. I don't want ANY PERSONAL DATA AT ALL. I can't say it any clearer than that. But I do want to know what happened here, what specific events occurred that resulted in these images being lost to Commons, and by extension, anyone else who was using them. That's all I want to know - if you can't tell me that, then why shouldn't I assume that no attempt at all was made to verify any claim that they were being hosted here illegitimately? Why shouldn't I assume that these images haven't just been deleted because someone just asked you to in an email, and in reality you have no idea what their motive might have been. It's not unheard of for people to abuse such reporting systems for revenge or to further a feud (such as between Geograph users), or to increase the value of their images (by removing free alternatives). These were after all, historical images. They cannot be reproduced. Ultra7 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steinsplitter is now trying to close this as resolved, calling me a troll in the process. This is totally and utterly unacceptable. I will not tolerate being called a troll for asking what are very simple questions - the answers to which are very clearly not covered by the privacy policy. I will contact the WMF directly if I do not get a proper answer here - it is after all their policy that you are claiming to be enforcing. Ultra7 (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more information that can be given. The images were the victim of License laundering and therefore we do not have the correct original copyright information and we cannot host images that we do not have appropriate copyright information for. That is all that there is to know. You've been told this multiple times. There are no more specific details aside from multiple OTRS volunteers have looked over the ticket. I can say that this was handled appropriately. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ticket 2010052110030211 is used for the following 73 images which. Many or most of them were uploaded months or years after the date of the ticket, and by a different user than the one who originally used the ticket. Could an OTRS volunteer please confirm which of the images are covered by the ticket, and also confirm that the grant of permission is compatible with Commons licensing?

Thanks! —Psychonaut (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with the ticket. (1) It doesn't come from the political parties themselves, but contains rather forwarded messages (probably) by the uploader. Therefore the sending e-mail doesn't conform to Commons:Email templates/Consent. (2) The MSZP's answer also gives a "use on Wikipedia only" stipulation. (It says "Wikipédián való való felhasználásra képein [...] rendelkezésére állnak" (sic)). I have no idea, why this was ever approved. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS.: The latter images were probably uploaded originally to hu.Wikipedia, and were transferred later to Commons. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user is uploading a number of images claiming they are all covered by [3]

ticket:2013081810003844

given the source, it seems very unlikely that they have even approved one. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the user, who uploaded these pictures. I asked license reviewer Jcb and he told me that Behindwoods gave permission for uploading their pictures. talk. Please don't remove any images.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a forwarded email from http://www.behindwoods.com/ that was then forwarded to OTRS that releases "their content" under CC-by-SA-3.0 as long as http://www.behindwoods.com/ is attributed. When asked for more information File:Nazriya Nazim at neram audio launch.jpg is specifically mentioned, but it seems like it might be open for more. User:Jcb did handle the ticket. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karthi's image was approved by a diffrrent reviewer: User:JurgenNL--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that one image has been confirmed as having been appropriately release does not in any way imply that the release is covering all of the images that you claim it is. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you disagree with both reviewers User:Jcb and User:JurgenNL, who approved the pictures independently with the same ticket rationale. But that doesn't mean you'Re 100% correct in your handling of the matter as you are implying by your repeated speedy deletion tagging of File:JiivaBW.jpg.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the kind. I said that there is no verification and no reason to believe that approval to release one image under CC-3 means that they have decided to release all images under CC-3 while maintaining the practice of placing copyright notices on every page and marking every image with a copyright watermark. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, to avoid any further confusion. Permission was sent to release "their content" from an email address associated with www.behindwoods.com under a "CC-by-SA-3.0 license as long as www.behindwoods.com is attributed." A OTRS volunteer requested what image(s) did this apply to. The single-line response was a link to the File:Nazriya Nazim at neram audio launch.jpg. After the reply, the ticket was fully reviewed and accepted. All we know for 100% accuracy is that image is released under the above license. The initial permissions could've meant to release any images from that website, but we cannot be 100% positive. The BEST solution would be for someone to reach out to www.behindwoods.com and get a new email sent. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the confusion is about accuracy of the mail. I have contacted User:Jcb for clarification who said it's a general permission.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion. The permission has been given for our content what can be interpreted as all content on the website (behindwoods.com in this case). I think it is the best to send an e-mail again to Behindwoods and ask for clarification. JurgenNL (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,

Suite à la suppression de quelques fichiers liés à la page de M. Arnaud Courlet de Vregille il y a une semaine, certains fichiers, apparaissant sur sa propre page, ont été éjectés par mégarde. Il s'agissait d'une erreur, comme cela a été reconnu par Sylenius (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Drap%C3%A9#Suppression_fichiers). Il m'a alors dit que je devais avoir l'autorisation de l'artiste pour poster ces fichiers, autorisation que j'ai ; ce dernier a même envoyé un courriel précisant qu'il la redonnait. Or, je ne parviens pas à remettre les fichiers en questions ; pourriez-vous m'indiquer la démarche à suivre s'il vous plaît, si possible en m'envoyant vers des pages existantes, car les pages vers lesquelles on m'a renvoyé la dernières fois ne l'étaient apparemment pas.

En vous priant de croire en mes sincères salutations,

--Drapé (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]