User talk:Nat/Archive 1

Image:Chinaimg.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Chinaimg.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 22:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nat, will it be better for you to have the patroller right instead? I see that you've been helping with file tagging and with the right, you can mark the files that you've tagged as patrolled so as to reduce the backlog. Just a suggestion :) Minorax (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please translate

Greetings! Please translate "-Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!" to English? I tried it through translation software which was not helpful. Best guess it's something like "here is Nate and he is from _____someplace", but I think it would be of help to users without your language facility if you were to leave this translation handy, perhaps explained on your user page? Cheers! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It's Alsatian for "My name is Nat and I speak a wee bit o' Alsatian". --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 20:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Ellin Beltz --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OTRS

Hey, Nat! I received an e-mail — signed by Nathaniel Tang — informing me my media work isn't approved, since "the creator (photographer) of the mentioned image" needs to be identified, although I sent e-mail explaining I'm the creator/copyright holder after I uploaded the image. Since there wasn't any need to confirm I'm the creator for my previous uploads, I wonder — shall I constantly providing my permission for my works? :) — Mychele Trempetich (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mychele Trempetich: To be clear, the OTRS reply to Ticket:2020010710008298 made no statement of approval or non-approval of the permission. Its goal was to seek more information to make a determination. There are a couple of issues with the image in question: (1) The image seems small as it were cropped from a larger photo, thereby making a derivative work, and (2) the image is missing EXIF Metadata--both usual indicators that the image is not {{Own}} (own work). If you have the original image, please send it to OTRS using [Ticket#2020010710008298] in the subject line. I would appreciate that in the future that you respond to the OTRS message via email if communication are by email, rather than fragmenting the conversation by posting here. Regards, --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 23:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Shiasun

Please note that the user has other similar files, not included in the ticket, i.e. File:آیت الل محقق داماد.png can be in the same series with File:آیت الل محقق داماد.jpg (both no metadata or exif, but same name, different extension). Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 12:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Help

How can I ask for proper use of images? Matuyda (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Matuyda: Which images are you referring? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 15:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mike Klem originals

Hi, Nat - the permissions you received for Ticket#2020012810000096 was not for Mike to upload his images - he is not going to do that because I do not want that picture of me uploaded. The permission is a copyright release from him transferring it to me to do what I need to do with those images. All we need on file is his permission, a thumbnail so you can see what images he's releasing, and my derivative upload. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, as I understood it, copyright was not transferred, but that the author of the original work provided an explicit release under a free licence. As far as I understand, the need for Mike to upload is moot as a link to the image in question was provided. I hope I answered your concerns. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 21:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The link is my derivative, so yes - I released it under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 - Thank you for all the work you do, Nat!! It is much appreciated. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Den Barmhjertige Samaritan. Elisa Maria Boglino.

Hi Nat. Concerning my latest uploads, the ones above and some other ones and new versions of: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cavalli._Elisa_Maria_Boglino._Tryk_fra_photo_af_Oliemaleri._ca_1960.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Den_barmhjertige_Samaritan._Elisa_Maria_Boglino._Olie_p%C3%A5_l%C3%A6rred_.1928.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kn%C3%A6lende_kvinde_med_barn.Elisa_Maria_Boglino._Olie_p%C3%A5_l%C3%A6rred.ca_1928.jpg I just want to tell you, that I am the copyrightholder , together with my sister and my uncle. And Permission Commons have papers with signatures about all this. And Arthur Crbz knows about it.This is not to hurry you, its just for information.Thanks for your work.Ciopone. (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

RE:

Sadly, I can't. That's why I release the ticket: I prefer another look. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Patricia Meeden - Photo by Anelia Janeva.png

This photo had been deleted because of copyvio before: File:Patricia Meeden.jpg --Rennrigor (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Autokey logo

Thanks for moving this logo to the commons, and noticed that the OTRS was received. I also have a number of additional logos by Chris Dekter that is used in the Autokey software will add them today, as well as create a category to contain them. — Ineuw talk 11:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Kemonito Files

Hey dude but this is my drawing my fan-art drawing a drawing I made myself taking inspiration from the subject, obviously I needed an image to take note on how I needed to draw him. We need to keep my images as well because the Kemonito page has none images and actually there are any free files of Kemonito on the internet, please we need to kept them.TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please once again, I beg you to leave my drawing, it is the only CC file for him thus I didnt mean to use copyright or something it is a drawing I made myself based on an image of him, pleaseee. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

OTRS and photographer permissions

Hi, I uploaded some images with photographer's permission, the photographer (Bahram jalal kareem) even send his letter to the email by using his words but it seems the problem till now is not solved. what should we do? :) [ticket:2020032210004331] > Kushared (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kushared: A response has been sent, but we have yet to receive a reply. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 19:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Hi, if you've already accepted permission for this file, why it's still being nominated for deletion? --Uw17 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Uw17: I do not have the ability to close a deletion discussion. It will be up to an administrator to do so. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 17:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.--Uw17 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2020030210005484

I left you a note on this ticket. You verified the wrong image. Ww2censor (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ww2censor: Thank you for your message. I've responded to the note. And I apologize for the mistake and if I've overstepped. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 23:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, you fixed it. Ww2censor (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: File:Johnny Gaudreau, Sam Bennett, and Curtis Lazar with a fan.jpg

The author showed me the email they sent via OTRS and cannot see what was wrong. I realize now I misspelled her name and have now fixed it. Is this the issue holding up the permissions? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @HickoryOughtShirt?4: No, it is not. Regards, --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 00:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Nat, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

4nn1l2 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

File:ברוך בג.jpg

Dear Nat, I am not sure about the licensing of this image.
In Hebrew it says: "The photo was provided by Ran Bag, son of Baruch Bag, from a family album".
Did Ran Bag sign any OTRS? Alternatively, what was the year of this photo? 2020 was definitely wrong (date of death: 2 October 1993, by Q87914500). Sincerely, Dgw (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild: No idea. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 03:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Dear Nat, This file has two OTRS-tickets attached, but still an old deletion request pending. Could the deletion request be removed? Vysotsky (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: The deletion discussion has not been closed. Only an admin may close the discussion, and I am not an administrator. There is also a 3-5 month backlog. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 15:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the information! Vysotsky (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Nat. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

pandakekok9 02:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

---

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Nat, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats! pandakekok9 09:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats :) -- CptViraj (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now put those admin tools to good use :) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! De728631 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Nat please i uploaded a picture it was deleted and his a company picture of hoganhost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atim2019 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 June 2020‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Atim2019: I do not understand your statement/request. Please clarify. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done! I have taken the liberty of adding {{User admin}} to User:Nat.

You may find this useful:

User:Jameslwoodward/Commons notes for administrators

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Please do not remove deletion requests

Hi Nat, thanks for your interest for this deletion request. I don't have much experience in this kind of discussions. I already expressed my opinion in the talk of the page and nobody answered to me, not even the user which proposed the deletion, that was notified of my idea to close the request due to the change in the file. Is there a deadline for closing the unattended requestes or do they last indefinitely? --Pampuco (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Pampuco: They remain open until an administrator can review the request and close it as kept or deleted. Until then, the notice remains and should not be removed. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 20:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the explanation.--Pampuco (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

File:KSC-20200429-PH-SPX01 0002.jpg

Thanks for noticing the CC0 in the metadata for File:KSC-20200429-PH-SPX01 0002.jpg. I habitually forget to look there. For future reference, SpaceX's license is {{Cc-zero-SpaceX}}. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Huntster: Ah, I was looking for {{Cc-zero-SpaceX}} but had a hard time finding it! Thanks for the info! --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 07:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DR closure with missing file?

Hi Nat. Thanks for closing this DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Zhang Daqian but it appears that you have missed the second file while deleting. Would you mind taking a look again? Thanks. --Wcam (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 16:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Michael Jackson's Signature.png

Was your decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Jackson's Signature.png correct? What's the difference between the signature and a cover art, deleted at enwiki, that uses the signature? --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @George Ho: Per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#United States In Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 11#Autographs.2Fsignatures, there is a reference to User:BrokenSphere having sent an email to the U.S. Copyright Office, and receiving the reply "A signature is not protected by copyright".. If I was the closing administrator of the discussion on EN.WP, I would have closed that discussion as kept as calligraphy cannot be protected. On the other hand, for the cover art, one could try to argue that the arrangement of the text is copyrightable, but it appears the USCO has a tendency to reject such arguments (there have been rare cases of the opposite, but very rare). If Michael Jackson was a British subject and had no connections to the United States, the discussion would have been closed as deleted. However, this is purely a US case concerning a US national, and the US has a much higher threshold for originality. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Three pictures of the European Service Module deleted

Hello Nat,

you recently deleted the three pictures mentioned below.

File:Orion’s first Service Module integration complete.jpg File:European Service Module-2 wiring.jpg File:European Service Module (ESM-1) structure.jpg

The Deletion Notification Bot sended a message that I should first get in touch with the admin who deleted the pictures before starting an un-deletion request. I am aware that the licence statement of the Flickrpage of the ESA is telling something different than on their website (https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Copyright_Notice_Images) Over there they inform under which circustances pictures could be used. As far as I understand ESA pictures are released by ESA under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) Licence which I have choosen before I uploaded them. I do not upload pictures very often so I used picture File:Views in the Main Control Room (12052189474).jpg to find out under which circumstances I could legaly upload those three pictures. As you can see an the example the same licence was choosen and the source of this particular picture was also the Flickr account of the ESA. In addition to that the example picture required the same licence on Flickr like the ones I would like to upload. I also mentioned the Author of the pictures if information was avaialable. So, what do you think? Could those three pictures of the European Service Modules be handled in the same way like the example pictures or not? I am looking forward to your reply.

Best regards

Yeti-Hunter (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Yeti-Hunter: Per the ESA website, they make it very clear that images are licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 IGO only if Where expressly so stated. The images were deleted because they were found to have been released under a non-acceptable licence. If you find an ESA source that expressly and explicitly licences that particular image under CC-BY-SA-3.0 IGO, then feel free to submit a request at COM:UDR. Otherwise, the images are assumed to be not free under Commons' licensing policy and cannot be hosted here. Thank you for your understanding. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nat: , today I had a close look on those pictures and your are right. They were not published under CC-BY-SA-3.0 IGO. There are 2806 pictures with this licence but none of them is showing content related to the European Service Module. There are some pictures and videos relatated to the BepiColombo Mission but those are already uploaded to commons under the right licence.

Thanks for your intervention! Best regards Yeti-Hunter (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Sanggye Station 201409.jpg

These file is not apparent copyright violation. There is no direct link to the photo, so you need to check the license through the collection link that contains the photo. Access this site, and click on any photo. You can check the license of the picture you clicked on. These file is freely licensed. Thanks. — parrot 23:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @앵무: While I found the photo on the webpage in the named source, clicking the image does not redirect the page to the image or the licence as there is clearly an error on the website (I have tried to access it on 3 different devices, on three different networks, and 3 different browsers each). In such cases, an image would have to be considered not free. However, after an extensive search, I have found the image page on the website and can confirm that the image is freely licensed. I have therefore undeleted the file. For future reference, per COM:EVID if we cannot access the licensing page, content will be treated as as non-free. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 00:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

UDR

It is our standard to keep requests open for 24 hours since first response. This way the requesters can ask further questions or take some actions. The exceptions are obvious cases only (eg. images undeleted due to obvious reasons or blocked users' requests - that the requester cannot respond). Ankry (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ankry: Thank you for letting me know! I'll keep this in mind in the future. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging IPs

(re [1]) Apparently, I learned only recently that IPs do not receive pings. So to get their attention your best bet is to post a message on their talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

License tags

Hey Nat, you didn't add the correct license tag to File:30 Days Of Motivation.pdf when you reviewed it. Please remember to always match the Commons license tag to what was released in the ticket, as it is a requirement of the license. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• @AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you for the reminder. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your review of files under Category:Temeleuți landscape reserve! It was the first OTRS experience for me (in terms of reaching out to the photographer), and it could not have been more smooth and rapid. Much obliged, have a nice day and #staysafe Gikü (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Undeletions

Thank you for undeleting the 3 files from ja.wiki. I have a list of 858 files with possible license problems. So I guess I will have work to do the next many weeks. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Usama Ishtay LA FW2018.jpg

Hi, I uploaded this file, I'm friends with Usama for quite a few years, and he asked the photographer to send the email to OTRS. Is there anything else I need to do from my side? Thanks in advance. --Maor X (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Rebekah Jones Photo.jpg

@Nat: The captioned image was the subject of an undeletion request in June 2020. In closing the discussion, you posted a {not done} tag and explained why the disputed image would not be undeleted unless certain conditions were met. Yet the file remains on Commons. Please, were the conditions you specified met? I'm trying to understand why this image is still available. NedFausa (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• @NedFausa: The conditions were met and the photo was restored by another administrator. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Google Art Project

hi krd I ask you to restore immediately the following portraits deleted by you, because the information containing for the description of files was openly part of google art project, so are data that confirm their good faith in the expiration of copyright, PLEASE?

• File:S.M. Re Umberto I.jpg
• File:Ritratto Vittorio Emanuele II (11).jpg

hi Mr. Nat, I would like to ask you if you could kindly restore me to these two portraits that were part of Google Art Project PLEASE??--37.183.21.136 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Books for Wikisource

Hi,

Just a quick remark about the undeletion of File:चार चरित्रात्मक लेख.pdf where you commented « Could you provide a rationale as to why this file is in scope? The file appears to be essentially raw text and such files are not considered media files. » Your questions are very odd, books for Wikisource are obviously very clearly in scope and acceptable on Commons.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• @VIGNERON: I just need confirmation it was for Wikisource and was not an odd question at all. Had I intended to oppose undeletion, I would have explicitly said so. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, now I see and understand, indeed this point was maybe not crystal clear. Your second sentence is still a bit odd thought. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

File:JuliaDraganovic-Villa-Massimo-Foto-Alberto-Novelli-cropped.jpg

Dear Nat,
may I ask your advice concerning an OTRS-Ticket? I uploaded the above mentioned image. The photographer sent the release, unfortunately 4 weeks later. So the image was of course deleted. When he sent the release, the OTRS agent asked him to provide the original file with the metadata. The photographer would prefer not to do so, as the file is too big to mail. After that, he never heard from OTRS anymore. That was 1 week ago. I sent a mail to permissions, asking if I could help, but got no answer myself. I don't want to be out-of-process, but do not quite understand what's going wrong and would appreciate a hint. Thank you! --Kaethe17 (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @Kaethe17: There is currently a significant backlog, so processing emails will take some time. The email from the initial sender has been just replied to. Once OTRS has done its verification and has determined that there is sufficient permission, we can proceed with undeletion. Thank you. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Image approval

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_Holzner_Raumplan,_north_facing_façade._Hronov,_Czech_Republic.jpg#mw-jump-to-license Hi there, thank you for approving the image I have uploaded, unfortunately you will see another admin has decided the permissions letter sent is ‘not acceptable’ - which is strange as the sister image which you approved is still deemed acceptable in the admins eyes. Please could you look over the image and do what you think is correct- thank you. Wasuwatanabe (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Autorisations trop tardives

Bonjour bonjour, Nat,

Sur le ticket OTRS n° 2020061310004833, le client transmet le 13 juin les autorisations pour des fichiers supprimés entre le 31 mai et le 7 juin (ceci aurait-il provoqué celà ? ) : File:2015 canada 2e titre mondial.jpg, File:Antony Le Moigne.jpg et File:Record 1.jpg. Aurais-tu l'obligeance de ragerder si tout est en ordre désormais, en vue de rétablir ces fichiers et prévenir le client ? En somme, te coltiner la suite du ticket,... vu que faute d'être admins sur nos projets (et ça vaut sans doute mieux pour Internet dans son ensemble ! ), je ne peux pas accéder aux-dits fichiers. Merci d'avance.

Cordialement et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bonjour, bonsoir @Kikuyu3: Présentement, il y a un gros retard de demande et d'au moins 1-2 peut-être 3 mois. Merci de votre patience et de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, FYI that I opened #User:Ruwaym on Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi, Nat. Can you please verify File:Craig Dillon 2019.jpg? I'm checking old open tickets. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Ganímedes:  Done permission added. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi dear Nat. I requested OTRS permission and nothing has happened yet after a week. Please follow my request regarding the file File:Maryam_AmirJalali.jpg. Thanks a lot. MrInfo2012 (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

To be honest

To be honest, I've lost my mind seeing you interpreting laws at your own will. The definition of words differs in every language, even the law itself has its own mini dictionary of definitions to separate it from the dictionary. User:David Wadie Fisher-Freberg is an admin in Wikipedia Indonesia who has a law degree and the group has consulted on him what should he do about this. I asked Freberg to intervene because at this point I don't have the required competence. Regards Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Now I've regain my mind. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MC JW Marriott 澳門銀河 Galaxy Macau mall The Promenade shops Burberry clothing window display November 2019 SS2 01.jpg

Why did you close this one as delete? As I explained, I believe that {{FoP-Macao}} is mistranslated. Nowhere does the law require the object to be permanently installed. "固定" refers to fixation in a tangible medium rather than the status of the artwork, and "安放" does not mean "permanently place" (see wikt:zh:安放: ~桌椅, tables and chairs typically are not permanently placed). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• @King of Hearts: I've reopened and relisted the discussion. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Picture of David J. Zimmerman in the Indian Himalayas.jpg

Bonjour, Juste pour vérifier un détail au sujet de File:Picture of David J. Zimmerman in the Indian Himalayas.jpg. Les métadonnées indiquent que l'auteur offre la photo sous la licence CC BY 4.0. Mais le modèle de licence utilisé dans la page est celui d'une licence CC BY-SA 4.0. En l'absence de précision sur la signification du bandeau OTRS, on ne sait pas à laquelle de ces deux informations différentes il réfère. Est-ce une erreur de modèle par le téléverseur ? Ou faut-il comprendre que la communication OTRS de l'auteur a révoqué la licence CC-BY qu'il avait émise, pour la restreindre à une licence CC BY-SA ? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• L'auteur, selon le courriel envoyé à OTRS, offre l'oeuvre sous la licence CC-BY-SA-4.0. L'appareil -- je crois -- appartient à une autre personne (le sujet). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

C'est la même personne. Cette photographie est un autoportrait par le sujet, qui est photographe professionnel et utilise presque certainement son propre appareil. Dans la discussion initiale sur Commons:Help desk, le téléverseur mentionne que l'auteur lui a fait parvenir cette photo en spécifiant que la licence est celle indiquée dans les métadonnées. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mise à jour : Après de nouvelles explications par le téléverseur sur Commons:Help desk, il apparaît qu'il ne s'agit pas de la même personne et que la photo a été prise par la femme du sujet. La confusion venait du fait que, dans la page de description du fichier, le téléverseur avait écrit le nom du sujet comme auteur. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• En tout cas, plusieurs licences sont possibles -- si l'auteur offre l'oeuvre sous CC-BY-4.0 initialement, si je ne me trompe pas, c'est possible de l'offre sous CC-BY-SA-4.0. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

File: Earl Williams (politician)

Hi, Sorry for not getting back to the discussion (you guys move fast). Regarding your points, the photo was given to me by the subject (an immediate family member), who told me to upload it to the wikipedia page. It is my understanding that he paid someone to have the headshot taken in Barbados, so I'm not sure which countries copyright laws apply. From what I understand, the work was never "published" other than when I uploaded the photo that the subject gave me. Just to clarify, despite the work never being "published", and being commissioned in Barbados, the subject is still not able to have the picture posted? It seems that copyright laws in Barbados seem to only address published works, but I am far from a legal expert. Thanks for your time! ChartedMemories23 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• @ChartedMemories23: Under the general principle of copyright law, unless the law considers creation as a starting point, unpublished works are considered to be generally protected by copyright. Under Barbadian law, the copyright holder is the person who took the photo, rather than the person who appear in it, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract -- the latter not in effect unless written and signed by the first copyright holder as defined by the law. Paying for the services or for the photo itself does not constitute transferring the copyright. To answer you question with regards to jurisdiction, on Commons, both the laws of the country of origin and those of the United States apply. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Nat: I see, understood. Thank you! ChartedMemories23 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios kept

Hi, you closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marianne Casamance as Kept. COM:PCP was clearly met, but no explanation was provided on why this policy should be ignored.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erklärvideo zum "Nahostkonflikt".ogv

Hi!

Your decession "per nomination" isn't enough, because the nomination doesn't account for the point, that the video could be an "Aggregation with independent works". Could you explain further?

Habitator terrae 🌍 17:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification

Hi. I am notifying you:[2]. --P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Lo lograste.

Gracias, por lo visto tu ambición de grandeza y superioridad ha rebasado los limites. Es claro y evidente que te las agarras conmigo. Si no te gusta el hecho que otros te hagan criticas a tu forma de actuar o de responder, que claramente y evidentemente debería tener cualquier administrador en Commons, es preferible que no lo seas, ya que incluso demostraste intolerancia en el simple hecho de responder en el caso de las fotografias. Ya me lo veia venir que saldrias con el pedido de borrado rapido a los mas de 30 logotipos que subi, ya que a primeras mostrabas esa actitud, y si te gusta arruinar trabajos de otros, sigue, lo estas haciendo bien. Esos logos me costaron horas y horas de trabajo para subirlos a Wikipedia y Commons. Tengo yo el documento base de Illustrator, no solo "curvee" las esquinas como tu mencionas. Obviamente del otro lado de la computadora, no se puede ver y otros se creen superiores. Ademas de que no existe fundamento para derechos de autor, porque todos contienen figuras geometricas o letras basicas que no corresponden para otorgar derechos de autor porque el nivel de creacion no es suficiente para otorgar la originalidad, hecho que se reconoce en la legislacion boliviana y la misma Commons. Al menos, pudiste haber pedido que se ponga la informacion correspondiente para que se llene y no solicitar "borrado rapido", al menos pudiste darme 7 dias no? Hay otros administradores que si lo hacen y te aconsejan como hacerlo. Es triste que tengamos este tipo de administradores en Commons, que se pongan a perseguir a usuarios y borrar sus aportes. Ante esta razón, ya que es evidentemente acoso, porque te pusiste a revisar mis aportes luego de que no te haya gustado de que te diga tus verdades, he decidido retirarme de Commons, porque no pienso seguir aportando bajo presion y acoso, ya que ahora dudo de que cualquier aporte que haga en el futuro aguante un dia. Al menos espero que no elimines mi mensaje, seas respetuoso al menos con esto. Saludos, y felicidades por tu logro, te deseo exitos de cualquier manera. --P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

PSDTː Borra las imagenes si es lo que tanto quieres y deseas, quien se arruina no soy yo, porque al fin y al cabo hasta el mismo TSE de Bolivia utilizo mis imagenes que subi a Commons en documentos oficiales sin que yo hubiera reclamado derechos de autor. Al final se que yo aporte con mi trabajo, tu rabieta solo arruinara a los usuarios de Wikipedia y Commons, y a los lectores.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment. Opening a deletion request is the correct procedure for rectifying such issues, esp. because you have decided to claim that works, both files deleted and non-deleted, that are clearly not your own as {{Own}} and {{Self}} on multiple occasions. The onus is on you to demonstrate that, as far as can reasonably be determined, the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed. The normal runtime for a deletion request is 7 days -- So you have 7 days to add the information necessary to determine copyright status and to correct the licensing tags. The reason the previous DR was closed as deleted by Elcobbola prior to the end of the 7 days is because files in question clearly qualified for speedy deletion criterion F1 as unambiguous copyright violations. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

PD-Coa-Mexico

@Nat: I request that it be reopenedthis case I have discovered that the PD-Coa-Mexico license says the following: "" a "recognized" organization, which operates within and / or outside of Mexico"", although the FMF does not belong to the Mexican government, the FMF is an ORGANIZATION(sports), RECOGNIZED and that WORKS WITHIN MEXICO can practically be uploaded by the aforementioned, since it is a recognized organization that operates within Mexico, this also means that the teams that are Affiliates to the FMF are also recognized organizations that operate within Mexico, for which I request that the case be reopened.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Aurelio de Sandoval: There's is a lot of assumptions in your statement above. Do you have legislated or regulatory evidence that the FMF is a officially recognized organization (i.e. a law or official government decree that enumerates that fact)? Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Nat: I have already sent the evidence--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

DR closure

Hi Nat, you don't seem to have responded to my last message yet?--BevinKacon (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @BevinKacon: Sorry for not getting to you back sooner. I read over the discussion and I did not find that the files met COM:PCP. You are, of course, free to disagree with that position. If you feel strongly that the files do meet COM:PCP, you have every right to renominate the files for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marianne Casamance

Did you read the full story? Your previous edit was only 2 minutes before closure. The only difference between these files and the ones uploaded by this user is account sharing. I suggest you look at it again.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @BevinKacon: I did. And I am satisfied that the files do not meet COM:PCP. Again, if you strongly disagree with my decision, I would invite you to renominate the files for deletion. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I was seeking non boilerplate response. Remominating an 8 month+ old DR is unlikely to invite any further discussion.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

DRs

Dear Nat, I see you have deleted a couple of files from Wikimedia Commons which I had uploaded under my previous name, Giacopis, (2020-01-14_de_Vito.gif|2020-01-14_de_Vito.gif and 1967-09-26 Scudo schiacciato Giacomino 2020-01-19.png). I had seen these files had been proposed for deletion, but I thought I had given the necessary details. Could ypu help me understand what happened? --Floridasso (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Floridasso: It was necessary to change the information supplied on the description pages of the files, and not in the deletion discussion. That was not done -- the files were still in violation of policy prior to deletion due to the continued claims of {{Own}} and {{Self}}. I would suggest making your case at COM:UDR and not here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gelöschtes Logo von Wetscher

Hallo Nat, nur eine Frage, nur weil ein User meint, es braucht niemand und es steht dann dort, dass es in zwei Projekten verwendet wird, wird es trotzdem gelöscht, mit der Begründung weil es eben so gewünscht wird? das versteh ich net ganz. ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 17:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Karl Gruber: The image was not in scope and not legitimately in use per policy. The article is non-existent (de:Wetscher GmbH has been already deleted twice and its recreation is not possible) and the WikiData page fails that project's notability policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, aber mein Englsich ist zu schwach und du sprichst deutsch - es ist kein Maßstab auf COmmons, dass ein Artikel in der de WP sein muss. Es gibt einen Eintrag in Wikidata und einen Artikel in einem WMAT Projekt RegiowikiAT. Es gibt viele Logos und dass gerade das Logo nihct ins Ziel passt ist einzig der Wunsch eines Users gewesen. Klar dass das Logo in WD fehlt, wenn du es löscht <kopfschüttel> Ich kann da eigentlcih nur Willkür sehen. -- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. File:Orhan Ölmez Istanbul Arnavutköy Ramazan Etkinliği 19.09.2009.jpg has been updated by someone to a Facebook image which, of course, is not admitted. The uploader is so reckless that they see no problem in using a title related to a 2009 event for a new image! Please kindly revert this to the original, established upload (which has camera EXIF) and delete this recent FB file. Danke schoen. --E4024 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Images of the A. H. Tammsaare Memorial

"Deleted: per nomination". What was that?!? Didn't you read what was written there? OTRS tags and stuff? Permisson from the sculptor. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @Kruusamägi: There was no OTRS tags present on the file description pages. If permission was received, could you provide me with the ticket number? Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Permission covers all his creative works and not only those specific images. So it was added to talk pages like this. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @Kruusamägi: There are a number of issues with the ticket: (1) The copyright holder does not seem to specify the version of licence in the permission as required by OTRS practices and policy, and (2) the permission is a forwarded permission and, by policy, we are unable to accept them for legal reasons. On Commons, the practice is to have the permissions on the file description pages -- otherwise, they could be subject to deletion (we could create a custom template that includes both the permission and the licence). Until we receive permission with mention of a specific version of the licence, we cannot undelete the files. However, once it is determined that sufficient permission was received, I was gladly undelete the files myself. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The "copyright holder" does not specify the version as to him all CC SA-BY versions are ok. Let me remind, that we are talking about the sculptor here and not the photographer. There is no reason why the sculptor should specify a license. He doesn't even need to be that specific as he is. We just need to fixate the fact that the sculptor accepts the publishing of those free-to-use photos in Wikimedia Commons about his sculptures.

This ticket isn't closed for the reason, that it likely needs a better way to fixate the permission. But I'm yet somewhat unsure of how to achieve that.

In Estonia, the standard way of doing fixating those things is by digital signatures. We can't use it here, as no-one outside Estonia would understand what it is. But compared to that, it doesn't matter even lightly if it is a forwarded e-mail or not. All the options used would be considered utterly unsecured ones and like that, forwarded e-mails a considered fully equal with not forwarded ones.

And what do you specifically expect from a 77-year-old sculptor? Good that he even replayed to e-mail. People that old often don't even use e-mail. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CHRL0307-全景.jpg

It seem there is a error, which that file have not deleted yet. Thank you. --SCP-2000 11:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

As for your recent deletions

Please take into account: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_87#Handling_of_soviet/russian_images_taken_before_1943_but_without_proof_of_publication_before_1943. Thanks, --VLu (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Images of the A. H. Tammsaare Memorial

That topic got buried rather quickly... And the files are still deleted. So whats up? The permission is there. But files? Kruusamägi (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

OTRS assistance

Greetings Nat: I am hoping you can help me with something I've never done before. There is a local person who sent me images (nice ones!) that she'd like on Commons, but she lives remotely and the upload time is making it impossible for her to upload the images. Obviously, I've told people about OTRS a million times, but in the interest of not making a mistake on something new, please advise... do I upload the photos and say permission is coming, or do we get the OTRS from the lady first, without the photos being uploaded? So sorry to be unclear on the process! I only get into it after the photos are already here, and I do not want to do anything incorrectly! Best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Ellin Beltz: They can be uploaded and tagged with {{ OTRS pending | day= | month= | year= }}. Just let me know the ticket number once the email is sent. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GaitskellMP.jpg

Could you revisit your closure of this DR please? There is no evidence that the photograph is under copyright in either the UK or the USA as far as I am aware. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Fae. Unfortunately, I stand by the deletion of this file, as I firmly believe that the work is indeed still protected by U.S. copyright. That being said, if you disagree with my decision, I would invite you to submit a undeletion request. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Temporary Undeletion

hi Nat, I am writing to you, because I would like to ask you please if you could only temporarily restore some files of which I absolutely have to go back to alucni ink that I recently found, so if I show you some files, you could kindly restore them to me only temporarily???--Franz von Pawłew (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Great thanks for your help :-) Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tableau d'Eugène Chigot vers 1900- Marins ramenant péniblement une barque de pêche sur la plage de Berck, le marin dont on voit le visage est Paul Rivet, sauveteur, marin et gardien de phare à Berck et Paris-Plage..jpg

Salut, je vois que tu as supprimé ce fichier. Je n'y ai pas accès pour vérifier mais s'il s'agit de la photo d'un tableau peint, il me semble que le copyright à retenir est celui du peintre et non celui du photographe. Si c'est bien le cas il serait chic de ta part de restaurer ce fichier. cordialement Pªɖaw@ne 08:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Re Idem pour File:Diplôme, de Paul François Rivet, sauveteur, de médaille de première classe en or décernée par le ministère de la marine et des colonies en 1877 - Berck Pas-de-Calais -.png, il faut vérifier le niveau d'inventivité du photographe.

Quel était le problème avec File:Le Touquet-Paris-Plage - Paris-Plage - plaque entreprise Julien Goffaux - Villes Lydéric et Phinaert, 6 et 8, rue Jean Monnet.jpg ? la plaque était-elle gravée au sens où le niveau artistique confère un réel copyright ? Pªɖaw@ne 08:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour, bonsoir @Padawane: : Le souci là là n'est pas le droit d'auteur, mais le manque des renseignements nécessaires. C'est la responsabilité des utilisateurs qui a voulu garder les fichiers de les ajouter. Ils ont eu 6-7 mois de le faire. Il y avait aucune modification durant cette période, donc les fichiers ont été supprimés. Merci de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Images of the A. H. Tammsaare Memorial

So instead of closing a deletion request, as permission had been acquired, you moved on deleting all the stuff nevertheless. What now? Will you help to fix that mess or isn't it your problem anymore? Kruusamägi (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've stated, permission was insufficient as it was forwarded, which cannot be accepted for legal reasons. Secondly, per practice and policy a specific version of the licence is necessary. Not all versions of the licences are compatible with other versions. Furthermore, the ticket has not yet been closed by a non-involved OTRS agent. If you disagree, submit a undeletion request or start a thread at COM:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

And as I already stated: the permission is from the sculptor and so is not necessary to have the specific license. He must only state if he agrees that the photographers take images of his work and publish them freely. You don't need to be chiromant to foresee, that if the sculptor agrees on a specific license (like CC SA-BY 4.0), then all other versions must be deleted (and by the time his sculptures are in PD, the version of standard CC license is likley well over 10+ already).

And where is that stated, that forwarded emails cannot be accepted?

And there are no other Estonian speaking OTRS agents. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Please see: otrswiki:Response:en-Forwarded Statement (Direct) --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't really have information regarding why. Or well, not much information at all. Not even on how are forwarded permission statements defined. And that is just a prewritten answer and not something that should be treated as an undisputed OTRS rule. It is easy to see occasions where this message could be used, but this doesn't make it a standard reply on all cases where the forward function has been used. Even more so when the original recipient is the OTRS agent himself.

In Estonia, forwarded e-mails are just as bad as e-mails on a legal matter. No distinction is being drawn there. So I see no good reason to invent something here. I'm not even going on full details on how do Estonian WP and English WP policies differ etc. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Ignoring the fact the ticket only contains a forwarded email, the permission is insufficient: The share-alike component means that a version of the licence must be specified. Not all CC-BY-SA versions are compatible with one another. 1.0 is not forward compatible, but 2.0 onwards is. Therefore, the statement "I promise to publish photos of my works under CC SA-BY licenses" is insufficient and the permission is invalid. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

May I remind you that the sculptor isn't the only person here? The photographer is the one stating the license and the sculptor has to say if he agrees. He said that if photographers want to use CC SA-BY licenses, then he agrees with the license chosen and photographers may do as they please. He doesn't need to specify the version. The version is already specified by the photographer. Kruusamägi (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• This is not how it works. They must specify a version of the licence. Otherwise the permission is insufficient and the files cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The version of the license is specified. Photographer did that. I don't see how come there is the problem. Kruusamägi (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, that is not how it works. The sculptor did not specify a version of the licence. For the licensing of the photo to be valid, it must be compatible with that of the sculpture. As I've already stated, "I promise to publish photos of my works under CC SA-BY licenses" is insufficient as permission. It is not up to the author of a derivative work to determine the specific version of the licence of the original work. As it stands, the permission is insufficient and the files cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. This can be easily rectified if the copyright holder of the A. H. Tammsaare Memorial specifies a version of the licence. Again, CC-BY-SA-1.0 is not forward compatible, but 2.0 onwards is (e.x. if the sculptor licenses their work under a CC-BY-SA-2.5, then the photographer's licensing of their photo of the work under a CC-BY-4.0 would be valid). To reiterate, the permission, in its present state, is insufficient and the files cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed "I promise to publish photos of my works under CC SA-BY licenses" would be insufficient permission (there has to be a specific license and the photographer has to bring that out). But we are not dealing with this. Not even near. What the sculptor said is: "I allow the publication of photos made of my work as long as they are published under CC SA-BY licenses". That is: photographers may choose whatever CC SA-BY license version they like for their photos when they depict his sculptures. And photographers have done so.

So... in our case, the photographer had published some images under CC SA-BY 4.0 that depict one sculpture. The sculptor says he is ok with that. So this thing is solved. As simple as that. Why do you want to make that complicated? The sculptor does not need to go more into detail. Photographer has to. Wider permission is even better considering that this should cover 70+ years to the future. Version 4.0 is less than 10 years old and I could bet that in less than 10 years there would be version 5.0. Kruusamägi (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. The sculptor must clearly and explicitly license his work under a specific version. Ticket:2020071910004071 does not provide sufficient permission. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Kruusamägi and I discussed this permission a couple of months ago on Estonian Wikipedia. Wording of this permission is confusing indeed. However what is suggested as the way forward here makes little sense. I don't see a reason why the sculptor should license their work under any free license at all. All that is needed under freedom of panorama is the permission to reproduce the original work in certain way and permission to distribute such copy. After all, if sculpture is in a country where no such permission from sculptor is needed (i.e. country has freedom of panorama), then this sculpture is still copyrightable work and we don't ask the sculptor to waive their remaining (economic) rights by licensing their work under free license. So in contrast it would be odd to require sculptors in countries without freedom of panorama to waive more rights.

As for forwarding e-mails, it seems that in recent years there has been a shift towards discouraging it (e.g. see this comment). However it is unclear in which way this shift could constitute an actual policy change under which a forwarded e-mail could be the sole reason to reject permission. Apparently not all OTRS agents share your strict view on this (e.g. see this). Also edit comment to similar recent guideline change on English Wikipedia (see here) mentions that direct e-mail from copyright holder is just "preferred". Personally I think this restriction would overcomplicate things with little benefit. Pikne 21:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Non-free content is not permitted on Commons and there is no freedom of panorama in Estonia, with exception for non-commercial use. As it stands, the sculptor must license their work under an acceptable free licence and the version of that licence must be specified, esp. if it has a share-alike component -- otherwise, derivatives of that work cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lack of FoP in Estonia does not mean that the sculptor needs to license his work under free license. It means that we need a permission from the sculptor to share images of his work freely. That permission could just as well be "yes, I agree that this image of my work is shared as it is" or something like that. The sculptor could demand a specific license but his has no obligation to do so. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• You have my position on the matter -- the permission supplied is insufficient. As I've stated, if you disagree, I would invite you to submit an undeletion request. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Above I still see a misunderstanding ("sculptor must license their work under an acceptable free licence") that hinders us from resolving this issue. To further elaborate, here's an example: File:Achim Kühn Klingende Blume.jpg depicts German sculpture for which copyright hasn't expired yet. While photographer has licensed their work freely as required by Commons licensing policy, there is no evidence that the depicted sculpture is a free work (i.e. sculptor didn't permit the use of their work by other means than what is permitted under German Panoramafreiheit). COM:FOP does not require the latter. Also, we are all aware that there is no freedom of panorama in Estonia. That's why Kruusamägi seeked for different kind of permission in the first place. Pikne 08:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion request is now here. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)