Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

OTRS Noticeboard
Welcome to the OTRS noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers, or OTRS volunteers with one another. 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: 71 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017


OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages
Commons discussion pages (index)


Shortcut: COM:ON

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.
Translate this header

File:KATICA ILLENYI The Rose of The Breeze.jpegEdit

This may be the wrong place to ask, and I may anyway be completely wrong, but here goes: I looked at OTRS ticket 2015111110005514 for File:KATICA ILLENYI The Rose of The Breeze.jpeg. I don't read Hungarian, but I don't see any evidence of permission from the photographer nor of how copyright was transferred. This has already been nominated for deletion and kept, so I'm probably missing something obvious ... but what? Ping Pallerti, Hungarikusz Firkász, Ellin Beltz, Hazaffy and Yann. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I don't understand, I don't see any problem, the permission came from Gábor Kisszabó (Illényi's manager, and famous hungarian bassist formerly member of the popband Első Emelet) with IKP Music's (IKP=Illényi Katica Produkció) stamp and Kisszabó's signature, you can see in attachment (NYILATKOZAT IKP MUSIC.pdf), the permission is OK for this picture. --Pallerti (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  Comment@Justlettersandnumbers: your OTRS template link is wrong, the correct link is: ticket:2015111110005514 --Pallerti (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the link, Pallerti, thanks for fixing. Yes, I saw those things in the ticket, though I'm not sure we should mention them here because of privacy. What I didn't see was the permission of the photographer or any evidence that copyright was transferred by him/her to the claimed owner. As I said, unfortunately I don't read Hungarian. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything I can add to this discussion, I am not on the OTRS team. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The evidence is that her manager says so. --Tgr (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Also quite possibly the copyright never belonged to the photographer. Under Hungarian copyright law, if you take a picture in the course of your work, copyright belongs to your employer. Malatinszky (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite possible, Malatinszky, but it's also quite possible that it did. What we need to do is to be sure, and I don't see how we can host the image until we are. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hungarikusz Firkász, you have said this was OK in the previus deletion discussion. Do you have any comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:DC OfficialWhiteHouseAmandaLucidon copy.jpgEdit

I may be right off-track again here, but I looked at ticket:2017062810019691, which relates to File:DC OfficialWhiteHouseAmandaLucidon copy.jpg and several others. I see a claim of ownership, but I don't see anything that proves the person has authority to make that claim; I don't see the permission of the artist, Jane Echelman; and I don't see any permission from the photographer nor evidence of how copyright ownership was transferred. Am I missing something obvious, or indeed several obvious things? Ping Darwinius for comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers, Darwinius: I think you are only potentially missing the domain name of the sender's email address, but I agree that's pretty thin, and would have preferred a follow-up email to ascertain the person's authority to license. Storkk (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

My own works have been systematically eliminatedEdit

Hi, I think there has been an error and is that despite having sent the copyright statement to permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org stating that such works are my own which I did in Inkscape. These are my works, I think I have the right to accommodate them here to nourish encyclopedic articles. I have never uploaded the works of others without their permission or without attributing their respective license in Creative Commons. The deleted files were:

The files that I have created, mostly are versions made by me based on the original versions (such as: Emblem of the Army of Marshal López.svg, Flag of the Army of Marshal López.svg, Flag of the Army of the Paraguayan People, etc. ) In addition, all these are illegal armed groups which, in the legal framework, do not have license of their authorship for obvious reasons.

As for TKEP-L Rojava Flag.svg, TKP-ML TIKKO Flag.svg, Antifascist Internationalist Tabur.svg, RUIS Flag.svg and International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces flag.svg, I have contact with all of them (members of ancoalition internationalist) Who gave me permission to upload the files for encyclopedic purposes.--Mikelelgediento (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an OTRS member, but I can tell you that "for encyclopedic purposes" is an invalid license. Valid licenses must allow any purpose, as per Commons:Licensing. If at all possible, we try to get one of the standard licenses such as CC BY-SA. Guanaco (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mikelelgediento: Do you have the response ticket number? --Ruthven (msg) 13:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Forwarded permissionsEdit

Hello. Over one month ago, I asked a question about forwarded permissions at Commons talk:OTRS/Archive 2#Forwarded permissions. No answers, so I went ahead to reflect "our current" attitude towards forwarded permissions. I searched the OTRS noticeboard and I found this discussion: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2016#Inconsistent_instructions. I also found this one at otrs-wiki. We have two boilerplates regarding forwarded permissions, both of which were created on 21 December 2016. Recently, I had a correspondence with an experienced user of English Wikipedia at Ticket:2017073010002692. She reverted my edit at OTRS page. I opened this thread just to know how we, as OTRS agents, should deal with forwarded messages. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A similar thread has been opened at Otrs-wiki by another user: [1] 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bitte OTRS-Label 2006052910008436 ergänzenEdit

Vor Jahren habe ich mal eine Erlaubnis für Werke des Malers de:Sigmund Strecker von seinem Sohn Bernhard Strecker eingeholt, um die Bilder ins Wiki stellen zu dürfen. Dabei haben aber zwei Bilder das OTRS-Label 2006052910008436 nicht abbekommen, was mir leider erst später aufgefallen ist:

Könnte bitte jemand das Label bei den beiden Bildern setzen? Vielen Dank im Voraus, --Abubiju (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at the help deskEdit

Hi there! Can an OTRS volunteer please look into Commons:Help desk#files deleted after release sent to permissions-commons.40wikimedia.org .5BTicket.23: 2017082910014984.5D. Thanks, Daylen (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

File:JohnDerbyshire1.jpgEdit

Just wondering if this type of email exchange added to the file's licensing is OK for Commons. Shouldn't personal correspondence such as this be filed with OTRS? Can't anyone can technically edit the file page and alter/remove the quoted emails? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out unneeded "can". -- 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)]

@Marchjuly: It is not OK now, both answers are yes.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking Jeff G.. FWIW, the uploader seems to be Magog the Ogre, who is a Commons' admin, but I am not sure if that is the "David Tribble" referred to in the email. Does the file need to be tagged with {{npd}} or anything if they are both the same person? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Files from that far back generally fall under Commons:Grandfathered old files. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying Magog the Ogre. However, "grandfathered old files" seems to apply to files uploaded prior to 1 January 2007, whereas this file seems to have been first uploaded on 17 July 2012. The emails discussing permission, however, do go back to September 2006. Does that mean there are older versions of the file dating back to that time? If that's the case, then maybe the latest version of file can be tagged with {{grandfathered old file}} even though it was uploaded in 2012. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It was originally uploaded to Wikipedia in 2006. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Derived of modern art. Otrs?Edit

Please check if otrs are for depicted art works too, thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pierpao: The ticket itself appears to establish permission for the photographs. Nothing in there suggests we have permission from Picasso or Fontana. Guanaco (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
How can you be so sure, considering it was written in Italian as far as I know? --Nemo 08:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Respectfully, you are wrong. The OTRS ticket (with a signed declaration of BEIC's lawyer) states that BEIC owns *all rights* on the photographs. Paolo Monti was one of the most famous Italian photographers of his time and he always worked under commission/permission of the artists and owners of the artworks (in this case, of the gallery owner Carlo Cardazzo), and of the publishers for catalogues, books and magazines. The related documentation is preserved in his historical archive and is publicly accessible (but not yet digitalized). --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Marco Chemello (BEIC): Thank you for this information. I find your explanation to be convincing, and I'll note it at the deletion request alongside my   Keep vote. Guanaco (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately this delicate ticket was quickly handled by a novice agent. More permissions should be sent to assess what Marco Chemello (BEIC) is saying, i.e. that Monti had the copyright transferred from the authors for those photos. We're not in a hurry, so when the authorisations will be scanned, we will be able to restore the files if needed. --Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
As I previously said, Monti's archive is very big and undigitalized, so I cannot simply spend all my time doing long researches, and of course it's simply impossible for hundreds or thousands photos. But the friendship and professional ties between Monti and the committant Carlo Cardazzo (as with all artists represented) are historically well known and documented, so it is not necessary I prove it. Many informations have been made available directly on the digital catalogue: the images were catalogued by independent professionals (so we consider it a valid source), and many sources (like publications, committments...) are cited directly on the "description" field of the images. Of course it's impossible to cover every single photo with exhaustive documentation, because the catalogue was made only in recent years, and many decades passed from the original shots (and most people died). BEIC Istitution decided to share with the public this digital photo archive because:
  1. BEIC acquired whole archive and all commercial rights.
  2. Paolo Monti, a professional photographer, worked always under permission and he was always committed by artists, galleries, museums, magazines, publishers. There are many publications with many of these images to prove it. So BEIC states it has *full rights* an all photos. Consider that many of the images were also used in public exhibitions (the last in Milan few monts ago [2]).
  3. The archive is a verifiable source itself.
  4. No one claimed any right on artworks represented in the BEIC digital catalogue, where the Monti's images were published years ago (before being shared on Commons).
If a cultural institution (an archive, a museum, a library) states in written form it owns all rights, I think also it is an excessive request to ask further documentation. Did you ask a complete documentation for any artwork exhibited in a museum and photographed here on Commons? I think not. I's exactly the same. It's impossible for a museum to accomplish such a request (for evident reasons, beginning from lack of human resources), and it's impossible for us. Community decided to trust all declarations from cultural istitutions *with no further obligation* from these institutions (that are fully responsible for their good faith declarations). If not, hundreds of thousands of photos must be erased from Commons and Wikipedia. --Marcok (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
While being sympathetic to the basic fact that no institution can be expected to do a full exhaustive copyright review for every image, there are some simple lines that can be drawn to aid planning. Photographs without artworks in them are much easier to assess, and where the photographer worked for the institution, is unknown, or died more than 70 years ago, no further assessment of copyright is needed. For these photographs of artworks where the artist did not die more than 70 years ago, copyright will remain problematic and these deletion requests are technically and legally correct.
Hopefully the institution will be able to take the discussion as constructive feedback on the images, and they may wish to continue to assert that there is No Copyright Known in other places. Deletion from Commons is not proof of a true copyright problem, that still requires an expert assessment, but discussions held on Commons are a useful reference.
This case is a reminder that OTRS permission is only verification of the claim made by the uploader, it is never legal advice, nor is it a guarantee that the upload can remain on Commons. From my experience of uploads from hundreds of institutions, the best way to have a copyright review for a significant donation, would be to encourage an open discussion based on a batch upload project page on Commons, and ping the Community with a notice on the Village Pump to aid with brainstorming the best licence to apply and if there are likely to be doubts about copyright post-upload. An open discussion in this way will avoid too many surprises, and may engage some of our very experienced volunteers in helping with early review and decision making. -- (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
"Unfortunately this delicate ticket was quickly handled by a novice agent." = i reserve the right to overturn previous OTRS decisions. you realize that such an attitude tends to undermine the credibility of OTRS? it is opaque, and now capricious. why should anyone trust your judgement as opposed to a novice when there is little evidence? and why would any institution want to donate images, when first they must run a gauntlet of copyright cynics? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You personal attack has no place here. If you have nothing to add, please refrain to comment a (somewhat) technical discussion on how to grant copyright for donated images. --Ruthven (msg) 15:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

deletion of photos in Wędziagolski Bronisław ,Wędziagolski Karol and Argasiński TadeuszEdit

I am a member of Wedziagolski family. My grand mother Jadwiga Rutkowska was from home Wędziagolska. She was sister of Wędziagolski Bronisław and Wędziagolski Karol. Argasiński Tadeusz was husband of her sister Anna. Photos which I attached to their pages were from my private family archive made other 80 years ago So why they were canceled? with best regards Andrzej Rutkowski —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:A31A:413F:D980:C9B6:8297:2B82:671C (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe they were deleted as a result of this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by And.rut. We need correct and complete information about the author and date. If you have this information, you can request undeletion. You can also discuss the concerns with an agent at permissions-commons wikimedia.org.
Andrzej, the files were deleted due to incorrect license statements, for example File:Bronisław Wędziagolski 1919.jpg stated that And.rut took the photograph in 1919 and released it under {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, which seemed unlikely. The files could be restored if we can determine their copyright status. For example if they were published in Poland before 1990s they might meet conditions of {{PD-Polish}}. If they were "made available to the public" before WWII they can meet conditions of {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. If the pictures were taken by a known photographer who died more than 70 years ago than you can use {{PD-old-70}}. If the pictures were taken by a family member (even unknown family member) than you might have inherited the copyrights and can use {{PD-heir}} to release them. In all of those cases we need to know more about the photographs to determine the copyright. I can help with the process, just write to me at my talk page or add {{ping|jarekt}} to your reply. --Jarekt (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Change of OTRS permission for Commons categoriesEdit

As you're all aware, in Italy any property (object or monument) belonging to the Italian cultural heritage as entrusted to the Italian government needs a permission to be used for commercial uses. Since the Codice Urbani, we can upload them on Commons freely using the right template (see {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). In the past, some institution wrote to OTRS to request us to remove files that weren't authorised, like in Villa_Giulia (Rome) (read the top note referring to ticket:2008111010014047).

As times change, the new director of Villa Giulia National etruscan museum accepted for WLM to allow anyone to publish the photos of the artworks and buildings under his custody under CC by-sa 4.0 (ticket:2017100710194997). In the category page this is indicated by {{OTRS accreditation}}. It is sufficient? Do we have a way to eventually restore deleted files in that category? --Ruthven (msg) 13:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: We need to revise Commons:Freedom of panorama#Italy and revisit Category:Italian FOP cases.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I ask to @Nemo bis:, @Jaqen: and @CristianCantoro: to share with us their opinion about this topic. Thanks --CristianNX 08:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that the mistake was deleting those photos in the first place. The restrictions placed by the Codice Urbani law are non-copyright restrictions, so if Commons starts deleting all images that may have non-copyright restrictions on them we may as well delete all photographies of living people. Please note that what the director of Villa Giulia is doing with the OTRS is not authorizing the photographers to release a photo as CC-BY-SA, because that decision belongs only to the copyright holder (i.e., most times, the photographer) and, since those are Etruscan remains, there is no copyright on the remains per se (as per "freedom of panorama" which we do not have in Italy). What he/she is doing is declaring that he is waiving his right of requesting a fee for the publication (on Wikimedia Commons) of the photographs, meaning that photographers can post those photos online without paying a fee. The director can not decide that all the photos taken at Villa Giulia must be released under the CC-BY-SA or the GNU FDL or the WTFPL licenses. I have discussed (and challenged) deletions of WLM photographs from Italy that were marked as "non FOP" for a long time now, the only photographs that should be deleted for FOP in Italy are those from "modern" buildings (structures, sculptures, etc.), i.e. those whose copyright is still in force. --CristianCantoro (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@CristianCantoro: I think that Codice Urbani kicked in after the first deletion episodes. I also think the Commons community is well aware that No-FOP in Italy refers to modern buildings because, for instance, the copyright holder of the Coliseum is long time dead. So, do you think that adding {{OTRS accreditation}} is needed to enforce the permissions like the ones from the Villa Giulia director's? What can we do, in order to avoid erratic DR about historical monuments in Italy? --Ruthven (msg) 12:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven:, I don't know how to avoid erratic delegation because they are, well, erratic and they shouldn't happen in the first place. You can add {{OTRS accreditation}} and you should also add either {{Soprintendenza}} or {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} (I advise you use the former) --CristianCantoro (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Check request: uploads by PraktykEdit

Hi,

Praktyk has uploaded a few images of which some have been deleted (see User_talk:Praktyk) and some have OTRS tickets. I was wondering if one of those tickets wouldn't authorize all uploads from that account, among which File:Wilo-Star RS.jpg. The RedBurn (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Yogi Adityanath.jpgEdit

I was wandering if proper permission was received for File:Yogi Adityanath.jpg. --Muhandes (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven, Muhandes: The ticket is ticket:2017091310004718. I recall there being an uncropped version somewhere, which I'd like to examine before approving this. I recall there may have been an issue where the claimed copyright holder appeared in the photo. Guanaco (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
My original concern was that the uploader uploaded 9 other files under false "own work" claims which made me worry about this one, which might still be perfectly legitimate. --Muhandes (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Kenco The Coffee CompanyEdit

Hi JCB,

I am afraid you have deleted some updates we made to the Kenco page.

We are the advertising agency that works for Kenco and had been instructed to make these amend by our client.

Please revert back the amends we made.

Thanks, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.55.234 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 October 2017‎ (UTC)

I assume this is JacobsDouweEgberts. This is not Jcb's talk page (that would be User talk:Jcb). But neither posts there nor here can resolve the issue. What you need to do is to follow the instructions on your user talk page. You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

How to verify a Commons Account to be the account of an youtuberEdit

Hello @all,

I work at the project b:de:Mathe für Nicht-Freaks and two youtube user (MJ Educations and Maths CA) share some of their videos under a free license so that they can be uploaded to Commons and can be embed in our articles. Therefore they have created an user on Commons (User:MJ Studies and User:Maths CA) and they have stated on the youtube's about site of their channels that User:MJ Studies and User:Maths CA are their own accounts respectively. What is needed to add Template:Verified account to their user sites? Shall they write a separate email?

Greetings, Stephan Kulla (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Account VerificationEdit

Unser Benutzerkonto wurde für die deutsche Wikipedia bereits verifiziert, siehe OTRS-Ticket #2013013010011548. Könnte bitte jemand die entsprechende Vorlage auf unserer Commons-Benutzerseite ergänzen? Vielen Dank!

This account has been verified for German Wikipedia, see ticket #2013013010011548. Can someone please add the corresponding template to our userpage here on Commons? Thanks for your help.

--HSBiberach (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@HSBiberach: There was no such a ticket, at least I couldn't find it. --Mhhossein talk 07:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: ticket:2013013010011548 (info-de), seems to be valid --Didym (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Didym: So that means that it was me who could not find it. I think that's because I don't have access to that queue. --Mhhossein talk 07:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added the template to the user page. Unfortunately, the ticket has to stay in info-de, as it's also used on dewiki. --Didym (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

image copyrightEdit

Hi, I'm the author and sole copyright holder of the image called "Poster for "The 1up Fever" mockumentary" listed at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_1up_Fever_(film)#/media/File:The_1up_Fever_official_poster.jpg As requested I've added under my personal website this sentence: "This website's content has been published under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 license". You can find my website here https://www.behance.net/gallery/21334355/Poster-for-THE-1UP-FEVER. I would also add the sentence to my other website, which was the one originally listed for the image http://cargocollective.com/symlink/Poster-THE-1UP-FEVER but I'm not able to do that at the moment. I contacted the user 4nn1l2, by sending him an answer on private mail on October 08th, 2017, but I still didn't receive any answer so I thought to write here. I'm sorry if I'm making any mistake, I'm new to wikipedia. I hope everything is all right. Thank you, Francesca —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.30.195.214 (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

File:RedCoatTrail.pngEdit

File:RedCoatTrail.png was tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}} following Commons:Deletion requests/File:RedCoatTrail.png. However, it is claimed as "own work" by the uploader and licensed as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. This is incorrect. Can an OTRS volunteer look into the email to clarify who the copyright holder is? The Saskatchewan government? A graphic designer with a name? xplicit 02:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: The ticket doesn't specify the license, but rather states that anyone is free to take photos and post them without permission from the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert: The statement is... a little vague by Commons standards, isn't it? It doesn't address derivatives or commercial use. A look at the ministry's copyright page doesn't answer the question for these types of signs, and is rather restrictive in the topics it does cover. xplicit 02:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @Jcb: as the agent who handled the ticket. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The government agency responded to a message in which the license conditions (compatible with COM:L) were pointed out. Not how we would do it now, but fine in line with the common practice at OTRS 7 years ago. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: I see, the permissions procedure has simply changed over time, so the license seems fine for the time it was processed. I've edited the file description to better reflect the author information. Hopefully, this is an appropriate approach. xplicit 00:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Antoni Tàpies "Rinzen" (1992-1993). Vista del llit.jpgEdit

Can someone please verify ticket #2012071210004849 ? Is it licensed by Macba or by Tàpies ? @Vriullop: who handled the ticket. — Racconish ☎ 07:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It is licensed by w:Fundació Antoni Tàpies supposedly in behalf of heirs of Tàpies, and licensed by the photographer. --V.Riullop (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks V.Riullop. — Racconish ☎ 10:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Colette Mazzucelli 2.jpgEdit

This file was uploaded by a sockpuppeteer, so I wanted to check the permission, but I don't have access to whatever queue the ticket is in. ticket:2016082710007096, probably info-en. Can anyone confirm its validity? Guanaco (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: You should ask to otrs-wiki admins to move it to a permission queue, so that everyone can check it. --Ruthven (msg) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: That ticket (with 41 articles) is in queue "info-en::Courtesy". It appears to contain valid permission for that file. You are welcome to request info-en access at otrswiki:Administrator requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

OTRS abuseEdit

These uploads [3] by a new user, appear to have been tagged with OTRS tickets which apply to others. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz:   Done That uploader has been determined to be a sock, it has been blocked, and its uploads have been nuked.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Marie Luise Gansber IMG 7909.jpgEdit

According to the exif data this picture was taken with an iPhone in 2016. The person shown on the photo died in 2003. The uploader obviously made a copy of the original and declared this copy as "own work" --Zxmt (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

maybe the same as the already deleted File:MLG Porträtfoto.jpg, marked as "passport photograph" here: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Luise_Gansberg&diff=159532740&oldid=159267622 --Zxmt (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

dossier en attenteEdit

Bonjour, je ne comprends pas, j'ai toujours le bandeau indiquant que la photo allait être effacée sous 30 jours alors que l'auteur de la photo m'a dit qu'il avait fournit les documents demandés et changé la taille de la photo. Il s'agit du fichier "Vincent_french_singer.jpg" ticket: 201730103010012764 Je suis ennuyée et je ne sais pas quoi faire, j'ai longuement discuté avec le photographe et je suis certaine que ce monsieur est bien l'auteur. Merci de m'aider et de me dire quoi faire --Ophélie Ravel (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ophélie Ravel: Le bandeau dit 30 jours, mais le temps d'attente afin que le courriel soit au moins lu est de 77 jours (indiqué en haut de page). D'autre part, le numéro de ticket ne correspond à aucun ticket connu. --Ruthven (msg) 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Plushie copyrightEdit

Could someone please check the above ticket to see if the release covers the copyright of the toy? A statement about the release in the linked DR would help confirm how many images the ticket relates to, and if there is verifiable confirmation that the toy is public domain. Thanks -- (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I now have confirmation by IRC that the ticket is about the photograph, and gave no confirmation about the copyright of the toy. Thanks -- (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Philippines Ice Hockey Team.jpgEdit

The file is uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license but the Author is credited as just "See the OTRS ticket in the Permission field below." The problem is it seemed only OTRS volunteers could access the tickets and the license demands attribution. The name of the author should be properly credited.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@JGHowes: Should photosubmissions customers expect their names to be released pursuant to the BY clause of CC licenses? I think so.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This was briefly discussed and mentioned on the OTRS-wiki "Café" about a year ago. See otrswiki:Café/2017#What is and what isn't a violation of our privacy policy. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Thanks, I added the author to comply with the Cc-by-sa-4.0 license.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  Comment But we're not supposed to reveal personal information contained in OTRS communications. In this instance, the photographer publicly trades as "David J Photography", no last name given. I don't think his real last name should be revealed. Secondly, this is not the format shown in the template. JGHowes talk - 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@JGHowes: Let's discuss that there.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

OTRS verificationEdit

Can a volunteer check if the ticket:2013082110009341 applies to the files File:Elephants_of_Kerala_L12_(5).jpg and File:Elephants_of_Kerala_L13_(2).jpg. I would like to see the files undeleted if the permission is covers these to images. -- Sreejith K (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sreejithk2000: It doesn't: the ticket authorises only the photographs by Joseph Lazar. --Ruthven (msg) 16:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I am confused. Are they the same person? I see the ticket in use for the image File:Nilgiri_marten_by_N_A_Nazeer.jpg but the image is attributed to N A Nazeer. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Double check licensingEdit

Can someone please review this image File:Laura Antonelli (Milan, 1974).jpg, not sure if the listed permissions are acceptable. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OTRS VerificationEdit

Hi there! I wonder if you could help me verifying all of these images permissions Angelena Bonet related to the ticket:017111110001891. The email was sent last night by the copyright owner and producer which is Angelena Bonet herself. (Giuliano Verducci (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC))

I want to change CC terms of my photo use.Edit

Hi! I'm Alex Snow (this is one of my photo used in Wikimedia) and I want to change CC right for all my photos from CC BY-SA to CC BY-NC-SA because there is a lot of illegal non-attributed use of my photos in different resources lately.

Alex Snow —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.252.20.210 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You may not change the license because the license is irrevocable. However, if they are failing to provide attribution, that is already against the terms of the CC BY-SA and changing the license to CC BY-NC-SA won't prevent them from illegally reusing your photos. If you wish to stop them from using your photos illegally, it is up to you to send notices to them. -- King of ♠ 23:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, prohibiting those wanting to use the files in compliance with the licensing terms from using the files commercially will do nothing to change the behavior of those who already choose to ignore the existing license requirements. Anything that's published risks being used illegally, regardless of the licensing terms.
Here on Commons, we do care about license requirements and about free licenses. Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike is not a free license, and we don't host non-free content, so that license is incompatible with this site. Furthermore, Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked. This also means that you cannot impose more restrictive terms on content that's already been distributed under a free license.
You can of course choose to stop distributing new works under a free license. That means we won't be able to host them here. If you choose to do so, you should e-mail permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the same e-mail you used to send the original permission. Regards, LX (talk, contribs) 00:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Check for letters, pleaseEdit

Hello. Some files I uploaded were deleted because no OTRS volunteer bothered to check for a letter confirming permissions to use them. Please, check for the letters at last and get those images undeleted. Letters must have arrived somewhere in the end of August.

Images:

...
...
...
...
...

--TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


  An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted. Please do not file an additional deletion nomination for permission reasons.

Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS}}

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2017083010009291


  An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted. Please do not file an additional deletion nomination for permission reasons.

Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS}}

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2017083010012036


  An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted. Please do not file an additional deletion nomination for permission reasons.

Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS}}

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2017111410010161

File:Lopez demetrius.jpgEdit

Please check Lopez demetrius.jpg file currently nominated for the deletion. I've just got the confirmation from Rush University Medical Center that they've sent the official request to permissions-commons email, confirming that this file can be used under the Creative Commons license. Please advise what should be done to the file? Should I change something (description, author info) or it will all be handled by one of the OTRS team members? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: Multiple people with access to the ticket have posted at the DR and the file has been kept.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Mladen SavićEdit

The photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mladen_Savi%C4%87.jpg was claimed to be unverified. Is it OK if the person on the photo sends an e-mail with the text "I am the Mladen Savić on the photo, and I approve it's usage in my Wikipia article" or what exactly should I tell him to e-mail to the permissions-team mail adress? --Yukterez (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yukterez: Please have the photographer or copyright holder read OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

File:AljndrOraa....jpg by Kike San MartinEdit

File:AljndrOraa....jpg has EXIF data showing it was taken by Kike San Martin. This is a fashion photographer that we have a whole category of images for, Category:Kike San Martín. But all the images in that category seem to have different OTRS permissions, such as ticket #2013101710018095, ticket #2013101710018308, ticket #2013101710018031 ... and those are just the first 3 files in that category. Could someone please read those OTRS tickets and see whether they would apply to this file as well, or if it should be deleted? --GRuban (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

All tickets are ok. Different number ok ticket was simply started off by different otrs operator processed every ticket. I'll connect all tickets, but starts from now we will use the newest one (I'll report number after fixing). Thanks, --.avgas 11:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)