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: 109 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


Файл:Косенко Віталій Анатолійович.jpgEdit

Помогите пожалуйста с этим файломКосенко_Віталій_Анатолійович.jpg, мне разрешили им пользоваться, но я так понимаю письмо от автора так и не пришло, а прошло уже пару лет, как мне сохранить его? Отсюда видео общедоступное. DENAMAX (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Письмо от автора пришло, но автор не ответил на встречный вопрос, не подтвердил, что он является автором, поэтому разрешение не было выдано. Автору было предложено, на выбор:
  • Разместить свой почтовый адрес, хотя бы временно, на своём сайте или в открытом профайле любой соцсети, прислав нам ссылку.
  • Прислать разрешение с другого адреса, который будет явно связан с автором.
  • Прислать (фото)копию любого документа.
  • Временно изменить лицензию для видео со Standard YouTube License на Creative Commons на период проверки.
Это всё можно сделать до сих пор, и тогда файл может быть восстановлен. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 14:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


Can somebody pelase check out ticket:2007040710013293 and see if it is a legit ticket, since it has been added in plaintext by Céréales Killer in 2007 on the followig files:

I'm currently at work, and don't want to open OTRS. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Josve05a: it's a real ticket but it appears to contain no actual license. It's a shame, because it could probably have been fixed at the time. Storkk (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Storkk: Would you agree that it would be appropriate to tag these with the appropriate "OTRS recieved (but insufficient)" tag? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Josve05a: Not sure there's much point, given the ticket is 11 years old... but it might be worth a shot if a francophone user wants to reply to that ancient ticket, and see if the film studio wants to specify a free license. Storkk (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Josve05a, Storkk: Apparently sending the email failed:
          A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
          recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed <omissis>
But original copyright holder said "libre de droit", which is equivalent to our "public domain". --Ruthven (msg) 07:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Likely fraudulent permission provided to OTRSEdit

@Ganímedes: File:Mallu actress.jpg may appear to be available on with CC0 ("License to use Creative Commons Zero - CC0. You are free to use for many purposes without worrying issues licenses because this picture is TRUE FREE.", it's just dripping with sarcasm), but the date on the site ("SUNDAY, MAY 1, 2005") seems to have been faked (as the URL says 2018/05), the blog has no other posts, the author is claimed to be "Mike Dichen" (but what does a G+ profile prove?) and the photo as shown there is cropped, Tineye finds the uncropped photo in various places, none of which seem to be the actual source. It looks like a magazine scan to me (because of the colors) but I can't prove that. should also raise some eyebrows. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't proceed yet, and now I'm waiting for you comments. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Solicito restaurarEdit

Solicito restaurar mis archivos..

estoy re subiendo porque poseo las licencias y derechos. me piden que explique y estoy describiendo y explicado origen y licencias. por favor restaurar.. soliciro restaurar porque creo que he dado las explicaciones y referencias que me han pedido con links y referencias


(Alek25 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC))

estoy resubiendo porque he dado las explicaciones, fuentes y son fotos de mí autoría con permisos y licencias libre solicito restaurar

nohablo ingles y no es vandalismo 

(Alek25 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC))

@Alek25: Hay que explicar por qué se han usado tantas camaras distintas. Evidentemente muchas fotos no son tujas. Si te han dado el permiso escrito, hay que comprobarlo y tienes que enviarlo a permissions-es, con la licencia elegida y en nombre de los ficheros (puedes también indicar como referencia la página Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alek25). --Ruthven (msg) 07:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 08:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)



id like to ask about waiting for approval of photo on page: File: Show_Ivan_with_the_drawing_by_Pavel_Rampir_of_the_Alsterufer_attack.jpg.

Thansk to answear.

VW —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Viki80: The only ticket I can find which mentions "Alsterufer" is Ticket:2018041210013299, but that is resolved and doesn't mention the filename above. Do you have a ticket number? Looking further re File:Ivan Otto Schwarz.jpg (which may be the same photo), we have been waiting since 19 January for permission from artist Pavel Rampir in Ticket:2018011610010147. While we wait, would a bust or headshot crop of the latter file suffice? That would be a vast improvement over File:Ivan Otto Schwarz.png.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Email has not been delivered from artist Mr. Rampir yet? Is It possible to load this photo again? Thx to answear VW.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viki80 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 June 2018‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Viki80: I replied to the ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by Hiba FalahEdit

Hi, This user has uploaded posters and added an OTRS permission. However it seems that the permission was not validated by an OTRS volunteer. Knowledge of Arabic would be useful. See e.g. File:بوستر ثار غليص.jpg, and User:Hiba Falah/MyTag. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: I have responded at Commons:Deletion requests/File:بوستر ثار غليص.jpg. --IagoQnsi (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Hiba Falah is the copyright holder. We had a meeting with the company Arab Telemedia Group last year, and they agreed to release some posters. Now, in order not to send a new email for each poster, it was agreed to let User:Hiba Falah handle the uploads. Any Company Poster not uploaded by User:Hiba Falah is actually a copyright violation. This was all in the ticket, in Arabic :) . I just updated the ticket. --Tarawneh (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Jallal Rapper 2017.jpgEdit

This may be nothing, but could I ask for a check on the permission received and logged for this file (Ticket:2017040910001158), from Ursus Magana? It all appears to be in order ... except that the author of the image is, according to the EXIF data, not Ursus Magana but Alex Hallajian. Also, I note that the email address used by Magana is not associated with his website. Ping my esteemed colleague Arthur_Crbz in case he can shed light here. Some files from this uploader may need closer scrutiny. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I will check Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Justlettersandnumbers - it appears your esteemed colleague worked his magic, and the image has been cleared through permissions. I'd say it's safe to consider this case RESOLVED. Atsme 📞 00:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Er, no, esteemed colleague Atsme, it isn't resolved – Neozoon has sent an enquiry, but no reply (that I can see) has been received (thanks, Neozoon – I could and should have done that myself, I now realise). I don't know if he/she has also contacted Alex Hallajian, but there's a note saying he/she'd do that too. I'm concerned about this file because it appears that the uploader has been less than 100% transparent in some other uploads – see. e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diane Tuft 2017.jpg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm...I did not see the most recent correspondence when I first checked the ticket - but I see it now. Apologies. Atsme 📞 13:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, I've now gone ahead and nominated this for deletion, as there's apparently been no response to the follow-up enquiry by Neozoon. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by AnantashaktiEdit

File:Lord hanuman singing bhajans AS.jpg

This file was originally uploaded in 2007, so maybe the way Commons verifies licensing over the years has changed since then. The file is licensed as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} and it is "Copyrighted to Himalayan Academy Publications, Kapaa, Kauai, Hawaii. Licensed for Wikipedia under Creative Commons and requires attribution when reproduced." There is a link on the file's page which says permission can be found at en:User:Himalayan Academy Publications. "User:Himalayan Academy Publications" also contains a link to en:User:Satyanatha/Permission email,which looks like a permission email which was/could be sent to OTRS, but there's nothing there suggesting OTRS has verified the original copyright ownership license, etc. Moreover, the permission emails seem to user specific (i.e., permission granted to a particular user only) which is something Commons generally doesn't accept. There are quite a number of files uploaded by Special:Contributions/Anantashakti~commonswiki and all seem to be under the same license. Anantashakti~commonswiki hasn't edited since 2008 and User:Himalayan Academy Publications hasn't edited since December 2011, so I have no idea how to find out more about this from them. Is all this sufficient for Commons verification purposes, or do these files require fruther OTRS verification? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Copied from COM:VP.
I don't see the issue if actually shows these permission mails. Well, I see one issue: the license needs to be changed to GFDL, but we can do that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
"permission granted to a particular user only" permission is granted to a specific user to upload, so they leave the decision of what to upload and what will be licensed to that user. "All material uploaded by User:Anantashakti copyrighted by Himalayan Academy will automatically be licensed to Wikipedia under GFDL." is clear: the content is licensed to Wikipedia under GFDL. Wikipedia shares it with the world using the same license, and the GFDL allows Wikipedia to do that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Correct. Atsme 📞 19:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Images from the WikiGap event in Kigali on March 8, 2018Edit

Hello everyone, I recently uploaded some images from the WikiGap event in Kigali on March 8, 2018. While the pictures taken by Julia Sjöström have been marked as verified by an OTRS-member, the ones from Carl Fredrik Wettermark are marked as permission missing. I guess this is due to Mr. Wettermark sending the permission email not from an official domain, but from his private account. As I asked him to resend it using an official email address, I hereby request you to not delete the pictures and wait for that email. Thank you. --Zenith4237 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Attributing WorkEdit

I am a creator of Adult Coloring books and have found many amazing images on your website. However, I am having an issue understanding the overall license which reads this.

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2016051310012174.

You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

What I wish to know while creating adult coloring book using images from your website that holds this sort of license. what is the proper way to give attribution to the author who is under creative commons? I would appreciate your help in giving me an example of the proper way in which to word this so that credit is properly given. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The shortest acceptable attribution would be "Peaksel CC BY-SA 4.0", and you would have to license with a CC BY-SA 4.0 or later license, unless you negotiate something better with Peaksel.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 09:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ticket #2018062010007572 (Bob Reis from Anything Anywhere)Edit

Bob Reis from the website Anything Anywhere has sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia OTRS team giving permission for a few very specific pages on his website, due to the nature of his website (being a commercial business) I had made a deal with him that I would ask permission per page (or pages) and that he would evaluate permission to be released under free licenses based on several circumstances, usually if I would also use some of his images in a Wikipedia article and kept him up to date on it, the licenses however are free for re-use but as I would ask him separately per a number of pages I prefer that if an OTRS template for uploading his images would be created that it would be something alongside Template:Anything Anywhere1 so it could leave room for a future Template:Anything Anywhere2. I know that the backlog is 99 (ninety-nine) days so I have no hurry with this ticket being processed (also I am working on several huge projects on Wikipedia and have to import images from earlier tickets anyhow), however when it is processed could the agent who processed the ticket leave a message on my talk page with the template I should use for every upload? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, these separate templates for separate permissions should probably all organise into the same maintenance category (Category:Media contributed by Bob Reis (Anything Anywhere)) if possible so they can be grouped together, but as the permission will essentially be either per page or per group of pages each ticket should have its own template. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


Hello, Is it possible to check on the status of a ticket? It's [Ticket#2018042710010326] Thanks very much. Max Zimmet Mzimmet (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mzimmet: Yes. It is 59 days old, so it has about 40 days to go before it reaches the head of our 99 day queue. It is also missing the URL of the file here on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G: Thank you Jeff. The photo was deleted because we didn't provide proper copyright notice. That was corrected via the email I referenced above. Thank you so much for any guidance on this. Mzimmet (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mzimmet: Where was the photo here? Also, the dot is part of my username, I can't really get rid of it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Sorry about the dot. I'm a newbie at all this. Thanks very much for your assistance. It was at (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mzimmet: That's not a file's URL. Is it in your upload log?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Yes, I found them there. Thank you so much. The two file URLs were File:Hot Pickin 57s Greetings from Austin Texas.jpg and File:Hot Pickin 57s South Congress Austin TX.jpg. Lisa re-sent them along with the permissions. BTW, she resent them with the original file image name from her camera. Mzimmet (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mzimmet: Thank you. The A answer would have been and . I have merged the subject ticket with older Ticket:2018042710010291 and added the URLs to the latter in a note.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That is very kind and super helpful. Do you recommend at this point I should just give it the remaining 40 days or so? Will I be able to rename them with the file names I uploaded originally? Thanks again for all your help and guidance! Mzimmet (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mzimmet: Yes, please wait. The original file names will be used, you can apply {{Rename}} as you see fit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: OK, will so and thanks again so very much for all your help. 2600:1700:100:6DA0:DCED:AAA:C993:599F 12:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mzimmet: You're welcome. Please sign in.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 08:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My mother's photosEdit

Question: my mother has given me the right to publish any of her photos that I see fit to upload to Wikipedia. I just received notice that some of these photos need OTRS verification - is there a quick way for her to authorize me to publish her photos? Maybe an OTRS template? That way I wouldn't have to go through the time wasting OTRS process for every upload. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 00:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Yes, we can make a template for her work. Once you have an approved ticket for her work, you can mention this to the approving agent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Painting by a dead artistEdit

Hello, I am asking this question for User:Kawika1000. So he wants to upload an image: This portrait is commissioned based on a historic 1850s photograph. The artist Mary Koski and the person who commissioned it is a family member of the deceased subject. The painting is now displayed at the Kawaiahao Church in Honolulu. The artist is now dead and the work was done in the 1980s. I don’t know anything about the commissioner but guess they don’t hold the copyright. My question is how can the user get the copyright permission to upload this image. Can he get permission from the artist’s descendants and get an OTRS tag verifying that? Will that work? Uploading as a fair use image is not an option since there are many other free images of Elizabeth Kekaaniau.—-KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This will probably depend on whether it was a "Work for hire". Not all commissions are technically Works for Hire, and it would require there to have been a written contract specifying that it was a Work for Hire. If that is the case, then the copyright would lie with the person who commissioned it, and we would need confirmation from them. If it was not a Work for Hire, then the copyright would lie with the (heirs of) the artist, unless the artist then sold the copyright. But absent any indication that the copyright was sold, and given the artist is deceased, then yes, permission from an heir of the artist (assuming that heir inherited the copyrights, and they weren't bequeathed elsewhere) would be required and sufficient. Storkk (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a note about the images at Kawaiahao Church in Honolulu. They are only giclée copies. The originals are actually at Liliuokalani Church. Gertrude Miller/Toledo passed away in 2006 but contacting this Miller family (no relationship) might provide some clarification if she has an archive or left documents etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, the artist daughter is likely the heir to her mother's works and copyright (as it appears from some sources but from indirect evidence) and is easily contacted as she is a working artist herself. I do not have her name however.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help....I was able to contact the artist Koski's heir who is Mrs. Long, she emailed me granting permission to use on Wikipedia as long as her mother is indicated as the artist. I also was granted permission from the commissioners' children (my cousins) who are her heirs. I will try and re-post using proper certification and tag Kawika1000 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kawika. Here is the instruction on how to upload a work that is not yours once you have gotten the permission from the copyright holder of the work. —-KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient, and we need an actual license. See COM:Licensing for more information. Storkk (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I’m not too familiar with this since I’ve never uploaded a copyrighted image myself and the page you link is all jargon to me. Can you please explain which license should be used in this particular case? It is a copyrighted work that the copyright holders are giving permission to use.—KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
"Permission to use" is simply not sufficient to upload here. The copyright holders need explicitly declare a license that we permit. All licenses that we permit allow anybody to modify and reuse (even commercially) the works uploaded here, as long as various requirements such as attribution are followed. If you could make it more obvious exactly which parts of COM:Licensing you feel are inadequately expressed or "jargon", we can try to help you understand, but Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses seems to use jargon sparingly, and I'm not sure how much clearer it can be made. Storkk (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

permission imageEdit


concernant l'image File:THIERRY VENDOME EN 2018.jpg dont je suis l'auteur je souhaiterais avoir de l'aide afin de me permettre de comprendre ce qu'il vous manque pour valider la permission de diffuser cette image sur la page article de Thierry Vendome. Merci infiniment pour votre aide.


Republication [Ticket#2018062810007129].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siouville (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Siouville: Le courriel a été envoyé il y a 4 jours seuleument. Prière d'attendre au moins un mois et les informations nécessaires seraont envoyées en réponse, toujours par courriel. --Ruthven (msg) 14:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OTRS permission only possible one image at a time?Edit

I said: Sending OTRS permission for every image would be rather bothersome and also not necessary. OTRS only needs to verify the account belongs to the same person as the User:Fire Law Stone account.

FlightTime responded: "bothersome". Then I suggest stop uploading.

I would swear OTRS could be used to give permission for more than one image at once or just to verify some other account belongs to a wiki user so they won't be accused of COM:NETCOPYVIO when they upload their own images. Was I wrong this whole time? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

They can be grouped together. But we need to know exactly what images are being released. They have to be specifically mentioned. And it is only "intimidating" because enwiki doesn't have a mass file handling script. So each one is done individually which results in numerous, repetitive, notices. I've been asking for VFC on enwiki for years now to no avail. As for FlightTime's response, they only said that because you said it was "bothersome" to begin with. --Majora (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Would "tedious" have been better? And is it not possible to release all images from a specific social media account, website, etc? I strongly suspect there are tickets that do not mention each and every filename. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course they can. But if they were to send something in that said, "all images from website x are under this license", we are likely just to tell them to post a note on the website. And yes, there are tickets that don't mention a file name. They are a massive pain to handle and oftentimes we have to ask what image they are talking about anyways leading to delays in processing. There is even a default response that basically says "we don't know what you are talking about. Please tell us." --Majora (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In many similar cases, we have created Custom OTRS permission templates to use on every file covered by a broad permission statement. Guanaco (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair point. Either or will work. I guess it would depend on if it was a continuing release and there were lots and lots of photos that would be uploaded over a period of time. Up to the agent on how they want to handle it I guess. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In this particular case, it would be "all images from the Ashabul account that I upload here with the 'Fire Law Stone' wiki acount".
Having to send permission every time he uploads a plane image (which seems to be half a dozen every once in a while) would be tedious. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Er...Alexis Jazz that website allows you to mark photos as Creative Commons. Says so right here. Just have them change the licenses on their photos from "All Rights Reserved" to an acceptable license. No OTRS needed. They will probably require {{LicenseReview}} at that point but that is leaps and bounds quicker and simpler than going through OTRS. --Majora (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In any case, what is important is that can be unambiguously identified 1) the images and 2) the license. So any statement including both would do. E.g. "I, XX, allow all my photos of the Museo del Prado uploaded by user YY to be published under CC by 4.0 license" is perfect. Not tiresome at all. Sending a single email for every upload is pointless and confusing for OTRS agents. --Ruthven (msg) 07:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Doktor ProninEdit

Hi, Doktor Pronin (talk · contribs) added several OTRS permission to posters, but they doesn't seem to be a member of the OTRS team. Can someone speaking Russian verify please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Rubin16.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion there should not be {{OTRS ticket}} as far as the permission is published on the site. It was a GNU GPL permission in the conversation for all the site, and in my opinion there is a small problem in the fact that Doktor Pronin writes that he's the only author, but in fact he's only the right's owner. Anyway, with the permissionon the site it's not a problem of OTRS. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 14:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Lukion taulukot.pdfEdit

Could somebody check if OTRS permit for File:Lukion taulukot.pdf looks ok? I suspect that processing of the OTRS permit will require somebody who will understand Finnish, but I would like to know if the permit looks like that it is technically ok and it will not require additional information. --Zache (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zache: Without being able to read Finnish, the English text looks ok. I combined the tickets to Ticket:2018070210002493.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thanks for checking. I checked that both Finnish speaking OTRS members are passive and notified fiwikis community that we need new OTRS volunteers. Do you know what will happen if there is no Finnish speaking OTRS members? Eg. if there are no new Finnish speaking OTRS volunteers and Makele-90/Para doesn't response in 30 days do we have any other alternatives than keep it pending and delete the file? --Zache (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Para, Makele-90, AntonierCH: can you help?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, on it. --AntonierCH (d) 13:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I have some doubt about the sentence "Luovutuksensaajalla on tarkoitus saada lukiolaisten käyttöön vapaasti muokattava taulukkokirja, joka julkaistaan [FIWIKI]" that might restrict the transfer only for Wikipedia and would therefore be insufficient. I need to investigate a bit more, this might take some time. --AntonierCH (d) 13:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


Can any OTRS volunteer confirm the image in this ticket (written in English)? Thank you, Dgw (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild: OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 109 days before the email message is processed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 08:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Besoin urgent de validation d'imagesEdit


J'ai récemment mis en ligne des images pour lesquelles le photographe a envoyé des autorisations par mail. Il s'agit des photos présentes dans Category:2018 Cabourg Film Festival et Category:Fête du cinéma 2018. Les autorisations n'ont toujours pas été validées. J'en ai déjà parlé ici.

Maintenant je peux lire le message suivant : " Rien n'indique que l'autorisation d'utiliser ce fichier ait pu être vérifiée. Les champs auteur et source ont été renseignés mais il est indiqué que l'autorisation a été envoyée par courrier électronique. Cependant, elle n'est pas encore parvenue à l'équipe OTRS de Commons qui est chargée de vérifier sa validité. Veuillez nous envoyer la preuve que vous êtes autorisé à publier ce fichier à l'adresse Si nous n'avons rien reçu dans les 15 jours qui suivent l'apposition de ce bandeau (14 October 2018), ce fichier sera probablement effacé." (14 octobre ??? Est-ce un bug ?)

Y-a-t-il un problème ? Si c'est le cas, il faudrait me prévenir parce que je demanderai alors au photographe - avec qui je travaille depuis longtemps et qui a déjà donné plus de 5000 images à commons - de les renvoyer en urgence. En attendant, je me vois obligé de retirer la balise otrs pending pour éviter qu'elles soient supprimées automatiquement aujourd'hui, désolé... Merci d'avance. JJ Georges (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Par sécurité, j'ai fait suivre un message avec toutes les URL des photos au photographe, qui l'a renvoyé en me mettant en copie. Normalement, vous avez tout ce qu'il faut... JJ Georges (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
La date du 14 octobre 2018 n'est pas un bug. La date indiquée correspond au délai prévu pour qu'un courriel envoyé à l'équipe OTRS puisse être traitée par un membre de l'équipe OTRS. Ce délai est actuellement d'environ trois mois et demi, compte tenu du très grand nombre de demandes qui sont faites (dont un grand nombre de demandes inutiles qui surchargent sans raison OTRS) par rapport au très petit nombre de membres OTRS. Par exemple, si un bandeau «OTRS pending» a été placé sur la page de description d'un fichier vers le début du mois de juillet 2018, alors la date qui sera indiquée comme date de départ du calcul des quinze jours de grâce supplémentaires avant suppression sera trois mois et demi plus tard, donc vers le milieu du mois d'octobre 2018. Toutefois, cet avertissement de suppression ne devient visible sur la page du fichier que lorsque la période de trois mois et demi est écoulée. Vous avez cependant exceptionnellement vu cet avertissement avant ce temps pendant une brève période dans la journée du 12 juillet 2018, parce que le modèle «OTRS pending» avait été vandalisé ([1]), ce qui a été réparé peu après dans la même journée. Le bandeau est revenu à son affichage normal et l'avertissement de suppression n'y apparaîtra normalement qu'au mois d'octobre si le courriel n'a pas été traité à ce moment. Si un courriel a bien été expédié et est en attende de traitement par OTRS, il n'est pas opportun de retirer le bandeau «OTRS pending», puisque la présence de ce bandeau sert précisément à protéger le fichier contre la suppression jusque vers la fin du mois d'octobre 2018 (le délai de traitement OTRS de trois mois et demi après le placement du bandeau plus quinze jours supplémentaires). -- Asclepias (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Merci pour l'explication, je comprends mieux. Même si ce n'était pas un "bug", c'était bel et bien anormal puisque le bandeau avait été vandalisé. Sur le moment, j'ai cru qu'on avait attendu trop longtemps pour valider et que les photos allaient disparaître... Quoi qu'il en soit, je sais maintenant que le message nécessaire a été envoyé ! JJ Georges (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Si ça peut aider, j'ai remis la balise otrs pending aux images qui ne sont pas encore validées. JJ Georges (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 08:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

cover illustration of San Fransisco OracleEdit


Who are the right holders of San Fransisco Oracle cover illustrations? Who do I need to ask for permission/license to publish those? Wikimedia claims to have received an e-mail from the copyright holders. Who are they? How can I contact them? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Where do you see this claim?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


I would like to use a photo for a french movie for a channel tv.

it's free right ?

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The request is rather vague. Which photo (conditions depend on the license). --Ruthven (msg) 08:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)



This is the number of ticks sent by the owner of the copyright for all articles on the subject Miloš Ćorlomanović. I hope I'm in a good position. Thank you.Crnizmaj (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crnizmaj: I can't find any ticket with that number. Please double-check that you have the correct ticket number. Guanaco (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Not possible! It's certainly a proy that he got from a bot. He sent me directly your mail that came from your bot. Two ticket numbers arrived because two messages were sent, the other through this OTRS system.Crnizmaj (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ticket: 2018071610001271 Ticket: 2018071610002403

Sometimes the ticket-number links don't work (due to spaces and what-not in the links), but I can see both tickets linked above. Awaiting review. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Changing license templatesEdit

Hello. A while ago i uploaded a number of audio files with an OTRS for permission. However it has been pointed out the the license templates applied to these items is {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} when it should probably read {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Sain (Recordiau) Cyf.}} since SAIN are the copyright holders. Could someone confirm that it is ok to change the licences? or will this invalidate the permission given in the OTRS doc? Thanks in advance Jason.nlw (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)