Open main menu

Commons talk:OTRS/Archive 1

< Commons talk:OTRS
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Commons people with access to OTRS

A list of commons people with access to OTRS is also available here. --GeorgHH 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are the permission letters hidden?

I was just wondering why Commons has decided to keep letters giving permission to use images hidden from most users. --Arctic.gnome 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably due to privacy reasons as they may contain real names and email adresses. -- Túrelio 07:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not exactly that Commons decided, but that this OTRS system already existed and it was easier to use that than set up something new.
If you think a permission is suspicious, you can ask an OTRS agent to double check it, most will be happy to do so. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving OTRS-approved images from Wikipedias

How should one go about moving, or rather tagging, an image such as de:Bild:Opernturm Heroshot.jpg after uploading it here? Just the regular {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=URL}}, or something else? (Seeing as how the permission wasn't send to the Commons' OTRS.) Anrie 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess, {permissionOTRS|} should be okay. --my name 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adam.J.W.C account

How can I find out if someone has opened up an account in OTRS using my name. I have never opened an account in OTRS and if there is one there it is not me but an imposter and should have the account blocked and any comments made deleted. Thanks.Adam.J.W.C. 06:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong email address

The new upload file contains a wrong email address for OTRS : instead of This causes emails to be refused. JoJan 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed in all variants of that text. Lupo 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

para onde eu mando? (portugues) Guzzzz 03:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You found on, but not in high definition, and where I send the license?Guzzzz 04:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Patient images

Insights re OTRS would be appreciated on Commons talk:Patient images. Thanks --Una Smith (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is OTRS working for Flickr email too?

Hi, I have a question regarding OTRS and flickr email permission. I intend to upload Korean cuisine-related images and thankfully I got permissions from three individual flickr users for needed ones. Their original images are set up with "all right reserved" or "cc-by-nc" but they said it is okay for me to upload their images with free licensing tags. But the original tags on the image pages remain as they are. Therefore, even though I got the permission, and can upload the images with {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}, or CC-BY-SA per their minimum requirement to me for the uploading, I concern about getting a possible complaint from administrators like this.[1] Because flickr mail does not show their or my email address, I don't know their actual email address. The flickr mail could not allow me to forward the email to OTRS. It is like a chatting via flickr site.

So, I thought the best way for me to solve the problem is suggesting them to change their license setting from the original setting such as all right reserved or cc-by-nc to cc-by or cc-by-sa on the image pages. But due to my lack of English writing or others, I think I did not make them fully understand the procedure of confirmation. It means I failed them to change their image setting on their image pages to desired one. I sent flickr emails twice to them, but also I am afraid that if they got emails from me several times more, they would be annoyed by my mail, and retract their permission.

Therefore, I stumble upon here to secure my future uploading of those images, but the policy on OTRS sounds very complex to understand (I feel dizzy as reading it and just got the gist of the whole contnet) and it seems to require real email address of a sender and copyright holder, the latter of which I don't have except their flickr email and image addresses. I'm willing to capture the original email, but I don't know whether the method is right one or not. If OTRS does not provide service for flickrmail, please tell me what to do. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Flickr has an option (in user preferences) to forward Flickrmails to another e-mail account. I have used this before to forward permissions to OTRS and it has never been a problem. Kelly (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, and checked out my yahoo email.(I barely use it) However, the emails only hold their answering mails. Do I have to combine my sent mail and their reply all together? --Caspian blue (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Just the reply should be fine, so long as the reply contains the licensing statement. Kelly (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. a problem is that only one has the licensing statement, but the others are like "Sure, okay. I'm pleased to hear that. Go ahead". Hmm.. I think I have to capture my original message and attach to the email. Thank you for the help.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi. I would like have OTRS permission for some picture of excellent Brazilian metal band Sarcófago. However, I really don't feel myself enough good in these things that I could myself do the request... I just tried to realise the rules about this thing I really didn't find how to do it myself. Could somebody better then do this instead of me, place where you maybe could ask permission is Cogumelo Records' contact place. Sarcófago band is split up, and they haven't home page, as well as I have no idea how to contact the band, best place is then their records label. I hope there's somebody who's willing to help me in this and ask them, hopefully somebody who have done with these OTRS things before. If it's possible, ask them some promotion picture of Sarcófago... It would improve Wikipedian articles about band greatly. Thanks, Miihkali (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS queries

Would it be worth creating a centralised query system for OTRS tickets? The current approach of "find someone from a list" seems less than optimal to me, as if you happen to pick on someone who has gone on wikibreak, you may wait patiently for a long time (and possibly ask more people duplicating the effort) -- I was thinking if there was a centralised location, that OTRS users could watch and answer as they get the oportunity. -- Ratarsed (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

#wikimedia-otrs and #wikimedia-commons are normally helpful places to visit if you need something in real time. Cbrown1023 talk 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a great resource for those that use IRC, but not everyone has that option (I do a lot of editing behind firewalls where IRC is blocked) I was also thinking of situations where it's not worth hassling for an immeadiate response, but waiting a couple of weeks is a bit long -- Ratarsed (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You can leave requests here, or you could just poke another person. Cbrown1023 talk 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It seemed wrong to do that (especially as Template talk:PermissionOTRS says to use the list of contacts there), which is why I was trying to suggest a new way that minimised burden on all those involved. My original query was (to Mbimmler (talk · contribs)) "As an active OTRS user; Can you tell me if Ticket 2007013110022751 is specific to Image:Gymnasta.jpg, or if it applies to any picture from that Source, given the same attribution? Many thanks, -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)" -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask Zirland to comment here (he handled the ticket and speaks Czech). Cbrown1023 talk 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The ticket is specific to the image and does not apply to other pictures. --Zirland (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


There are a lot of photos attributed to Robin Wong like Image:Duff 4.jpg but there doesn't seem to be an OTRS thing for them. May want to check it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I don't see a ticket referenced anywhere. If you think the images are copyright violations your best bet would be to bring it up here: Commons_talk:Licensing J.smith (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae vocalizations.ogg


I have been told by the copyright holder of this image that he emailed OTRS, but nothing has happened. Has any such email come through? I don't know whether there is a delay in responding, a problem with the email, or no email. Would it be okay if he just modified the description of the video on YouTube to indicate the license? Richard001 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we got the permission. I've marked the image page accordingly. Sorry about the delay... we have a bit of a backlog at this time. J.smith (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

General permission

Is it possible for someone, rather than releasing rights to a single file, to give permission for, say, all files they have uploaded somewhere? This would make it easier for me to upload multiple files (e.g. videos) by one person without pestering them to keep sending permission emails to Commons. Richard001 (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes (I'm not an OTRS admin, so my word is not law. :)) but it would need to be as specific as possible. "All images on website (or book, etc) are hereby released under wh-at-ev-er 2.5." would be ok.... "Yeah, any image you want" isn't acceptable. In any case, being as specific as possible is best in order to avoid confusion or misscommunication. J.smith (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


I've been waiting for confirmation on images for about 10 to 14 days. I've always got confirmed within 2 or 3 days, but is there any special reason for this backlog? These are some of the images to be confirmed.Image:Korean dance-Samgomu Ogomu-02.jpg Image:Korean winter cap-Jobawi-01.jpgImage:Korean noodles-Bibim guksu-03.jpg--Caspian blue (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a backlog, which it seems there has been for a while, I think it should be advertised in some way. This way people know why their upload hasn't been approved, and more volunteers may join if they realize there is a shortage. Richard001 (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not trustful source and authorship, OTRS needed

Hi! Every now and then I find some images with not very trustful source and/or authorship information. I feel, it would be much better to get an explicit confirmation to OTRS. Is that a good idea and possible? What template I should place to the image? Thank you. Miraceti (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not tagged, we don't know anything about it. If it is tagged then you can ask any of the these users to verify it: Category:Commons OTRS volunteers -J.smith (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a particular image your asking about? J.smith (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Helpful introduction

Today, I read about OTRS the first time and I have difficulties to understand what exactly it is used for. Especially for open source issues, what's the reason that giving a specific license to one's own media files might not be sufficient? And who and under which circumstances should make use of OTRS? I have uploaded a number of images (computer graphs and photographs) to Commons; will I need to make use of OTRS some day?

Therefore, a helpful introduction to OTRS is really needed; the current one is too technical and that the reader already knows about the underlying motivations. An example of usage (or in which situations OTRS might help) would be wonderful.--SiriusB (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your right. The circumstances where OTRS is needed isn't very clearly spelled out. For the most part you only need to forward us permission for an image if it has been used elsewhere first. For instance, if you find an image on the internet that you want to use. Lets say you e-mail the copyright owner and get them to release the image under CC-BY 2.0. You would forward us that permission and, if everything looked legitimate, we would mark the images appropriately. Sometimes if the OTRS agent doesn't have enough information or if they just want to verify something then they might write back and ask for more info. J.smith (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the page...

Commons:OTRS/proposed changes - I've made some changes to the page. Thoughts? Corrections? etc? J.smith (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi - I'm not sure if such a system exists already, but is it possible to create a system whereby if OTRS goes unconfirmed for say 2 weeks it's eligible for speedy deletion? Sort of like lacking source. I don't really want to use npd, as OTRS-pending sort of overrides that. Maybe a "this OTRS pending template added on (date)" to give people an idea of how long it's been pending and so whether deletion is reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This sort of guideline is definitely needed. I think 2 weeks isn't quite long enough, considering there are usually backlogs in the permissions queues. I'd say for now, 30 days sounds reasonable, as tickets sometimes sit in the queue for a couple of weeks, untouched. In the future once we are better able to contain backlogs, the 30 day period can be shortened to, a couple weeks as you suggest. Anyhow, yeah, excellent idea - this should probably be discussed elsewhere though. Perhaps the Village pump, or ... not sure where else, but someplace with more exposure than here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Some way to pick up old "OTRS pending" tags would be useful, as they are sometimes added to obvious copyvios with a view to stalling deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It could be done in the same way as the "missing source"-type tags are done. However, two weeks might not be long enough for current circumstances. --J.smith (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I also think we're in a great need of such a system (with a 30d deadline, if OTRS guys say so). Has this subject been discussed elsewhere already? --Eusebius (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made a proposal here. --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with this template outline the usage at en:Template:OTRS_received? I've tried but can't figure it out. Nsaa (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

stock.xchng request

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but here goes . . . this photo Image:Nanga parbat, fairy medow, Pak by gul791.jpg has been verified by OTRS. It is sourced from here on stock.xchng. The same photographer also has this related photo there, which has not been uploaded onto commons. If it is under the same license, can someone with access to stock.xchng upload it, please? I'm not a stock.xchng subscriber and only have access to tiny thumbnails, not the full size pics. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

According to our ticket everything by that author uploaded to stock.xchng is licensed "{{Copyrighted free use}}." Sorry, I don't have an account. :( --J.smith (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone tell me if I could upload this pic to Commons using the template?--Sanandros (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Uploads requiring in-article credit

If someone releases a photo under a normal license but adds the additional requirement that attribution must be given in the article it is used on, can we accept it? I have asked this at the village pump and at WP, but nobody seems to know. Would the OTRS team accept such a file? Richard001 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say... No. If it's phrased as a demand, then no, I wouldn't accept that. I'd point it out that the licenses require attribution and that it's our practice to do so in a way that is less intrusive to the article. Most of the time people willing to donate images are willing to do so on our terms. If it's a request I would accept the image knowing their request may or may not be honored by the editors on various projects. --J.smith (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I would really prefer to get some sort of official statement or consensus on this, but as you may know it can be near impossible to get any attention. If that's acceptable by CC standards (is it?), then it would seem acceptable at Wikimedia, unless a specific rejection of such conditions is outlined somewhere. Richard001 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that the in-line attribution requirement might not be compatible with the CC license. --J.smith (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


Can someone look into this image? From the correspondence I don't see where permission was granted to release it under any specific, free license. They just said that it could be used on Wikipedia. Richard001 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is OTRS still functioning?

I have sent some OTRS agreements three weeks ago but there is no result. Is this a normal time interval or my message got lost? --PAD (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is still functioning. Unless the e-mail is perfect it might not get taken care of right away. In general the oldest e-mails are usually 30 days old, with a few older then that. J.smith (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Your best bet is to prod an OTRS volunteer (giving the email title so that the email can easily be found). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ticket check

Hi there (is it the right place to ask for ticket check, and is there a more appropriate way to handle things?). this file has been uploaded with Ticket:2009010510005495 in the permission field, and has been tagged npd more than 7 days ago. Could someone check the ticket so that the situation is clarified? Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in Italian, but from the Google translation it does appear to be a legitimate release from the registered owner of under the specified CC license. Also, I was able to confirm that the e-mail release came from the same e-mail address registered in the DNS information. I would personally rate this as "highly confident". J.smith (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Eusebius (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, could somebody check the ticket of this one, to see which license was stated in the e-mail? It currently has an OTRS ticket tag, but no license tag. In the past, before the OTRS ticket tag was added, it was under {{attribution|Roberto Benetti}}. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The tool we use to mark images with the OTRS tag clears out the permissions field before putting in our tag. I've fixed the image page and I have confirmed the release with the ticket referenced. --J.smith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, good to know for next time. Thanks a lot. --Eusebius (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Power Girl ticket File:AN Liana K 1.jpg ?

Could someone check the ticket on File:AN Liana K 1.jpg please? I would like to confirm that the permission came from DC Comics, as it is being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AN Liana K 1.jpg. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ticket on File:K veil.jpg

Could we have a check on this one? There is an "OTRS pending" notice (not the template though), which was put five months ago. The picture is claimed as own work though, even if there is no ticket, I guess we would keep it. --Eusebius (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's 5 months old then it's basically safe to assume it has been rejected for some reason. J.smith (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
After a check, I don't see any tickets in our system referencing this image or the user who uploaded them. J.smith (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Christophe Claret.jpg

Ticket 2008090210028203 appears to date to 2008-09-02, used only for some press kit photos uploaded on 2009-01-30? Could someone check whether that ticket exists, whether it's kosher, and whether it really applies to these images? Thank you. Lupo 07:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We have, within a reasonable degree of certainty, a release from Maîtres du Temps for those images, and others. Referenced in this ticket are Image:MdT_logo.jpg Image:Chapter_One_dial.jpg, Image:Speake-Marin.jpg, Image:Christophe_Claret.jpg and Image:Roger_Dubuis.jpg. By extension, anything else uploaded by User:Underthedial in relation to Maîtres du Temps is also likely legitimate. --J.smith (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for checking! Lupo 08:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS verifications

Any thoughts on setting up a separate page where people can come to ask about OTRS tickets? I don't think doing it on this page is a great idea (as this talk page should be about the Commons:OTRS page itself). It would also be handy to have a centralized place would be better as sometimes these discussions end up at the Admin noticeboard of the Village pump. Having a good centralized archive of prior discussions could come in handy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be useful given the quantity of commons permissions. MBisanz talk 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I dunno... It's really low volume and this page is the most natural place for it anyway. J.smith (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Such requests are also left for individual volunteers, at the village pump and at various Administrator noticeboards. Surely you'd agree that there should be a central location for them. And, historically, talk pages are for discussion of the corresponding page itself (i.e.: proposed changes, errors, etc.). - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This board was created. See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I better add it to my watch list. :) J.smith (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Vivian Hsu.jpg

Could someone check Ticket:2009021110009907? The problem is that this image had no OTRS ticket at en-WP for 1.5 years until an IP added a reference to Ticket:2007081110009907 on 2009-02-11, just before the transwiki to here. I wonder if either of these ticket numbers are valid. The uploader here at the Commons has a history of copyvios. Lupo 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS pending header

Is there a point in keeping this template: {{OTRS pending header}}? --Eusebius (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is used for all of the categories. See here. It does need some more info added to it, but nobody has gotten around to that yet. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, so when I see it on an image page, I can switch to {{OTRS pending}}? --Eusebius (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do! --J.smith (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. Sorry about the silly questions. --Eusebius (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ticket check

Hi, could someone check the ticket for File:Falco amurensis.jpg? It's been waiting since september. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ticket check

Could I have File:MULTICAM LSM.jpg and File:XT2 SERVER.jpg checked? The first edit of the uploader uses an already validated OTRS ticket number, it's quite suspicious. Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

+ File:XS Server from EVS.jpg, different ticket though. --Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
All appears to be valid. I think it was copied from the French wikipedia. J.smith (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto expire otrs pending

Currently when {{otrs pending}} is placed on an image, a volunteer has to manually search the database for the ticket. Most of the time, the ticket is not found, due to the email having never been sent. I propose we auto expire these after 7 days, eliminating the need for searches. We should also include instruction where the uploader should also place the ticket number on the talk page of the image once the email has been sent. Currently, I use alot of time to search the database. I am unaware of what it takes other volunteers to do the search, but since we use the same interface, I can safely assume it is time consuming for them as well. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Though in general a good idea, what do the OTRS volunteers say to that. Is there a backlog of permission emails that have arrived but are not processed, and, if yes, how long (in days) is the backlog? --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
We definitely can't keep up but 7 days is not nearly enough time. I would propose that 30 days after an image is tagged with {{OTRS pending}} we contact the uploader (via bot) and ask them to either send the email if they haven't or the image will be deleted. Then, 15 days later (45 days after upload) the image is deleted if we have still not received the permission. I've already talked to Multichill who would be able to run the bot. The reason I'm proposing 30 days is because Permissions queues on OTRS are often backlogged. (btw, I am an OTRS volunteer) - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Leave it as it is. These kinds of things should not be subject to bots. Evrik (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The only thing the bots will do is notify the uploader that we did not receive the permission. It will also tell them where they can go to ask further questions ( a noticeboard of some sorts ) and will tell them that the image will be deleted (manually) if we don't receive the permission. Sure, we could do it ourselves, but this would be tedious. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Evrik, it takes too much time and effort. Rjd, I can go with your timelines 30/45. Currently there is a backlog. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for it, although I find the first 30 day period a bit long. As it is just a reminder for the uploader, I think two weeks is more than enough (if they forgot to send the email, why wait a month before giving them the heads up?) But I'm not a member of the OTRS team, so I'm fine with the proposed period if OTRS members think it's best. –Tryphon 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, a couple of weeks would be plenty. However, many tickets come to OTRS for permissions and we don't really have enough volunteers to handle them in a timely fashion. So sometimes, tickets sit for weeks/month(s) without being handled. Starting with a 30-day period will just give us a good opportunity to make sure that we can handle the new tickets in time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation; you're right. And if the time period needs some fine tuning, it can be adjusted later on, when everyone has had a chance to see how it goes. –Tryphon 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If OTRS is waiting to receive the permission, then yes. But if were waiting on the volunteers to get to it, then a month is too short. Uploaders should not be penalized for our lack of help. Rocket000(talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, we should be instructing uploaders to go ahead and reference the ticket into the image talk page. This would be of tremendous help. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The whole reason 30 days is proposed is so that the OTRS volunteers have time to do it. That should be plenty of time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it encourages them to get them done. I guess let's try it out. Rocket000(talk) 21:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I Agree with Rjd0060's proposal: bot alert after 30 days and deletion after 45. I do think the first warning should be less than the 30 days suggested, but I'll bow to the person who's actually dealing with the OTRS queue. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
{{Noticket}} can be modified for a warning. When I removed an {{otrs pending}} I usually {{noticket}} the talk page of the uploader. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree on the 30/45 as well, please include the {{OTRS received}} tagged images as well though. The current backlog on pending tickets on Commons is about three months and I'm willing to help on sorting out the lot so we can get it down to 45 in the first place. Ciell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I really think (as I explained it in another discussion about the same subject) that notifying only the uploader (and not an admin) can be counterI-productive in some rare cases, the most serious ones. If I'm knowingly uploading copyvios and tagging them with {{OTRS pending}}, then I can use the notification to know when I have to change the date in the template. That way, the image always remains in a less-than-30-days category and never gets deleted (although I've sent nothing to OTRS). If I remember well, the previous proto-consensus about this subject was: if older than 2 months, check the existence of a ticket and then delete if necessary. At this time, the backlog was lighter than it is now, though (only a handful of pictures were beyond the limit). Right now I guess it wouldn't be reasonable for admins to ask a batch checking for dozens of images. Isn't it the case that when a ticket becomes valid, an OTRS volunteer updates the template on the image page? If this is correct, I would stick to plain deletion of the images older than a limit fixed by OTRS volunteers (depending on their backlog), plus eventually a notification to the uploader (but not only the notification). --Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think we have the problem of people doing this. If people wanted to get around it, they could just add any random ticket number to the page. So I don't really think we should be concerned with this possibility. Also, I regularly check for pages containing {{OTRS pending}} with no ticket number or ticket link (as you can see from my recent contributions). I fix these as usually they are just mistakes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm for just deleting images that have been pending for X number of days. (I'm fairly sure that) Every OTRS volunteer is an admin and can undelete an image if it turns out to be necessary. If we haven't gotten to the ticket within 30 days then there is a reason why. Yes, there are sometimes tickets sitting there for 40+ days, but thats the tail-end. 95% are dealt with within a few days to a week. -J.smith (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You're guessing wrong there, not every volunteer is an admin here as well ;-) and this week even, three images were finally confirmed, after pending for 3 months, therefore I would prefer a "last chance": things can go wrong on our end as well sometimes. Last month I found a permission mail in the spam queue, not the first place to go looking with a length over a 1000 mails. Ciell (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough... quit being lazy and become an admin already. :P J.smith (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this depends heavily on the language the emails are written in; what you suggest may apply to perm-en/perm-com(-en), however, it does not apply to, say, perm-de/perm-com-de. As to the original question, I think 7 days is too short: The benefit of deleting files earlier is that it helps to avoid legal claims but deleting them after only 7 days—in my opinion—doesn't outweigh the disadvantage that a fast deletion confuses and annoys uploaders. On dewiki, for instance, images lacking essential information/permission get deleted after 14 days. I think we should go with something between two and four weeks. —Pill (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The original proposal was 7 days. That was quickly changed and now everybody has been talking about notifying the uploader after 30 days, and deleting after 45 days (if permission still isn't received). - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's the problem I see with the 30/45 plan... we now need to keep track of two temporary tags. The bot will need to make two runs. If we just delete after X number of days the process is much simpler. J.smith (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
We wouldn't want to delete the image without giving the uploader a chance to respond. And as I said above, the images will be deleted manually (all OTRS pending tagged images are automatically categorized by date). Only the uploader notification will be done via bot. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
@J.Smith: in my idea, we only need use one tag: for instance our ordinary {{OTRSpending}}, but with the adjustment that a date will appear in the template, like it does with no license, no source, etc.: the bot only does one run after 30 days, with advising the user to take action. I support Rjd0060's idea (see above above) in this. Ciell (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It is already the case, date is added in the template by a bot and then files are sorted by day in Category:OTRS pending. --Eusebius (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I mean making it visible in the template? Ciell (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ciell, by what process do we deal with enforcement then? I think I'm missing something. :) We could model this a little bit after the PROD tag on Wikipedia, I guess? --J.smith (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A picture of Roman Jakobson

Roman Jakobson I am searching for a picture of the Russian linguist Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) for the Norwegian (nynorsk) Wikipedia. There is no freely avalailable picture at Wikipedia Commons, but the Russian Уикипедия and the Hebrew וויקיפדיה use the same picture:



The Russian source is and the Hebrew source is

Can anyone help me find out the copyright of this picture? Regard--Rolf Theil (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was from 1941 when he was in Denmark, so I uploaded along with the {{PD-Denmark50}} tag. Taric25 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:OTRS wait

There is a deletion request for Template:OTRS wait. I believe it must bveb discussed here first, so I copy it from Commons:Deletion requests/Template:OTRS wait:

This template is effectively saying "I've uploaded this image without permission, but I've asked for permission so don't delete it". Permission should be secured before uploading the image, not after. The template is, in any case, unused. If deleted, the connected category Category:OTRS wait should be deleted too. --Stifle (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sv1xv (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It wasn't created by the OTRS folks; it's OTRS in name only. It's basically saying "I'm uploading this even though I don't have permission, but I might possibly get permission sometime in the future, and if not then hopefully nobody will notice". Stifle (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Commons:Email templates

The page Commons:Email templates seems quite redundant or sorely unfinished:

  • It contains a copy of the recommended author's reply (which is not good: content forking).
  • It has no templates at all, only a link to wikipedia's list of examples of permission requests.

Whoever has a knack in these issues, please fix it. Altenmann (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

One autorisation for several photos.

Hi everybody, I would like to know if I can take one permission for several photos, for be concret I put this picture: File:Melopheelo_en_concert1.jpg, and I got the permission for take every picture made for performance. I would know I can add them without send an autorisation every time. Thanks, -Nmd (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad noone answered this user and instead his or her images were deleted... Maybe someone can help restore the images and get the authorization correctly done? PanchoS (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Upload first, or get permission by mail first?

A colleague of mine has been so kind as to supply me with a photo I'd like to upload. I think I understand most of the OTRS procedure, but one thing puzzles me. The email template says "To

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ]."

This seems to suggest that I should upload the photo first (and add "OTRS pending") in order to add the link to the photo in the mail which I would like to receive from Christiaan in order to forward to the permission-checkers.

On the other hand, this page says:

"When you receive a reply, please check that the permit authorized by the copyright is appropriate to the Commons. If so, upload the image to Commons and add "OTRS pending"."

This would suggest that I should get the email containing the permission first, and upload later.

Could anyone please advise me? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, we should receive the permission before the file is uploaded. In the facts, it is rarely the case, and it is easier for everybody if one can refer to a file already uploaded on Commons. So, in my opinion, if you are certain that your colleague will provide his consent to a free license release, you can upload the file with {{OTRS pending}} and then have the e-mail sent right away with a reference to the newly uploaded picture. I hope I have answered your question. --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I'll upload the file first, and add the link in the text of the mail I'll ask him to return to me. I can vouch for his willingness to provide his consent. When he went to Ireland on holidays,I specifically asked him to try to make some photos showing the housing crisis there, for use in the article on the credit crisis on the Dutch Wikipedia. I've explained the issue of releasing a photo under a free licence, plus the OTRS-business. He said we'd be happy to take a few snaps as long as I took care of the paperwork.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I had asked the same question about a month ago. I think this is a common source of confusion for a lot of people and the current instructions don't really make it clear. mahanga (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS taking over a week?

I've uploaded several OTRS images recently, and none of them have been processed yet. File:Hemozoin structure.png was first, is there some kind of problem with the system or have I messed this up in some way? TimVickers (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS (permissions-commons) seems to be having a serious backlog. Multichill (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently over a month, I'm afraid. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, as long as I haven't screwed it up in some way I'm happy to wait. TimVickers (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems like they are backed up to August of last year from what I noticed. There are over 300 pictures waiting for this to be done from August of last year alone. Mr. C.C. (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Bit of a backlog. Tim, if you post the images and ticket#s on my user talk, I'll process. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Kleine Dealer2.jpg


Can somebody please check the ticket of this file (Ticketno. 2006052510008711)? --High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


I don't know if this is the best spot, but here goes. What if you get permission, but not necessarily the picture changed over to a different copyright then what is excepted in Wikipedia Commons? Mr. C.C. (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "changed over to a different copyright"? You need a release under a free license to host the picture on Commons. Those licenses are irrevocable, so it can't "change". Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, license, that's what I meant. Mr. C.C. (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS interface in English?

Would it be possible for an OTRS member using the English interface to take a screenshot, upload it, and replace the German one currently being used? It would certainly give me a better understanding of the OTRS system, seeing my lack of German. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. mahanga (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  Done by others. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, others. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Permission ok?


Can an OTRS member please check the permission for this image? Is it sufficient to link any page to hr:wiki? Greets and thanks, High Contrast (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem is obviously solved. --High Contrast (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Update of "No permission since" template

Infringement of copyright, personal rights etc.

Can we also contact you in case of infringements of copyrights or personal rights? --Wikibert (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Could somebody with OTRS access check the confirmation/permission for File:Donatello Virgin and child.jpg and then add the ticket number. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

haven't found anything... Rubin16 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
But I have now, ;-). The original uploader of this image to :en is the representative of thie website/museum, from where this photo was taken, see en:User:VAwebteam, and he has a "universal" OTRS-# on his userpage. Could you "transfer" this OTRS-# to the page of the badly migrated image? (Though I'm admin, I'm not in the OTRS team.) Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed template - [2] Rubin16 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

permission granted for on-Wikipedia only

This must have come up before but I haven't been able to find it. I submitted a permission request to an art creator specifying the sort of licence needed, and the response was "fine to post it on Wikipedia... the posting should include my name in the credit line as the creator." Obviously this wasn't the hoped for response and I take it to mean we can't use, such that I won't bother sending it to permissions. But as I recall I've seen some images with OTRS permission that said use OK for Wikipedia only. Maybe that was just on en.wikipedia. Are these permission responses that say "wikpedia (or wikimedia) [only]" essentially rejections or can we use them somehow?--Bdell555 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with forwarding that to permissions. Even if such a file must be moved to the local projects, noting the permission given by the author through OTRS is still useful. File:School of Visual Arts logo.jpg on is a good example...the School gave explicit permission for the file to be used on Wikipedia but no where else. This was filed through OTRS and the description page reflects their wish with Template:Non-free with permission. Your file would work in pretty much the same way, I believe. Huntster (t @ c) 06:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, although I note that that template is a project template as opposed to a Commons template.Bdell555 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, since such images cannot be uploaded to Commons there would be no reason to have that template here ;) Huntster (t @ c) 10:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Could someone check to see if OTRS permission was rec'd for this image. The notation on the image description page suggests that a permission email from the Mayor's office was received, but the uploader did not understand how to complete the OTRS process. I've tagged the image as "no permission" (and linked to OTRS instructions on the uploader's talk page), but I thought I would also double check to make sure that the uploader didn't somehow get that email to OTRS at some point since 2007. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was OTRS #2007060710006841 submitted within a day of that image being uploaded, from the City of Hamilton, but that image was not mentioned in the email, nor was any particular license ever submitted, despite a request for one by the operator who handled the ticket. So, I'd just let the deletion request run its course. I suspect the uploader will not return...that was the only image he has uploaded. Huntster (t @ c) 01:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that. I'll leave a note on the talk page of the article that uses the image - someone there might want to chase after the proper permission. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Email requirements

Is there any benchmarking on OTRS as the email from public domains will not be accepted...such as gmail, yahoo, rediff etc.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

permission for picture

I have the photo from the artist. I do not need any other documents for publishing.

Wrong assumption.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of Red Cross volunteers - Voluntarias de la Cruz Roja

This an old photograph (1922) in my sister's possesion, that we inherited in a collection left by our grandfather,William K. Boone. How can I prove that we have the rights to it? Saludos desde México.--Wkboonec (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A sentence that does not make sense

"Be sure to include the image information on the origin of it (source) and authorized by the copyright license (which should be in the e-mail)." What? Could someone please rewrite that in English? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Could someone kindly point me to the discussion that established consensus to let OTRS have the type of power it has? The discussion that made it the rule. - Floydian (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of File:Guido Marzulli - La Palizzata della fattoria.jpg.

- ITALIANO: Questa immagine è di mia proprietà esclusiva. Questa immagine è un mio proprio lavoro e la rilascio in pubblico dominio.

- INGLESE: This image is of my exclusive property. This image is own work, all rights released (Public domain) . Dirarte--Dirarte (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is WAY too difficult

Is there a way to make this page understandable?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. There's been some voice here about the complexity of the article but no one seems to care. But if an image is uploaded, you're sure to get a warning in a couple of hours! I understand I'm not supposed to demand such things, but this is frustrating, really. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 10:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that we have not enough personnel. Recruiting some new volunteers and making concrete suggestions would be very appreciated. -- RE rillke questions? 11:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Why does this have to be so complex? Most people would be more than glad to contribute content to a noble project such as Wikipedia, but it should be simple! Even I, a somewhat seasoned user, find the method so cumbersome. Just this morning I uploaded a perfectly valid image from Flickr and I received a warning it will be deleted unless an 'OTRS' mail is forwarded. And now I have to again bother the person who was kind enough to modify the license in the first place with all the technicalities.
I know this probably won't change anything, but just venting out my frustration. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:OTRS/proposed changes

Commons:OTRS/proposed changes has been hanging around with substantive change since November 2008. Was it implemented? Should it be considered rejected? Be revived? Something, anything, is better than limbo. Rd232 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance Needed

I've encountered a user who has uploaded hundreds of images from a website that he apparently obtained permission from the website holder to release these images but the license is not explicit on the website where the images are located. I've put in a bot work request to tag all these images with OTRS Pending, but thought I'd put a note here too to draw attention to the discussion on the users talk page: User_talk:Chemicalinterest#License. Thank you. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:HC Vitkovice Steel.png

Please check image File:HC Vitkovice Steel.png. --DanielCZ (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Upload wizard support of OTRS

Is there a reason why the new upload wizard doesn't offer an option to add an OTRS template? Are there plans to add this feature? When I was first starting, the only reason I learned about OTRS was because it was part of the original upload form. Now I have to come to this page to obtain the template. I'm worried that people are going to be skipping this step. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS request directly by image owner

Is it OK, if Photo Author sends OTRS request (email) himself directly? So that I, as wikipedia editor don't serve here as intermediary...I just help him in how to do this OTRS request email. In other words, is it required to send my with Photo Author emails attached to OTRS request (it's all in Russian language). Нирваньчик (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple images in one OTRS request

Are we allowed to send one OTRS request with several links to works of the same author (different works in one domain)? Нирваньчик (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Images by Brian Burnell

Dear OTRS group, the following three images, and possibly others, were created by Brian Burnell [3] and uploaded by User:George.Hutchinson:

George Hutchinson informed that they are covered by OTRS ticket #2011041110012134. Could you please tag them with the approptiate OTRS ticket template? Thank you. SV1XV (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


© CLEAR Wireless LLC 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The entire content of this site, including but not limited to text, design, graphics, interfaces, code, and the selection and arrangement thereof, is protected as the copyrights, trade dress, trademarks and other intellectual property rights owned by CLEAR Corporation and its affiliates.

The CLEAR name and logo and other designated names, marks, and phrases are trademarks or registered trademarks of CLEAR Corporation and its affiliates. Trademarks of other companies that appear on this site are used for nominative purposes only and do not imply any affiliation or endorsement.

Johndulles1 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I've been trying to clarifying the language here, some of which seems a bit tortured, perhaps because it was machine translated from Portuguese?

I cannot clarify this, because I cannot understand it:

"Be sure to include the image information on the origin of it (source) and authorized by the copyright license (which should be in the e-mail)."

What does this mean? Are we asking them to include in their email where the image came from? If so, "which should be in the e-mail" doesn't make sense. Are we asking them put this information on the image page? If so, the placement under bullet 3 makes no sense. Not that "authorized by the copyright license" makes much sense in any context. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Forwarded Permissions

I have had my attention called to the following, from "If you need to confirm permission":

"(3) Following this, forward the e-mail with the author's clear statement of permission to, including the full header and the previously exchanged correspondence with the copyright holder, and a link to the image on Commons."

I think this is not our practice and is a serious mistake. If an uploader is allowed to forward the permission, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the uploader from forging the permission in its entirety. I had thought that we always require the copyright holder to communicate directly with OTRS.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have expected, you (OTRS) contact the copyright holder to confirm this forwarded permission? Of course it can be completely faked. -- RE rillke questions? 13:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to do a general permission for related files?

Hi, I just became aware of OTRS today, so please pardon me if my question reveals a good deal of ignorance.

I would like to arrange OTRS for a user who is uploaded a very large number of related images. These are scans of original manuscript documents in the user's own possession, all dealing with the same related topic. It would be highly impractical for this user to send a separate e-mail to get OTRS permission for each and every image. Is there a way of sending an e-mail to OTRS that relates not to one specific file, but to all scanned manuscripts uploaded by that user on that topic?

Another question: Must the e-mail be in English? Dovi (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Second email address?

I was just thinking, perhaps there should be a separate email address for complaints about copyright infringements, so that these are perhaps dealt with more quickly? The address would feed into the same system, but messages to it would be highlighted for OTRS volunteers. Rd232 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The page says to email info-en-c for copyright violations but I always thought that was more English Wikipedia oriented. There is a general Commons queue (info-commons or commons which could be used for this I would say.. Maybe? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The copyvio queue Rjd0060 mentioned is the best place for that sort of complaint which must be handled promptly. Even those of us who aren't admins here can at least tag images as copyvios and link to the OTRS ticket in question. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Melissa Grelo CP24.jpg

What is the general consensus on this exchange of tweets on Twitter as being sufficient permission to use this photo? The uploader did link to CC BY 3.0 in his tweet to the subject. If it is found to be acceptable, is there a way (and forgive my ignorance here) of preserving the content of these tweets in an OTRS ticket, in case the tweets eventually disappear from the internet? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My thinking in this process, as the uploader and asker, was that it was a public announcement of license by the same method as the sharing of the photo, albeit in different posts. Remove the different post part, and (in my mind, at least) it's similar to images from Flickr. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

General OTRS permission for a website possible?

Is it possible to use OTRS to licence all current and future works (taht fall under certain conditions) from a website at once? How should I go about it? The case here is that we've managed to agree with the Finnish national art museum that the relatively mid-res photos of works in Ateneum museum that have been published on the Ateneum website can be licenced freely. I'm drafting a custom licence template. Pitke (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The draft can be seen at User:Pitke/Ateneum. Also, in this case, whom should I contact for OTRS? Is anyone working for Valtion taidemuseo ok or does it need to be their lawyer? Pitke (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be lawyer but generally it's possible to get a OTRS for a hole webpage (Itanian Army did something like this)--Sanandros (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dolls by Ana Karen Allende

My husband (who does not speak English) took a group of 49 photographs of Ana Karen Allende and various doll creations. We received her permission to publish the photos of her work as CC-by-SA 3.0. To my understanding, this should work legally. However, with all other OTRS uploads we have done before the signer of the letter is also the copyright holder of the photographs. In this case, the photographs are by User:AlejandroLinaresGarcia I would like to know how to set up the information on the page for each photo so that it is clear that there is permission from both copyright holders and avoid problems in the future. Should it be a variation of the code behind the images uploaded at Category:Images_from_the_Museo_de_Arte_Popular?Thelmadatter (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you explain it in plain English on the attribution. "Photographs by User:AlejandroLinaresGarcia, dolls created by Ana Karen Allende" would be a simple and clear attribution requirement, and so long as the OTRS ticket has a clear email release sent in from both parties, it would be hard to get confused. Cheers -- (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
You should have OTRS from Ana Karen Allende and ideally User:AlejandroLinaresGarcia would upload the images himself using CC-by-SA 3.0 license. I would use {{Artwork}} template with Ana Karen Allende as author and User:AlejandroLinaresGarcia as source, single CC-by-SA 3.0 license and some explanation and OTRS template in the permission field. --Jarekt (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
OK OTRS letter (in Spanish) sent by me to permissions. Alex uploaded one photo to Category:Ana Karen Allende. Can someone take a look and see if its OK?Thelmadatter (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked two files a they are fine.--Sanandros (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I took the picture

Why is there a difference between whether it has been previously published or not? Is it because I may have given some exclusive rights when it was published? This may need clarification.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure of the context of this question (what's the difference to whom in what circumstances?) but usually the reason we would be concerned with this is to be clear that, yes, this was already published somewhere and, no, this upload is not the common case where someone falsely claims "own work" on someone else's previously published work. If the previous publication is clearly attributed to you, then generally this is not an issue. - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I will try to clarify. It states that if I took the picture, I can upload it without OTRS. If I took the picture and it has been previously published, I read it as needing OTRS?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we can't see if someone else is the copyright holder or you, so with an OTRS it's easier and for us clear who is the copyright owner.--Sanandros (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Importing a non-published media


I understand the need of an authorization when a media, already published elsewhere, is imported on Commons. However, when I am importing a non-published media, for instance a picture shot by a friend, do I really need to use the OTRS system?

Can't I be trusted when I attribute the image to someone else the same way I am trusted when I attribute the image to myself?

It seems this practice is already well established on Commons, and I think it makes sense. However, COM:OTRS do not mention this. Should it?

(this follows another discussion in French) --Pethrus (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a very real risk when uploading images of somebody else, that the agreement was too vague, and the author never realized that the image might end up anywhere. That is the reason why copying specific language is recommended for OTRS (and OTRS might request clarification). When you upload somebody else's work claiming permission, nobody knows whether you really explained the issues adequately. --LPfi (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a risk indeed. However, a simple e-mail (based on the right model) should be enough to give authorisation: OTRS now is asking a lot of proof (photo in HQ, other photos from the same serie, etc.) which are not required when one of us uploads one of its own photos. As a matter of fact, I am not asked any proof when uploading something to commons! (I am still in the case where the image have not been published anywhere).
This is those proofs, sometimes very hard to give, which makes a lot of people without an account, give up before the end of the process, and that is a pity: Commons misses good contributions, and it gives those people a poor image of Commons, seen as very complex and not-for-normal-people..
--Pethrus (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Red tape and explicit permission to use image

I have been a steady contributor to Commons for a very long time, but the way in which an image of Betsy Foxman was handled makes me despair. To recap the history - after an exchange of emails with Prof. Foxman she gave her permission to use a photo of herself on WP. To clarify the situation I asked her whether she was releasing the image without any restrictions to which she replied "Yes, without any restrictions". This was not sufficient to satisfy the bureaucrats of Commons and they felt that only one form of consent was acceptable, and that was one of the boilerplate templates. My request that they approach Prof. Foxman themselves was blithely ignored and the image was finally removed from the article, tagged with the blatant falsehood "No permission" given. My sincere feeling is that there are policies and people in Commons that do not have the best interests of WP at heart, and are not willing to go the extra mile to improve things. Paul venter (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point. Recently I had the thought that we could add a template to the top of BLP pages stating that if they wish to submit their own images then they may expect a bit of hassle. We could link this to a simple page for non-users to read more details and follow some simple steps.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have looked at the email chain at 2011113010026722, things may have been misinterpreted. It is true that an image released "without restriction" would be fine and such a ticket could support a CC-BY, CC0 or similar release. In this case the wording was tricky as "use on Wikipedia without restriction" is not actually clear enough to cover full free reuse outside of Wikipedia, even if this was the intention of the copyright holder. If the correspondent is confused, I often point to en:Wikipedia:CONSENT and may even suggest that CC-BY-SA is the most common well understood license chosen by donors of photographs. Even if they then reply just to say, "yes that is okay with me" without filling in a full statement, I can then verify the image with a suitable license unambiguously by pointing at the correspondence in total. This is never easy to get right, and I always worry that things are getting more confused rather than clarified when a email correspondence becomes more that two emails each way in such a dialogue. -- (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The @ symbol in the email address

I am astonished!!!!!! When copy pasting the form at OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries, the @ symbol turns into a dash with no warning. I know the anti-spam reason for this, but there must be something done about this.

I have just figured out this is happening after accidentally stumbling upon another enwp editor who did the same thing. There must be many such occurrences. Please fix this. Several of my uploads awaiting otrs are now in jeopardy and I am very cross! Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The email address with the @ symbol occurs in two other places on the page, so I am not sure what the point is of the very form that everyone copy pastes having the "dash" magically swapped in. I just tried to change it, but it goes to some template, and that goes to some other template. Please fix this. Thank you kindly, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how... I guess you just have to change the   in a @. Could someone else help? Trijnsteltalk 23:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I see it here. May I boldly change it from permissions-commons --> Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me with the Oversight email. Someone may wish to go through all the WMF pages and check them. I may mention it at wiki meta. * --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Done in this edit. I am still very cross, and frankly shocked that this could have existed so long. I wonder how many hundreds of copy paste letters went out advising to send to a non-existent email address. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is a very bad thing. It is good that you have caught and fixed it though. We may have lost many good images because of it. I wonder why no one has brought it up before. It must have failed for many and they either found the problem or just given up.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So many indeed! I now know of four editors who have had problems and didn't know why. How many others ended with the email never landing and the file being deleted, and that was the end of it?
Another editor and I are now trying to find other language forms and locations using this nospam template, and are indeed discovering them. If you have ideas of how to do this, it would be most helpful.
See also: Commons:Village_pump#A_Huge_Seafood_Smack_to_Commons.21
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a note here: I don't know if it is the correct forum though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Canoe. I think I got everyone mad at me. That's why I never get mad. I'm not good at it. Somehow everyone ends up mad at me. One of the reasons I was upset is not only the loss of images, but the fact that I expected a bunch of editors to say "Holy moly. Yes. Let's work together to track down other places where this nospam is used." But you are the only one. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The @ doesn't turn into a "dash". It vanishes when pasted. My mistake. Pardon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The @ turns into an @ when copied and pasted using some web browsers but vanishes when copied and pasted using other web browsers. For details, see en:Template talk:No spam#Copy & paste bug. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't consider that it could be a browser issue. I guess the important thing now is to track down all of these in all languages and projects and fix them. I just don't know where to start. I Many thanks for any guidance you can give. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know, at Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries, when clicking:

English | français | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | русский | svenska | +/−

...except for English, the problem remains: Copying "" still pastes as "" Please fix this and take it seriously as a problem. What am I missing here? Why doesn't anyone seem to care about this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Luis Losada Pescador.jpg

Good afternoon!

I do not understand why the photo Luis_Losada_Pescador.jpg has been deleted, now the second time, because THE PHOTO IS MINE, I have taken it with my iPhone, so I put it in Wikipedia for everybody because I am the owner.

Please explain to me what I do have to do to mantain that photo in Wikipedia.

Thank you very much for tour useful help. Maria Martinez Lopez

The answer from Zscout370 who deleted the image was:

Get in touch with COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariamartinezlopez (talk • contribs) 2012-08-17T13:00:59 (UTC)
So did you had a look at COM:OTRS? --McZusatz (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did had a look at that link; I have done everything I have found important to have all data of the photo complete. I expect it is now Ok. --Mariamartinezlopez (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted file for which I am a copyright holder

Dear Sirs, My file: ‘Festival_Internacional_de_Benicàssim,_ZENDOME.150_-_©_ZENDOME.jpg has been removed. As suggested, I am writing to you in order to confirm that I am a copyright holder of the file (created the work all by myself with no assistance from anyone else). I would kindly ask you to let me know which steps I should follow so that the file gets restored.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Pratt (talk • contribs) 2012-08-22T10:54:53 (UTC)
You should write an E-Mail to with the file itsellf and a link to here. The problem is that this file seems to be used somewhere els and was deleted in a delation request.--Sanandros (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2008031910023091

Can someone with OTRS access check OTRS ticket #2008031910023091? User:Jameslwoodward wrote on Category:Christian de Portzamparc: “Note that OTRS ticket 2008031910023091 may permit the use of images of buildings designed by this firm.” It would be best of we were sure. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

They seem to cover images on the French Wikipedia which were deleted years ago. Nothing else, but I need a French volunteer for this. Trijnsteltalk 22:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID full

This change resulted in finding a lot of files with PermissionOTRS but no number. --Leyo 09:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Eduardo Lopes File

Moved to COM:HD#Eduardo Lopes File. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition of copyright holder

I think it'd be good to have definition of what a "copyright holder" is somewhere on the page. After all that can not only be the photographer but also someone who has paid a photographer for his services. Say, I'm asking someone to take photos at my wedding and I pay him to do that. In that case I am the copyright holder even though I didn't take the photo. --Timoluege (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You can pay someone for the photographs and\or you can pay someone for transfer of copyrights. However if copyrights were not specifically mention in a written contract with your photographer than you are likely not the copyright holder. It is the same with school pictures of kids, you can by the photos but usually you do not buy copyrights. Technically you might be breaking photographers copyrights if you scan and print extra copies instead of buying them from the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Right. Under US law, works for hire require an employer–employee relationship or a written contract stating that the result will be a work for hire. Most wedding photographers retain the copyright to their works. Also, although I agree that we should do more to inform users about basic copyright concepts and definitions, I'm not sure that the OTRS page is the right place. I did, however, include a bit about what copyright is on Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be freely licensed or public domain (part of our first steps guide) when I rewrote that page. When it comes to OTRS, I think we should avoid overwhelming correspondents with initial instructions and instead focus on ensuring that our OTRS volunteers verify that permissions actually come from the right people. LX (talk, contribs) 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Alannah Myles(2).jpg

(cross posted at OTRS notice board)

The photograher may only wish to licence the low resolution size. Did I annotate it correctly or is there another method. Larger versions are available on the net but shouldn't be used to replace this file.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  Done Moved to noticeboard.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Victoria Donda.jpg

I've done a history check on this image but the licence is not clear. Could someone check image this out based on this edit that contains an OTRS ticket #. Ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Information request

Please see Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2. Volunteers here could help identify the current and possible future role (if any) for OTRS wrt subject-consent rather than photographer-consent. Thanks. Colin (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia by Soulsteer, November 2012.jpg

This picture was totally my creation. I have also sent the official mail to your email id: What more should I do to bring this picture back? Shobhit Gosain (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Bonjour, je voudrais savoir combien de temps environ pour avoir l'autorisation. Nemesis 12 (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Asked them, now what?


I've requested the administration on a photo reporting site to sens a "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" to OTRS team. How can I know that permission was provided so I can start uploading their images? //  Gikü  said  done  Sunday, 27 October 2013 09:07 (UTC)

A pragmatic suggestion, try uploading one example image and add the {{OTRS pending}} template, then send your own email into OTRS with a link to the image and original source, and explain who you asked to send in a statement from. This way the OTRS volunteer should be able to merge your email with the statement and approve the example image (so you will see the image page get a ticket and you should get an email back). Unfortunately there is a delay of more than 30 days right now on some of the email queues, so the image you upload may get deleted and then have to be undeleted. If you feel it has gone on much longer than this, raise a note at COM:OTRS/N asking for a volunteer to search for the ticket (they will need to know the organization or person who will be writing in with a statement). -- (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
How cute, thanks. I guess I'll rather get my North Korean citizenship than understand your bureaucracy. //  Gikü  said  done  Sunday, 27 October 2013 23:42 (UTC)
My apologies, I am unable to help you. Please keep in mind that OTRS volunteers are not paid for their time and did not create the system that we use. -- (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I would like to know how upload "Telecentro.jpg" file to include corresponding tags Commons policies. I await your answer, and thank you very much.

--SMMTC (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Confidentiality disclaimer

After discussion at meta:Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy#Protect_the_volunteers_by_warning_those_who_write_in_that_their_emails_will_be_read_by_anonymous_volunteers a new disclaimer has been created by WMF Legal, I have added this to the introduction, however there are no specific rules about where this should be included; so if anyone wants to improve the formatting this should not be an issue.

Other pages that include email addresses like this should include the same disclaimer unless or until we are advised otherwise by WMF Legal. Thanks -- (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This disclaimer looks very unprofessional... --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. -- (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing licence

Can someone check the history of File:RR side view.jpg? The template {{PD-author}} was removed when the ticket number was added but by the uploader. It looks like a duplicate to me used in a few articles that could be replaced by the enwiki file of the same name w:File:RR side view.jpg also used in a few articles which appears to have the OTRS ticket properly applied. Talkback or fix if possible. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  Done--Jarekt (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Professional contributor needs an OTRS but is confused by our procedures


A professor, but a novice editor, needs help with a relatively important file that several people have been asking for. Please see en:User_talk:RoachPeter#Permission_for_Recording_and_Transcrptions and following threads. The editor is who he says he is, but by his own admission he finds our copyright procedures very confusing. I'm not sure if he or the IPA is the legal copyright holder, but an OTRS ticket should take care of any doubts. His email is enabled, and anyway is posted on his user page, and the email addresses of the people at the IPA he corresponded with were posted on his talk page before I deleted them. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Maalavika Manoj image

I sought permission from singer Maalavika Manoj to use her image. She even mailed commons, following the required criteria. Why is the tag still on the image? I request any admin or OTRS volunteers to check soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Image is tagged now accordingly to notify receipt of OTRS email. OTRS mail lists are bulky and have lots of emails pending. Please don't add to them by writing follow-up emails. Please intimidate us here, if you are really impatient. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok Dharmadhyaksha, I am sorry if anything I did was intimidating or offensive. But the image is still under threat of deletion, even after all the lengths I reached on seeking permission to use it here. What should I do next? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Best way to get permission by physical mail?

I am about to mail a typed letter to a Korean War veteran (read: old) requesting permission for a few photos taken in North Korea. I think I can just scan his reply and send it in to OTRS but I need to know what form is acceptable in this case. Can I just type: [A standard, prewritten, declaration of consent], blah, blah, blah. Insert signature here: .", or does he need to write out his consent in full (bearing in mind that he is, in fact, very old) as is usually the case with email? A very untraditional case, I know. Anything else I need to know? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marcus Qwertyus, there's no need for him to write it out in full, if you ask him to insert his signature that's perfectly fine. Just make sure that the photos in question are clearly and unambigously identified (just listing file names would obviously not be really suitable in this case). Ah, and ideally please provide him with the entire license text, not just the summary. Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, awesome. Good to know. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Can someone check this one to see if the ticket is valid and if so apply the appropriate licence? Ww2censor (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And File:Schweizerische Kadettentage Winterthur 2008 Kochwettkampf.jpg Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Galak-Z GIF 3

Could an OTRS volunteer please look into File:Galak-Z GIF 3.gif? This image is proposed for use in the DYK feature on the EN main page. See EN:Template:Did you know nominations/Galak-Z: The Dimensional. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The best licence and autorisation...


I met a few weeks ago the autor/creatot of a sculpture to ask him if he agrees to let me shot and use the pictures of his work. He's OK. But I want to be sure to make him read the right pages to ensure myself he'll understand well what an OTRS means and to let him use the best licence for my pictures. I've upload a picture of his work a pair of years earlier but I was new on Commons and all the copyright rules were unknown for me so the pic has been deleted. The work was done in 1994 for the bicentenary of the death of a local "heroes" and the autor is still alive (of course I met him !). I've got a date with him in a few and I'd like to give him the good links.

It'll be better if someone can give me the answer in French and the French links because the autor can't read English.

Thanks. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 13:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to publish under a CC license, their deeds are available in many languages, e.g. CC-by-sa 4.0 deed in French. Older license version even have localized versions for different languages, e.g. CC-by-sa 3.0 France. Best regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ChrisiPK (talk · contribs). That's this page I was searching and couldn't find back. Have a nice end of week. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 17:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

They wouldn't dare to upload images by themselves...

Hello. I've got a Flickr member interested in donating a low-res version of one of her photos. If I am willing to upload the image by mzself, so I don't bother the photographer too much, is there a way to authorize her permission by OTRS? Something like "I hereby agree to donate a aaa x bbb px version of this&that photo, under this&that license". Thanks in advance. //  Gikü  said  done  Tuesday, 15 April 2014 21:21 (UTC)

The easiest thing would probably be if she uploaded a low-res version to her Flickr account and set the license on that version to the desired CC license. The image could then be imported from Flickr, see Commons:Flickr_files#Tools. Alternatively she could send the file along with the permission declaration to OTRS ( but be aware that those might take several weeks to be processed. Best regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Images with already existing ticket in OTRS

Hello, imagine a following situation: A certain author has sent a permission to use images from a website and some images from the website are uploaded on Commons. Then, after some time, somebody who knows about this permission but he is not a member of the OTRS team, uploads on Commons another image from the website. What template should be used in such a case? He cannot put there {{OTRS permission}} because he is not a member of the OTRS team. There is not much reason to put there {{OTRS pending}} because the ticket has already arrived. Some info about the original ticket would be handful in order the OTRS team members can find the ticket. Template {{OTRS received}} would be fine but again, only OTRS team members can insert it. Do we have any nice template for such a case? Miraceti (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Disco de Hispavox Spain.jpeg

Please restore the image of mi page "Musica pop latinoamericana", is only a for sale product that get it on the page:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 April 2014‎ (UTC)
As it says right at the top, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:OTRS. It is not the place to request restoration of deleted files. The correct place to do that is Commons:Undeletion requests, but before you do please read the instructions this time. A request like the one above is unlikely to result in undeletion, because you have not provided any reason as to why the deletion was incorrect. LX (talk, contribs) 11:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello I ask to restore this file, as I am the legal owner. This is my own work. Removal was made illegally, without discussion, and in violation of my rights. AlexTref871 (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain, what is the source of the river map you used. It is too realistic to be made from scratch. Ankry (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I redraw the river. The map can be placed?​ AlexTref871 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Lisa Kewley.jpg

This image has been deleted, but I sent permission information to OTRS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Imagenes eliminadas

A quien corresponda:«OTRS»

Por este conducto externo mi amable petición, sobre la restitución de las imágenes subidas por el redactor (HMPicazo), las cuales me fueron proporcionadas por el autor Arturo Castañeda Montes de Oca para alimentar el portal Wikicommons bajo la cuenta ya anteriormente mencionada.

Preciso que el pasado 21 de agosto del 2014 fueron borradas o eliminadas, estamos conscientes que dentro de este proceso cometimos errores que se fueron arreglando durante la marcha, así como enviamos dos emails a con información en la cual el autor de las mismas, mediante un documento escrito y firmado, me autoriza para hacer uso y/o modificación de ellas, así como ser sustituidas de diferentes medios de publicación online en las cuales el figure como autor, cumpliendo en tiempo y forma dentro del plazo establecido en el ultimo aviso.

En cuestiones de licencia y permisos estas fueron modificadas para no caer en incongruencias o lagunas en el ámbito legal y de operación, que pudiesen ser sancionadas por los mismos administradores de este portal, debidos a errores de redacción.

Las imágenes manejaban un texto de licencia redactado por los nosotros dando base y fundamento en las normas establecidas en la licencia Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) y con las salvedades también previstas por la misma licencia en su apartado de excepciones y limitaciones al derecho de autor, cuales no se ven afectados en ninguna de sus figuras ya sean en esta versión o anteriores (3.0,2.0, etc).

Las imagenes afectadas o eliminadas son las siguientes:

  • File:Edgar armando gonzález rojas Convenio Infonavit (1).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(131).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(130).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (124).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (123).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (122).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (120).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (119).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (118).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (117).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(111).JPG
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(110).JPG
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(109).JPG
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzalez Rojas - 4.jpg
  • File:Edgar armando gonzáles rojas -6.jpg
  • File:Edgar armando gonzález rojas -7.jpg
  • File:Edgar armando gonzález rojas -8.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(106).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(105).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(101).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(99).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(95).JPG
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (81).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas (80).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(77).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(75).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(74).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(73).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(72).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(71).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(70).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(69).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(64).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(63).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(61).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(60).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(59).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(58).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas -(57).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 56.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 54.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 53.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 52.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 51.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 49.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 48.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 47.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 46.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 45.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando González Rojas 44.jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(43).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(42).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(41).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(40).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(39).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(38).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(37).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(36).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(35).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(34).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(33).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(32).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(31).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(30).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(28).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(29).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(27).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(26).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(25).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(23).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(22).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(21).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(20).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(19).jpg
  • File:Edgar Armando Gonzáles Rojas -(18).jpg
  • File:EDGAR ARMANDO GONZÁLEZ ROJAS.jpg(Imagen trabajadas conjuntamente y de la cual compartimos coautoría)

Agradeceríamos de antemano su apoyo, después de exponer nuestro caso en ayudarnos informándonos cuales son los siguientes recursos o pasos a seguir para que estas imagenes sean restituidas al portal ya antes citado y sin mas por el momento quedo de ustede(s)

HMPicazo(talk) 12:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


It seems FredD needs some help from an OTRS volunteer. Jee 02:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks ! FredD (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help me clarify the practice of OTRS

Hi Wikimedians on Commons,

I am a member of Wikimedia Taiwan. Right now there are some donation of contents reached to us. We are trying to use OTRS, but I am confused on certain details of the practice. I am listing the issues below:

1. We are dealing with a case which the owner of the donation is an elder. It's very hard to ask him use the OTRS directly because he does not have an email. Is it possible to scan the OTRS the mail of the printing version and from Wikimedia Taiwan to the OTRS team?

2. If there is a legitimate document that is compatible with CC BY-SA for the donation document, is it necessary to use the OTRS to make the donation process?

Thank you for the reply. --Shangkuanlc (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You can print a document which is than signed by the author, scanned by you and send to OTRS. I am not sure I understand your second question, so ask again if I missed it. The English example permission at Commons:OTRS#Note is just an example, you should use one in the language familiar to the person signing it (Commons:OTRS/zh-hant or Commons:OTRS/zh-hans might be a better starting point?). You can also write your own text as long as it has all the elements mentioned in Commons:OTRS#Note, including: Which photographs are covered, statement that you are the author or the copyright holder, and what specific license you would like to use (has to be compatible with Commons, so no CC-by-nc etc.). --Jarekt (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


The technocratic nature of this page has bothered me for quite some time. I did a major rewrite of the page two years ago, so that readers wouldn't be required to already understand what was being explained in order to understand the explanation. Perhaps the most glaring act of newbie biting is in the title of the page. So you've figured out that you need to submit a licensing permission statement? Well done! Looking for the page on how to do that? COM:OTRS, duh! What's this page about? OTRS, duh!

Throwing ETLAs around like it's confetti never makes for readable text, and when it stands for something the reader doesn't care about, it's doubly insulting. The reader of this page doesn't care if e-mails are processed with Open-source Ticket Request System, Mutt or a steam engine powered by the heat of a thousand slowly decomposing cheese curds.

When talking about OTRS (the function) as opposed to OTRS (the tool), I usually try to describe it in terms of our permission archive (pipe linked like so). Even so, I too am guilty of assaulting newbies with the four-letter page name in help desk replies and elsewhere. It would probably happen less often if it weren't the name of the darn page.


  • Am I the only one who thinks that OTRS is a horribly cryptic term that we should use less if at all?
  • What would be a better name for this page? Something along the lines of "permission archive"? Something along the lines of "Volunteer Response Team" (as used by English Wikipedia and a few other projects)? Something else?
  • If we decide to migrate away from the term, what would need to be changed, and what's a reasonable migration plan? It would involve this page, the noticeboard, a bunch of templates and probably a handful of high profile help pages.

LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the term "Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team" (or WVRT :)) used in lieu of OTRS, for the same reasons we don't call Commons MediaWiki either. However, a rename would have to happen globally (logo, …), and thus should be suggested on meta. Here on Commons, I think it would make sense to separate info about the permissions procedure (including COM:ET; could be moved to COM:PERMISSION and replace its current content) from the general description of the OTRS team (= the intro of this page; could be moved to COM:VRT).    FDMS  4    20:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, IMHO I would support a name that moves away from acronyms altogether but WVRT looks and sounds OK. What we need to do is look at this from the POV of a newbie. What is confusing for them and what could be improved? On a sidenote I find it amusing that both of your usernames are acronym-like. LOL, TTFN. :) Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I was serious – newbies usually don't read project talkspace discussions. The full titles of the two pages should of course be Commons:Permissions and Commons:Volunteer Response Team.    FDMS  4    21:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Do you feel like adding the date when this system started? It was after some of the images I added with CC licences. THis is a problem which will recur, and I suggest avoiding discarding things as we die or lose interest. 22:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Eight Two Four Three Two Five Zero Two Four Nine! You may be looking for Commons:Grandfathered old files. LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Implement automated responses

  Comment Now activated for 3 queues: permissions, permissions-en and permissions-commons. --Krd 08:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thennappan photo

As stated at the top, this talk page is intended for discussing improvements to Commons:OTRS. Enquiries that need the attention of OTRS members should be made at the OTRS noticeboard. This topic has been moved there. LX (talk, contribs) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Upload Wizard

There is an OTRS related proposal at Village pump/Proposals. Jee 11:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In the nutshell

I would like to propose to add

. Any comments or modifications? --Jarekt (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  Support makes sense. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest to change "Permissions has t" to "Permissions has t" --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree, I modified it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  Done --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

File:"L'Angélique" - Branne.jpg

This file had been deleted two times for a missing OTRS permission, but Mrs. Bezy had prepared it (i’ve got a mail with the authorization on October 4, 2015), but she maybe had forgot to send it to the OTRS. I’ve transfered the authorization to the french team of the OTRS. Could someone can check it and restaure the file?
Also, i believe the authorizations for the three files listed after need to be re-checked (i believe Mr. Koch have told that he limite the authorization to an eventual re use of his pics only for Wikipedia, except if another authorization had been sent to the OTRS since) : File:"Maersk Navigator" - Singapore, 1993.jpg, File:"Nagasaki Spirit" - Singapore, 1993.jpg and File:"Seawise Giant" - Singapore, 1990.jpg.
Good day. --Lev. Anthony (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Replace [ticket...] by OTRS template

Hello, i'd like to do replacements like this. Does that make sense? --Arnd (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, {{permissionOTRS}} should only be added by OTRS members who by doing so confirm that the ticket is a valid permission statement.    FDMS  4    13:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My edit today

Was made per this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Simplifying the instructions

Here we can see there is indeed a confusion among people on how to proceed and handle a permission. Though what mentioned in email template is " [web page of the content] or [in the attached images/text]", people think the files need to be uploaded to Commons first and linked to those URLs in Commons. (I think the "/text" is a copy paste error from Wikipedia as Commons don't handle texts.) I tried to update the instructions as how I read and agree with AFBorchert in that ANU discussion. As Grin questioned my edit in my talk, I'm moving it here for a better discussion.

Moved from my talk


Your modification changes the process. The problem with your new order is that OTRS will contain a permission for an image which is not yet uploaded into Commons: basically OTRS agents cannot do anything about it. It obviously cannot contain the URL of the image the permission is valid for since the image is not yet uploaded, so it's extremely hard to identify the image, especially after a while since we don't know when it'll be uploaded.

I propose to keep the original order of

  1. talk to the copyright owner
  2. upload the image, otrs pending
  3. ask the owner to write to permisssions@ (and include the URL)
  4. OTRS agents match up the permission and the image
  5. or if 30 days have passed admins remove the image.

The other way it'd be really uncomfortable for the OTRS agents. --grin 21:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi grin, thanks for the post. I'm happy to discuss and you are free to revert if you prefer so. Let me make my points. 1. See the wording of Template:OTRS pending: "An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS." It is "has been sent"; not "will be" or "may have if the copyright holder will not change his mind". 2. What the emai required is a link to the web page of the content or images as attachment. It doesn't require a link to Commons where the files are uploaded. In fact, such files will be speedy deleted even before the copyright holder a get a chance to see it. Even if they see it and included the link in the permission mail, it will be deleted before the OTRS volunteer process it. The current backlog is more than 50 days whereas we can keep a copyvio only for 7 days here. The 30 day allowance is only for if we get a mail and is not fully processed so far.
I'm inviting KDS4444 too as it was he who updated the pages recently after I left OTRS. I think now OTRS has an auto-reply with ticket number. If true the copyright holder can mention it using {{OTRS received|id=NNN|reason=1}} which may be more helpful if the copyright holder is planned to upload as instructed at Template:Email_templates/Consent/en note 4. Jee 04:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply!
This have been raised on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Jcb where I have tried to figure out what's currently expected; as it turned out there has been a disagreement between the OTRS template and the OTRS guidelines: the original guidelines told:
“1. Before you upload the file to Commons, please identify and contact the copyright holder and ask him or her to release the work under a free license.
The copyright holder must choose one of the licenses permitted on Commons; in particular, restricting use to Wikipedia or Wikimedia projects is not acceptable. See Commons:Email templates for a recommended reply from the author.

2. When you receive a reply, please check that the license authorized by the copyright holder is appropriate to Commons. If so, upload the image to Commons and place the tag {{subst:OP}} ("OTRS Pending") on the file description page in addition to the license chosen by the copyright holder. 3. Following this, ask the author to forward the email with their clear statement of permission to, including the full header and any previously exchanged correspondence with you, and a link to the image on Commons. Make sure to ask the author to include information on the origin (source) of the file and its license.

4. An OTRS volunteer will check the email to verify that the permission statement is sufficient and authentic, and will then replace the {{OTRS pending}} tag with <nowiki>{{PermissionOTRS}}.”
This wording is pretty clear:
  1. You talk to the holder and convince him/her to release under a free license
  2. The copyright holder acknowledges his/her intent to use a specific license; you check the authority and if all works out upload w/ pending
  3. Ask the author to email the boilerplate signed into OTRS, including the reference of the image
  4. OTRS agent checks the permission statement, and acks the image; agent puts image on delete/speedy if it doesn't checks well
  5. Within a period the image gets deleted if no email, no agent processing or whatever misalignment happens.
The new wording definitely changes this process, since it now requires permissions beforehand. I do not remember any case in the past where we have asked ©holder to send image as an attachment, it happens very rarely, and I am not sure that even OTRS admins would take this involuntary image backup method happily. If someone would have asked my opinion I would have voted against such process, both as commons admin and as OTRS agent.
Input from others are most welcome, and probably this debate should be moved to a more proper public place then.
Thanks! --grin 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
May I move this to Commons talk:OTRS? Jee 07:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Jee 08:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ideally the upload and sending the permission to OTRS should be done at the same time. That's what I try to do when I upload myself files requiring a permission. We should absolutely avoid uploading files before contacting the copyright owner. Otherwise, since there is a backlog of about 50 days, it doesn't matter much if the files are uploaded before the permission arrives at OTRS, and that is what usually happens. My 2 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem with OTRS permission is the back-log, ideally all administrators would have access (if they wanted it) and dozens of our most active and experienced users would be recruited, actively encouraged by the administrators to join and deal with permissions. I strongly suspect the back-log is a major deterrent to others who wish to work in securing content from external parties. Nick (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The recent change (Special:Diff/238366189) is IMO not in line with the process. I suggest to revert this immediately. --Krd 11:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted it as such changes shall be discussed first. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Yann, i.e. {{OTRS pending}} is to be used only if an email has already been sent to the OTRS team or is sent immediately after uploading the file. The important point is that an upload must not be done without a valid permission by the copyright holder. And if this permission is present, it can be forwarded right away to the support team. The support team is then free to contact the copyright holder and verify the permission. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry for the trouble. My understanding was that a wiki page (non-policy) can be edited as far as the intention was good.) IMO, that section was too outdated. Now I checked the system with a test mail and I got an automated reply with an OTRS ticket (Ticket#:2017040210006853). So I suggest to replace the use of {{subst:OP}} with {{OTRS received|id=[Ticket#]|reason=1}}. Jee 12:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
A sample automatically generated response with a ticket number for those who don't know how the system works

Dear <name>,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2017040210006853].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team

What I understood from AFBorchert's comment is that a forwarded permission is enough for him and it is up to the OTRS volunteer whether or not to contact the copyright holder for confirmation. On the other side, Jameslwoodward seems he will not accept licenses that are forwarded by the uploader. We need a consensus and it should be mentioned in our instructions. In any instance, there is no meaning in asking the uploader again for a permission as it is insulting. We should either believe the uploader (which is against COM:PRP) or instruct the user to ask the copyright holder to CC the reply to permissions (as in my edit). Feel free to give a better instruction without diluting Commons's policies. Jee 14:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not agree with the statement by Jameslwoodward and I have already responded to that point. The important point is that we shall not invite anyone to upload copyrighted works by others without permission to Commons. When the permission is present, the photo can be uploaded and the permission forwarded at the same time. This is in itself not sufficient to tag an image with {{PermissionOTRS}} but allows the processing OTRS member to get in contact with the copyright holder and to wait until the permission is confirmed. This is OTRS practice since I am OTRS member (since 2009). --AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I can accept that practice (Commons user forwarding the mail he received and uploading the files mentioned) for the sake of a waiting for the original permission from the copyright holder. As the auto acknowledgement is implemented, the user can mention the ticket number he received too as I mentioned above (using {{OTRS received|id=[Ticket#]|reason=1}}). But a mail directly from the copyright holder is needed for {{PermissionOTRS}}. Both the the tickets from the uploader and copyright holder can be merged. Hope the page will be updated with these instructions when the discussion is over. Jee 14:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, it is usually the OTRS member who processes a ticket who gets in contact with the copyright holder. There is no necessity to require the uploader to ask the copyright holder to open a second ticket. In many cases there are additional questions by the OTRS member to the copyright holder which are best sent directly. It is also not uncommon to chose another email address of the copyright holder (for example from the contact address of the associated web site instead of a generic gmail address). --AFBorchert (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No objections. But see what is written at Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder #3 now (after the revert). Jee 16:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that we are not confusing each other here. My strong belief is that an OTRS ticket cannot rely only on an e-mail that has been sent by the licensor to the uploader and then sent on to OTRS by the uploader. I am sorry to say that I have seen far too many very credible liars on Commons to accept something that can so easily be forged. If we accept such e-mails, we might as well accept the uploader's assertion at the DR or UnDR that "I have the permission of the copyright holder".

However, I have no problem with the uploader forwarding a permission e-mail to OTRS and then having the OTRS agent sending a note to the licensor confirming that the license is authentic. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

From the current case I have to mention that there is significant distinction between "having the copyright owner agreed in releasing under a free license" and "having the copyright owner sent the official legally prepared template to the official address". Our real-world cases usually go the following:

  • Wikipedia editor edits articles about someone, no free imagery available
  • Wikipedia editor contacts entity possessing imagery of the given person, and in conversation tries to convince them to release the media under a free license
  • When the owner have been convinced (in email exchange, no legally proper terms "signed"), usually the editor - in possession of the "informal" permission - uploads the image. (Often this goes along the line "do whatever you want to with the image".)
    • This is where the process have ended 10 years before; we have archived the permission and went on. Then came Commons. :-)
  • Wikipedia editor enter OTRS pending template to prevent deletion of the media which have been permitted to be distributed under a free license, but only informally
  • Wikipedia editor patiently but firmly, usually repeatedly asks the copyright owner to send the authorisation template to permissions-* and him/her at the same time. Sometimes this is so futile that they ask them to simply reply and later the editor him/herself forwards the email to permissions-*. The template contains the URL of the images in question (sometimes, or contains various weird ways to describe them)
  • OTRS agent see the email, and try to find the referenced images. If they're commons/wiki URLs s/he's lucky; often it requires serious investigation which file the permission is related to
  • Seeing OTRS pending in the image helps a lot to know that "this is it".
  • OTRS agent changes pending to permitted+id. Case closed.

So the image is usually uploaded when the copyright owner agreed the license (I confess the reason possibly and mainly to assure that they will indeed send the legal crap as well), but not yet filled out the legal form mail. OTRS agents here around usually don't have the resources to convince copyright owners (often in seriously senior age or very computer illiterate) to fill the form which they probably don't quite comprehend, but legally required. So that's the real-life process for now, for some cases. Maybe some countries have plenty of energic OTRS agents who hunt for permissions; we have the agents who try to process them at least. Reversing the process would mean more load on the OTRS agents who are a bit of rare resources. --grin 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Uploading the file before or later it doesn't matter really. If you upload them before sending the mail to OTRS (or obtaining the permission) you can place {{subst:OP}} to avoid immediate deletion. If you upload after sending the email, you can place {{OTRS received|id=[Ticket#]|reason=1}}, but expect the OTRS operator to ask you for the URL. And of course, having the uploader forwarding the permission is perfectly fine, as long as the operator checks that it is legit (use the "Plain format" button, CC the copyright holder in the answer, etc.). --Ruthven (msg) 14:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
grin, I can understand your concerns as I had seen many old uploads now transferred to Commons without any formal permissions. And I don't wish them deleted. But we need to improve our system up-to today's demands; we can't encourage to continue the old practices. We can't accept "do whatever you like" permissions. That's why we have a formal email template now. So the helping volunteer needs to forward the email format to the copyright holder and the copyright holder should reply with a formal acceptance. The reply can be 1. to the helping volunteer or 2. to the permissions or 3. to both. In case 1 and 3, the helping volunteer wish to upload the media to assist further. My understanding from AFBorchert's comment above is that the helping volunteer can upload the media and place Template:OTRS pending on it. But in case 1, the helping volunteer needs to forward the existing mails to permissions to prove that a permission (even informal) already granted. Then the OTRS volunteer can contact the copyright holder, make enough clarifications (per Jim) and close the ticket as confirmed. For case 2, the copyright holder can upload the media or the OTRS volunteer will assist the copyright holder.
Anyway, after the auto-response is implemented, the helping volunteer or copyright holder have the ticket number with them. Krd stated that non-OTRS volunteers should not use {{OTRS received|id=[Ticket#]|reason=1}}. So I made a proposal to update Template:OTRS pending to add provision for ticket number in it. Hope this will solve half of the issues as the OTRS volunteer need not search anymore to find ticket for a file. I'm open to any further suggestions. Jee 04:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
There were many useful thoughts there, thanks. Let me summarise:
  • We ask the helping volunteers that when they have a permission, formal or else, they should send it to the OTRS before uploading, and in case of informal ones also include a note that the formal one is underway.
  • We can ask the volunteer to specify the image as much as possible, even if after uploading by an email of the URL to the same OTRS ticket. That could work well (volunteers are aware how the upload works).
  • We definitely should accept the permission forwarded by the helper, while kindly asking that if at all possible the original should be CC'd to the OTRS instead (and emphasize that subject should contain the OTRS ticket number).
  • We should gather the list of the templates to be used and write a short description about which one should be used when, and by whom. --grin 08:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed!!! Jee 08:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi grin, I spend some time on your comment and suggesting a solution for it by slightly modifying your suggestions.
  • We ask the helping volunteers that when they have a permission form the copyright holder, formal or else, they should send it to the OTRS immediately after uploading the work to Commons. (In case of informal ones, include a note that the formal one is underway.) We can ask the volunteer to specify the image name or URL that they uploaded to Commons in the mail they send.
  • We can ask the helping volunteer to add Template:OTRS pending (or Template:OTRS autoresponded proposed by Jeff G. whichever community is going to accept) with the ticket number that they received in the auto-response on the file(s) that they uploaded to Commons. If they didn't receive an auto-response, they still can add Template:OTRS pending without the ticket number.
  • We definitely should accept the permission forwarded by the helper, while kindly asking that if at all possible the original should be CC'd to the OTRS instead (and emphasize that subject should contain the OTRS ticket number).
  • For forwarded mails, the processing OTRS volunteer will contact the copyright holder for a confirmation confirmation.
Please give your suggestions. Jee 13:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "OTRS/Archive 1".