From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
OTRS Noticeboard
Welcome to the OTRS Noticeboard

This Wikimedia Commons page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers, or OTRS volunteers with one another. You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 60 days  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2012, 2013, 2014
Filing cabinet icon.svg

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

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

Shortcut: COM:ON


Проверьте пожалуйста данные файлы и укажите на ошибки, недавно только начал загружать: File:3j982jyGpqU.jpg, File:Гимн ФК Кайрат.ogg, File:Alibek Buleshev.jpg, File:C.stadium.jpg, File:Евгений Яровенко.jpg, File:ELmnDmrGwgA.jpg, File:PyAjY0 j23k.jpg, File:UMqxclZLt9U.jpg и File:Masudov3.jpg. --Адлет Талгатбек 22:08, 18 Июня 2014 (UTC+6)

As far as I can tell with my limited Russian and Google Translate, this is a request to check for permission emails and, if there are any, to specify what should be done to fix them and get the files restored. Anybody with OTRS access willing to take a peek? Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Klokus[edit]

The file descriptions for following files contain some pretty unlikely claims even though they've supposedly been vetted:

All of these are claimed to have been created by the subjects of the photos, but the photos don't look like selfies, and there is no metadata to indicate that they were taken using a timer release or remote control. What steps have been taken to ensure that the permission came from the right person and that the correct person is attributed as the author? LX (talk, contribs) 11:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might want to take a look at tickets associated with the following accounts, as they are all confirmed sockpuppets:
LX (talk, contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Pinyaev[edit]

Просьба восстановить файлы:

* File:Bas-Armagnac Chаteau d'Esperance 10 ans.jpg
  • File:Bas-Armagnac Chаteau d'Esperance Les Tresors de d'Artagnan 1968.jpg
  • File:Ба Арманьяк Лабердолив 1904.jpg
  • File:Ба-Арманьяк Домен Жоанда.jpg

разрешение на использование файла получено тикет #2014082210006395


просьба восстановить файл, я являюсь автором данного изображения и создавал его специально для статьи в Википедии. Спасибо.

я добавить разрешение на трех файлов. Eitan96 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Relevant deletion discussion. @INeverCry: why were some but not all of these files removed? Anyone with OTRS access, what does ticket #2014082210006395 cover? Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I deleted all 6 files. 3 were later restored by Steinsplitter via OTRS. INeverCry 18:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:CourtCase MurderOf Premakeerthi.pdf[edit]

I flagged this up as missing permission but apparently permission has been given via OTRS (ticket). I would like to make sure that the permission was received from the author of the document, the Sri Lankan court which heard the case, and not the individual who photographed/scanned the document.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, the owner of the ticket. Green Giant (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the claim of permission and it is not perfectly clear. I sent an email to the person providing the permission, asking for clarification.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The person providing the permission did respond that the individual was the creator of the scan, not the underlying documents. However, they went on to say:

The document is a publicly available/released judgement document issued by the High Court of Colombo. I can request a letter of verification from the Department of Justice of Sri Lanka where High Court is a part of. (

Will this be sufficient, or should we ask for such a letter, or is something else needed?--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Many public documents are available for public inspection. That does not mean Commons has permission from the copyright holder to use them. My view is that we need confirmation, ideally via an official e-mail address, from the Ministry of Justice saying that we have permission to use the document and they release it with an appropriate license.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I passed that request along.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


FYI: a discussion about rewording the PermissionOTRS template has been started at Template_talk:PermissionOTRS#Clarify_the_second_sentence. whym (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


File:Pierre Ducasse 2013.jpg is a photograph by professional photographer Mathieu Rivard, who in 2013 took photos of writers with the publishing house VLB in Canada. The photographer retains the copyright, as an example can be seen on this page:, where the copyright notice of Mathieu Rivard is seen in the bottom left corner. It is not a self-portrait by the subject. It is obviously one of the photos from the shooting session made by Mathieu Rivard.

The problem is that the description page mentions only a correspondence with the subject of the photo (Pierre Ducasse). That leaves a doubt about if the declaration is from the photographer and is thus valid.

It is perhaps possible that the subject may have been given copies of photos and allowed to make some use of them. However, it seems unlikely that the subject would be allowed by the photographer to release them under a free license. Although it is possible in theory, it is something that requires at least a clear proof of consent by the photographer.

Can you please confirm that the contents of ticket 2014081910022212 actually proves a declaration of the free licence by the photographer, Mathieu Rivard?

Thanks, -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The eMail is from the "[a]ppointed representative of Pierre Ducasse" and it only contains the standard eMail template. Ping User:Utcursch.    FDMS  4    16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That's right. The uploader/sender didn't mention that the photographer is Mathieu Rivard. I was under the impression that this image was taken at Pierre Ducasse's office. I've marked the image accordingly, and informed the sender. Utcursch (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Files updated by FredD[edit]

Hello, this account is shared by many different scientific photographers. We would like to know if the OTRS mails sent by Philippe Bourjon (for >700 pictures) and Elisabeth Morcel (>50) has been received, so we can call a bot to put the proper template. Thanks ! FredD (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ticket:2014091710035746. Reply sent. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Green Giant, could you tell a bot to modify all the pictures I uploaded under the name "Philippe Bourjon" ? There must be around 700 of them (all scientific pictures of sea creatures from Reunion island). Thank you very much ! FredD (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
FredD, did you mean to ask Mdann52? Green Giant (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz advised me to ask you, but anybody who can will be ok. FredD (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Fatimah Calligraphy.png[edit]

I'm noticing a message in File:Fatimah Calligraphy.png saying that the permission has not been received by the Commons OTRS team. But I'm sure about it and I've sent the mentioned mail Aug 28, 2014 at 8:53 AM, as my mail sent items box says. I've got some questions:

  • Should I send it once again?
  • As the creator of this file, I've presented a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license for the file. I can't understand why should I send such an email to say I am the copyright holder and I let every one use this file according to the license conditions! I've said it already by the license! Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


I am writing regarding:

On September 25th, 2014 I uploaded the three images and I also sent the following notice, granting permission to use the images:

-- Dear Wikimedia Permissions Team,


(1) (2) (3)

... please see the email forward below.


Forwarded message: From: <> Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:41 PM Subject: Soles Of Passion Autho, Info, & attachments To:

I hereby affirm that I represent Passion Music, LLC the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached photo, and graphic logo images. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Steven Wolfe Managing Member Passion Music, LLC September 11, 2014

On September 27, 2014, EugeneZelenko deleted the photos on the premise of "Copyright violation; see Commons:Commons:Licensing: Promo photo."

I have sent a request that the photos be undeleted and would appreciate feedback as to whether the backlog of 60 days that you advise about on this page is the reason the statement I forwarded hasn't had effect, or is there another problem? Personally, I think there should be process that assumes the photo was posted in good faith before it's deleted - which was the case in this situation where there is clearly permission from the copyright owner to yield those rights to Wikimedia Commmons and Wikipedia.

Also, I am troubled that there's actually a "barnstar" for deleting images. Where can a suggestion be made that this be replaced with a "barnstar" for those that want to delete images but make an effort to reconcile what is sent to or to give contributors the benefit of the doubt before the deletion is made? It seems a "barnstar" for deleting images without making an effort to help reconcile these issues FIRST isn't in very good faith and could engender the wrong motivation. Not always, but maybe from time-to-time?

Please advise.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)