Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:OTRS(Redirected from OTRS/Noticeboard)
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: 46 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, 2015
Filing cabinet icon.svg

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

Translate this header
OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages
Commons discussion pages (index)


Shortcut: COM:ON


Should CCBYSA be removed from this recent scan of an 1885 French photograph?[edit]

The file Esprit Jouffret.jpg [1] is marked CC-BY-SA (per OTRS ticket #2014081810018327), however that file is a scan of the underlying photograph, which was taken in 1885 and therefore should be in the public domain. Since the scan does not add originality/authorship, shouldn't the file be marked as public domain-expired too?

There is a nod to this in the file's source: "Scan of the original photograph Photo de famille. Tombée dans le domaine public, pas de droits d'auteurs / date 1885." Google translates "Tombée dans le domaine public" as "fallen into the public domain."

Can we update the license on this file to PD? Thanks. --Bradleee

Who was the photographer and in which year did he die? --Krd 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Unsure who the photographer was (though the file does indicate that it was a "family photo"). My question was more about internal consistency: some data about the photo explicitly says (albeit in French) that it is PD, while it is also tagged CC-BY-SA. Both can't be correct. Is there a way to dig into OTRS and see whether they addressed this issue in the initial review? --Bradleee
French speaker required. --Krd 22:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: please could you have a look at this? Green Giant (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the date, there is little doubt that the author is dead for more than 70 years (born around 1860 or before). IMO the license should be {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-old-70}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
In the EU the first publisher of a previously unpublished work is entitled to a 25 year publication right, even if the original copyright term has expired. If this is a family photo that has never previously been made available to the public, it is possible that the upload by the contributor to Commons is the first publication of the photo, and as such the scan will not be PD in France until January 1, 2038. I don't think we can remove the CC-BY-SA license without details about the publication and exhibition history of this photo. However, if we know the original photographer has been dead for 70 years, the license could probably be changed to {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-70|Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}. —RP88 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Farid Bang image[edit]

Could someone please double-check permission for this file: File:Farid_Bang_2013.jpg; TicketNumber=2013020710007443. May be in German. --Rayukk (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Krd: who handled that ticket. Green Giant (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I suppose the requested double check shall be done by someone who did not handle the ticket? --Krd 22:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanjose1956[edit]

Estimados Señores OTRS

Por lo que me informo Eugenio Zelenko , envie mail con los datos solicitados para la reposición de las fotograias sibidas por mi

Mi mail es juanjose19562014@gmail.com

Esperando su respuesta a los mail enviados Saluda a ustedes --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Juanjose1956: No vale reenviar el mensaje por mútiples veces. Encontré el mensaje y solicité que las fotografías se restauren. Anon126 ( ) 07:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know Spanish :-( Could you please clarify, did you ask somebody for files restoration of you need help with that? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I restored images, but OTRS ticket still need to be added and deletion template removed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Anon y Eugenio , muchas gracias y espero seguir contribuyendo a su distinguida enciclopedia en forma correcta


--Juanjose1956 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 No hecho : Deseo notar que esto no ya se ha resuelto. Existe otra discusión en Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanjose1956 y User talk:Anon126#fotografías subidas por mi. No sé cómo proceder en este caso; por eso pido que otros lo repasen.
 Not done : I wish to note that this has not yet been resolved. There is other discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanjose1956 and User talk:Anon126#fotografías subidas por mi. I don't know how to proceed in this case, so I ask that others review it.
Anon126 ( ) 07:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Status of 2014051410017493[edit]

Hi! A set of 46 photos were uploaded in 2014 by two users (Ombra + Mazzarò), sourced with http://www.divisionecalcioa5.it/ (links). Could somebody please checkup on ticket:2014051410017493 and see if it is applicable?. Thx in advance. Gunnex (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There were two separate tickets (combined into the above ticket number) but it will require an Italian agent. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
My sensei Delfort may explain the status better than me :) --Ombra (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Pinned (to prevent archiving). Gunnex (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Keeani Lei[edit]

(ping: FredWalsh)
Some of the photos in Category:Keeani Lei carry an OTRS ticket, but it seems a bit strange that Keeani Lei is the author of these professional looking photos. Some of them are fairly small or cropped from larger shots like File:Keeani Lei 3.jpg and the shots at porno run. Could an OTRS person check if the ticket is correct? I don't know the ticket number because there just seem to be links. FredWalsh (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The ticket is 2007081810007834. Ownership of the copyright in at least some of those images was asserted in 2007 by Keeani Lei, with a view to them being used in Keeani Lei, an article since deleted as being about a non-notable person. Although I don't see any reason to doubt the identity of the person purporting to grant the licence, I very much doubt that she understood the copyright issues at all. Certainly, there was no discussion about how she came to be entitled to release the photographer's copyright. I would suggest putting those images that rely on OTRS permission up for deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Michael. FredWalsh (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Land Rover Desert Sunset.jpg[edit]

I contacted Land Rover to confirm the license on this this image, through email <crcmena@landrover.com> and this form. I told them to reply at <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>. Can I know if an email has been received by the OTRS volunteers? --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 10:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fauzan: Nothing has yet been received. When it is, an OTRS volunteer will attach a link to the permission to the file description page. Out of curiosity, what about the image made you disbelieve the stated license? Nothing appears suspicious about the Flickr account, which by all evidence is held by the Land Rover company. Huntster (t @ c) 10:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Huntster, This discussion. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 13:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I would ask to a OTRS volunteer to send the first email to have more change to a properly answer and to have a more clear ticket and do be deleted by a volunteer as a spam...
Fauzan, could to share with us the content of your email?
And Huntster, of course that is hold by Land Rover, we not even close to this discussion, the point is, this Flickr account have the copyright ownership of this photos? The Land Rover UK holds the trademark and copyright of Land Rover, and they do not release their photos under a free licence [2]... So LR MEDA is authorized to do? -- RTA 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even fully convinced Land Rover MENA is an official account of a subsidiary. The website link provided on the profile page doesn't even work. LX (talk, contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
So convince yourself: [3] click at the Flickr logo on top...
The problem remains at the photo, if we take one image under cc-by and googling it [4] it will apear in some websites...
In other hand, some photos, as this one, nothing appears that looks like a local thing... -- RTA 19:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Fauzan, thanks for the explanation. RTA, I don't understand the "nothing appears that looks like a local thing", considering the vehicle in the photograph carries a Dubai license plate. Huntster (t @ c) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any ticket about this at the moment. However, Land Rover has a set of a regional options, from which you can select Middle_East/North_Africa, United_Arab_Emirates and English. This takes you to LandRover-ME.com, where there is a set of links at the bottom to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Youtube. If you go to the Youtube page and select the tab there is a further set of links including one to the Flickr account in question. It is a tenuous link though, because it would help if the Flickr link was on the website rather than Youtube. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Here you go,

--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Huntster, what I mean was, if you search some images the result don't let us to another websites, in this case, the can produce this content, and maybe some of this images are property of Land Rover MEDA. But, this is not valid to all of images...
Just a thought, as they already have made available images under a cc-by, can be a opportunity to really talk to Land Rover and ask they to free their images, exposing all the benefits of a free license.
Fauzan A little bit confuse, some mistakes, as Wikimedia Commons is not the repository for the Wikimedia sites... this is just one small use, and they don't need to send the full OTRS email, they already have a third-part confirmation, the Flickr, we are just checking. And for future records, 2 links are essential: About Wikimedia Commons, and another a link to the license used. In theory they now were this images are, and too many links can be a problem.
My suggestion (a raw and poor English one :P):
Dear all,
My name is xxx, I am a volunteer of Wikimedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome>, a community responsible for one of the biggest on-line repositories of free works <http://freedomdefined.org/Definition>, and part of Wikimedia Movement, that includes Wikipedia.
We would like to confirm if the images available at Land Rover MEDA on Flickr are licensed under CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/> allowing the free share and adapt. If it is, could you pleas send a confirmation email to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>, the implication of that, as this are one of the compatibles licenses, we could import the images to the Wikimedia Commons, allowing, for example, the illustration of Land Rover articles at Wikipedia.
Thank you for your time and if you have any question, let me know.
XXX
NOTE:We already can use as we want, all the implications of CC-by are already on, so we don't need explain the CC-by, unless they ask; -- RTA 05:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy if one of our volunteers sent the email. Here is my attempt at improving the language a bit.

--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 07:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

We've had the bulk of their images on Wikimedia Commons for a couple of years now. There should be a ticket somewhere on the OTRS system as I believe someone did check to confirm it's an official site and that the licensing is correct. I'm sure an agent can see if they can find it. Nick (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Huntster, can you verify? --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 03:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fauzan, Nick: a search for "Land Rover" (exact term) returned nothing that I could see. Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User Postscriptum123[edit]

Postscriptum123 uploaded several files apparently as copyvios, but he asserts represent Peloponessian Folklore Foundation. Is possible to confirm this information? Rodrigolopes (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WWII period music score[edit]

Could we have confirmation that the release verified by ticket:2014121410005223 has taken into account a potential claim of copyright by the musician (the image page makes no declaration of who that is) or the estate of Martin Bormann rather than the creator of the photograph of the analysed derived version? -- (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a page from his book The hunt for the Nazi Gold. I don't know Martin Bormann is a musician. Jee 13:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There does seem to be a problem. According to this page, the music is by Gottfried Federlein, who died in 1952. We don't appear to have any release from the composer. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. As the uploder has a verified account, I think we can talk him on his user page. Jee 13:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no copyright anymore on the musical score itself which was originally by composer Henry Charles Litolff who died in 1891. It was then held in the Collection Litolff (parchment dates from the year 1189). Gottfried Federlein was born 1883 and could - in 1189 being 6 years old - in retrospect not be the composer. The (alleged) encoder was war criminal Martin Bormann. It is a wartime document and as such his encoding cannot count as copyrighted material (or else we would have a very serious problem with all the other wartime documents, letters, briefings, FBI, CIA and all other intelligence files). I also note that the book, containing the musical score in print, was first published in 2006 and sent to all relevant parties. No copyright claims have been made. Hope this resolves the issue. Karl Hammer (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Karl. There are a few issues that need to be unbundled.
  1. When it comes to the copyright of WWII works there is a huge difference between IP law in Germany, the UK and the US. It is not possible to presume that the same principles apply between these countries. In Germany, even though works may have been originally commissioned by the state, the author (and their later estate) may have a valid claim as the creator of a work. This is quite different to how IP law in the UK and US during WWII is interpreted. For this reason I asked about potential claims by Martin Bormann's estate, even if the only asserted "creative" component is Bormann's encoding marks on the music score.
  2. I am unclear why available sources state the music composer is Gottfried Federlein, if you assert that it was not. Even the Amazon entry for your book states this is the case, and electronically searching the same book only finds one mention of Litolff's archive, without appearing to make a claim that Litolff was the composer. Could you provide a clear source for who the composer would have been? Note that if the composer is uncertain, this is not the same thing as presuming the work was anonymous, and this may still introduce difficulties on copyright as further research may provide evidence as to who the composer was. 1889 is not so early that a copyright claim may not be reasonably valid, on the basis that the copyright expiration date is 70 years from the date of death, not composition.
  3. A moment searching through the published works of Gottfried Federlein as held in the British Library catalogue shows that his main works were the wording of music scores and particular arrangements. Even if Federlein's creative contribution to this score was the arrangement or the particular printed German words, both are reason for his estate to have a valid claim of copyright on the score.
-- (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Hrm. I see a claim here that the Marsch Impromptu from Collection Litolff No. 1189 is by de:Josef Löw, who died in 1886. I do see a volume II of a book by Löw here which in its index does show a work by the same name on page 40 of Volume I, but I can't find a version of Volume I online with a quick search. Does Gottfried Federlein's name appear on the work in question? Most Google hits are in association with this news story; it would be good to see some independent confirmation. If Federlein modified a work by Löw, then there would be a question of how much of the modifications were present on this sheet. Hm... I see here on loc.gov an attribution to *Gottlieb* Federlein on a work of that name published in 1876. Gottlieb Federlein lived from 1835 to 1922[5]; Gottfried wasn't born until 1883 (obviously didn't publish anything in 1876) so the news stories may have the incorrect attribution. I can't find any hits which combine "Gottfried Federlein" with "Marsch Impromptu" outside of this news story. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
From the research available, perhaps the best we can say is that we have not verified the composer, nor addressed the potential creative modifications that may have been made by Federlein or Bormann. As there has not been a deletion request for the file, I suggest the OTRS ticket is withdrawn and discussion moves to a DR so that there is a time limit for hosting the file, the OTRS noticeboard not being a good channel for inviting community comment. If further research can provide a definitive answer, then it can be easily undeleted.
Addendum. The statement from Karl confused me as to the Litolff number being a date (appearing to presume that "1189" was the year "1889"). The printed score has "Collection Litolff No. 1189" in the footer. This appears to be an indication that the score was printed by "Collection Litolff" with "1189" being an edition number, not a date, nor indication that this was a composition by Litolff, but rather Litolff's publishing company. The company "Collection Litolff" continued to run after Litolff's death and I find plenty of references to prints new editions of scores in the middle 20th century. -- (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to start a DR and move this contents. The status of OTRS has nothing to do with it. (eg: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugenia Tymoshenko.jpg) An OTRS ticket only discourages speedies. Jee 10:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: Seems related. Jee 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Thank you for withdrawing your OTRS verification.[6] -- (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
My note to the year 1189 was meant to show that the work was already available at that time and therefore no later musician like Federlein could have composed it. I agree that Josef Löw was involved (note to Carl Lindberg; the page number 40 is on the image so this is the file you are looking for) but it is unclear if he was the original composer since he also made arrangments and 'improvisation'. Anyway, I've made a scan of the page many years ago during my research as a journalist and it has since been readily available my book(s) and all over the Internet. I merely uploaded it to Wiki as a courtesy and have no problem with it being removed again if you guys have any issues with it. Thanks fort all you time and efforts! Karl Hammer (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
PS; I forgot to mention that, prior to the book publication(s), my publisher's lawyers of course also looked into the copyright issue and found no problem, also not internationally. Nor did the editors of news agencies like Reuters, NBC, ABC etc etc., and magazins.
(Edit conflict) Your use of the year 1189 seems confused with the edition number, 1189. The image you uploaded to Commons is a 19th or 20th century print of a music score using mass produced paper and print techniques of that time, along with what appears a later added typeface (from a modern ink-tape impact typewriter in Courier font) for the words in German, hand adding marks (in a dark blue pen or pencil) and digitally added red circles to highlight the hand written marks. It would be highly unlikely to be parchment, mass produced paper being consistent with all other printed works from the Collection Litolff printers.
Should you have new evidence, please do add it to Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Impromptu Code.jpg. -- (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

DR filed to ensure that this gets resolved one way or another in a timely manner. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Like I said (wrote) earlier, I truly don't care if it is deleted or not from wiki. If the professional international copyright lawyers at my various publishers - as well as international Media agencies like Reuters, ABC, NBC, Yahoo etc. - think it is fit or publication, but some moderator(s) here think these professionals are all wrong, so be it. Here ends the discussion for me. Karl Hammer (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, could you update the attribution, date, license, etc. according to the DR (provided by Carl Lindberg), please? Thanks all. Jee 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

File Claus Tully.jpg[edit]

Dear all users,

I would like to send an inquiry about the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Claus_Tully.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1. What is the status of this permission request? I contacted the author Dr. Tully through his own personal website, and he should have sent an email to permissions@wikimedia.org for using the image freely, is there any news about this request?

Thank you. Andrearosso.it (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have found the ticket (2015011510007337) and have picked it up for processing. The permission given so far cannot be verified, and I have had to go back to the sender with some queries. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I asked the copyright owner again to check the email and I think he wrote you back from the right address, is it possible to check? Thank you Andrearosso.it (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, address is confirmed now. One issue still outstanding which is with the sender. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
So, now the file will be available again or not? Thank you Andrearosso.it (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not yet. The sender still needs to reply to one query. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there news at the moment from the photographer?138.246.2.61 13:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS tickets for thumbnail versions of images[edit]

During the review of some of the OTRS verified images of artworks in the past month, I have noted many releases of low resolution versions of what were obviously originally higher resolution photographs or scans. An example in the last day is the 300px wide image File:Blessed Feathers Wikipedia.jpg. This raises the issue as to whether the copyright holder understands clearly that their release of the thumbnail version under a CC license gives them no protection against future Commons volunteers uploading the highest possible version they can find and using the same license legitimately as the release. In this particular case of the Blessed Feathers, I immediately find a version on-line that is more than 3,000px across. I am avoiding the temptation to upload it, that would seem unnecessarily pointy.

Can we check that the related correspondence on ticket:2015010810014002 makes it clear that the copyright holder understands this potential consequence and has not made the release with the intention that it is restricted to the thumbnail size?

I believe that OTRS volunteers should make the situation explicitly clear to donors of low resolution version images to avoid future complaints or embarrassment of arguing for courtesy deletions in cases where we fail to honour an obvious expectation of a release limited to the original resolution. Thanks -- (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that OTRS agents should point that out when the low-resolution part comes up in the course of the correspondence. They should, and not just as a courtesy, but because at least in some jurisdictions, it might have to be interpreted as an additional content-related limitation clause to the license (e.g. § 31(1), 2nd sentence, UrhG [Germany] [with currently unknown consequences for the validity of the licensing act itself]). However, I disagree in cases like the one you mention. First, it's not practical because, generally, OTRS agents do not know whether a higher-resolution version exists, and I see no reason they have to do all sorts of research for every ticket. That's not a reasonable expectation. Second, it's standard business practice to illustrate release forms with a downscaled version of an image, and if you, say, submit a hardcopy of your photograph to the Copyright Office, you would likewise not expect it to only cover the image in that specific resolution, so it really is a rather counter-intuitive understanding anyways. Back to your specific case: No, the correspondence does not make it clear that the copyright holder understands this potential consequence and has not made the release with the intention that it is restricted to the thumbnail size. However, it doesn't mention anything related to image sizes/resolutions at all, so in my opinion that's fine. — Pajz (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, high resolution version now uploaded.
With regard to "reasonable expectations" for OTRS volunteers (they are not agents), when I was processing tickets for Commons, I used to regularly use Tineye and Google image searches to double check for any complications. A significant proportion of images I dealt with had an existing long term internet footprint, including copyright claims by other parties. As an OTRS volunteer I felt it sensible to spend a couple of minutes doing these background checks for internet footprint and domain ownership (where relevant) before putting my name against the verification.
I admit, I am comfortable with Tineye and Google searching, but I expect all other OTRS volunteers to be competent to do these sorts of basic background checks. We even have these image search links built into the Wikimedia Commons interface these days. If OTRS volunteers need special tools, or a dashboard to make an obvious and intuitive workflow for basic checks, then that may be something to ask for funding to improve. It concerns me greatly that OTRS volunteers are not expected to take a personal duty of care for reasonable easy checks against incoming emailed legally significant statements of ownership. -- (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Pavillon de l'eau[edit]

The required attribution on the image page is to "Eau de Paris". The reuser may presume that this is a release of the billboard artwork on the front of the building (L'eau sur Mars). The EXIF data shows that the photographer was Caroline Paux. Could someone check that the release explicitly covers both the photographer and the organization that commissioned the poster? It is normal to credit the photographer, as Paux's name is visible on the image page already, shouldn't she be noted in the required attribution? -- (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I added Caroline Paux in the credit. In this case, Eau de Paris uploaded the picture and gives the permission. It seems quite obvious that it also commissioned the picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It may not be so obvious when you consider that based on her internet presence, Caroline Paux sells her services as a freelance photographer in France/Paris, and does not appear to be an employee of Eau de Paris (the uploader). I believe rights of the photographer would be protected under the law in France and not subject to an automatic presumption that contracted employment transfers full rights to works during that time.
If there is not a direct statement that the photograph is subject to a work for hire contract that transferred IP rights, could you or another OTRS volunteer ask for one please? Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Fae, it seems you don't really realize what you are asking for. Do you want them to send a copy of the contract between Eau de Paris and the photographer? Obviously, you won't get it, it is confidential. So you have to content yourself with their word. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
My experience on OTRS shows that many organizations that donate photographs have no clue about the way the photographer was contracted before releasing images. We have many cases where the photographer later objected to a free commercial release of their works and we had to delete files.
OTRS volunteers do not ask to see contracts, and this is not what I have asked for above.
I have asked for verification that the photographer has released their works in accordance with the licence. So far, based on the responses above as I cannot see the correspondence, someone representing "Eau de Paris" but not the named photographer has given a release, but they have made no statement about this being a work for hire (if they have, then fine, we can "content ourselves with their word"). This needs to be followed-up, or the image removed from Commons under the precautionary principle. Thanks -- (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not our business to check what is the agreement between Eau de Paris and the photographer. I remain you that the agreement specifically says that the party sending the permission do that if necessary on behalf of the copyright owner.
I think you are outstepping your role here, and since you pursue this matter, I am starting to question your good faith. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I am just an unpaid volunteer, I have no "role" here. If you are saying that the Commons community is assured through OTRS and your review of the facts, that the freelance photographer named on the image page has irrevocably released their rights so that the photograph can be commercially reused, that's fine. At the moment what you have said in this thread is not actually this, and I am puzzled as to why no OTRS volunteer is prepared to write a brief email back to the correspondent and check.
Considering other uploads by Eaudeparislf include File:Ancienne pompe à feu d'Auteuil.jpg, which appears to be a very old archive photo but is claimed as their own work, I remain concerned that the statement of this account cannot be questioned by the community without assertions of bad faith.
Hopefully you will reconsider the finality of your point of view. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Eaudeparislf (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has uploaded 5 files to Commons. I have now marked two of these as lacking evidence of permission as they are clearly modern scans of black & white archive photographs rather than the own work claimed. These are File:Usine d'Auteuil.jpg and File:Ancienne pompe à feu d'Auteuil.jpg, both were added by the uploader to fr:Pavillon de l'eau, an article that appears to have been mainly created by the same account and is marked for deletion review and with a promotional warning notice. -- (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You could also check other uploads by this account. Some images don't have a license (now tagged), and some are derivative work, and there is no FoP in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that File:Usine d'Auteuil.jpg was deleted and then restored based on further OTRS correspondence. However I have raised Commons:Deletion requests/File:Usine d'Auteuil.jpg due to on-going significant and evidence-based doubts about the claims made about copyright status. -- (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

AGM Exhibit FdUp.jpg[edit]

Could someone check the attribution on this image and the nature of the release? This is an exhibition of apparently multiple artworks, so the release should be from the artist(s). I can find no evidence of "Mark Chen" or similar on the website that the image came from. -- (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the atribution but permission comes from the art gallery and permission from the artists is missing. Natuur12 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be an area that galleries promoting themselves often seem to overlook. For a free commercial reuse, the rights of the artists need to be explicitly released when publishing photographs of their works. Could an OTRS volunteer commit to following this up please? -- (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No FoP? Or am I missing something here? Anon126 ( ) 06:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anon126: Yes you are missing something. There are two problems. A) some of the artworks could be on a non permanent display. B) I'm not sure if a gallery is a public building in Canada. Likely not. Natuur12 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I suppose I could take this up. Anon126 ( ) 22:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I have a communication about this case while processing another ticket and the reply was ""We have written consent from each artist that we exhibit that we are allowed to photograph and distribute their work but given that a photo may contain up to 10 or more artists, would be sufficient to show that this image is on our website as well?". "allowed to photograph and distribute their work" doesn't permit granting a free license though. My only question is how De minimis work on a picture of a hall contains a lot of artworks? Jee 03:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If the photo was taken for the purpose of showing the artworks, then one can't really argue for de minimis of the individual artwork. KTC (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This definitely needs the artists' permission. Not yet received as far as I can see. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The current use is to showcase the facilities. But anyway, we asked for further permission from individual artists. Jee 09:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

More than 2 weeks has passed with no confirmation, so DR now raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AGM Exhibit FdUp.jpg. -- (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

2015021310011879 León Gómez Alonso[edit]

  1. File:LeonGomezAlonso.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - scan of printed photo, date given as 25 Dec 2014
  2. File:JovenLeonGomezAlonso.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 1940s (?) photograph
  3. File:LeonCuerpoEntero.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 2000s (?) magazine/newsletter print scan
  4. File:EntregaGalardon.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 2005 event photo colour print scan
  5. File:GalardonRecibido.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - award photograph, Feb 2015, artist not given
  6. File:LeonVendiendo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 1962 photograph with silver decorated frame
  7. File:PortadaLibroGrandesEmpresariosCCM.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Book cover, author not credited on image page
  8. File:FachadaTalavera.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 2002 shop front digital photograph

This ticket appears to be a submission of several photographs related to León Gómez Alonso and all are claimed as own work under the pseudonym Abrahamag83 and all have been added to es:León Gómez Alonso. The photographs are claimed as own work by the same photographer from possibly the 1940s (based on File:JovenLeonGomezAlonso.jpg) through to the current time. Some photographs have dates on the image page which are not the create date of the photograph, but the date of a scan being created, such as File:EntregaGalardon.jpg which is dated as 2014 but is clearly dated in the scanned print as 2005.

Could someone please check the correspondence to assure that the submission had a release from the verifiable copyright holder in each case, including the publisher or original photographer of the scanned printed photographs that show distinct moiré patterns and the author or publisher of the book (Grandes empresarios de Castilla-La Mancha, Garcia et al, ISBN 9788483563960)?

Unless there is a clear reason not to, could we change these images from using a pseudonym so that the required attribution for CC-BY-SA is more legally meaningful?

P.S. I note that that Edmenb has made 41 uploads to Commons in 8 years (353 total edits). In that context, I would not expect them to be familiar with Commons policies on copyright (such as photographs of 3D frames) or our norms for completing image pages accurately (such as declarations of own work). I am surprised if OTRS volunteers without suitable experience are granted access to process the relevant permissions queues though. I note that their apparent experience is well below the minimum threshold that the Commons community has agreed for the image-reviewer right. Perhaps this context can also be assessed?

Thanks -- (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Having briefly looked at related images, I note that File:Estrenolaberintica.jpg ticket:2014090210014421 is copyright of Paco Villalta in the EXIF data, but this does not match what is stated on the image page text. Could this be checked? If these haphazardly found cases are of concern, then I suggest a more complete audit by someone with OTRS access. Thanks -- (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The ticket is not written in English. But it looks dubious. Apart from that the ticket says "CC-BY-SA-3.0." but all files are tagged with CC-BY-SA-4.0 and the Author is wrong too. Pinging @Edmenb: --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
As over 24 hours has passed, I have marked what currently appears as a critical copyvio for speedy deletion - File:PortadaLibroGrandesEmpresariosCCM.jpg. -- (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Gracias por sus comentarios respecto a mi experiencia con el sistema OTRS, estaría encantado de que se hiciera una auditoria de mi trabajo, posiblemente me haya equivocado en mas de una ocación. Respecto a la imagen Estrenolaberintica.jpg podrá notar que se encuentra en la galería de la CIA Marco Flores quien da la autorización para su uso.
Respecto a las imágenes de la usuaria Abrahamag83 que para mi es una cuenta de propósito particular con un claro conflicto de interés, es la hija de biografiado, todas las imágenes están dentro de su sitio web y el titulo de su correo es " Autorización a publicar cualquier contenido del dominio[...]", esto es, del sitio Almaces León, su articulo lo podrá leer en Wikipedia en español y al cual le coloqué la plantilla de "problemas articulo".
Quedo a la disposición de cualquier decisión que sea tomada a favor del proyecto. Saludos cordiales Edmenb (Mensajes- es) 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
With regard to File:Estrenolaberintica.jpg, there is no link to the source you have now mentioned on the image page, could you add this please? Note that the copyright claim apparent in the EXIF data may still contradict an independent website release statement.
In respect of the photographs that were published on 24th December 2014 on http://www.almacenesleon.es/blog/leon-gomez-alonso-1928-2008, this source was not mentioned on the image pages, and though there is a claim on that blog of the CC licence, there is still no rationale for how the scans of printed images which were taken by unnamed photographers, some of which appear to be clipped from magazine articles, are now the copyright of either the estate of León Gómez Alonso, or the company that he founded that is the registered owner of the website you have linked to. It should also be noted that some of the files uploaded are timestamped as being created after the 24th December. It certainly seems unlikely that any of the parties claiming copyright have the rights to reproduce the book cover that you marked with an OTRS ticket.
In line with your suggestion of an audit, it would be useful if an alternative OTRS volunteer with more experience in assessing copyright for Wikimedia Commons to review these licences. As I have no access to OTRS, this is not possible for me to take on. Thanks -- (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
tienes razón, estoy buscando la imagen en el sitio web de la CIA Marco Flores y no la consigo, pero te aseguro que si aprobé la autorización es porque el día que se procesó yo verifiqué la imagen. No dudo que en este caso debe de borrarse de inmediato. Yo podría escribir a CIA Marco Flores y solicitar se procese un nuevo ticket por la imagen en el futuro.
Respecto al blog León Gómez Alonso entiendo que ¿hay una reclamación por derechos de usuario?, no observé esa reclamación, ¿dónde puedo leer sobre eso?. Gracias Edmenb (Mensajes- es) 18:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Edmenb: Do you speak english or other languages? Can you add a lang-bable to your userpage? Would be helpful :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In the ticket "CC-BY-SA-3.0" is written as license but NOT CC-BY-SA-4.0. This is not the second time that i point you to it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel there is sufficient doubt over the remaining photographs that a deletion request is the best way forward. It seems unlikely that the copyright holders for the original photographs have been identified in the correspondence, or on the blog mentioned above, and to keep these image it will be necessary to walk through each case. -- (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
DR raised at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Abrahamag83. -- (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@: Ante las dudas que se presentan y siendo el usuario que subió las imágenes una cuenta de propósito particular, estoy totalmente de acuerdo en el borrado de todas ellas. Sigo sin entender la denuncia de violación de derechos de autor en el blog, lamentablemente no lo he podido encontrar.
@Steinsplitter: Hola, hablo solo español por ser mi lengua nativa. Gracias por sugerirme colocar el userbox.
Por otro lado me encantaría que un administrador de OTRS que hable español pudiera revisar el caso y también el ticket. Gracias a ambos. Edmenb (Mensajes- es) 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Time2wait.svg On hold Revisando / Reviewing.
@Edmenb: Lo reviso entre hoy y mañana y os cuento algo.
@Steinsplitter: I'm here! Thanks for the advice :-P --Alan (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

2011051110007737 FIFA trophy[edit]

Could someone with OTRS access please confirm whether the release includes FIFA's trophy. A background on FIFA's approach to copyright can be found at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/marketing/brand-protection/intellectual-property/. Thanks -- (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ticket is in German so needs a German-speaker for this one... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've heard of something like this. But in this case there is picture of the WWC trophy used widely on Wiki already. My picture is just a newer and better one. So the quesiotn is, where is the difference to the other picture. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_vs_Canada_in_Dresden_%28pic14%29.JPG
As the counter example appears to have unfortunately been released without consideration of the design rights, I have raised Commons:Deletion requests/File:Germany vs Canada in Dresden (pic14).JPG. -- (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

2015012710020362 Picasso derived work[edit]

The etching into cement is a faithful reproduction of Picasso's 1957 drawing "The Seagull". Could someone with OTRS access confirm that the copyright release includes Picasso's estate? Thanks -- (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be in a permissions queue anymore. Might need an OTRS admin to look at depending on where it's been moved to? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Måken av Pablo Picasso Y-blokken Regjeringsklvartalet.jpg raised. -- (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

2015020510019903 Risa Ferman[edit]

The book making up half of this photograph is all rights reserved by Diccicco Battista Communications, the proceeds going to Mission Kids, which seems a good reason to ensure that the rights remain correctly protected. Could someone with OTRS access confirm that the release of the book was part of the correspondence? Thanks -- (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A message was sent asking about the book, but no response has been received. So, there does not seem to be any permission for the book. Anon126 ( ) 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the ticket should be removed. I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:DARisaVetriFermanBookReading.jpg. -- (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
ticket:2015022410019225 may be relevant here. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 20:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

2015020510010742 Andy Parant[edit]

  1. File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 01.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 02.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. File:Alban Michon Expédition Wide ©andyparant.com2012 04.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The credited author on the image pages is a pseudonymous account, yet both the file names and the EXIF data make it clear that the photographer is Andy Parant (http://andyparant.com). Could someone please double check the OTRS ticket and add the photographer's name so that the legally required attribution is correct? -- (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil[edit]

Hi! Above template was created in 03.2012 by Dafranca (talk · contributions · Number of edits). Link: http://www.fab.mil.br. Per Template talk:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil I could not verify any related license infos or permission. Per User talk:Dafranca#Template:Attribution-AirForceofBrazil, Dafranca claimed to have sent an email to COM:OTRS ("It was sent and received").

The question is. Did OTRS received an email coming from http://www.fab.mil.br (or Dafranca) which would support above template? Please see also File:Agata 4 - Super Tucano.ogv (uploaded by Dafranca in 09.2012) versus my info: "Considering also wayback: before and after upload date: "Copyright © 2008-2012 Portal da Força Aérea Brasileira ® 2012 República Federativa do Brasil - Todos os direitos reservados.". Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Super Tucano - Operation Agata.ogv some email traffic is stored but most likely sent by a person who had answered is not really knowledgeable about copyrights (...). The whole case sounds like a complete license fail... Gunnex (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The ticket is #2012102310009166. Anon126 ( ) 01:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It is only a forwarded mail and no action taken. I noticed that they are maintaining a Flickr stream too. So the easiest way may be to request them to re-license their Flickr stream. Jee 03:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thx for checking and commenting. I will try my luck with an email to fab.mil.br in the next days to obtain a related permission. Gunnex (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If the permission is not confirmed, we need to delete many files Jee 13:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

File:School Girl by Ilgvars Zalans.JPG and several others[edit]

Dear OTRS experts: I came across a group of images, of which this is one, of paintings by Ilgvars Zalans, which have been uploaded by a user Katya.pogrebnaya, claiming "Own work". This one has OTRS ticket #2013031110009459. It seems unlikely that Ilgvars Zalans has chosen this username, and more likely that a person other than the copyright holder has uploaded this image. If the OTRS ticket confirms that the author is licensing these images, should the text accompanying the image file be changed to something more accurate than "Own work"? If the two are indeed the same person, would it be appropriate to note this somewhere, since it would indicate a conflict of interest when editing the draft article in English Wikipedia about the artist?Anne Delong (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Corrected; thanks. Jee 12:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

2 files[edit]

These files (1 and 2) are to out of multiple files coming from the nl service Wikiportrait. I doubt that these OTRS tickets (ticket:2012111610016053 and ticket:2012072210004973) are legit, so to say, and is from the original photographer for various reasons. Can someone that knows nl confirm werther these are "legit" tickets (with permissions from the copyright owners etc.) for me please? If it would turn out that these two would be invalid, I would ask that the rest of the files from this service, processed by this OTRS-agent, be also checked for their validity. Thank you for your time. Josve05a (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

[Ticket#2014121310011085][edit]

Hello!

Can you please check if the email of autorization for this picture have been received? Thanks!

Picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PKP2015.jpg

--SharQc (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@SharQc: We've received the messages, but the sender was informed that the e-mail needs to come from an official address (for example, one that ends in -at-pkp2015.quebec). Anon126 ( ) 06:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on it comes from his office! --SharQc (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@SharQc: Sorry, but we've had problems in the past with this sort of thing. Anyway, I didn't respond to this message (je ne parle pas français), so you can appeal to Elfix (the user who responded) if you want. Anon126 ( ) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate though, but I cross my heart that the messages you received were form the owners of the picture. Can you please do something else? Please I've been working on that for two months! I even asked to the photograph Jean-Claude Lussier and he told me that I needed to ask to the office of Pierre Karl Péladeau for the picture! :(

--SharQc (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo de Pierre Karl Péladeau[edit]

À qui de droit, je crois avoir trouvé la solution: j'ai transféré à Wikipédia la conversation que j'ai eu avec Jean-Claude Lussier, photographe. Dans cette conversation, M. Lussier dit qu'il doit recevoir l'autorisation de l'équipe de M. Péladeau. L'ayant devancé dans ses démarches, je les ai obtenues les autorisations et vous les ai faite parvenir. Donc vous comprenez que les messages reçu consentent à ce que quiconcque utilise la photo. Même M. Lussier dit avoir besoin de leur accord, ce que je vous ai fait parvenir.

Lien vers la photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PKP2015.jpg

[Ticket#2014121310011085]

--SharQc (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File: Aya Saad Eldeen ٍٍSayed.jpg[edit]

Dear, Why the photo of File:Aya Saad ELdeen Sayed.jpg is deleted, the Author Aya send and email, and I send also another email to the email : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, I want to restore the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk • contribs) 08:42, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Moved from Commons talk:OTRS

Pictogram voting info.svg Ticket: 2015022410007881.    FDMS  4    12:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:On-the-verge-poster-2015.jpg: OTRS permission and the alligator photo[edit]

According to this Village pump/Copyright discussion the File:On-the-verge-poster-2015.jpg image incorporates an alligator photograph from a professional photographer, Matt Field. Given the nature of the poster and the way that the alligator photo was purposely incorporated, it seems doubtful that the alligator photo is de minimis. As such, it would be useful to know whether OTRS ticket #2015021510008147 covers just the poster (the photograph and visual design is credited to Kyle Cassidy) or whether the ticket also includes the Matt Field alligator photo. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File von Huberbe hochgeladen[edit]

Am 13. Nov. wurde folgende Dateien hochgeladen und die Genehmigung am 20. Januar 2015 per Mail [...@neufeld-verlag.de) zugesandt. Bitte bearbeitet das Ticket, damit das Bild verwendet werden kann.

Danke, --Huberbe (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Natasha-Zinko-jewellery-designer2.jpg[edit]

Hi! Natasha has sent license information to otrs-commons email. But status is still {OTRS pending}. Do we need to send some more information? Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkrymov (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)

@Dkrymov: Please be patient, we have a high backlog of e-mails. But I searched for your message and I could not find it. May I ask: On what date did you send it, and to what address exactly? Anon126 ( ) 06:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Although this particular ticket has been looked at by an OTRS volunteer before, it has been several years. Anyone with free time is welcome to weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/OTRS ticket 1011940 - Animal Liberation Front. Kelly (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictures from Pauli Vahtera[edit]

I’m not authorized to publish photos sent to me by Pauli Vahtera on Common or on Wikipedia, because with the first photo I uploaded came some meta data that belongs to the studio. What should I do? The studio naturally has no rights to those pictures whatsoever on the account that they were purchased by a private person. Now those photos have been handed to me for the purposes of retouching and publishing. The conversation relating to this issue can be found behind this link (This discussion is Finnish, so you need a translator) : [[7]] Does this mean that the OTRS by Pauli is the only option if one by me is not acceptable even though I’m the one editing the pictures into a form they can be published in? This same set of pictures is now, besides this incident, used on www.paulivahtera.fi. All the pictures on that site are edited by me as Pauli Vahtera’s campaign assistant and graphic designer. What can I do to have those photos put back up on Wikipedia and Common?

Waiting for further advises, with best regards Niina Vartiainen, graphics designer and campaign assistant Varttiniina (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Varttiniina


Hei, kirjoitan tämän Suomeksi, etten vahingossakaan ymmärrä enää mitään väärin. Minä en saa Pauli Vahteran, hänen itse minulle lähettämiään kuvia julkaistua commonsissa tai wikipediassa, sillä ensimmäisessä lataamassani edustuskuvassa tuli mukana studion metadata. Mitä teen? Studiolla ei luonnollisestikkaan ole oikeuksia kuviin ylipäätään, sillä kuvat ovat yksityishenkilön ostamia tuotteita jotka ovat delegoitu minulle muokattavaksi ja julkaistavaksi. Keskusteluketju löytyy tästä linkistä, viimeisen otsikon alta (Älä' lataa poistettua kuvaa): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Varttiniina#.C3.84l.C3.A4.27_lataa_poistettua_kuvaa Eikö Paulin OTRS-lupa ole nyt sitten ainoa vaihtoehto, mikäli minun lupaani ei hyväksytä, vaikka itse kuvankäsittelijänä muokkaan kuvat julkaisukelpoiseksi? Tätä samaa kuvasarjaa löytyy nyt myös tämän episodin jälkeen osoitteesta www.paulivahtera.fi mihin olen kaikki kuvat itse tehnyt Pauli Vahteran avustajana, joten mitä voin tehdä kuvien palauttamisen suhteen wikipediassa ja commonsissa? Ohjeita odotellessa, ystävällisin terveisin - Niina Vartiainen, graafikko ja Pauli Vahteran avustaja. Varttiniina (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Varttiniina

Category:Melissa Wolf[edit]

Could an OTRS volunteer please check the permission for the files in this category? They all give the author as Melissa Wolf but this is unlikely because she is the model in the photos. FredWalsh (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@FredWalsh: She released ten images to us under the proper licensing (one of which was split into images, giving us the eleven there), but did not specify an author in the process of doing so. If anyone wants to search down the photographer and figure out who actually took them, be my guest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@FredWalsh: If the OTRS correspondence did not address the copyright of the photographer, and no OTRS volunteer is prepared to sort this out, then these should be raised for deletion as the rights of the copyright holder have not been assured. Thanks -- (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, she stated explicitly that she owned the copyright to the images and released them to us under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Models frequently do not understand issues such as what a work for hire is, and often assume that photographs in their portfolio are their personal copyright. At the same time it is common for professional photographers to use a standard contract that is specific for the intended use, and neither transfers copyright to the subject, nor allows for free commercial reuse. The images uploaded have no EXIF data, which immediately leads to concern as to whether the photographer has even released the originals to the subject, rather than being scraped from a secondary website.
As an example, File:Melissa Wolf 6.JPG has been given OTRS verification (presumably under the same ticket number, unfortunately this is not quoted on the image page) however it is the image for the front cover of an 'adult' film (Pajamapaluza 2). The image uploaded to Commons actually looks like a scan of a paper print, possibly taken from a DVD insert. It seems likely that the production company commissioned the photograph, not the model. These are questions that should have been raised during the OTRS correspondence. -- (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ticket is invald. Permission comes from the subject who send some random photograhps to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Melissa Wolf. Yann (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Noted, and I have gone ahead and voted for delete as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for all the responses, even though it seems to have created an argument. I have !voted to delete unless the model turns out to be the copyright holder. FredWalsh (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

IMG OF Faustina[edit]

Could i have the permission to use this image? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aureus_%C3%A0_l%27effigie_de_Faustine_la_Jeune.jpg

Remembering of OTRS ticket for File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg[edit]

I've previously requested the UnD of this file. After requesting information to the Government of Chile. I recived some answers from the Govenrment of Chile with official doccuments attached, and then, I resended these message to OTRS team.

I' ve contacted OTRS team three months ago for this and other files released by the Government of Chile, but they didn't answered them.

This issue has been discussed several times and affects this and several files released by the Government of Chile. Most of these files were nominated/deleted by non-chilean users that are unfamiliar with the Government of Chile licensing.

By law, all works released by the Government of Chile after December 30 of 2010 are released under the CC-BY license, This is already discussed in the Template talk:CC-GobCL. No doubts about them, unless the Government of Chile are amateurs when licensing their works. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: The OTRS ticket you are referring to is partially in Spanish, and you have not responded to the question asked by an agent in it. There is another related ticket from 2015-01-01 which is entirely in Spanish and has not been processed yet.    FDMS  4    19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Ping User:Jcb.    FDMS  4    19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I didn't recived any answer in all my three email addressess (that is the reason why I'm leaving a mesage here). Is too hard to translate the message? As OTRS member, you're responsible to understand and answer these tickets, not me.
Me and many chilean users know very well the chilean laws, but for the non-chilean users (including Administrators and OTRS members) is easier to nominate/delete files than researching, specially if files released by the Government of Chiile after 2010 are covered under the CC-BY license by law!
This is a huge problem of misunderstanding a 2010 chilean law! Most Administrators and OTRS members should already know them, but several of them still doing mistakes with these files. Chilean users should explain once and once again this, with official documents from the Government of Chile. I have no more time for play with the Government of Chile and non-chilean users that don't know the chilean laws. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be several misunderstandings here. Firstly, OTRS members are volunteers. Secondly, evidence of the PD status has to be comprehensibly documented on the respective file description pages themselves, making use of specific PD templates and/or the permission field; this is not only because Commons is an international project. I will let the Spanish-speaking agent deal with the copyright status and/or contacting you again.    FDMS  4    20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: I think you may help handling OTRS in Spanich tickets if you help finding more Spanish speaking candidates for OTRS members team. As I can see there is a very long delay handling the permissions-commons-es queue. Ankry (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I know very well the OTRS team, like the other users, are volunteers,and also they may have a huge ammount of tickets that they must review one by one. Therefore, is a good idea to help OTRS team as experienced user.
And sorry, but I'm still consternated with the several {{CC-GobCL}} cases that we must address to Commons, and I need to request Transparency information again. I'm trying to assume good faith with other users, but laterly this becomes somewhat hard.
--Amitie 10g (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing OTRS?[edit]

Missing OTRS? Copyvio? -- CFCF (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: This noticeboard is for enquiries that need the attention of OTRS members; for questions about procedures on Wikimedia Commons, please use the Help desk.    FDMS  4    16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.    FDMS  4    16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Verify my account[edit]

Good day!

I want to verify my account. My photo has received OTRS permission, do I need to provide more proof?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Anoubis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoubis (talk • contribs)

✓ Done Jee 06:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jee 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

user:SKZ-KFE[edit]

As you can see here Special:Contributions/SKZ-KFE, the user uploaded some pictures with copyright (for example File:Vergleich_Phase_Amplitude.jpg from [8]). I think a OTRS is needed? --Minihaa (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, tagged. Yann (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought he should be asked with some kind of template to give a ticket and not that is work is deleted... He won't understand and most likely he does not know OTRS... --Minihaa (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)