Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:OTRS(Redirected from Commons:ON)
Jump to: navigation, search
OTRS Noticeboard
Welcome to the OTRS noticeboard

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

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 51 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

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


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


Shortcut: COM:ON

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

Moving files with OTRS permission from local projects to Commons[edit]

Hi all! As I mentioned in here, I organized a collaboratio in Turkish Wikipedia with the aim of moving all files that were uploaded to Turkish Wikipedia with OTRS permission. Within the project, editors moved 104 files in three days. You can see the project and contributions in here. Chansey, Bulgu, Hakan Duran and By erdo can were the contributing editors of the project. I post this message because User:Yann told me that it is better to do this :) If there is anything wrong, please send a message :)--Rapsar (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mediha Didem Türemen.jpg[edit]

A ticket #2016081110003502 was applied to this image by the uploader. Is it valid? Please give it a good review or remove the ticket if false. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor:, plese see this section.--Rapsar (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
While using Google Translate (the ticket is not in English) I'm not thrilled with that ticket. - Reventtalk 04:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ticket:2016123010006653[edit]

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg @Kvardek du: added a post-closure question regarding the two files in this deletion discussion. Apparently we got an OTRS ticket from one of the uploaders. So I'm wondering if any of these files could be restored. Pinging also @Srittau:. De728631 (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be glad if this file could be restored. Nice artwork that was in use in quite a lot of pages. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the ticket really 'proves' anything, but having just skimmed through the scanned covers of 900-odd editions of this book over at Goodreads, I don't see anything even remotely resembling this artwork. - Reventtalk 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That is also why I was a confused by the description of File:Hobbit by Tolkien.jpg that said something along a "cover of The Hobbit" in Polish: "okładka książki J.R.R. Tolkiena 'Hobbit, czyli tam i z powrotem'" and was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves e-textbooks contest in Poland. But if the ticket contains a claim of original authorship for File:Un hobbit.jpg we should check if this file passes the COM:FANART test. Evidently it was used in a lot of pages before, so it was in project scope. The former file with a misleading name "Hobbit by Tolkien" and the text "Hobbit" added to the drawing seems now more like a fake cover artwork to me that was based on File:Un hobbit.jpg and should rather not be restored. De728631 (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Foto von 1960[edit]

kann ein Befugter bitte mal feststellen, was in dem Ticket 2010122710017024 über den Bildautor von c:File:Ilka Gedő (around 1960).jpg steht. Angeblich ist das der Einsteller David Biro. Der ist allerdings ca. 1950 geboren. --Goesseln (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-OTRS-member note: Since this may be a ticket in Hungarian, I'm providing a translation of Goesseln's request for a broader audience: Can someone please check Ticket:2010122710017024 for authorship? Per the file description, authorship is claimed by the uploader Hungarian David Biro, but somehow Goesseln seems to know that this user was born around 1950, so the 1960 photo would have been taken by him at the age of ten. Without going into personal details and thus violating your privacy agreement, I think it should be possible to simply state if the author/copyright holder has been correctly identified.
@Goesseln: Mit 10 Jahren habe ich auch schon mal auf den Auslöser gedrückt, also so ganz abwegig ist die Autorenschaft nicht, und OTRS nimmt auch die Freigabe von geerbtem Bildmaterial an. Abgesehen davon, wenn Du schon das ungefähre Alter von Hungarian David Biro kennst, warum fragst Du ihn nicht gleich selbst? De728631 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Official Portrait[edit]

I've recently removed the use rational of {{POTUS}} as that wasn't the source of the image. I'm dealing with these images in Ticket:2017050810015705. Posting this here incase anyone raises some red flags. - Cameron11598(talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Effected Images
Ping me if there are any questions. - Cameron11598(talk) 01:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request of versions deletion[edit]

Per request of the author as she only gives limited resolution permission. I hope this is valid!?

-- User: Perhelion 23:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: Yes, it is fine: the agreement is on "800 px for all pictures". I deleted the older (hi-res)revisions. --Ruthven (msg) 11:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't remember the discussion (I may have been inactive at the time) where we changed our stance that higher resolotion of images did not reach TOO, and was licensed the same way as lower res. versions. When did we change this stance? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Here, it's the customer that explicitly asked for a 800px resolution. So, it's independent to whatever the community consensus is (or was). --Ruthven (msg) 10:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I remember when WMF legal got email from an institution that tried to threaten to sue/send DMCAs(?) to WMF or hosting large resolutions of PD-arts they had photographed, but that they offered smaller resolutions instead. The overwhelming consensus was that the larger versions had the same PD status as the smaller vrsions. I don't see why we would act differently in this case and allo a photographer to only release a specific version of a file, but not allow larger versins (which could be seen as DWs). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Donation of a batch of personal images by a time-short published author[edit]

I have been asked to help a London academic to donate his personal collection of high quality images to Wikipedia and to upload them on his behalf onto commons. It looks if I will have to do all the legwork- as he is very time-short. He has emailed me the first four so we can establish a system. The project has the support of Wikimedia UK. He will be quite happy to release them under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and confirm that in one email, I think as he is emailing me the images- he will be happy to cut and paste whatever statement we provide him with into each accompanying email (which may include 20 differing images)- asking him to write separate statements for each image I think will be a step too far. I sure this can't be the first time this has occurred. Can you give me guidance on the optimum way to proceed. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) (contributions)

@ClemRutter: The academic should write a single statement authorising the publication under CC-BY-SA 4.0 of the photos from his collection, and specify that it will be you that will upload the files (the email address should be the "academic" one). If he already has a list with the filenames, it's better as he can send everything in a single email (without attaching the files), otherwise, you can upload the files and then send back to OTRS the list of the uploads. Just be sure that there are no works under copyright in his collection. If he plans to ask you to upload more files from his collection in the future, please specify it, as we will make a custom template for this series of donations. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 10:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks- that is clear and simple- I can upload the test shots- we can talk about templates later- I suspect that will be the way to go.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a 7 test shots up,File:East Village September 2013 (2).jpg and Dr Watt is about to send an email worded:
To OTRS: I am releasing photographs from my personal collection to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA 4.0. I confirm I hold the copyright on each one. They will be uploaded on my behalf by User:ClemRutter or User:Jwslubbock during the period 30 May 2017- 30 October 2017. They will be displayed initially in the Category:Social Housing in the United Kingdom. I am following the advice given in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&oldid=245646512.
Photographer: Paul Watt <p.watt@bbk.ac.uk>
If this is correct it will be a simple system to operate and extend. However I do think that using a template will be helpful in the long run-can you have a think about it and get back to me when you have somethng concrete- or to tell me that I am barking up the wrong tree. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: Fine for me. Maybe check if Dr Watt wants his email written in clear letters on a website and/or how does he wants the photos to be attributed. --Ruthven (msg) 19:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

File:YellowheadShield.jpg[edit]

Would an OTRS volunteer mind checking the ticket for this file? While the copyright on the photograph itself may be "owned" by the photographer, I'm not sure if the same can be said for the copyright underlying imagery of the road sign. The reason I am asking about this is because of en:File:Alberta Yellowhead Highway.png, en:File:Yellowhead Highway (Saskatchewan).svg and en:File:Yellowhead.png uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. Those files are licensed as non-free content, but they need not be if Commons is willing to accept the imagery as PD or otherwise freely licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is an agreement from the Ministry for publishing this file and several others on the same subject on Commons, but without an explicit license specified in the email. Quite a borderline situation, imho. --Ruthven (msg) 19:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Ruthven. Do you think the file has a strong chance of remaining on Commons? Could the OTRS ticket also be used to cover the files uploaded locally to Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: For me, the file can stay on Commons, but another admin might have another opinion… which is fair in that case. So, I wouldn't say "strong" ;) The ticket can surely be used for uploading the files as "non free" on local wikipedias. --Ruthven (msg) 07:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

File:KATICA ILLENYI The Rose of The Breeze.jpeg[edit]

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

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

Ticket:2010032110008071[edit]

I would like the OTRS community to review this ticket. It's history is as follows:

  1. March 2010: A user on the Russian Wikipedia asked to confirm their identity with the author of various texts placed on a certain website. The ticket appears in queue. The first OTRS volunteer started communicating with the user. Ticket closed as successful.
  2. April 2010: The user sends another letter, willing all the images (including photographs of paintings of recently deceased artists) from their website to become covered by the ticket. The first volunteer gives reasonable answer that the user must provide permissions for every photo of every painting of every artist. The user reacts nervously.
  3. April 2010: A second volunteer appears, demonstrating a willingness to help. The user uploads a scanned copy of a single copyright assignment agreement, signed (probably) by heir of the only artist, with no particular works specified in. This inspires the second volunteer to create a template, allowing to publish unnamed works of unnamed authors under a free license.
  4. May 2010 till now. Since that moment the template is placed on hundreds of file pages, containing low-res photos of paintings by dozens of artists.
  5. March 2012. The third volunteer publishes a lengthy letter (by a person calling themselves a "patent attorney"), containing references to Russian and US legislation and indicating the illegitimacy of the authorization granted, but fails to answer it due to the lack of knowledge of the Russian language. Nothing more happens on Commons.
  6. April 2012. An arbitration case started on the Russian Wikipedia with a detailed and well-reasoned request on this issue, which was declined with the following message: "The functioning of the OTRS system is outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia".
Any comments and feedback are welcomed. Sealle (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Арбитражный комитет русского раздела в апреле 2012 рассмотрел в рамках своих полномочий этот вопрос с участием как действовавших на тот момент, так и бывших уполномоченных OTRS и не нашёл нарушений при выдаче разрешения. Это было единодушное мнение не 1-2 человек, а не менее 10. К сожалению, спустя 5 лет участник Sealle решил по непонятным причинам реанимировать этот вопрос, но излагает его с большими неточностями. В частности, им не упоминается, что по просьбе уполномоченного OTRS мною представлялся в фонд в качестве образца Договор на передачу исключительных авторских прав, подписанный художником Р. и правообладателем С.В. Ивановым. В Договоре перечислялись картины (во множественном числе), исключительные права на которые художником Р. были переданы правообладателю Иванову С.В. Также мною было предоставлено письмо Иванова С.В., подтверждающее наличие аналогичных Договоров на все картины, опубликованные в его книге и размещённые на сайте. И что лишь изображения таких картин в низком разрешении могут быть участником Leningradartist с разрешения правообладателя загружены на викисклад. Лишь после этого OTRS выдало мне разрешение на загрузку не каких угодно изображений, а только размещённых в книге или на сайте под знаком копирайта, на которые у правообладателя имеются соответствующие документы. Поскольку уже долгое время я не активен в проекте, мне непонятны причины, по которым участник Sealle без обсуждения со мною решил номинировать к удалению сотни изображений. Может быть у кого-то возникли претензии по поводу прав на загруженные изображения? Или обнаружились неточности в оформлении загруженных изображений? Никакой информации на этот счёт от Sealle у меня нет. Может быть фонд Викимедиа что-то выиграет от удаления многих тысяч изображений из десятков языковых разделов? Мне кажется эта номинация в высшей степени поспешной и неразумной. Leningradartist (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Поскольку независимых мнений нет, закрытие обсуждения преждевременно. Также с учётом обсуждения на форуме в рувики считаю целесообразным, чтобы итог здесь подвёл более опытный и нейтральный администратор. Leningradartist (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Уважаемый Leningradartist! Из указанного тикета очевидно, что разрешения от автора и их наследников предоставлены только на работы одного художника. И да, оно было ошибочным: нельзя было подтвердить разрешение по всем работам разных авторов, основываясь на примере одного договора. Но в OTRS работают обычные люди и ошибки неизбежны, главное вовремя их исправить. Викисклад — это хранилище произведений, перешедших в общественное достояние или распространяемых под свободными лицензиями. И дело тут не в количестве потерянных для Википедии изображений. Википедия не может подставлять своих потенциальных пользователей. Должно быть всё предельно ясно: автор передал АП — вот договор. И так по каждому художнику. Да, скорее всего, это длительный и тяжёлый процесс, но по другому с произведениями нельзя. Спасибо за Ваше понимание и хочется сотрудничества от Вас. Волонтёры готовы принять от правопреемника договоры от авторов (или наследников) о передаче исключительных АП по каждому художнику. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Коллега, неужели я так бестолково излагаю? Ещё раз повторю: меня не интересует, были или не были допущены ошибки при выдаче тикета, которым я пользовался при загрузке изображений на совершенно законных основаниях. Если кто-то спустя 7 лет посчитал, что кто-то плохой(?) при оформлении разрешения действовал неправильно - это предмет для обсуждения и переписки с ПРАВООБЛАДАТЕЛЕМ, а не с загружающим участником. Как я вижу из хроники развития событий, к правообладателю обратились после того, как ВСЕ файлы были удалены. Что тут комментировать? Новые загрузки по этому тикету давно не производились, никаких нарушений с его использованием нет. Было вполне достаточно попросить участника не производить новых загрузок до прояснения с правообладателем возникших вопросов и уж никак не удалять файлы, не поставив даже в известность правообладателя о возникших вопросах. Сделано всё наоборот. Вам это кажется нормальным? Мне - нет. Впрочем, здесь я давно ничему не удивляюсь. Leningradartist (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    для человека, которому уже раз 20 сказали, что доказательства по лицензии - это головная боль загрузившего, бестолковее некуда. Также как и неуклюже изображать, что речь идет о разных людях. --85.26.233.250 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Не в моих правилах отвечать анонимам, но в данном случае сделаю исключение. Норма, на которую вы ссылаетесь, справедлива для тех случаев, когда загружающий участник является и правообладателем, или когда загружающий представляет в службу OTRS подтверждение от правообладателя. Когда же правообладатель, не являющийся непосредственным участником проекта, сам ведёт переговоры со службой о передаче принадлежащих ему прав на изображение - эта норма не применима. В этом случае загружающий лишь использует выданное OTRS разрешение. Любые изменения, касающиеся выданного разрешения, могут вноситься путём переговоров Фонда с правообладателем, без участия загружающего. Правообладатель в принципе может делегировать права загрузки любому участнику проекта. Leningradartist (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Любопытная теория. Кто-нибудь еще в курсе того, что вы ее изобрели? --141.101.227.10 13:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Glenfell Tower fire images[edit]

Would someone be able to check if a recently submitted ticket #2017061410005819 is valid? It's for the files in Category:Grenfell Tower fire, which is currently topical. --ghouston (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not as it stands, unfortunately. I've taken the ticket but don't feel super confident about a positive resolution. Storkk (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston, Storkk: I DMd more directly.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Licensing Document[edit]

Dear Sir / Madam,

We are a reputed website and mobile app development company.

We are creating variety of informative mobile applications on Bollywood subject and to make it appealing, we wish to use image of bollywood actors or actress along with description and information about the subject. We are using images from wikimedia, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shraddha_Kapoor_at_Luv_Ka_The_End_Audio_release_at_Marc_Cain_Store.jpg

However, our application is constantly getting rejected by Google saying we DO NOT have rights to use the content. Upon referring the page above which mentions licensing information, they say that they can only accept it if they see some kind of document which mentions that bollywoodhungama has approved it.

So I would be grateful if I can get some of that sort, I understand from ticket #2008030310010794 which will help me use the image within my applications.

Looking forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

Keyur —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 43.248.34.54 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the Marc Cain store launch at which Ms Kapoor was pictured was in India (I'm having trouble verifying this), then while the image is indeed free, I am not sure how you could convince an Google of that fact, since they are not required to take our word for it. In order to safeguard confidentiality, we will not forward bollywoodhungama's permission statement to you or Google or any other party. Tangentially, I would note that using someone's image commercially without explicit consent is often fraught with legal (and moral) problems, since you may be implying they endorse your product. This is quite aside from the license of the image itself. Storkk (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Copying OTRS tags to derivitive works[edit]

When I create a derivative work from a Commons file that has an {{PermissionOTRS}} tag, should I copy the tag to the derivative work, or does an OTRS member need to do this?

I recently did this when I posted File:Dafydd Iwan from Emynau album cover.jpg, which is a cropped and retouched version if File:Emynau, album cover.jpg. Did I do this correctly?

I suspect that I may have erred because when I attempted to crop File:Ceidwad Byd, album cover.jpg using CropTool I got an Abusefilter-warning-otrs error which appears to relate to the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag. I have reported this at Commons talk:CropTool#abusefilter-warning. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. First, it's better to have these tags inserted by OTRS agents only, then, if you correctly source and license the modified file, the PermissionOTRS in the page of the source file will suffice. --Ruthven (msg) 22:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This makes sense to me as well: one version of the file gets confirmed by OTRS as being under a license that permits derivatives with attribution, then any derivatives or crops can follow these requirements afterwards by simply linking to the file page and quoting the author, without the need for any additional tag baggage. seb26 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. If I understand correctly, derivative works (including cropped and retouched images) based on other Commons files do not need an OTRS tag, and a link to the source image is sufficient. I suggest you add this to Commons:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary. This runs counter to my usual practice of copying the licensing information from a source image file to a derivative image. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, your practice is not "a mistake", but just useless in many cases. However I've to admit that, sometimes, I add myself the PermissionOTRS tag to cropped versions that are in use in the projects, to avoid incomprehensions. But the policies require that only OTRS agents add the permission template, so it is preferable that you do not continue with this practice. On the other hand, this has nothing to do with contacting OTRS, as OTRS has already been contacted for the original file. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 09:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: I updated CropTool to remove the {{PermissionOTRS}} template when a crop is uploaded as a new file. [1]Danmichaelo (δ) 12:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Danmichaelo: Thank you, but would you please further patch CropTool to remove all these redirects in such situations, and consider avoiding the removal for OTRS members?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: Please have the global filter check for all those redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the check already includes the redirects. Making the template removal optional for OTRS members is a good idea, but adds complexity. – Danmichaelo (δ) 09:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

OTRS files with questionable licenses[edit]

I'm starting this section because I expect there will be several more of these, which I'll add below. I'm requesting verification of the license terms. Guanaco (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • ticket:2007031810005014
    File:SurteesTS20BarryBoor.JPG
    File:SurteesTS19BarryBoor.JPG
    File:SurteesTS7BarryBoor.jpg
    • This ticket (which indeed applies to all three files) is from March 2007, but it actually contains a message forwarded from December 2005. It does not use the standard template language and does not specify a license. The only words to the appropriate effect of a free license in the entire email are: "Please go ahead and use the pictures in any way you wish". It remains unclear if derivatives are permitted, or attribution is mandated, or if there are any other limitations, because these are not mentioned or alluded to at all. If it interested you I could reach out and see if the original holder would agree to a free license. seb26 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ticket:2014041110013735 - File:Stephan R. Leimberg.jpg
    • I'm not sure this one should have been accepted, the ticket doesn't clarify who the photographer is. I'll look into it more. seb26 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Hi @Sphilbrick: From what I have read from this ticket, and a few related ones from the customer email, there is no follow up or probing to the subject about how they are the owner of that photograph of themselves. Do you have any other information on this? I plan on sending a new email in the ticket to ask that person. seb26 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ticket:2005091610001532
    File:Rhythmicgymgroup.jpg has OTRS tag and no standard license
    File:Rhythmicgymgroup A.jpg has standard license and no OTRS tag
    File:Rhythmicgymgroup B.jpg has standard license and no OTRS tag
    • This ticket is an info-en one from 2005 so it does not use the standard template language. There are suggestions from the agent to use "Creative Commons BY or BY-SA licenses or a similar copyleft" license, but then the respondent's reply only says they are OK with a free license. They do not specify which one or use any other words in clarification of that. The agent suggests CC-BY-SA, but no reply (to date) has been received to clarify which free license or if they were in agreement with CC-BY-SA. In my opinion in this case, it seems safe to treat it as if they were. The A and B images are derivatives created after the upload in 2012, so they shouldn't need OTRS tags as long as they have a working link to the original OTRS-approved image. seb26 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I've changed these all to {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} because that was the common license available throughout 2005. Guanaco (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A guide to Russian propaganda[edit]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Result was Keep. [3] [4] [5]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:A guide to Russian propaganda. Part 1 propaganda prepares Russia for war.webm
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:A guide to Russian propaganda. Part 2 Whataboutism.webm
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:A guide to Russian propaganda. Part 3 Rapid fire conspiracy theories.webm

I've emailed the video uploader. Alya Shandra of Euromaidan Press responded: "Thank you for the notice! Yes, we can keep the videos under Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, Alya"

Ticket # 2017071210002636

Can an OTRS member please update the pages accordingly, and promptly, as there is an ongoing deletion discussion and attempt to delete all three files ?

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26:Thank you for your wiki help [6]. I'm in touch with the copyright holder who has agreed to license all the video files by a free-use license. The copyright holder wants the video files to be kept and available on Wikimedia Commons. Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
OK. In general, I would encourage you to please not be too concerned if the files are deleted before permission is processed, it shouldn't be considered a race against time kind of arrangement (although your interest in acquiring and preserving third party content for the project is appreciated). With the co-operation of admins, it is relatively straightforward to have them restored again once permission comes through. This happens all the time with files processed by us. I will add {{OTRS received}} to the above files but since a user has nominated them for deletion, that discussion will have to be respected until it reaches its close or an admin makes a decision. seb26 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Seb26:Understood, but can you understand how it's frustrating to have a user remove the entire license section from those file pages, during an ongoing deletion discussion [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] ? I can see how you are helpfully trying to explain how there's not a hurry, but I'm just worried such actions will make it a risk for a "speedy" delete instead of abiding by the OTRS process and letting the deletion discussion run its course, and I hope the user's actions won't lead to such a "speedy" risk ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sagecandor, absolutely it would be frustrating, the particular behaviour that you have outlined does not appear to me on first glance to be very productive at all, it is a shame you have had to deal with it. When I speak about the lack of hurry, it is because I know that files literally remain inside the database with full history preserved at all times when they are "deleted". No, they won't be viewable on articles during the time they are deleted, but it is so simple to flick the switch and bring them back. So what I mean is that your contribution is not and will not be lost. This would not be the first of this particular type of case that an admin has seen, they understand the importance of looking over the full picture and understanding the actions of all users involved. Any speedy delete tags placed at this point would likely just be rejected. On another note, if you have dialogue with the copyright holder, you could request that they just go on their YouTube channel preferences and edit the video's settings to read the CC license tag. I didn't look deeply into the ticket or the issue myself but I just wanted to reassure you about what we do to make sure you are OK and are not rattled by the threat of deadlines or by the debate that is going on on the DR pages. This is indeed bureaucratic in a way but in the end we are all volunteers of our own time, a resolution will be had eventually. seb26 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Seb26:Yes, in my communication with the copyright holder, I specifically asked them if it is okay to use the license, Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike. They said Yes. I sent them another email to ask them to also change the file licenses on YouTube. That is not necessary since we already have their answer by email as to the licenses here for Wikimedia Commons. But I did that anyways also. What else can I do ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ask them to fill in the email template as at Commons:Email templates; this is the best way to ensure that the OTRS ticket is successful. If the total content of the copyright holder's email is "Thank you for the notice! Yes, we can keep the videos under Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, Alya" it is not likely to be sufficient. - Ryk72 (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sagecandor, you have done all the right steps, you just need to have patience. The permissions queue for Commons has a backlog at the moment, so it might be in the interest of many OTRS agents to respond to older queries who have waited weeks before getting to this one. When it is reviewed you will be informed. seb26 (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Seb26:Thank you for acknowledging, "absolutely it would be frustrating, the particular behaviour that you have outlined does not appear to me on first glance to be very productive at all, it is a shame you have had to deal with it." I hope that, especially due to such types of disturbing behavior patterns by such users in what appears to be a strong motivation to remove free-use files from being available as a resource on Wikimedia Commons, that the OTRS volunteers will be able to help and advise on this soon. Sagecandor (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sagecandor: Please stop adding license details for which we have no evidence. It is disruptive to do so. If we have privately emailed details of a free-use license which have been submitted by OTRS, then let the OTRS process proceed. - Ryk72 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with comment by Seb26 about this at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Seb26's comments are largely in accordance with my own previous statements. We either need the copyright holder to publish with a free-use license or the OTRS process to run its course. The files, if deleted, will not be lost and can be recovered if & when permission for use is determined. Frustrations or not, we should not knowingly include incorrect licensing details; and it is not disruptive to remove them. - Ryk72 (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I am in direct communication with the copyright holder. The copyright holder wants the files to stay on Wikimedia Commons. We are, therefore, most certainly not knowingly including incorrect licensing details. I agree with this comment by Seb26: "the particular behaviour that you have outlined does not appear to me on first glance to be very productive at all, it is a shame you have had to deal with it." Sagecandor (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The CC-BY-SA licensing template is for works published under that license; these works have not yet been so published. They may be one day; and, if so, we can use that template then. The process for licensing provided by private email is OTRS, which is in progress. I acknowledge your frustration, as I hope that you can understand mine; but we need to get it right. - Ryk72 (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
User is incorrect as they have been so licensed in agreement with questions in email submitted to OTRS. Further clarification can be provided by the copyright holder to OTRS. Sagecandor (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please note that the copyright holder has changed the licenses on YouTube to "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". This is can be confirmed per ticket:2017071710018012. Thank you to Jeff G. for the helpful input. The videos with the licenses by the copyright holder can be see at [13] and [14] and [15]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Any chance someone can look at this, please, as the copyright holder has cleared up the situation by changing the license to Creative Commons attribution ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Sagecandor, an OTRS agent commented on the deletion discussion with their findings, that is all OTRS can do. So as I mentioned before admins will close the discussion. seb26 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Result was Keep. [16] [17] [18]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:DC OfficialWhiteHouseAmandaLucidon copy.jpg[edit]

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

File:550601-DenverMayorWill_NicholsonTaking_Oath_Of_Office.jpg[edit]

I noticed that the Permission has been added to the file, but the ticket is still unanswered. @Jeff G.: can you fix it please?

As a side note, I am not very happy with the email account of the customer, also because the photo was taken in 1955, and seems taken from a newspaper. That's why I am posting here: I wasn't able to find any evidence linking the photographer to the photograph, maybe Jeff or some other agent can help me understand if the authorisation can be accepted under those terms. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 13:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven: It appears this user took lots of photos with film cameras over many years, and has been scanning some combination of paper photos, slides, and negatives to English Wikipedia, and more recently to Commons. I answered the ticket before I saw your post. It appeared my first answer was lost, so I answered again after some time. I'm sorry, I will pay more attention to comparing names in releases and "From" fields. What makes you think this photo was from a newspaper?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: it looks like scanned from a newspaper because of the grain, but I can be mistaken. If there are other tickets from the same customer where the ownership of the files has been sorted out already, it is a good practice to link them to the current one. In that way, a newcoming agent would find some clue. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: This customer's email address has but one ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: so I have misunderstood something. Are we accepting his contribution on the basis on his long history on Wikimedia? Maybe we should first clarify well that he's uploading unpublished material of which he is the sole copyright holder, and then prepare a custom license template, so that he will no be bothered with permission requests anymore. What do you reckon? --Ruthven (msg) 18:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Yes, and maybe. I have typically waited for a second contact or an emailed declaration of intent to upload further before I offer to make a template, perhaps I have been too cautious in that. I have emailed the customer for clarification.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:SIB[edit]

Template:SIB is protected due to being a custom OTRS license tag, with ticket:2007122210011572. Currently it uses {{copyrighted free use provided that}}. If it can be changed to {{attribution}} or similar, please do that.

Otherwise, change {{Copyrighted free use provided that|1=the source and the author are mentioned}} to {{Copyrighted free use provided that|1=the source and the author are mentioned|reviewed=yes}} so the images aren't in a backlog category. Guanaco (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dina Ali media[edit]

I had the original photographer submit a permission email for

I'm wondering if this was done correctly, and if they can be restored or will I have to upload them again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfameous (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Please wait for the permission to be processed. It can take some time, as there is always a backlog. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

My own works have been systematically eliminated[edit]

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

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

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

Uploader added an OTRS ticket number[edit]

The uploader of File:Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi.jpg added an OTRS ticket number that looks suspicious being one of the only two edits and both by the uploader. The image is claimed to be the copyright of the subject of the photo which seems unlikely as it does not look like a selfie though it has metadata and is high resolution so maybe it is a good file. Can someone please verify the ticket? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ww2censor: ticket:2017032010018415 was received and an agent responded to it to ask for more clarification, 2 months ago. There was no response so it was unsuccessful. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Thanks for posting this. @Huon: hi, the template you might have been looking to use on this file was {{subst:OP}}. This places a notice on the page to let others know OTRS permission was sent. Only OTRS agents are allowed to add the actual approved template. In this case, the ticket was not successful so it was the opposite of approved. Please keep this in mind for next time. Thanks, seb26 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)