From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:OTRS(Redirected from Commons:OTRS/N)
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: 72 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

HHV-6 inclusion bodies[edit]

The files File:HHV-6 inclusion bodies.jpg and File:Inclusion bodies.jpg have an incorrect caption. I contacted NCI's Visuals Online (the source for both images) about this issue and received an email back confirming the caption information is in error. NCI has removed the image from the collection because the correct caption could not be documented. I have a copy of the email for OTRS. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Froggerlaura: could you please clarify what you are asking us to do? If the caption is incorrect, please fix the caption. Storkk (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that no one at NIH knows what the correct caption is supposed to be, so the image was deleted from the collection. The image title and caption are no longer correct on the Wiki entry, and as the image was taken in the 1980s, it is unlikely the correct caption can be found. Would it be appropriate to delete the image or say that the information is no longer valid? As the linked page at NIH image database no longer exists, I have a confirmation from them that the caption is incorrect. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Froggerlaura: If it is impossible even to write a generic caption, you can ask the file to be removed via a DR because it is impossible to use it for any educational purpose. But I reckon that you should do your best to describe it, e.g. "inclusion bodies of generic cells" - if it sounds stupid, keep in mind that I don't know anything about medicine :) --Ruthven (msg) 12:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed the description to reflect the above.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hakan Duran[edit]

Hi, Hakan Duran (talk · contributions · user rights management) has added quite a lot of OTRS permissions while is not a OTRS member. I can't read the tickets or I don't have access to them. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yann. I am not OTRS member. I know because Turkish Wikipedia's reviewing pending changes (Rapsar) let me for collaborations.--Hakan Duran (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't see and understand most of them. One I was able to, 2009052010051757 turned out to be a bit complicated, with permissions from three sources, and the Palomar Observatory images are clearly unfree. ☹ Platonides (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I too looked at ticket:2009052010051757 and it does not give a usable license based on my review. A commons administrator who is capable of reviewing OTRS tickets like Revent may want to take a look. Cameron11598 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The short of it is that every OTRS template added by Hakan Duran should be removed. Individual files can be reviewed as necessary. You cannot see the tickets, and so you can't evaluate whether the permission is proper. Only OTRS members should be adding permissions templates. I've received some additional context that these were tickets previously approved and in use on itwiki. It appears certain individual tickets should never have been approved in the first place. We'll need to comprehensively check these over. ~ Rob13Talk 05:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

To make a list, for reference....

I have to say that, based on what I 'can' see, and general principles, I'm quite uncomfortable with these transfers of OTRS-verified files by people who cannot read the tickets. - Reventtalk 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: Um, did the client at ticket:2014030310010433 stated the version of GFDL? There are two versions of GFDL used here, which are 1.2 and 1.3. If they didn't specified a version, then I don't think that the image is legally licensed under GFDL 1.2, since no version was specified. We can't automatically assume that it is GFDL 1.2, since we don't know whether they really read the legal code of that license. Thanks, Poké 95 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: I'm looking at a Google translation of Turkish, you understand, but it appears so simply have been along the lines of "I have chosen the GNU Free Documentation License". I think you have a valid point. - Reventtalk 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Oh, hey, this isn't like CC licenses. If you will read section 10 of GFDL 1.2 and 1.3, it says that if the document doesn't specify a version of the license, you may use any version of the GFDL published by the FSF (except drafts). There's still one problem though, we don't have consensus on what version we should use by default when the copyright holder doesn't specifies a version of the GFDL. We can't decide by our own whether to use 1.2 or 1.3. There are still differences between those versions, it is not only dual licensing which was made on 2009, there's also a change in section 9 and section 10. See their FAQ about GFDL 1.3 here. Poké 95 02:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: It had been years since I had actually reread the GFDL, lol. I think, however, that given what it says in section 10, we would be perfectly safe to, if the licensor is not specific, just make the most generic statement that is correct (i.e, under any version of the GFDL). - Reventtalk 02:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I just made a thread at the village pump regarding this issue, but seeing your suggestion here, it seems it is better than making the community decide what version to use. :D I reverted my thread at the village pump right away, if you will see. Poké 95 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: I created a new license notice text here. If you see any errors or improvements, please fix/do it, since I am not a native English speaker. Thanks, Poké 95 03:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: I copy-edited it to make it parse a little more clearly in English, and also added the 'template stuff'. - Reventtalk 05:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! :D It is ready to be moved to the template namespace, I think. Poké 95 09:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: moved to templatespace. - Reventtalk 11:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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)


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)


Could someone take a look at ticket:2016123010010166 and resolve it? Someone has asked me to look at it but I don't have the bandwidth at the moment. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I added the PermissionOTRS template in an accepted photo, and answered to the client. Should be closed soon I reckon. --Ruthven (msg) 10:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Duki Dror.jpg[edit]

This file contains two completely different photos uploaded by two different users, both of which were restored by Sphilbrick when confirming the permission. According to the approved and restored file description, User:Binizem is the author. According to, the author is Nitzan Makover. Does the ticket actually cover both revisions, and does it actually confirm that User:Binizem is the author? Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

E-mail was sent 06/07/2014 15:05 (UK style 6th July), so just post second image upload. Ticket does not specify which user. Ticket is also a gmail address, which I (cynically) don't like. In view of the IMDB data we might need a more explicit confirmation of copyright ownership. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The first file can be found in he:File:Dukidror2009.jpg. The uploader, User:Abyssinia north clams to be the author (from 2009). Also please take to your consideration that the link says: Photo by Nitzan Makover - © Zygote Films The copyright owner (©) is Zygote Films which established in 2002 by Duki Dror. -- Geagea (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
True. I'm just very cynical of anyone who uses a gmail address rather than a nice identifying domain. Once bitten, twice shy. It's a great way of faking a permission e-mail. I always want to see either an identifying domain or the e-mail address on a web page. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:. -- Geagea (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Geagea:I sent an email to the person providing the original permission asking for further details so we can sort this out.--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by Am3n3[edit]

Way back when we were all young and beautiful (in 2006), Am3n3 uploaded File:Surgeon-Unit-21Apr06.jpg and File:Surgeon-Womb-30Sep06-crop.jpg, stating that permission e-mails were sent in, but they don't seem to have been checked by OTRS volunteers. Wondering if a keen archaeologist could sift through the sediments and find something in ye olde archives? LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@LX: Performing a research of the word "Surgeon" doesn't brought anything, but in 2006 maybe the OTRS system was with different queues and management brought back ticket:2006102610007334, releasing the photos under Creative Commons license cc-by-2.5. But the OTRS volunteer wasn't able to find the photographs, so no tag was added. Some e-mail check should be done though.. --Ruthven (msg) 20:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ticket:2006102610007334 - I searched for the remote web site "". Not that it helps, as the poster only included the remote web pages, and did not specify the commons file name. When asked for more details - he never replied. That was the only e-mail from that person, and I cannot see how his e-mail address relates to the web site content - as that does not exist any more and is on a domain in a different country anyway. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the information is not available anymore. Should be considered as grandfathered, imho. --Ruthven (msg) 20:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

What email to send when copyright holder of the files allows to use all images[edit]

Hello, at the moment I talking with a representative of, we had previous talks as well and as a result we've placed {{CC BY 4.0}} on many pages (e.g. but it looks ugly and we can't place it everywhere. What email to send or what to do in general if I have a private permission for all files but I don't know how to represent it?--g. balaxaZe 14:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an OTRS agent but I would like to give you some tips in terms of website layout. Yes, you can place a Creative Commons notice everywhere. It is totally sufficient if you use a small footnote at the bottom of a page. The note at this page is of course way too large and obtrusive and a small CC graphic image was upscaled to an impossible size which makes it blurry and pixelated. My suggestion is this:
  • If you want to include an icon, use SVG images to have vector graphics that can be scaled losslessly to any size.
  • You don't need a graphical icon at all to indicate a CC licence. Just use a simple sentence in small script at the very bottom of the page stating that "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." and a link to the CC licence text. Anything else is unnecessary.
This way they can keep granting CC licenses.
As to the "private permission" as you called it, all media at Wikimedia Commons must be free to use for anyone for any purpose, so it's not sufficient if you personally got a permission to use certain files at Commons or Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks ugly because you have scaled up the image - see to see how it should look. The image should be 88 x 15 (or 88 x 31 if you used the bigger one) Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Giorgi Balakhadze: De728631 and Ronhjones are right. Note that there is no translation in Georgian yet per   — Jeff G. ツ 23:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, that "private permission" means nothing special it is free for everyone. The web-site is not mine so I can't edit it, I've told them what to do, even gave them a code, but they didn't or couldn't do it.--g. balaxaZe 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi. The question: regarding copyright. Over my professional career, I have asked strangers to take my picture, because of an unusual situation, with my camera, using my film. The images are of me and ordinary people, there are no celebrities or catastrophes in the image. In the past these images have been used by magazines and newspapers in the US and Europe to illustrate articles about my career as a photographer. They have not requested proof of copyright. I have not charged for the use of these pictures and everybody is allowed to duplicate them. Recently, 23 March 2017, an image of me, which has been on Wikipedia for 5 years, was “nominated for deletion.” Reason: “Unlikely that the photographer took picture of himself.” I have no idea who pressed the button on my camera creating this image but I contacted some people I knew from the time that the picture was taken 42 years ago. (1974) I received no reply. No one has ever claimed copyright on any of these pictures. I have googled this question and have been rewarded with many different answers. Now the question is what is the policy of Wikipedia Commons?--Gerundial (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This is currently under discussion. Please see Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie and Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Bystander selfie. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it of any consequence if a “bystander selfie” was taken before the copyright act of 1976? --Gerundial (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerundial: Unfortunately, no. Section 41 of the 1909 Copyright Act specifically stated that 'the copyright is distinct from the property in the material object copyrighted, and the sale or conveyance, by gift or otherwise, of the material object shall not of itself constitute a transfer of the copyright'. - Reventtalk 00:27, 3 April 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)

Manfred Hermanns[edit]

Could someone please comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manfred Hermanns Okt. 1999.jpg? The image description mentions that there should be an OTRS ticket, but unfortunately no ticket number. Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it's not in a permissions queue, probably it is not a permission 0_O --Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Little confused[edit]

I seen that i was banned from having a login about a comment or something my immature younger brother was using my phone for"a school project" i am a 32 year old mother of 2 who happens to love your page and refer to it almost daily i would never do something bad and apologize for what exactly my brother has done please give me another chance an please u will see that i will never again cause you a problem thank you Erin Korzeniowski (btw i tried to contact u but didnt know how im sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:fb90:297c:5b2:9910:e503:cbd0:58ab (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Erin Korzeniowski, what username were you using when you got blocked? --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up of "Motion Elements Want to Donate 100 Multimedia Files Cooperated with Wikimedia Taiwan"[edit]

Hello permission agents. This issue was discussed in mailing list. However, @Shangkuanlc, Reke from Wikimedia Taiwan need the direct discussion with us, so I opened this topic here from mailing list.

According to the offline discussion with Motion Elements and Wikimedia Taiwan, all the permission e-mail from Motion Elements and its copyright holders will offered in one e-mail. However, WMTW and Motion Elements considered that the 100 multimedia files are videos and voices, and they want to transfer these files to .ogv and .ogg file types. It's need time, and the file names of these files were not decided. Therefore, they said that they want to send the copyright holder's permissions to OTRS first, then upload these files about 10 files/time. When uploading a batch of these files, they will send the file names to OTRS and take a note that these files have the permission in the first copyright holders' permission e-mail. If you want to know the details, members of WMTW will offer the information. Thanks. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 12:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Taiwania Justo. We hope that we can find a way, all file we upload in this program but different time can pass the copyrights evidence as Motion Elements just need mail the permission once. Just tell us how can we do if there is another way.--Reke (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Would it be sufficient to give permission for "all files I ever upload with 'Author=Motion Elements'" for example, and then use the same {{PermissionOTRS}} tag for each such file?   — Jeff G. ツ 06:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
ME is not author, but I think that's a good idea. Maybe for "all files I ever upload with 'Category = Motion Elements Donate Project'" is okay?--Reke (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It is too generic, as other users could use that category. But "all the files from Motion Elements uploaded by user=XXX" is enough. We can make a dedicated license template for these uploads. --Ruthven (msg) 12:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. So WMTW should supply a list of users who will update these files, right?--Reke (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Reke: I think that would be prudent.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ArchiVol and User:Sphilbrick[edit]

User:ArchiVol has been taking paper photos in the South Carolina Political Collections of The University of South Carolina Libraries, scanning them in, uploading them here with "author=Photo scanned by South Carolina Political Collections at the University of South Carolina", and following up with legit-looking emails to permissions-commons. No mention of actual author/photographer is made. In OTRS ticket 2017022410011952, one out of the four sets was actually approved by User:Sphilbrick, who tagged each of the 17 images with PermissionOTRS. This behavior is not ok (in that it infringes the copyrights of the actual photographers and rightsholders and makes the WMF a party thereto), and I have reversed the PermissionOTRS tagging, replacing it with "{{subst:OR|id=2017022410011952|reason=email}}".   — Jeff G. ツ 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Affected files are as follows:
  — Jeff G. ツ 00:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
All of these scanned photographs were contained within the collections donated to the University of South Carolina by the individuals mentioned in each item. In the case of USC (this is not the case at all, or even most universities), copyright has been transferred from the donor to the institution during the donor agreement. Specific permission was given to me, an employee of USC at the time, from the institution to disseminate these items under the mentioned CC license. Of the files I have uploaded, when a specific author was identified on the front or back of the photograph, credit was given. In almost all cases, the photographs did not contain this information, in which case I used my generic "Photo scanned..." message. These photos should generally be considered part of the individual donor's collection and thus subject to the aforementioned copyright transfer.
As further evidence, some of these photos appear to be those created by the government as official portraits of public figures, which are free from copyright restrictions as I understand it. Also, in Managing Congressional Collections, the standard "bible" on all things congressional archives, it states on pg. 18, "“The records generated by a congressional office—including all materials produced by the office staff—are the private property of the member of Congress. The member is free to dispose of the records in the matter he or she deems most appropriate."
If there is a better set of text to place in the author tag, even "unknown", I am happy to change it in order for these valuable photos that likely cannot be found elsewhere to be made available to the public.
- ArchiVol (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Please reply to the auto replies with the ticket numbers in the subjects and your information above (specifically including "copyright has been transferred from the donor to the institution during the donor agreement") for our records, and I will process your tickets. Thanks,   — Jeff G. ツ 16:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I'll be sure to clarify these things in future additions to Commons. ArchiVol (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome! I have one file left, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Rembert_Dennis.jpg for details.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I imagine that Jeff G. and Sphilbrick are already on this, but I'm not seeing where we received any information about how copyright ownership was transferred by the photographers of the various works. Superficially, it looks as if there is some (mistaken) idea that the subject of a photograph has the right to donate the copyright in it. Should we perhaps ask ArchiVol to clarify whether the university has a release on file for each of those that were not created by a US Government employee as part of his/her employment, or even to send us a copy of that release? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: what, you don't trust Members of Congress? :) Seriously, the vast majority of these look like they were photographed as work for hire official portraits either by employees or contractors who would have transferred their rights. Karsh, on the other hand, was good and smart enough to hold on to his rights and make arrangements for people to look after those rights after he was gone.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I do, I do! :) Seriously, Jeff G., I don't want to interfere and I haven't looked at them in detail. What struck a warning note was the sentence "In the case of USC ... copyright has been transferred from the donor to the institution during the donor agreement", since presumably those donors were the subjects of the pictures. That looks like an all-too-common misconception. As I understand it, that copyright transfer by the subject would only be valid for our purposes if it included documentation of how copyright was transferred by the photographer (such as, e.g., "work of a US government employee as part of his/her official duties", "work-for-hire" etc) – and I don't see that it does. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@ArchiVol: would you care to comment in what Justlettersandnumbers wrote? Also, did the congresscritters donate the negatives too?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the attention to detail you all are giving to this. This is my first experience uploading to Commons, and I've learned a lot. In regards to the copyright, I believe Jeff G. is correct that the large majority of these would have been commissioned portraits or otherwise taken by government employees in the service of their work. I don't think any other conclusion seems likely. I suppose is would have been better to mark these with that option in the 'copyright' section of the Upload Wizard?
There are five files I've uploaded that I'm less sure about and that were simply contained in the donor's collection under a 'photographs' folder, listed below. If I haven't mentioned them here, I consider it likely that it's under one of the government-so-free-from-copyrights we discussed earlier.
In most of these cases, I find it likely that a staffer or contractor would have been photographing the event in service of the donor. The size of political/congressional collections dictates that some sacrifices are made in tracking down the provenance of every item, and assumptions are made based on what we've seen in past collections. From my knowledge, USC does not have any documents from photographers transferring copyright. And yes, a number of the donors have negatives to their photographs, but the collections are not described at a sufficient enough level for me to know easily. If you have further guidance for these items, I would appreciate it. ArchiVol (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@ArchiVol: Those five should probably go, but I am going to defer to an Admin at this point.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent flags for deletion[edit]

A number of images I've uploaded on behalf of my clients were recently flagged and deleted for improper permissions. In reviewing their submissions to permissions, I've realized that there are some that never received ticket numbers. I initially emailed the permissions team about the issue [Ticket#: 2017040610021061] but I know the queue can get quite long. Can anyone help me sort this all out? I realize that copyrights are serious and you're all pressed for time; I'd just like to resolve this to the best of my ability as quickly as I can. I'm very appreciative for any help I can get!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In the case of File:Darius Adamczyk high-res.jpg, we have been waiting a week for permission from the actual photographer or details on the license transfer. Re the rest, if you got an auto reply, permission is being processed, so please wait. Providing such information for the other tickets by replying with the ticket numbers in the subjects will speed the process. Thanks,   — Jeff G. ツ 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thanks for the help. The ticket numbers I could find are:
  • [Ticket#: 2016101110022013]
  • [Ticket#: 2016092010017943]
In reviewing the emails sent to Permissions from my clients that I was cc'd on, I realized that more than a few never received ticket numbers. Would it be helpful to include those email addresses along with the dates they were sent? Or would it be more prudent to resubmit releases with the photos in question?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@FacultiesIntact: Sorry for any confusion. In both cases for which you gave ticket numbers above, no filename or URL for one was provided, we couldn't find such, and we replied asking for such. In the case of Ticket 2016092010017943, our reply bounced at the destination domain's mail server. In the case of File:Darius Adamczyk high-res.jpg you mentioned above, Ticket 2017032410024311, we also need the text of the attribution if it is to be changed (it is currently "Honeywell" in plaintext). Attribution is absolutely required by the terms of all Creative Commons Attribution "CC-BY" licenses. In your reply re Ticket 2017032410024311, for those "more than a few never received ticket numbers", please include the email addresses, dates, times, and filenames or other distinguishing features (subject lines, photo subjects, etc.). Do you normally get autoreplies when you are CC'd on emails to permissions-commons?   — Jeff G. ツ 22:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Looking back on it, I see that some things got lost in the shuffle, and I'm just going to resubmit everything with the proper permissions. There was one that I tracked down that seemed fixable, though; the email was dated 11 Oct 2016, subject: Wikimedia Commons - AIG HQ Photo. The photo was released for use on the AIG Wikipedia article. Is this reparable? Thanks again for all the help.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@FacultiesIntact: I found ticket:2016101110022013 above meets those criteria. In it, the customer gives permission, but doesn't specify the exact filename. I'm guessing it's not File:Los Angeles Valley, Warner Center, AIG Towers.jpg, currently in that article. So what's the exact filename? I resent the requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I really can't express how grateful I am for your help in all this. I just sent a reply via email in regards to the AIG photo. I was also looking at a number of my recent uploads for Jesse Richman.
Filename Email address Subject line Date
File:Jesse Richman - Pierre Bouras.jpg photo release 8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Pierre Bouras 1.jpg photo release 8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Pierre Bouras 2.jpg photo release 8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Nuit De La Glisse 1.jpg Picture copyrights granting 9 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Nuit De La Glisse 2.jpg Picture copyrights granting 9 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman 1.jpg Wikimedia Jesse Richman Photos 8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman 2.jpg Wikimedia Jesse Richman Photos 8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman 3.jpg Wikimedia Jesse Richman Photos 8 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - Whistler Bike Park 2.jpg Permissions for uploading Jesse Richman images to Wikimedia Commons 9 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 1.jpg Image Permissions 14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 2.jpg Image Permissions 14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 3.jpg Image Permissions 14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 4.jpg Image Permissions 14 Mar 2017
File:Jesse Richman - photo- Craig Kolesky Red Bull Content Pool 5.jpg Image Permissions 14 Mar 2017
I noticed that these never got any kind of response, automated or otherwise. Would you mind taking a look, or do you have any insight into what could have happened there? Thank you so so so much.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@FacultiesIntact: They have responses now. However, most of your tickets specify non-commercial use and no derivatives, in conflict with the licenses they allegedly grant, and I replied as such to each one of those and removed PermissionOTRS tags as necessary.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Hallo friends, a collegue of mine, Robert Adkins <>, has uploaded the following photograph: Lance_Selwyn_Cousins.jpg, 15. April 2017, and in an email to he declared his ownership and wrote:

"I hereby affirm that I am Robert Reginald Adkins, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] <> I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Robert Reginald Adkins Copyright Holder 15th April 2017"

So I added this photograph to Now you've deleted this photograph :-( So what have we to do, to make this photograph available again? Thank you for your help - sincerely Mbs0 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please wait approximately 40 days and 40 nights.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ticket#: 2017041910018354[edit]

Hi, could anyone look at the Ticket#: 2017041910018354? Seven images were deleted despite the permission was sent as needed (OTRS letter). These images were initially uploaded in 2013 with the links to the sources where it was explicitly stated that the copyright owner releases them to the public domain. Please help me to fix it. Alexandra Goncharik (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in approximately 44 days.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:26, 29 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)

Insufficient Rights[edit]

Looking through Category:Items with ticket OTRS permission confirmed I get "We are sorry, you do not have permissions anymore to access this ticket in its current state. " message for a lot of tickets, including:

Can anybody access those and look up 16-digit ticket numbers? --Jarekt (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have been able to get only one of them (see above). Linedwell (talk) 19:55, 22 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)


Does this grant permission to use all images from the museum's collection? Or only some specific images? Trying to see if I can use [1] or [2] for Wikipedia. HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I don't think so, unless you're part of the staff of the museum. Otherwise you can use this template tag only if the work is in the museum's collection and in the public domain. --Ruthven (msg) 11:43, 23 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)

Lynn Gilbert[edit]

Lynn Gilbert, an American photograph, has donated several of her own photographs of great women to Wikipedia.

May you please help LynnGilbert5 (talk · contribs) to release her own pictures? Quite funny that such an act is even necessary.--Philippe Stelly (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, If any of these pictures were previously published, a formal written permission is necessary. It is also best practice to protect the works of professional photographers, since anyone could create an account and claim to be her. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate file tagging[edit]

I believe Mlpearc has been inappropriately applying the {{No permission since}} template. Specifically, here and here, Mlpearc claimed that these images, which are clearly snapshots taken by a private individual and are not previously published (at least not demonstrably so, via a Google image search), have no evidence of permission. Are we now requiring that every image uploaded by a private individual taken by their own camera be accompanied with an OTRS ticket? WikiDan61 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I have opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MonkeyKingdom regarding these files and their uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Luiz Fernando Carvalho Credito Melina Dalboni.png[edit]

Hi, the photographer sent an email to 30 days ago with a declaration of consent and release of rights to a file - Ticket#2017042610011981 File: How long does it take to review requests in portuguese? Thank you for your help --Bia2017 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)