Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard

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

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

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 61 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


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)

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 [1]... 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: [2] click at the Flickr logo on top...
The problem remains at the photo, if we take one image under cc-by and googling it [3] 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[4]; 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.[5] -- (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)

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)

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)

Photo de Pierre Karl Péladeau [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)

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: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)

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) : [[6]] 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

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)

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 [7]). 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)

Arlene Dahl[edit]

On Wikipedia, actress Arlene Dahl has an OTRS confirmation number reflink which I cannot access or open despite twice requesting a password. Whatever, the year she gives (1928) is bogus. The Minnesota records clearly show that she was born in 1925 (see [8]; insert DAHL as surname; Swan as mother's maiden name and Hennepin as county of birth). I don't want to change anything that OTRS has handled but leaving a bogus year of birth is not cool. RobSieger (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You won't be able to access ticket:2014081810016418 because that website is only accessible by OTRS volunteers. I would have thought that the obvious answer is to include both the OTRS note and the MNHS reference, even if it is a primary source. However, you are correct that such information has to be verifiable. I can't view that ticket either, so I have asked for help at the OTRS wiki (which is also limited access). Green Giant (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@RobSieger, Green Giant: A representative of hers contacted us and said that 1928 was the correct date. English Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons states that government documents should not be used as sources of information (the representative was advised of this) and that kindness should be shown to subjects. Anon126 ( ) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
"A representative of hers contacted us and said..." -- said!! Did he/she proffer any evidence than can override a birth registration? RobSieger (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Please read my previous message about English Wikipedia policy. But at the risk of revealing too much private information, the representative presented different government documents. Anon126 ( ) 21:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Notify RobSieger. Anon126 ( ) 21:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2001-2008 Société Générale tower, La Défense, Paris.jpg[edit]

File is tagged for deletion but has an OTRS permission, please verify permission is for the image and the depicted building and state this info at the DR page. --Denniss (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems that the file was deleted because no OTRS agent had seen the deletion request. Should the file be undeleted again? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a DR also aplies to File:2001-2004 Headquarters for the press group Le Monde, Paris,.jpg. Rodrigolopes (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody from OTRS able or willing to answer? --Denniss (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Not that it matters now but the permission seems to come from the photographer and not from the architect but my French is even worse than my German so probably best to ask a French speaking OTRS-speaker to second me of prove me wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

File:BOH&MOR-1-Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia-1 Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg[edit]

I would like to aks an OTRS volunteer to check the permission for File:BOH&MOR-1-Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia-1 Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg. The license says: This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous. So why was sending a permission to OTRS needed? The authors were Bohumil Heinz (died 1940) and Bedřich Fojtášek (died 1990!). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Help in uploading a file from Behindwoods.com[edit]

I wanted to upload an image of Allu Arjun from Flickr but refrained myself from doing so as it appeared to be Flickr washed. Later i observed this file and thus sent a mail requesting permission from Behindwoods by filling for uploading this file. I have a few doubts which i request you to clarify.

First, that template states that the copyright holder, Behindwoods.com in this case, should send the declaration of consent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org whereas this template states that the consent should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. So, when Behindwoods sends the email to the first email address, can i upload the file at Wikimedia commons or i should do it at Wikipedia.

Second, how can i know whether Behindwoods sent the declaration of consent to OTRS if the website's team does not send me a mail acknowledging me about the same? Will OTRS send me a mail about the same? How can i know whether an OTRS ticket has been generated? Should i register at OTRS or i will get a mail?

Third, after adding an OTRS pending template (if i upload it), the file gets deleted after thirty days i believe. But, if OTRS ticket is delayed, the file will be deleted. After the ticket is validated and archived, how will the file uploaded by me be undeleted?

For further reference, i am hereby attaching the text in the email i sent to Behindwoods.com requesting permission :

To the team of Behindwoods.com,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project <http://www.wikipedia.org/>, an endeavour to build a fully-fledged multilingual encyclopaedia in an entirely open manner, to ask for permission to use your copyrighted material.
Your organisation has on its website content which would undoubtedly enhance communication with our target audience; in order to do so, I should like to ask for your authorisation to use such content, namely the photograph located at - http://behindwoods.com/new-images/photo-galleries-q1-09/tamil-photo-gallery/vaishali-audio-launch/vaishali-audio-launch-shankar-01.html, under the terms of Wikipedia's licence.
Wikipedia licenses all its content under the licence developed for purposes of free documentation by the Creative Commons, the text of which can be found at <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode>. It should be borne in mind that if you choose to allow Wikipedia to use the stated [photograph, illustration, etc], it will remain copyrighted to you; however, the said licence stipulates that third parties must be permitted to reuse the licensed work so long that they retain the licence of this work and any derivatives from it. Consequently, you may wish to consider carefully whether you are prepared to compromise some of your rights granted to you by copyright law by licensing your work as suggested.
That said, allow me to reiterate that your material will be used to the noble end of providing a free collection of knowledge for everyone; naturally enough, only if you agree. If that is the case, please copy the form at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries> into the e-mail by which you grant us permission to use your content, and make any necessary amendments before sending the e-mail to our email response team ("OTRS") at permissions-en@wikimedia.org
We shall greatly appreciate it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours Faithfully,
Pavan Jandhyala

Please do reply soon. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is permission-en or permission-commons, it will still reach us - personally, at least, I always check both Commons and enwiki for the file when the email is sent to that address. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52: That implies i can upload the file either here or at en wiki. But, how come i will know whether the mail from Behindwoods reached OTRS? Will i get a mail with the ticket number? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: at the moment, you won't get anything straight away, it'll take a few weeks before it is processed and you get a response (the wait appears to be around 5 weeks atm) --Mdann52talk to me! 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52: That means, i will get a mail with the ticket link in April / May and then i should upload the file here at commons. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos from Ilgar Jafarov[edit]

Dear OTRS users,

I know professional photographer Ilgar Jafarov personnaly. He gave me a permission to upload all his photos into Commons under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International liscence. On 17th of March he wrote an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org address from his own address (ilqar-azertac@rambler.ru). In this letter he wrote that he gave a permission to upload all his photos under liscence above (showing two sites with several examples).

Could you please provide a ticket number which will cover all his photos.

Best regards, --Interfase (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your ticket number is 2015031710017141, but it still on the queue. Willy Weazley 01:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
So may I now start to upload Jafarov's photos? --Interfase (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Interfase, I answered him and closed the ticket. So you can start the upload. How many files do you want to upload? Please post {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field and in the "source" field the URL of the picture, so we can see, that Ilgar is really the creator and tell us via Mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the subject [Ticket#2015031710017141] when you are ready. Thanks, --Emha (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. There are hundreds photos. But he also had a photos, which were not published anywhere. So there will not be any url. What should we do in this case? May I write in that case "own collection of Ilgar Jafarov"? --Interfase (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes Interfase, that would be a good idea. Can you please upload the files independet from the "normal" matching categories into the - already existing! - User Category Category:Photographs by Ilgar Jafarov, so it's easier to do a batch task for the permission template. Ilgar seems to have an account here: User:Ilqar2010, and what different motives he took... Thanks, --Emha (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course I will put to all his photos that category. Ilgar created his account in 2010 and with my advises uploaded just 9 his photos. He don't appear in Commons. But I know that he has very good photos which will be useful for Wikipedia. So I explained him that he can gave a permission to upload the photos in Commons under mentioned licence. He agreed and gave some amount of his photos to me for uploading (some photos are scans from film). Again thank you. I will inform you when the photos are uploaded. --Interfase (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • First 90 photos were uploaded[9]. --Interfase (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't forget to tag all these photos with {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} if that's indeed how the copyright holder agreed to license them. Right now, anyone wanting to use one of these files has no idea what the license is because only the OTRS permission template appears on the pages (at least the several that I clicked). Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Interfase, thanks for the upload! Actually you should include {{OTRS pending}} not {{PermissionOTRS}}. And you did the order just wrong: the licence template comes under =={{int:license-header}}==, the permission template behind |permission=. You could use the licence template in the way {{Cc-by-sa-4.0|Ilgar Jafarov}} in the future, so Ilgar's name is mentioned. In the end I just had to change these and all files are alright now. Thanks for the very good categorization and the creator-template. Please could you ping me the next time you do uploads? Thanks, --Emha (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for edits and your time. I will do the order ih the way like you did in future. After the next uploads I will inform you on you talk page. Again thans for your support. --Interfase (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it works properly, thanks for uploading all these stunning images! --Emha (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Emha (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

eBay coin image[edit]

Is there a standard procedure for obtaining permission from an eBay seller for use of an image of an item they are selling? I am interested in uploading the image here. The seller has already clarified that he would allow the image to be used at Wikipedia. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, Martinevans123! eBay users have contributed images to Commons before so it's definitely possible. I'm not an OTRS user but my understanding is that you'd follow the same procedure as usual (the declaration of consent, basically) but do it through eBay's user message channels so there is confirmation that the person you're corresponding with is the eBay user/copyright holder in question. Once consent is granted, just forward it on to the regular permissions queue. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As far as I know, it's not possible to message outside parties from one's eBay account. It's possible only to copy a message sent to another eBay member also to one's own private email account. So I think he might need to use his own personal email too. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
How have you been corresponding with the seller up to this point? Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. But he now says he's sold the item and does not have the image any more. So seems to be no longer possible? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Is the item description page still available? They usually stick around on eBay for a while after the auction ends. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that link above still works. And I have made a personal copy. But since I messaged the seller asking for his email, it's all gone quiet - and that was three days ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess just try your best to get the permission from him via email with the declaration of consent. If he doesn't respond, he doesn't respond and there's not that much you can do about that. Good luck! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I've now emailed three times without any reply. Maybe he decided he didn't have the copyright after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Argh, that's unfortunate. Oh, well. You can only do what you can and if you can't reach the seller any longer, there's not much more to do. Sorry about it. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Emha (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:AAGL039.jpg[edit]

Ilmagicomondodilenzuoli claims that an e-mail containing details of the permissions for this file's licensing have been sent to OTRS. Given that the uploader got the file from a Google search result that's obviously using copyrighted photos without a license from the legitimate copyright holder and given that the uploader thinks that the photo was authored by a URI(!), I'm suspecting that the OTRS claim is false, and that the uploader is simply trying to delay deletion of an obvious copyright violation by making that claim. Was anything actually sent in? LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that I can find. Suggest it's deleted as a copyvio now and if a ticket shows up that is valid it can be reinstated. Nthep (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Restore OTRS access[edit]

Hi. Could someone restore OTRS access to my account, please? It has been removed due to my lack of activity in handling tickets directly. I use OTRS mainly to access tickets of files that come up on the deletion queues. That's the same reason I mentioned when I had applied for the access back in early 2011. Thanks, Rehman 10:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rehman: Please ask on meta:OTRS/V. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Rehman 13:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Emha (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Great Balloon Race, 2007.jpg (author, date, location unclear)[edit]

can please someone check information and permission for this image, and correct if possible?

  • EXIF info: "RENO, NV - SEPTEMBER 11: A general view of the Mass Ascension Launch during the Great Reno Balloon Race at the Rancho San Rafael Park on September 11, 2009 in Reno, Nevada. (Photo by Donald Miralle)".
  • contrasting informations (added on upload or later): author = Nod Berns, year per filename = 2007, location = Category:Louisville, Kentucky

Holger1959 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Holger1959: Permission looks ok, no more information in the ticket. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52: thank you. was the permission given by Donald Miralle (see enwiki, World Press Photo award winning), by Nod Berns, or by an unknown third person? Holger1959 (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
They have asked to remain anonymous, CC licences respect that, so you'll have to put that in the author field. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52: sorry, but did you really have a look at the file (description and exif)? there are two different authors named, which can't be true. now you tell me "they" (plural?) wanted to stay anonymous, which makes no sense when you read the public information at the file page. do you now get the problem? (at the moment, for me this looks very much like a "stolen" image, where someone claims copyrights for a photo taken by someone else.) Holger1959 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help to prove that I own the image rights[edit]

Hello, can anyone help me please, I am trying to prove that I own the rights to this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grayson_Hoffman_with_his_wife_Jamie.jpg

It is listed on my website here: http://www.graysonhoffman.com/about-us/

I am ready to provide any documentation needed, please tell me what needs to be done.

Thanks!

@Odmitrieva5005: You need to send an e-mail according to the instructions at COM:CONSENT. Please read them carefully. The e-mail should come from an official contact address.

Deleted photo of Wendeen H. Eolis[edit]

Hi, can you please help me with restoring the following file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WHE-portrait-2015.jpg Creator/copyright holder agreed to publish this photo under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). The permission letter was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 03/25. I can resend it if need be. Thank you. --Ildar2013 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:M81.jpg[edit]

Can anyone update the status of File:M81.jpg?? ---The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Everything is fine. Natuur12 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)