From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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: 36 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
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


I'd like to confirm this permission ticket: JHVipond (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO not a valid ticket due to the shortcut in the statement given. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with above. If this was a CC licence, this would be ok, but not GDFL. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Tomba di luigi de' rossi, santa felicita.jpg[edit]

Can someone check is this OTRS ticket added by uploader valid for this photo, and if it is can someone add template. Thanks. --Smooth_O (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Same for this File:Cerreto guidi.jpg. --Smooth_O (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Smooth O: I don't speak Italian, but if Google translate is correct this appears to be invalid. I read it as a request from Wikipedia, not a confirmation of a license. Pinging Sailko, the uploader. Ticket owner appears to be Senpaiottolo~commonswiki. Storkk (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This OTRS is almost 10 years old, we can almost talk of Usucaption. The website of Comune di Firenze all, by the way, turned to be CC-BY licence about 2 years after (see at the end is CC-BY 3), so I really think if nobody complained in almost 9 years is it really urgent to check now? I mean, if the original web page with this image were still online, at the present the image would be CC-BY now. --Sailko (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sailko The problem is that the ticket consists of a request, from us, and no response. So the ticket (explicitly questioned above), far from having evidence of a license, has evidence that we asked and were denied (ignored). While I agree that it's an old upload, I don't think that fact or the fact that they currently license their site freely gives these photos immunity from COM:PRP. Are we even sure the city owns the rights to the photos? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The tickets was probably registered wrong, but we have a copy here. many pages on Italian wikipedia were created with texts from that website.. nobody complained... "Are we sure?" I dont know, but in one more year it will be usucaptioned (10 year for items including immaterial for Italian law)... can we nevertheless just wait one more year and see if anybody complains for these 2 ridicolously small jpgs? --Sailko (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That link appears to be a request from a Wikipedia user, and does not appear to contain a response in the affirmative from the Comune. Am I misreading something? Storkk (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The positive answer is in the last 2 messages. OTRS should have the complete email references, if they gave tickets and authorization at the time it should be all ok. --Sailko (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_under_OTRS_ticket_2006042110010172 is now created regarding these files. Storkk (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Rwandan coins[edit]

Please could someone check the status of File:Rwanda, 10 Francs or à l'effigie du président Grégoire Kayibanda.jpg? It shows as having an OTRS ticket confirming that copyright is granted, but it suggests that the French numismatic organisation CGB owns the copyright and had the right to grant permission to Wikimedia to use it. Surely, however, as an image of a coin, it should be governed by Commons:Currency? And it's not at all clear that reproduction of Rwandan currency is permitted - the commons Currency page doesn't say either way. Thanks Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Amakuru: confirmed: permission is from CGB. I interpret this to mean that insofar as CGB have had creative input into these COM:DWs of currency, their contributions are licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL. I think this should be taken to COM:VPC. There appear to be hundreds of other files, in multiple tickets (at least ticket:2013111910009223, ticket:2013112010013359, ticket:2013112010013402, etc. etc.) affected by this. Storkk (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Amakuru:: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in images of post-1900 coins has now been opened. I believe this gets most of the problematic files. Storkk (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Storkk: OK, thanks for looking into this. Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(C) and permission[edit]

The permission for this states 'This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose.' The image itself shows a clear copyright-symbol, stating the copyright belongs to 'Netstone S.C.'. It seems to me these do not go together very well. Does this require a second look, an adaptation of the image or am I misinterpreting things? Thanks in advance, RonnieV (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The email from the sender cannot be linked to Netstone but it can be linked to funfactory and therefor I would say that this ticket is invalid but perhaps one of the Polish speaking agents disagrees. Additional information about the watermark is required. Otherwise, we cannot be sure about the copyright status. Natuur12 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No subject[edit]

Niniejszym potwierdzam że zdjęcie w pliku: Bucznik_1930_r._widok_od_pd._zach..jpg jest własnością mojego prywatnego archiwum i zostało wykonane ponad 70 lat temu (ok. 1930 r.) przez nieznanego autora - stając się tym samym także własnością publiczną. W związku z tym było publikowane już też publikownae co najmniej dwukrotnie - w pozycji Zamek Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w Wiśle, Kraków 2005, s. 48 ISBN 83-921543-0-4 oraz na stronie:,pl,mapa-kultury,129972.html. Wiadomość tę zamieszczam z powodu usunięcia tego pliku przez użytkownika Natuur12 w sirpniu bieżącego roku z Wikimedia Commons. Zdjęcie było zamieszczone przez ponad rok w Wikipedii na stronie Bucznik (województwo śląskie) w Infoboksie i odnosiło się temtycznie ściśle do tej strony, będąć najważniejszą na niej ilustracją. Z przyczyn merytorycznych jego usunięcie jest po prostu szkodliwe. Mam nadzieję że to o czym informuję ostateczne wystarczy dla wyjaśnienia watpliwości natury prawnej, które jak się wydaje były przyczyną usunięcie pliku z Wikimedia Commons, o którego przywrócenie, jako autor tej i innych stron w Wikipedii, bardzo proszę. Łukasz Konarzewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.konarzewski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Вопрос о получении лицензии[edit]

Добрый день!

На адрес были пересланы запросы на разрешение от Н.И. Мацкевич (фотограф конференции), редакции газеты "Наука в Сибири", от А.А.Давыдова (фотографа Института физики г. Красноярск) и от С.Г. Козловой на публикацию фотографий для создания странички для С.П. Габуды,_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87.

К сожалению, мы не получили ответа на наши запросы, и участник JuTa удалила все фотографии со странички Святослава Петровича Габуды. На наш вопрос почему это было сделано, сказано обращаться к Вам!

Пожалуйста, помогите выйти из этого круга.

С.Г. Козлова участник SGKozlova — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGKozlova (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @SGKozlova: когда отправляли разрешение? с какого адреса? Можете не светить адрес здесь, а отправить его по емейлу лично мне, я проверю - отправить мне емейл. rubin16 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @D.bratchuk: - 2015091110003824. Что в итоге? What's the result? rubin16 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of the Fotosearch hompage September 14.jpg[edit]

File:Screenshot of the Fotosearch hompage September 14.jpg (original at w:File:FotosearchSep14.jpg) has an OTRS ticket and two revisions in the history. When the OTRS ticket was added, the second revision had not yet been uploaded. Does the OTRS ticket apply to both revisions or just to the first revision? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, taken care off. Natuur12 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The revision you hid was the original upload. The files are in the wrong order on Commons, see w:File:FotosearchSep14.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. Restored it. But that said, I doubt that the ticket is valid. Natuur12 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If you doubt the validity of the ticket, then maybe the file should be nominated for deletion... --Stefan4 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but not sure how I can motivate such a DR with the new OTRS-policy in place. Natuur12 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


By a look at File:Kennedy-stewart-mp-burnaby.jpg, it can be seen that it has the typical look of the 2011 series of official, copyrighted, photographs of the House of Commons (HoC) of Canada. And, indeed, a search in the HoC website finds this photograph: [1], with its copyright notice. The HoC is not known to release its copyrights or to offer free licenses on its photographs. Normally, a file like this would be sent to deletion. How did the Commons description page get a public domain release tag and a OTRS tag (Ticket:2014011610015061)? If we look at the description page, apparently the uploader credits the authorship to... the subject pictured on the photo, who may also be the person to which the uploader refers in the source field by "sent by owner". Of course, the HoC probably allows the Members of Parliament to use the official HoC photos in their own communications and to distribute copies. That does not transfer the copyright to the Members. An individual Member of Parliament doesn't own the assets and rights owned by the HoC as an institution, and an individual Member can't unilaterally give away the Parliament buildings, the furniture of the HoC or the copyrights of the HoC. A so-called permission or release is worthless if it comes from someone who can't do it. It doesn't matter if the unauthorized person sends the non-valid permission through OTRS. Just because a non-valid permission arrives through OTRS doesn't make it less bad. Please review the ticket and, unless it is found to include evidence that the copyright was released by someone officially authorized to manage HoC copyrights, please note the ticket as not valid. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ticket is invalid. Natuur12 (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree and will nominate it for deletion. Storkk (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Coats of arms licensing policy[edit]

Dear all
I write here because the more dealings I have with Wiki Commons Admins the more apparent it becomes that Wikipedia lacks coherent policy and application thereof with regards to heraldic images. For further info, qv. User talk:Mabelina and related discussions. Having no wish to engage in argy-bargy and simply wishing to enhance Wiki's provision of info, you'll no doubt appreciate how frustrating it is to have uploads of COAs deleted when their display accords with the law of arms in England and Wales (and moreover seemingly being compliant with Commons:Coats of arms - insofar as that policy is applied consistently)? I have sought advice regarding correct licensing but this seems so far to have caused more discussion than results. Since heraldry is an area where I would think I could help Wiki significantly, I should be most grateful for any guidance as to how to proceed constructively. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mabelina: would you please clarify whether this confusion regarding COA copyrights has been explained to your satisfaction? Can this section be archived? If not, could you please explain what you wish us to do... I think this may be the wrong forum (see COM:OTRS for what this page is about). Thank you. Storkk (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Storkk: - much obliged for your asking me about this & yes please go ahead archiving these discussions. It would seem to me that the final answer about this could only really ever be tested in a court of law, which a) we don't want to happen, b) is most unlikely too, and would be entirely unfounded, in the case of those images uploaded by me, and c) let's work together to get a more watertight policy for heraldic images uploaded generally on Wiki Commons. Many thanks & let's be in touch accordingly. Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Files are not released[edit]

Why are the two files File:Auf Draht.2014-86.jpg and File:Auf Draht.1984-01.jpg not released? Long time ago WP has already received the permissions (Ticket#: 2015102610014461). --Jostes (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved to permission-de. Sometimes it takes a while. We're working on it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Jon Cooper Lightning coach.jpg[edit]

The file description states that the author of this photo is the Tampa Bay Lightning Hockey Club. As noted in the metadata, that's not true. It was created by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images. Keeping in mind that Bruce Bennett is not a member or employee of the Tampa Bay Lightning Hockey Club and that Getty Images aren't in the business of publishing their content under free licenses, could I get a second opinion as to the validity of this license? LX (talk, contribs) 19:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

no IMHO fake own work. gmail address used, author (metadata) differs from name in email. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This OTRS permission was apparently accepted by Sphilbrick in August of this year. Are you seriously telling me that OTRS agents are still blindly accepting tickets from disposable e-mail accounts and still not checking the metadata of images? Is there no checklist or SOP designed to stop this sort of nonsense? LX (talk, contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No, this would be a different error, as I just noted in the FFD. The image came to me directly from the media director of the Tampa Bay Lightning. I was a little too trusting of his own awareness of the differences between a work for hire and of the kind of arrangement Getty Images would have with the league. I'm not exactly a "disaposable e-mail account", which would in turn explain Sphilbrick's easy acceptance of it. Resolute (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
(xpost) The uploader reached out to the Manager of Digital Media of Tampa Bay Lightning organization, to request a photo. The organization responded using an email associated with the organization (not a Gmail account). The Manager of Digital Media did not take the photograph nor claim to. Instead he explained that it was a work for hire, and that the Tampa Bay Lightning Organization is the copyright holder. They provided a photograph and affirmatively stated they released it under a creative Commons license.
Apparently, instead of thanking them for providing a photo for free which they had paid for, we should have accused them of not knowing what they were doing and rejected it. I'm not quite sure on what basis. Perhaps we should accuse him of lying when he said it was a work for hire.
I hope user:LX will apply to become an OTRS agent because the Commons OTRS permissions queue is creeping up again and it looks like I should work on other things. I'm not the only one who processes OTRS permissions but the last time I took a break the backlog got up to two months.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't actually change things, but the media manager actually reached out to a friend of mine who runs a blog that holds media credentials with the team. My friend got him in touch with me because I've been a longtime Wiki(p/m)edia editor and the team wanted an updated photo of Cooper. This was all instigated by the team itself. Resolute (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


my pictures are nominated for deletion, can sombody exactly tell me what email with what information i have to send where to resolve this please ? the otrs page is to complex for me. thanks (RomulusTheGreat (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC))

@RomulusTheGreat: Hi,
Your pictures are derivative works of the board/posters/red box. The first one should be OK, as it is probably a permanent installation, so freedom of panorama should apply. On the last 2 cases, we would need a permission from the posters and box designer/producer, which you are very unlikely to get. Sorry. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks alot for the response. but i see that this one is also nominated now so u think this one will also be removed, or can stay ?. (RomulusTheGreat (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/Baroc and Ticket:2008042410024381[edit]

Hi, User:Baroc uploaded a lot of images from . For some of them he added Ticket:2008042410024381, for some not. As he is a non-OTRS-member I wish to ask if the ticket is valid for those images. I yes please add it to the other uploads, if not please "trigger" deletion of them. thx. --JuTa 00:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, just to clarify that the pictures for which I added the OTRS ticket are the ones tagged with "Copyright: George M. Bergman, Berkeley" on They are all contained in the category Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection (Bergman), where it is stated that they have been released under a free license. --Baroc (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File: Peter Plavsic Live and 3 others[edit]

I am User:CaesarsPalaceDude. I am enquiring about the status of :File:Peter Plavsic live Japan.jpeg, part of a set of four images related to a band, en:Sebastian Hardie. As far as I am aware the four files have the same OTRS ticket number. I am currently in hospital and am unable to access my email account or the OTRS ticket number. Could you please tell me if there is anything I can do to help these files gain copyright tags. I am being treated for leukemia, and I can only write to you via my mobile phone which l am finding quite difficult. Please help me. CaesarsPalaceDude 19:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@CaesarsPalaceDude: ✓ Done. Speedy recovery. Storkk (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Storkk: I'm still in hospital, but I'm in very good hands. I have been given a tablet computer, which is much more useful for editing than my phone. Thanks so much for your help. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions for large quantities of files[edit]


Is there an alternative or an addition to listing all the file names in the OTRS email if I was to upload 1000s of files in need of OTRS permission? E.g could the email refer to files uploaded by a username on a specific date? Would this or something else make it easier for the person answering the ticket?

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You can act as an effective copyright agent for the institution. This can be limited to the project in hand, and so the ticket can apply to just uploads for that project. The OTRS volunteer may want to check the bucket category afterwards to ensure there are no surprises.
BTW, there are alternatives to using OTRS for this, keep them in mind. In many ways ensuring there is a public statement (website, blog post etc.) explaining the scope of the project and promoting it is better, as this all remains available for public verification rather than on a special database with no public access. Thanks -- (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that a public archive with a clear licensing statement would be a preferable approach but its good to know you can do it by category as well.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The usual approach is to create a custom license template that specifies the files by e.g. type, source and uploader so that the respective copyright holder can release the images by this specification. See Category:Custom license tags with OTRS permission for examples. --Krd 18:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not think specifying a batch of files by a category is sufficient, since anybody can add a file to a category. I think OTRS should be for: all works from source, all works by author or all works by author uploaded by uploader. That way the copyright holder can precisely define which files are covered and which ones are not. --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

article Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis[edit]

Please allow us permission to post images that have been removed by Yann so we can place it under the correct license. These are images that were uploaded in June and approved by you guys via the user HappySquirrel who was very helpful. This is a tiring issue. One image is from a newspaper and the other one from a college yearbook which both have been approved by institutions that are public images for public use as well as from Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis himself.

please go to the edit history to see Yann's removals and as he stated please classify them correctly and edit it again with the images being uploaded.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfellabear (talk • contribs)

@Goodfellabear: Unfortunately, there is no user with the name "HappySquirrel". I cannot see the images in question, but the newspaper would have to email us a declaration of consent, as would the yearbook photographer or college (whoever was the copyright holder). If they are photos of somebody called Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis, his permission is almost certainly irrelevant. Storkk (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ticket #2012051010007684[edit]

Hi, Can someone please check/confirm the ticket #2012051010007684 Copyright notice suggests work is free to use for any purpose, however National Archives website mentions non-commercial use for Wikimedia files only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphicfairy (talk • contribs)

@Graphicfairy: ✓ valid for "INF 3 images uploaded as part of this “Wiki at War” project". Simply seems to be confirming works for which crown copyright has expired (see {{PD-UKGov}}). Storkk (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Check the ticket for the pictures[edit]


can someone check the premissions of the ticket, please: 1. File:Davide Spiga - Moderation TABU YUN!Q.jpg 2. File:Davide Spiga.jpg 3. File:Davide Spiga - STARTSHOW YUN!Q.jpg

Thank You--Medienspion (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Medienspion: please see the header notice at the top of this page: there is currently a backlog of 36 days' worth of tickets. The ticket will be processed in due course. Storkk (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ticket #2015112310013742[edit]

Hi, i've opened the ticket #2015112310013742 for this image, could you check if this ticket is valid? Thanks --Towerman86 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OTRS ticket on File:Ni lin-34342.jpg[edit]

The file File:Ni lin-34342.jpg is sourced to and relies upon the {{PalestineRemembered}} license template, which has an OTRS ticket number #2008122810014342. However, the Exif information for this photo identifies it as Agence France-Presse photo by David Furst. Does ticket #2008122810014342 really contain an agreement by AFP to GFDL license this photo? —RP88 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping Tarawneh, ticket owner. Ticket is in Arabic. Storkk (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)