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: 4 days  update

Start a new discussion

Shortcut: COM:ON

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)

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


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)

I'm not sure if I get every point of the widespread discussions, but I don't see any evidence in the ticket that the alligator photo has permission, so I'd consider the ticket, as it stands today, as invalid. --Krd 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fichiers Paul Zinsli : DrPaulZinsli1, DrPaulZinsli2, DrPaulZinsliPeint[edit]

Bonjour, suite à la demande de User:EugeneZelenko voici ma requête:

Les fichiers DrPaulZinsli1, DrPaulZinsli2, DrPaulZinsliPeint ont l'autorisation de Paul-Erich Zinsli pour être sous la licence Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0. Ce sont des photos de famille, P.E. Zinsli étant l'ayant-droit il a envoyé le mail d'autorisation le 23 mars 2015 à 23h01 (GMT) à Eugène Zelenko n'a apparemment pas vu ce mail et propose d'annuler les photos avant 7 jours (il ne reste plus maintenant que 5 jours). Vous pouvez voir la discussion ici sur .

Merci d'avance, --Amage9 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Permiso enviado el 22 de enero de 2015[edit]

Estimados Voluntarios, gusto de saludarles. Paso por aquí para solicitar su ayuda. Entiendo que habido algunos problemas con la verificación de permisos, y la verdad, es que no quiero ser una molestia para ustedes. Pues bien. Me he encontrado con esta planilla de verificación de autorización en este archivo. Se envió permiso por su autor el 22 de enero de 2015, 18:20 y hoy se ha vuelto a enviar. Espero ustedes me pueda ayudar con esta confirmación. La verdad no quiero ser una molestia para ustedes. Desde ya muchas gracias. Un saludo. Deucaleon (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Holaǃ el archivo finalmente fue borrado, alguien me puede ayudar por favor? Saludos.--Deucaleon (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Алтаир1978[edit]

Any russian speaker can take a look in this DR and restore the files, if it´s correct? thanks Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Little help[edit]

I need some help from other users with the list of files uploaded by me on March 13(Ticket#2015031210026238). I handled myself with the copyright's holder, and he sent me the permission, but another OTRS member has pointed that the files are uploaded at Flickr (The original source) as "All rights reserved, so it could bring some confusion, on his opinion, so the holder's will have to change on by one the files licensing at commons. I asked him to do so last February, but I think his very busy. I'd like to know if I can ask for the deletion, cause I don't think he's going to this soon. Can a sysop help here deleting?Willy Weazley 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick review[edit]

Could someone with OTRS rights, review these uploads please? New user, earlier issues, please review! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Hey, I've had a look and nothing is coming up, either for username or file names. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Now the permissions are filed, but not processed under ticket:2015041310004525 and ticket:2015041510019846 (two identical emails). --Jarekt (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Paul Hermelin.PNG and File:Paul Hermelin New Image.jpg[edit]

Does the OTRS ticket for File:Paul Hermelin.PNG shed any light on why the authorship claims differ between these two versions of the same photo? Surely the photo wasn't taken by Sunil Nat and Vishal Wadkar. (In fact, I suspect it wasn't created by either of them.) According to Linkedin, Sunil Nat is a consultant at the Mumbai branch of Capgemini. Is there any compelling reason to believe that a company of Capgemini's size would use their their India-based consultants to take official profile portraits of their France-based CEO, rather than employing a professional staff photographer or hiring a professional third-party photographer? LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This has gone unanswered for 1½ months. Is there anything unclear about what I'm asking for?
Based on the file history, the OTRS ticket was approved by NahidSultan. Would you care to comment? LX (talk, contribs) 23:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi @LX:, Sorry for replying late. Actually, I'm not very active in wikis these days because of my real life but will be in full swing by end of this month. Actually, I accepted the permission from Sunil Nat in the first place because it came from one of the official email of Capgemini. Usually we accept permission when email comes from an official address. There's always a reason to believe that the permission is legitimate until proven otherwise. However, I'm agree with you that the current situation is totally doubtful and we have to verify the authorship again not only for these two but also for this (Permission for this file was also send by Sunil Nat in a same thread). I'm changing the ticket status of these files from confirmed to pending & also sending an email to Sunil Nat asking for the explanation. Regards! ~ Nahid Talk 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Photograph deletion[edit]

Hello: can anyone help me to upload this photograph? It's a personal and familiar photo taken many years ago. I don't know why it has been deleted from wikipedia. I have written an OTRS twice. Thanks for the advise, --La chana15 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@La chana15: Hi La chana15. Can you please tell us where it was previously uploaded to Wikipedia or to Commons? Or do you remember the name of the account used to upload it? Your user name - La chana15 (talk · contribs) - has never uploaded anything to Commons nor to the English Wikipedia. I tried searching and could not find a relevant email, but we really need more information to do a good search for the image. --B (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at OTRS status of Files Uploaded by Steve Mattu[edit]

Hi, Can someone please take a look at the status of OTRS for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SteveMattu . Files were uploaded and OTRS was sent by the copyright owner, but it was a bit late so the volunteers deleted the images. Please check the archive and let me know if there is something else that you will need. Thanks. Steve Mattu (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please take a look at this. Steve Mattu (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ticket: 2015032510023976[edit]

Could someone please look at the ticket associated with Alto's Adventure? It's stuck at GAN at enwp until the files are reviewed. I believe the ticket has merged several different requests into one, so they may need to be split back out again (Spelltower and Metamorphabet are different requests). czar  12:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

About File:Lai_Ying_Tong,_Hong_Kong_Songwriter.jpg[edit]

Hi! I've uploaded a photo on commons a few weeks ago, I've ask the owner to send the email to However, the photo still got removed. It's been more than 2 weeks since deletion. I really hope you could help me to restore the photo as this photo is for one of my wiki articles for class assignment. Thanks! Tvchan (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Files from Izikson[edit]

Dear Sir, could you please check if the email about permission for these files have been received? It has been sent by copyright holder (Alexey Gusev) at 10 April. Is it too early to any answer, or, maybe, something is wrong?..

List of files:

Две сестры.jpg


Day desert.jpg

Алексей Гусев.jpg


Promo of Gusev's 858.webm

These files have been deleted (by EugeneZelenko, I suppose), but, as I know, it is possible to just restore them after the permission will be granted (is it true?). I'm sorry so much if I did something wrong, but, as a newcomer, I'm a little confused. Sincerely yours, Izikson (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Izikson

Files Affiche_Le_Mur.jpg and SophieRobert.jpg[edit]

The above two pictures have been recently deleted. I'm trying to help the owners of the copyright for these two pictures. They sent in February this year emails with all the required information requested in the Wikimedia commons procedure. They asked me to convey to you their surprise that the images were deleted without notice and wonder why the email they sent was not considered. I understand there is a large backlog, so perhaps the "grace" period could be extended to take into account this backlog. Best, Dessources (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OTRS tag added please review .[edit]

Permission Ticket: 2015042810006497

these were deleted and I uploaded again, please help with the procedure.

File:Dafna Lemish (2).jpg[edit]

This file has an OTRS ticket but no copyright tag. Can this be investigated? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Geagea: The PDF contains a link to w:he:WP:CC-BY-SA, which is {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}, not {{CC BY 4.0}}   FDMS  4    22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No it gives a link and says: "or choose other..." etc. -- Geagea (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Geagea: If it's under a license "of our choice" (no attribution or sharealike requirements), why didn't you choose {{CC-0}}?    FDMS  4    00:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It was mentioned on he-OTRS noticeboard to recommend the new {{CC BY 4.0}} instead of {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}. -- Geagea (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Oscar Luigi Scalfaro 2.jpg[edit]

OTRS-permission is incorrectly written into license. As this is the uploader's only contribution, I ask: is the permission OK? Taivo (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ping User:Paginazero.    FDMS  4    01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The ticket doesn't look valid. Can't see clear consent. @Paginazero: Can you please explain? Please don't ask the user to add tickets self. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

another one[edit]

Could someone check whether the ticket, added by an apparently non-OTRS user to File:Mattarella Chiellini Coppa Italia.jpg, is valid. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Made a subsection as it concerns the same ticket.    FDMS  4    01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Paginazero: Ping, can you please explain why this is in pd? --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No reply, asked him on his itwiki talkpage to reply here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's years that I'm no longer active on OTRS - I even think I no longer have an account there (I just tried to log in and failed, I asked for a new password and nothing came). If I well remember this should be the official portrait of the former president of the republic and - as such - considered public domain when first uploaded on it:wp. If you need to verify the ticket (of which I have absolutely no memory), please ask another italian-speaking OTRS operator. I apologize for not being more helpful than this.
For what concerns File:Mattarella Chiellini Coppa Italia.jpg I never saw that image before and I strongly doubt it can be a public domain image. Please ping @Caulfield:, maybe it's only a mistake in reporting the OTRS ticket number. As before, please ask another italian-speaking OTRS operator to verify the ticket, if necessary. --Paginazero (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo, Steinsplitter: This authorisation from Quirinale was given at a time (November 2006) when all of us were less precise in requiring explicit authorisations. As of now, this is no clear consent, while at the time it kinda was. By the way, I would suggest to wait for us to contact again the Italian Presidency and get an answer or a confirmation. It will be likely to require some time, unfortunately. Sannita - not just another sysop 10:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Hunnan-1.jpg and File:Agro.jpg[edit]

Hello, my school has sent a copyright email to, could you please restore first especially File:Hunnan-1.jpg and File:Agro.jpg? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neyc.alumni.france (talk • contribs)

Please provide a ticket number. Thanks! :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know the ticket number... The mail to was from, if it helps... Thank you--Neyc.alumni.france (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the ticket in question is ticket:2015052210004766 but it's in Chinese so it would be great if a Chinese speaker could handle it. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ticket number, it seems that @Wcam: speaks Chinese...
I'm not an OTRS member. --Wcam (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So what if there is no OTRS member who speaks Chinese?
Don't worry, there are OTRS members who do...they just may not be immediately active on this page. One will deal with your ticket in time. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


There appear to be several maps and other images on this ticket. The image pages appear to have different possible copyright holders.

I include two samples causing me concern, however I have not examined the several other images relying on this OTRS verification:

  1. File:Russia Water 1909 Year.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) would be public domain if it were originally published in 1909. It has been labelled as "own work" of the uploader but it is unclear from the description on the image page how this is a valid copyright claim.
  2. File:Papua VA Helicopters Contrast.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) seems to have a copyright claim of a book author/editor, however the artwork is the property of an airline.

The OTRS volunteer handling these has no doubt gone through the details, but the image pages lack the clarity needed for reusers to be certain of who the copyright holder is and if the given copyright license is the best to apply. -- (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Please check OTRS permission for this file. I've uploaded this photo after request in IRC chat, however, I don't have OTRS system access, just used number, provided by irc user. Recently this person led an agressive promo in Russian Wikipedia, used fakes and fraud, and now I am not sure, that it is all ok with this permission, bezik (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The ticket is in Russian. It contains an eMail from a freemail account forwarded using a freemail account, but also a signed document which isn't a release. The agent who dealt with, User:Lvova, is no longer active.    FDMS  4    00:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hazal Kaya.jpg OTRS permission[edit]

uploaded by SuhailAzaz from Pakistan that has a OTRS ticket is in copyright violations. uploaded picture isn't "own work," and not been taken in 2012. Copied from the original picture of the behind the scenes (promotion of "aski-memnu (forbiden love tv series) made by Ay yapim downloaded from > > you can also download the (full-lenght) of the same photo from > taken in Aug 2008. In short, picture taken in 2008 not 2012, and remains the property of "Ay yapim" the production company.

@Cirt: Pinging the agent who added the ticket.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS and UploadWizard[edit]

FYI: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Raise awareness of OTRS by including it in the Upload Wizard. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request[edit]

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for reliqushment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) (Form I plus an Affidavit is an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules); We request your support, so as Affidavit part of the document becomes accaptable to wikimedia as an email template also for OTRS purposes.

Rgds. Mahitgar (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

2015051610020456 Saugatuck Cures Official Poster[edit]

No doubt the release was from Matthew Ladensack, the producer. Could the image page be amended to state that so the copyright owner is unambiguously clear? Thanks -- (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct the release was from Matthew Ladensack. However after reviewing the permission statement it isn’t perfectly clear to me how to fill out some of the fields so I will follow up with an email to him.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

2015030210011512 Primorsky[edit]

I adduce that this is an VR plan of an estate, or planned estate, in Primorsky. However the copyright holder for the 3D projection may not be the promoter of the VR technology who is the uploading account holder. Could a clearer statement be added to the image page please?

A technical note, the TIFF seems to have the same image in its envelope twice, possibly a mistake with the rendering software using the image as its own thumbnail. -- (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


There are currently 288 journalist quality photographs using this 3 years old OTRS ticket, with the above being a recent example. The tickets are applied by an account without OTRS access (which generates warning flags). As the ticket appears to have no added value, the website source gives a clear free release with an attribution requirement, can the uploader please be advised to default to start using the weaker process of license review? This has the benefit of not needing to rely on old secret correspondence where it is unnecessary. Thanks -- (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I copied licence and OTRS from older files. Licence is CC-by-3.0 (which is from the OTRS?), based on the release under images licence should be {{attribution}} (although it doesn't specifically allow modification or commercial use). So maybe we should create a specific template for this source with licence, OTRS and explanation which images it covers? --Sporti (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I would interpret the website as sufficient to justify CC-BY as there is no restraint against modification or commercial reuse. Where website terms of use exist they must to be explicit as restraints on reuse cannot be retrospectively interpreted for a claim of damages using copyright, even though an absence of terms would be interpreted as equivalent to all rights reserved. An improvement to the source website would be if they could upgrade their release statement to a CC one. I would avoid custom templates, these are likely to create a headache for some future time when folks try to harmonize image data on Commons. -- (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
So this would be OK [1]? --Sporti (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, let's see what a license reviewer does with it (I'm a license reviewer, but I'll stay clear as I raised this discussion). -- (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@: Well it didn't work so well - file got deleted as a copyvio. So other ideas? --Sporti (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Flagged at User_talk:Thibaut120094#File:Bojan_Radej_2015.jpg -- (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I restored the file, I don't see explicit release under CC-BY on this webpage so I added {{attribution}} instead... Feel free to correct and sorry for the deletion. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the generic attribution template seems like a good one to apply. -- (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Fred T. Mackenzie.JPG[edit]

This is the first time I'm involved in this system, so please bear with me! A picture for an article I helped editing was needed. After an email request from me to the subject of the article and the copyright holder of a picture on his website, the picture was uploaded and donated by the photographer. A more detailed description of this is given at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fred T. Mackenzie.JPG. Since the pic was tagged with a deletion template, I contacted Mr. Mackenzie again, who have sent an email with permission to use the photo to the WMF today (9 June 2015). I received a copy of it, it is titled "Permission" and contains the url to the article where the photo is used as well as the url to his website where the photo was first published. I hope this is enough to keep the file from being deleted. w.carter-Talk 09:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket ID is 2015060910000962. I have a follow-up question that I have sent to the submitter of the email that needs to be answered before we can accept the image, but I have added the ticket ID on the image page while we await a reply. --B (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
We now have a statement of permission that satisfies our requirements via the OTRS system. Can an admin please close the deletion discussion? --B (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

deletion of plans regarding Caisse d'épargne de Bordeaux and Edmond Lay (french wikipedia articles)[edit]


My files seem to have been deleted, even though the copyright owners have sent the e-mails to ticket:2015060610009101 and ticket:2015060610011198 will they be restored ? i'm seeing the architect which made the original files in a week, he will be very happy to see the wikipedia page about him, but even more if all the files are there.

Files concerned are :
Copyright holded by Brice Viricel: files on this page

  • File:Axonométrie Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe DD Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe BB Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe AA Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Coupe CC Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+5 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+4 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+3 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+2 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Rdc Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R-1 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+1 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R+5 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck2.pdf
  • File:R-2 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:R-3 Caisse d'épargne bordeaux mériadeck.jpg
  • File:Plan masse caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade sud caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade nord caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade est caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf
  • File:Façade ouest caisse d'épargne mériadeck.pdf

Copyright holded by Amandine Colin: files on this page

  • File:Kenneth laurent house fluides.jpg
  • File:Norman Lykes house fluides.jpg
  • File:Agence Edmond Lay fluides.jpg

Best regards,

Klarggyjk (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


I see that this photo, which was previously deleted as a copyright violation, has been restored along with several other uploads by the same user. According to the file description, which has supposedly been vetted by OTRS, the author of the photo (i.e. the photographer) is User:Sixpacz (who apparently also personally designed the logos that were also restored). However, as I pointed out in the {{copyvio}} tag (which was removed after the file was restored), the author according to the file's metadata is Cameron Spencer/Getty Images. The photo is available in higher resolution at Getty Images' website. Given that Getty Images also claim copyright, was any attempt made to contact them? LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Ankry:, who handled the ticket. Although the OTRS ticket does look legitimate, this is clearly a Getty photo and the photographer who took it [2] seems to be a freelance photographer, not someone who works for "Netball Jamaica". This photo is unquestionably a copyright violation and should be deleted. It may be an "innocent" copyright violation - the source website might own the other photos and just not this one - but a follow-up email needs to be sent seeking clarification about whether or not a staff photographer took the rest of the photos or whether they were submitted by or purchased from a third party. --B (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If anybody except Netball Jamaica is claiming copyright to these images, it is a valid reason to delete these particular images. The permission is from Netball Jamaica (verified) who claim copyright and wish to atribute User:Sixpacz as author. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ankry: Another upload from Sixpacz (talk · contribs) — File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg — is made up of three constituent photos. The third credits "Collin Reid", who, from googling, according to [3] donates the copyright of his photos to Netball Jamaica (probably not a problem). The other two credit "", which looks like a stock photo company. The middle one even has a watermark of some sort (look right under the ball that the girl is holding). I don't think we can take this uploader's claim of copyright at face value. Though I'm sure that they probably purchased rights to use these photos for their website, I'm not sure that they realize that purchasing rights to use a third party photo on your website typically does NOT give you the ability to sub-license the photo as needed by Wikipedia/Commons. Another one: I find File:WinningTeamUnder21Medals1024-e1413347441714.jpg at [4], which credits "PHOTO: COLLIN REID, COURTESY OF SUPREME VENTURES, COURTS AND SCOTIABANK". File:Jamnbryan.jpg is cropped from [5]. Without a really really really good explanation, I'm not sure we can trust their claim of authorship. --B (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@B: the uploader was asked for more explanation about photographers and the agreements few days ago. No response till now. If there are any doubts concerning copyright owner, feel free to delete apropriate images. In such case, the images can be restored later if they provide satisfying information. Ankry (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The two other constituent photos of File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg were created by Getty Images photographers Christopher Lee and Sandra Mu. LX (talk, contribs) 19:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I have tagged File:ThreeMVPsbranded.jpg for speedy deletion as an obvious copyvio. I have nominated File:Jamnbryan.jpg for deletion as a possible copyvio. File:WinningTeamUnder21Medals1024-e1413347441714.jpg is concerning because I can't tell who or what "SUPREME VENTURES, COURTS AND SCOTIABANK" is, but Collin Reid seems to be Netball Jamaica's staff photographer, so I'm more or less okay with that one as probably legitimate, despite the odd credit. --B (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

2015061810015448 Nagorno Karabakh[edit]

As pure printed text, this four page document appears to be out of scope. Was there a rationale in the email correspondence that makes it in-scope? -- (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are many examples of pure text in Commons. To answer your specific question, there was nothing in the ticket providing an explanation of how the image would be used. That said, when I am or viewing an OTRS ticket, I have quite a number of things I am looking for, and reviewing scope is not high on the list. If I saw a series of photos that were clearly family vacation trip, I would probably challenge it, but generally speaking I like the Commons deletion process where an image is proposed for deletion and several editors have a chance at weighing in.--Sphilbrick (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actioned with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagorno Karabakh (in four languages).pdf. -- (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

2015051910026347 Sigmund Freud ... issuing tickets for anon photographs over 100 years old[edit]

As the photograph has an unknown photographer and was taken in the 1860s, why does this need an OTRS ticket number for a confidential email correspondence with the copyright holder? Can the OTRS ticket be removed please? -- (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Why is a ticket needed for this 95 year old photograph taken by an anon photographer? Presumably whatever is in the OTRS correspondence is irrelevant to the photograph's public domain status. -- (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No it cannot be removed because the ticket confirms that the "Freud Museum London" - the source the photographs are taken from - is okay with the fact that the files are hosted here. Plus they confirm that the museum also believes that the files are PD. Valuable information. Natuur12 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a terrible use of OTRS, amounting to pointless information hoarding[6]. The facts are that on both image pages linked above:
  1. No mention is made of the Freud Museum London.
  2. The sources given are not the Freud Museum London, but and an Amazon hosted service that appears owned by Neither of these sites has anything to do with the Freud Museum as far as I can tell.
  3. Any release from the Freud Museum London is irrelevant to copyright as the museum has no claim on the copyright. These are public domain images regardless of what the Museum has to say about it.
  4. The OTRS ticket has been put in the information permissions field with no explanation, giving the impression that someone has secretly given permission via OTRS.
If there is supplementary information from the email correspondence this should be added publicly to the image page, not held in secret on OTRS. I doubt these poor quality scans ever originated from the museum, they were far more likely to have been scanned from other publications, especially as a version of the photograph of Freud with his father used on the Freud website appears quite different and a much higher resolution scan can be found on GettyImages.[7][8]
I have uploaded a new image for the 1920 photograph, one ten times higher resolution, directly from The London museum does not host the image on their website. Consequently I have removed the apparent claim of a permission statement, as the Freud Museum London is irrelevant to this digital file or the original photograph.
Please remove the OTRS ticket from the 1860 photograph as pointless, or give it context and move all relevant information publicly from the OTRS correspondence to the image page where it should be for public domain images. -- (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the uploader feels confortable if it is there so I see no reason to obay your orders. If you want to frustrate uploaders you can do that without me. Natuur12 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Bizarre reply. The uploader account that you are taking instruction from has a history of sloppy uploads that had to be deleted, including File:Anna Freud.jpg as a copyright violation, the original uploading account being since blocked.
As with the 1920 photograph, I'll be bold and just fix the image page by removing the OTRS ticket that can only be misleading for this public domain image and uploading a better version of the image from a more authoritative source. Please try to be less fixed on defending OTRS regardless of the facts, when this is to the detriment of unambiguously public domain images. This is not a war, we are preserving public knowledge. -- (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Magistretti Emilio, Quasi aurora consurgens.jpg[edit]

File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Magistretti Emilio, Quasi aurora consurgens.jpg

Emilio Magistretti died in 1936, surely his paintings should be in PD? Brightgalrs (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Likely not in all juristictions so a release is nice anyways. Natuur12 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added {{PD-70}} to this public domain image (noting that the source is hosted in Italy). @Natuur12: could you explain in more detail why you believe a legal claim of attribution is required in the USA for the Artgate Fondazione Cariplo? The advice from WMF legal always has been that faithful reproductions of public domain artworks have no new copyright in the USA. I disagree that "a release is nice" when this introduces a false claim of copyright to a public domain work. -- (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the ticket they are the copyright holder. I am not familiar with this organisation but it could very well be that the rights where transferred to them before the file/painting became PD in Europe. I trust that the agent who dealth with this request investigated this properly. I don't speak Italian so I can't validate everything. There are juristictions with a longer duration of copyight, there are countries where PD-art is a really grey area or some countries might not even support PD-art. (I know that PD-art is not a legal term of course but this way it is clear). People livng in those countries should be able to use the file safely after there has been a release. More people can use the file and isn't that ultimatly our goal? Spreading free knowledge? Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The correspondent appears to be subject to European and Italian copyright law, these are not special jurisdictions where there are longer copyright durations or where this is a grey area. Granting the work and potential income to the institution by use of copyright cannot exceed the 70 year rule, as the artist's copyright remains unchanged; if they want money then falsely claiming copyright is not the way to go about it. The image is public domain. By all means if they are the source this can be explained on the image page, but using a Creative Commons attribution requirement is a legally enforcable claim of copyright (i.e. they can sue for damages if a reuser fails to provide moral rights), and in this case is inappropriate as they have no legal claim on the artwork.
I will go ahead and remove the misleading {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} template unless you can provide a clear reason as to why it is required and this is not a public domain work. -- (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever read Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs? Sure, this file is likely PD in the US but is it PD in Scandinavic countries? In my home country this would be a borderline case. And please also read the section about Italy. Of course stuff can be made more clear at the file page but that is not the actual point. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that guide is rambling and out of date; it is NOT a commons policy and is wrapped in disclaimers. Nobody, in the entire history of Italian law, has ever been prosecuted for failing to provide moral rights for the creator of a faithful reproduction of a public domain work. The reason is that they would have suffered zero damages (there can be no case where there is no exchange or loss of property). The CC-BY-SA in this case (especially for a low resolution image) is misleading, and Wikimedia Commons should stand against propagating false claims of copyright. -- (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If you don't have any evidence that there is no copyright involved under Italian law I suggest we leave this be. Or we (with me I mean you want you want to chang the status quo) invite people who have deep understading of Italian law to discus this case in com:VP/C. Natuur12 (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It is impossible to prove a negative. However we know that on Commons where there are PD and CC license, not only can reusers ignore the CC license, our community routinely deletes the weaker surplus licenses.
Rather than a self reflective copyright debate, I am happy to start a general policy thread on the VP, requesting that projects like this fix their licenses to respect public domain images, and positively discourage institutions from using CC licenses in a false way (or for volunteers, such as OTRS volunteers, giving poor advice), when what they really want is to tag images they have donated.
In my view after working closely with several GLAMs and large mass uploads of PD material, we should reject donations with these expectations and instead work harder up front with the institutions to ensure they are not surprised when any weak CC-BY licenses are removed. -- (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Fae, I am afraid that without you respecting your opponents view we get nowhere. An intelectual debate is impossible this way. The set-up you suggest is far from neutral. International copyright as you know can be complicated and even legal experts can have different opinions. Natuur12 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not worried about "opponents" as this is not a war. The general community norm is that if an image is Public Domain, then there can be no restrictions on reuse. The risk that a publisher might have to withdraw a book from sale because one of our public domain images has been used as a book cover, and it cannot be sold in a single European edition, is not one that anyone should find acceptable. Similarly Commons should not indulge organizations that attempt to retrospectively claim copyright over public domain images. Whatever license is chosen it should be legally correct, have legally enforceable rights (where there are any) and not subject to future unexpected changes apart from copyright expiration. I'll ponder how to express this on the Village Pump so that we might have a chance of turning the community norm into a solid documented consensus. -- (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Just wow, you actually didn't understood a single word of what I wrote. Natuur12 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I carefully reviewed everything you said here, and the essay you pointed to. An image we publish as PD can be used anywhere. If it legally requires attribution in some countries then a PD licence should be avoided (this is what the community needs to discuss). If it requires attribution in either the source country, or the USA, it should not be marked as PD. The current multi licensing templates and guides can easily give misleading claims of PD such that a reuser could be sued for failing to comply with moral rights. -- (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)



Can one of my fellow agents review this ticket? I dealth with it but I get the feeling that I screwed up on this one. We have more tickets from the same author: ticket:2015060810019052, ticket:2015060910021725 and ticket:2015061310008634. I post it here because there is nothing secret about this request so best to keep it transparant :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User has 20 deleted images (copyright) and did not answer my request for clarification: ticket:2015052310005987 I have just realized, that all but one images I linked for clarification have been deleted. User does not know much about copyright! Amada44  talk to me 18:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Started a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anniespider20. Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Aurel Barglazan 1.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted by user:Fastily (now inactive), the reason being „no source”. The source is the Bărglăzan family's archive. As Romanian OTRS volunteer I received the permission #2015062210006575 (in Romanian). The license is CC-BY-SA-4.0 International (standard license). I cannot reupload the file. Please tell me what to do to recover the image. Thanks. --Turbojet (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would start with asking some questions about how they became the copyright owner. Based on this current ticket thi file should not be undeleted or reuploaded. Experience learns that the person wha manages a family archive is often not the copyright holder. Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but the donor has very little knowledge about copyright, he could not understand the question. --Turbojet (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That happens a lot when dealing with family archives but in most cases the outcome is that we cannot accept the files. Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

2015040710024935 Gustavo Sebba[edit]

There are two quite different uploaded portrait photographs in the file history. Here's the order of events:

  • 12 March 2015, the first version is uploaded, Sebba wearing a jacket.
  • 13 March 2015, file deleted as copyvio.
  • 07 April 2015, OTRS email received.
  • 10 June 2015, the second version is uploaded, creating a new page, Sebba without a jacket and the image has a digitally masked background.
  • 11 June 2015, file deleted as copyvio.
  • 24 June 2015, files restored, given OTRS ticket.

Can an OTRS volunteer please confirm that both photographs have been released, noting that the OTRS correspondence started well before the second version was uploaded to Commons? If this is the case then the overwritten image can be split to a new file as an alternate. If not, then it should be removed from the file history. Thanks -- (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done @: Thanks for watching out! Both versions are covered by ticket:2015040710024935. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Goof grief, the new one is hideous. @Hedwig in Washington: does the submitter express a preference as to which image is used in the article? (I have no idea if the pt Wikipedia takes the preference of the subject into consideration for photos or not.) Unless there is a really good reason to prefer the one with the blue background, it is an eyesore. --B (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@B: As fr as I remember they did not. The blue one is the newer one, current job. Other just a bit older. I'd use the older one, the blue is killing my eyes. :-) ---Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have reverted to the prior version. If the uploader or subject of the article really wants the blue background, I won't fight with them over it, but it's hideous and you can see that it doesn't even blend right - there is a light-colored fringe around the outline of the photo where the real background was cropped out poorly. --B (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Help from a friend[edit]

I asked a friend to help me make a sketch for a wikipedia article. I have a Commons account. He does not. What must we do to donate our work to Commons? Comfr (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Comfr! I've had similar situations and in those cases, I've simply asked my friends to fill out the standard declaration of consent for all enquiries and send an email to the listed permissions email address. That has worked for me in the past. Hope this helps! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Macnee - File:Patrick Macnee in Lobster man from Mars.jpg[edit]

Commons has 3 photographs of Macnee, with his death yesterday these will be much in public demand.

Can an OTRS volunteer please double check the details of the eight years old ticket:2007083110009978? The release is from the film director, so there should be sufficient in the correspondence to validate the release, though the other publicly available stills from the film appear absent from Commons. In addition there is no date on the image page, it would be good to be able to correct this using information from the correspondence. Thanks -- (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ticket contains a Wikipedia only permission. Do you want to start the DR or should I? Natuur12 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I create very few DRs in comparison to other things I do, so I've gone ahead and started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patrick Macnee in Lobster man from Mars.jpg. If this is clear cut, I suggest it is deleted in fewer than the normal 7 days, otherwise it is highly likely to be used in obituaries with reusers thinking this is public domain.
I suggest:
  1. an OTRS volunteer double checks other tickets as old as this one where the same OTRS volunteer had made similar choices.
  2. we carefully review the other 2 photographs on Commons of Macnee (I have a number real life commitments today, so only have time for a brief look), see category in thread title, there have been long running issues in the past attempting to determine if copyright marks were on reproductions of producer released film stills/posters.
@Deadstar:, if you are about, you may wish to take a look at this case and see if similar actions are needed.
@We hope:, as an uploader of other images of Macnee you may want to double check the alternative image pages are accurate and there is no linkrot. Thanks -- (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
These were uploaded close to 3 years ago and unfortunately the links are dead. I've always uploaded both sides of photos with the front uncropped and unaltered as the original upload. Since then, I've also taken to putting the eBay links and photo links into Wayback Machine. We hope (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking good care with your uploads. These examples of linkrot making it hard for us to verify old copyright statements, are why a long term reliable webcite like service is needed by all Wikimedia projects. -- (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I used to use WebCite, which not so long ago, I'd heard WP was considering buying. I stopped using it some time ago when every time I went there to create a link, my A/V would go off, telling me it had just stopped a trojan download. Not long after that, the gmail addy I used to use for citing started overflowing with spam-sometimes more than 10-12 per day. An en:WP friend also used WebCite as I did, so I asked him whether he had A/V issues and spam. He was using a different A/V program and his was also issuing warnings; he also had a mailbox full of spam. We began thinking that the site was hacked for the email addys and stopped using it until Wayback Machine offered the same type of service without needing to use an email addy. No idea what was happening there or it it still is.We hope (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Question-everything in the category Lobster Man From Mars seems to have the same OTRS number as the Patrick Macnee photo which is now at DR. Since the ticket number is the same for all of them, are there problems with the files in this category too? We hope (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think so - this is a 1989 film, I don't see that these are in the public domain unless they have a specific release from copyright holder, which seems to be lacking. Is there a way to re-contact the film director for a clear release on the specific images we have? I will add them to the DR. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thought they would be at issue because of the same OTRS number, but can't view the details as I'm not in OTRS. Someone who is an OTRS member should be able to see the director's contact information and ask him to consider changing the permission for all of these. We hope (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Blausen 0438 HairFollicleAnatomy 02.png[edit]

Hello, I'm looking to use this image on a client's website. They specialise in hair replacement treatments and want to use the image to show visitors of their website the hair folical and scalp diagram.

Please can you confirm if there is any specific attribution needed? Thanks!

Blausen 0438 HairFollicleAnatomy 02.png

See the Author section under the Summary section for the attribution requested by the author, per its CC-BY-3.0 license. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Image of Gujarat flood taken by Indian Air Force[edit]

I intend to use images published by w:en:Indian Air Force rescue ops during w:en:2015 Gujarat flood. Here are images [9] and here license policy almost identical to CC-BY-SA. I think OTRS volunteer could contact and upload images to commons if possible. -Nizil Shah (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like {{attribution}} might apply? Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to receive permission to use the following file for educational and commercial purposes: Thank you in advance.

And you're welcome to do that; the uploader has already released the image for anyone to use, provided you credit them as רפי רוגל. Members of this noticeboard can check permissions for authenticity but we don't grant them. Please check out COM:REUSE for more. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Sami-ninne-Sri ragam-Ramakrishnamurthy.wav Missing permission information[edit]

The recording can be linked to this source, instead of the current source.

File:Ninnukori-Mohanam-ramakrishnamurthy.wav - Missing permission information[edit]

This link can be used as a source instead of the existing link.

Requesting permission[edit]

We are a non-profit organization working on a video project that encourages youth toward better lifestyle habits and would like to use the following picture: We are interested in showing the heart, artery, and words "Fatty deposits." We would appreciate having a picture that even the very young can understand.

You are welcome to use this file per the terms of its license, {{Cc-by-3.0}}, including that you attribute its author as requested: " staff. "Blausen gallery 2014". Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 20018762." See COM:REUSE for more. Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Inquiring about permissions for File:"Noos", Bea Richmond Park, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.jpg ...[edit]


Earlier yesterday, the author of the work that is in the photo I took - File:"Noos", Bea Richmond Park, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.jpg - send his permission to have his work used in my photo, but worded it in such a way that... well, that it almost sounded like he was laying claim to the photo I took (not sure if he read my instructions on use of the permission template I provided or not). I forwarded his email along with my correspondence with him to you guys... how do you read it? From your perspective, do I need to work things out on the wording with the permission form with the artist? Just want to make sure...

Also, he had requested a different license. Do I keep my CC-SA-whatever 4.0 license for my photo and include his requested license, or would my photo only fall under only license - the one he requested. I'm a little vague on this part. Thanks much! Hanyou23 (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)