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: 70 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

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

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

Files from[edit]

Can someone check this File:Bosanska Dubica Center.jpg and ticket number stated there (2006050810011015). If it's ok can someone add template and check if can it be applied also for this File:Bosanska dubica-center.jpg. --Smooth_O (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smooth O: the ticket shows what appers to be a discussion (tldr) but, no permission release on OTRS ticket 2006050810011015 A second opinion would be helpful. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Flominator: Ist da irgendwann mal irgendwas positives entstanden? café --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Flominator: I'm not sure if you noticed the above ping. I've had a look at the ticket and I think it looks applicable to the above file but I'm not sure if I've read parts of it correctly. Please could you clarify for us. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sculptor gave permission and uploader is photographer[edit]

Hi, I'm hoping to help resolve the OTRS issue for the file Dalton-Bust-in-PIVA-LR.jpg. User:Amitie 10g told me to address my issues in the ticket, but I'm not an OTRS user so I can't see it. The file was uploaded by the photographer, Dwight Pounds. The sculptor, Daniel Fairbanks, filled out a release for the photo. A volunteer told him that the sculptor would need to release the photo, and Fairbanks replied that he was the sculptor and that the photographer already released the file (by uploading it). Are there any remaining concerns? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ticket link:

OTRS asked for a release by the photographer as well. Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I figured that if I got the photographer to make a commons account, that it would be pretty clear that he was releasing the rights to it. The other photos he uploaded haven't been questioned... why is the enforcement more strict for that one photo? I can get an additional release from the photographer, but the image is deleted now... am I basically back to square one (i.e., I'll have to upload the photo and get the releases again?)? Thanks for your help. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): the key thing to note about OTRS is verification. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is very easy to create a Wikimedia account. We, the Commons users, can't actually see what email address is used to verify any account, so we don't know if an account is genuinely the copyright holder. After all, wouldn't you be a tiny bit suspicious if I said I'm the real Green Giant? Equally we don't want people's email addresses to be visible by default because many of us like our anonymity (it makes us thick-skinned to abusive comments on here). Obviously there are ways around this but the best way is to go through OTRS and provide them with foolproof verification eg an email from an official website. Now as to unfair treatment of files, please let us know if you think they are not the uploaders own work and we will endeavour to delete them forthwith (I'm only kidding!) - it is entirely unintentional if it seems we are discriminating against one file. Let's just see if we can get this ticket sorted first. Green Giant (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Thank you for taking the time to explain OTRS verification to me. So I need to reupload the file and get the permissions again? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): You're welcome. Please don't re-upload the photo because our deletion policy discourages this. What's needed is for the permission to be sorted out through OTRS. As soon as that is done, any admin can quickly restore the photo because it is still here in the system but not publicly viewable. Restoring takes about two or three clicks in total. Green Giant (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I asked Dwight to release the rights through the OTRS system a few weeks ago--did it go through? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): - unless I'm mistaken there have been no further emails about this ticket since 11 May 2016. It might be worth checking with him again. Green Giant (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I e-mailed Dwight again and I think he filled out the form? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2008030310010794[edit]

Can someone let me know what the release says for File:Kalki Koechlin and Emran Hashmi Shanghai.jpg? It's one of several images with unclear releases in a featured-article nominee on enwiki. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Sasha, thanks. The problem with the group permission is that it effectively says "we release images that we're in a position to release" (e.g. images taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer), but it doesn't identify which images that applies to. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sasha or anyone, can you say what the OTRS release actually says? Riana created the template, {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}, in 2008 to say "All photographs used by this site with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by their own photographers." [1] But the interpretation of the OTRS release changed over time. Now it says:

Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload.

That means that, in effect, a release has to be sought for each individual image. But editors are not doing that because they believe there has been a group release. SarahSV (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Initially, there says: "All photographs used by this site with the exception of screenshots, promotional posters or wallpapers are exclusively created by their own photographers". But there is a vast correspondence (in 2008), which allowed us to clarify the mechanism and formulation. Now administrators or license reviewers can confirm this for individual images.
    You're right. This is confusing. But we have only this method now. If in doubt, you can send them a letter (with OTRS and this ticket in copy) and clarify the license of specific photos and/or offer them another way on the whole. At least we shall see that this permission is still valid in its entirety and our interpretation. --sasha (krassotkin) 17:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, thanks. Just to clarify, it's not me who wants to use these images. I'm just reviewing an article for featured-article status, and it uses several of these images. The article can't be promoted with unclear image releases. I'm not sure what you mean by "Now administrators or license reviewers can confirm this for individual images."
It seems to me that this is not a valid release, because the release for each image is going to have to be clarified separately, so the group release may as well not exist. SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: This means that trusted users can verify compliance. In fact, we have a lot of group permissions. This is a common practice. But if it's necessary you can offer creators of the article to write such letter to Bollywood Hungama. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, how do trusted users verify compliance for individual images? For example, is File:Kalki Koechlin at special screening of 'Margarita With A Straw'.jpg free? SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @SarahSV: This is a simple example :-). See original. Yes, because there's a watermark and we have permission from the owner of the watermark (was taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer - copyright holder is Bollywoood Hungama). In addition it is a photograph of a Bollywood party or event (see tags on image page: Parties and Events-Image, Bollywood, Parties & Events) and it's not screenshot, wallpaper, vacation picture, promotional poster or photo copyrighted by other websites. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sasha, I can't see the image on that site (your link doesn't work for me), but if they wanted to release it, I wonder why they would watermark it. People add watermarks to stop their images from being used.
We don't know who the photographer was and whether that person has released the image, or alternatively, if it was a work for hire and Bollywood Hungama owns the copyright, whether the company has released it. SarahSV (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: And this link? Usually watermarks are added for self-promotion of a copyright holder. Sometimes it do even those who transfers his rights into the public domain.
    Here the photographer does not matter. We are interested in the copyright holder only. In most cases the employer is the copyright holder of the all works created during the performance of official duties. This is a typical situation and on the contrary we should raise questions if it will look different.
    So all looks good here. But if there are doubts we have to ask the copyright holder and not each other. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sasha, I think we are talking past each other. The problem is that image reviewers are passing these images as okay, when they are not okay. So we do need to talk to one another.
For example, File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg was taken at en:Lakme Fashion Week, which is not a Bollywood Hungama event. But the image has the Bollywood Hungama watermark on it. [2] Why? They don't say. Perhaps their photographer took it, or perhaps they use that watermark carelessly. So only half the image was uploaded to avoid the watermark, and Racconish passed it as being available on the Bollywood Hungama website. But that tells us nothing about (a) copyright and (b) whether the copyright holder has released it. The bottom of the page says "all rights reserved."
I've emailed Bollywood Hungama, but so far they have not responded. SarahSV (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SarahSV: I think your email is the best way. If they do not respond within a reasonable time, we will think further. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If one of you thinks I did something wrong, please let me know. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 19:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Racconish, it's not that you did anything wrong. You reviewed the file page to confirm that the file was available on the Bollywood Hungama, and it was. But that is leading editors to believe that these images have been confirmed as free. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this group release. I'd like to know what it says and who it came from. I'm thinking we should not rely on it until an authorized person from Bollywood Hungama confirms it and clarifies what it covers. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Thank you for sending the email. Have you had any reply from them? Green Giant (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I'm sorry, I have only just received this ping from you. No, I haven't heard from them. I don't have time to pursue it right now, because I'm in the middle of dealing with another problematic group release, but any images depending on the Bollywood Hungama OTRS ticket probably ought to be nominated for deletion. SarahSV (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: They don't 'use the watermark carelessly'... they just apply it to every image on the website, regardless of if it is 'theirs'. Bollywood Hungama has long been a problematic image source, and you are spot on at pointing out the issues... it is not a source where simply checking it it is 'available there' is sufficient. All images from there are supposed to be reviewed, but the exact scope of the permissions grant is convoluted, and people often make mistakes due to not being familiar with the exact restrictions, even when reviewing. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bipasha Basu and Karan Singh Grover grace the green carpet ceremony of IIFA 2016.jpg for a current example.
Despite it having been discussed more than once, there has never been a consensus to blacklist this source completely, so we are left with images with the license to which it possibly does not apply, and are dependent on them being taken to DR when noticed. The general disclaimer is relevant, unfortunately. Reventtalk 08:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

#2009051410061605 (File:Radmor5100.png)[edit]

A few years ago someone had added a number which looks like an OTRS ticket number. So I just have added {{PermissionOTRS}} to it. Could someone check this? --jdx Re: 19:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @jdx: There is correspondence in Polish in Ticket:2009051410061605. But as I understand it, there are no satisfactory permissions. In my opinion, we should make deletion request for this image. But it would be nice if a Polish agent will check it before. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


I think this may need one further back-and-forth to establish whether the gmail address is correct, but it may not... it needs a Dutch-speaker to confirm. @Natuur12, Basvb, Jcb: could one of you take the ticket please? Thank you. Storkk (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a note with some extra info but I am rather busy this week so I am not sure if I can take over the ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm also rather busy, sorry. Basvb (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Edoderoo has picked it up. Basvb (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)



As the Secretary, I had created a Wiki entry for the Draft:Royal Aero Club Records Racing and Rally Association (3Rs, for short) which was subsequently deleted. It was removed because I was found to have breached the copyright of another organisation.

To create the entry, I had taken text from the organisation's handbook. Unbeknownst to me, another site which collates information on clubs and organisations had used the same text on their website as part of an entry for the 3Rs The 3Rs was not aware of the existence of the site, nor had it agreed to the use of the text from the handbook. However based on the fact that the other website had published before my Wiki submission, they would appear to have been given the benefit of the doubt.

In searching for the disputed entry, it would appear that either the entry has been deleted or that the site has gone out of existence and the domain taken up by others. In any event, the only existence of the text remains in our handbook and on our website.

We would wish to continue to use the text as part of our Wikipedia entry, but not necessarily make the Handbook available under a Commons license, and I think this is where some confusion lies as the original entry was deleted because we were reckoned to have breached another's copyright by using their text, and not our own

Petechilcott (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Petechilcott: For issues regarding text in Wikipedia articles or drafts, as opposed to the licensing of images, you really need to address the issue on Wikipedia, not Commons. We are separate, but related, projects. You should, however, have no problems with licensing only the specific text from the handbook that you want to use under a license that Wikipedia will accept. You should bring this up at the OTRS noticeboard on English Wikipedia.. Reventtalk 06:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi there! The metadata of this image indicates that it comes from AFP. The original version offered by AFP is 2706×3600 pixels, whereas the one here is only 800×1064 pixels (which happens to be the exact same size found at Keeping in mind that AFP's business model typically doesn't involve giving away their content for free, are these things reasonably explained by the OTRS ticket? LX (talk, contribs) 08:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ticket is not in any permissions queue. @Ibrahim.ID: could you please explain? Storkk (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for delayed response, we receive email via ( from : Mohamed Fathy, photographer in AFP, and he take this photo in 2012, I asked him some questions and he answer it well, everything was ok, last year I asked in village pump about different between copyright holder and photographer (I can't remember the link), and someone said the photographer is the owner and he can license his photo, if this license is incorrect or suspicious, please delete the photo and I apologize, thanks --Ibrahim.ID 01:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. Based on the information at meta:OTRS/Personnel, you are the only one with access to permissions-ar. Is it possible to give other volunteers access to the ticket?
  2. Can you (without breaching confidentiality) disclose how the sender's identity was confirmed – did the e-mail come from an e-mail address, for example?
  3. You haven't posted anything to any of the village pumps (main, copyright or proposals) since September 2014. I can't find anything in your Commons: namespace contributions matching the description of that question. Photographs taken by an employee in the course of their duties is normally considered a work made for hire, with the employer being the copyright holder, so if you actually asked that question somewhere and got the answer you say you did, it seems you got the wrong answer.
LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2016070110014824 - Nizar Nayyouf[edit]

Hi, I've recently been in correspondence with one Mr Nizar Nayouf (subject of the article of the same name), and he has graciously agreed to release a number of works and photos by him under a CC-BY-SA licence (ticket #2016070110014824). His article is currently a Good Article candidate on the English Wikipedia. I was wondering if this ticket could be expedited so the article can be illustrated in time for the review? Thanks, Intelligentsium (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that I don't know how long I can maintain correspondence with Mr Nayouf as I'm sure he has a very busy life, and will probably be more responsive to problems if raised now than in several weeks' time after he has already forgotten about this. Intelligentsium (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: from a very cursory look (it's late), the ticket seems unproblematic some articles in the ticket seem unproblematic except that it comes from a yahoo email address. Is that address known to be the artist's? Storkk (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The first few items I looked at, Mr. Nayyouf would appear to be the copyright holder, thus the release would be OK if we could establish the identity of the email account. The ticket also contains photos of Mr. Nayyouf that he is almost certainly not the copyright holder of, they will probably be rejected. Storkk (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I can confirm he is the owner of the account as it is connected to his verified twitter account, and I have used it communicate with him. I think it's likely that he employed a photographer to take the photos of him, and thus he would own the copyright, but I will follow up with him. Intelligentsium (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Intelligentsium: In most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, that would only be true if the copyright transfer was explicitly stated in the contract. Storkk (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2016052310023527[edit]

Hello! A user contacted me on the german wikipedia about her deleted pictures. I promised to give her some pointers for help. Some of her pictures got deleted while there was an OTRS Ticket in the queue. You may reach out to her at her german discussion page. The Ticket: ticket:2016052310023527. --Ziegenberg (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ziegenberg: Commons policy is to delete images if the OTRS permission hasn't been verified by an agent within 30 days, and if it is later verified then OTRS requests undeletion. Most Commons admins aren't OTRS agents, but she should have been contacted by email by an OTRS agent if there were questions... otherwise, it might just be backlogged. Reventtalk 06:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Marek okulary1.JPG[edit]

Czy mogę uzyskać zezwolenie na wykorzystanie ww.zdjęcia w projekcie - gra edukacyjna dla dzieci w karcie z pytaniami dotyczącymi tej postaci? z poważaniem Martyna Stupnicka —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:45, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

To zdjęcie jest udostępnione na licencji „CC BY-SA 3.0”, która umożliwia jego wykorzystywanie również w celach komercyjnych, pod warunkiem, że się je odpowiednio oznaczy: Jeśli chciałaby je Pani wykorzystać w inny sposób, np. bez podawania autora, to myślę, że należałoby skontaktować się z autorem, tj. p. Kamińskim. --jdx Re: 08:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Artwalker Limited's Posters[edit]

The following photos I had uploaded a similar, Refer toTicket:2015022710005181, Ticket:2015022710005298, Ticket:2015022710005323:

Artwalker Limited is also authorized. --Photoyi (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Review OTRS Ticket : #2016070710015483[edit]



Please review the Ticket: 2016070710015483

This is an own work file and free to publish anywhere. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma (talk • contribs) 15:32, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

The ticket is in the queue - there is a backlog. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Josef Scheuplein[edit]

Could someone please verify what license is exactly mentioned in - re: all files in Category:Josef Scheuplein. All the files had the artist name "Josef Scheupelin" in the _source_ field, and as author "Werner Kirchgessner". The author is surely not the heir, but the artist, so I changed those fields to author: Creator:Josef Scheuplin; and source = Werner Kirchgessner. Now the problem is how the attribution of those GFDL and CC licenses is supposed to be. The average Commons user cannot know how to properly attribute the image, hence they are quite useless if this isn't fixed. I hope there's something in the OTRS mail that helps to clarify this issue. --WolfD59 (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@WolfD59: That ticket specifies the license CC-by-sa 3.0/de (by referring to, but only applies to "das Bild 'Blick auf Würzburg.jpg'". I assume that this is File:Blick auf Würzburg (o.J.).JPG. Perhaps User:NORPpA, the original uploader of the image to the German Wikipedia, knows more. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Will this confuse OTRS volunteers?[edit]

I drafted an article and uploaded a photo of the subject:

Subsequently the subject's granddaughter, owner of the image, used the permission template to confirm that she had released permission for this.

In her email (using the template) she says she is sole owner of

When you click on the link identifying her image, as it is formulated in the template, this pops up:

No file by this name exists, but you can upload it

i.e. prompting the author to upload the file again. Should she? Believeingood (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Believeingood (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Believeingood: I'd like to note that the mere ownership of the image is irrelevant when it comes to copyright. We need to know the original photographer, and not the owner of the physical copy. Only the original photographer or his heirs could release the image under a free licence. The copyright term in Ireland is the life of the author plus 70 years, so unless the photographer died shortly after taking this image, it is still copyrighted and non-free. If the image was taken by a family member, then Walsh's granddaughter would in fact be in a position to release the image, but we need to know the type of licence she would like to grant. De728631 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find out. Believeingood (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Would someone be able to take ownership for Ticket:2016051510010994? The owner used to be Amitie 10g, who is no longer an agent, and though I'm currently marked as the owner, it needs an external reviewer because I'm involved in gathering the submission. The items in Category:Nadia Kaabi-Linke (besides from "Flying Carpets") need to be reviewed. The artist's permission to use items from her website comes via her husband/curator/collaborator in the first part of the ticket, and I just added permission from Uwe Walter to use his photos, which were included in the ZIP file in the first part of the ticket. The "Walk the Line" photo permissions are in ticket:2016071210024758. Thanks, czar 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Working on it. Natuur12 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for an OTRS email template for making work CC0 (public domain)[edit]

Hi all

Apologies if I'm asking in the wrong place, I'm looking for an OTRS email template for releasing work under CC0 (public domain), I can't find one, I'm not sure if it exists or not? I assume there are some differences outside of simply changing the license in the CC-BY-SA one because more rights are given away.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've generated one below. Check out the new release generator here.

I hereby affirm that I, [your name here], am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[your name here] 2016-07-30

Best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bobamnertiopsis, I'm not sure if this bit should be in there? I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. as it is CC0 so no copyright is retained and no attribution is required. --John Cummings (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's fair, John Cummings. I think sending the above release and omitting the aforementioned line should suffice. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bobamnertiopsis, I started a discussion on Wikidata about it, thanks very much for your help. --John Cummings (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Does ticket #2010041110015375 apply?[edit]

Does ticket #2010041110015375 (apparently for works by Category:Herbert Marxen uploaded by User:Julia Marxen) also apply to File:Aschermittwoch.jpg and File:Nordmarkplakat.jpg? If so, please mark that in the image description. The PD-old used in these files are wrong (and maybe the FAL tag is also wrong depending on what the OTRS ticket says). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Per above, DR opened for both files. Hopefully we can get a broader OTRS ticket for these works. Reventtalk 09:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Heloo can someone help me to resolve the problem with my pictures, video and music? Before a few days its all gone , deleted. I send the copyrights but the problem its still there ....thank you Dispero Dispero Ras Siento 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dispero Ras Siento: My deletion of the files was not a comment on the material you submitted to OTRS, but just reflecting that the 30 day grace period had elapsed. Reventtalk 04:10, 2016 August 10‎

Language barrier[edit]

Can someone please review OTRS ticket 2016081010018347 (File:Shahram Amiri (شهرام امیری).png) as I'm unable to confirm permission due to language. Thanx, Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 16:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

e-mail only received 10/08/2016 22:42. Not yet processed. I've adjusted the ticket on the image page ("Reason=1" in template) Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Tickets #2014101110009596 and #2014111610008442[edit]

Following this 2014 discussion with an author on Commons French-language help desk, I'm guessing that the ticket:2014111610008442 possibly included 1) a validation of specific files (images of his works) that had been already uploaded by someone else before that date, and 2) a validation of the author's own account for the upload of new files after that date. Is that the case? However, I see that someone else has continued in parallel to upload images of this author's works. Was the account of this other person also validated in the OTRS ticket received from the author for the purpose of uploading new files picturing this author's works? To complicate matters further, a third account, possibly also operated by the same person, has recently uploaded one of the author's works. For clarity, could you please specify which accounts, if any, were actually authorized by the author for the purpose of uploading new files picturing this author's works? Or did the author declare that he offers all his works under a free license, which would allow anyone to upload them? N.B.: The communication is probably in French. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Extract from ticket reply, just four images given CC-BY-SA-3.0, does not mention future image uploads or other users...
Nous avons reçu l'autorisation pour ces images et fait les modifications nécessaires sur les pages de description

Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. After having another look, I see that there is another ticket number used on other files, ticket:2014101110009596, which probably has more information. Sorry that I had missed that other number in my first look. So, to get the full picture of the situation, same questions as above about that other ticket, please. Thanks in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
That ticket covers only the specific files...
Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Searched on "from" name also ticket 2014090510013971...
  • File:Coltrane-Coltrane.jpg
  • File:Calmoduline Monument.jpg
  • File:Thelonious Monk Architect «Evidence».jpg
  • File:A-M au Louvre 5.jpg
  • File:Lumen Poem 1985.jpg
  • File:80 blues projectw.jpg
  • File:Viseur «Espace détaché» 2002.jpg
  • File:Une après-midi au Louvre «Monk's dream».jpg
  • File:Kaluza ballet.jpg
  • File:Eronel.jpg
  • File:Free Jazz.jpg
  • File:Vicenza 1977.jpg
  • File:Jma angouleme wk.jpg
  • File:Sculptures de visées,.jpg
And then 9 tickets not yet actioned (8h to 79 days old)! Since they are all in French, they are waiting for a French agent to process them - large number of files, by the look of it. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok. The 3 tickets detailed above cover the uploads to the end of 2014. With new tickets, then it seems that the author is keeping track of the newer uploads made by the other person and he is sending successive permissions. It seems fine then. Thank you again for your time. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket #2014081410020312[edit]

A document was sent in the correspondence for ticket #2014081410020312 which is an evidence for permission to reuse copyrighted material, I need the document so that I can make a new ticket for this file File:Falastin newspaper 18 June 1936 issue featuring a caricature.png or we can include this file in the same ticket. Helpǃ --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I forwarded a copy of the email with the attachment back to the email address that originally submitted it. Reventtalk 13:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Isn't it possible to include this file in the same ORTS ticket? --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: If you reply to the email I sent you, with the ticket number in the subject line, the system with attach you email to, and re-open, the existing ticket. You will still need to address the concern raised at the DR, however. To be honest, I think it would probably make more sense to open a new ticket, and just reference the previous one, since the previous discussion was rather long and the concern is simply about the drawing itself. Reventtalk 02:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I made an undeletion request, I hope that is suitable.. [3] --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: What is there to do now? I don't think the documents required exist. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Challenging deletion tags[edit]

Hello, I just got a message today in my Wikicommons account from some user named “EugeneZelenko” nominating 9 of my images for deletion, although “nominating” is a bit of an understatement since he already put a deadline of 7 days with no room for reply. The images that he tagged are the following:

All of the images targeted by this user have been under the Mexican copyright law (Ley de Derechos de Autor ( that states you can share the content as long as it’s for non-lucrative means and you atribute the author of the content, it is stated on their websites. Further more, why is he running under the assumption that there is a problem with them, he doesn't speak Spanish nor does he have an understanding of Mexican law (I do, I'm a lawyer), if any of the original authors ever feel like there is a problem with the usage of the images on WIkipedia they are welcome to file a complain themselves.

I also went through the message history of this user and after seeing his archives you can see that he does this all the time, even deleting pictures that the authors themselves uploaded, I think he's abusing his power, not listening to arguments and deleting perfectly acceptable images anyway, could you please stop the deletion process? Thank you. Supaman89 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: Reventtalk 02:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Supaman89: The files won't be deleted until the seven days have run out, and you can change (or ask someone to change) the nominations to deletion requests where you can discuss them. This isn't really the right place for that.
However, you mention above the provision for fair use in Mexican law, and it's requirement that such use be 'non-commercial. We do not, by policy, allow either fair use material, or material that has restrictions prohibiting commercial use, on Commons. You indicated when uploading that the files were under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license... that license does not include a restriction on commercial use, and I see no indication that any of the copyright holders have released the images under that specific license.
Commons policies also do not allow us to keep material under the argument that 'the owners have not complained yet'. Reventtalk 03:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I checked source links for several files and there is no mentions of {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Source sites look like blogs, so photos may be borrowed from Internet. Please read Commons:Licensing carefully before uploading again. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Help request[edit]

Dear sir/madam
I am writing to inform you that the request email has been already sent to ask for the authorities of Hamidreza Payman's photos and genrously the ticket code is sent to us .here: Ticket:2016081010016009
since the photos have been deleted, I would be gratful if you take Appropriate action.
Thanks in advance
Your faithfuly --👦 Farhangnameh · 💬 05:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket has only been received at OTRS, once reviewed and approved the OTRS agent will arrange undeletion, so they can apply the ticket. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking for reviewing ticket #2016081510004674[edit]

Dear OTRS team,

Since this is a little bit important for us, I would like to request a review for ticket #2016081510004674. Your kind action would we appreciated. Thanks, ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 09:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rachmat04: Done! --Scoopfinder(d) 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Scoopfinder: Thank you. More uploads will be uploaded soon. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

permissions commons[edit]

good morning, do you have received my email for authorization to have occurred verifying in the Wikimedia OTRS system for this file: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frangpan (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Page has a ticket (2016081910003481). Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Charging Bull sculpture (ticket #2013120510013859)[edit]

Hello, I am interested in uploading photos of the Charging Bull sculpture, but it is copyrighted, and the photos are derivative works. I noticed that there was an OTRS ticket for File:"Charging Bull" replica.jpg, a replica of the sculpture. I would like to know if the license given to OTRS also covers the sculpture itself. Sunmist (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket only refers to the replica Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding image of Steve Herndon.[edit]

Hello, I am trying to get an image of former NFL player Steve Herndon added to his Wikipedia page. It is the image found here on the website of the company to which he is the president and co-founder. The website does not have a copyright warning. He himself has tried to upload it and was denied as I have tried and was denied numerous times. This is a simple request that can be resolved in minutes. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS by email. Please be aware that permission has to come from the copyright holder (=photographer!) rather than from the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively - annotate the photo on with "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License." - but the webmaster will have to be sure he has the power to do so, or he could end up having real issues from the copyright holder. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

File Red de museos para la atencion a personas con discapacidad.webm[edit]

This file was recently deleted but I sent the permissions letter to back on 26 May 2016. I forwarded the letter to you again (showing the original mail) today. Can you verify if you have received it? Thelmadatter (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two e-mails from you in the system - one 01/08/2016 18:25 and 21/08/2016 14:54 - an auto reply for the first one was sent on same day. Neither have been processed yet. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This is the problem. The original file was uploaded in May, with the email sent then and never processed. Then the file disappears with no warning to me to confirm that I did send the mail.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
E-mail never arrived in May - first e-mail on first August (those are UK style dates above). Note: E-mails sent to permissions queues always get an auto reply sent back the same day with the ticket number. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Andra Day photo WMG.jpg[edit]

Uploaded with a comment "This file was previously deleted despite permission being sent. Ticket #2016072710001683." Does this ticket confirm permission? January (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

E-mail received 27/07/2016 02:24, in the queue, not yet processed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Image Régis Lefort[edit]


Pour cette image File:Régis Lefort - 2013.jpg vous avez reçu deux autorisations :

  • celle de la personne photographiée
  • celle du photographe : Ticket#2016081810018271

Pourtant elle a toujours le statut "OTRS received". Quel raison empêche ladite photo de disposer du label "PermissionOTRS|id=XXX" ?
Merci de me donner des précisions ou d'apposer le statut définitif à cette image.
Cordialement. GerardGiraud (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


For this image File:Régis Lefort - 2013.jpg you received two authorizations:

  • That from the person photographed
  • That from the photographer: Ticket # 2016081810018271

Yet it always have "OTRS received" status. What reason prevents this file to have the label "PermissionOTRS|id = XXX"?
Thank you for clarification or to affix the final status at this image.
Sincerely. GerardGiraud (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@GerardGiraud : La raison est simplement que les permissions sont gérés par des bénévoles, sur leur temps libre, merci d'être patient. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour. Merci de votre réponse et toutes mes excuses pour ce message. Je comprends très bien les contraintes des membres bénévoles. Je vous remercie bien. Cordialement. GerardGiraud (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking ticket review[edit]

Dear OTRS team,

Could you please review ticket #2016082210006597? I've sent a letter of permission to upload and reuse some files which is now granted to be in Commons. Many thanks. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 04:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

E-mail only arrived 22/08/2016 09:56 - in the queue awaiting processing. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Brad Trost[edit]

Has anyone emailed MP Brad Trost to get a permission for the photo, File:Brad Trost, MP, 2016.jpg which he has upload to English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not. Does this answer your question? --Krd 08:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos of fencer Svetlana Kormilitsyna by Lee Kyu Jin[edit]

Hello! Could someone check if Lee Kyu Jin's declaration of consent is correct and files, ..and up to, all in the same Category:Svetlana Kormilitsyna have appropriate tags? There is no reply from OTRS team to author or uploader since he has sent the declaration of consent (24-08-2016). Thank you! --Voyagerim (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Author's declaration has been sent from e-mail --Voyagerim (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Solved! Thanks to Dogad75! --Voyagerim (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Releasing a photo of myself under CC BY-SA 4.0, does that mean someone can start putting it on T-shirts and start selling posters of it or even deface it?[edit]

I would like to upload a photo of myself basically so it can be used on my Wikipedia article and on my article on other language Wikipedias. From what I understand that means I need to freely license the photo for any use including commercial. If I do this, would that mean anyone could use that photo of me on printed t-shirts, posters, book covers, used on billboards etc. without my permission and without paying me? Could someone photoshop Nazi tattoos onto my face in the picture and I couldn't do anything about it? I do want this photo to be available for use on my Wikipedia article but I just want to know what I'm getting myself into before I email the permission to use it under such a license. RecentContributors (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. The copyright holder of a picture is the photographer, not the depicted person, unless it's a selfie. The release has to be done by the photographer.
  2. "would that mean anyone could use that photo of me on printed t-shirts, posters, book covers, used on billboards etc. without my permission and without paying me?" - yes.
  3. "Could someone photoshop Nazi tattoos onto my face in the picture and I couldn't do anything about it?" - no.
For more information see the Creative Commons page here - Jcb (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
With regard to defacement (putting aside Nazi tattoos which are a special case, as this may be specifically illegal in parts of Europe), were someone to make a parody with your face, like putting it on an animal's body, the CC-BY-SA license gives you no certainty of protection, and in many countries none if the image were arguably used in parody. It would be impossible to remove it from websites unless the host organization were in a country where it might be claimed to fall in breach of that country's legal definition of privacy rights, personality rights or (newer) harassment legislation. However as this would not be a personal photo, but one you are offering to release for wide use, it would be unlikely that you could later put a case under privacy rights or intrusion/harassment. With regard to personality rights, these are normally written from the perspective of a celebrity finding their likeness is being used to promote something, this gives the potential for a claim for compensation but not necessarily the right to have a published image withdrawn if correctly licensed under CC-BY-SA. Again all of this varies by country. If you have any doubt, then delay releasing the photograph until you have examined relevant past cases and understand what the possible and likely outcomes might be. -- (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I'm still trying to figure this out, but according to this information an image of a person released under a permission that allows commercial use, existing laws on controlling your own likeness for commercial use would mean that the photo of myself cannot be used commercially without my permission or without paying me. So even if I have a photo of myself available under CC BY-SA 4.0 which will allow it to be used on Wikipedia and whatever else people can think of, that doesn't mean that photo of myself can be used to sell t-shirts or put on a billboard to sell adult diapers without my permission. Am I understanding this correctly? And do I still need to get the photographer to email the permission even though I paid a professional photographer a lot of money to take the picture and all rights to the picture belong to me? Thanks again for your help. RecentContributors (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
If you can show us a written document (e.g. an invoice) in which the photographer transfered the copyright to you, you can do the release yourself. As for the commercial reuse, please be aware that portrait rights differ from country to country. These are non-copyright-related restrictions, not being influenced by the CC license. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually I do have just one more question. If I uploaded a photo that I took of myself or I photo I took of someone else to my verified Twitter/instagram account, or even my verified webpage, and I put "CC BY-SA 4.0" in the image description, would that be enough to verify that I agree to release those permissions and the photo to be uploaded to Wikimedia? RecentContributors (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. I do have the documentation, but I'll contact the photographer anyway, they might be familiar with the legalities behind all of this. I just *really* don't want the photo used on the cover of an unauthorised biography and especially don't want to see it on an adult diaper billboard. RecentContributors (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The question is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, and we cannot give you any legal advice for your country or the countries of the suspect reusers. Please contact your lawyer or see --Krd 08:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Shane Balkowitsch[edit]

I created a page for Shane Balkowitsch. I initially used images created/authored by Shane Balkowitsch on the page, with permission by the author to do so. These images were deleted. I requested that Mr. Balkowitsch send permissions by email to the OTRS as per instructed. He did that, three times now. The images were again up for deletion. I then made contact with Shane Balkowitsch to ask him to personally upload the images so I can use them on the page. Shane Balkowitsch has done that. I now see that those images are up for deletion. So, we are beyond emails and declarations. Most of the messages I receive are from userEugeneZelenko who clearly is not taking note of efforts made to resolve these issues and views the images as historical because they are created using a historical process, but are in reality, modern images created by Shane Balkowitsch and uploaded by Shane Balkowitsch and used on the Shane Balkowitsch page with permissions (sent multiple times) to do so. So, please let me know, what is the issue here? I have followed multiple procedures and end up with the same result, deletion messages. To say Wikipedia's guidelines seem arbitrary is an understatement, one well documented I might add. There are two options on my end. Either I upload images with permission from the author, or the author uploads images. I have tried both methods in accordance with various guidelines. These have not worked. What are the options, beyond these? -tjf5280 Tjf5280 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ticket#: 2016051210006736[edit]

Hello. Can anyone update me on this ticket? It's been nearly four months since the rights holder filled in the form. Joe Roe (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This ticket was merged to 201605111002472. Further information relating to the lack of FoP in Jordan was requested in May but nothing has been returned since. Nthep (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Is FoP really an issue? It's a photograph of a building the organisation owns, taken from within the grounds (i.e., not a public space). Joe Roe (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Copyright most often is owned by the architect, and not the organisation who may currently operate from within the building. Josve05a (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting review of [Ticket#2016081010007546], [Ticket#2016081010007626], [Ticket#2016081010007635][edit]


The President of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters have asked me to chase up on getting our images undeleted from [Hall] and The [Society Of Portrait Painters] pages.

The relevant ticket no.s are: [Ticket#2016081010007546], [Ticket#2016081010007626], [Ticket#2016081010007635]

The files are:

File:Hall-R-L-Joy-28x24-Egg-tempera.jpg File:The Royal Society of Portrait Painters.png File:Centenary-Catalogue-Cover-web-299x369-243x300.jpg

This is really important to us, so any update would be gratefully received! Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxicarrow (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Photograph of musician Michael Morrow[edit]

Moved from Help Desk, since I presume only OTRS volunteers can give an accurate answer - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have written an article about the musician Michael Morrow, which has been accepted and is now in Wikipedia. On the Talk page of my article, I have been recommended to inclue a photograph of Morrow, which, I'm told, would enhance the article. However, the only image I have of Morrow belongs to a friend, Seán O'Leary, who was a friend of Morrow, who took the photo, and who lives in the UK (I live in Ireland). I spoke to him on the phone yesterday and he has given me verbal permission to use the photograph for whatever purposes I want. I did explain to him that once the photo gets into the public domain, anybody and everybody can use it. He told me that this would not be a problem. I expect that you would like all this in writing from him, but please bear in mind that Seán is elderly, is in poor health and does not have a computer or the Internet. However, one of his children or grandchildren might be able to send you an email about this matter on his behalf if you require one. Incidentally, he gave me permission to use the photograph in a biography that I wrote and which was published recently: 'John S. Beckett: The Man and the Music' (The Lilliput Press, Dublin, May 2006), where it is reproduced in black and white. It is credited 'Courtesy of Seán O'Leary'. As this seems to be the only image available, and as I would like to include this photograph in the article, I would welcome any comments that you might have as to what I should do. Charlesgannon (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
End moved