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: 68 days  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
OTRS Noticeboard
Main OTRS-related pages
Commons discussion pages (index)

Shortcut: COM:ON

Filing cabinet icon.svg

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.

Translate this header


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)

Pictures from Pauli Vahtera[edit]

I’m not authorized to publish photos sent to me by Pauli Vahtera on Common or on Wikipedia, because with the first photo I uploaded came some meta data that belongs to the studio. What should I do? The studio naturally has no rights to those pictures whatsoever on the account that they were purchased by a private person. Now those photos have been handed to me for the purposes of retouching and publishing. The conversation relating to this issue can be found behind this link (This discussion is Finnish, so you need a translator) : [[1]] Does this mean that the OTRS by Pauli is the only option if one by me is not acceptable even though I’m the one editing the pictures into a form they can be published in? This same set of pictures is now, besides this incident, used on All the pictures on that site are edited by me as Pauli Vahtera’s campaign assistant and graphic designer. What can I do to have those photos put back up on Wikipedia and Common?

Waiting for further advises, with best regards Niina Vartiainen, graphics designer and campaign assistant Varttiniina (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Varttiniina

Hei, kirjoitan tämän Suomeksi, etten vahingossakaan ymmärrä enää mitään väärin. Minä en saa Pauli Vahteran, hänen itse minulle lähettämiään kuvia julkaistua commonsissa tai wikipediassa, sillä ensimmäisessä lataamassani edustuskuvassa tuli mukana studion metadata. Mitä teen? Studiolla ei luonnollisestikkaan ole oikeuksia kuviin ylipäätään, sillä kuvat ovat yksityishenkilön ostamia tuotteita jotka ovat delegoitu minulle muokattavaksi ja julkaistavaksi. Keskusteluketju löytyy tästä linkistä, viimeisen otsikon alta (Älä' lataa poistettua kuvaa): Eikö Paulin OTRS-lupa ole nyt sitten ainoa vaihtoehto, mikäli minun lupaani ei hyväksytä, vaikka itse kuvankäsittelijänä muokkaan kuvat julkaisukelpoiseksi? Tätä samaa kuvasarjaa löytyy nyt myös tämän episodin jälkeen osoitteesta mihin olen kaikki kuvat itse tehnyt Pauli Vahteran avustajana, joten mitä voin tehdä kuvien palauttamisen suhteen wikipediassa ja commonsissa? Ohjeita odotellessa, ystävällisin terveisin - Niina Vartiainen, graafikko ja Pauli Vahteran avustaja. Varttiniina (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Varttiniina

Varttiniina, apologiers for the late reply to your request. Normally the copyright to a photograph is held by the person who made the creative decisions. Usually that means the photographer is the copyright holder but the rights can be transferred by operation of law or by a contract. Simply buying a copy of a photo does not give the buyer any copyright. The only solution you have is to identify the copyright holder and ask them if they will license the photo(s). The best route to do that will be for the copyright holder to send a license statement to, preferably based on the sample statement at COM:ET. Once an OTRS volunteer has checked and verified the license, they can either request the file(s) be restored or in the case of an administrator, they can restore the files themselves. Please note that there is a significant backlog in the email system, so patience is advised. Please also note that if the same copyright holder wishes to license two or more files, they only need to send in one license statement, with a list of the files and where they can be found. If they have not been published before, then it is sufficient for them to attach the largest copy of each file to the email. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Remembering of OTRS ticket for File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg[edit]

I've previously requested the UnD of this file. After requesting information to the Government of Chile. I recived some answers from the Govenrment of Chile with official doccuments attached, and then, I resended these message to OTRS team.

I' ve contacted OTRS team three months ago for this and other files released by the Government of Chile, but they didn't answered them.

This issue has been discussed several times and affects this and several files released by the Government of Chile. Most of these files were nominated/deleted by non-chilean users that are unfamiliar with the Government of Chile licensing.

By law, all works released by the Government of Chile after December 30 of 2010 are released under the CC-BY license, This is already discussed in the Template talk:CC-GobCL. No doubts about them, unless the Government of Chile are amateurs when licensing their works. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g: The OTRS ticket you are referring to is partially in Spanish, and you have not responded to the question asked by an agent in it. There is another related ticket from 2015-01-01 which is entirely in Spanish and has not been processed yet.    FDMS  4    19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Ping User:Jcb.    FDMS  4    19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I didn't recived any answer in all my three email addressess (that is the reason why I'm leaving a mesage here). Is too hard to translate the message? As OTRS member, you're responsible to understand and answer these tickets, not me.
Me and many chilean users know very well the chilean laws, but for the non-chilean users (including Administrators and OTRS members) is easier to nominate/delete files than researching, specially if files released by the Government of Chiile after 2010 are covered under the CC-BY license by law!
This is a huge problem of misunderstanding a 2010 chilean law! Most Administrators and OTRS members should already know them, but several of them still doing mistakes with these files. Chilean users should explain once and once again this, with official documents from the Government of Chile. I have no more time for play with the Government of Chile and non-chilean users that don't know the chilean laws. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be several misunderstandings here. Firstly, OTRS members are volunteers. Secondly, evidence of the PD status has to be comprehensibly documented on the respective file description pages themselves, making use of specific PD templates and/or the permission field; this is not only because Commons is an international project. I will let the Spanish-speaking agent deal with the copyright status and/or contacting you again.    FDMS  4    20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: I think you may help handling OTRS in Spanich tickets if you help finding more Spanish speaking candidates for OTRS members team. As I can see there is a very long delay handling the permissions-commons-es queue. Ankry (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I know very well the OTRS team, like the other users, are volunteers,and also they may have a huge ammount of tickets that they must review one by one. Therefore, is a good idea to help OTRS team as experienced user.
And sorry, but I'm still consternated with the several {{CC-GobCL}} cases that we must address to Commons, and I need to request Transparency information again. I'm trying to assume good faith with other users, but laterly this becomes somewhat hard.
--Amitie 10g (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Jan, thank you for the question and apologies it took so long to answer. The ticket was created because it is essential to provide a source for each image, and obviously these images were created by Godot13 by digitizing the currency in the Smithsonian collection. Green Giant (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello there! Pictures jr_mapuku.jpg and veselin_penev.jpg have been deleted although I have send an email to declaring that the author of the files is OK with publishing them to wikimedia on March 10th 2015, which was within the deadline. What can be done so that these files be undeleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neyche (talk • contribs)

Image file of reptile has wrong name and taxon group[edit]

In OTRS I found a mail from a person who claims that a picture of a reptile does not belong to the taxon group it is named as.

regarding this file:

The person who sent the mail is the same as the one who made a delete request of the picture back in 2011:

Im now awaiting confirmation from reptile experts who should be able to provide an answer, but I'm not sure how to deal with the picture.

Id say that the indication that this picture is not an Amphisbaena at all, is rather large, and that we should remove links from the different articles to the picture. I already removed the link from the taxon article on Wikispecies. I'm not sure weather the file on Commons should be deleted or renamed, but its not good that the file has remained where it is, not renamed, in possible error for almost four years, after a deletion request?

How to deal with this?

Regarding the OTRS issue, I have answered politely and asked him to wait for confirmation. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you ask him why he believes that the ID is wrong? Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
He writes:
The animal in the photo is
> probably an Scolecophidian (thread snakes), which are totally different to
> amphisbaenians. Amphisabena caeca should look like this:
This has been preliminary confirmed from Wikispecies user and reptile specialist Faendalimas, and we await full confirmation from his collegues, who are specialized on Amphisabena. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds convinsing. I'll replace the file cross wiki. I'm not an expert on reptiles but I know enough about them to tell that the mailer is probably correct ;). Natuur12 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
To bad, there is no replcacement. Natuur12 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I checked with one of our students at MZUSP showing her the photo, she specialises in Amphisbaenids, I do not, she agreed it was not an Amphisbaenid but could not be sure what it is. So best option is the one you have gone for. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

During the latest correspondence, I had this messagem which gives a suggestion for a rename of this file, so we can go on and use it:

> I talked to my PhD thesis advisor, Dr. Richard Thomas at University of Puerto Rico, and showed the photo that was mistakenly labeled as Amphisbaena caeca. Dr. Thomas is specialist in Caribbean amphisbians and reptiles. He told me that the animal in the photograph is Typhlops platycephalus, indeed an scolecophidian as I stated in previous communications. Maybe you could assign that photograph to that article.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Great :). I renamed the file and placed it in the articles about Typhlops platycephalus cross wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I support that decision, it was a good choice, and thanks for putting the work into this and update cross-wiki. Ill take a look on Wikispecies as well. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems we should change some details in the meta data for this picture, since it has been renamed, just to avoid any confusion? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


The ticket appears to be limited to the two music PR photographs above. The Blake PNG appears a "web quality" crop which exists at larger resolutions and in different crops elsewhere on the internet, for example here. The Alesso image exists at higher resolution elsewhere, such as here. It is unclear why Def Jam would want to release lower resolution versions.

Presumably the production company Def Jam have made a claim of copyright on both photographs, however as we only have PNGs with no EXIF data, could they provide information about the photographer(s) to be credited and be asked if original files are available? -- (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The copyright does appear to be held by the production company - I suspect it is because it is better from their point of view to give us a low resolution image, then they have the high resolution version to sell on (as it is basically impossible to increase the quality of the file). I've emailed them again noneless asking if they know. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:20, 4 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)


This has an OTRS ticket. On the file information page, it says that the Italian Wikipedia uploader is the author (of both the photograph and the cake I presume). Does the OTRS ticket explain how a different user managed to upload the file to English Wikipedia three months earlier, and does the fact that the file was there earlier somehow invalidate the OTRS ticket? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The ticket is in Italian.    FDMS  4    21:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan4: I don't speak Italian, but from reading it using Google translate, both licenses (for the images uploaded to :en and this image uploaded to :it originally) appear to be authentic in my judgment. (If you google the :it uploader's name, it's the name of a company, not a person's name.) --UserB (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

TicketID=8187117 ZURPICTURE[edit]

The source and author is given as "WEINSPEN" which appears unnecessarily cryptic. Could the name of the copyright holder please be given and the full OTRS ticket number added rather than the internal database link please? -- (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The ticket is in Hebrew and its ID 2015031010021479.    FDMS  4    13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I added more information to the file details. As I mentioned there, the OTRS release approval was received from the picture's owner, in response to a request sent to the uploader. The link is to the mail received from the owner. Should I add anything else? I added the link the way I always do... SMirC-dunno.svg Ldorfman (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

2015020610007709 М Ишмаметов[edit]

This photograph appears to be from a Russian "family archive" and though presumably taken over 60 years ago, this iPhone image is marked as "own work" with the date in the information template incorrect. Could the details please be confirmed, and the legal name of the copyright holder added rather than an anonymous uploader account? Thanks -- (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@: The author value is correct according to the customer's eMail (standard template from a freemail address). @Mdann52: The customer hasn't received a response eMail yet.    FDMS  4    13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, "GREGI" does not seem appropriate as a way of explaining who is the copyright holder or photographer for the family archive "Баишевых Урманче". It is far more likely that the uploader wants to release their old family photographs but is only the person doing the digital scanning, rather than the photographer. The OTRS correspondence can provide an explanation of project guidelines, but must take reasonable steps to verify the claim of copyright that we all rely on, and ensure that the attribution, dates and basic details on the uploaded photographs, is correctly stated.
Similar questions should be addressed for File:Ильдар Урманче, 1980г..jpg (EPSON scanner image, 2011). -- (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@FDMS4: My internet connection is intermittent at the minure, I've replied asking for clarification on the dates. However, it does seem he is the heir to the works, so therefore the copyright holder, however I've asked if he knows the authors names (otherwise, "unknown" may have to do). --Mdann52talk to me! 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow-up. -- (talk) 16:14, 7 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)


Hello, I got permission to upload that file under CC licence from owner by email and forwarded that email to and but I didn't get back any OTRS code or any response at all. Image is now deleted and probably other images from that mail will be deleted soon. What should I do? Interlooks (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

When did you send the email?Willy Weazley 16:57, 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)

Deletion of File:Logo_First_Strike_1.2.png[edit]

That Image is made by us, Team First Strike and we have all Rights on this Image, please undo this deletion. --Moritz Gerber (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Moritz Gerber: Please follow the procedure described on COM:OTRS. (The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team has not received any eMail from a address.)    FDMS  4    00:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Blanchard-Laville 2010.jpg[edit]

Hello, I met this problem when I upload a file on wikimedia Commons. As I explain, I am the owner of this photograph, but I downloades it in 2014 on Amazon's Website to improve the page of Claudine Blanchard-Laville, at her request. How could I be allowed to put it on Wikimedia Commons now ? I copy/paste the conversation here below. Thank you for your answer.--Pierrette13 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC) File:Blanchard-Laville 2010.jpg "The image is here: I think the uploader must prove that he or she owns this photograph, or must obtain permission from the owner."

  • Claudine Blanchard-Laville - Hello, I took this picture in 2010 and I gave it to Amazon, at the request of Claudine Blanchard-Laville, in 2014, while helping her to improve her page on Amazon's website. I don't know how I can prove my rights on this picture. I put it on Wikimedia Commons in an attempt to have it available for everyone. Have a nice day --Pierrette13 (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear OTRS volunteers, please read the message I left on this user's discussion page. I gave a couple of suggestions but I asked the uploader to come here for expert help. The claim is that the uploader owns the picture but gave it to the subject to improve her Amazon page. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

2014121810000328 Tony Ricca[edit]

Could the background of this ticket please be added to the image page? The image appears to be a screenshot taken from a TV screen, based on the line striations and visible glass reflection. If the claim of authorship is from a member of the family, it would have to be spelt out how this video screen capture is property of the family, rather than a broadcaster. Note that a Google search shows derivatives of the image exclusively in spam twitter feeds. It remains unclear how UserB has access to the OTRS ticket which pre-dates this image by several months.

I was alerted to this image from User:Faebot/Flickrstreams of concern. Note that the two images illustrating Tony Ricca appear to be doubtful for copyright and have been marked for review. -- (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@: Message #3 in ticket Ticket#2014121810000328 seems to be saying that this video was from the grantor's private recording, not from a TV broadcast. That was the basis under which I accepted it. If you believe that I am misinterpreting what they are saying or would prefer to ask a follow-up question to verify, please feel free to do so - I'm not territorial about such things. --UserB (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If there is ambiguity, then the copyright ownership should be made unambiguous. Someone ought to check that out and as I do not have access to OTRS it cannot be me. I did not catch on to the fact you access OTRS under a different account name than the one you used to add the OTRS ticket to the image page. -- (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@: Sometime this week, I assume, the obnoxious problem with my user name will be resolved when they move conflicting names out of the way and everyone uses their SUL username on every wiki. The current process is really annoying - I have to use one browser for Commons and one for Wikipedia because if I log in using my "B" account, it logs me out of Commons (since the B on Commons is someone else) and if I log in using my UserB account, then I lose my admin buttons on :en. So my solution is to use Firefox on :en and Chrome on Commons. Anyway, to answer the question about the ticket, yes, I completely agree with everything you said, and if another OTRS user would like to look at the ticket and see if they reach the same conclusion I did, I welcome the review. Random side note: both permissions-en and permissions-commons have unacceptably long backlogs. Have you considered volunteering to help with the permissions queues? --UserB (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I was abruptly kicked out for still unexplained reasons, so I have little doubt that applying would just be a humiliating experience. -- (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to step on toes, I try and steer clear of the drama. --UserB (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@: Follow-up: has what looks like to be a broadcast video source for this image (click on the first circle icon). I have sent a follow-up message to the emailer seeking clarification, but I am no longer inclined to accept this without a really good explanation. --UserB (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for following up. Certainly wider searches show this primarily in spam type use and the Wikipedia article was using problematic images (more being recently added). If the family are involved, then they may benefit from being encouraged to scan and release original personal photographs where they can get a release from the photographer (or make a reasonable claim to be the inheritor).
Problematic related images without verified copyright claims include:
-- (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I noticed those as well and included those in my message to the emailer. --UserB (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@:, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Ricca video screenshot.jpg --B (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone at permissions-commons-es?[edit]

Can anyone validate the authorization sent to OTRS regarding the uploads in here? Best regards --Discasto talk 19:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The ticket number is 2015041410023342, but I don't speak Spanish so I can't help beyond that. I looked quickly at the uploader's talk page (which I can't read) without Google translate. The uploader gives [2] as his website and that website proclaims a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. So, it isn't a question of validating that the uploader is the photographer, since even if the uploader were an imposter, the website has a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license for the images. There certainly needs to be some explanation (whether in the ticket or otherwise) as to the circumstances of, say, File:Maria Uriz y Alfredo Kraus, La Favorita.jpg, which is watermarked with what I guess is a theater name. Ditto for File:Maria Uriz y Placido Domingo en Adriana Lecouvreur.jpg. From what the uploader said on his talk page, is he actually the original photographer, or are these scans of photos he has collected? --UserB (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi UserB, isn't there any Spanish-speaking person in charge of the Spanish-speaking queue? I do know that the requirements for being a member of the OTRS team are rather demanding (I offered to help but it seems as if authorization checking for commons must be assessed according to what goes on outside commons (see meta:OTRS/Volunteering#Discasto). When it comes to the issue, Klaus Dolle is the photographer, as he's explained many times. He's also the husband of María Uriz and the pictures were made by him. The logotype was added afterwards in order to identify the pictures towards the fans (so that they could know where the promotional pictures were taken). The point has been discussed in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Pictures_by_Klaus_Dolle. Is that enough? --Discasto talk 08:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
All of the queues take a little time to be processed. Nobody is going to imminently delete the photos on Commons. I realize it can be frustrating. If you would like to let Klaus Dolle know (in Spanish) that his message has been received, please do so. --UserB (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I've already talk to him (in fact he's really upset because most of his pictures were deleted -Yann restored them after our discussion in the the Undeletion Noticeboard-), but it seems as if not even with the standard procedure (the OTRS authorization) it's possible to have a smooth experience. Mr. Dolle's pictures are extremely valuable (given the restrictive IPR laws in Spain) and after so many deletions, discussions and the like I'm still wondering how he's still willing to contribute. With regard to time response, it's up to you (in my particular case, and provided I've been an admin in commons for years -therefore I know well copyright regulations- and that I have the reviewer flag, I offered to help with the permissions-commons-es queue, to no avail). Best regards --Discasto talk 13:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Discasto: Please note that there is at least a seven-day period for comment on OTRS volunteers before your application is approved or rejected, so that hasn't quite elapsed - unless you have received an email telling you that your application was rejected, the fact that you haven't had an official reply does not mean anything. I can certainly understand Mr. Dolle's frustration. Since the source website has the license on it, I don't see a reason that any license reviewer (you included) couldn't tag these images as having been "license review"ed if you are completely convinced that the claim of authorship is truthful. Since he has the statement of license on his website, there is no magical blessing with which an OTRS volunteer can endow these images that would make them any more okay to use than they already are. Eventually, a Spanish-speaking OTRS volunteer will look at them, but that can take time. My biggest concern is that it needs to be explained very clearly (an OTRS ticket, on the image description page, whatever) where any of the remotely questionable ones are from. For example, File:Venecia, vista diferente.jpg does not look like a photograph. Is it a painting or a drawing of some kind? If so, is he the original artist? If it is a photo and he used some sort of sepia filters to make it look like this, that's fine - it just needs to be clearly stated. The ones like File:1972-La Coruña (Recital para Francisco Franco).jpg that are clearly old scanned photos, it needs to be clearly stated (if it is not already) on the image description page that he is the photographer of the original photo. If someone is looking at this and has only the information on the image description page and the OTRS ticket, they need enough info that they can reach the same conclusion that the license is legitimate. --UserB (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@UserB: Why is {{own}} not enough? Klaus Dolle uploads pictures to commons and states Own work... so, authorship is clear, isn't it? --Discasto talk 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Discasto: (Please keep in mind that other people may have different opinions - I am only giving you my opinion.) There are (at least) two reasons that having more than {{own}} would be a good idea. (1) A lot of people incorrectly believe that if they see a creative work and scan it or take a picture of it that they own the copyright and can now license it. If you upload an image that doesn't look like something you created with a 21st century digital camera (complete with EXIF data), then it is a really good idea to clarify that you understand that just scanning someone else's work doesn't make you the copyright holder and that you are actually the photographer of the original photo. (2) Twenty years from now, Mr. Dolle may not be available to answer questions about the image and his website where someone can see that he is a professional photographer might not be accessible. So if some future deletionist Wikimedian looks at the image description page, you want that person to have enough information that they will conclude that the license is valid. Does that mean it's a requirement? I don't know, but it just seems like a good idea. --UserB (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note his sentence in his talk page: "All [photos] are made by me or made for advertising (free of copyright) by the photographer or photographers in theaters where my wife has acted". It is not clear which photos are own and why promotional ones are copyright free. --V.Riullop (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You're completely right, @Vriullop:. I hadn't read such a paragraph and I've asked Mr. Dolle a clarification. Best regards and thank you for your attention --Discasto talk 22:13, 18 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)

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)

Help with ticket[edit]

Can anyone help with this? I don't think he can affirm he is the copyright's holder.Willy Weazley 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Left a note for you on the ticket. The article the content is for was deleted at AFD so regardless of copyright, it is likely not useful for any Wikimedia project. --B (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Lee Jordan Field in the snow.jpg[edit]

File:Lee Jordan Field in the snow.jpg an email was sent to OTRS, please restore the image. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

For anyone looking at this, the ticket number is 2013070110002511. The email that I assume User:Evrik is referring to is from 1/13/2015. I'm slightly confused by what I'm seeing here in this ticket and I would have handled it differently, but I think this is sufficient. --B (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you please restore it ... Thanks! Evrik (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Evrik: You need a Commons admin to do that (I am not one). Pinging @Magog the Ogre: who is a Commons admin and OTRS volunteer. --B (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I undeleted the file now and updated it to "OTRS received". Could an OTRS member please update the description file asap. Thx. JuTa 16:46, 29 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)

Would appreciate clarification from OTRS people at deletion discussion (Bollywood Hungama)[edit]

I would appreciate clarification from someone involved with OTRS at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gauri Pradhan Tejwani- Disney Princess Academy.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:HitenTejwaniGauriPradhan.jpg. They're basically the same point but different images. I'm basically asking:

  1. whether or not we have really obtained individual OTRS permission for use of specific those images, as seems to be claimed; and
  2. if not, because the point is that OTRS is satisfied by the overarching BollywoodHungama release, then how have reviewing volunteers ascertained that images meet the release requirements when there seems to be no evidence on the linked source web pages to support that assertion

Sorry for being a pain but this is an issue that has irked me for ages. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think we already have had this discussion. IIRC, the conclusion was that all pictures on their website which are made in India are OK, except movie stills, posters, etc., which are not made by Bollywood Hungama. Bollywood Hungama does not organise parties or events, it only sends photographers to parties or events organised by others. The permission is for all pictures taken by its photographers. My 2 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How much time it takes for a confirmation of OTRS ticket validation?[edit]

Hello. I sent an email to the team of requesting permission for using this content on Wikipedia page of actor Allu Arjun after i observed a similar grant of permission by the website for this file. I've sent the mail on 23 March and its 23 April today. Can i know almost when i can get an email confirming the validated OTRS ticket link? Or, can any OTRS volunteer confirm the fact whether the ticket on this file, just like Bollywood Hungama, is valid for all images of the film related / other celebrity related events available in their website or just limited to that particular file? Please do respond. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any open ticket about Would you know the ticket number? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: For this file, it was #2013081810003844. I've sent an email for using this content and want to upload it after the OTRS ticket link is sent to my email. Can you please verify whether #2013081810003844 applies only for that particular file or for all images of the film related / other celebrity related events available in just like "Parties & Events" in Bollywood Hungama? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Daniele Radini Tedeschi.JPG[edit]

This photo does not appear to be a selfie, yet the subject is listed as the author according to the file description, which has supposedly been vetted by OTRS. The photo itself was sourced from a Google search result, which usually isn't a good sign that the uploader has obtained permission from the real author. Second opinion? LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@LX: The ticket contains a forwarded eMail from the depicted person's (former, checked Wayback) official eMail address releasing "photo that portrays me and cover images of my publications and my personal data" (machine-translated) under the CC BY-SA 3.0 IT, no requests for clarification. What is a bit strange about the eMail is that the original message Mr. Tedeschi replied to appears to have been manually removed. Ping User:Mike V.    FDMS  4    14:25, 25 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)

Löschung der File:Dirk_Schmidt.jpg[edit]

Hallo leider wurde die Datei gelöscht obwohl ich als Rechteinhaber entsprechende Freigabe an die gesendet habe. Können Sie nocheinmal nachschauen ob die EMai mit der Rechtefreigabe empfangen wurde und können Sie die Datei wieder einstellen? Dreihundertbilder (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OTRS ticket for Tamannaah Blender's pride 2011.jpg[edit]

Hi. My username is Namma Pillar, Nice meeting you all.

On March 16, 2015, i have uploaded this file and User:Fae told me that it missed permission. I asked its owner Subhash Rajali to mail the consent for using this file on commons at and he did the same which i know since he sent a mail saying the same. After User:Fae suggested me to place OTRS pending tag, i placed it on March 19, 2015. Today is May 1, 2015 and till ow, the ticket is not placed there. Thus, i request the volunteers to let me know thgat did Subhash Rajali sent a mail to commons for using this image from his Flickr account? Here is the link :

Any volunteer reading this please respond soon. I dont want to see my first upload being deleted.

With hope that i can get the ticket link very soon Yours sincerely Namma Pillar (talk)

OTRS tag added please review .[edit]

Permission Ticket: 2015042810006497

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