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: 106 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)

OTRS Ticket#2016042710019787[edit]

I had raised an OTRS regarding an image and received the response from OTRS team, but now an image included in OTRS mail was deleted stating that OTRS was not obtained in past 30 days, what exactly went wrong ? and how to restore it again ? can anyone help me on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshu.engin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Himanshu.engin: Your OTRS ticken has the number 2016042710018395. Please give us the list of filenames of deleted images here (for example: File:Shri Satpal Maharaj.jpg). --sasha (krassotkin) 09:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • User has two images were deleted with the specified reason (no OTRS permission for 30 days): File:Shri Satpal Maharaj Official Display Image.png and File:Manav Dharam Official Logo.png. Both appear to be in the OTRS tickets (first in the fifth item, second in the first item) based on filename (I can't download the images at the moment to double check). I am not 100% comfortable with the ticket as it stands, as ticket submitter claims only to "represent" copyright holder: I would prefer an explanation of exactly what that means, and perhaps a confirmation from the copyright holder... but that should take place through OTRS, not here. Pinging @Amitie 10g: ticket owner. Storkk (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: If the client mail comes from an Organization address, is there a doubt to the claiming about representant of the copyright holder? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Amitie 10g: You can ask to send a letter from another address or to confirm his rights/name/address by other means (for example, through a personal website, social network etc). --sasha (krassotkin) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Amitie 10g: Someone who works in the organization is not necessarily legally able to license the files, so yes. We need to know first that the organization actually owns the copyright, and second that the organization licenses the files. Is this person in the legal department? Are they a spokesperson? Are they the web guy that someone is telling to get the files up on Wikipedia, and this is the only way he can do that? Storkk (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I know itl, so, I already sended a request for written and signed permission from the owners. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I represent by permission of the copyright holder, which in case is "Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti", I request to provide template/format for written permission as per wikimedia standards, I'll provide the same ASAP. -- Himanshu
  • I've Mailed the written permission from the copyrights holder (Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti) please proceed further. -- Himanshu

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)

Need help[edit]

Hello. I would like to ask you about something that puzzles me. More than a month ago I uploaded my first file on Wikimedia Commons. It took me a while to sort out the license and then I realised that I found out that I need permission for a valid OTRS ticket. Even though I am not the copyright holder of the photo I requested the copyright owner to let me upload it. I got permission to upload it, provided that I do not alter the content of the photograph, which I did not. Then I sent a statement to Wikimedia Commons (one that I found in the page about how to get permission and I thought that it might be ok to use it) and after various email exchanges with a volunteer I finally got permission for the file. I remember that the permission status of the file was updated. However, I cannot find it in my uploads. . . When I search it says 'No results', so someone must have removed it. However, I do not understand why it was removed if there was permission for it. I would be grateful if you could let me know what actually happened and if you could help me retrieve this file. Thank you in advance.Irene000 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is File:Fabio-Mancini.png and ticket:2016043010008471. There are two problems, first you write "provided that I do not alter the content of the photograph". We only accept images that can be freely modified by anyone for any purpose, please see COM:L. Secondly, the ticket contained only correspondence from the subject of the photo and yourself, but the copyright holder of a photo is the photographer, not the subject (unless copyright was transferred, of which there was no indication in the ticket). We need to have the photographer either confirm that they transferred copyright, or that they agree to a free license (which includes the terms that anybody can use it and modify it for any purpose, subject to the terms of the license). Storkk (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Storkk. Thank you for explaining these things to me. About the first problem: It is not a problem because the file was uploaded there so as to be used by everyone. I am simply an uploader so even though I uploaded it initially in a modified form (I changed the colour contrast) I soon replaced it with its original form as it was taken by the camera. A file in its original form can be used freely by everyone and can be modified according to every individual's different taste and purpose; not simply just mine. About the second problem: Indeed there was such a correspondence. However, the photograph I uploaded is one taken by the subject's personal camera and the sole owner is the subject and only the subject. I believe the subject mentioned that in the correspondence. However, there was another photograph uploaded by another user and I believe that was the one taken by the photographer. Is it possible to confirm this for me on the emails? I appreciate it for taking your time to respond to my query. Best, Irene000 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The person who took the photo should contact us to confirm the license. The ownership of the camera is not particularly relevant. Storkk (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, I apologize in advance for annoying you with this and for my persistence but I think I need a clarification. Firstly, I completely agree with you that the ownership of a camera is not that relevant. However, I checked the email correspondence and I found the last email sent by the subject to Wikimedia Commons permissions. In that email the subject states that the photo which I uploaded is taken by a friend of his (not a professional) but he also states that he is the only one who has the photos and he is the only one who decides how to use them, for personal purposes or for social ones. The way I understand it is that there is a clear indication that if the subject is the only owner of the file and most importantly if he has the freedom to use it for social purposes it means that he has the copyright for it. Therefore, his permission for usage and his agreement to free license should be enough to guarantee a valid OTRS ticket. On the other hand, there is a second photograph File:Giorgio-armani-and-fabio.jpg, which as stated in the subject's email it was taken by a professional photographer. In this case I agree that you need a confirmation from the professional photographer about the license. I also understand that even if the subject has the freedom to use this second file, you still need a confirmation from the legal owner whether he transferred his copyrights to the subject. Indeed, the subject did not mention clearly on the email that there was a copyright transfer for this specific file, but since he mentioned that it was originally taken by a third person it is absolutely logical to need a final confirmation about the license from that third person. So, my point is that I understand the deletion of the second file as it is basically a third person's work but still I fail to understand the deletion of the file I uploaded. In the case of the file I uploaded, it is quite clear that there is no issue of third person's copyright. If that was the case I believe the subject would have specifically named the person involved, as he did for the second file. Since he did not do that but instead he made it clear that he is the only one who has the file and uses it as he wants then he must have the copyrights for it and his permission was all you needed. Thus, this file shouldn't have been deleted. Again, I am really sorry for this long message but I tried to explain the train of my thoughts so as to make you see my point (I only hope that I did not confuse you with this!). Perhaps there are faults on my logic or perhaps there is something about copyrights that I miss out but from what I can make out of the situation I am of the opinion that the two files should have been subjected to different treatment. I am looking forward to hearing from you whether I have a valid point or not. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: The issues involved are not as straightforward as you make out. You are equating ownership of the camera and all the "negatives" (essentially, exclusive ownership of the physical means to reproduce) with ownership of the copyright. This is certainly not clear-cut. There has been previous discussion about similar issues at Commons:Own_work/Bystander_selfie, which if you read the accompanying talk page, you will see does not have consensus. But because the photographer was stated to be a friend, it doesn't even really fall into that category: the "bystander" is known to the subject and is contactable. So it would probably be best to simply have that friend/photographer send in confirmation that they transfer all copyright to the subject. However, it is a non-sequitur to state that since "he is the only one who has the file ... then he must have the copyrights for it". That is simply not true as an if-then conditional statement. In any case, for various reasons that are not particularly relevant to the specific file we are currently discussing, I should probably recuse myself and if you disagree with my opinions here, I suggest you take it to COM:REFUND for an independent pair of eyes. If you do, I will refrain from comment there (as opposed to {{oppose}}ing restoration). You are not annoying me, and I view it as part of my "job" here to answer questions to the best of my ability. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, Thank you very much for providing the link to the talk page. Indeed, some of the thoughts I have on this matter are discussed in the link you provided. It does not surprise me that it has no consensus as the factors and views regarding these issues could generally be non-exhaustive. I think I understand now your point of view. I would like to avoid making things complicated therefore I would not take this to COM:REFUND as we might end up starting another no consensus discussion like the one in the talk page of bystander selfie. In this case, I thing it would be better to make a request for undeletion. However, in order to make this request you need a confirmation from the subject's friend about the transfer of copyrights. I am pretty sure the subject has no idea that such a confirmation is needed but I believe that if he brings you in touch with the friend/photographer then that should be fine right? There is now a small problem... since the subject has no idea about this someone must inform him. Will Wikimedia Commons-Permission contact the subject directly or will I have to reply to the previous email correspondence I had with Permissions (where the subject is also included) and make the subject aware of this? Once again I appreciate it for getting back to me. Best, Irene000 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: given the current backlog of over 3 months in the OTRS queues, it would probably be better if you could take the reins in organizing the permission from the photographer. Storkk (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk , I can arrange for the permission. However, is this the correct procedure to restore the file: ? First I make the undeletion request using the link provided in the Wikimedia Commons undeletion page and then I reply to the email correspondence with Wikimedia permissions, where the subject is also included. This will make the subject aware of the situation so that he can arrange the permission for the photographer. If this is the correct procedure then can I also request the undeletion of the second file (since that one also needs permission from the photographer and perhaps the subject can arrange this as he will do for the other one) ? However, will someone reply to me on Wikimedia permissions? Last time I sent an email I did not get an answer but I do understand that you are very busy and I do appreciate it for guiding me in this. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: please first reply to the email: once a satisfactory permission is in the ticket an agent will request undeletion. If it appears that nothing is moving, you can place another note here and other agents will see if they can help out. Storkk (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, Thank you for the advice. I will reply to the email tomorrow and hopefully soon after you will receive by email the confirmation from the photographers (I will do it for both files that were deleted). Once again, I am grateful for your replies. Best, Irene000 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 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)


Hello, I have sent an email to Wikimedia Commons-Permissions regarding the restoration of some files. The files were deleted because you needed a confirmation from the photographers that they agree to a free license. Could an agent please check the relevant email correspondence? Both photographers replied stating that they give their permission for the upload of the files in Wikimedia Commons. I would like to know if this is ok or if you require any further information. Also I would like to know if I need to take any other action for the restoration of the files. Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC) (I have just changed position of this section and put it on the bottom of the page. )Irene000 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Storkk, I am sorry for bothering you again but I haven't received any reply yet from anyone regarding my query. Could you please let me know whether the email responses from the photographers are ok? If there is anything else that I need to do please let me know so as to sort it out. In addition, I uploaded a new image which is my work. In this case how do I get a valid OTRS ticket? Many thanks, Irene000 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Utah State Historical Society's photo of Mary Field Garner[edit]

Concerning this file: The template message added by @Amitie 10g: said that the message was not sufficient. Can you tell me why the message was insufficient? I believe someone with a e-mail address gave the OTRS permission. Here is the ticket: Since I didn't file the OTRS personally, I don't know what the issue was, but if you tell me, then I can try to resolve the problem. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The OTRS-volunteer has asked some further questions to the person releasing the image. In this case that is not due to being non-sufficient I believe, but due to the fact that the image might be public domain (instead of the released cc-by-sa-4.0). So it looks like everything will be fine on this one. I asked whether it would be an idea to accept the current cc-by-sa-4.0 permission pending the clarifications on public domain. Basvb (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! My contact told me they didn't have any donor information, and any next-of-kin are at least five generations out. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictures for Hamdi Ulukaya[edit]

The following pictures are waiting for permission from OTRS. They have been waiting for several months. Please inform what to do to get these photos up on Hamdi Ulukaya's wikipedia article. A letter was sent several months ago giving permission for each of these URLs from the representative of Hamdi Ulukaya, who is the owner of the copyrights to the photos. What is the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatdrinkmerry (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eatdrinkmerry: We have two tickets on this subject:
I added their to the pages.
The client did not respond to questions of the OTRS-volunteers. Therefore, we can't confirm these permissions. We still waiting responses.
I did not find a ticket for the file: File:Hamdi_Ulukaya_at_the_World_Economic_Forum_in_Davos.jpg. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain how to fix this problem so the pictures can get permission within the 30 days before they are removed? I am confused about this. Eatdrinkmerry (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Eatdrinkmerry: Addressee must answer our questions. --sasha (krassotkin) 15:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    @(krassotkin) Hi Sasha- the addressee says he did not receive emails from Wikipedia. Can you try again using the following email addresses: <> and to cc <> Thank-you so, so much.Eatdrinkmerry (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I resend the email regarding the ticket I am working on. I am not comfortable putting third parties with no prior involvement in cc though. Natuur12 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 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)


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)

Restored files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KovacikovaIvana[edit]

I noticed that the files that were deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KovacikovaIvana and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flowin Hair Liberty Dollar 1794.jpg have been restored.

Are these discrepancies addressed in any way by the OTRS ticket? LX (talk, contribs) 08:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't find these tickets in permission queues. @KovacikovaIvana, please could you explain? --sasha (krassotkin) 10:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    KovacikovaIvana hasn't been around since March. Perhaps it would make more sense to ask Podzemnik, who seems to have been the one processing the supposed permission. LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    Podzemnik has been active since being pinged here, but has not responded... LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi LX, I'm sorry for not responding earlier. I've checked the ticket and there is a scanned declaration signed my the manager Kateřina Černá of Narodni pokladnice saying that they are releasing the files under CC-BY-SA. The true is that I've checked the metadata of one or two pictures and restored all of them without checking every single picture. Some of the pictures like File:Pamětní mince New York.JPG seems to be OK since the author in metadata is the same as the manager mentioned above (Kateřina Černá). Anyway, your doubts are obviously rational and I think we should delete the pictures you've mentioned which mean:
Rest of the pictures have Kateřina Černá in metadata or they don't have any metadata at all but they seem to be from the same source (Kateřina Černá) so I think they're OK. Thanks again for pointing it out, I should have checked all the pictures. With kind regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I disagree. If someone is obviously lying about being the author of several photos, then we obviously cannot just take their word that they're not lying about others, so low-resolution photos without metadata can't just be wishfully assumed to be the uploader's own work. LX (talk, contribs) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@LX: So do you suggest deletion of all the photos or "just" the photos without metadata? --Podzemnik (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Podzemnik: I'm suggesting deleting the ones I brought up in the new installment of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KovacikovaIvana. LX (talk, contribs) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
LX: OK, thank you. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. LX (talk, contribs) 15:59, 21 July 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)

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)

HaraldFidler.jpg / Image on[edit]

Hello! The image HaraldFidler.jpg has been removed. I've submitted the permissions statement on 2016-06-08, see Ticket#: 2016060810018846. I'm the photographer, the image is flagged as CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I don't quite get why it's still removed. Many thanks in advance, Wolf-Dieter —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:54, 07 July 2016 (UTC)

You should have marked the file page with {{OTRS pending}} as is explained in the OTRS manual. Otherwise normal editors cannot know that you sent an email to OTRS and will tag your file for deletion because it has already been published elsewhere without the CC licence. The image will be restored once your ticket has been processed, but that may still take some time because our email team is notoriously understaffed. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 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)

ticket #2013112410282212 and others by User:Robitsju[edit]

This was apparently uploaded by the author, who claimed it as his "own work" and submitted an OTRS ticket. Problem one - this artwork is by Leo Arthur Robitschek in 1943. That means the author is about 90 if he's even still alive (which he isn't - this file says he died in 1961). Second of all, the image this ticket pertains to is claimed to be General George S. Patton. That's not a US uniform, and Patton certainly didn't look like that in 1943; that appears to be a British uniform, to boot. So there's a problem here, and I'd posit there's an issue with everything the uploader uploaded. Can someone review this uploader's tickets, please? User:Robitsju has come up before at deletions for the dating issue, and now I'm very skeptical that these subjects are who they are claimed to be. MSJapan (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @MSJapan: The author of works by the ticket:2013112410282212 is Leo Arthur Robitschek (not User:Robitsju who is the copyright holder). It should be changed in descriptions. The rest looks as relevant to our rules (with little doubt in details, as for me). The second question is not for us. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:43, 12 July 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)

Ticket #2016071210013681[edit]

I just opened a case for discussion on OTRS wiki. Please, leave your comments there. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Project scope[edit]

Hello, I need help with one ticket. Please see ticket:2016061310009131. It is all in Czech however there are several images that were already (I suppose) uploaded by user:Von.rohac and deleted. The permission is alright in copyright point of view but I am not sure whether those images aren't out of project scope. Images are in part #3 of that ticket. What do you think? --Mates (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Mates: As OTRS-volunteers, we confirm a permission only. Next сommunity decides do we need such files or not. --sasha (krassotkin) 04:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

請求查核 (Check Request)[edit]

以下圖檔由台灣電力公司東部發電廠所提供,後由我上傳至共享媒體,再由東部發電廠依照OTRS的標準授權郵件之標準傳送至,然而自2016年7月18日圖片上傳至今仍尚未受到核准擔心圖片因此遭到刪除些望能盡速處理。謝謝。Eric Deng (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Following pictures were shared by Taiwan Power Company Tungpu Hydro Power Station.And uploaded to Wikimeda Commons by me. Two days ago,the Tungpu Hydro Power Station was sent the OTRS E-Mail to but now still doesn's get the OTRS approval.I worry that these photos will be delete in the past few days.So I hope to complete the approval as soon as possible.

Thanks to OTRS volunteers. And sorry for my bad english.Eric Deng (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You have the OTRS pending template. that should be good for 30 days to allow OTRS to evaluate your permission. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


I just opened a new case on OTRS Wiki. Please, leave your opinion about it. Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 11:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)