Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 16

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Please Verify

Yes check.svg Resolved

Can someone please verify File:WindSeeker sign ligts.jpg Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll get to it. There's 50 tickets in my queues alone, including spam, with six that I have ownership of that have responses at this moment and need to be responded to. I didn't have a chance to work on any new ones today because I was busy and more will be flooding in tomorrow. You just uploaded this file. Patience please. – Adrignola talk 03:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of Pictures

Hi there, I'm all new to Wikipedia. I tried to upload 2 pictures, "Caroline in February 2011" and "Caroline modeling in Milan, Italy". I own both pictures - my boyfriend took them for me. What do I have to enter in the licensing field if I want the pics to appear on a wikipedia article without giving it to the public domain? Thank you so very much!

You have several options detailed at Commons:First steps/License selection. – Adrignola talk 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Coloradogoias

Can someone please verify if a permission was received for the images of User talk:Coloradogoias? He told me he sent it but the images were deleted today.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't get any search results. Please have him send the email again. If he knows English that will speed up processing as both permissions-es and permissions-commons-es are backed up with tickets as old as 50 days. – Adrignola talk 14:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
He's Brazilian (Montividiu is Brazilian municipality, not Uruguay's capital ;) ), could it be in the pt queue?--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
While I don't normally handle them, I'm still able to search the permissions-commons-pt and permissions-pt queues. I see that my statement above where I misjudged the language of the images' titles was misleading. I had not limited the search to a specific queue and instead searched all queues I have access to. Only if the email was sent to an info-xx email address would I be unable to see it. I tried searching for distinctive words in the images' names. – Adrignola talk 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've asked about it at his talk page as well, I'll see if he says anything.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ticket #2008030310003382


I am trying to determine who the copyright holder for the image of the Russian Patent certificate at

I would like to write to them directly as I would like to reuse the image and also attribute them correctly.

The Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 1.0 Generic license does not suit my purposes.

Many thanks

(Sparkwater (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

I modified the description page to provide a link to the provider's site. It is Grand Power Ltd. – Adrignola talk 14:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

to verify

Could somebody check the ticket for File:Yulia Nachalova.jpg, as it was added at upload and by the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Covers images from, but they can be no larger than 300 pixels on a side. License must be GFDL 1.2 and cc-by-sa-3.0. – Adrignola talk 03:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Oscar icon.png

Can somebody check the discrepancy between the OTRS-ticket and the copyright-claim in the copyvio/speedy-message window. --Túrelio (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a look, and the image is a derivative work of another that was created manually, and freely licensed. However, I'm not entirely sure on how the copyright rules surrounding the actual statuette apply to an image a third-party created in the likeness of a copyrighted work. For now, I've changed the OTRS ticket on the image to a more appropriate one (before it was pointing to a ticket concerning File:Source_preview_FRUITS.jpg), and I am going to leave the validity of the image to more experienced volunteers. Regards, MacMed (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about a series of Gerstlauer images

Hi, I have recently come across Dr Player (talk · contribs). I have noticed they uploaded a large number of images which were created by Gerstlauer an amusement ride manufacturer. If you look at their contribution list, the series of images which were uploaded between "17:29, 11 August 2009" and "21:45, 12 August 2009" all seem to be allowed through the same OTRS ticket (2009081410011038). I was wondering if an OTRS volunteer could tell me what the content of that ticket is and whether it would cover the additional uploads by this user from "01:51, 9 September 2010" through to "21:57, 1 October 2010"? If the ticket details a "blanket cover" of sorts could the OTRS volunteer please update those images with the appropriate tag. Kind Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It did not contain a "blanket cover." Specifically, the email refers to the following images (the links are broken unfortunetely, but so they were in the original email):
Hope that helps, —Pill (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The only file on that list which did not have the proper OTRS template was File:Adventureisland025.JPG. I have tagged it with OTRS pending and placed a note about this particular ticket. So what should be done about the rest of his contributions?
They are all sourced as coming from Gerstlauer but have no mention of OTRS pending or received. Is there any chance that these images may belong to another ticket? Kind Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Resolved

Please re-check Ticket:2011012910007649 re. File:Spit-Like-This.jpg.

I ask because, the website it comes from [1] says, "SPiT LiKE THiS own the copyright/license to these images and hereby release them to the public domain for non-profit useage" (my bold).

I did ask the uploader over on enwiki [2] but xe didn't respond [3].  Chzz  ►  12:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I confirm that the permission was received from the email address listed on the website, and it states 'I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product'. --Ben.MQ (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Is that considered sufficient? Is enwiki a 'product'?  Chzz  ►  00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't being clear. He released it into public domain without mentioning any restrictions. He used the standard template which can be found at Commons:Email templates. So that would be sufficient. --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, that's fine then. Thanks!  Chzz  ►  09:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


The source of File:ScarlettJohanssonFeb07.jpg is Flickr. The author, jayhawk6, gave it a license "All rights reserved". The author did not give his real name on Flickr, so he is only known as jayhawk6. According to the file description, the ticket:2009022510024158 apparently seems to come from John Harrison. Were we able to properly check that this permission came from this Flickr-user? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No. We had a copied and pasted Flickr mail. The standard procedure is to follow the process at Commons:Flickr files. We have a stock response that even states that we cannot associate an email address with a Flickr account or verify the authenticity of Flickrmails. All of the following images should be invalidated:

Additionally the message shown stated that they were released to WIKIPEDIA (was in all capital letters, to emphasize it) under the cc-by-sa license. They stated that they were thankful for information about the license, as though they were not familiar with Creative Commons. This, along with the fact that they did not change the license at Flickr, makes me believe they thought that they could somehow grant an exclusive license for the images to Wikipedia. Beyond that, if the license was not changed at Flickr or even a smaller size uploaded under a free license, we do not know that the copyright holder has actually been contacted. Anyone can forge a supposed Flickr mail. – Adrignola talk 13:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what should be the next step? Are you going to revoke the tickets? Or should I make a mass deletion request now? Or should invite the uploader to have his say here? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I left a note on the uploader's talk page to have the licenses at Flickr changed. If the Flickr user is unwilling to do so, then I would advise a mass deletion request. Hopefully it can be done to avoid extra work and the potential deletion of images used extensively. – Adrignola talk 14:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me a chance to discuss here before immediately deleting the images, I've had that happen in the past and it's been a pain to restore. The images here were uploaded after I contacted the author through Flickr (no forgery here!) for use of File:ChristopherWalkenFeb08.jpg. Subsequent images were provided after he was willing to let me select other images within his Flickr stream and a separate permission was provided for those. I described the licenses in detail prior to getting permission for all authors I approach, and some do say Wikipedia within their responses as I am initially asking them for using it on Wikipedia. It's wording, not specific to solely Wikipedia (I've had that happen in the past and have corrected those in advance as I know that is not a compatible license for Commons). The permission was provided through Flickr mail as this was an acceptable means of permission prior to the eventual change to OTRS of no longer accepting Flickr e-mails as acceptable permission (likely to avoid forgeries). I no longer submit Flickr mail permissions to OTRS and now request that Flickr authors change the license on the image page. As this permission did meet all of the criteria at the time of the uploading and submittal process, I don't believe we need to go back and re-edit the licenses for the Flickr page (if we did that, there are likely thousands of Flickr images in the past that we would need to go through and change, which may be difficult for the authors that have left Flickr). I still watch this author's stream for potential future images, and they will continue to go through the Flickrreview process. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not able to judge whether the OTRS-ticket, when it was sent, complies with the rules (in development possibly) at that time, February 2009. I leave that to the OTRS-team. If indeed, an indulgent decision would be in place. But there is still no way of knowing whether jayhawk6 is John Harrison. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Whenever the permission I receive from the author includes their actual name, I'll use that (as it's a bit more professional to credit a name instead of a website user name). Some happen to include their name in their profiles, some keep it separate for whatever reason. The name was from the permission I received, and I would consider the unmodified e-mail that was forwarded to OTRS to be sufficient, especially when considering good faith (hopefully, my many other permissions would help to validate and reinforce this instance). I would hope that other submitters are not forging permissions, although I'm sure it's happened, but personally, I could never ethically do so. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Does this permission (By:Serge Mendjisky) also apply to other images uploaded by User:Mendjisky, like works by Maurice Mendjizky?   ■ MMXX  talk  15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.   ■ MMXX  talk  07:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rabbitville, Indiana

Wikipedia page for Rabbittville, Indiana has some questionable content. Could an experienced editor please fix it?

Done. Taketa (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


user:Mgschuler seems to upload images, such as image:FCAW Wire Feeder.jpg, that are Lincoln's stock images. They're listed as "own work". Is this user actually Lincoln's photographer? If so, does he/she actually have the ability to license them him/herself, rather than having turned the rights over to the corporation? And, do we really want him/her replacing photos in every welding article with photos prominently displaying the brand and logo of the company he/she works for, if this user is actually employed at Lincoln? 06:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, looking at this user's contributions, he/she seems to replace ("update" is what he/she calls it) images of non-Lincoln equipment with those of Lincoln equipment, even if they're inferior for the purpose of the article. Regardless of licensing status, it looks like subtle spam. But, as I left wikipedia a long time ago (and plan to stay away until there's some major changes to the way it's ran), I'll let someone else deal with it. 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Two images of footballers

File:RobertoRosales1.jpg and File:BartBuysse.jpg were already uploaded as OTRS permission confirmed by User:Fakwes. This user seems to have uploaded copyvios, too. Could somebody please check if the OTRS permission for those two images is in order? Regards --Rosenzweig δ 13:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Scrap that, I just found which hadn't been included in the image description pages. --Rosenzweig δ 13:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

ticket #2010112410008658

Hi, can someone check if ticket #2010112410008658 valid for File:Donkmag Ausgabe 01 2010.jpg is also valid for File:Donk final single.png. If it is, can you add it to the image? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No. But I do find File:Donkmag_logo.png which contains File:Donkmag Ausgabe 01 2010.jpg so I guess it can be applied? --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ticket #2011020710001425

Is this ticket like the one on Bollywood Hungama? There are lots of images uploaded under this ticket #, so I thought I'd check. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the ticket, CC-BY license granted to all images on Cheers. --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I should have asked this earlier, but would this cover future uploads too (like on the Bollywood Hungama/IndiaFM ticket)? They do have some more images that we could use. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It would I think. --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

en:File:Blumert Rockwell Gordon Rothbard.jpg

Sorry this is about an image on the English Wikipedia, but there is no similar OTRS noticeboard there where I could verify it. The thing is, the uploader added the OTRS number, without using the proper template, and I would like an OTRS volunteer to verify the licensing status for the file is correct. Thanks! (I'll be watching this page, but if you could ping me at en:User talk:Drilnoth I'd probably get back here faster). Drilnoth (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard in the future for images there. The permission email was for any images from under the GFDL. Assuming the image is actually from, there should be no issue. The OTRS agent advised the uploader to tag files themselves in the future. – Adrignola talk 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, great. Thank you. For some reason that page isn't linked to from en:OTRS. :/ Anyways, thanks for the info. Drilnoth (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ticket#2011071210009481 and File:Logo iB.jpg

Can someone please check whether the ticket is applicable to the deleted file and in this case undelete it? Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 10:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The ticket points to w:fr:File:Logo_iB.jpg but it is in French. Hope someone else can help. --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


This file was uploaded 5 years ago and does not appear to have proper OTRS permission. Another contributor cropped this photo to produce another file File:Ad van den Berg.jpg based on the license from the original. This editor raised the question of whether photos from 5 years ago still require OTRS permission. Was OTRS permission around at that time? Warfieldian (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I am the editor who raised the question. This image was uploaded on 8 september 2006, three days before the creation of Commons:OTRS on 11 September 2006 (source: [4]), which makes it likely that OTRS wasn't in general use at the time of upload and hence OTRS permission shouldn't apply for this image. Otherwise all images with similar permissions which were uploaded before 11 September 2006 would also be liable for deletion. Also the party of which these individuals were the leaders has become defunct since so it will be impossible to get renewed officially sanctioned permission using OTRS. SpeakFree (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment w:Wikipedia:OTRS exists since 15 february 2006 and on 8 september 2006 linked to this revision (dated 6 september 2006): [5]. It does not mention OTRS as a means for providing copyright permissions. SpeakFree (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No comments on this? I would like to know what the preferred way is to deal with images like these that predate OTRS. Grandfathering them seems to be sensible, as Warfieldian suggested on my talk page. SpeakFree (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
An image lacking permission is an image lacking permission. Copyright in many countries lasts 70 years past the creator's death. Noone's going to cut us slack just because we didn't adhere to best practices at the time. Precautionary principle is policy. – Adrignola talk 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The copyright holder gave permission but not with OTRS. Does that really make any difference? It would require a mass delete of all similar images uploaded before the introduction of OTRS on commons if it did. SpeakFree (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't know that. The uploader asserted that the copyright holder gave permission and could be lying. No third party has been involved to independently verify the statement of the uploader. – Adrignola talk 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Forcola.jpg & File:Bg_home.jpg

Can someone check if an e-mail has been received. User has uploaded several copyrighted images and more recent ones tagged with OTRS pending but lists source as own work and license as PD. Unlikely a company would release image in to PD. Warfieldian (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No emails received at this time. – Adrignola talk 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

c michael hogan

Can an OTRS member please verify if the OTRS ticket for C Michael Hogan, ticket:2007030610001835, is for all uploads by w:User:Anlace, or only for w:File:Sedimentpondsfoundtaingrovelake.jpg? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This particular ticket is only for Sedimentpondsfoundtaingrovelake.jpg. But I found a few more tickets in which the permission is granted for several other files. Ticket:2007022310025941 for Rubostipaanjajavycmichaelhogan.jpg; Ticket:2007032110001968 for Schaamacal2.jpg, Tchaacrmacal.jpg and Schaamaya.jpg; Ticket:2007032610020751 for BennettValleylookingsecmhogan.jpg and Roundbarnsocounty.jpg; Ticket:2007040310004425 for Americanocreekupperreachcmhogan.jpg. That's all I could find. mickit 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing for w:File:Gettlingelowres C Michael Hogan.jpg? Face-sad.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything for that file. mickit 09:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Files from are going through deletion discussion. I found out that the ticket was closed as unsuccessful and the permission seem to be not specific enough. Can a Polish volunteer look at the ticket and confirm this? There are some images tagged with this ticket and some others from the same source but without OTRS. Thank you --Ben.MQ (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime all images covered by this ticket have been already deleted and I can only agree; there was no specific permission mentioned in the e-mail, at least no mention of the Creative Commons and GFDL licences with which the images were tagged. The permission may have been good in 2007, but it's definitely not sufficient now. ✓  Done , I'd say. odder (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ticket #2011063010011597 and

As I understand, this picture is copyrighted to a Pixiv user: But it says "The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system." Can someone verify this is used with the original artist's permission? Seems to me that whatever permission there is should be posted on the image page itself instead of hidden in some password protected database >:[ ticket:2011063010011597--Atlantima (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you trust OTRS, you can trust OTRS volunteers, therefore you can trust the image. Access to confidential information is protected according to the privacy policy and email contents, addresses, phone numbers, privately disclosed documents, and other personal information can not be disclosed. – Adrignola talk 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time I'd ever heard of OTRS, so I neither trust or distrust it yet. However I lean toward distrusting a system that, instead of posting some sort of statement from the artist saying there is permission, says "Oh yeah, we have permission but you can't see it, if you want to verify this, come ask on some noticeboard."
Also, I never asked for any personal information so I don't see why you're even mentioning that. If by "email contents (and) privately disclosed documents" you mean something where the artist was asked for permission and they responded by giving permission, then it seems like unless that is publicly viewable, then the permission doesn't count for much. Like if I made a book with a wizard character called "Harry Potter" and said "Yeah, I got permission from J.K. Rowling to do this, but I can't show you any proof of that because of privacy issues. Don't you trust me?"
Also, I noticed that the page notice on this page specifically asks people to "forward us a copy of the email from the copyright holder". Hmm, wouldn't that go against the "email contents privacy" you mentioned earlier? --Atlantima (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Your request to post the statement of permission on the image page itself is what would require posting confidential information. There's no way around it and were an OTRS agent to do so they would be investigated by the Ombudsman commission and likely have all privileged access on all Wikimedia projects revoked. The privacy policy applies to communications with us, not with anyone else, but even then we're not publicly disclosing private emails just because they were sent to a third party before us. If copyright holders are concerned with privacy, they are free to email us directly rather than going through someone else. I actually prefer that as it reduces the chance of someone forging a forwarded email.
The artist is listed, the source is listed, and we've said that there is permission. The "verification" mentioned in the tag is us verifying that we actually have an email matching the ID number and that the tag was not simply forged by the uploader. This is not independently verifiable unless you contact the copyright holder yourself, and to a skeptical outside party it's no more reliable than the vast majority of uploads here where it's solely the uploader asserting that the image they've uploaded is actually theirs. If you desire wide-ranging changes I encourage you to post to the Foundation mailing list for better participation, or at least Commons:Village pump. – Adrignola talk 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Paintings by Henk Helmantel (Dutch)

I question the ticket for the works in category:Henk Helmantel. I asked this before, but did not get a real answer. It seems to need someone with OTRS who can read Dutch to see whether there is permission by the painter himself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is permission by the painter himself, to use the images made during Wiki Loves Art 2009. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Tony Tan and Mary Tan 2011.jpg

Could you please check if ticket:2011062510007058 (which appears at "File:Tony Tan 20110623.jpg") covers "File:Tony Tan and Mary Tan 2011.jpg"? Both of the photographs appear to have been taken by the same photographer at the same occasion. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ticket 2011062510007058 can only be used for File:Tony Tan 20110623.jpg. I looked in our database and have found no ticket for File:Tony Tan and Mary Tan 2011.jpg. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've asked the uploader to have the photographer send an e-mail to OTRS. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please verify

Can someone please verify if there is any useful permission for File:Logo - L'Escalier de Montréal.jpg* (this image)?   ■ MMXX  talk  11:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone who speaks French should check this ticket. mickit 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The permission is clearly insufficient for the moment.--Bapti 20:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

File:M cd2c58d10ae41941ce624b084f9858c9.png

Hi, the above image has permission pasted onto the description page - can someone see if this can be formalised (possibly by emailing user/photographer) so the file can be kept? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the uploader's responsibility, to be frank. – Adrignola talk 13:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Sreejithk2000 put a no permission template on it. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because a copied & pasted email does not look original. Anyone can type in such an email. The email should be forwarded to OTRS system. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

he language

Please check if the ticket noted for File:Alfred Jungmann.jpg is also valid for other uploads by צבי בן-ישי (talk · contribs). --GeorgHHtalk   16:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The ticket is a general permission from the Rambam hospital for צבי בן-ישי (talk · contribs) to upload any work from hospital archive under CC-by-sa. Hence all his uploads related to this subject are legit. matanya talk 07:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for quick response. I will check his uploads. --GeorgHHtalk   21:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)



--GeorgHHtalk   21:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomascot has impressive pictures of Ascot Racecourse

User:Tomascot has three uploads, all of them are professional photographers of very high quality. The pictures are in use on the Ascot Racecourse article. The user claims to be the copyright holder, but I suspect they might be copyright violations. If they are genuine then somebody should organize for a ticket to be included in OTRS. edward (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the uploader's responsibility, to be frank. odder (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Bidgee added the Template:no permission since template to one of the images, that's what I was looking for, sorry if I posted in the wrong place. edward (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Ascot blog and Royal Ascot sites have File:RA10 4A ROYAL PROCESSION 013.jpg though at a lower resolution. Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ticket confirmation

Could someone confirm or disprove the OTRS ticket at File:Erb obce Sedliacka Dubová.jpg, which was added by the uploader himself. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that help from a Czech speaking agent would be required here. odder (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no problem with the ticket. Best regards, --Mercy (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploads by Reheinrich

ticket 2009011110013251
Reheinrich (talk · contribs)
Reheinrich on enwiki (contribs)
File:Jason Face.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
en:File:Triptych denoro.jpg
en:File:Solaris denaro.jpg
en:File:Web Dolphins triptich.jpg
en:File:RHINO denaro.JPG
en:File:Parrots denaro.jpg
en:File:Japan denaro.jpg
en:File:EAGLES denaro.JPG

User Reheinrich has uploaded several images where the description page states "Copyright Jason Denaro with permission for use granted to Wikipedia", but are tagged with PD-release. These images all cite ticket 2009011110013251. Could someone confirm that the permission contained in the ticket actually is a grant of these images into the public domain and not, as the image description page says, a Wikipedia-only permission? Thank, --UserB (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The author has given consent to use the images on Wikipedia and he agreed to release them into the public domain. mickit 15:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --UserB (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Connected The Film Poster.png

This was uploaded on 18th July with an OTRS pending note but there's been no confirmation of permission from an OTRS volunteer. If an e-mail had been sent, would it be reasonable to expect it to have been processed by now? What would usually be considered a reasonable grace period? January (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I delete OTRS pending files that haven't had their status changed in 30 days. In actuality, if it's expected that the ticket would be submitted in English, we currently only have tickets a day or two old. If we receive it, it can be restored. Otherwise I've uploaded it locally to Wikipedia under fair use, since it qualifies. – Adrignola talk 03:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Could someone please verify this ticket, it has been added to File:Gaitana.JPG by the uploader.   ■ MMXX  talk  09:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was added by the person handling that ticket. It's certainly not the uploader. Mikemoral needs the OTRS flag. – Adrignola talk 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh! yes, my mistake. and they're an OTRS member.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)



Could somebody please verify this ticket, it has been added to File:MileyCyrusApr09-edit1.jpg by the uploader. I assume this ticket does not apply for this file. --High Contrast (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It applies to File:MileyCyrusApr09.jpg, which was the source for this file, as this file is a cropped version. The tag should not have been applied to this file by the uploader. The source file's OTRS permission will extend to it by virtue of it being a derivative work. I fixed the description page, which had been malformed by subsequent edits and also indicated the true source for the file. – Adrignola talk 15:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ticket 2006082110002647

Is this legit? It is being used for files like File:Porcupine Tree - Stupid Dream.jpg and File:Fear of a blank planet.jpg, amongst other album covers and such in Category:Porcupine Tree. Since the uploader added the ticket number, I'm a bit concerned about whether or not it is legit. Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The ticket is in Italian and while I can somewhat understand it I preferr if a native speaker could have a look. --Dferg (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Though I'm not Italian, I can read the English. I also asked an volunteer to have a look who commented here. I think the ticket applies to all images by this author. The permission is very unspecific though. The ticket mentions a CC licence but not which one. Taketa (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I confirm what Taketa says. The user who forwarded the mail says that images are released under a "Free Commons License", which I don't think it exists. I think the copyright holder accepted to release them under CC, though he didn't specified any clause. -- Sannita - not just another sysop 11:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... that is curious. How should it be handled? And do we know that the person who sent the permissions email had the right to release the images, given that they are album covers (copyright would likely have been transferred from the original artist to the label/band/etc.) Drilnoth (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ticket valid?

Could someone confirm or disproof the ticket on File:Vladimir Granat.jpg and File:Aleksandr Samedov.png, as it had been added by the uploader himself. --Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment ticket in russian. —Pill (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
All photos made by and published there are distributed under CC-BY-SA-3.0. As you can see, appropriate template was created by OTRS-volunteer. So, everything is ok rubin16 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ticket 2011021710005582

User:Mvsfgs80 added this ticket number to their own uploads at the time of uploading, please could the ticket be checked? January (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • NB: The ticket is in Italian. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
According to the ticket, the images are confirmed to be released under GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported by the copyright holder himself. -- Sannita - not just another sysop 11:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Could someone verify this ticket to File:Skadarlija Belgrade.jpg? It was added by uploader but I'm not sure if he is a OTRS volunteer. Thanks in advance!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment ticket in permissions-sr (though google translate says it's bosnian). —Pill (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that everything is fine, although it is the e-mails from 2008. The image is uploaded the same year, so I presume that the uploader decided to forward his correspondence with the author after this. mickit 21:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kristen Wiig.JPG

Could an OTRS volunteer please comment there? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

adrignola did. —Pill (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dixiecarter salinas.jpg

A recent file, File:Dixiecarter salinas.jpg, already has confirmed OTRS, but now it has been tagged as {{copyvio}} from some other source. How confident are we of the uploader's ownership? Does s/he work for TNA Wrestling or something? Wknight94 talk 10:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Permission was sent from an employee of TNA Wrestling with a corporate email address. So I'll remove the {{copyvio}} notice. Cheers--Ben.MQ (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

please check File:Darina-D1.png

please check File:Darina-D1.png, uploader has added OTRS-permission, are this valid.--Motopark (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Permission was only for File:Darina_200.JPG, which is similar and uses a non-English title, but it needs a separate approval. – Adrignola talk 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS ticket confirmation

Hello all, I recently uploaded a file from de.wp to commons, and I need approval of the OTRS ticket, as I am not an OTRS volunteer. The file on de.wp is KARL_Bd1.jpg. Thanks in advance, Fabrice Ferrer (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

RichardWarren jpeg.jpeg

I have today (16/08) sent an email to with the appropriate authorisation for this photo. Thanks Cronk69 (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that we usually have a backlog in our permissions queue. The submissions are handled chronologically as they come in, so there is no need to alert OTRS about individual submissions beyond sending an e-mail, as you have already done. Thank you. Asav (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Eef Kamerbeek Atletiekcentrum.JPG

Today I sent an email to, in which I pointed out that already on July 14, 2011 I requested in an email, sent to, to give a OTRS-ticketnumber to File:Eef Kamerbeek Atletiekcentrum.JPG. I repeated this request on August 14, 2011. So it is very strange to be told, that no such request can be found. Is no longer active? Could you please solve this problem for me? Thanks in advance. Kindest regards, Piet.Wijker (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a recent email just sent within the past half hour. It's ticket 2011081610017195. We need a Dutch speaker to take a look at it. – Adrignola talk 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I repeat my question, if there is a problem with I have been uploading images for five years now and have always requested for OTRS-tickernumbers in Dutch at the email address mentioned. Sometimes there was some delay, but never complete silence, as apparently there is now. Piet.Wijker (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Permission-nl has a big backlog right now. I'll take a look at your ticket tomorrow when I have more time. - Taketa (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a much faster turnaround for submissions sent in English to or (more volunteers have knowledge of it, at least as a second language if not native). Even if you plan to use the images on the Dutch Wikipedia, they don't have to be sent in Dutch to permissions-nl. – Adrignola talk 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, of course I could use the English permissions-commons email addresses. But since the Dutch deliver quite a lot of images in my field of interest: Track & Field Athletics, which are used by many Wikipedia's all over the world, in my opinion the Dutch should organise there own business first, before relapsing to the 'escape road'. Regards, Piet.Wijker (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Artur Lösche

Der Autor des Bildes, Hanns Schnabel, hat am 12. 07. 2011 um 22.57 Uhr unter dem Betreff Einverständniserklärung folgende Mail an gesandt: "Sehr geehrter Herr Geisler ich wurde von Herrn Dr. Andreas Lösche gebeten Ihnen für eine Niederschrift über den uns hochverehrten Herrn Prof.Dr.Artur Lösche, für eine Bilddokumentation eine Bild-Freigabe zu geben, dass ich hiermit gerne tue. (s.o. Bild-Freigabe.doc) Herzliche Grüße Hanns Schnabel"

In der erwähnten Bild-Freigabe.doc, die als Anhang beigefügt ist, steht die Genehmigung. Ich leite die Mail, die als CC auch an mich gegangen ist, jetzt nochmals an weiter. --Geisler Martin (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Corporate authorship" in OTRS

Beginning: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Иосиф Волоцкий.jpg. As I understand the case, all primary works are (c) by the business (Yekaterina Ilyinskaya workshop, and names of individual painters have never been disclosed. Ilyinskaya herself is still active as a painter, but which works are her (and only her) works, and which are not??

Question: Will commons accept OTRS release from the business, rather than from individual authors? Or, alternatively, from Ilyinskaya as the business owner and lead painter (knowing that there certainly are others involved).NVO (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We could if there's documentation that all art produced was a work for hire, with all rights owned by the business, with the painters either employed directly or as contractors where the contract specified that it was a work for hire. Furthermore, I'm not seeing any links on the images in Category:Ekaterina Iliynskaya pointing to a page where the license placed on the images is actually displayed on the source website. – Adrignola talk 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please verify

Please verify if this ticket is useful for File:Discographies.jpg.   ■ MMXX  talk  00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly PennyPen has full permission and authorization to use any and all ASKA images for purposes of promoting the band online and otherwise per George Call, who is listed as author on the images. Why this was verified when there was a requirement to credit ASKA Enterprises (a business) when the person claiming to be George Call wrote in from an AOL address, I do not know. However, I have confirmed a match on the band's site. Hope those covers aren't copyrighted by a record label rather than the band. – Adrignola talk 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I think we can accept this, I couldn't find any information about ASKA Enterprises on the internet but at least the email address is verifiable, feel free to open a DR if you think it's not OK.   ■ MMXX  talk  23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Image permission

Can someone do a double-check of the permission statement for File:Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival.JPG? I was doing some Googling to try and figure out who the person on the far left is, and I came across this page where the image has a watermark of "Tungstar". From I can gather of the Google Translation of this is a Chinese equivalent of WENN or WireImage. Yes I know it's possible for an image to have originated from such an agency to properly end up on Commons - I was involved in the process of getting a pair of Chanel Iman's images uploaded with permissions from WireImage - but I just want to make sure. Tabercil (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be good to note that the image on that page is of a lower resolution. This image also has EXIF. Beyond that I handled the ticket so of course I believe it's good. The email was from an Estetica magazine rep / who stated the credit should go to Silly Thing Entertainment, and that Estetica magazine was a child company of Silly Thing Entertainment. Not sure what else I can tell you. Certainly the original copyright holder is able to license images to wire services as well. – Adrignola talk 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Tabercil (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS pending since 2009

File:PattonOswalt.jpg was uploaded in May 2009 with "OTRS pending" noted in the permission field, although not using the template. Is it possible to check if a ticket was ever received? January (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Request check on an en file

Request a check on the ticket for en:File:BarryHorne-as-child.jpg per this conversation at en Wikipedia. Does the ticket say anything about Barry Horne? It seems to me copyrights like these would be now owned by his heirs, not the Animal Liberation Front. Kelly (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reply there, but if you need more information, please request it here since I don't watch the specific subpage there. – Adrignola talk 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ticket check for File:Guzeriev.Ogonek5.jpg

Could somebody please check the ticket for this file, as it had been added by an IP. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The email does have a link to . I fixed the license to match the ones mentioned in the email. I'm thinking that the OTRS user just wasn't logged in (and failed to do due diligence on the licenses considering it said cc-zero before). The ticket is in Russian, so anyone who knows it should take a look. I don't know if could be seen as a legitimate copyright owner, but on the surface it looks like the email is consistent with what is shown for the source on the file's page and it came from a address. – Adrignola talk 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Veckorevyn give permission for File:Lars Jacob & Nina Natascha.jpg?

File:Lars Jacob & Nina Natascha.jpg is a clipping from the Swedish weekly en:VeckoRevyn. There is an OTRS ticket on the file, but this is just transcluded via User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs, which is used on over a thousand files. Is this acceptable use of OTRS tickets? Is there any evidence to justify this permission or EmilEikS's {{PD-self}} template on this file? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

47 emails in the ticket. Just looking at the first email, it seems they're complaining about you questioning their tickets and pointed to User talk:Howcheng#Kuiper problem. The complaints about you continue to the last ticket, from all involved, because you keep bringing up issues regarding their tickets. It was even stated that they want a ban on any interaction between you and the user EmilEikS, who uploaded this file. I hope I don't have to tell you how it looks to someone at first glance. I pass on this hot potato and refer you to Jcb. – Adrignola talk 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
OTRS tickets say: "The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system." How can OTRS voluteers accept complaints about me to verify permissions on images that I did not make? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
They don't, and nobody claimed they do. —Pill (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that group of people is willing to release their files under a free license. It's also clear they have severe difficulties understanding our license system. If have seen this discussion repeating and repeating, which is useless waste of time. I would suggest to leave alone their uploads from now, except when you can provide a reason to assume they don't own the rights of a specific file. Jcb (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You let them put an OTRS ticket on a thousand images. It says: "The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system." With your authority. I find that far too trusting. You let them upload images that do not have clear authors, often they are called "assistantants". Sometimes it is clear that images are made by people that are not part of their clubs. And they just upload press clippings, like the one above. The OTRS system is surreal. It makes the rest of the copyright checking look like a bad joke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Who created the template you are complaining about? According to the page history it was you. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong with it in the form that I edited it? But it was you who included an OTRS template, which claims that you had verified the permission of all the images it was used in. And then it is of course a bit of a contradiction that the image must have a valid license in addition to the ticket, like {{PD-self}}. That is true for any upload. But the consequence of your officially-looking stamp of approval is less scrutiny by others. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

en File check needed

Could someone possibly look into en:File:Old Man of the Mountain overlay 2.jpg prior to the file being moved to Commons? See the file's talk page for details. It was uploaded by a former OTRS member, I think before the ticket system was implemented. The uploader is now at Wikia and gave up their OTRS access. Thanks! Kelly (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It must be prior to OTRS. I can't find a ticket on the file. I searched for the file name and for "Rob Gallagher". – Adrignola talk 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, any idea on how we handle such situations? Kelly (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It was mentioned on this page before but we didn't have a good consensus. You could start a request for comments at for wider participation. – Adrignola talk 20:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
See File:Old Man of the Mountain overlay 2.jpg on Commons. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Kelly (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Adrignola, see the file's talk page on Wikipedia. Erik wrote about it. Killiondude (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they copied it to File talk:Old Man of the Mountain overlay 2.jpg. But I don't see any comments by any Erik there. – Adrignola talk 01:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I was confusing Floquenbeam with Eloquence (w:Erik Moeller). They both have loquen in their name so that might have something to do with it. :) Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)



Ich kann zur Klärung das Folgende beitragen:

Ich habe die drei Karten mit expliziter Erlaubnis des Erstellers hochgeladen. Er hatte mir sogar erlaubt, sämtliche seiner Karten hochzuladen, sobald sie gebraucht würden.

Als die drei Karten hochgeladen waren, schickte ich ihm Links auf deren Uploadseiten. Er gab mir per Mail noch einmal explizit sein Einverständnis.

Etwa eine Woche später ließ er mich jedoch per Mail wissen, daß er künftig nicht mehr weiter mit dem Upload seiner Karten einverstanden sei. Er habe sich mit anderen Geologen ausgetauscht und sei gewarnt worden, daß das urheberrechtliche Probleme mit sich ziehen würde bzw. daß die Rechte des Erstellers der gedruckten Karten, auf die sich seine Grafiken referenzierterweise beziehen, davon berührt seien (was ich eher nicht vermute, da der wissenschaftlich gesicherte Verlauf von geologischen Störungen, Plattengrenzen und anstehendem Gestein wohl kaum einem Copyright unterliegen dürfte).

Ich habe ihn noch explizit gefragt, ob er mit dem - ja im Grunde zu dem Zeitpunkt längst genehmigten - Verbleib der drei bislang hochgeladenen Karten leben könne, worauf ich keine Antwort erhielt.

Selbstredend würde ich im Zweifel für die Löschung plädieren. Ich habe Herrn Dr. Franke heute noch einmal angemailt, entweder mich mit dem Antrag auf Löschung zu beauftragen oder aber dem OTRS-Team eine explizite Genehmigung zukommen zu lassen.

Mehr kann ich zur Klärung nicht beitragen.

Ich kann höchstens nochmal erklären, daß ich über das Weiterleiten einer zum Zwecke der Verifizierung an den OTRS-Mitarbeiter W. Maier auf dessen Antrag hin vertraulich übersandten Mail ohne Rückfrage durch diesen nur kotzen kann, aber darüber muß man sich nicht länger unterhalten.

Wenn durch den Rechteinhaber nichts weiter kommt, wird nach meinem Dafürhalten halt nach der ja offenbar schon festgelegten Frist gelöscht, wenn er darum bitten sollte u.U. schneller. Und im Falle des Vorliegens einer Genehmigung wird halt behalten. --Elop (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Elop, was meinst du mit der Weiterleitung? Die im Rahmen der Rückfrage an den Rechteinhaber? —Pill (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Tach Pill! Es reicht hoffentlich, wenn ich aus der Erinnerung grob zusammenfasse.
Es ist so, daß ich dem bearbeitenden OTRSler Ausschnitte einer Mail - und zwar nur die, die belegen, daß der Rechteinhaber offenbar einverstenden war/ist - zugemailt hatte (damit ihm prinzipiell klar sei, daß das wahrscheinlich in Ordnung wäre) und gebeten hatte, direkt eine Freigabeanfrage an den Rechteinhaber zu schicken. Das macht auch schon von daher Sinn, daß ich nicht überall je erklären kann, warum die Wikipedia wo Wert auf welche Lizenz(-Eigenschaft) legt. Zumal ich selber auf Commons praktisch ausschließlich Bilder hochlade, die ich nur für die Wikipedia geschossen habe, während der hiesige Rechteinhaber Karten nach referenzierten Vorgaben, z.T. auch nach eigenen Arbeiten, entwirft, die primär für sein Online-Lexikon "Regionalgeologie Ost" sowie für seine Druckwerke gedacht sind.
Der OTRSler schien meiner Bitte (Mail an den Rechteinhaber mit den entsprechend formal notwendigen Vorgaben) aber nicht nachkommen zu wollen und bat mich ca. eine Woche später, ihm die Mail vorzulegen, in der der Rechteinhaber mir gegenüber bestätigt hatte, die Hochladeseiten gesichtet zu haben und mit den entsprechenden Lizenzen einverstanden zu sein.
Ich leitete ihm daher zur Überprüfung die komplette entsprechende Mail weiter. Und in dem Falle ging ich davon aus, daß der OTRSler einmal Einsicht nähme und dann gut. Wenn die Einsicht in eine solche Mail durch einen OTRSler ausreichen sollte, wollte ich dem nicht "bürokratisch" im Wege stehen. Und wenn eine solche Mail nicht ausreichen sollte, wäre es völlig dreist, mich um die Weiterleitung einer solchen zu bitten.
Ich leitete also die komplette, im Bezug auf Genehmigung inhaltlich eindeutige Mail an den betreffenden OTRSler weiter.
Was war die Folge?
Der OTRSler hakte nicht etwa die Datei ab.
Er leitete vielmehr ohne mein Einverständnis die - nur auf seine explizite Aufforderung hin - komplett an ihn zum Zwecke der Verifizierung weitergeleitete Mail wiederum an den hiesigen Rechteinhaber weiter mit der Frage, ob das denn korrekt sei!
Das führt mich zu mindestens 2 Erkenntnissen:
  1. Der betreffende OTRSler beschuldigt mich implizit, einmal einen gefälschten Mailausschnitt und dann nochmal - auf seine explizite Aufforderung hin - eine komplett gefälschte Mail an ihn weiter geleitet zu haben.
  2. Er findet es völlig unbedenklich, eine zum Zwecke der Verifizierung und auf seine explizite Aufforderung hin an ihn weitergeleitete Mail postwendend und ohne Kommentierung des Zusammenhanges an den ursprünglichen Absender zurück zu leiten.
Beim Rechteinhaber handelt es sich um einen mir zuvor nicht bekannten Geologen im Rentenalter, den ich explizit mit der Anfrage kontaktiert hatte, ob er sich vorstellen könne, sich bei uns anzumelden und uns seine Karten für unsere Artikel zur Verfügung zu stellen. Aufgrund meiner Anfrage hat sich ein sehr freundschaftlicher Maildialog entwickelt, der zu dem Ergebnis führte, daß er meine/unsere Arbeit für die Wikipedia sehr schätze, daß er aber momentan mit einem bald auf Papier erscheinenden "Geologieatlas Brandenburg" überausgefüllt sei, weshalb er zwar gerne seine Karten (zunächst ALLE seiner über 100 Karten) gerne zur Verfügung stelle, aber ich diese seiner statt nach Bedarf hochladen solle.
Das waren natürlich keine rein bürokratischen Mailwechsel, sondern prinzipiell "freundschaftlich"-vertrauliche, die das Lizenzenthema nur zum Nebeninhalt hatten.
Was soll dieser Mann jetzt denken, wenn ihm fast kommentarlos von einem wildfremden Dritten eine komplette Mail übersandt wird, die er an mich und sonst niemanden gerichtet hatte?
Soll er sich vielleicht denken, daß persönliche Mails an Wikipedianer eh ohne weitere Infos an den Adressaten auf einem großen Board ausgestellt werden, wo sie jeder weitere Wikipedianer auch lesen kann?
Soll mir aber fortan scheißegal sein. Es war letztlich auch mein Fehler anzunehmen, der entsprechende OTRS-Mitarbeiter verfüge sicher über ein Mindestmaß an Vertrauenswürdigkeit. Ich bin schlicht ein Idiot und begehe obendrein Vertrauensbruch gegenüber dem, der mir ursprünglich gemailt hatte, wenn ich ohne explizite Nachfrage bei ihm eine komplette Mail weiterleite. Da kann ich mich auch nicht damit rausreden, daß es schon ziemlich unanständig von einem OTRSler ist, mich zu einer Weiterleitung explizit aufzufordern, wenn die eh für das Ticket irrelevant ist.
Dessen ungeachtet sollte die explizite Freigabe, gerichtet an OTRS durch den Rechteinhaber, inzwischen vorliegen. Und damit insoweit das Thema nicht mehr bestehen. --Elop (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for permission

User: Haptify Date: 8/25/11 Ticket: Of the Author: Username:

Haptify (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Haptify

What is your question? What file are you concerned about? – Adrignola talk 20:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Which picture are in OTRS-ticket

I would like to move this picture to Commons but there are in the history 2 different picture. Are the used picture valid--Motopark (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the OTRS ticket, it's GFDL licensed, and according to the image page, it's licensed as GFDL 1.2 or later, so according to the relicensing criteria, it should be eligible for a CC-by-sa-3.0 license and may be moved to Commons. Asav (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The ticket is in Italian which I do not speak. The ticket seems to release text from a website. There is no mention of these images. The original use of the ticket is here [6]. I conclude this ticket does not suffice for these images to be used. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Please check the validity of the OTRS ticket, also for other images by this user from the same source. --Denniss (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ticket is valid. The ticket applies to the five images uploaded by this user. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving a file from he-wiki

I would like to transfer this file, already published in he-wiki under OTRS permission, under GNU/GDFL license (requiring credit to be given given to IDF Spokesperson's Unit, from he-wiki. Is there a special way to sign it in these circumstances? Thanks, -- Prokurator11 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mubarak cartoon

We would like to use the Mubarak cartoon ( with an article written by one of our faculty on social media in Egypt. What do I need to do in order to get permission to print the cartoon with the article for an internal university journal?

Simply follow the licensing shown on the description page. In this case it's public domain so you don't have to fulfill any conditions when using the file whatsoever. – Adrignola talk 15:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bridge at Nimreh, Syria. Pic 01.jpg

This file is available in higher resolution on Panoramio, where it's marked "all rights reserved." Is the OTRS permission limited to the scaled-down version, or can we upload the full-resolution version here? If the full resolution version is free, is there any explanation as to why the photographer would be OK with releasing them to the world through Commons but not through Panoramio? LX (talk, contribs) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no verification that the person sending the permission was actually the Panoramio user. The Word document specifying the files actually states at the very top "only for Wikipedia", which is not allowed, despite having licensing information below.

This bad ticket, 2010020410003065 applied to the following:

Ticket 2009121210021979 also has a Word document indicating permission under a Creative Commons license, but says "Permission (only for Wikipedia)" at the top, applying to the following files:

And another Word document in ticket 2009121210021853 with permission "only for Wikipedia" at the top:

Ticket 2010020410002851 had Word documents that specified licenses for the below, but still had the heading "Permission (only for Wikipedia)":

We can either take the license statements and ignore the documents' headings, or ask ourselves if there was a misunderstanding as to the terms. That's not to mention the problem with the first set, where there's no proof that the Panoramio user is the one that sent in the permission. The second set was sent from a address, so it's good except for the conflict with the Wikipedia-only permission I mentioned. The last two sets may have verification problems regarding the stated source and the person emailing in. The emails themselves are in German. – Adrignola talk 19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you are up to. All files are correctly licensed, I have asked the original creators and they have given their written consent as required by Commons license requierments. So could you cut the pseudo-bureaucratic stuff, come from your high horse and explain what is wrong with them? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Stop. This is a bad joke. All my permissions have this line on top, I have used the same document throughout. It reads "Permission (only for Wikipedia)", not "Permission only for Wikipedia". This means the document is for Wikipedia, not the license. All copyright holder were aware that releasing pics for WP means releasing them to everybody. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OTRS is bureaucratic by nature; there are many rules that have to be followed. What can I do about that? I've added additional explanations on the deletion request below. If I were on a "high horse" I would have just deleted them, saying to myself that the only opinion that's important is mine. I did not do that, did I? – Adrignola talk 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. LX (talk, contribs) 14:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Försvin poster.jpg

Kay-V123, who found this file on, claims that the permission from the copyright holder (Kyoto Animation) have been sent to OTRS. Given the source information and the uploader's record of uploading nothing but copyright violations, I suspect that this is only intended to delay deletion. Please check if there is any merit to their claims. If not, I think it's time for a block. LX (talk, contribs) 07:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No relevant results searching for "Försvin poster", "Försvin_poster", KayakoFanatic,, Suzumiya, or "Kyoto Animation". – Adrignola talk 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

undelete File:McConico2.jpg

I have received my ticket number (after working on this for months). [Ticket#2011081610019755] File:McConico2.jpg Can you undelete the image and add the ticket number please and show permission receive?. I'd attempt to add the ticket number myself but the image has been deleted. Many, many, many thanks. 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to do an end-run around me? Having the number of a ticket is no big deal; it's who adds the number. I would have undeleted the file myself and added the ticket number to the file had the publisher of Community Impact News emailed in permission as was stated would be sent in on the 17th. – Adrignola talk 14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess I don't know how the system works. The publisher, John Garrett, DID send the licensing statement to the permissions email address and received back a ticket number (which appears on the image page in the comment section, added by someone I asume that is from OTRS). It was not added by me. I'm not trying to do an end-around. Please assume good faith. I'm just trying to follow the rules as best as I possibly can. Is the ticket number not something that is uniquely associated with the image? I assumed so as it was placed by OTRS in the comment section of the file. Below is the text of the email Mr. Garrett sent to the email address on August 17th. The email should be in the OTRS file and indeed they sent back an email to him with the ticket number, etc and the number was added BY THEM (not me) to the comments section. Austex (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"I hereby assert that as Publisher of Community Impact I am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the works: File:McConico2.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free license CCA-SA-3.0 License. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain 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 me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. August 17, 2011 John Garrett, Publisher Community Impact News"

If I have done anything wrong or incorrect I will gladly fix it. There is no intent here to "go around" anyone. I make mistakes from time to time, just tell me what I did. I would like the image un-delted and truly believe I have followed allsteps necessary to do so. If not, please let me know. Austex (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was too harsh. I can only find the initial email stating that it would be sent in. A forwarded email may also be acceptable. The number I added indicated the ID number of the email received saying it would be sent in; that doesn't correspond to the email you state that John Garrett sent in (it email we got was from another sender, whose name may be yours, so I can't disclose it to protect the person's privacy). – Adrignola talk 19:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)