Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.



The diagram File:MRP2.jpg, scanned from a book, was marked for deletion back in October 2009 and flagged with OTRS pending back in November. Could someone check if an email was ever received and delete this image if not?—Ash (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

After searching multiple queries, and just about to give up (the OTRS software is horrible) I found it at ticket:2009110110008953. But the ticket is incomplete. I'll email them again, asking for them to follow up. In the meantime the image will be deleted and can be un-deleted if the ticket can be processed. Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Age verification

It occurs to me that given many (predominantly American) laws regarding images involving nudity, it would be wise if we expanded OTRS to include age verification - showing that the uploader took good-faith steps to contact the photographer/model to determine the age of the subject; freeing both WMF and the user from legal concerns. Max Rebo Band (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this come up often? Stifle (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea, but it occurred to me while uploading images from Flickr. I can't think of any reason to not implement it, offering just one more layer of protection. Max Rebo Band (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dumb question: if we implement this, what do we do about existing images? Grandfather them as presumably age-compliant? I'm curious as I've uploaded a couple of images that would arguably fall into this category: File:Prinzzess (Penthouse Pet).jpg and File:Shayla LaVeaux 3.jpg for one thing. Yes I know, given the source it would be safe to say these images would be compliant, but I'm asking about the principle here... Tabercil (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't think OTRS would be required on images like these, just an option so that WMF and the uploader are both given a degree of legal protection against fraudulent charges. Somebody at your workplace sees File:Prinzzess (Penthouse Pet).jpg and sends an angry message that you're "uploading child pornography" is easily dissuaded as soon as they notice the template saying "All good faith efforts have been taken to ascertain the subject of the photo is at least 19 years of age, and evidence is provided at OTRS ticket 23426532". Max Rebo Band (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay... how making it an option? That is, for images that may have legality issues (such as :child porn"), the OTRS volunteers have the option of asking for ask verification? Tabercil (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Update, I have submit an OTRS verifying the adult age of the model in File:Birthday facial.png as a "test case". Max Rebo Band (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think this is something the OTRS should be getting involved in. --J.smith (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Max Rebo, that is not a service that OTRS offers. Instead the community should be policing its own images and sending those to COM:DR if there is reason to believe there may be issues with them. Tiptoety talk 03:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why? If it can be proven that a model is 20 years old, why would we say "Just discard the proof, we'll just delete the image if anybody says she looks 18 and let police arrest the uploader for distributing child pornography, and allow another country to blacklist Wikimedia sites for allowing child pornography" when we could have a system in place to actually mitigate risks? What exactly is the harm in having a template that says "All good faith efforts have been taken to ascertain the subject of the photo is at least 19 years of age, and evidence is provided at OTRS ticket 23426532"? Max Rebo Band (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
How can it be proven? If there is a verifiable, fact checking reliable, published, 3rd party source with information that the photo is legal, then that can be linked from the File page; if not then there's nothing verifiable about an email that says it's legal - the OTRS volunteer can't verify that the person who sent the email is the photographer, or the model, or know either, or anyone involved is above a certain age. -- Jeandré, 2010-01-04t05:45z
They can verify the exact same way they verify when deciding whether the person has the right to release copyright on the image, presumably. Max Rebo Band (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
But why? What does this do for you? Were no more official then "some random administrators". Can you point to a single case of arrest that OTRS could have prevented? J.smith (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS volunteers have a profound knowledge of the rights concerning both images and text, and are equipped with tools that enables them to handle all sorts of cases in which permissions needs to be verified and/or if someone claims to have the rights concerning a certain image. Internal and external rules and guidelines are in place for handling such inquiries. However, age verification is a completely different discipline to which our volunteers are not trained. They are, for example, not equipped with any means to accurately compare passport-photo’s with the possible illegal image, and even if they had, they don’t have any rights to even request and store such detailed personal information. Training and equipping our volunteers to handle these rare cases is not profitable in any way, and even puts accountability to volunteers and to the Foundation in cases where things do go wrong. And apart from all the – very important - practical problems, you’d have to get the complete Commons community on your side for this. If they agree such a queue is needed, they can request one. This will be a queue filled with new, suitable volunteers, and will certainly not automatically include all current volunteers. Such a request could (and should) be made at the Village pump. However, please be ensured that the current way of handeling age-related problems of Commons is accurate already and changes would - at the very least temporarily - decrease this. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. While it's true that the current OTRS volunteers may not be the best choice for folk to man an "age verification" queue, something does need to be done. We periodically see deletion requests that center around whether a model is of age, and they often degenerate into a "he said/no this other guy said" tussle. Given that we don't seem to have a strong ethic of always deleting if there is any doubt, and sometimes these turn on which "side" has more folk turning up, a more formal way of tracking whether age (and model permission) verification has at least been asserted seems like a good idea to me. Either that, or a culture change in which we default to delete anything that is at all doubtful. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case, you need to hold a vote or something to confirm that this is how it should be handled, and bring it to the attention of the OTRS admins. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

permission - delay

TWIMC: Pls have a look here in connection with this file. Pls give permission. Thx --Wistula (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That'll be Ticket:2009123010020758. It's in German, so I can't handle it. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully somebody German-speaking will see that. Generally: could one not forbid to delete files, if the author claims to have OTRS already informed, and just nobody there has had time to check and accept permission so far ? --Wistula (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, if nobody has time nor cares about permissions at OTRS. But than pls don't let delete anymore files announced to get OTRS permission - I really wouldn't like to waste time again to load up a third time the same one. Thx --Wistula (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You won't need to reupload the image even if it's deleted; once the permission email is processed, a Commons admin will undelete it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Jesse Marunde.jpg

Most likely Polish-speaking person's help needed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's OTRS:2010011210040707 and I am currently handling it. Thanks for pointing this out, Eugene. Best, odder (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed

Category discussion notification Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца) | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Two related categories are also discussed there.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Current time

Hi, I'd like to know how long the current backlog is. Specifically, are requests from December last year/early January still being processed? I'm asking because don't know whether it's merely taking a while or whether I should bother the author again in case they forgot to send in the OTRS correctly. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes, there are still some tickets from December in the queue. If you have some keywords (name of sender/image ...), I can check whether we have something about it (if you do not want this information to be public, feel free to email me with it). —Pill (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Image permission to use

Dear All,

I would like to use image ticket number 2008102610020021 (tango_ballroom_standard.png) as a artistic basis for a poster for a charity ball to raise funds for a hospice charity in london. How do we do this please?

Have you read the FAQ (Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/FAQ) or COM:REUSE. All images on the Commons are licensed freely, and you are welcome to use them as long as you follow the terms of these licenses. We cannot determine whether your use is lawful or not, so you should consult with your attorney if you have specific legal questions. If you have more general questions, feel free to ask here. Good luck. -Andrew c (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Backlog notice

More than 1300 files in No OTRS permission. --Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt "Banco de España" will send you an email. -- User:Docu at 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow that was many. I can see that most of them is money and uploaded by the same user (see the list here User talk:Mvllez). I suppose a bot can delete them once it has been checked that there is no valid permission. --MGA73 (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I must warn you that this user has contacted many national Mints and state Banks for permission, and that their answers are generally difficult to interpret. It might be useful to perform a little check on OTRS before deleting each "national" batch. --Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Maybe Category:Currency license tags could use more tags then. -- User:Docu at 11:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. On the basis of what I have seen so far, the thing to do would be to work on Commons:Currency to explain more clearly (and with clearer legal references) why the status is not ok for most countries. I have seen several of the Bank/Mint replies received by this contributor, and I can't remember any saying clearly "Yeah, sure, go on, banknote and coin design is in the public domain, we only have non-copyright restrictions". There's a need for somebody with 1) much time and 2) serious legal background. I have worked on one or two paragraphs on this guideline, it is long, tedious and often not-so-clear. --Eusebius (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Images should only be in this category if NO permission has been send to OTRS at all. That way we only have to look at the files and ask ourselves "is a permission needed?" - if yes then we delete the file and if no we remove the OTRS-notice.
As soon as mail is recieved then {{OTRS pending}} should be replaced by {{OTRS received}} to tell other users that a mail has been received but it is not yet approved. --MGA73 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hum. In theory this category shouldn't even exist, because OTRS pending should be used only when an e-mail is sent. Anyway, the replacement by OTRS received does not occur "as soon as it is received", but "as soon as an OTRS volunteer sees the ticket and accepts to do something about it", and such tickets can easily be not-so-appealing. But in most cases, this user hasn't sent anything to OTRS, as far as I can remember, so we should be reasonably safe. --Eusebius (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
True. It was just a comment to the statement above that user did contact a lot of banks but that permissions was not always "good". Just wanted to make sure that IF there was a permission that someone worked on, then there should be made a notice on the images.
Perhaps we could have a bot to make a note on all images that was mentioned in open permissions. That way we would know that there was somthing regarding the image. I think you are right if someone adds a note to an image then others would say "oh this one is taken" so thats why I newer went through all open permissions and added {{OTRS received}} to the matching images. --MGA73 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1150 files. --Eusebius (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding image use of a specific image

Hello, I have a question. The image in is a good one, but there is a more detailed one at The Ballotpedia image mentions which states allow constitutional amendments through their initiative systems. For example, WA/ID/WY/UT don't allow constitutional amendments through their initiative systems, but the image that is currently used in this article doesn't reflect that.

I would like to use the image from Ballotpedia here at the English Wikipedia, but I'm confused about the licensing info. I sent an email to the address on the page ( and they said to feel free to use the image as long as it's attributed to the Citizens in Charge Foundation. It looks like the image is non-free. What does this mean? I was looking at the upload pages [1], [2] and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. Thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If the image is non-free, you can't upload it here. You may be able to upload it at English Wikipedia; best place to ask about that is Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
However, if the permission allows free use, including derivative works, as long as the copyright holder is attributed, it can be uploaded here at Special:Upload tagged {{attribution}}. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Permissions sent to permissions-en instead of permissions-commons

Sorry, I've made a mess. Regarding 2 files I uploaded yesterday: Patrick Deneen.jpg and Patrick Deneen jump.jpg, I inadvertently advised the copyright holder to send consent to permissions-en instead of permissions-commons. Realizing my error, I then forwarded that email to -commons, but in retrospect I fear I may have just confused the situation. The associated emails are from and, emails are all dated January 21, between 17:41 and 23:20 UTC-6.

I fouled up similarly with File:Shannon_Bahrke.jpg, which was sent to me by the author attached to an email with licensing consent. I forwarded that to permissions-en, uploaded it here, then forwarded the email to permissions-commons, and sent an upload notice to the general permissions@wikmedia address. These were all from bfox272 with Shannon Bahrke in the subject, between 16:36 Jan. 21 and 00:13 Jan. 22 UTC-6.

Sorry for the confusion, I have sorted out my email contacts to prevent this in the future. Please let me know if there's anything else I should do to clear this up. Wine Guy (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. All the permissions addresses end up with the same group of people, and if you send something in error to the wrong one in future, don't resend it and don't send a clarification. The original email will be forwarded through to the right people, but the extra emails will just take up OTRS agents' time. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the mix-up, I'll be sure not to make the same mistake in the future. Wine Guy (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Seal Leiden University.jpg

Can someone check the ticket for File:Sealleiden.jpg to see if it is also valid for File:Seal Leiden University.jpg. [3]. (It might be in Dutch). Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It is valid for both of these images. odder (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. I will add the template to the image. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have also changed the license on File:Seal Leiden University.jpg from PD-Self to {{GFDL|migration=relicense}} per File:Sealleiden.jpg. If this is incorrect, please revert. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Progress report

I can advise that all OTRS permission tickets in English first received in 2009 have now been read. Either they are processed completely or there is something outstanding (in which case {{OTRS received}} has been placed on the article).

This means that if you sent us a permission email in 2009 and you have not got any reply and the image has not been marked {{OTRS received}}, we have not received the email and you should send it again to However, please don't resend permission emails outside these parameters, as they'll only create more work and delays.

There are approximately 390 permission tickets in English currently awaiting processing. Thanks to everyone for being patient.

If you need information about tickets in foreign languages, let me know and I'll try to supply it. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What counts as "alteration"?

Hi Commons,

I recently used a CC-by-SA 3.0 music file for background music on a video clip, and I did indeed at the end of the page attribute it to the performer John Michel and mentioned that the music is licensed as CC-by-SA 3.0.

It occured to me afterwards that since I cut out the end of the ogg file where a commentary guy introduced the performer and the composer, I might technically be "altering" the file. Would I need to do something in particular to make sure that I adhere to the "you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."? Like state somewhere that the background music of this video is also CC-by-SA 3.0? Or maybe cutting out the commentary doesn't count as alteration of the John Michel's work?

The file's here:

  1. 2007090610014151

Gentle taipan (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have done everything correct. The only thing I would suggest doing is add a note on the file's page about what has been changed. J.smith (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


While cleaning old deletion request came to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mbr-haus-von-lutherstrasse.jpg, can any OTRS member check this image and corresponding ticked mentioned in DR. Thanks --Justass (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

done. —Pill (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Using Images for broadcast

I'm currently working on a project in need of various images and photos for an internet broadcast show and potentially other projects too. We currently search for only public domain photos. Still, our search takes much longer due to the constraints of using only public domain as our base criteria. We do consider attribution too, however I would like to know how attribution really works? Do I simply email the author or photographer and ask them permission? Any help in understanding this process of image search would be a great help.

You should consult an attorney for all legal matters. Please read the terms of the license of the images in question, and again, if you don't understand, it is best to ask a lawyer, as we cannot offer legal advice. With that said, something like Template:Cc-by-1.0 says You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). I can't think of any circumstance where you must contact the owner before using their image if it's on the Commons. Just follow the terms of the license. Attribution normally means a credit line (i.e. photo by Wikimedia Commons user:Andrew c). Refer to COM:REUSE or your attorney. Hope this helps some. Good luck.-Andrew c (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Note that it one of the main purposes of licenses that there is no need to contact the licensor -- as long as you use the work under the conditions of the license specified. Some commercial reusers, however, do contact the licensor because they would like to use the work under simpler conditions (this is important in particular when it comes to content released under GFDL). Images under a Creative Commons license are generally easy to reuse, so normally it is not necessary to contact the licensor. If you decide to use an image from Wikimedia Commons, you find license information on the image description page right below the image and the "summary" section. —Pill (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Polish ticket check

Witam czy może ktoś pomóc "W celu potwierdzenia zgody, prosimy o kontakt ktoś z konta OTRS lub zostawić notatkę na Ogłoszeń OTRS. " Zgody na korzystanie z tej pracy było zweryfikowane i archiwizowane w Wikimedia systemu OTRS. Jest on dostępny za bilet # 2009110810036491 dla użytkowników konta OTRS

https: / / / OTRS / Action = AgentTicketZoom & TicketNumber = 2009110810036491


za bilet # 2009110810036491

https: / / / OTRS / Action = AgentTicketZoom & TicketNumber = 2009110810036491 3.

za bilet # 2009110810036491

https: / / / OTRS / Action = AgentTicketZoom & TicketNumber = 2009110810036491 4.

za bilet # 2009110810036491
https: / / / OTRS / Action = AgentTicketZoom & TicketNumber = 2009110810036491


za bilet # 2009110810036491
https: / / / OTRS / Action = AgentTicketZoom & TicketNumber = 2009110810036491

6. za bilet # 2009110810036491

https: / / / OTRS / Action = AgentTicketZoom & TicketNumber = 2009110810036491


za bilet # 2009110810036491

https: / / / OTRS / Action = AgentTicketZoom & TicketNumber = 2009110810036491 Piotr Partyń ( dyskusja) Bardzo prosze o potwierdzenie zgody.(

10:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File: Bike Arc Family.jpg

Please do not delete this file. I just re sent the email acknowledging permission. Contact me if you have any questions. email: [email redacted]

Thanks! 10:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission for Image:Don Brash and Je Lan Lee.jpg

I don't check with commons very frequently, now I see that an image that I have obtained permission for has been deleted. I have received an emailed permission from the author, and I forwarded this to OTRS on 27 October 2008 23:03.--Sir Anon (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever get any reply? Stifle (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:OTRS pending as of 04 November 2009

Hi, I've put an otrs pending notice on quite a few images last year. Now I think I might have done something wrong with the template as Category:OTRS pending as of 04 November 2009 is a red cat, and I wonder if that's right? Also, File:18amanatidis.jpg (as of 23 nov - for instance, there are a whole pile of footballer pics from this uploader) doesn't seem to have an OTRS pending cat on it at all? I know there is a backlog, I just want to make sure these ones aren't missed out on. Thanks for your help. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no leading zero on dates for that category. Category:OTRS pending as of 4 November 2009 was cleared and deleted on 29 December. I've tagged the three images in the category you linked as {{subst:nopd}}. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - did you have a chance to look at the other one too? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Got it now. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Logo Männer-Handball-EM 2010.jpg

Does the file Image:Logo Männer-Handball-EM 2010.jpg indeed meet the criteria of free use? It is hard to imagine that this logo is not copyright protected. 13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a de: ticket. Any German speakers available to check it? -Andrew c (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
We do indeed have permission from the copyright holder to use it under the indicated license. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The permission for files listed below, were send

Hello, The permission for files listed below, were send to

1  File:Žmogus_ir_Aušrinė_SKYLE.jpg 
2  File:Geriausios_dainos_1991-1997_SKYLE.jpg 
3  File:Lukiškių_pieva_SKYLE
4  File:Skyle_2008.jpg .jpg 
5  File:Saules_kelione_-_SKYLE.jpg 
6  File:Šv._Stepono_7_SKYLE.jpg 
7  File:1+1=1_SKYLE.jpg 
8  File:Kubaturinė_radiacija_SKYLE.jpg 
9  File:Periklių_giesmės_SKYLE.jpg 
10 File:Žydinčių_moterų_džiaugsmas_-_SKYLE.jpg 
11 File:Vilniaus Legendos CD - SKYLE.jpg 
12 File:Sapnų_trofėjai-SKYLE.jpg 
13 File:Koncertas_Šv._Kotrynos_bažnyčioje_-_SKYLE.jpg 
14 File:Broliai-single-SKYLE.gif 
15 File:Lukiškių_Pieva_-_SKYLE_-CD.jpg 
16 File:Povandenines Kronikos - SKYLE.jpg 
17 File:Jūratė_ir_Kastytis_CD&DVD_-_SKYLE.jpg 
18 File:Babilonas_CD_-_SKYLE.jpg 

Is there anything else I should do to keep these pictures in wikipedia article "Skyle"?? Please, don't delete files as it helps for people to get more from Wikipedia!

Sorry about the delay. There is currently a several week backlog on permissions request tickets. J.smith (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got a long string of tickets regarding those images that I'm getting through now. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Solicitação-Voluntário OTRS Wikimedia

gostaria de ser voluntário para auxiliar a Wikimedia, Falo português fluente e inglês avançado, e gosto de trabalhar em áreas como essa, auxiliando pessoas e empresas, como a Wikimedia, que sempre me auxiliou com trabalhos escolares, agora é minha vez de retribuir, se vocês permitirem, é claro. (Brunoknd (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

My extremely limited Portuguese understanding suggests that you want to be an OTRS volunteer. Applications need to be made at m:OTRS/volunteering. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Don Brash

Please have a look at File talk:Don Brash and Je Lan Lee.jpg (File:Don Brash and Je Lan Lee.jpg and File:Don Brash.jpg). -- Common Good (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Knotted cord.jpg

I would like to provide some extended information about this file to be filed, but due to privacy reasons I don't want to add this to the image description file. Is there a way of doing this? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Where else would you want the information to be put? If you don't want it to be public, then I don't think there is anything that can be done. Tiptoety talk 08:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that OTRS can accept confidential information for further verification, if so needed. If this is not the case, then please accept my apologies for time wasting. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You can indeed send confidential information to OTRS. For instance, it would be a way to record the parents' permission to publish the file, although we don't have definite procedures of this kind. --Eusebius (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I have now sent the email for this image to OTRS. I've also sent another email about another image giving my permission to use it under cc-by-sa. I hope that is sufficient and the emails have arrived. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright. But simply sending that information to OTRS and not wanting it posted on-wiki is a bit pointless. Or maybe I am not clear what you are wanting? Tiptoety talk 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
@Tip: OTRS doesn't typically copy/paste information from tickets to public areas, so I'm assuming that Tbsdy just wants to record some information regarding the photo that isn't available to any JoeShmoe. I've seen cases like this in the past, but I can't recall specifics at this point. Killiondude (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, I guess I just do not see the point. Tiptoety talk 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) Look at the permission field on the image page. --Eusebius (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check

Please check to confirm if image en:File:CasamayorVsKatsidis.png can be moved to commons

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IngerAlHaosului (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I would say no. For OTRS volunteers, I have added a note on the ticket about why I deem it not ok. --Eusebius (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to be coy and add a private note only visible to OTRS volunteers about why the image may not be moved to the Commons. The reason is obvious -- the image's history states that it's from Flicker and on the original site you can see that the image has been modified to remove the copyright information. It's not a free image and thus may not be moved to the Commons. It may possibly be available on en.Wikipedia under the free use clause, but that's an entirely separate issue.
Wikimedia Commons in a nutshell: Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content,
i.e. images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose.
I hope that helps, let me know on my talk page if there's anything else I can do. Banaticus (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Given the watermark, the Flickr account name, the various credits on the various websites, the OTRS ticket provenance, I am pretty sure your explanation is not valid (and the ticket is not ok only because of the technical reason I've stated in the private note). --Eusebius (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What watermark? The one in the bottom right corner of the original photo that was cut off when it was uploaded to Wikipedia? You're saying that despite all appearances to the contrary the image isn't here illegally and that it's not that illegality that prevents it from being moved to the Commons but rather some secret "technical" problem? A technical glitch that isn't related to any purported illegality but is still (for some inexplicable reason) secret? Banaticus (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You have read the ticket? You have seen who wrote the permission e-mail and have compared it to the credits displayed on the various websites of the watermark you mention? If so, let's discuss the issue on OTRS if you disagree with the note I have left. If not, what the heck are you talking about? A guess of yours that the permission e-mail is a fraud, without having read it? --Eusebius (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Eritrea - Government building, Asmara.jpg

Is the ticket otrs:1394758 (File:Gash Barkahouses.jpg) valid also for File:Eritrea - Government building, Asmara.jpg? -- Common Good (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Applies to more images, some have ticket some not, some flickrreviewed some not, for some images the author is not correctly written in the author field as required. Would be good to have this also answered for files like File:Eritrean wedding.jpg so that we can correct all this. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The ticket is entirely unclear as to what images it covers :/ It dates back to 2008, when OTRS was somewhat less rigorous than it is now. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ticket check

Can someone check a ticket for me? I'm looking at File:Miley Cyrus09.jpg which was put up by a serial copyright violator. I've already pulled out a number of his uploads as proven copyvios, so he's already dancing well towards being blocked as a repeat offender. While there are a number of images from the source Flickr account ("Sharon Graphics") on Commons, none of the tickets given match the one on "Miley Cyrus09.jpg". Tabercil (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is smelling more and more like a very determined copyvio offender. The user just uploaded another image (File:Zac Efron in Madrid.jpg) from a different Flickr account altogether, but with the same OTRS ticket # stuck to it. Ticket # is 2009121510015033. Tabercil (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Never mind... user got blocked as a sockpuppet by Martin H. and the images in question were pulled. Tabercil (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, usual behaviour by Category:Sockpuppets of Chace Watson: placing random OTRS templates on pages for random images grabbed from elsewhere. You can identify him easily. --Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That assumes the admin who's staring at the contributions has encountered said sock puppeteer... oh well, one to remember for next time. <G> Tabercil (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi all! Following reception of Ticket:2009110810000573, some pictures like File:Muja on radio in Munda Dir.jpg have been tagged with {{OTRS received}}, and others like File:Mortar attack on Shigal Tarna garrison, Kunar Province, 87.jpg have been tagged with {{permissionOTRS}}. I first suspected that the email didn't mention explicitely all the related pictures but this comment makes me think otherwise. Can you clarify this please? Thanks. — Xavier, 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, for some images the situation has been clarified (as expected in the comment you quote), but not for all of them. --Eusebius (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I was just wondering how the same ticket, which apparently fails to mention a free licence release, could validate one of the CC-by-SA pictures and not the others. Don't you think the OTRS user may have forgotten to tag the others with {{permissionOTRS}} when the case was clarified? — Xavier, 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
All the files for which the status was clarified are properly tagged with a permission template. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Srpska torta - zastava.jpg

I don't have access to the ticket of this file (?), and I would like to check that it is consistent with the visible watermarking of the image. Could an OTRS volunteer with more rights than me check this and put the ticket in a permission queue? Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to it either. It's probably in some info queue, maybe info-sr. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the ticket to permission-commons, but it's all in Serbian. The file used to be on (.yu domain is being phased out, so I guess they relocated to a .net), but the permission now stands for, the contents of which used to be hosted on the site. --Filip (§) 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Can I have someone to check this + the derivates of this image? Where did the GFDL come from? Should it not just be {{cc-by-3.0}}? --MGA73 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Should indeed by cc-by-3.0. Don't know where the other licenses came from. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I fixed the two derivates of the image. --MGA73 (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Maldivian dhoni.jpg

The uploader tagged this image with an OTRS template, but upon searching the database I cannot find any evidence that we have actually received this ticket. Can someone more OTRS-active/capable than myself double check that this image's permission claim is bogus? (ESkog)(Talk) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello ESkog, I also couldn't find anything about the picture or the name and it's strange, that the otrs-tag is without a ticket-number. So I think, that permission claim is wrong. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 09:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ra'ike. I have tagged the image as no license. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

does this need ORTS?

hi I found this file File:Teamcenter.jpg and this file File:TeleTrader_Professional_Software_Screenshot.png that were both uploaded by users with names similar of that to the company from where the products come from and rather than mark them for copyvivo right away find out if there is any kind of ORTS thingy for handling things like this. please try and drop a notice on my talk page if you reply to this. Thanks in advance! Andyzweb (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You should tag the images {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thanks will remember in the future Andyzweb (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


I need to verify that this file is licensed under CC-BY as stated. The photographer has contacted me, because I used the image (with attribution to him) in another work, claiming copyright to the picture, asking me for money! Best / Widar Nord (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the ticket. It might be in the info-sv queue. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Verification for File:HODŽA druhá míza.jpg

Could somebody please verify otrs:2009071710011491 (File:HODŽA druhá míza.jpg)? The file has been uploaded by a recognized copyright violator, known for sockpuppeteering and forging OTRS permission e-mails, now blocked permanently. Is the ticket really valid, or might it be just a fabrication? Thanks. --Mormegil (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mormegil, the ticket is right and I've verified that in the picture description. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 10:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I need verification of some email.

Could someone please check if you have received an email from User:Paulblank, the user claims that he is Paul Blank, he says that he had send an email (here), can you verify this.   ■ MMXX  talk  23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mmxx, there is a believable OTRS-Ticket, which confirmed, that User:Paulblank is the same Paul Blank from I think, it's better to write that on his user page, too. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thank you very much for your help.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Tomasz Adamek at

Hi i would be really glad if i had Permission to use Picture #2009012110030651 in

You don't need permission. Just go and use it, making sure you follow the licensing conditions if you propose to use it outside Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Verification uploads by Boksi

Can a OTRS volunteer check to see whether the File:Specijalac SB.jpg (, File:Srpski Parlament.jpg (Same ticket[4]), File:PT Specijalne Brigade.jpg (again same ticket[5]), File:М84 Serbian МBТ.jpg (yet again same ticket[6]) and File:Serbian M84.jpg ( has the correct permissions if any? I'm rather suspicious that the ID is less then 16 digits long and uploaded with the OTRS tag as verified. Bidgee (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They're bogus. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody took a photo for me and I paid for it. What about license

Via an organization somebody took a photo on my request at a place in a country where I could not go to. I paid for it and have received the electronic version of the photo. How about the license? What should I mention? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In Commons_talk:Licensing I received the following answer:
It depends on the law of the country in which the photograph was taken, and whether you agreed with the photographer that the copyright in the photograph would be owned by you. I suggest you contact the photographer by e-mail, get him or her to confirm that you hold the copyright to the photograph (or that he or she agrees to transfer the copyright in the photograph to you since you have paid for the photograph), and forward the e-mail conversation to the OTRS ( — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wouter (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission to reproduce

I am writing on behalf of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency about gaining permission to reproduce the image [Margaret_Thatcher_cropped2.png‎ (483 × 531 pixels, file size: 412 KB, MIME type: image/png] as part of a piece of pupil work on citizenship.

We would like to include the image in a standards file for citizenship. Standards files aim to improve learning and teaching in schools throughout England. They include examples of pupils’ work to show secondary school teachers the standards they should expect of their pupils.

The publication will be published as a pdf on the National Strategies website:

Printed copies may also be distributed to secondary schools in England.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

I look forward to hearing from you. Best,

Daniel O’Brien

Did you read the FAQ? It explains that we cannot grant permission to use images, but such permission isn't necessary, since all images on Commons are free to use. See COM:REUSE. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Макет аэропорта.jpg

A week ago I sent a letter to

But the files were still removed (File:Макет аэропорта.jpg and other). Why?--GlaDooo (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gladoo, unfortunately we have an almost 30-days backlog on the permission queue at the moment, and your e-mail sent a week ago might be somewhere in the middle of those 600 messages waiting for a reply. If you'd like it to be answered sooner that in a month's time, please provide some information on this ticket (e.g. the e-mail address it was sent from, subject of the e-mail or such); I have searched the queue for the filename but haven't been lucky enough to locate it. That the files have already been deleted does not mean anything at all; it is a common procedure, and if we find the ticket and the permission for using those pictures, they will surely be restored. Best, odder (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If you find this letter I will not need to upload pictures again?--GlaDooo (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you still need to give us the info that odder asked for. --J.smith (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I should send the letter again?--GlaDooo (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, please do not send the letter again. You need to give us the email address that you sent from (or some part of it), or the subject of the email. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Subject "Разрешение на использование изображений". Sender "". Date "Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:39 PM".--GlaDooo (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't find that at all, sadly. Please send it again to Stifle (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sended.--GlaDooo (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is strange; I have not seen the email at all in the queue. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Received permission (OTRS - 2010012910021241). Can I recover deleted files?--GlaDooo (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't speak Russian so can't tell whether it is correct to undelete the files. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check

Please check if this files:

possessing a OTRS ticket are acceptable for transfer to commons. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

They indeed do have an OTRS ticket in which its author agrees to release them under {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. odder (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
tx for confirming i moved them to commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Forcole Telescopiche VARIANT.jpg

Could you please check that if any ticket with this number (Ticket#2009022710028785) exist for this image, thanks.   ■ MMXX  talk  23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A ticket with this number does exist, but since it's in Italian, I am unable to read it without automatic translation tools. It seems, however, that one of the Italian OTRS agents has pointed out that using watermarks on Commons is "forbidden"; and there also seems to be a problem with the license (the e-mail sender has mentioned {{CopyrightedAttribution}} but {{cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} and {{GFDL}} are put on the image page). Please contact an Italian-speaking OTRS agent for more information; the full list is available on this page. odder (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've posted a comment to User:Roberto Mura, apparently most active Italian OTRS member on Commons.   ■ MMXX  talk  00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, was the email from or domains?   ■ MMXX  talk  00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Permission and ticket verified by User:Vituzzu.   ■ MMXX  talk  00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Images from

User:Novaeprod was asked in 2008 to forward permission for photographs uploaded here, but taken from copyrighted but licensed with a "self" license (although there are several photographers mentioned). Can someone check if the email was ever received? Images are: File:CollinLeijenaar1.JPG, File:CollinLeijenaar.JPG, File:CollinLeijenaar2.JPG and File:Collin4.JPG (and maybe File:Collin5.JPG, for which he does not mention the site as the source, but qualitywise, it could be his own work.) (see Category:Collin Leijenaar for quick view.)Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't find anything on it, but the search tool for OTRS tickets is not especially sophisticated and without details of the email address it was sent from, or the subject, or the ticket number, we can't rule out that there was an email. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have emailed the user through the "email user" facility, perhaps that'll give us an answer. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
And I had a reply - permission has now been sent. -- Deadstar (msg) 20:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Diana Eng, Fairytale Fashion, Eyebeam Open Studios- Fall 2009, 20091023.10D.55465.P1.L1.SQ.BW, SML.jpg

The author has copied OTRS with permission. Unfortunately the subject is "Re: Picture on Wikimedia Commons" and this may be difficult to find. The sender is . Could someone check this and change the tag on the image's permission field. Thanks. --Simonxag (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The ticket number is Ticket:2010021710003451, and it is in the queue. Currently, there's a backlog of 29 days, so the email will be processed when it reaches the top of the queue. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Beer1952

Can someone please take a look at COM:AN/B#Uploading Pics...some advice or action, please. Beer1952 (talk · contribs) is saying he sent e-mail to a permissions e-mail address, but there are no COM:OTRS tags on his uploads. Does anyone see anything? Maybe an OTRS pending tag is needed? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 05:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ticket# is 2010021610051099 but has not been worked on so far. —Pill (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Dubois w Sejmie. 1-A-849-4.jpg File:Stanislaw Dubois.1-A-497.jpg

od Czarek Mizejewski <> do data 5 lutego 2010 10:05 temat Zdjęcie w internecie

Szanowni Państwo chciałbym zamieścić w wikipedii zdjęcia, które znajduje się w zbiorach on-line

czy oznacza to również procedurę wykupienia zgodnie z cennikiem? Pozdrawiam Cezary Miżejewski

od Renata Jankowska (NAC) <> do Czarek Mizejewski <> data 5 lutego 2010 10:13 temat Re: Zdjęcie w internecie

Proszę wpłacić na poniżej podane konto 30 zł. Potwierdzenie wpłaty proszę przesłać na e-mail lub fax. (0-22) 572-16-19. Po otrzymaniu potwierdzenia wpłaty zdjęcia zostaną wysłane pocztą elektroniczną. Proszę w e-mailu zwrotnym napisać adres na jaki ma zostać wystawiony rachunek.

Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe ul. Hankiewicza 1 02-103 Warszawa Bank: Narodowy Bank Polski oddział okręgowy w Warszawie Nr Konta: 73 1010 1010 0009 1213 9150 0000

od Renata Jankowska (NAC) <> do Czarek Mizejewski <> data 8 lutego 2010 09:59 temat Re: Zdjęcie w internecie

W dniu 2010-02-05 18:53, Czarek Mizejewski pisze: - Pokaż cytowany tekst - > Przelew wysłałem

> Numer rachunku > Nazwa Banku > Właściciel *CEZARY MIŻEJEWSKI* > Adres > Zleceniodawca *CEZARY MIŻEJEWSKI* > Rachunek ma (odbiorca) > Numer rachunku *73 1010 1010 0009 1213 9150 0000* > Nazwa Banku *Narodowy Bank Polski NBP O/Okr. w Warszawie * > Odbiorca *Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe > ul. Hankiewicza 1 > 02-103 Warszawa* > Kwota operacji -30,00 Waluta PLN > Tytułem Opłata za zdjęcia sygn. 1-A-497 oraz 1-A-849-4 > > Data księgowania 05/02/2010 Data waluty *05/02/2010* > Numer referencyjny *4960205604500105* > Typ operacji *PRZELEW INTERNET M/B*

Liczba załączników: 4 — Pobierz wszystkie załączniki Pokaż wszystkie obrazy 1-A-849-4.jpg 1-A-849-4.jpg 98 KB Wyświetl Pobierz 1-A-497.jpg 1-A-497.jpg 84 KB Wyświetl Pobierz

Ale to bez sensu - NAC nie ma prawdopodobnie żadnych praw autorskich do tego zdjęcia - albo zdjęcie jest PD, albo zostało wykupione prawo do użycia zdjęcia wyłącznie w Wikipedii - i nie ma podstaw do objęcia tego zdjęcia jakąkolwiek wolną licencją, która daje prawo do użycia zdjęcia przez każdego w dowolnym miejscu.
Such a purchase from NAC does not make sense. It was bought the right to use the picture in Wikipedia only. So, it is illegal to release this picture under free licences, which allows to use the picture everywhere for any purpose. There is chance to save this picture if there will be proves that it is PD according Polish law. I have marked this picture as copyvio, which actually in fact is. Polimerek (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is solved. It was proved that the picture is PD-Old. Polimerek (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope of permission - Ticket 1891534

Could someone please tell me what the scope of the permission given in is please? There are quite a few high quality images tagged with this ticket and I am interested to find out if there is the chance to use any other images with this permission. Camw (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It applies only to images taken prior to June 25th 2009. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So any images taken by Kevin Airs and published at prior to June 25th 2009, is that correct please? Camw (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The message is taken prior to June 25th. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Camw (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

License question

Hiya... thought I'd bounce this off the folks here as OTRS will become involved in quick order. I had emailed the PR person for Hockey Canada looking for some pictures of the Canadian Olympic women's hockey team:

Hi, I am one of thousands of volunteer writers for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. I am presently working on improving an article related to the Canadian Women's hockey team at the Olympics and the various players that are on it. Unfortunately, many of them currently contains no freely-licensed photos. I was wondering if Hockey Canada might be willing to provide a few images to be used to illustrate these articles.

His reply:

Hey there,
I've sent a zip file with the head shots for the woman's team. Pleas note that the link will expire in two days so please download when you get a chance.
These are the only shots we're able to supply liscense free.

Now - is his statement of it being "license free" sufficient for Commons? (And I have dl'd the photos from the supplied link.) Tabercil (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil, they should specify a particular license for the images, e.g. CC-by-sa-3.0; if a work is just released under a "free license", potential reusers cannot know about the conditions they have to fulfill. On the other hand, interpreting their choice as a permission to use the material under PD-like conditions would go too far. —Pill (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Tresury relief.JPG

Could you please check that if any ticket with this number (Ticket#2007022010005941) exist for this image, thanks.Persia2099 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Any French-speaking volunteer around? -> ticket:2007022010005941. —Pill (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP-added ticket

Could a OTRS-volunteer check the ticket that was added by an IP to File:Eddie Murphy Shrek ІІІ.jpg? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The ticket deals with another picture--File:EddieMurphy1988.jpg--and does not cover the image in question. —Pill (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rhoads photo

Hello .... I received a notice about permissions on file File:James-rhoads-bio-m.jpeg. Not sure what the problem is. It is tagged as a government produced image and the link is provided to the National Archives website.--Pubdog (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This should have been dealt with already, the notice indicating insufficient permission has been removed. —Pill (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for some details about two permissions


I am active in asking permission for free video game screenshots.

If possible, I would like to have some details regarding two successful permissions, one from ACE Team and another one from Tripwire.

I understand that OTRS stuff is confidential stuff, and that agents are not supposed to make emails public. But I really believe that knowing a bit about how other people managed to successfully ask for permissions would help me for future requests.

If this is too much asking and breaks a policy, then well I guess it cannot be helped and I understand. So do not feel bad with declining Face-smile.svg.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those two tickets includes details of the conversation before getting the permission. Just the actual permission/licence. So there is not really much we can give you. I suggest you ask the uploaders. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Will do that. Thanks for looking! Jean-Fred (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please verify this

I've sent an email to OTRS right now for this image (File:Aenne Burda Portrait.jpg), I'm going to upload about 50 images which all use same permission, would someone please verify it so I can upload all of them quickly, thanks in advance.   ■ MMXX  talk  23:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The current queue for OTRS processing is approximately 3 weeks for mails in English. Permissions will be processed in the order received. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please verify this as well:

This file is set to be deleted despite full attribution (under CC attribution license). Please ensure this does not happen. Thank you.

Verify request - Tereba

Because I have reuploaded two derivated versions of File:83053 9416 Smrkovsky a Svoboda 68.jpg and because all three versions was uploaded by a problematic user, please once again to prove the credibility of the OTRS ticket. Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ŠJů, as the OTRS template on the original image's description page was added by an OTRS volunteer, I do not really see what else we can do in this issue. And I don't really see a need for further action anyway as the original work's page is properly linked to from the derivative works' image pages. Am I overlooking something? —Pill (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have read in the OTRS template: "To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account or leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard." Is it out-of-date? I think, no volunteer is unmistakable and whatever should be verifiable. Every user is under checking by all others continually. OTRS volunteers are supposed to be utterly unerring? Have you some problem with the simple check of the original permission document? --ŠJů (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that the OTRS ticket appears fully satisfactory. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for getting you wrong, I thought you were asking for additional confirmation regarding the derivatives. (And thank you very much for your overwhelmingly friendly note about that.) —Pill (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank You very much. --ŠJů (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Coldplay photo

I would like to use the Coldplay photo from the Coldplay wikipedia site, but need to confirm permission. It will be used in a educational powerpoint to educate students about intellectual property. The author is Karl Axon from Liverpool, England

I presume you're talking about File:Coldplay - December 2008.jpg. The file is dual-licensed as GFDL and CC-BY. Hence you may use the photo under any one of these two licenses. You might choose CC-BY, which is for your use more appropriate: you can use the image and just credit the author (Karl Axon). Lupo 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of permission

I confirm the permission for the publication of

The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system.

It is available as ticket #2010022610041312 for users with an OTRS account--Immagine.poesia (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of permission

From: Jack Kivela [SHTM] <>

Subject: Re: Falkusa/Image Copyright To: Sir Floyd Received: Friday, 26 February, 2010, 11:55 AM

    • High Priority **


had a look at the Declaration.doc and I agree with the copyright issues. As far as I know our family is the only one that has this picture (no negative though) I remember as a very young child seeing it hanging on the wall of our house in Komiza. Best regards,

Jaksa Dr. Jaksa (Jack) Kivela Associate Professor School of Hotel and Tourism Management Room EF 743 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hung Hom. Kowloon. Hong Kong SAR The People's Republic of China E-mail Tel +852 2766 6357 Fax +852 2362 9362 Mob +852 9130 1535

(Sir Floyd) Sir Floyd (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to forward the email to It will not be processed here. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok! I'll give it another try. Thanks Stifle. Sir Floyd (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, we have a bit of a backlog at the moment so it could take up to a couple weeks for it to be confirmed (but we will look at it). Jamesofur (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian anyone?

This File:Bardarski geran 6.jpg and a bunch of other images has some sort of permission. Can anyone read it? --MGA73 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Permission confirmation

The image File:Don Cheadle Traitor Screenshot.jpg was uploaded three months ago with an OTRS Pending tag. Can somebody check on the status of this image? Thanks in advance, - Gump Stump (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't find anything for it; tagged {{subst:nopd}}. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Computer Integrated Manufacturing control system.jpg

Hi, can someone please verify the OTRS for this file. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an OTRS ticket number or any other details on it? Stifle (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope. The file says at an email was sent, but I don't think an OTRS was ever issues, but I wanted to double check before marking it for deletion. Wizard191 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
OK found the ticket. OTRS ticket {{{2}}}. Looks like it didn't get approved on a technicality. The author was clearly willing to freely license the work. Not sure if we should try to contact that party again, or delete as the OTRS wasn't compeleted, or pass it based on good intentions (probably not the best option, as we really should be "by the book", even if that does mean loosing a little bit of content). Any opinions from other agents?-Andrew c (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on closer examination, it appears those tickets are referring to different images (but it's the same author). So... not sure where that leaves this. We should delete, most likely, as we clearly don't have a ticket for it, though we could take efforts to contact the copyright holder for additional confirmation. -Andrew c (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've left a note on his talk page, but if he doesn't reply in a reasonable amount of time then we will have to delete it. Wizard191 (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here I'm am. As a already wrote I am the author of these picture published with my full authorization and with the permission of my editors (ISTE and Wiley). The process about parameters to ste is more and more difficult to follow (much to complex). So please if you need a new formal authorization, please contact me on my permsonnal email, I would send you back a new formal authorization so you could may be adjust your complex and sensitive form. regards--Jbw (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:International Men's Day symbol.JPG

I have already sent licence permission here permissions-commons [..] for the following image: File:International Men's Day symbol.JPG .

Yet the following message now appears there:

"An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read as ticket 2010022710041589 by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published."

I did indeed send the original permission from an email account not associated with the International Men's Day website where the image appears. Therefore I have just sent the permission again today to permissions-commons[..] from the administrator email account of the International Men's Day website: contact[..]

Please contact me on this email if you need more information contact[..] and I will be happy to provide it.

Jason Thompson Positive male role models (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. I note in passing that the IMD logo of the Moldova IMD website, which is personally labled and widely promoted as "The Adam Badge" by it's creator Adam Alexandru has been added to the Commons. Is this kind of personalized logo-making permissable for Wikipedia Commons?Positive male role models (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


Uploader said they forwareded an email for this as well as for File:VukasinGlavna.jpg (ticket) which is tagged already. I know this is relatively new and the system is backlogged, but I was asked on my talk and so I forward the question to you. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be this ticket then. How we can see that the sender of the permission has the copyright I do not know (name does not match the Author). Perhaps User:Tiptoety can help. --MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm...I may have made a mistake there. When I looked at it, it appeared everything lined up. That said, I do recall working on this at about 4 in the morning. Tiptoety talk 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Can you tell me why Rich_wiki.jpg was deleted from Richard Warren's page and Commons? I supplied all the necessary permissions months ago (October 2009) - Ticket#2009093010046424 - and those permissions still apply. Thanks Cronk69 (talk)

email sent and reply received: Dear SUE WALLACE,

Thank you for your email.

10/12/2009 15:57 - SUE WALLACE wrote:

> I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive > copyright of Rich_wiki.jpeg (ticket 2009093010046424) > > I agree to publish that work under the free license .Creative Commons > Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 > > I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial > product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided > that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. > > I am aware that 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 attributed to me. > > I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content > may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. > > SUE WALLACE > > CRONK69 > COPYRIGHT HOLDER > 12/10/2009

Thanks . Sue Cronk69 (talk)

I have re-sent email to; could someone please confirm it has been received? Thanks Cronk69 (talk)

A reply was sent to that email address on October 12th, explaining the further steps you need to take before the permission can be taken further. I've resent that reply just now; please read all the way to the bottom. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

- which email address? I am sending it from, which is the address registered on wikipedia? - which website do you mean? - where do I add a notice on your website specifying that the content is released under the > CC-BY-SA 3.0 license ?

(the image is no longer on - this website has been removed and replaced by (the email address of which is - but the photo has not been uploaded to that website

Thanks Cronk69 (talk)

Template:AntWeb permission

Template:AntWeb permission needs 6 months old OTRS ticket verification. There are contradicting information: From Antweb: "We encourage non-commercial use of ant web images." versus "CC-BY-SA" license on Commons. Template is affecting many thousands of already uploaded images. --Snek01 (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The copyright notice also contains "Use of this web site and information available from it is subject to our Attribution-Share Alike Creative Commons License." Which one of sentences applied first? – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that it could solve OTRS letter. If it is available. Only OTRS members can solve this. --Snek01 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Winner Miss Russia 2010.jpg

Hi! Can someone check if the permission for this image (and the 4-5 other images) is ok? --MGA73 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All emails to OTRS are processed in the order received; there is currently a backlog of about 12 days. This email was received 2 days ago. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I made the notice here of two reasons. 1) I'm involved in it so I would prefer not to do it myself and 2) one of the images are nominated for deletion. I can wait:-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm using a picture of Ed Helms for a project of mine. You're the best.

HersfoldOTRSBot run again

Hello OTRS Volunteers... just another heads up that I've run my bot again, so many of you will likely have reminders about old {{OTRS received}} images, and there's likely to be a flood of people asking why their images are being put up for deletion. The bot's been running for two and a half hours and still isn't done, so there's going to be a lot. Thanks for all your help with this! Hersfold (talk/work) 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot just finished running, and it reported two images that it was confused about... both File:Draizetest2.png and File:Adam Darius 1961.jpg appear to have been uploaded with an {{OTRS received}} template. Could someone take a look at the tickets listed on these and figure out what's up with them? Thanks muchly. :-) Hersfold (talk/work) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither of those cited tickets for those 2 oddballs ever received final confirmation from an OTRS agent, so I think they should be deleted (after notifying the uploader perhaps?) I wonder if Stifle wouldn't mind taking a look at those two images for a 2nd opinion. -Andrew c (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just sent a "last chance before deletion" email to those two and will be doing so for the rest of the images on my talk page; I'll come back in a week and delete any that don't get permission. I've processed north of 200 permission tickets in the last week (!) so I might not be doing much else other than responding to follow-ups. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)