Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 7

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.

Contents

Perseids pictures

Here is the files: File:PerseidShower1.jpg File:PerseidShower2.jpg File:PerseidShower3.jpg I've sent the permissions but you needed more clarification: so just take CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, i do not have any contacts with the owner now... i've lost his e-mail, he sent the messages.. why is this so complicated...

In almost all circumstances, for content previously published outside Wikipedia, we need to have record on file (declaration of consent) that comes from the copyright holder. I'm sorry that you lost his e-mail and messages, but could you ask him to send in COM:EMAIL to us for verification. We have no proof that he agreed to CC-BY-SA, and you can't make that decision for him, if you are not the copyright holder. -Andrew c (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Please check ticket 2009120910068104 presumably covering four images File:Karanyi dani.jpg, File:Karanyidani.jpg, File:Karanyi.jpg, File:Karanyi dani foto.png. Uploader himself added ticket just seconds after the upload without any interference from OTRS volunteer --Justass (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The ticket is Hungarian. From what I gather from google translate, it may be legit. We probably need an agent that can speak Hungarian, if one doesn't come along, I can try to contact the agent that handled the ticket, if they speak English. -Andrew c (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Conformation of permission granted by Stanley J. Anderson

I need you to confirm if you had gotten a e-mail with permission to use images from Stanley J. Anderson and have it verrified in a timely mannor. JTS.

There is currently a backlog of approximately three weeks in processing English-language permission emails. Emails will be processed in the order received. -Andrew c (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update

I need to know if the premission from Stanley J. Anderson is still in the OTRS? JTS (High Priority)

We received the emails sent on 03/01/2010 and 03/02/2010; they have not yet been dealt with, however. —Pill (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and by the way just so you'll know that the permission genune. Anwyay can you give me the ticket number? JTS
There should be one marked with today's date (3-3-2010), thats the one that I want prosessed, not the other two. JTS
I had goton the following message:
  Dear schoolcraftjt@netscape.net,

   Thank you for your email.

   I apologize for any difficulties. However, due to the deceptive tactics taken by
   the person who has been trying to submit these images, we are unable at this time
   to accept this licensing release. We have to be very careful when accepting these,
   and we must be sure the actual owner of the images is the one making the release.

    Again, I apologize for any difficulties this may cause.
I had gotten a e-mail from Stanley J. Anderson that was for permission I was woneding if you had gotton the same e-mail an if so verify it? (High Priority) JTS
Do you have the ticket number (found in the subject line)? Stifle (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I got a reply on my enwiki talk page that it was Ticket:2010021610052123. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The emails we have received on this ticket do not appear to be from the actual copyright holder of the images. We will need the copyright holder to email us himself (not get someone else to email for him or sign his name). Stifle (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The e-mail in question should have subject Permission to use photographs, have my e-mail address in the CC line, and it should look like this
To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive Copyright of the followings:

Cemetary.JPG Holly river.JPG Senior center.JPG Potato knob.JPG

I agree to publish that work and future works under the free license CC by 3.0.

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 them 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 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.

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

Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information.

Stanley J. Anderson 764 Cleveland Road Cleveland, WV 26215

If this comment gets deleted for any reasdon other than archiving, let me know imedeiately and hope this helps.

      • Very High Priority***

JTS

Pasting emails here won't work. The copyright holder needs to send the permission himself to the permissions email address. Not have someone else send it over his name. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, the user (and all his block evading IPs) who started this thread is a user who has been indef blocked for violating copyright rules. He is now trying get OTRS to do the same. I think the best response at this time would be none at all. Tiptoety talk 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The above comment was NOT for the purpouse of granting permission, it was to show the OTRS what their looking for. Anyawy The above message is the exact one that the copyright holder had sent. No doubt about it concidering the fact that he had sent me a CC of it. The email address on the one that I want verified is amelia.m@frontier.com. Tiptoety's claim that i was trying to get OTRS to commit copyright violations is false. The OTRS will not engage in violating copyrights by accepting the permission e-mail that was sent by the copyright owner Stanley J. Anderson). For what its worth, the images the permission will bring clearly outweighs Tiptoety's false claims. The best course of action is to accept Stanley J. Anderson's permission email. JTS 09:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about the permission email sent by Stanley J. Anderson

I was wondering if the permission e-mail that was sent by Stanley J. Anderson has been recieved and if so could you verrify it. JTS 11:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)~

Please don't start a new thread when you already have an active thread here. Andrew c (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


File:Gobeklitepe nov08 2.jpg

According to the uploaders initial statement an email was forwarded. Also one other image from same uploader and author. Thanks for checking. --Martin H. (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Without a ticket#, or email from address, or email subject, trying to find a ticket in OTRS is like trying to find a wikt:needle in a haystack. I haven't been able to find the email, but (just about) all emails since 22nd February have been processed now, and the image was uploaded in December. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I found the ticket, 2009121510043815, and guess who was the agent... ;)-Andrew c (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
...and I'm up to 258 permission tickets in the last week. This image doesn't have a proper permission release, only permission to use on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... looks like I've only done 50 in the last week. Felt like a lot more than that. -Andrew c (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, the uploader is still active on en.wp, will also give him a link. Thanks for looking into it. --Martin H. (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:1SDIM2179.jpg

Could one of you verify the OTRS ticket that has been put on this image by the uploader himself. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. And the ticket relates to some other random image. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:BennyBufanoPeace3448042569.jpg

I have written again to the San Francisco Arts Commission, this time to the Senior Registrar, about Wiki-licensing this image. I never heard back from them the first time. Kencf0618 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of permission

Hi: received notification about File:David-ferriero.jpeg. It is a work of the Federal government and in the public domain, as indicated on the page. What else do you need?--Pubdog (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When you uploaded it you said that you were sending in permission by email, and you didn't send in permission. Hence you got a message saying you'd forgotten to send in permission. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Millipede Periyar.jpg and other images

I have just forwarded an earlier mail giving permission for the above and a list of other images. This mail had been sent earlier also, but I am now responding to a message left at the image saying that it may be deleted for lack of OTRS verification. Kindly let me know when somebody gets to this and get me a ticket. Email sent 1509 hrs Indian time on Feb. 25th through my gmail account. Prashanthns (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of approximately three weeks in processing English-language permission emails. Emails will be processed in the order received. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Note that even if the image should get deleted meanwhile, it will be restored in case the permission email is sufficient. —Pill (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As of now, the img is still on. I hope it will not get deleted. Will look forward to hearing about the mail. Prashanthns (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the OTRS team for the ticket, and quick action by User:Stifle on the img. Will tag the rest in the batch. Prashanthns (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Permission e-mail lost ?

The bot MGA73bot2 added on 2010-03-13 to the photo File:Israeli_West-Bank_barrier_Ramallah.jpg "Adding a date to {{OTRS pending}} - note that date is NOT the actual date but today. Date is added to start process of deletion if no OTRS show up within 30 days. Feel free to add the correct date." (See history of the photo). The subject of the e-mail of 2010-02-21 was: "Fwd: Photo 2524_photo_03.jpg"

I have on 2010-03-13 re-sent the e-mail with the subject "File Israeli_West-Bank_barrier_Ramallah.jpg"

I did not yet receive a confirmation e-mail or receipt. Could anyone check that the mail has actually made its way into the OTRS queue? Thanks! Wouter (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The mail is received; it's Ticket:2010022110017251. However, there's a backlog of 43 days/19 messages in the Dutch-language permission queue. If any Dutch-speaking agent is here, please can you look into this. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Permission e-mail lost?

I recently received a warning that no permission has been received for File:Lina Leandersson by Malin Jones.jpg, despite sending an e-mail on 2010-12-09. The subject of the e-mail was:

  • Verification of photo release under a free license (in Swedish)

I've just now (2010-03-14) re-sent the e-mail with the subject

  • Fw: Verification of photo release under a free license (in Swedish)

I did not receive a confirmation e-mail or receipt for either. Could anyone check that the mail has actually made its way into the OTRS queue? Thanks! Decltype (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Decltype, your latest email got lost in the junk queue :(, I assume the same was the case for your original email. This would at least explain why I can't find it ... I'm sorry for that, this shoulnd't happen. I've now moved your new mail to the permissions queue. Please note that it may take some days/weeks until the ticket will have been dealt with. I've tagged the image accordingly so that it won't get deleted in the meantime. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I suspected that something like this had happened. Thanks for your help. Decltype (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Giving us the exact subject line is quite helpful, and I easily found the message you sent 16 hours ago. From there, we can then search for all e-mails sent from that "customer" (i.e. you). However, that search did not turn anything up, which is odd (since even if it was in the junk queue, it should turn up, I think). So maybe we just didn't get the first message? or maybe you sent it from another e-mail address and that's why my search isn't turning anything up? regardless, your latest one is viewable. -Andrew c (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- That is indeed a mystery, because I merely forwarded the most recent one from my folder of "Sent e-mail" (with some minor modifications). The header of the original looks like this:

From: [My name and e-mail]
To: <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
Subject: Verification of photo release under a free license (in Swedish)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:55:19 +0100
...

There may have been some problem on my end. The important thing is that the mail has now been received. Though it would be interesting to know what would trigger the "Junk" filter. Neither the wording of the subject, the fact that the body is written in a foreign language or the presence of image links should be a show-stopper for this particular queue, should it? :) Decltype (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, the junk queue is wiped every day or two. Decltype: No idea what triggered it, but at least we've found it now. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that explains why it can't be found anymore. Thanks, Stifle. Decltype (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reichskrone 3D pictures - confirmation needed

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichskrone_whole.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichskrone_3D_back.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichskrone_3D_closeup_back.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichskrone_3D_closeup_front.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichskrone_3D_front.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichskrone_3D_right.jpg

Hi, it's about the pictures above. They are private works from me. I mailed you some days ago but didn't get any response. I'm not sure if I did anything wrong... would be kind to get some responses/hints before they'll be automatically deleted.--MacX85 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of approximately two+ weeks in processing English-language permission emails. Emails will be processed in the order received. If the image has an OTRS pending tag, you are free to remove the speedy deletion tag (no permission delete). -Andrew c (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Free license unclear

Hi, can someone please check Ticket:2009052810078643 as for whether the allowed license for File:Parrish-911-detail.jpg is cc-by-3.0 or cc-by-sa-3.0? The original on Wikipedia was uploaded with cc-by-3.0, but the (now deprecated) Wikipedia permission template mentions cc-by-sa-3.0 by default. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be correct currently because the ticket states "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license". -Andrew c (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard's books

Hi, I'm working on the articles covering the most important books written by Murray N. Rothbard on Norwegian (and German) Wikipedia. I would love to use some pictures of the books in the articles:

  • Power and Market
  • America's Great Depression
  • The Case Against the Fed
  • Economic Thought Before Adam Smith
  • The Mystery of Banking
  • For a New Liberty
  • The Ethics of Liberty
  • Conceived in Liberty
  • Logic of Action
  • Education: Free and Compulsory
  • What Has Government Done to Our Money

I don't need pictures of them all, but I hope i can use at least some? --Eisfbnore (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for questions about giving permission to Wikimedia Commons for images that someone has already uploaded. I am not sure where you can get an answer to your question, but it is not here. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply. I saw that the book cover of America's Great Depression was on Commons, and I think it is here I should ask for permission? Eisfbnore (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent news, but with questions

The en:wiki medicine project has received permission to upload over 23,000 medical images under copyleft license. They have questions about how to document this properly, as well as making certain to iron out any potential personality rights issues. More input from the Commons side would be very welcome. The discussion is aten:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#.3E23000_pictures_to_import. Durova (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-exclusive copyrght owner?

Last fall I uploaded two images that the copyright holder had agreed to release under CC-BY-SA. One was approved by OTRS and is still here, but the other was deleted in December 2009. At the time, I thought it was because the person I talked to was only a "non-exclusive copyright holder" of the delete image, but now I'm thinking that there might have been some confusion about the emails.

Here is the quote from the response I got from the copyright holder about the now deleted image: "we can licence the rights the same way [as the first image], only we are only a non-exclsuive owner of the copyrights with permission to sublicene in this case. Could I amend the sheet as attached a use that?"

The sheet she's referring to is the "Declaration of consent form" boilerplate I had attached in the request. She did amend it with the name of the second image. I uploaded both images and forwarded the email to you guys with TicketNumber=2009092110049055.

The first image was verified on Sept. 28 2009, but the second never was (deleted by a bot in december). Was it because of the "non-exclusive owner" part, or did I just screw up the emails? Sebquantic (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I actually don't understand what the OTRS agent did here. The reason for not accepting the permission for the second image is that it wasn't sent by the copyright owner him-/herself. While this is a very common reaction from our side, I don't understand why the permission for the first image was accepted then ... Could you ask the copyright holder to send the confirmation directly to our email address (preferably with a reference to ticket 2009092110049055)? —Pill (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If I remember, they were the direct copyright holder for the first image. I'll try to get in touch with them about sending you an email. Is the second one out of the question, or should they send you a message about both images? Sebquantic (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "they" were the copyright holder for the first image, but it wasn't "them" who sent us the email. We need direct confirmation by these individuals that they a) are the copyright holders with respect to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fat_Freddys_Drop_Group_Photo.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fat-Freddys-Drop-Byron-Bay.jpg with sufficient rights to license them under a free license and that they b) agree to licensing named images under cc-by-sa/3.0. —Pill (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Posting my own photo

Hi; I received notification regarding my file possibly being deleted unless I submit the necessary permissions. As the file is of my own photo, there was no need to get permission from anyone other than myself. I am not sure how I need to proceeed from here. I did send an email today, 3/20/10, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with this same information. The file in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ConstantineMaroulis.jpg. Please advise as to what other steps I need to take. Thank you! Vickmeister (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Vickmeister

We have received your email. As far as I can see, you yourself tagged the image with a {{OTRS pending|month=January|day=14|year=2010}} template—this led to one of the bots notify you about the lack of a sufficient statement of permission. I've removed the template for now, so there shouldn't be anything for you to do. —Pill (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It was the first time I had uploaded a photo and I was confused about what to do; at the time I didn't know how else to tag it.Vickmeister (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Vickmeister

Issue with File:Fusion reactor producing ion beam.JPG

Hello. I have recently received a notification on my talk page that the OTRS team has not received permission for File:Fusion reactor producing ion beam.JPG. I sent it before, but it seems as if it magically disappeared :) I've resent the email containing permission. On a side note, the bot says that the image has been tagged with {{OTRS pending}} for more than thirty days, but it has not. That should probably be looked into. Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image on March 15, you inserted the template {{OTRS pending|month=February|day=4|year=2010}}. This contained the wrong date so our bot believed that it had already been tagged with the template for a longer time. As to the email: We received one on 03/15/2010, but it has not yet been dealt with. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, that was silly of me :) Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

{{CC-AR-Presidency}}

Hi, I want ask you something about that OTRS permission: that permission says: "This image is taken from the Presidency of the Nation of Argentina web site, in accordance with the copyright licensing internally logged as OTRS ticket 2007042610015988." that site is http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/ but all pictures are hosted in casarosada.gov.ar. Not in presidencia.gov.ar. Are both domains permitted? If you type http://www.casarosada.gov.ar that goes to the same site as http://www.presidencia.gov.ar maybe presidencia.gov.ar is just a nickname but I wonder know if everything is right. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the OTRS, but if I recall correctly the change from one domain to the other was done when Kirchner ended his mandate and Cristina started hers. But surely there won't be a problem, we are talking about the same site, the same legal entity Belgrano (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The permission was given to presidencia.gov.ar not to casarosada.gov.ar, that's the problem. Alakasam (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

But if there was a change made by Argentine government, It would be correct update the template with that information. To avoid future problems. Alakasam (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1989_-_AT-Adapter.jpg

I've sent an email to "permissions-commonswikimedia.org" regarding picture [1]

That's fine, you don't need to tell us. The permission will be processed once received. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Building-Paradise-opening.jpg

Dear support team, I've just forwarded this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Thanks, Thyes (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Myriam Thyes

<removed email to prevent spam ([2]). —Pill (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)>
Please don't paste permission emails here; this site is widely visible around the internet and addresses will get lots of spam. Also, you don't need to tell us that you've submitted a permission, just wait for the reply. And in this case the reply will be that you need a free license release as we don't accept permission to use on Wikipedia only. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Update to {{OTRS received}}

To all volunteers, please note that the OTRS received template has been updated to include a parameter "reason", allowing agents to set one of the three most common reasons why the template was added. See Template:OTRS received for full details. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is great news, thank you. —Pill (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kirby Lester phamacy automation photos - Permission to use

In advance I thank the Wikipedia volunteer reviewers for guidance. I was alerted that photos I placed in the Wikimedia Commons were about to be deleted. I have just confirmed with a message to "permission-commons@wikipedia.org" that I am the owner of several photos: Kirby Lester KL15e, Kirby Lester KL25, Kirby Lester KL30, Kirby Lester KL60. I intend to 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. Mike Stotz > mstotz > Copyright Holder > 3/22/2010

We have received your emails (Ticket#2010032210056482). Please note, however, that they have not yet been processed, and that it may take a week or two until you'll get a response. (Aside from that, in most cases there is no need to inform us on this page about an email you've submitted.) Cheers, —Pill (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Check

Could an OTRS-volunteer check the validity of the OTRS/speedy-claim put on File:OscarDeLaHoya.png. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that one doesn't match up. The Ticket number points to a ticket that's been used to verify Template:Bret Newton permission, there's nothing in this ticket justifying a speedy.... --Guandalug (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

License check

Could some OTRS member please verify that it is OK use commercially use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hummingbird_Texas.jpg

available as ticket #2008071810060142 Thanks

The ticket contains explicit permission that the work may be used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (conditions). The email was sent from an email address belonging to the website the images were taken from. —Pill (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

to volunteers approving mage permissions for Ticket#2010020610020195

I resend the author's permission mail to commons for the image File:Man Arenas 07.jpg

and also for the image File:The Yaxin Cypress pass.jpg. which was erased for no reasons.

is in the replied Ticket#2010020610020195

I will appreciate some help here from volunteers, 'cause I know no more how to deal correctly with this kind of task. Thanks --Mikarouse (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

These images are taken from flickr. The uploader of the image at flickr needs to change the license to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or Attribution license, if it is not already one of those licenses. (I cannot check, as I am behind a filtered internet connection.) To edit a license, the owner of the image should sign in and go to the image in question, then under Additional Information, the first line will read "All rights reserved" or "some rights reserved". The owner will see a link (edit) next to this, and should click the link and choose the "Attribution Creative Commons" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" option, then click Save.
Once the license has been changed, put {{flickrreview}} on the file description page, or request undeletion at COM:RFU. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bystronic

I need some help/advice here. I thought policy was that if the image was published under copyright prior to upload to commons that an OTRS must be filed for each file, however there are not any OTRS's filed for any of the files in Category:Bystronic. Most, if not all, are from the http://www.bystronic.com website. How do I request an OTRS for all of them. For a little more background you can read the discussion I had with Polarlys. Thanks for the help. Wizard191 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You get someone who owns the images to fill out the template email at COM:ET and send it to the indicated address. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

License check on File:CtrlAltDel Ethan Lucas.png

This image is attached to the ticket https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1327768 https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2008020110017346, which was not attached by an OTRS agent (User:Robbertsh).

User:MADe said on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CtrlAltDel Series Logo.png and his talk page User_talk:MADe#Ctrl.2BAlt.2BDel that the ticket licenses the image under GFDL, with no mention of CC. Can an OTRS agent check again? It seems that Buckley did not agree to license his work under CC. Jappalang (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not a "official" permissions ticket. It is in a queue that I do not have access to (possibly a non-English language info queue). We may need an OTRS admin to check this if we don't know what language to expect. -Andrew c (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it appears I have attached the wrong ticket (must have copied and pasted from somewhere else). I have struck the incorrect ticket and attached the correct one. I do not know what the IP has posted in this thread (is the foreign language comment relevant here?) Removed the Polish speak; Google translation clearly shows it is nonsense and totally irrelevant to this board. Jappalang (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no access to that ticket either. The post there is in Polish. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS policy and cowboys

Yes check.svg Resolved

Can I have a few more eyes on this: File:PayPal_Headquarters.jpg ? Stifle appears to be making up and enforcing his own OTRS practices, ones that conflict with policy. Note my pre-emptive comment on the image page. Stifle is telling ME (via email) to post a comment to Flickr. <sic> The image description already says "Michael Sauers msauers at-sign travelinlibrarian.info" WTF? I'd like to deal with other OTRS volunteers instead. I have found several of Stifle's comments to be uncivil -- insulting, deceptive, or unfounded in the past. [3]--Elvey (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is not advisable for you to be changing OTRS templates on images. {{OTRS received}} is the correct template for agents to use to note that an OTRS pending image has not passed verification yet. That is the case with this image. I don't see the point of your edit, except maybe to assert control over the process and try to one-up Stifle.

Please explain why you think the page as I've left is is less appropriate than a page that makes the broad claim: "However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file." I don't think there is a good explanation, so I resent your mis-characterization. I disagree on {{OTRS received}} being the correct template, because the quoted sentence indicates that it FAILED verification, and the truth value of that statement is false. "Image has not passed verification yet" is a different state of affairs.

Next, looking at ticket 2010022110005816, Stifle was calm, civil, polite, understanding, and seemed to explain things quite well. I have no problems with the e-mail correspondence, and I have no idea why you are linking to a deletion review discussion from nearly a year ago on a different project. I'm sorry if these aren't things you wanted to discuss, or relevant to OTRS. I'll move on to the meat of it.

As I said, I have found several of Stifle's comments to be uncivil -- insulting, deceptive, or unfounded in the past, and provided a link. I said that after saying that I'd like to deal with other OTRS volunteers instead. You can't miss the connection without being obtuse.

I agree 100% with Stifle's correspondences with you, and it is incorrect that Stifle is making things up or enforcing personal rules or anything of the sort. He used a default response template intended for tickets dealing with flickr images (which was created in English last month, but was based on a French response template, and has been modified and contributed to by multiple OTRS agents). But I do believe there is a little confusion. Stifle doesn't seem to realize that this isn't concerning your flickr account (and might have missed your HTML attachments, as OTRS sometimes handles forwarded messages and attachments oddly). In fact, at first I missed it as well, and thought you were the image creator.
At this point, my take on the situation is that we still don't have a clear statement of release from the copyright holder (and the headers in your HTML attachment are missing from the most recent message, along with the 2 year gap in correspondence, gives me a pause). I would ask that the copyright holder e-mail us directly a filled out consent form COM:EMAIL, or at least have one sentence stating a) the image name b) declaring to be the rightful copyright holder c) the name of the license d) that they understand reuse, modification, and commercial use are all possible outcomes of such a licensing (e-optional, place the ticket number in the subject line of the message to get a speedier reply). Alternatively, they could just re-license the image on flickr and save everyone the headache :) Hope this helps some. -Andrew c (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are making special demands not supported by policy. By the way, I have no idea what message you're referring to; my most recent message had no attachments.


Since you, curiously, say you agree with Stifle 100%, explain why he is telling ME (via email) to post a comment to Flickr, and why you also think that's a good idea. --Elvey (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your understanding of the 'policy'? What is special about my 'demand' or our Flickr template response for that matter? Not to be flippant, but maybe us OTRS agents have it all wrong, and you can show us the light ;) And to address your first comment, if you don't like the phrasing of {tl|OTRS received}}, we can take that under consideration, but please don't revert the process. We have bots that help out based on the use of these templates, and it shows that we received the e-mail (so it's not forever in the "pending" i.e. not received grouping), but also that it hasn't passed (yet). Do you still seek additional input? I'd be glad to send out a message on the listserve or post on the OTRS-wiki about this.-Andrew c (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that wording is not perfect. I suggested a change here Template talk:OTRS received. --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I just wish to point out that some of my messages to Elvey were based on the mistaken assumption that he was the original creator of the image; I had missed the original attachment on the first message; I have left him a message concerning the matter to clarify what we need. I don't feel that I have violated OTRS or Commons policy, nor that I have been flippant, uncivil, etc. in dealing with this ticket. All we need is a free license release; since the image is on flickr it's really easy to do this by way of the flickrreview process and I don't understand why Elvey would like to use the slower OTRS process. I would be grateful if he would refactor his accusations and references to "cowboys"; I have dealt with over 250 permission emails in the last week and this has been the only complaint. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the proposed changes (Template talk:OTRS received) acceptable; they don't address the present case, where the ticket was checked and there is a dispute (yes, still) as to whether the message was sufficient to confirm permission for this file. Possible wording: "or there is a dispute as to whether the message was sufficient to confirm permission for this file."--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew: NO; I'm not going to undo my edit which removed a (IMO) false statement from the page of the image I uploaded; that would be making a statement I believe to be false. I'm not going to lie just because of some process dependent on a defective template. If we fix the template so I can undo my edit without lying by doing so, I'll be happy to undo my edit. I accept your offer to send out a message on the listserve / post on the OTRS-wiki about this; I'm curious to see someone try to parse the OTRS submission and not conclude that the image is free.--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Stifle has taken it upon itself to piss on my talk page about this after I came here and specifically stated "I'd like to deal with other OTRS volunteers instead." Supports my point again! I also don't see an apology for inappropriate statements made based on "'mistaken' assumptions" due to not reading my OTRS submission, just multiple instruction for me to follow!--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Also, I didn't choose not to use the flickrreview process; it wasn't my choice to make when it was made, and I still don't get this comment to Flickr scheme's applicability here.)--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, you didn't answer my question:

  • Since you, curiously, say you agree with Stifle 100%, explain why he is telling ME (via email) to post a comment to Flickr, and why you also think that's a good idea. - asked at 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Please do explain. --Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that I misread the email. The request for you to post a comment to flickr is withdrawn and replaced by the other two options on your talk page, and rather than bluster about mistakes and alleged incivility, I would be very happy to move onward and focus on how we can get this image permission cleared, rather than on myriad misunderstandings and mistakes from the past. Despite that Andrew c has also agreed with my point that the email was insufficient, I would greatly appreciate if a third OTRS volunteer would also review Ticket:2010022110005816 to determine whether it provides a valid release under a free license for the image in question. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Elvey, your characterization of Stifle's post to your talk page as "pissing" is incorrect, and offensive. The message, to me, was civil and informative. Furthermore, in your e-mails, you invited Stifle to reply on wiki in your last message, right? Next, why repeat your question? What do you want from me? DO you want me to say again But I do believe there is a little confusion. Stifle doesn't seem to realize that this isn't concerning your flickr account (and might have missed your HTML attachments, as OTRS sometimes handles forwarded messages and attachments oddly). In fact, at first I missed it as well, and thought you were the image creator. I agree with Stifle's recent sentiment that we should look forward and try to see how we can get this image accepted, not dwelling on past mistakes. Finally, per your request, I have sent out an e-mail to the OTRS listserve. -Andrew c (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed the ticket and agree with the other OTRS volunteers here: the permission received is not yet sufficient to meet the threshold of acceptable granting of permission. Stifle has been very polite during the entire correspondence, and your repeated claims to the contrary are not based in fact. At this point, in order to avoid any further confusion on what needs to be done, we must have the actual owner of the image email OTRS directly using the form letter at COM:EMAIL and making sure to fill in the appropriate information (the spots to fill in are clearly indicated in the form letter), or the actual owner of the image must change the licensing on Flickr to a Commons-compatible license. If neither of these can be accomplished, there is nothing further we (OTRS volunteers) can or will do. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket shows that the photographer, Michael Sauers, specifically msauers@..., as confirmed on the Flickr page, specified that he approved when he responded the email, to use under the terms of licensing then specified at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. Since this has been done, the work is a free work, dually licensed under the cc-by-sa and GFDL free licenses, and is appropriate per policy - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Scope_part_1:_Files; I believe no reasonable interpretation of the facts could falsify that conclusion. As such the work is permitted, whether the OTRS volunteers wish to certify it as such or not. Since this has been done, the work is a free work, dually licensed under the cc-by-sa and GFDL free licenses, and as such, I have fulfilled my responsibility to ensure compliance with policy. The obligation falls to OTRS volunteers who claim further work needs to be done to meet policy to back up that claim with a logical argument that relies on specific references to specific policy. That's my position. If folks wish to disagree, and act on their convictions, I can't stop them, but I'm done arguing. I don't want the OTRS volunteers to do anything further WRT this matter.

Uploaded files are within scope only if they comply with all of the following conditions. Every file:

  • ✓ DoneMust be a media file.
  • ✓ DoneMust be of an allowable free file format.
  • ✓ DoneMust be freely licensed or public domain.
  • ✓ DoneMust be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
  • ✓ DoneMust not contain only excluded educational content.
      • QED. If it's deleted despite my view that it meets these criteria, so be it. --Elvey (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd gladly e-mail the individual in question directly to ask for clarification in terms that would be 100% acceptable to OTRS. You say you don't want the OTRS volunteers to do any more, but without the OTRS approval, I (or another admin) have to delete the image. No further action on our or your part = image deleted. If you are OK with that, we can go ahead and expedite matters. But I think really we should instead work to get a clear permission statement from the copyright holder (which really shouldn't be a big deal if you believe the owner has already given permission). Call it bureaucratic red tape or what have you, but we just need a better permission statement from the copyright holder on record. So what would you like to do? I'd gladly contact the copyright holder personally to try and get this cleared up as soon as possible (or I can delete the image if you don't want to put any more effort into the matter). Thanks! -Andrew c (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I stand by what I've said. I'd rather you contact him than delete. --Elvey (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have attempted to contact the uploader in a new ticket, 2010032310058406. We can merge the tickets later. Sorry if this has been a headache, but in the future, keep in mind COM:EMAIL, and know that we require a clear, unambiguous, definitive statement of release in order to pass OTRS verification. I'll keep you posted. -Andrew c (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The image has been relicensed on flickr! Everything is 100% in the clear now. Thanks a lot for your patience, and sorry it was a headache. -Andrew c (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Commercial use of images

Does 'Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license' allow free commercial use of altered image, when <no $> is not a part of license? What does 'Some Rights Reserved' under the logo CC mean?

We can't give you legal advice on the validity of licenses in your jurisdiction. Ask a lawyer. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg

[[File:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg]] is a sign by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, who have copyrighted and trademarked all of their signs in Pennsylvania. Is there copyright permission from the Commission? --Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC) [[File:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg]]

No, but I would doubt that this sign passes the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A PHMC sign photo I added to Wikimedia Commons was removed on the copyright issue, as have some other PHMC sign photos. If this photo does not have an OTRS authorization from the Commission, then it should be removed. --Davidt8 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There was an OTRS ticket attached to this file. I checked that ticket (which is actually a bad link since it has since been merged), and that is not a confirmed permission ticket (the copyright holder added a non-commercial stipulation). But the photos themselves appear to be user created or taken from flickr. Don't know if we want to revisit Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PAHistorical&MuseumCommissionMarkers. It appears we would have to delete all those images for lacking permission, or we accept them all under arguments that Stifle has made or that were made at the deletion discussion. But, in terms of OTRS, there is NO permission for these files. -Andrew c (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS policy and cowboys

Yes check.svg Resolved

Can I have a few more eyes on this: File:PayPal_Headquarters.jpg ? Stifle appears to be making up and enforcing his own OTRS practices, ones that conflict with policy. Note my pre-emptive comment on the image page. Stifle is telling ME (via email) to post a comment to Flickr. <sic> The image description already says "Michael Sauers msauers at-sign travelinlibrarian.info" WTF? I'd like to deal with other OTRS volunteers instead. I have found several of Stifle's comments to be uncivil -- insulting, deceptive, or unfounded in the past. [4]--Elvey (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is not advisable for you to be changing OTRS templates on images. {{OTRS received}} is the correct template for agents to use to note that an OTRS pending image has not passed verification yet. That is the case with this image. I don't see the point of your edit, except maybe to assert control over the process and try to one-up Stifle.

Please explain why you think the page as I've left is is less appropriate than a page that makes the broad claim: "However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file." I don't think there is a good explanation, so I resent your mis-characterization. I disagree on {{OTRS received}} being the correct template, because the quoted sentence indicates that it FAILED verification, and the truth value of that statement is false. "Image has not passed verification yet" is a different state of affairs.

Next, looking at ticket 2010022110005816, Stifle was calm, civil, polite, understanding, and seemed to explain things quite well. I have no problems with the e-mail correspondence, and I have no idea why you are linking to a deletion review discussion from nearly a year ago on a different project. I'm sorry if these aren't things you wanted to discuss, or relevant to OTRS. I'll move on to the meat of it.

As I said, I have found several of Stifle's comments to be uncivil -- insulting, deceptive, or unfounded in the past, and provided a link. I said that after saying that I'd like to deal with other OTRS volunteers instead. You can't miss the connection without being obtuse.

I agree 100% with Stifle's correspondences with you, and it is incorrect that Stifle is making things up or enforcing personal rules or anything of the sort. He used a default response template intended for tickets dealing with flickr images (which was created in English last month, but was based on a French response template, and has been modified and contributed to by multiple OTRS agents). But I do believe there is a little confusion. Stifle doesn't seem to realize that this isn't concerning your flickr account (and might have missed your HTML attachments, as OTRS sometimes handles forwarded messages and attachments oddly). In fact, at first I missed it as well, and thought you were the image creator.
At this point, my take on the situation is that we still don't have a clear statement of release from the copyright holder (and the headers in your HTML attachment are missing from the most recent message, along with the 2 year gap in correspondence, gives me a pause). I would ask that the copyright holder e-mail us directly a filled out consent form COM:EMAIL, or at least have one sentence stating a) the image name b) declaring to be the rightful copyright holder c) the name of the license d) that they understand reuse, modification, and commercial use are all possible outcomes of such a licensing (e-optional, place the ticket number in the subject line of the message to get a speedier reply). Alternatively, they could just re-license the image on flickr and save everyone the headache :) Hope this helps some. -Andrew c (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are making special demands not supported by policy. By the way, I have no idea what message you're referring to; my most recent message had no attachments.


Since you, curiously, say you agree with Stifle 100%, explain why he is telling ME (via email) to post a comment to Flickr, and why you also think that's a good idea. --Elvey (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your understanding of the 'policy'? What is special about my 'demand' or our Flickr template response for that matter? Not to be flippant, but maybe us OTRS agents have it all wrong, and you can show us the light ;) And to address your first comment, if you don't like the phrasing of {tl|OTRS received}}, we can take that under consideration, but please don't revert the process. We have bots that help out based on the use of these templates, and it shows that we received the e-mail (so it's not forever in the "pending" i.e. not received grouping), but also that it hasn't passed (yet). Do you still seek additional input? I'd be glad to send out a message on the listserve or post on the OTRS-wiki about this.-Andrew c (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that wording is not perfect. I suggested a change here Template talk:OTRS received. --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I just wish to point out that some of my messages to Elvey were based on the mistaken assumption that he was the original creator of the image; I had missed the original attachment on the first message; I have left him a message concerning the matter to clarify what we need. I don't feel that I have violated OTRS or Commons policy, nor that I have been flippant, uncivil, etc. in dealing with this ticket. All we need is a free license release; since the image is on flickr it's really easy to do this by way of the flickrreview process and I don't understand why Elvey would like to use the slower OTRS process. I would be grateful if he would refactor his accusations and references to "cowboys"; I have dealt with over 250 permission emails in the last week and this has been the only complaint. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the proposed changes (Template talk:OTRS received) acceptable; they don't address the present case, where the ticket was checked and there is a dispute (yes, still) as to whether the message was sufficient to confirm permission for this file. Possible wording: "or there is a dispute as to whether the message was sufficient to confirm permission for this file."--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew: NO; I'm not going to undo my edit which removed a (IMO) false statement from the page of the image I uploaded; that would be making a statement I believe to be false. I'm not going to lie just because of some process dependent on a defective template. If we fix the template so I can undo my edit without lying by doing so, I'll be happy to undo my edit. I accept your offer to send out a message on the listserve / post on the OTRS-wiki about this; I'm curious to see someone try to parse the OTRS submission and not conclude that the image is free.--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Stifle has taken it upon itself to piss on my talk page about this after I came here and specifically stated "I'd like to deal with other OTRS volunteers instead." Supports my point again! I also don't see an apology for inappropriate statements made based on "'mistaken' assumptions" due to not reading my OTRS submission, just multiple instruction for me to follow!--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Also, I didn't choose not to use the flickrreview process; it wasn't my choice to make when it was made, and I still don't get this comment to Flickr scheme's applicability here.)--Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, you didn't answer my question:

  • Since you, curiously, say you agree with Stifle 100%, explain why he is telling ME (via email) to post a comment to Flickr, and why you also think that's a good idea. - asked at 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Please do explain. --Elvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that I misread the email. The request for you to post a comment to flickr is withdrawn and replaced by the other two options on your talk page, and rather than bluster about mistakes and alleged incivility, I would be very happy to move onward and focus on how we can get this image permission cleared, rather than on myriad misunderstandings and mistakes from the past. Despite that Andrew c has also agreed with my point that the email was insufficient, I would greatly appreciate if a third OTRS volunteer would also review Ticket:2010022110005816 to determine whether it provides a valid release under a free license for the image in question. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Elvey, your characterization of Stifle's post to your talk page as "pissing" is incorrect, and offensive. The message, to me, was civil and informative. Furthermore, in your e-mails, you invited Stifle to reply on wiki in your last message, right? Next, why repeat your question? What do you want from me? DO you want me to say again But I do believe there is a little confusion. Stifle doesn't seem to realize that this isn't concerning your flickr account (and might have missed your HTML attachments, as OTRS sometimes handles forwarded messages and attachments oddly). In fact, at first I missed it as well, and thought you were the image creator. I agree with Stifle's recent sentiment that we should look forward and try to see how we can get this image accepted, not dwelling on past mistakes. Finally, per your request, I have sent out an e-mail to the OTRS listserve. -Andrew c (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed the ticket and agree with the other OTRS volunteers here: the permission received is not yet sufficient to meet the threshold of acceptable granting of permission. Stifle has been very polite during the entire correspondence, and your repeated claims to the contrary are not based in fact. At this point, in order to avoid any further confusion on what needs to be done, we must have the actual owner of the image email OTRS directly using the form letter at COM:EMAIL and making sure to fill in the appropriate information (the spots to fill in are clearly indicated in the form letter), or the actual owner of the image must change the licensing on Flickr to a Commons-compatible license. If neither of these can be accomplished, there is nothing further we (OTRS volunteers) can or will do. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket shows that the photographer, Michael Sauers, specifically msauers@..., as confirmed on the Flickr page, specified that he approved when he responded the email, to use under the terms of licensing then specified at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. Since this has been done, the work is a free work, dually licensed under the cc-by-sa and GFDL free licenses, and is appropriate per policy - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Scope_part_1:_Files; I believe no reasonable interpretation of the facts could falsify that conclusion. As such the work is permitted, whether the OTRS volunteers wish to certify it as such or not. Since this has been done, the work is a free work, dually licensed under the cc-by-sa and GFDL free licenses, and as such, I have fulfilled my responsibility to ensure compliance with policy. The obligation falls to OTRS volunteers who claim further work needs to be done to meet policy to back up that claim with a logical argument that relies on specific references to specific policy. That's my position. If folks wish to disagree, and act on their convictions, I can't stop them, but I'm done arguing. I don't want the OTRS volunteers to do anything further WRT this matter.

Uploaded files are within scope only if they comply with all of the following conditions. Every file:

  • ✓ DoneMust be a media file.
  • ✓ DoneMust be of an allowable free file format.
  • ✓ DoneMust be freely licensed or public domain.
  • ✓ DoneMust be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
  • ✓ DoneMust not contain only excluded educational content.
      • QED. If it's deleted despite my view that it meets these criteria, so be it. --Elvey (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd gladly e-mail the individual in question directly to ask for clarification in terms that would be 100% acceptable to OTRS. You say you don't want the OTRS volunteers to do any more, but without the OTRS approval, I (or another admin) have to delete the image. No further action on our or your part = image deleted. If you are OK with that, we can go ahead and expedite matters. But I think really we should instead work to get a clear permission statement from the copyright holder (which really shouldn't be a big deal if you believe the owner has already given permission). Call it bureaucratic red tape or what have you, but we just need a better permission statement from the copyright holder on record. So what would you like to do? I'd gladly contact the copyright holder personally to try and get this cleared up as soon as possible (or I can delete the image if you don't want to put any more effort into the matter). Thanks! -Andrew c (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I stand by what I've said. I'd rather you contact him than delete. --Elvey (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have attempted to contact the uploader in a new ticket, 2010032310058406. We can merge the tickets later. Sorry if this has been a headache, but in the future, keep in mind COM:EMAIL, and know that we require a clear, unambiguous, definitive statement of release in order to pass OTRS verification. I'll keep you posted. -Andrew c (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The image has been relicensed on flickr! Everything is 100% in the clear now. Thanks a lot for your patience, and sorry it was a headache. -Andrew c (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Trolling.png

Could someone please check the OTRS claim on File:Trolling.png? I'm worried it only applies to File:Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester.png. Thanks, Pruneautalk 17:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are right with your assumption (ticket:2007071410011749). —Pill (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged the file accordingly, hopefully with the right template. —Pill (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Commercial use of images

Does 'Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license' allow free commercial use of altered image, when <no $> is not a part of license? What does 'Some Rights Reserved' under the logo CC mean?

We can't give you legal advice on the validity of licenses in your jurisdiction. Ask a lawyer. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg

[[File:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg]] is a sign by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, who have copyrighted and trademarked all of their signs in Pennsylvania. Is there copyright permission from the Commission? --Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC) [[File:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg]]

No, but I would doubt that this sign passes the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A PHMC sign photo I added to Wikimedia Commons was removed on the copyright issue, as have some other PHMC sign photos. If this photo does not have an OTRS authorization from the Commission, then it should be removed. --Davidt8 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There was an OTRS ticket attached to this file. I checked that ticket (which is actually a bad link since it has since been merged), and that is not a confirmed permission ticket (the copyright holder added a non-commercial stipulation). But the photos themselves appear to be user created or taken from flickr. Don't know if we want to revisit Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PAHistorical&MuseumCommissionMarkers. It appears we would have to delete all those images for lacking permission, or we accept them all under arguments that Stifle has made or that were made at the deletion discussion. But, in terms of OTRS, there is NO permission for these files. -Andrew c (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:PlusEBow.png

I am navigating the Wikimedia Commons procedures for the first time so I'm not quite sure if I'm doing everything properly. Initially I uploaded the image on 7-Dec-2009 but didn't properly put in the OTRS:Pending tag.

On 2-Feb-2010 I realized my error and properly added the pending tag.

Then on 11-Mar-2010 I got the bot message that the image was going to be deleted unless I provided permission info. I resent the permissions email that day.

We are closing in on the deletion date so I'm concerned that there is something else that I've missed in the process. Any help would be appreciated.

BarryWood (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in general, this is very common: You send us an email, we may need two weeks to process it, and in the meantime you get another notice or the image is deleted. Unfortunately, the formulation in the bot message you received (and in the new notice added by that bot on the image description page) suggests that the image will soon be deleted because we have received no email—this is not the case. It only means that—whether or not we actually have an email—it has not yet been processed. If the image should get deleted before we have processed your email, this is not too problematic as the OTRS volunteer dealing with it will restore the image then. In your case, however, my search for the terms "PlusEBow", "Greg Heet" and "Barry Wood" in the OTRS didn't come up with any result. In case your email contained one of these terms, it might be a good idea to resend it. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Phil. I just resent the email again to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the subject "File:PlusEBow.png". — BarryWood (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, we've received your email. It was automatically labeled as "junk," which means that it normally would get deleted after a few days (that's probably why I couldn't find any of your other emails). I moved your email back to the permission queue and tagged the image accordingly, see File:PlusEBow.png. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Pill (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

permissions for Ravinder Bhogal.JPG

Could someone with an OTRS account help me to verify the permission for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ravinder_Bhogal.JPG The ticket is located at:https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4565948 Is it possible that i see the email, or letter, granting permission? Thank you. 24.98.14.73 13:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What information are you looking for? Can you be more specific? For confidentiality reasons, we cannot publicly post or otherwise share correspondences. I can confirm that the claimed copyright holder sent in a consent form/licensing declaration, and that an OTRS volunteer approved of the permission. Do you have evidence that this was done in error or a mistake? What is your concern? Thanks-Andrew c (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Image permission request

I'm not sure if I've got the correct process here, but I would like to request permission to use a Wikimedia photo in an educational television program in Toronto, Ontario. The photo is of Melina Mercouri. It is ticket #2006081310005151 How do I apply for proper permission please?

Thank you. Laura Lucas Team Leader, Visual Research & Copyright, TVO [phone number and email removed]

Did you read the FAQ? Permission is not required to use images on Wikimedia Commons once you abide by the conditions of use. See COM:REUSE. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification, following error from my part on a file

Hello,

This file, which I uploaded, has been flagged as missing verification of permission, and due to be deleted. This due to an error from my part when uploading the file. At that time, I had imperfect comprehension of the OTRS system. In fact, as stated on its page, this file is a faithful reproduction of a work from an author who died more than 70 years ago. Thus, it is in the public domain in the USA, and it'd be difficult to get an email from the author... Thus, it should be of no concern to the OTRS system and team. Sorry about the trouble. --Alþykkr (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alþykkr, I have removed the nopermission template from File:Lady_butler_defense_rorkes_drift.jpg so there should no longer be any problems. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a widely used ticket

Using Google, I get over 1600 hits on this ticket, ranging from 2008 to 2010. Can anyone confirm that it actually covers these images? See File:Kim 2010 OP Press.jpg, for example. Nymf (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To OTRS agents: The specified ticket is valid for all images under Category:Photographs from davecskatingphoto.com. However, Category:Photographs from EverythingSkating.com uses this ticket, which is almost exactly the same as the other ticket. I don't understand how there is permission from EverythingSkating.com, as I don't see the explicit statement regarding the images from that website. Am I misunderstanding something? ZooFari 01:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The statement can be found here (forwarded message) and refers to "any of the photos from my Web site [i.e., http://everythingskating.com/]." I'm not very happy with using forwarded permission emails as a reference on so many image pages, but aside from that, I do not see a problem here. —Pill (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Di Wu headshot.jpg

The subject of the photo, who is also the copyright owner, has emailed a release to the requisite address. I sent a follow-up to specify the image to which she was referring. Please let me know if there is anything else to be done to resolve this. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, I have merged the two tickets (emails). Please note that it may take some weeks until they will be worked on as emails are normally dealt with in the order received. —Pill (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Cheers again! BD2412 T 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dermnet.com OTRS ticket number

My understanding from Wikipedia user Madhero88 is that the owner of Dermnet.com has agreed to our use of his photos under a CC license, and that an e-mail has been sent to OTRS from the owner. Examples of images from this site include: File:Cellulitis-5.jpg. My question is this: has an OTRS ticket number been generated yet, and, if so, what is that number? Thanks in advance! ---Kilbad (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Searching for tickets is really difficult with that little data; do you have an exact date of sending, part of the email address, or the subject? Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I happened to see these today when clearing out spam. They were sent earlier today, and are in the permissions-commons queue. There is about 300+ tickets representing maybe 20 days in front of these, so it will probably be a couple weeks before we get to this. Sorry about the backlog.-Andrew c (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I handled dozens of images today dealing with this that dated back 18 days. Since I saw more sent in on the 25th, there is probably more e-mails to process. I propose that we make a template similar to Template:Muhammad Sharif Khan permission to cover these images.-Andrew c (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A template would be great as we are planning on transferring many more images from the same source over to the commons. Could you help us create a template we can use? ---Kilbad (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here goes Template:Dermnet.com permission. I'll need to run AWB to retag all the images I covered today, and merge all newer tickets in the OTRS system to the first one.-Andrew c (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
On another note, are there some bot people that can help us transfer the images from dermnet to the commons? ---Kilbad (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, not my department. maybe COM:BOTS? -Andrew c (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, there was a mistake and miscommunication somewhere, and most of these images are going to need to be deleted. See this. Is there a bot that can help delete the images, if I tag them all with AWB or something like that? -Andrew c (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Garrison Keillor check

Would someone mind reporting on the status of File:GKpress.jpg? The ticket is here. What's listed on the page seems inconsistent with the license it was assigned. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The ticket appears to be in order. What is your concern? Copyright holder upload file, chose a licensing tag, and the tag and identity was confirmed and filed via email and OTRS. -Andrew c (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The page says "These photos may be used for publicity and program marketing purposes only," but the image is licensed as "allow[ed] anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." It feels like there is a discrepancy there. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed that disclaimer, which is irrelevant to the permission. ZooFari 02:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks much! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

License check on file:Forcall.jpg

I'm not sure if I'm doing everything propertly. I upload this file today and I need som kind of available permission. Could someone of you keep me informed? Many thanks.

The upload form says "If this work of yours was already published elsewhere without indication of a free license, use {{OTRS pending}} and send permission by e-mail. If it was not published elsewhere, do not add this tag or send an email. The field can also be used for specialized license tags." So the OTRS pending tag was added at some point during your upload. I've removed it since it is your own work, and we only need OTRS for works that you are uploading for others or work that you published elsewhere first. -Andrew c (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification of File:Medvedev_-_2010_Moscow_Metro_bombings.ogv

Should this have a verification? The only current thing suggesting the CC licence is valid is File:Kremlin_authorisation-English.pdf. This is being used on a current WP:ITN page. User A1 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos of Miles Fischer uploaded by Erwinfletcher

There are two pairs of photos: File:MF Bowtie.jpg and File:MF Bowtie1 edit1.jpg with TicketID=1908038 were taken at Harvard the description says, while File:Miles Fisher in 2006.jpg (and File:Miles Fisher in 2006 cropped.jpg) with TicketNumber=2008090710018312 was taken together with South-African penguins. It is unclear who is the photographer in these cases. Subject seems to claim to own full copyright of both photos. Does all this really check out? Who did the OTRS people have cntact with? See also User talk:Cirt#File:Miles Fisher in 2006.jpg where I had asked for clarifications. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked because Cirt is excessively defensive about his uploads, and was not forthcoming with more information about these photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a waste of the community's time from a user who is unfortunately inappropriately attempting to utilize the processes of this project as a form of retaliation. There is simply no valid rationale for Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) to start a new thread on this noticeboard for files confirmed as freely-licensed by two different COM:OTRS checks -- [6] and [7]. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The statement from Miles Fisher is valid provided that it is from Mr. Fisher. We received the mails through a gmail-address, not from miles @t milesfisher dot com. But the mails are from 2008 and Mr. Fisher might have changed address. Nillerdk (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
{{OTRS}} says "To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account or leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard." I agree with Pieter that information on the images was unclear so I think it was ok to ask. There was no information who took the image and who gave the permission.
File:Miles Fisher in 2006.jpg says that Erwinfletcher release it into PD but permission says Miles Fisher has the copyright. That is ofcourse not possible. We now have an image where two people claims to have the copyright but we are lucky that they both release it as PD. But you really can not blame Pieter for asking in cases like that. --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is true that both author and owner/copyright holder had released irrevocably via the "PUBLIC DOMAIN" license. The file is in the public domain and is on Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free-use status. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been blocked, for "Trolling file deletion pages to make a point about something he's already been warned about.". Nothing else needs to be done here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What ever Pieter did in other cases are of little relevance here. Image had unclear information and Pieter asked for an extra check and he got that. That does not mean it was disruptice. The best would be to clerify information if someone points out that it looks a bit "wierd". --MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This particular issue, for this file, is resolved. Both the author and current copyright holder wish it to be "PUBLIC DOMAIN". -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Although it is a bit strange that two different people claim to have the authority to release a work in the public domain, let us not worry about that. But to make sure that I understand correctly now: - Was Erwinfletcher the photographer both in South-Africa and at Harvard? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Both individuals clearly wish for the file to be "PUBLIC DOMAIN". There should be no more concerns relevant to this board at this point in time with regards to this file. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, I think it is good practice to mention author. Why do you not help Pieter by telling him who took the pictures? --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not see how this is a matter for this OTRS board anymore. The necessary requirement is copyright holder, not necessarily author as well. The "PUBLIC DOMAIN" license status of the file is not in question. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The exact author may be unknown, but the uploader Erwinfletcher uploaded the files under the "PUBLIC DOMAIN" license. The current copyright holder per OTRS is Miles Fisher, who also has agreed to use the public domain license. Miles Fisher has asserted ownership and copyright over the files of himself. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. If we trust that Miles Fisher has the copyright and that he did send the mail I agree we do not need OTRS board anymore. Personally I would prefer if the images was updated with that information. I would change {{PD-user-w|en|English Wikipedia|Erwinfletcher}} to {{self|PD-release|author=[[w:Miles Fisher|Miles Fisher]] and/or [[:en:User talk:Erwinfletcher|Erwinfletcher]]}} or {{self|PD-release|author=[[w:Miles Fisher|Miles Fisher]]}} and fix the Author field. But I think that any discussions regarding layout should be made on the talk page of the images if any further discussion is needed. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)