Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

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

VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members, or VRT agents with one another. You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 3 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
VRT Noticeboard
VRT Noticeboard
Main VRT-related pages

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN


Request for authorization

The release by the copyright holder has been sent for the following files

File:Aristide Teodorescu 001.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 002.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 003.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 004.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 005.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 006.jpg File:Aristide Teodorescu 007.jpg File:Baraj Strimtori 001.jpg File:Barajul Paltinu 001.jpg File:Barajul Paltinu 002.jpg File:Baraj Ighis 001.jpg

Maybe it is too soon to have a response. Maybe the messages were not received. Maybe I did something wrong. Anyway until now nothing happened and I would like to avoid the files being deleted due to a misunderstanding. 151.200.13.150 22:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. We receive thousands of emails a day and they are all processed in the order they are received. Please don't resend the email; this will at best accomplish nothing and at worst delay response to other people's requests. Asav (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has Forrestcohen (who has previously uploaded copyright violations) actually sent in evidence that the author of the beautifully named File:41785 135480079040 1143384 n.jpg (which Forrestcohen got from Google) approved the licensing terms (which are not stated), or are they just trying to delay deletion of yet another copyright violation? LX (talk, contribs) 08:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything relevant, and I tried the file name, the URL, and the school name, and got a grand total of zero hits. Courcelles (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two new questionable OTRS pending claims from this user (uploaded after I told them to stop abusing that tag): File:French-Culinary-Institute-of-New-York-City.jpg (no license) and File:Untitled.png (falsely claimed to contain no original authorship). Is there anything to it? If not, I think it's time for a block. LX (talk, contribs) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a complaint that this image is a copyvio in Ticket:2011031710016836 but the noted source is lower resolution and a different rotation so I didn't feel comfortable speedy-tagging it without someone else looking at it. The same ticket also mentioned File:Manabergtrawler.jpg which matches up with the source and so I already tagged it for speedy deletion. Admin opinions/actions appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On flickr the uploader, if a pro-member, can restrict the visibility of the full size version in general and for selected images. I think that happened here. Given that the image was uploaded to flickr much earlier and given that other images, for example the next one in the photostream are still high quality, I have no doubt that the image here is from that flickr user, that it is uploaded here with a wrong copyright holder information (Björn Valdimarsson instead of [1]) and without the copyright holders permission. Same applies to e.g. en:File:F&CWinners07.jpg (see EXIF), en:File:NVBarcaSpanishTrawler1.jpg (see flickr) and maybe others, very 'fishy' uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've tagged the image based on your Flickr knowledge and will begin 'trawling' through their enwiki contribs tomorrow. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I sent an e-mail to the OTRS team with the file use permission from someone who has an image on Flickr, but the reply said that the permission wasn't enough because there was no way to verify that the person who I e-mailed was actually the author of the photos. The same person who owns the Flickr account also owns a website with one of the photos on it (here's the link). My question is, does that prove that he is the owner of the photos? I sent the link to the OTRS team, but I'm not sure if that'll work or not. The person who gave me permission has already gone through a lot of trouble for no reward, so I really don't want to bother him again. The ticket number for the first image (obverse of the coin) is 2011030910000501. Thanks in advance, this is very confusing to navigate, since images are not my specialty!-RHM22 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this ticket is that the OTRS permissions came from a gmail id while the picture is taken from a website. OTRS would prefer an email from the website's domain or indicate the license on the website or at least the website should indicate this email id anywhere on the site. Being that said, I have contacted Dave using the contact me link on the website asking him to confirm that the id OTRS has is indeed his id. Once we receive that confirmation, the image page will be tagged appropriately. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, because after I looked over the rules again, you definitely did the right thing. My fault was not understanding the rules clearly enough. I'll know better for next time!-RHM22 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done We got the necessary permissions now and I have marked both the images as OTRS compliant. Thank you for your patience. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm glad that the images are ok—they weren't easy to find! Thanks for going through all the trouble to verify them.-RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrasingly...

... I've forgotten how to do this! I obtained an en bloc permission from a website to use images from its gallery on Commons. I know there is a way to automatically grant the proper permission based on the OTRS ticket to all images from the gallery, and I believe it's done by starting a category and applying the permission, but I simply can't recall how to do it, and haven't found the relevant info anywhere. Could someone from OTRS enlighten me, please? Asav (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For such permissions, I create a template which includes the licence and the OTRS permission, and then use that on all uploads. Examples: Template:Albania.mid.ru and Template:EduardMarmet. russavia (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll take a closer look and copy what I need. Asav (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission for artist images upload by wikipedia editor using Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0

I'm a Wikipedia editor who has been asked to upload images from a group of artists who have no experience with Wikipedia but wish to release low resolution versions of images of their artwork through Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0. Please advise where I need to forward their emails granting their permission so an OTRS permission can be included with each image. I would like a "gallery" type permission for the entire collection for each artist. Mharrsch (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, send emails concerning permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. To prevent double work make sure to include the complete emails, if possible have them send emails from an official adress so we can check if they are real, and check that the emails contain the right information. You can grant permission for multiple files in one email if you want, just make sure to explain clearly which files are being discussed. Cheers, Taketa (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I found a suggested template and forwarded it to one of the artists for use with his images. I included actual image filenames so the permissions would be specific for the group of his images he is willing to release. The artist completed the template and forwarded it to the address you mentioned. He also included my username and contact information as the Wikieditor who is assisting him. Hopefully, we have provided all the info that is needed and will have a process we can repeat with each successive artist as I work through their bios. Mharrsch (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cagecunninghamdiba-300x233.jpg was tagged OTRS received - not confirmed - for over a year. So I deleted it. See OTRS ticket 2010022010013318 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cagecunninghamdiba-300x233.jpg. Deleted edit is http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3ACagecunninghamdiba-300x233.jpg&timestamp=20100312211606&diff=prev. The uploader asked me to inquire about the ticket. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 14:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, permission was lacking a specific licence. It only mentioned that the material could be used on Wikipedia. This does not suffice. A reply was send but no second email was received. -- Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please review? The uploader has added an OTRS confirmed tag him/herself. Wknight94 talk 11:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Ticket is valid. After communication with the author permission has been granted. Best regards, Taketa (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A non-OTRS user has tagged File:Kirill Fandeev.Symphony(2007) .ogv with OTRS 2010072910039007. Is it valid? Thank you. (For extra background, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Spaniel where the same uploader used this ticket number to apply to various images deleted per COM:SCOPE. Uploader has a history of incivility and has been indefblocked on both de.wp and ru.wp for many years.) Wknight94 talk 14:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ticket was merged into ticket:2010072910000995... and that's where my usefulness ends, as around half of that ticket is in Russian. Courcelles (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This ticket covers content of site fandeev.tk rubin16 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catopsilia pyranthe ad sec.jpg e.a. and 2008072210012641

Can you see if files like File:Catopsilia pyranthe ad sec.jpg, File:Colotis danae egg sec.jpg and File:Dark blue tiger pupa sec.jpg and more files clearly coming from "School of Ecology and Conservation, UAS Bangalore" are covered by ticket #2008072210012641? This ticket number is mentioned in several other files, like File:Acraea terpsicore pupa sec.jpg and File:Colotis danae cat sec.jpg. Thank you, Lymantria (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lymantria ;), ticket states that all images owned/contributed by the school of ecology and conservation, UAS, GKVK, are free to use. Best regards, Taketa (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Taketa. Lymantria (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the permission-template to the relevant images. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedro-Sandoval-Toro.jpg is tagged with OTRS 4575356. Does it not apply to other Pedro Sandoval artwork? File:PedroSandoval-Africa09.jpg is only tagged OTRS received and so was File:PedroSandoval-reverberaciones-36.jpg (until I deleted it). Please advise. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 02:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the OTRS email for File:Pedro-Sandoval-Toro.jpg covers that image only. For File:PedroSandoval-Africa09.jpg, we required further verification from the author because the source was indicated as http://www.pedrosandoval.com/, but the email came from a gmail id. We could not verify that the email belonged to the original author. But now when I compare the two images, both permissions came from the same Gmail id, so may be the second one can be marked OTRS compliant, considering the fact that his website is no longer functional. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, conversely, maybe neither should have been marked confirmed? And actually, when I click on the http://www.pedrosandoval.com link, it works fine. If he's the artist, surely he can verify that somehow? Wknight94 talk 15:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page works fine now, I don't know what happened the last time I tried. Ideally the first image should not have gone through. I guess it was approved because neither the image page nor the email said anything about this website. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted File:June Sucker.JPG for having insufficient permission. It was tagged with insufficient OTRS 4769386 since April 2010. The irritated uploader left me a talk message so could someone please check on this ticket and file? Thank you. Wknight94 talk 13:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a copyvio complaint regarding File:Peleş Catsle (inside3).jpg, asserting that the interior images of en:Peleş Castle in Romania are copyrighted. COM:FOP#Romania says there's no freedom of panorama there, but I don't know enough to look up the dates of death for the two architects. Can anyone help out with this information or should I just tag the image for deletion on their say so? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Johannes Schultz (1876–1883) (the Wikipedia article linked), Karel Liman (1860-1928) (Michelin MFPM, "România", MICHELIN, ISBN 9782067140158, p.77). If they believe that someone else has copyright more than 70 years after the deaths of the architects then they would have to explain it more clearly. -- (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ticket they do explain than Romanian Copyright Office: Order 056269 of 03.11.1999 (Castelul Pelişor) and 056270 of 03.11.1999 (Castelul Peleş) applies, perhaps someone who understands this area should advise and in the meantime put it up for deletion discussion in good faith. -- (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trademark numbers. We don't worry about trademark because we are not offering a good or service under the mark.Geni (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah finaly worked out what they are getting at. Romania has a bunch of specialist laws aparently. One is an indefinet copyright which I would assume we would treat the same way as the the indefinet crown copyright on the KJV bible. The national treasure law looks messier though.Geni (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I'm glad someone who's been here longer than I is handling this one. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much handling it as finding a new name for the problem. Anyway I've thrown it at everyone who should know about it and now they can deal with it.Geni (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive OTRS ticket

Zirland added some doubtfull mention of OTRS Ticket 2008092910035253 at the category Stamps of the Czech Republic.

OTRS tickets are intended for licenses given by copyright holders, not for somebody's legal opinions. A discussion about the question whether a stamp issued by state ministery is an official work in sense of copyright act should be held transparently. No hidden tickets are relevant. It's unacceptable to hide somebody's opinion under the OTRS ticket and parade it as an argument. Author's or publisher's statement cannot suspend the legal exclusion of all official works from copyright protection. Only a judicious finding of the Constitutional Court can abolish a valid legal act. I suppose, the OTRS ticket doesn't dontain suach court finding. --ŠJů (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halloo! Is there somebody? --ŠJů (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for the ticket, but I couldn't find it. It is probably in info-cs which is only accessable to czech OTRS volunteers. On any note, OTRS/Noticeboard is not the right place to hold a discussion on legal issues. Please talk to the person that placed the ticket or discuss it at the local talkpage. Thank you. Taketa (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legal issue should be discussed elsewhere, that's what I want. But to check the content and relevancy of the OTRS ticket can nobody else than people with OTRS rights and this noticeboard is the right place for such requests. This noticeboard is declared as multilingual – no special separate national OTRS noticeboards are mentioned. --ŠJů (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have contacted Podzemnik who has access to info-cs. Regards, Taketa (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFA picture

Hi, I've received a copy of an email sent to OTRS releasing copyright for this image. The article is scheduled for TFA tomorrow...what can be done to expedite permission to use? Thanks! Dreadstar (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Taken care. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick work!! Dreadstar (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos by Tom Frost

There are several photos attributed to Tom Frost in Category:OTRS received as of 20 December 2009. According to a notice at User:Cullen328, these may have OTRS permission confirmed, rather than simply having communications received. If so, could an OTRS volunteer place {{PermissionOTRS}} on them? – Adrignola talk 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - all images OTRS permission confirmed - Taketa (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Di Wu headshot.jpg and 2010032910010544

I deleted File:Di Wu headshot.jpg because it had OTRS received - not confirmed - since last May. OTRS ticket is 2010032910010544. Uploader has asked for clarification. (Relevant archive: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 7#File:Di Wu headshot.jpg). Thanks for any update. Wknight94 talk 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The e-mail didn't contain an explicit release under a compatible license, and I can't find any follow-up to our e-mail requesting such a release. Courcelles (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might someone follow up with the subject? She voluntarily supplied the picture upon request, and I would think she'd be willing to issue whatever release is needed. BD2412 T 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent a reminder now. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone verify ticket #2009092210000845 for File:Tim Pawlenty official photo.jpg and ticket #2009061610065007 for File:Dave Heineman official photo.jpg, please? The uploader has a handful of official state (not federal) government photos (most of which have been deleted). From the deletion log, some of the others had OTRS tickets and the images were later deleted as invalid. Could someone confirm that the permissions in these two tickets for these photos are correct and from someone having the legal authority to license the images on behalf of the respective states? (The user also has a whole slew of images of state maps that don't give credit to whatever blank map that they were made from, but that's a separate issue.) Thanks. --UserB (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First one has explicit permission. Second one has email of the government website stating the image is public domain. Taketa (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: since both permissions were a forward of an emailcontact I've taken action to verify the authenticity. Taketa (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --UserB (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg is marked as OTRS received since last May. It was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg but then restored when OTRS was received. But there is no ticket # and OTRS was not confirmed. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 04:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no ticket related to the file or author. Taketa (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check this image? The uploader added an OTRS ticket to this image and I'm 99% certain it's fraudulent... but I need a volunteer to confirm that. Tabercil (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - File and ticket do not match. -- Taketa (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Kunca files

I nominated File:Ciboria batschiana symtoms1415183.jpg and a few other images from Josef Papi (talk · contribs) for deletion. Josef Papi now says he sent OTRS but can't find the original e-mail. Can someone please check? The relevant files from "Andrej Kunca, National Forest Centre - Slovakia, Bugwood.org":

  1. File:Ciboria batschiana symtoms1415183.jpg
  2. File:Ciboria batschiana symtoms1415141.jpg
  3. File:Lachnellula willkommii symtoms1371044.jpg
  4. File:Lachnellula willkommii branches with symptoms1415057.jpg
  5. File:Lachnellula willkommi tree symptoms1415190.jpg

Just now, I notice three other Andrej Kunca files uploaded by other users so I didn't see them earlier. But Josef Papi is apparently not related to these so OTRS is less likely. They are likely targets for deletion as well:

  1. File:Diplodia blight1371051.jpg
  2. File:Diplodia blightSphaeropsis sapinea1415151.jpg
  3. File:Diplodia blight1415150.jpg

Thank you. Wknight94 talk 12:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:GrishaMaslov and 2008062610008141

GrishaMaslov (talk · contribs) has uploaded dozens of files from http://www.tattoo-world.ru. Only one of them appears to have an OTRS tag - 2008062610008141 on File:Tattooed legs.jpg. Could that OTRS ticket be used for all uploads from that web site/user? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Worsley Man.jpg has been marked OTRS received - not confirmed - for a long time. It was brought up at this board at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 9#File:Worsley Man.jpg but there isn't much resolution there. Can we get a final answer before I delete or bring to COM:DR? Thank you. Wknight94 talk 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the uploader's claim, ticket:2008031910019747 is not sufficient by our standards. There is no explicit agreement to GFDL, and the request (which the rights owner responded to) seems to suggest that the image would only be used non-commercially. As I cannot find a follow-up to our reply, the file should be deleted. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abarnard23, who found this file on Google, claims that the details of the permission of this file have been sent to OTRS. It's been tagged as missing a license/OTRS pending for over 14 weeks now and used in a Wikipedia article in that state. Time to actually do something about it. LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Gone thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could a volunteer checked this ticket # as it was added by the uploader himself. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum - I'm no expert at OTRS but that does not appear to be a valid ticket number - I get nothing on that. --Herby talk thyme 11:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd... That is the ticket number on this file which has been around ages so I imagine it is valid - any other OTRS person understand this? --Herby talk thyme 11:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, simple explanation, there is a "2" missing :) The ticket number is ticket:2006021910004964. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket does not apply btw -- Taketa (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are saying that the ticket number Pill provided (thanks) does not apply to the file that this thread is about but to the old one I found - just so that I understand. --Herby talk thyme 13:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the last part of that sentence, but yes, ticket:2006021910004964 does not seem to apply to File:Lauren Jones Actress Model.jpg. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've updated the number on the image it does apply to (the user with the image above had just copied it from another file and then blanked it...). --Herby talk thyme 13:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS e-mail lost again?

Has my permission e-mail to OTRS been lost again in the spam folder, as it has happened to me before? Because I don't see any change at File:Wilesco D366.jpg, File:Wilesco D32.jpg, and File:Wilesco D24 EL.jpg, all uploaded 5 days ago. Please tell me if I should send that e-mail again. --Morn (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morn, no, it hast just not yet been worked on (ticket:2011032110009649 in case you need the ticket number). Cheers, —Pill (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MKCameron, who found this file on Google and who did not select a licensing template when uploading, claims that the details of that missing license have been sent to OTRS. The file has been without a licensing template (and for some reason hasn't been tagged with {{Nld}}) for over a month now. Time to actually do something about it. LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the uploads from the same user also need checking. LX (talk, contribs) 09:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a ticket regarding File:Newmarket - Old Davis.jpg. Same with File:Davis Drive Rapidways.jpg (searching for Newmarket), File:Uppercanadamall.JPG ("canadatrip" and "uppercanadamall"), File:5847726.jpg‎ ("5847726"), File:IMG 5099 pano.jpg ("5099", "durocher"), File:York Region Buildings.jpg ("Buildings.jpg", "ontarioarchitecture"), File:1752182 newlogo.jpg ("1752182"), File:3353178301 cc8fe9d576.jpg ("cc8fe9d576", "Christopher Watts"). Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for investigating. All tagged and bagged. LX (talk, contribs) 11:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permision for image

Please allpow me to put a link into the Hungarian Wikipedia (related to kilogram) of the picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silicon_sphere_for_Avogadro_project.jpg JZ (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JZ, please note that OTRS is used to document permission for the licensens included on the image description page -- the OTRS template is used to indicate that such permission has been received. Thus, you do not need permission to include such an image in a local Wikipedia project; you may basically use any picture on Commons there without prior permission from anyone. Just make sure (as with every other Commons file) that its inclusion is in compliance with the applying jurisdiction. Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ThF (talk · contribs) left me a long note. It was in French, unfortunately, so I'm not sure what s/he said. But I imagine it is related to OTRS 2010052010036986 which was received, but not confirmed, so I deleted several files like File:Jean-Claude Fourneau. Pierres.jpg and File:Jean-Claude Fourneau. Céleste Albaret. Huile sur toile. 1957.jpg, etc. Can someone please check that OTRS ticket and advise ThF what the remaining issue is/was? Thank you. Wknight94 talk 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's quite simple: The license chosen was "CC-by-nc-nd", and in another email they sent it was "Creative Commons" ... so we did no really know what do here. (It might be that the image descriptions were incomplete, too, but I don't know as the files are deleted). —Pill (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the effects of your intervention on a significant number of pages, of which I have created many, would you be so kind as to seek further into the problem until you obtain a single, clear and unquestionable answer (we did not know really... it might be that...), which could actually appear quite simple even to myself? Thank you in advance. Regards. --Thierry (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am waiting for an answer, at least for something like an acknowledgement, in case when the complexity of my question would set a delay for thought. In my mind, you should keep more tightly conscious of the consequences of your decisions. With a single click, one may not destroy a work that is the fruit of an obviously significant labour (such a labour in quantity, if it is not in quality). One may not do so without being sure about the reasons of one's own intervention. Last but not least, one may not do so without coming first to contact with the sentenced person (who is not an artificial person, but a natural one, in spite of our virtual environment), and clearly and personally tell the guy the law which condemns him. I do not feel very well, seeing people discuss my own case and cut it short over my head in various pages of the encyclopaedia, and receiving not a word on the subject (but one which tells me where they will speak about me !). Best regards. --Thierry (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry, if you refer to me, the only thing I have done here is to provide information that has already been given to the sender of the permission statement via email on 07/01/2010 01:47 (the ticket was not handled by me). In case you were the sender and have not received a reply from our side, I can of course try to resend it. Please also note that nobody was "sentenced" here, and that we cannot really do more than asking the sender for clarification. Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, Pill, and thank you for your answer. Obviously, I refer to the person who removed my pages, to whom I wrote first, and who answered me only to kick me away, unto here, where I suppose this person comes from times to times, and where, as you can see, I make some effort to be understood by English speakers. I consequently do not refer to you, since you just seem to note that the reasons that the first person had to suppress my images were not perfectly clear, and, "par-dessus le marché", since you are the first to speak to me as if I were a human being. So do I go on waiting for a single, clear and unquestionable answer to my question. Cordialement. --Thierry (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify the validity of the OTRS ticket - I suspect a fake and the user a sockpuppet of another serial copyvio uploader. --Denniss (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket does not apply to this file. I have nominated the file for speedy deletion. -- Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

samborowski2 - 2011030910001974

  1. File:Kevin_Jonas_2010.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Nick_Jonas_2010.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Nick_Jonas_2010_2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. File:Lemonade-somebody.jpg (ticket now removed -- (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The last of the images listed above was raised for my attention due to the Disney logo. A ticket appears to have been accepted in error as there is no properly worded release from the copyright holder (the email was clearly from someone else), the verification is for all current and future images upload to samborowski2's Flickrstream which, considering the stream is anonymous, is far too open ended and the original images appear to be 'all rights reserved'. I would like a consensus to withdraw the ticket and remove it from all associated images. -- (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Photograph.jpg ] agree to publish that work under the free license (BY) & (ND) —I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be 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.

Gary R.Englert, March 29, 2011 <Mooney1084v (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

FYI; we have received a ticket with the same content as the above post by Mooney1084v (talk · contribs) and it has already been dealt with (#2011032410013781); I am hereby marking this section as ✓ Done odder (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Fugh.jpg

Hi , I see this was submitted through OTRS - is there any chance you could tell em who submitted this through OTRS? I've been trying to search for portraits of generals, and I'm looking for places to contact. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a fair bit of search I've finally found the ticket in question. The file was sent to OTRS by a relative of the subject; it is, however, a work from the US Army. Hence, I am sorry to say that I see no way to help you in your search. Regards, odder (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odder, I removed the OTRS template because there is no relation between the ticket and the current licensing status. —Pill (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file was uploaded by Wizard o775 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who found this photo by Tina Lau/Splash News on Google. Wizard o775 claims to be the author and copyright holder and that the details confirming this have been sent to OTRS. Given that Wizard o775 is known to be a persistent copyright violator, I suspect that the latter is only intended to delay deletion. Please check if there is any merit to their claims. If not, I think it's time for a block. LX (talk, contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any tickets that mention the names 'Jasmine Villegas', 'Jasmine-Villegas', 'Tina Lau' or the filename in the whole OTRS system. I have additionally checked by hand all e-mails that have been sent to the OTRS permission queues in English and Spanish in the last 24 hours and was unable to find any e-mail coming from an e-mail address that may be owned by the user (no sign of the nickname). I have to agree that the file seems to be a copyright violation; I am going to delete it and block the user for a duration of a fortnight. Regards, odder (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ford permission

I thought the question of the permissions status of the images by Luke Ford was settled. There's an OTRS ticket for it - according to Template:CC-LukeFord, it's this one. Yet I'm hearing at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessica de Rooij, Julia Sandberg Hansson at Postal screening 3.jpg that apparently it ain't valid... Can someone please look into this and get back to me? I'm just really anxious to avoid another repeat of this fiasco... Tabercil (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author of Public Art

I'm seeking to upload some photos of public art in MBTA stations. I've received a tentative okay from the artist; he's willing to go through the official process, which is awesome. However, since this isn't reuse of a single image but of releasing the copyright to specific pieces of art, I'm not sure if OTRS is what I need. Do I:

  • Use OTRS as normal
  • Use OTRS but with some modification
  • Use some other system on Commons
  • Abandon the effort, there's no way to get permissions for public art

?

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds promising! Using OTRS to submit and archive the permission shouldn't be a problem. Our standard e-mail template doesn't really capture the specific considerations of this type of case, but we should be able to come up with something that does. For example, the author would not necessarily have to license or release the rights to his work as a whole. A jointly issued license or release by all involved copyright holders of the photo (the photographer and the author of the depicted artwork) should suffice. Of course, if they are willing to release or license the rights to the work as a whole, that's all the more awesome. LX (talk, contribs) 08:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the ticket on this image was not added by an OTRS member, so I'm wondering if it covers it. And if it does, does it apply to the description text too (taken from the same source)? –Tryphon 11:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder has clearly stated that the permission for using all images from the website cngcoins.com given back in 2006 does apply to all images published on the said website after that date. There is, hovewer, no information about the permission for using the description text whatsoever. Regards, odder (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandraaa743 doesn't know what the license tag for this photo from the Associated Press photo should be but has supposedly sent in the details of the permission to OTRS. Either that, or they're trying to delay deletion, which seems more likely. Please check. LX (talk, contribs) 08:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything in the permission queues (except for the shocking finding that there's way too many Madonna-related permission stuff in OTRS). —Pill (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]