Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/Archive 13
 | 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. |
ResolvedCould I get an OTRS volunteer to confirm the ticket on this image? It appears to reference a ticket from four months before this contributor began working here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, this ticket clarifies that all images from Carlos Latuff are copyright free and public domain. -- Taketa (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- As per above #File:Mubarak Tripping On Tech Generation Media.png - we can see that these are being well scrutinized... --Fæ (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Template:CC-AR-Presidency follow-up
Follow-up of #Template:CC-AR-Presidency above.
Former OTRS volunteer pl:Wikipedysta:Saper sent me an E-mail, saying he knows someone in Argentina who could help talk with the Argentina Presidency again. He would like to have his OTRS access restored. OTRS username is "saper".
Teofilo (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC
- If you mean user group then post on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard but if you mean access to the system you need to ask the OTRS administrators. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I left a message on m:User_talk:Cbrown1023#OTRS access requested to solve the commons:Template:CC-AR-Presidency problem. Teofilo (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please check the permission I had sent to OTRS for File:Micheal Fitzgerald.jpg. Thanks in advance. Hunterscarlett (talk) 23:.09, 01 Februsary 2011 (UTC)
Please verify the OTRS ticket mentioned by the uploader applies to this image. --Denniss (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Same here, probably both fakes. --Denniss (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the ticket does contain an inline response from someone who has signed as the copyright holder, but the validity of the quote can't be ascertained. Furthermore, the permission given is for an entirely different image, (of Elisha Cuthbert), so if you're in doubt, you probably want to nuke these to be on the safe side. Asav (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Permission Received for Temple Beth Sholom Pics
Hi David,
It was very nice speaking with you yesterday too. I do apologize not getting back to Marc when he contacted me earlier last month. Our schedule has been quite hectic.
Yes, we will gladly give you and Temple Beth Sholom permission to use the four photos we shot of TBS for use on your Wikipedia page. I'm guessing you screen captured the selected photos from our website as .jpeg files.
In lieu of financial compensation, we would greatly appreciate photo credit for all the images used. New York Focus, LLC owns the copyrights to all photography taken by us. You must use the copyright symbol and also add our website URL: newyorkcityfocus.com to your web page for ownership.
Our photos cannot be sold or transferred to other parties and can only be used for the Temple Beth Sholom's Wikipedia page. If you are in agreement with these requirements, then you can proceed accordingly.
One of the interiors is an image of the Sanctuary and the other is the Lobby seating area. Both exteriors feature the Temple's new wing addition and entrance. I'm sure Marc can give you a more in-depth description of each photo.
If you have any questions or need anything else, please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schultzdavid (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's not how to submit a permission statement, and that's not an appropriate permission statement for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons. You need to read Commons:Licensing
and you need to stop creating sockpuppets.(It seems I spoke too soon on the sockpuppetry issue.) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Make OTRS users autoconfirmed
I just noticed on Recent changes that I'm not autoconfirmed. I suggest the admins set all OTRS volunteers on the OTRS account list to autoconfirmed to make patrollers' work easier. Asav (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you must mean autopatrollers.--Chaser (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- And that happens already. If you look at Special:ListGroupRights, you'll notice that the OTRS-member-group has the autopatrolled-bit set already (though it doesn't include the autoconfirmed, which is allows for edit semi-protected pages). The majority of OTRS volunteers on Commons, are already a member of this (though I wasn't aware of this until recently) and User:Asav has been since 2010-09-04. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 07:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Permission checking for File:Sneha Actress.JPG
Please check the OTRS-permission for File:Sneha Actress.JPG as it was added by the uploader himself. --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think its a centralised OTRS tag like {{IndiaFM}}...as per the above discussion with same image ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for the hint. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As per the ticket, the permission seems perfect. wikitanvir (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the results of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sneha Actress.JPG, my question is not whether the permission statement looks perfect but whether they have the right to make such a statement in the first place... Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS information's is not accessible to non members and posting the information in an open board is against the policy......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the results of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sneha Actress.JPG, my question is not whether the permission statement looks perfect but whether they have the right to make such a statement in the first place... Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As per the ticket, the permission seems perfect. wikitanvir (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for the hint. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think its a centralised OTRS tag like {{IndiaFM}}...as per the above discussion with same image ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there any merit to the {{OTRS pending}} tag on File:Vince mcmahon.jpg, despite the lack of licensing tag, source and author? Either add the missing information or delete and block the uploader, please. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is a backlog but it ain't that long!
Doing it thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
ResolvedSame as the last one: is there any merit to the {{OTRS pending}} tag on File:Pauli rantasalmi.jpg, despite the lack of licensing tag, source and author? Again, either add the missing information or delete and block the uploader, please. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The OTRS pending seems to be on the picture since it was uploaded by the user. The user only uploaded this one picture. The picture is available on several webpages. The uploader was informed about the upcoming deletion on 5. Feb, we will give him one week to provide the permission and after that time the picture will be deleted. I removed the OTRS pending template from the picture. --Neozoon (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- after I did a google translate of the spanish text in the author field: "desconocido, la han subido en Google" -> "unknown, have risen by Google"
I decided to delete the picture. Will restore it if permission comes in. --Neozoon (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
ResolvedMore of the same really. MehdiBRS claims that details of the permission for File:Ess.jpg has been sent to OTRS, yet is unable to state what that permission is or who the author is (the immediate – but secondary – source is here). They also claim that finding File:Caf.jpg on Google has made them author and copyright holder of the logotype of the Confederation of African Football and that they have sent in evidence of this. Is there any merit to those claims (I'll eat my hat...) or is the uploader just abusing {{OTRS pending}} to delay deletion? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
These two files are copyright protected Logos (see http://egypt.worldcupblog.org/files/2010/06/Caf-logo-2009-300x275.jpg). I deleted the logos. No OTRS ticket could be found for this files. The Logos have not been used in any articles, if the permission still comes in (which is not expected) I will undelete the Logos. --Neozoon (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
ResolvedThis file is marked with the OTRS pending tag. Be sure that the E-mail includes a permission from "Religious news service photo" (for the top left picture) in addition to the permission from "The Jewish Star". If the permission is for the text only, the pictures will need be erased from the file. Teofilo (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The email has been received (today) and a clarification is requested for the release. The release statement is for the full image of the front page. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the updated OTRS discussion at 2011013110012727 I propose the image is put up for deletion in a week (9 Feb 2011) on the assumption that a full free-release will remain unlikely and, if used, the image will have to be hosted as fair-use. This gives a few days for the publisher to clarify their intention with a revised release statement. --Fæ (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You state that according to your research, going up the hierarchy, Star Media Group represents Torstar Corp. This is simply not the case, and I am unsure as to why you would think that Star Media Group has anything to do with Torstar Corp. Torstar owns the Toronto Star (daily newspaper). Star Media Group is an independent publisher with no connection whatsoever to Torstar. The company that owned The Jewish Star was the Jewish Star Newspaper Ltd. That's where the image of the front page came from. As is the case with any newspaper, the text on an image of the front page "might have more than one copyright owner", as you note, but in all cases the material is printed with permission and the copyright owner of the newspaper is the newspaper publisher, not the source of the material. Why is this issue any different from any other front page of a newspaper which appears in Wikipedia? Bernie44 2 February 2011
- This may be an issue with the Wikipedia articles about these companies, the issue of a sufficient free release statement (from Star Media Group Inc) still remains to be resolved. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Template:OTRS ticket release statement verified and ticket added to the image. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
My view is that if there are 4 copyright owners or more, we need 4 OTRS tickets or more. Usually photo agencies like Getty Images don't give their licensees the permission to sublicense the work. I'd be surprised if it was different for news agencies. See the "non-sublicensable" wording in this Getty image license legal code for example. That might be a case for seeking advice from the Wikimedia lawyer. Things "printed with permission" are not the same as things whose copyrighted is transfered. Under US law, but I guess Canadian law is hardly different, the copyright owner is the "first owner" of the content. If the first owner is "Religious News Service", it remains the copyright owner. On this page religion news service provides subscriptions allowing reprints, but this is only for the subscribers to enjoy. If Wikimedia wants to reuse a picture from Religion News Service, it must pay for its own subscription. Or ask for a favour to have a free subscription for this single picture.
At the bottom of the JTA website you can read "Reproduction of any material without written authorization is strictly prohibited" and the terms of service" say "For reproduction rights, please contact Deborah Brown at JTA by fax: [...] or by E-mail: [...] ". So we need an OTRS permission E-mail from Deborah Brown for the JTA contents. Teofilo (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you provide an existing policy or guideline for that interpretation? As the OTRS volunteer, I do not offer legal advice and challenging the publisher who has provided a correctly stated free release of an image from their own publication seems to step over that boundary. If the legal release is challenged, this would be an issue for the publisher who made the claim of copyright rather than Wikimedia Commons who are acting in good faith.
- PS, in the context of the image being reduced-size and of paper printed 30 years ago including poor newspaper quality small black and white reproductions of the photos in question (representing only a small fraction of the total image), there is no chance of any argument related to potential loss of income. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the Wikimedia Foundation should look for ways of empowering the OTRS volunteers. Hiring a lawyer, or someone who studied law at the university and has a professional experience in the publishing industry to help the volunteers find answers to their questions, and giving this lawyer a "veto power" to veto some tickets is the solution I am thinking. This way it would not be the volunteer alone who is challenging the E-mail, but someone whose job would be to make such challenges when necessary. At present I think there is a discrepancy between small uploaders whose uploads can easily be challenged by reviewers with a Deletion Request, and institutional uploaders who receive a sort of immunity by hiding behind an OTRS ticket. Teofilo (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- If I had the feeling that this upload is OK (but this is not my current feeling, so I won't) I would cut each picture, and try to insert the picture into the relevant Wikipedia articles. There is a potential for argument is the picture is shown on the Jimmy Carter article. Anyway "there is little potential for argument" is not what commons:Precautionary principle tells us. Teofilo (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Precautionary principle applies to images where there is "significant doubt", consequently I do not believe it applies to this image as we already have a verified release statement from the publisher (corresponding with the single copyright statement at the top of the newspaper image) and there seems no reason to assume bad faith or to go further than the definitions given in Commons:General disclaimer. If you feel you can make a case for significant doubt even with such a legal release, then please feel free to raise a deletion discussion to test it out. --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jewish Star Calgary19800822 front page.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned about the process that led to my OTRS ticket validation for this image based on a credible release statement (for which I asked for clarification on scope) for which there is now a problematic deletion discussion. I would appreciate an independent opinion/peer review on ticket #2011013110012727 and possibly feedback by email if you are not comfortable leaving an OTRS note on the ticket itself. Thanks Fæ (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Are there examples where newspaper front pages have been given valid OTRS tickets? The immediate examples of papers still in copyright would appear to be deletion candidates using the same rationale (see Category:Newspapers). --Fæ (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair use Resident Evil uploads claimed to have OTRS emails sent
ResolvedXSkArx (talk · contribs) has uploaded the fair use images File:Resident evil apocalipsis.jpg and File:Resident evil extinction cover.jpg claiming that OTRS emails have been sent for both. Can someone please confirm this? Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No permission has been send, for the files [1] and [2]. No License provided and no permission expected since big Studios never publish their DVD covers under free license. I deleted the pictures and left message on the uploader page (uploader did only upload this two DVD-Covers)
Sent Email didn't receive reply
ResolvedI received a confirmation of copyright and forwarded it to otrs permission but didn't get a reply in 5 days. The files are File:Egypt january 28 wounds.jpg and File:Egypt january 28 wounds scan.jpg .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Permission has been provided and picture have been labeled. OTRS:2011020710000211 --Neozoon (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
ResolvedDoes the OTRS ticket 2010112110021817 cover a permission from the sculptor or is it a repetition of the photographers permission that we already considered invalid in the deletion request? --Martin H. (talk)
- I don't speak dutch, but can read it a little. Combined with the reply in the ticket (by somebody who does) I can state that it seems to be a permission given by the sculptor's heirs. --Guandalug 11:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Is ticket:2010092710010841 valid for this file? -- Common Good (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
#2010092510008875 Southerly Clubs
In November, Jcb inserted ticket #2010092510008875 in User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs (diff). That user template is transcluded in over 1000 images, many of which do not require permission as they are PD-Old etcetera. Jcb tells me here that the ticket covers 35 entries from four months ago, for example a photo by Bruno Gasperini that is on the web marked with a copyright sign. Lumping permissions together like this is terribly confusing. But how can the ticket be applied to photos uploaded this year (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Kearns.jpg)? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The situation about the Michael Kearns image is not clear yet, I have been mailing with them about it this afternoon. Jcb (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the meantime, you are stating that "permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system." Which is not true for the Kearns image. And you are stating this for over one thousand images. Obvious, the OTRS verification is a joke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- For most images the verification just clearly applies. In some cases it doesn't and we need additional permission. If you notify us about such a case, we will check it with them, like we successfully did in this very case. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- You included the "verification" in over a thousand images. I find that preposterous. For example, what was the evidence for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Björn Axén.jpg? Or for the images in Category:Queen Margaret of Scandinavia statue at Roskilde? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- So must I make more DRs to get answers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Checked those five images and they are OK. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Did the estate of the sculptor give permission? Did the photographer of File:Björn Axén.jpg give permission? Who is the photographer - Swedish law requires that he be credited. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Checked those five images and they are OK. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- So must I make more DRs to get answers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- You included the "verification" in over a thousand images. I find that preposterous. For example, what was the evidence for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Björn Axén.jpg? Or for the images in Category:Queen Margaret of Scandinavia statue at Roskilde? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- For most images the verification just clearly applies. In some cases it doesn't and we need additional permission. If you notify us about such a case, we will check it with them, like we successfully did in this very case. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the meantime, you are stating that "permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system." Which is not true for the Kearns image. And you are stating this for over one thousand images. Obvious, the OTRS verification is a joke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Since I did not get an answer here, I made a DR - Commons:Deletion requests/Queen Margaret of Scandinavia statue at Roskilde. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
ResolvedI have sent permission for File:CFFH No102.jpg on 2011-02-06, just after uploading it, however it is still stuck with OTRS pending. Is there a problem ? Thank you. SV1XV (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Sv1xv, please have look at our FAQ ("I sent in an email up to 14 days ago and still haven't got a reply"). Cheers, —Pill (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The permission has been received and archived as ticket #2011020610008519 --Sreejith K (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Request deletion of two pictures
The pictures File:SonOfFarbatron.jpg and File:Farbatron.jpg were involved in personal attack in a Wikipedia article. The owner of said equipment has not given his permission for these photographs to be distributed. Please remove, thank you. Bujin Karyu (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please help us with the link of the discussion --Sreejith K (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion on the edited page is located here. Please see under "Images". Bujin Karyu (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Editorial conflicts are not really a rationale for deletion. Descriptions, if inappropriate, can easily be changed/corrected. As the pictured items are neither works of art nor a question of national security, the owner has no say about copyright, if he did not prevent these images taken. The first image seems to need permission anyway, and will go if none is provided. How about the second image: is the ownership of the photography itself challenged? --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion on the edited page is located here. Please see under "Images". Bujin Karyu (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
ticket #2010082410009752
I notice that ticket ticket:2010082410009752 is used as permission for some photos from the site http://vitalykuzmin.net/ (example: [3]). Can someone check whether the permission applies to all images from this site or to just some of them? I'd like to know whether I can upload some more photos from that site. Thanks a lot. Offliner (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The license is limited to a selected number of images. Unfortunately the grantor did not release all images from the website. Have a good evening. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Irene Niepel
Does ticket #2011020510005363, used on File:Cat with charm collar - Irene Niepel.jpg and on File:Queen and royal fox - Irene Niepel.jpg, also apply to File:4buchtitel byatt.JPG? (Byatt is the writer; cover artist seems to be Niepel.) Lupo 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS email came from Niepel and covers only the first two images. Since the third one is a book cover, I would assume that the copyright is with the publisher and not with the author or cover artist. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Reuse request
Dear OTRS volunteers
I would like to reuse 2 pictures according the URL below; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forsterite_orange_-_Ochtendung,_Eifel,_Germany.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forsterite_on_Sanidine_-_Ochtendung,_Eifel,_Germany.jpg
in my textbook about Dental ceramic, which plan to publish in Thai language and distribute in my country (Thailand). Please give me a permission.
Yours sincerely, Boonlert Kukiattrakoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.74.129 (talk • contribs) 12:55 2011-02-15 (UTC)
- Please refer to this page: Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Asav (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
We have two OTRS emails for the file File:Leonora Christina Launch.jpg. One with TT # 2011020410001234 says that the copyright owner is releasing the image under CC-BY-SA-3.0 license but on the second with TT # 2011020310010477, she says she cannot relase the right as Non-Commercial. How to go about this image? --Sreejith K (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- If there is confusion about the intent of the copyright holder or whether this person corresponding is the right employee to discuss the copyright release of images from the website then one cannot consider the tickets valid evidence to support a free release. If the image is particularly valuable it may be worth writing back to pubrel@austal.com to confirm the situation and validate the point of contact. --Fæ (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have emailed the OTRS contact as well as pubrel to confirm their willingness to donate the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the reply I got. Thanks but no we do not want to release the rights, so no we do not grant permission for use.. So I have nominated the image for copyright violation. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
File:CC Mariners 2005 PSC.jpg is supposedly verified by OTRS, but the authorship information in the file description page is contradicted by the EXIF data. Does the ticket offer any explanation for this discrepancy? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS email came from "Corey Davis" who is the official photographer for CC Mariners. There is no explanation of the discrepancy in the email. May be he used "Mark Nolan's" camera (with the copyright tag saved in the settings), but that's just my guess. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, my mistake. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Antonio Dixon.JPG is supposedly verified by OTRS, but the authorship information in the file description page is contradicted by the EXIF data. Does the ticket offer any explanation for this discrepancy? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The ticket does not explain this discrepancy. The email came from Derek Boyko who confirmed that he is releasing it under CC-BY-SA 3.0. I don't know whether we should assume that "Brian Garfinkel" (given in EXIF) is the author and "Derek Boyko" is the copyright owner. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Station photos follow-up
![[1]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XE_iAbiNbcA/TFpHyIXdBbI/AAAAAAAAAlA/I3z4aNysKNM/s1600/resident_evil_extinction_cover.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.aullidos.com/imagenes/caratulas/resident2.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VPK_-3927_Volk_03.jpg){kind=link}
The Elting Memorial Library just emailed me (which I've forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) explicit permission to put the four photos involved in ticket #2010123010016233 under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. The following are the images and the JPG derivatives of those images:
Originals
- File:New Paltz station original.tif
- File:New Paltz station postcard.tif
- File:New Paltz station renovation.tif
- File:La Stazione addition.tif
Derivatives
- File:New Paltz station original.jpg
- File:New Paltz station postcard.jpg
- File:New Paltz station renovation.jpg
- File:La Stazione addition.jpg
Could someone please close the ticket and update the licenses on these images? Thank you.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done Template:OTRS ticket --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Multilingual Template to request that a person sends a message to OTRS ?
I had a look at the OTRS page, and FAQ here, but can't seem to find any form of multilingual message that I could add to an image, or users talk page, requesting that they send a message to OTRS showing that they are have the right to release an image that they have uploaded here. Is there such a standard message? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Standard email for releasing all images ?
I am intending to digitise a collection of photographic slides and upload any that may be useful for Commons. Is there a standard form of email that the photographer can send to OTRS to verify that they are happy to release all their images with a particular license (or perhaps authorize me to apply licenses as I see fit), rather than having to send in a verification for each image of theirs that I upload? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody please check OTRS clearing
User:WaltR uploaded 2 images File:Freilassinger Huette.jpg, File:StaufenhausDE2004.jpg marked with Mail in OTRS (already in first version!) and I do not see any further OTRS action. Can you please check. Looks like a copyvio or at least missing permission to me. But as upload happened 2007, maybe logging was not that elaborated than nowadays. thx --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Serial copyright violator EagLau (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is now claiming to be an OTRS official, "verifying" their own uploads. Please check their uploads. Also, I think it's time for a block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Only 3 images are covered by that ticket, Image:Awe_bodega_water.jpg, File:AWE bodega night.jpg, and File:AWE vineyards.jpg. Those 3 have been renamed, but I can confirm that these new images are not mentioned anywhere in the ticket, and due to language differences, most likely is a completely different user, and these uploads are fraudulent. That said, I'm not sure we have adequately tried to communicate with this user. I will issue a final warning before blocking, and try to clean up the last uploads. -Andrew c (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since they began uploading copyright violations in 2007, they've seen and chosen to ignore pretty much the whole range of autotranslated message templates that the site has to offer as well as several personal messages in Spanish from Ecemaml. If that's not an adequate attempt to communicate with a user who is clearly intent on charging ahead according to nobody's rules but their own, I'm not quite sure what is.
- Anyway, I've gone through the fraudulently OTRS-tagged files and tagged them for speedy or regular deletion depending on the circumstances. There are still droves and droves of other potential copyright violations to wade through, though. The Kodak Easyshare C300 photos are probably legit. Anything else is anyone's guess. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirm OTRS
Could someone please confirm File:Lifesize8weekfetus.JPG's permissions? WikiManOne (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Cricket videos
Media:This_is_scoring.OGG and other videos in the series appear to use large amount of video from professional sports coverage. I have serious doubts as to whether the person who compiled the instructional videos is the original copyright holder of that material and therefore would not have the right to release the videos under a CC license. Does the OTRS ticket shed any light on this? ed g2s • talk 12:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Link: File:This is scoring.OGG. --Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Can someone verify the ticket for File:Waledac obama.jpg please? It's a screenshot of barackobama.com used to show that it was, at some point in time, infected with a worm/virus/something that caused the posting of a malicious link (note that the first blog item in the screenshot is obviously not authentic and was posted by the worm/virus/whatever). The image is sourced to abuse.ch and Roman Hüssy (who from googling is some security expert) is credited as the author. That's all well and good, but unless the OTRS permission is from Obama's campaign, we don't actually have permission to use it. (Of course, there's also the solvable problem that the license is incompatible with the Firefox interface (GPL) but that can be solved by cropping the website screenshot, if, in fact, the OTRS permission is from Obama's campaign). Can someone please verify who the permission is actually from? Thanks. --UserB (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS email came from Roman Hüssy and it came from abuse.ch domain. Unfortunately, the entire email is in German and I am unable to understand the contents. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you feed it into Google translate http://translate.google.com/# and see if there's anything pertinent as far as having permission from Obama? I'm going out on a limb and assuming that he probably doesn't have permission from the O-team and that he doesn't realize that just taking a screenshot doesn't give him rights to it. --UserB (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- There has been a few conversations back and forth and it looks like the screenshot source is http://www.abuse.ch/?p=946 and thats why Roman Hüssy from abuse.ch gave us permissions to publish it in Wikipedia. The emails does not seem to establish any relation to Obama's campaign except that in one email, Roman said that their contact person was Mr Florian Dotzauer. But before drawing conclusions, I will rather wait till an OTRS user who has knowledge in German comments here. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
2009120410039887 and Simon Koene
Can someone please check 2009120410039887. It is marked on Simon Koene artwork at File:Dear Plato.JPG. Could it also apply to Koene artwork at File:Loosduinen met grasklokje.jpg? Otherwise, the latter has been tagged with no-permission for many months and needs to be deleted. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
One or more editors have become very insistent in adding the File:Blais017.jpg image to w:Richard Blais. Here locally, the same editor who uploaded this image also tried to have File:Richard Blais.JPG deleted with the reason "ownerhatespicture" [4]. The File:Blais017.jpg image has been tagged as an OTRS ticket submitted on it. Would an OTRS volunteer please verify? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ARichard_Blais.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=50522850&oldid=43723643){kind=link}
Does this fullfill the copyright requests for commons?
- Hello and thanks for your interest in our club!
- It was an honor to have your athletes in our town and skiing at our venues - they sure put on a great performance!
- There are many photos of our venue on facebook that you could use for your article. You can find them by following this link: http://www.facebook.com/nordicheritagesportclub?sk=photos
- If you are not a facebook member, then just sign up for an account, send a friend request and as soon as we accept it, you'll be able to view and copy our photos for wikipedia.
- Thanks again and have a great day!
- Sarah Gahagan
- NHSC Programs Intern
- On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:32 PM, DiethartK
- Hi everybody (or to whom it may concern),
- I am starting this request for a planned article in the german Wikipedia on the Nordic Heritage Center (link: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:DiethartK/Nordic_Heritage_Center)
- Neither have I ffound an article in the english Wikipedia nor any pictures relating the facility. I am ln search of pics of the facility, especiially the lodge to illustrate the article.
- I know there are lots of them in the web. But most of them probably are subject of copyright restrictions.
- Since I live in Germany it's hard for me to supply my own oics for the article ;). Could you kindly provide pics to Wikipedia Commons (or via e-mail along with the
- appropriate copy right notes to my e-mail address) of your facility/lodge that are compliant with the Wikipedia rules and drop me a note?
- Sincerely yours
- DiethartK
- No, please see Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template email to send to the copyright holder. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the permission the same as en:File:MigreLief Original Formula-Akeso Health Sciences.jpg, but not added? feydey (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. In the ticket specified here the copyright holder grants permission only for that specific image. VasilievVV (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've deleted the image then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As an IP has repeatedly claimed that this image is a copyvio from a specified URL/Website, could you check the OTRS ticket? --Túrelio (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Agent should be able to read italian (which I don't). Ticket is ticket:2008042810014876 --Guandalug 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there, I'll tell you what I know, and then you'll decide :) I know mr. Iaconianni: I'm the one who asked him for permission to publish his pics here and dealt with his ticket. I also met him on person back in 2008 explained licenses and everything, and he was just enthusiastic about our ideas. So, the permission is ok for him and for his daughters, as stated also here: of course, even Dread83, who kindly uploaded the pictures just because I asked him to, knows that pics hosted on the site but taken by other photographers can not be uploaded. So if the picture states it was taken by a member of the family, we do have permission for that; they are professional photographers, so they would never "steal" from others. I can also tell you that the picture must have been taken during an event, 'La primavera del cinema italiano' (Cosenza, 04/19/2008). Should you need further help, send me a message.
- Ecco quello che so: conosco personalmente Fotoguru, ho "insistito" io perché ci donasse i contenuti del suo sito. Anche Dread83, che le ha cortesemente caricate, sa che il permesso è limitato alle foto scattate dalla famiglia, e trattandosi di professionisti, non le prenderebbero certo da siti altrui. Se posso essere ancora d'aiuto, scrivetemi in talk. Ciao, --Elitre (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
For the OTRS-volunteer who will work on this ticket: I have moved the copyvio-claim to the talkpage of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please check the OTRS-ticket of this image, as it was added by the uploader himself at upload. --Túrelio (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a cropped version of File:Margaret Thatcher.png as far as I can see. VasilievVV (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you receive any permission regarding this file? Another user claimed he contacted the uploader which stated he sent a permission to OTRS. --Denniss (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- In the last day two email where received ticket:2011022010007832 and ticket:2011022010004362. Part of one email is in Norwegian (which I do not speak). I have contacted Jon Harald Søby. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- The messages are an attempt to donate the images, however they lack a license statement. I've written to the copyright holder and asked that they be placed under a proper license. Asav (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I received valid license statements for all images and made the necessary changes. Asav (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Reuse Request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andy_Warhol_and_Ulli_Lommel_on_set_of_Cocaine_Cowboys.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.225.57 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your request is unclear. Please see Commons:First steps/Reuse for general information on the topic. Reuse of this specific image is allowed under creative commons attribution 3.0 licence. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Missing Author/Source, inconsistent license information. See:
User claims it is their own work, but also claims OTRS permission was obtained. Please verify OTRS permission and correct Permission, Author, and Source (if possible). LobStoR (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done Corrected information on the commons file page and nominated it for deletion in en wiki. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Clearance request for OTRS ticket
Can someone clear ticket#2011030110008973 for me please? It is urgently required for a DYK nomination. Thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done --Sreejith K (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Autobiography of Mark Twain cover.jpg
I don't think this file needs permission, since I took the picture. If it does I would like OTRS to get permission. I don't have a wikimedia email address, so people tend not to answer me, such as when I asked for a picture of a chimp to be used. I think the publisher's web site is: http://www.marktwainproject.org Again, the file I'm talking about is: File:Autobiography of Mark Twain cover.jpg Thanks. ---- Chucky 20:23Z1Mar2011 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Autobiography of Mark Twain cover.jpg is not suitable for Commons as there is no free release of the book cover itself and the photograph is intended to be a faithful reproduction of the cover. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Please redo the OTRS check on this file. The current tagging is obviously incorrect, as the photo is not ineligible for copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Ayala Band and Color guard, 2010.jpg has the same problem. Both permissions are confirmed good, though the licenses are actually CC-BY, not the impossible PD tag given. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Question regarding OTRS for non-electronic entity
The background: see w:User talk:Magog the Ogre#Re: File permission problems. I have a user here that is claiming to be the archivist of a Pakistani armed forces regiment. It seems he is properly in charge of most of the materials he has submitted to Wikipedia, although a few do present some problems (e.g., works by the Pakistani government, which AFAIK aren't public domain). Just as importantly, the regiment's only official email address is just a standard webmail address (think Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.).
So I have two questions:
- How could we go about verifying OTRS permission for this instance? He was able to give me a physical address in Pakistan, but that's not going to do me a lot of good living in the US.
- How would the OTRS agent handle the issue where the copyrights appear to lie with the regiment but it isn't altogether clear? E.g., I know nothing about the work for hire laws in Pakistan, some of the works appear to be passed down from the central government, etc.
Thanks for your help. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- He can snail-mail a release in the usual form to the Foundation. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
From Pakistan? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
MUSIC IN PUBLIC DOMAIN
I wish to use the instrumental music of Clair de Lune by Claude Dubussy in CD format in the children's book I have just written. I would like to obtain it with the sound of the loon as a voice-over on the CD.
I understand Clair de Lune is in public domain, but need verification and absolute permission to place in the jacket of my book which will be sold in book store.
Thank you for your assistance.
Joanna aamodt@paulbunyan.net
- Hi, Joanna, this noticeboard is for clearing permissions for Wikimedia to use files that are logged in the OTRS volunteer response system. WE can't help you in using files on Commons outside the Wikimedia projects. You may find Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia helpful, however. Courcelles (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Inconsistent Author/Source information between original upload log and current revision. Please verify OTRS permission and (if possible) correct the Author/Source. 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done - The OTRS email came from Richard Winkler and it looks alright. The email also has this line These pictures have been uploaded by my personal friend Kim Silander (username: kimsil) which justifies the inconsistent Author/Source information that you pointed out. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Vitalykuzmin.net and 2010082410009752
Ticket 2010082410009752 is applied to File:VPK -3927 Volk 01.jpg, File:VPK -3927 Volk 02.jpg, File:VPK -3927 Volk 03.jpg, File:VPK -3927 Volk 04.jpg, File:VPK -3927 Volk 05.jpg and File:VPK -3927 Volk 06.jpg, but not File:VPK -3927 Volk 07.jpg, File:VPK -3927 Volk 08.jpg and File:VPK -3927 Volk 09.jpg. Does that OTRS ticket really only apply to some of these files? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, the ticket covers all ten files. I'll tag the other three now. Courcelles (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Done - Asav (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Plinio Cayo Cilesio uploaded File:T-72S 2.jpg and File:T-72S 3.jpg, which are identical except for the irandefence.net watermark being cropped out of the second one, claiming that the details of the {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} permission has been sent to OTRS, which strikes me as dubious given that the name of the author is supposedly named "free image shot", the source is "google", and Plinio Cayo Cilesio somehow supposedly became the copyright holder by cropping the image. Has anything been sent in, or is it just another case of a copyright violator abusing {{OTRS pending}} to delay the inevitable? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The image seems to originate from the FARS news agency (see this page. The watermark by irandefence.net seems to have been added later. Here is another copy of the image w/o watermark. One way or the other, these images both seem to be copyvios, as the agency's website bears a copyright notice. Asav (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- So there's nothing received by OTRS? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Neither "T-72S", "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T-72S_2.jpg" nor the uploader's user name turn up anything in the OTRS ticket search, so most likely no ticket has been filed; but again, it's very likely a copyvio anyway, as the original seems to come from the FARS news agency, so I guess it's prudent to delete both. Asav (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- So there's nothing received by OTRS? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Please verify the ticket, and ensure that its a genuine one - not send from a public email domains......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Canfield Speedway Overhead view.png was uploaded by Nesimko, who claims that the details of the permission to use this non-free Google Maps content under fair use provisions (or something) have been sent to OTRS. Have they actually sent anything to OTRS? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- An OTRS ticket search doesn't return any results. The image is watermarked, which is a breach of guidelines, and it clearly says that it's copyrighted © Google Imagery 2011, so I very much doubt a fair use rationale applies anyway. Asav (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
2009050310008765 and File:Uli wiki.JPG
Ticket 2009050310008765 covers de:Datei:Uli wiki1.JPG. On the same day, the same user uploaded a larger version here, File:Uli wiki.JPG. Can File:Uli wiki.JPG be tagged with the same ticket number? Wknight94 talk 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks good. I have added the tag in the Commons image now. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a request to remove a bunch of images as they were "mistakenly released ... as CC". Normally I'd reply with the explanation that Creative Commons is irrevocable, but I'm not sure that their original release (in the comments here) is clear enough that we could accept it in the first place since they only specify that it is CC and don't indicate a specific license. Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment the file from jno-j.deviantart.com linked above is File:Kerli performing at Õllesummer 1.jpg on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I think it might be considered to be loose enough a permission to allow deletion as they never explicitly say "yes, you can use the Creative Commons license here"... but the real question is what the OTRS folks think. Tabercil (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no additional OTRS permission on the above ticket. That ticket is just a request for deletion. I agree with Tabercil. There isn't an explicit release. On OTRS, if someone were to e-mail us saying "I release under CC", we would reply with a request for a more specific license. So in this case, I think there isn't a clear enough release in the first place, so deletion shouldn't be a big issue. -Andrew c (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I also believe that the permission is too loose. However, I do not believe it is an OTRS issue, since the permission was granted not via OTRS. Perhaps we should bring it to COM:RFD and discuss it there. VasilievVV (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion started at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Kerli. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Uploads by Naruto919
File:Malice.jpg and File:Havoc.jpg were uploaded by Naruto919, who doesn't know what the license is although they supposedly sent confirmation of it to OTRS. Is there any merit to that claim, or are they just trying to delay deletion? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- OTRS system does not have any emails regarding these two images. I think these images should be deleted after seven days giving the uploader enough time to send the OTRS email.--Sreejith K (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say delete right away and undelete in the hugely unlikely event that an OTRS e-mail is received. The {{OTRS pending}} tag is a claim that permission has been sent in – not that it may be at some point in the future. If they got the files from Google, obviously no permission was obtained, which is also why there's no licensing tag. Since it's obvious that the author wasn't asked for permission, it's an unambiguous copyright violation, meeting the criteria for immediate deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Gone thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say delete right away and undelete in the hugely unlikely event that an OTRS e-mail is received. The {{OTRS pending}} tag is a claim that permission has been sent in – not that it may be at some point in the future. If they got the files from Google, obviously no permission was obtained, which is also why there's no licensing tag. Since it's obvious that the author wasn't asked for permission, it's an unambiguous copyright violation, meeting the criteria for immediate deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Please issue the ticket ASAP, as i plan on creating an article on this fellow soon. Joyson Noel Holla at me 12:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Please varify the ticket and ensure that the email didn't came from a public email domain like gmail or hotmail..??...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was sent from a free webmail service. Is there any doubt about the validity of the release statement? —Pill (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is that email ID similar to ticket:2011021210003539 this tickets permission......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You probably are referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG. The users who sent in permission are the same, as you can also gather from the image history. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is that email ID similar to ticket:2011021210003539 this tickets permission......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Please check whether the ticket on this image is o.k., as it was added by a non-OTRS-user. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a derivative work of File:Kohala coast at the Big Island of Hawaii from the air.jpg, whose permission was added by an OTRS member. Permission checks out. Courcelles (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Permission for image
Please confirm the permission for these files File:Nick Jonas 2010.jpg, File:Nick Jonas 2010 2.jpg, File:Kevin Jonas 2010.jpg--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Quadmagazin Ausgabe 2011-02.jpg has been tagged with OTRS permission but what about the rest of the similar uploads by Quadmagazin (talk · contribs)? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 15:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The ticket was specifically aimed at that one image. --Guandalug 08:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Joseph-kony.jpg was uploaded by User:Nothematic, who found it on Google and who doesn't know what the license is even though they supposedly sent confirmation of it to OTRS. They claim that someone or something called "The Rising Continent" is the author, but other sites credit it to Associated Press in both captions and EXIF data of higher-resolution versions. Is there any merit to the claim that permission has been submitted, or are they just abusing {{OTRS pending}} to try to delay deletion? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- source "google images", author "The Rising Continent".... sure an image just grabbed from the web. The only thing he did correct is to follow the instructions in the upload form to copy&paste the OTRS-pending tag into the permission field. Deleted as COM:CB#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
- 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 [5]) 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
File:Kirill Fandeev.Symphony(2007) .ogv and 2010072910039007
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)
- 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)
- This ticket covers content of site fandeev.tk rubin16 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
OTRS 4575356 and File:Pedro-Sandoval-Toro.jpg
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
File:June Sucker.JPG and OTRS 4769386
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)
- The email received was just a forward of an email with a photo attached. There was no permission declaration. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) While the ticket indeed refers to that image, the copyright holder of the image didn't specified any license. --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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. --Fæ (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- 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. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Okay; I'm glad someone who's been here longer than I is handling this one. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Cagecunninghamdiba-300x233.jpg and 2010022010013318
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×tamp=20100312211606&diff=prev. The uploader asked me to inquire about the ticket. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 14:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- Can someone please review? The uploader has added an OTRS confirmed tag him/herself. Wknight94 talk 11:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
- Done - Taken care. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)