This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The uploader has notified me that permission of this image was sent on July 9, but they never received a response. Can this be looked in to? — ξ xplicit 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I need to verify ticket before moving this file to commons - is everything OK? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have obtained permission for using some photos under CC-BY-SA 3.0 NZ, and have forwarded the permission email to you. This is the first time I've got permission from someone else to use photos their on Wikimedia projects. How do I get the ticket information to add to the photos when I upload them? Or do I upload the photos, and give the OTRS volunteers the file names so you can add the tickets to the files yourselves? Or will you upload the files yourselves? Or is there some other process? Sorry if this is covered in the documentation somewhere — I couldn't find it. TimofKingsland ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
OTRS pending}}
to the file. Only OTRS respondents can add the ticket number to the file and verify the permission. You can also request that we upload the files for you. Your choice. Just note that we have a very large backlog and it could take many weeks to respond to your email. Best,
Tiptoety
talk 03:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
OTRS pending}}
template in the licensing section. As I've sent the email before I uploaded the files, should I send another email with the file links, or will posting them here do? They're at
File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, laughing.jpg,
File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, smiling.JPG and
File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, writing.jpg.
TimofKingsland (
talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Trauma.org is cc-nc-sa, but one of its images was recently uploaded, and the uploader left the following note at the talk page:
It was my understanding that despite the CC-NC-SA copyright status of Trauma.org it was still allowed to be used. I believe there is an OTRS ticket that can verify this (ticket #2008050410003261, used on another trauma.org image) but I am unsure as I do not have access. Peter.C • talk • contribs 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you check this ticket and resolve the issue? Nyttend ( talk) 18:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear respected readers and respected editors of great Wikipedia articles, I want to make a request today. I am a nobody but I hope that my message gets across. The articles you write for us or the articles we read are a powerful weapon that can unite or divide us. We don't want any more division among us than there already is for wrong reasons. The world is already a place where people will not listen to the truth that comes from someone because they hate something about him or her in person. Articles we read influence our thinking about issues and people around us. Before I make my point, I want you to try to remember the last time you heard any one of the following words; 'Islamist terrorists, Christian terrorists, Buddhist terrorist, Hindu terrorist'. I want us to stop giving crimes/criminals religious identity in articles. It might seem like a trivial issue but the fact is that many hate crimes are been committed by people who are made to believe that crimes/criminals have a religious identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.72.182 ( talk) 20:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
For some years now the article Bal maiden was a single paragraph cut-and-pasted from a website, authorised under OTRS. I've just replaced the sub-stub with a full-length article, and none of the cut-and-paste material remains. Should I leave the OTRS notification in place on the talk page (in case the "copyvio" version in the article history is ever challenged, or if for some reason it's necessary to revert back to it), or should I remove it (to avoid the confusion of people seeing it and thinking that my rewritten version has been copied from a website)? While I'm sure it exists, I can't find guidance for this situation anywhere. Mogism ( talk) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two copies of the same image, but different licence version numbers:
Which licence is the correct one? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ritchie333 ( talk · contribs) accepted the AfC submission {{ OTRS_failed}} at the 3 August 2012. Do we need it? Does anybody know the need for it? mabdul 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Image has an OTRS tag but no license. Please have a look at the ticket and a possible license. Uploader removed nl tag claiming a proper permission had been sent. -- Denniss ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to transfer permission from File:Drewbeer.jpg to OTRS ticket? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Got an email from her office verifying her DOB, an long-standing issue on her article. Can I forward it and can the ticket be cited as the ref? Thanks. – Connormah ( talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Another dupe with different licences:
What's the correct licence? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Keith Law- Publicity 10.JPG Bulwersator ( talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
File:The TASC2 Building on the Simon Fraser University Campus.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 09:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
pure SPA uploaded picture, under free licence, the same as on website of band. Is it good enough to keep it or maybe file should be deleted? File:STQ-2005-350.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an OTRS ticket linked on Talk:Thanhouser Company, placed there on 9 December 2006. It is totally unclear what content of the article (which looked like this at the time) it supposedly relates to. Can this be clarified? Given the sparse content in the article and the absence of reference citations, it's difficult to see what content might have required OTRS permission. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
ConfirmationOTRS}}
(the release allowed textual content from the Web site as well). However, note that the release was under the terms of the GFDL; it's dual-licensed per
Wikipedia:Licensing update and not per the ticket. —
madman 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
ConfirmationOTRS}}
on the article's talk page would only refer to the text content. —
madman 00:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
part of them is somehow missing ticket number, I assume that it is possible to search in OTRS queue
Bulwersator ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Bulwersator ( talk) 13:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
File:NotarchusPunctatusSeaSlug.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 17:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
otrs}}
and Snek01 does not show up in the List of accounts on otrs wiki. It appears simply misunderstood the perpose ofthe template and added in good faith as it says "email needs to be send to OTRS for an evidence". (
diff)
MorganKevinJ
(talk) 15:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Bulwersator ( talk) 23:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I wondered if I could use File: Vampiro At Nitro.jpg as the infobox picture for the article Vampiro. -- Jayemd ( talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The image File:John Soares.jpg is tagged with an OTRS ticket number, apparently establishing that this photo has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. But the image description page also has a non-free use rationale. Is the OTRS ticket valid? If so, the rationale should be removed. — Bkell ( talk) 22:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
Information}}
template, and flagged for transfer to Commons. Thanks, —
madman 01:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)File:IABSM-IB01.jpg, from 1 April 2007, says that an e-mail was forwarded to permissions-en as evidence that this image has been released under the GFDL. Can anyone find the ticket number for this? — Bkell ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The following images have an OTRS tag with ticket number 2012071310004801:
The file File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg is missing an OTRS tag, even though it is pretty clear that it is part of the same group of photos. So, is the OTRS ticket valid for the eight photos on which the tag appears? If so, does the ticket also apply to File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg? — Bkell ( talk) 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The {{ PermissionOTRS}} tag was added by the uploader with the ticket number 2012052110009803. I'm not seeing any indication that the user is an OTRS volunteer, so I was wondering if this could be verified here. — ξ xplicit 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard/Archive_2#ticket:2012040410009347 for background.
In short, a large number of items were accepted, and the permission statement was not quite right. The copyright owner finally responded with a clear statement, it is attached to the ticket number in the heading.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This file has OTRS permission confirmed but no licence tag - which licence does 2011120510015361 give permission for? January ( talk) 16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone review Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 16#File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg where the uploader claims a ticket was submitted but for 2 months the image still only shows an OTRS Pending template? Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 18:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see what the problem was. (Sorry, I just had to review it again.) The sculptor's statement of permission wasn't an explicit release under a free license. The agent handling the ticket sent a reply to the sculptor asking under what free license he or she wished to release the work, and to date we have not received any reply (I have verified this by e-mail domain). — madman 02:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this how a message to the sculptor should be worded:
In July I wrote to you to get permission to use a photo I took of your statue of Otis Redding on Wikipedia, and you gave it (thank you). However, under US copyright law, my photo of your statue is a "derivative work", so I need your permission to release it to the public domain. Can I have your permission to release it under the Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC-BY-SA ? (This gives other people the right to use, share, and modify the picture of the statue.)
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
How about:
In July I wrote to you to get permission to use a photo I took of your statue of Otis Redding on Wikipedia, and you gave it (thank you). However, under US copyright law, my photo of your statue is a "derivative work", so I need your permission to release it under a free license. Can I have your permission to release it under the Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? (This gives other people the right to use, share, and modify the picture of the statue.)
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This and other files by the uploader have both {{ PermissionOTRS}} and {{ OTRS pending}} at the same time. What is the purpose of this? Does it mean that the files have permission from someone but that permission from someone else also is needed? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 09:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the file Gene_Paul_at_Atlantic_Records.jpg was deleted from the Gene Paul wikipedia article despite Gene Paul emailing proof of copyright to Wikipedia as instructed. Can you please advise on why this was deleted? The discussion page said "Gene Paul holds the copyright for this picture and is emailing verification to Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org on 8/28/12." Please let me know what needs to be done to assure Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that this is not a copyright violation. Thanks. Lovelounge ( talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I have several questions regarding clearing a CSD F11 condition on an image for a BLP, and I want to understand some things regarding licensing, so I can show some understanding of expectations to the BLP subject, and right now I'm very confused! Is this the place to get answers? I see there is also a WP:Media Copyright Questions board. (Which if either board do I use? Is this board supported by OTRS volunteers? I have several questions.) Thank you.
Trying to anticipate the how-do-I-best-do-this question, you might want to know what to do next. If they were telling me they were concerned about what is covered by the license, I might send them the link above first, and tell them that if they find that acceptable, you will forward to them the form needed. If they are simply asking how to provide permission, I would start one of the two steps below:
I can answer some, but not all. Let me start.
You said:
Q1. So I can understand, does this image (it's just a simple photo of the BLP subject) belong on WP? Or belong on Commons? Or belong on both? I'm confused about home destination for the photo. (There are even two separate Email addresses for permissions WP, and permissions Commons, adding to confusion.) If destined for one location but not the other, please explain why, so I can understand this. Thank u.
This one has a simple answer - you don't have to worry about it. Now for the more complicated answer, but if you don't like complicated, then refer back to the simple answer, it doesn't matter. Every language, such as English, has their own encyclopedia, and can host images to be used on that specific encyclopedia (To be more complete, I'm not literally sure whether this is true of every SINGLE language, but that doesn't matter). Many images are useful for more than one language. It is likely that there will be an article about the head of the UN in many languages. It wouldn't be very efficient to have a copy of the image in hundreds of places. Commons was created to be a common repository of images that can be used anywhere. So you might wonder, why do we need anything other than Commons? The answer, which doesn't apply to this image, is that some material, such as logos, is used under fair use laws which are not the same around the world. As a consequence, there are some images on Wikipedia that can be used on the English Wikipedia, but not on some other versions. We want to ensure that all images on Commons can be used by anyone anywhere, so if an image has some restrictions, we keep it only on the relevant language locations. If you upload an image to Wikipedia, and it is eligible to be on Commons (which it will be if it is licensed CC-BY-SA. it will eventually be moved by someone to Commons, but that happens behinds the scenes. It won't change the image in the article. There's a few more technical details but they aren't really important. Bottom line in the case of your image, it doesn't matter whether you upload it to Wikipedia or Commons (but don't do both). I slightly prefer the Commons upload process, but YMMV).
You said:
Q4. I would like to skip the form mentioned (I don't prefer the form) and just ask the copyright holder to provide four things, are these four adequate?: 1) attach the image, 2) name himself as the copyright holder, 3) specify he releases the image under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license, and 4) specify how likes attribution to be made.
In this specific case I think it is OK, but I can't guarantee that I will be the agent handling this. I'll bring up two downside to writing your own:
Another common situation is a licensee, knowing the noncommercial nature of Wikipedia, assuming that a license will also have a non-commercial clause. If they send us the standard form, where is says " I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product", well, they might miss it but the burden is on them. If they simply say "released under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license" we are probably on solid legal ground (but I am not permitted to issue legal advice), however, it will be quite sticky if they misunderstood, in view of the clause " I cannot withdraw this agreement". We'd prefer that people use the form, so they have at least had the words in front of them. In the case of this specific image, I don't think that will be a problem, but if it was, say, a screen shot of the new iphone, we might press for more specific assurances. So using a non-standard response might work, but it might not. I'm not the biggest fan of the current wording. I'd like to address the dual license issue (but I need to do some homework) and the "ported" issue (likewise). Are there any other aspects of it that troubled you?
I'll respond to the other questions, but I have to do some research for some, and I'm at work, so must handle that first. -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason given for rejection is consistent with the notice I recently received re CSD F11. (It is about getting from the copyright holder a specification on the license he agrees to release the image under.) In her mail she suggests the form can be used but is not necessary. (That is why I felt free to elect to skip it, and for reasons above.) That raises a question if the additional language in the form is consistent with the language in the legal code for CA-BY-SA 3.0, and, now I'm compelled to read both and compare, and not being an attorney, it is giving me a headache even thinking about doing same. It seems the additional language in the form, as you mentioned, is designed to assure: "You are agreeing to CA-BY-SA 3.0, but do you really know what that means?" Well, if the additional language in the form doesn't legally match the meaning in the code, then that is all messy and incorrect and misleading and confusing. So I assume the add'l language in the form is *guaranteed* to match the meaning in the code. [Can you assure that?!]) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)If we are provided with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed. Thank you for your understanding! Please see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> for more information. Yours sincerely, Sarah Stierch
( edit conflict) Okay, I'll take a stab at answering your questions.
A1. You can upload to either Wikipedia or Commons. If it's on Wikipedia you can use your local Watchlist to keep track of the file; if it's on Commons you'd have to log in over there to check on it/modify it/etc. On the other hand, Commons is preferred because then editor's from other language Wikipedias and WMF projects then have access to it. There are some differences between what copyright situations are accepted at each location, but nothing that concerns a photo of a person.
A2. Dual-licensing is required for your text contributions, but not for images. For images you can use any licenses you prefer so long as you include at least one free license. CC-BY-SA-3.0 is a free license, so you don't really have to worry more about this part, but should you be curious and/or masochisitic, we have guidelines for what constitutes a free license at Wikipedia:File copyright tags and a somewhat outdated (so possibly not entirely accurate) and more extensive list of acceptable licenses at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses.
A3. CC licenses are intended to be usable worldwide -- that's the unported version. There are some different versions which have been ported to different legal jurisdictions to match the text of the various local statutes and make interactions between the license and the law clearer, but the license operates the same way regardless.
A4. Yes, you can skip the form so long as those elements are clearly and explicitly stated. It would actually be easier on the volunteers to specify the location of the already-uploaded image rather than attaching a new one, so they/we don't have to go searching for it and compare the versions to make sure they're the same.
Now since copyright is held by the photographer and not the subject of a photo, I would recommend a statement regarding how he is the copyright holder, although this is not strictly or uniformly enforced by all of the volunteers handling email permissions so this could be omitted unless asked for.
A5. Either forwarded or directly emailed works, and technically either address would work since they can be moved back and forth between the email addresses as needed. As Sphilbrick mentioned above, the backlog for here on Wikipedia is shorter and the image is already located here, so that would likely be more quickly processed. The address is permissions-en@wikimedia.org. At this point I'd say skip the old ticket number, since that could get it automatically routed to the agent who processed the previous email who may or may not be active just now. Starting fresh will leave it in the queue for whoever is available to grab and process it.
Hopefully that clears some things up for you. If not, I'm open for providing further clarification. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an OTRS volunteer please take a look at the permissions for the files (album covers) used at Karl Ferris and confirm that they are appropriate? I was wondering who actually gave the permissions for those files. If the copyrights are owned by the Hendrix estate or his record companies, I am very surprised that appropriate permissions have been granted. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Can an OTRS volunteer check out the tickets for the File:Ghez9.jpg, File:Lucevela.jpg, File:PollardRG1963.2.jpg, and File:Silamarigonzales.jpg? All with confirmed permission, but no licensing. — ξ xplicit 22:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Have you received any permission statement for this file? The uploader claims that permission was sent to OTRS but it was still deleted. See User talk:Stefan2#Question about deletion. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The uploader of the image File:RaphaelXavier.jpg has notified me that they sent an email confirming the permission of this image. I know there has been a backlog for quite some time, but I was wondering if someone could look into this. Thanks. — ξ xplicit 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Wpcplogo.jpg is tagged as a non-free file, including a rationale. But there is also an OTRS tag on the file description page, claiming ticket 2011121910019394. Is this OTRS ticket valid? If so, has the image been released under a free license? If so, which? — Bkell ( talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Logomaunakeatech.jpg has a tag indicating that it has been released under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. The description says, "Mauna Kea grants license, as per email FWDed to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' June 27, 2011, 2:51pm EDT," but there is no OTRS ticket number given. Does this permission check out? — Bkell ( talk) 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Tijuana Projection 2001 e SMALL.JPG is tagged as a non-free file, including a rationale. But there is also an OTRS tag on the file description page, claiming ticket 2011120110020469. Is this OTRS ticket valid? If so, has the image been released under a free license? If so, which? — Bkell ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you please confirm whether you received an email from me including permission from Professor Dick Schoech for the reuse of material used within the HUSITA article (formerly Human Services Information Technology Applications)?
If the email was received, did it contain sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license? If not please let me know what additional information is required.
If the confirmation is acceptable can someone please replace the WP:OTRS template still attached to the HUSITA article?
Thanks.
NeilBallantyne ( talk) 07:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Done! If you do have suggestions on how the process can be improved, feel free to start a discussion at WT:CONSENT. Legoktm ( talk) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
While editing an article about Moni Aizik I uploaded this file: File:Moni Aizik training.jpg. It comes from here Commando Krav Maga site. Moni Aizik gave me the permission to use any of his photos for Wikipedia edits and he also sent your team a declaration of consent. Why has it been removed then? If the license was not proper, under which license should I tag it? Romayan ( talk) 05:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
MorganKevinJ, what needs to be specified? Just let me know, and you will receive an expected answer. Thank you! Romayan ( talk) 15:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 4#File:Rakaposhi 3.jpg. Some of the images are sourced to Dr. Volker Thewalt. One of them has OTRS permission referring to ticket:2012051710001462. Maybe the ticket also applies to the other images by Dr. Volker Thewalt? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the file " File:Gene Paul, Mary Ford & Les Paul in the mid-1960s.jpg" was deleted from the Gene Paul Wikipedia article despite Gene Paul emailing proof of copyright to Wikipedia as instructed. Can you please advise on why this was deleted? The discussion page said "Gene Paul holds the copyright for this picture and is emailing verification to Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org on 8/28/12." Please let me know what needs to be done to assure Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that this is not a copyright violation. Thanks. Lovelounge ( talk) 16:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The file File:Deaf School at The Garage, London - January 2011.jpg was deleted on December 11 for lacking evidence of permission. However, the uploader claims that they sent an email to verify permission on December 9 at 13:32 GMT. Can someone look into this? — ξ xplicit 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Similar to the case directly above, the uploader claims that the email containing the permission for File:Eugene A Tan.jpg was sent prior to the file's deletion. They used the email address duchess@duchesspr.com. — ξ xplicit 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, could anybody please tell me what permisisons have been logged in ticket 2012092510011581 and if its okey for me to use it on my userpage? Hybirdd ( talk) 17:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
In response to this issue regarding a part of the text in the article Olm, I asked the copyright holder to provide an OTRS grant, which he did yesterday (I was CC-ed the e-mail). I'm not sure now where to put the {{ OTRS-pending}} template now. Can someone help? Thanks, — Yerpo Eh? 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim here that "Daffodil International Professional Training Institute(DIPTI) web team email to at "permissions@wikimedia.org" that there is no problem with copyright. Please check the mail as soon as possible. --Wikiwebsbd (talk) 1:08 pm, 22 November 2012, Thursday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC+0)
I don't speak a word of Russian, while the folks at the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia (who hold the copyright on an image which I wish to include as an illustration for a Wikipedia article) don't seem to speak that much English.
We've been using Google Translate to communicate by email - with some success, I might add - but I'm afraid it looks at this point like they're going to be mailing a hard copy of their declaration of consent (or something like it) to my home in Texas.
Eek!
Is there any way I can provide them with a link to an online version of "Declaration of Consent" which is translated into Russian, to hopefully prevent their going to all that trouble in the first place? I think my biggest concern at this point is about wasting their time - they've already been extremely helpful; and I don't want to wind up sending them on a wild goose chase only to wind up with a hard copy of a declaration of consent in my hands which might (or might not!) be specifically what Wikipedia requires for image licensing.
Any feedback - comments, critiques, whatever - would be more than welcome since I've never done anything quite like this before.
Thanks! ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།། xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ { say it} { contribs} 01:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Vandalizing Mount Sinai School District again, User:FreplySpang says at top of talk that school admin had requested a block filed in OTRS. ⁓ Hello 71 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a OTRS ticket number on this, but based on the use rationalle, I have reason to suspect that the editor claiming the licence is not being honest. In addition Tineye reveals that this image was used on a seperate artist's page. Thank you Hasteur ( talk) 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This file has OTRS permission, but a user thought that the user might be unfree and started a discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 21#File:A.R.S. Lions logo.jpg. Is there something wrong with the OTRS ticket? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Willows in Sunlight by WIlliam Newport Goodell.jpg was tagged with {{ OTRS received}} quite a few months ago, but there doesn't seem to be any development beyond that. It's also a non-free file, making the case a little odd. Can someone look into this? — ξ xplicit 01:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! The Template:OTRS received does not have any field like reason=processing as seen in the corresponding template of Commons. Could someone please create such template? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
|reason =
parameter that will replace the text This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published.
. Basic, but it'll do the job. —
Theopolisme (
talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Please confirm whether the OTRS ticket information is correct at File:Agron at GLAAD.jpg. An apparently identical image appears at Zimbio attributed to "Araya Diaz/Getty Images North America". Thanks. – Wdchk ( talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader used the same tag for File:Celebrities Anonymous Poster.jpg. It was subsequently removed by User:Legoktm as invalid. – Wdchk ( talk) 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
This issue came up during a FA-nomination [ [5]], the image is used as infobox image. The image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia and later moved to Commons, unfortunately the original uploader User:Sdsouza seems to be inactive since 2007/2008. The image summary states, that a permission message was sent to permissions@wikimedia.org, but information about the exact ticket number is missing. According to the summary the permission was only granted for "representation in Wikipedia articles" (which would be an invalid limitation for a Wikipedia-license imo).
Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Our instructions for copyright holders of text on the English Wikipedia marked as a copyright violation ( WP:IOWN) advise people to send permissions emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is that the most appropriate address? It seems to be the one for Commons images. Hut 8.5 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently trying to port an article from the Italian WP over to this one. Several images in that article are apparently not able of being used here due to copyright issues. The images are:
The original uploader has informed me that there is an OTRS ticket concerning those images that should be valid here too. He also directed me to EDP policy which apparently is what permits it.wp to host those files. I opened a ticket at the help desk and was informed this was the place to ask so here I am. Any help will be much appreciated. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Would a volunteer please confirm the validity of the license for File:Omey Island Map.jpg? Confirm that Bango Art=Sean Corcoran.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 03:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader added {{ PermissionOTRS}}, but the uploader doesn't have any OTRS flag on Commons and isn't listed at m:OTRS/Personnel, so the uploader doesn't seem to be an OTRS member. It says that the image has been cropped from File:Pride of Performance Award by President of Pakistan.jpg, but this is obviously not the case. Does the OTRS ticket provide any information about the image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Requesting information on ticket 2013020510008188. File was listed as having been sent to the uploader individually, however very similar image appears at [6] with minimal photo manipulation to get from image on champmag to uploaded image. I have reason to suspect that this is not an officially licenced image and therefore am requesting details of the permission grant to determine if the grant is appropriate. Hasteur ( talk) 20:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
At 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and Nik Stauskas, I would like to include a picture of a derivative of the Flag of Canada that can be seen in this tweet. I am in communication with the owner of the flag owner by email. I have been informed that a friend of his designed the flag, a third party company constructed the flag, and he is a part owner of the flag along with its designer. What permissions would be needed for a picture (taken by him) of this flag to appear in WP or is there a fair use option?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
In 2006-7, User:Anlace published multiple photographs attributed to "C. Michael Hogan", including File:Annadelviewofsonomamtn.jpg. I was considering transwiki-ing that image to Commons, but I want to double-check that Anlace was entitled to release it. Some of the images had permission filed under OTRS: e.g., File:Roundbarnsocounty.jpg under this ticket, or File:Sedimentpondsfoundtaingrovelake.jpg under this ticket.
Does User:Anlace have global permission to publish photographs from "C. Michael Hogan"? If so, which OTRS ticket can I refer to? — hike395 ( talk) 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This ticket 2007032610020751 covers:
This ticket 2007030610001835 covers:
Another ticket 2007040310004425 covers:
This ticket 2007032110001968 covers:
(This one is slightly confusing because it refer to three images, yet there are four listed. However, one is covered by another ticket)
This ticket 2007022310025941 covers:
I do not see any general permission.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Has OTRS permission, but there are four different versions in the history, and some were uploaded after the OTRS permission tag was added. Does the OTRS permission apply to all of them or only some of them? From the file information page, it is not clear whether all photos were taken by the same photographer or not, so different photos might need OTRS permission from different people. One of the four photos is currently up for deletion as replaceable fair use at File:Trevor Sheldon portrait photo.jpg. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Njarecki-pic.tiff has an OTRS tag referencing ticket 2012092910006428. But the file description page does not have a licensing tag indicating what kind of permission has been granted. What license is specified by the OTRS ticket? — Bkell ( talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe User:Rafaelcarmen sent a mail giving permission to use "the article The Organization Workshop (OW™) - Seriti Institute on the www.seriti.org.za website" under a CC license. The relevant Wikipedia content is the now-deleted-and-recreated draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop and the duplicate draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW). For more details see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop. Huon ( talk) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Do I need to submit an OTRS thinger for my self published Image File:Dazzler mounted on M-240B in Iraq.jpg? I was just wondering because I may not always be here due to RL if someone asks me about it on my talk page. Thanks, — - dain omite 22:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Dr PC Bagchi at work.jpg has an OTRS tag, ticket #2012082110008451. Two very similar images, File:P.C.Bagchi in Indo-China 1922.jpg and File:Satyendra Nath Bose and P.C.Bagchi in Paris 1924.jpg, are currently listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 7 with the concern being that, while these images claim to be from a photoalbum, they look like halftoning (the nominator says they look like they're "from a book," but that's what she means). Could someone check that ticket and see if it sheds any light on the provenance of these photos? Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
These articles have {{ PermissionOTRS}} errors because no id or ticket is specified. Please confirm and enter the correct id or ticket template parameter, or remove the template, or revert to previous {{ confirmation}} template use. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone with OTRS access go through Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days and tag for deletion where appropriate? — Train2104 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
See WP:FNN#Contacting user to confirm permission: a few images got {{ PermissionOTRS}} without ticket numbers in 2008. Would it be possible to dig up those ticket numbers? Also, does the permission apply to the other images in the discussion too?
Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID currently contains 10 files, so there are also other files to fix. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Has permission been received for File:AMT ALP-45DP.jpg, or is it just a con job? See User talk:Mtlfiredude for previous copyright infringements. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 19:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I am posting to request the reinstatement of the above Wikipedia entry. See conversation below:
You just deleted the entry "Relative market share," although valid copyright permission has been sent to Wikipedia.
See Market penetration for an example:
OTRS icon The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Farris, Paul W.; Neil T. Bendle; Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein
(2010). Marketing Metrics: The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 0137058292.. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2012021110008071. Permission applies only to such content from this book as was present in the article at 18:41, 2 January 2012. See item #55 in the OTRS records This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
karenmscheller 00:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey ( talk • contribs)
Thank you! karenmscheller 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey ( talk • contribs)
OTRS tag doesn't seem to have been added by an OTRS member. Is the permission valid? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The file description indicates that a number of messages have been sent to OTRS about the purchase of this image but there doesn't seem to be any agreement about a free license. Have you actually received anything useful on that score? Please see also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 16. De728631 ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the following Query I note a number of image which claim to have an OTRS permission, Surely the sources could be added in from the OTRS submission? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been trying to upload a map from a third party source and have been directed to send post my documentation here. This was from the talk page on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions:
I would like to upload a map from the Episcopal Church of the Sudans website, showing their diocesan boundaries.
http://sudan.anglican.org/images/sudanmaplarge.jpg
They also have a separate map for the dioceses in South Sudan, though its in PDF format
http://sudan.anglican.org/files/sudanmap.pdf
Can either of these be added to the Episcopal Church of the Sudan wiki pages under fair use?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I just got an e-mail from the church giving me permission to add the map to the page. I should certainly be able to now, right?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
And here is the e-mail I received:
Jonathan,
> Dear Episcopal Church of Sudan > > I would like to upload this map onto the Episcopal Church of Sudan > wikipedia page. > > http://sudan.anglican.org/images/sudanmaplarge.jpg > > However, I am unsure if that would be permitted right now, under > wikipedias rules governing such content > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCCP#Policy > > I would certainly be permitted though, if you would be kind enough to > give us permission to upload the file to the page to illustrate the > locations of the dioceses.
You are welcome to use this map. Be aware that it is not the best possible representation of the Sudanese dioceses - it is a task that I keep setting myself and which gets superseded by other tasks! The drawn boundaries represent the best information that I could access in 2009. I do have better data now - and the relatively newly published Gizi map provides a better base image on which to construct a new map - but I am afraid that the ink is still in the pen.
With prayers and blessings
Chris Wright Webkeeper for the Anglican Province of Sudan Based in Bradford, England
So, per Wiki policies, am I allowed to upload the map?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 19:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This image needs the author or copyright holder's name, and maybe more information about the sourcing. — innotata 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Could someone check this? Does the OTRS ticket really contain permission from Apple Computer (for the background image) or Nintendō (for Super Mario Brothers 2)? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on created dated OTRS categories for {{ OTRS pending}} and {{ OTRS received}} like Commons has? I gave a cursory glance at some of the images with these templates and there are plenty of very old ones where enough time has elapsed that we're not going to get anything. I think it would be potentially a worthwhile endeavor, in some cases, to follow up rather than just engaging in mass deletion, but that followup would be far more efficient if we had dated categories. We could get a bot to retroactively populate the categories based on the last edit date for current images and auto-date the templates on a day-forward basis. -- B ( talk) 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Does the ticket confirm the permission for this file? And if it does, is there any information regarding the author, date, etc? ALH ( talk) 08:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for receiving the emails you got from "tommee3d@yahoo.com" for the photos on the page of Funk Trek. You did say though that the permission was not sufficient because the photos were not proven to be under free use. Now, the question I have is, that if I reuploaded the pictures and went through the proper procedure to make them free use (since they are already approved of by the author), would a new email have to be sent to you? I do not know what your reasons were for flagging it, but I want to do everything to reverse that without the pictures being taken down; this is the farthest I've gotten before. So what I'm asking is for your guidance in reuploading since I'm sort of new to this.
If the problem was the inconsistency with emails, I can assure you that the email you find for Tom Murnan on Facebook will not match because he lists his email on there @facebook.com, which does not have an inbox like others. I know for certain he logs in with tommee3d@yahoo.com and if you want me to provide further proof, I'll go search for it.
Just let me know what's proper uploading for free use in this situation and if I have to do more email work.
Thanks,
Nirvanafanatic619 ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The USHMM website is copyrighted, [7] with clearly visible tag at the bottom of each and every content page stating in capital letters: Copyright © United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC. Would you please confirm that the OTRS ticket has been filed, and most importantly, explain how much material it could cover under our own guidelines? The same OTRS ticket no. 2007071910012533 is mentioned as rationale in an exceptionally long series of articles, including: Père Jacques, Nazi book burnings, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Auschwitz concentration camp, Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany, Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, Jewish community of Amsterdam, Category:Hungarian military personnel of World War II, Gardelegen (war crime), Chełmno extermination camp, 11th Armoured Division (United Kingdom), Bergen-Belsen displaced persons camp, Trawniki, Tarnów, Mühldorf subcamp, Aktion Erntefest, History of the Jews in Kalisz, Hadamar Euthanasia Centre, Mechelen transit camp, List of subcamps of Natzweiler-Struthof, Kaunas, Kovno Ghetto, Kaufering, Halle concentration camp, Hainichen concentration camp, Hainewalde concentration camp, HeHalutz, Jung Borochovistim, Parczew partisans, and a lot more. See: Special:Contributions/USHMMwestheim. — What troubles me most is that all text, copy-pasted en masse can at times be also inaccurate... and often is, especially when the subject gets controversial, but the aura surrounding the grand OTRS ticket is such that the material added (with so little effort) is somehow indisputable, or better than ours. I run into this while working on a couple of different articles from the above list. Facts are not always accurate. Many paragraphs have no inline citations at all giving the impression of original research. Some paragraphs take days to fix. How much can I change and/or remove if necessary without having to deface the article I work on with an avalanche of nasty templates and flags. This sort of thing leaves me in a total quandary. Thanks in advance for your help, Poeticbent talk 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_May_14#All_uploads_from_Imparo Admin with OTRS may wish to go through and delete after checking.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Following my upload of the Janie Schaffer portrait photo, a permission warning box was added. I contacted the copyright owner of the image, Jane Hilton, who emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org to grant permission for the free use of the photograph of Janie Schaffer. Despite this the permission warning box remains and I'm unsure as to why this could be? Thanks for your help Vivj2012 ( talk) 10:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
what does the owner have to to prevent deletion? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The photograph of James Ramsbotham , 2nd Viscount Soulbury,was uploaded with prior permission of the Ramsbotham family. The image displayed is an exact replica of the original held by the Ramsbotham family . User talk : The Honourable Herwald Ramsbotham (heir apparant to the Title Viscount Soulbury). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.26.55 ( talk) 04:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
When creating St. Clair Square, I noticed that a previous version was deleted in 2008 via OTRS ticket 2008050710001159. Can someone give me any more details as to why the previous version of the article was deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Requesting information regarding File:GordonDougan.png as the file was uploaded a while ago and OTRS was claimed for sending permission. File was originally emailed to the user so there may be questions regarding the user's ability to go be available for Commons. Image was discovered when working the AfC backlog. Hasteur ( talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Has a permission ever been forwarded for this file as claimed in the information template? This was uploaded in 2011 but has recently been tagged for missing evidence. De728631 ( talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This is tagged as lacking evidence of permission. However, it also says "Ticket: 2013063010004172". This number looks like an OTRS ticket number. Does it contain any permission for the image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the OTRS cover both the photo and the artwork? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The OTRS permission was added by the uploader, is it valid? January ( talk) 11:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Perhaps this Q is pretty dumb (sorry if so): If I own a book, can I scan its cover and put the scanned image on COMMONS as free-use? (I suppose that's a "definite no" or "definite maybe", but I thought I'd ask.) Thank u! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 18:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. The following images ( File:ErnaLowSki.jpg, File:ErnaLowBrochure.jpg, File:ErnaLowSki2.jpg, and File:MarkFraryAimingHigh.jpg) were all tagged as no permission a while back. The uploader then tagged them all as "OTRS pending." They've all stayed pending for well over a month now. Have any emails actually been received in regards to these images? ALH ( talk) 00:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
E-mails sent to "permissions|" today have been returned. I'm aware there have been issues with lost attachments. I'm getting e-mails from the address ok. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Garrettwasnothere has uploaded several images. He claimed that he has sent the permissions to the OTRS, but since he has previously uploaded unfree images, I seriously doubted that claim. Can someone check them? Thanks.— Chris! c/ t 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
341SPI7 has apparently sent an email regarding several of his uploads that show the so-called Heli-FX system. Does the permission explicitely include File:EndoAnchor.jpg? I'm asking because the user either forgot to tag the file with "OTRS pending" or could not confirm the license for it. I've now marked the file as OTRS pending for the time being but will delete it if there's no proof. De728631 ( talk) 22:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
What about File:Heli-FX System Updated.jpg? This is a new one and has probably not been included in the first batch of permissions. De728631 ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Editor52 ( talk · contribs) uploaded File:Nicholas Johnson.jpg for use in the Nicholas Johnson article, but it was deleted as a copyvio because the source page had no permission statement. Editor52, who is Johnson himself, has since edited the source page by adding an explicit cc-by-sa release, so I've undeleted the image. However, this is a Blogspot site: it can be changed in moments by Johnson should he change his mind, and we'll lose evidence of permission. Since we don't have anything comparable to Commons' Flickrreview process, would OTRS be able to get involved here? I'm thinking of an email (either from me or from someone else) saying "As of [date], this image was marked as being freely licensed at the source page". I would hope that an OTRS template for such a statement would prevent {{ db-npd}} tagging and other copyright problems. Nyttend ( talk) 00:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Can some one verify the OTRS ticket on this newly uploaded file please. LGA talk edits 09:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the uploader, the copyright holder, one Mr Crawfurd Hill, has now sent a permissions email for this one. Can you confirm this claim? De728631 ( talk) 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
An OTRS permission tag was added by Superboy44 ( talk · contribs) but according to Commons:Special:ListUsers/Superboy44, this user isn't an OTRS member. Is the tag valid? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This ticket about "copyright concerns" has been referenced at Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Can you tell me if it was about the images shown in the article or about copyrighted text passages? And what was the result? Please respond at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Thank you. De728631 ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The permission for use of File:Chinmoy Guha.jpg, File:Chinmoy Guha with Derrida.jpg, File:Chinmoy Guha with Le Clézio, the 2008 Nobel laureate in literature.jpg and File:Chinmoy Guha with Romain Rolland's biographer Bernard Duchatelet.jpg has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system and it is available as ticket 2013090910016515 for users with an OTRS account. Can the permission be confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvapar82 ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any information about this file? The uploader claims that permission was sent to OTRS but that the file was deleted anyway. See User talk:Stefan2#Help again with photo. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A user as uploaded multiple images to this article, they where tagged as non-free, but now have an OTRS pending ticket, can someone review the ticket? Werieth ( talk) 10:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
According to tickets: #2011101710007029, #2011091510017435 and #2011102010007675, respectively from File:UN corp dovelogo.jpeg, File:Dove logo.jpg and File:Logo Knorr.jpeg, Unilever Russia released them under a CC license. I like to know if the permission covers only these images or if it can be exanded to our fair-use images File:Dove dove.svg and File:Knorr.svg to stop labelling them as fair-use, or this should be taken to WP:NFR? Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ticket 2010112310034194 was received for the GFDL/CC-BY-SA book cover File:Whiteness.jpg. I note that this book cover includes a film still in which copyright separate from the book design may persist. Could a volunteer please confirm whether the OTRS ticket includes evidence of permission from the film studio as well as the book publisher, or provides evidence that the film still is now in the public domain? — Psychonaut ( talk) 09:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is some issues with two (or more likely just one) editors over the following files
and also this interesting comment insertion at Marc Y. Chenevert .
Can someone check to see if the relevant information has been supplied ? LGA talk edits 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you check whether {{ move to Commons}} is correct here? I suspect that it should be {{ FoP-USonly}} instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Ticket 2010112110021988 was received for the CC-BY-SA book cover File:Film Talk Cover.gif. I note that this book cover is provided at very high resolution and includes several film stills in which copyright separate from the book design may persist. Could a volunteer please confirm whether the OTRS ticket includes evidence of permission from the film studios as well as the book publisher, or provides evidence that the film stills are now in the public domain? Psychonaut ( talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013
It would seem we got 3 files at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 26 held up from being closed due to OTRS issues. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate if someone could check for an OTRS ticket for this image obtained from this photo at http://www.pooppeepuke.com/. It has been marked as pending since February. Thanks. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone check the ORTS que for anything on these images please (or for that matter on anything else uploaded by Politicsofculture). LGA talk edits 09:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi was wondering if the permissions e-mail sent about a week ago for File:Mediator Mike Gaston.jpg has been looked at or if there are still issues with dealing with this as I have herd nothing about this.
Rachend ( talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok, thank you very much I didn't realize there was such a backlog.
Rachend (
talk) 11:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The OTRS-pending template on File:Emad Rahim.jpg is over 3 months old. Please update or remove the template and if appropriate, nominate for deletion. Yes, I realize there are over 300 files which have been waiting over 60 days, and yes, if there are files that have been waiting longer than this one they should probably be dealt with first, but 90 days is kind of stale.
Note: This image was mentioned on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/News and notes earlier this week: "A different Wiki-PR employee added a picture [of Emad Rahim] on 12 July, which is not included on the current article but has nevertheless not been deleted." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across comments on Commons:User talk:Jcb about images someone claiming to be Frank Sanello uploaded. They say they submitted an OTRS, and asked why the images were deleted anyhow. The reply from the administrator in question implies they deleted the images not due to a failure to establish that the uploader was also the photographer -- but rather because, at some point in the process the uploader used foul language.
Of course it is unpleasant for OTRS volunteers to have those they are trying to help use foul language. But has it generally been the process here that those who have used foul language get their requests denied?
Surely, many of those writing to OTRS are already extremely frustrated, have had trouble navigating the WMF rules to even find the OTRS address; may have had WMF volunteers address abusive comments to them.
Isn't there a process for asking a second OTRS volunteer to take over the correspondence on a ticket when the first OTRS volunteer feels their attempts at civil communication have broken down?
I am going to request other OTRS volunteers (1) review this ticket; (2) if the main reason the outside correspondent's images weren't restored was the first volunteer's emotional reaction to foul language, could some other OTRS volunteer contact the outside correspondent, and tell them they had taken over responsibility for the ticket? Geo Swan ( talk) 14:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The following pages have all been indefinitely semi-protected since 2007, citing an OTRS ticket as the reason for the protection:
Can someone look over these and see if the protection reasons are still relevant/necessary, and if not, unprotect the pages? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This is unfree, but tagged with {{ OTRS pending}}. Other images in the same article by the same uploader cite ticket:2013012410009223. Does the ticket apply to this image too? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Unilever_brands that could use clarification from an OTRS member about potentially derivative files of the images listed in: ticket:2011101710007029, ticket:2011091510017435 and ticket:2011102010007675. Please and thank you for your assistance. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Claimed to have permission but doesn't have any {{ PermissionOTRS}} tag. Could someone check this file? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the Commons:OTRS/backlog is only 7 days, if permission had been sent I assume that it should have been processed, can someone confirm in case it may have been missed and if not please delete. LGA talk edits 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to confirm the permission to the use of this file: ticket 2013092010000573. File:Harry_Giese_1913-2000_Darwin_Australia_in_the_1970s.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCGiese ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello am writing to follow up on a copyright permission which was given some time ago by myself for [ [8]]. It has been listed as a possibly unfree file by Stefan2 Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_21#OTRS_pending_since_September.
As the author/creator of the work I gave permission for use of the work back in June and sent an email inaccordance with wiki process. However it seems it wasn't processed?
Can you please advise on my next step to clear this situation up. MrMoog ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The uploader has notified me that permission of this image was sent on July 9, but they never received a response. Can this be looked in to? — ξ xplicit 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I need to verify ticket before moving this file to commons - is everything OK? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have obtained permission for using some photos under CC-BY-SA 3.0 NZ, and have forwarded the permission email to you. This is the first time I've got permission from someone else to use photos their on Wikimedia projects. How do I get the ticket information to add to the photos when I upload them? Or do I upload the photos, and give the OTRS volunteers the file names so you can add the tickets to the files yourselves? Or will you upload the files yourselves? Or is there some other process? Sorry if this is covered in the documentation somewhere — I couldn't find it. TimofKingsland ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
OTRS pending}}
to the file. Only OTRS respondents can add the ticket number to the file and verify the permission. You can also request that we upload the files for you. Your choice. Just note that we have a very large backlog and it could take many weeks to respond to your email. Best,
Tiptoety
talk 03:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
OTRS pending}}
template in the licensing section. As I've sent the email before I uploaded the files, should I send another email with the file links, or will posting them here do? They're at
File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, laughing.jpg,
File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, smiling.JPG and
File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, writing.jpg.
TimofKingsland (
talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Trauma.org is cc-nc-sa, but one of its images was recently uploaded, and the uploader left the following note at the talk page:
It was my understanding that despite the CC-NC-SA copyright status of Trauma.org it was still allowed to be used. I believe there is an OTRS ticket that can verify this (ticket #2008050410003261, used on another trauma.org image) but I am unsure as I do not have access. Peter.C • talk • contribs 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you check this ticket and resolve the issue? Nyttend ( talk) 18:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear respected readers and respected editors of great Wikipedia articles, I want to make a request today. I am a nobody but I hope that my message gets across. The articles you write for us or the articles we read are a powerful weapon that can unite or divide us. We don't want any more division among us than there already is for wrong reasons. The world is already a place where people will not listen to the truth that comes from someone because they hate something about him or her in person. Articles we read influence our thinking about issues and people around us. Before I make my point, I want you to try to remember the last time you heard any one of the following words; 'Islamist terrorists, Christian terrorists, Buddhist terrorist, Hindu terrorist'. I want us to stop giving crimes/criminals religious identity in articles. It might seem like a trivial issue but the fact is that many hate crimes are been committed by people who are made to believe that crimes/criminals have a religious identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.72.182 ( talk) 20:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
For some years now the article Bal maiden was a single paragraph cut-and-pasted from a website, authorised under OTRS. I've just replaced the sub-stub with a full-length article, and none of the cut-and-paste material remains. Should I leave the OTRS notification in place on the talk page (in case the "copyvio" version in the article history is ever challenged, or if for some reason it's necessary to revert back to it), or should I remove it (to avoid the confusion of people seeing it and thinking that my rewritten version has been copied from a website)? While I'm sure it exists, I can't find guidance for this situation anywhere. Mogism ( talk) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two copies of the same image, but different licence version numbers:
Which licence is the correct one? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ritchie333 ( talk · contribs) accepted the AfC submission {{ OTRS_failed}} at the 3 August 2012. Do we need it? Does anybody know the need for it? mabdul 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Image has an OTRS tag but no license. Please have a look at the ticket and a possible license. Uploader removed nl tag claiming a proper permission had been sent. -- Denniss ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to transfer permission from File:Drewbeer.jpg to OTRS ticket? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Got an email from her office verifying her DOB, an long-standing issue on her article. Can I forward it and can the ticket be cited as the ref? Thanks. – Connormah ( talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Another dupe with different licences:
What's the correct licence? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Keith Law- Publicity 10.JPG Bulwersator ( talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
File:The TASC2 Building on the Simon Fraser University Campus.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 09:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
pure SPA uploaded picture, under free licence, the same as on website of band. Is it good enough to keep it or maybe file should be deleted? File:STQ-2005-350.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an OTRS ticket linked on Talk:Thanhouser Company, placed there on 9 December 2006. It is totally unclear what content of the article (which looked like this at the time) it supposedly relates to. Can this be clarified? Given the sparse content in the article and the absence of reference citations, it's difficult to see what content might have required OTRS permission. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
ConfirmationOTRS}}
(the release allowed textual content from the Web site as well). However, note that the release was under the terms of the GFDL; it's dual-licensed per
Wikipedia:Licensing update and not per the ticket. —
madman 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
ConfirmationOTRS}}
on the article's talk page would only refer to the text content. —
madman 00:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
part of them is somehow missing ticket number, I assume that it is possible to search in OTRS queue
Bulwersator ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Bulwersator ( talk) 13:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
File:NotarchusPunctatusSeaSlug.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 17:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
otrs}}
and Snek01 does not show up in the List of accounts on otrs wiki. It appears simply misunderstood the perpose ofthe template and added in good faith as it says "email needs to be send to OTRS for an evidence". (
diff)
MorganKevinJ
(talk) 15:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Bulwersator ( talk) 23:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I wondered if I could use File: Vampiro At Nitro.jpg as the infobox picture for the article Vampiro. -- Jayemd ( talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The image File:John Soares.jpg is tagged with an OTRS ticket number, apparently establishing that this photo has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. But the image description page also has a non-free use rationale. Is the OTRS ticket valid? If so, the rationale should be removed. — Bkell ( talk) 22:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
Information}}
template, and flagged for transfer to Commons. Thanks, —
madman 01:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)File:IABSM-IB01.jpg, from 1 April 2007, says that an e-mail was forwarded to permissions-en as evidence that this image has been released under the GFDL. Can anyone find the ticket number for this? — Bkell ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The following images have an OTRS tag with ticket number 2012071310004801:
The file File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg is missing an OTRS tag, even though it is pretty clear that it is part of the same group of photos. So, is the OTRS ticket valid for the eight photos on which the tag appears? If so, does the ticket also apply to File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg? — Bkell ( talk) 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The {{ PermissionOTRS}} tag was added by the uploader with the ticket number 2012052110009803. I'm not seeing any indication that the user is an OTRS volunteer, so I was wondering if this could be verified here. — ξ xplicit 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard/Archive_2#ticket:2012040410009347 for background.
In short, a large number of items were accepted, and the permission statement was not quite right. The copyright owner finally responded with a clear statement, it is attached to the ticket number in the heading.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This file has OTRS permission confirmed but no licence tag - which licence does 2011120510015361 give permission for? January ( talk) 16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone review Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 16#File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg where the uploader claims a ticket was submitted but for 2 months the image still only shows an OTRS Pending template? Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 18:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see what the problem was. (Sorry, I just had to review it again.) The sculptor's statement of permission wasn't an explicit release under a free license. The agent handling the ticket sent a reply to the sculptor asking under what free license he or she wished to release the work, and to date we have not received any reply (I have verified this by e-mail domain). — madman 02:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this how a message to the sculptor should be worded:
In July I wrote to you to get permission to use a photo I took of your statue of Otis Redding on Wikipedia, and you gave it (thank you). However, under US copyright law, my photo of your statue is a "derivative work", so I need your permission to release it to the public domain. Can I have your permission to release it under the Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC-BY-SA ? (This gives other people the right to use, share, and modify the picture of the statue.)
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
How about:
In July I wrote to you to get permission to use a photo I took of your statue of Otis Redding on Wikipedia, and you gave it (thank you). However, under US copyright law, my photo of your statue is a "derivative work", so I need your permission to release it under a free license. Can I have your permission to release it under the Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? (This gives other people the right to use, share, and modify the picture of the statue.)
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This and other files by the uploader have both {{ PermissionOTRS}} and {{ OTRS pending}} at the same time. What is the purpose of this? Does it mean that the files have permission from someone but that permission from someone else also is needed? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 09:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the file Gene_Paul_at_Atlantic_Records.jpg was deleted from the Gene Paul wikipedia article despite Gene Paul emailing proof of copyright to Wikipedia as instructed. Can you please advise on why this was deleted? The discussion page said "Gene Paul holds the copyright for this picture and is emailing verification to Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org on 8/28/12." Please let me know what needs to be done to assure Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that this is not a copyright violation. Thanks. Lovelounge ( talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I have several questions regarding clearing a CSD F11 condition on an image for a BLP, and I want to understand some things regarding licensing, so I can show some understanding of expectations to the BLP subject, and right now I'm very confused! Is this the place to get answers? I see there is also a WP:Media Copyright Questions board. (Which if either board do I use? Is this board supported by OTRS volunteers? I have several questions.) Thank you.
Trying to anticipate the how-do-I-best-do-this question, you might want to know what to do next. If they were telling me they were concerned about what is covered by the license, I might send them the link above first, and tell them that if they find that acceptable, you will forward to them the form needed. If they are simply asking how to provide permission, I would start one of the two steps below:
I can answer some, but not all. Let me start.
You said:
Q1. So I can understand, does this image (it's just a simple photo of the BLP subject) belong on WP? Or belong on Commons? Or belong on both? I'm confused about home destination for the photo. (There are even two separate Email addresses for permissions WP, and permissions Commons, adding to confusion.) If destined for one location but not the other, please explain why, so I can understand this. Thank u.
This one has a simple answer - you don't have to worry about it. Now for the more complicated answer, but if you don't like complicated, then refer back to the simple answer, it doesn't matter. Every language, such as English, has their own encyclopedia, and can host images to be used on that specific encyclopedia (To be more complete, I'm not literally sure whether this is true of every SINGLE language, but that doesn't matter). Many images are useful for more than one language. It is likely that there will be an article about the head of the UN in many languages. It wouldn't be very efficient to have a copy of the image in hundreds of places. Commons was created to be a common repository of images that can be used anywhere. So you might wonder, why do we need anything other than Commons? The answer, which doesn't apply to this image, is that some material, such as logos, is used under fair use laws which are not the same around the world. As a consequence, there are some images on Wikipedia that can be used on the English Wikipedia, but not on some other versions. We want to ensure that all images on Commons can be used by anyone anywhere, so if an image has some restrictions, we keep it only on the relevant language locations. If you upload an image to Wikipedia, and it is eligible to be on Commons (which it will be if it is licensed CC-BY-SA. it will eventually be moved by someone to Commons, but that happens behinds the scenes. It won't change the image in the article. There's a few more technical details but they aren't really important. Bottom line in the case of your image, it doesn't matter whether you upload it to Wikipedia or Commons (but don't do both). I slightly prefer the Commons upload process, but YMMV).
You said:
Q4. I would like to skip the form mentioned (I don't prefer the form) and just ask the copyright holder to provide four things, are these four adequate?: 1) attach the image, 2) name himself as the copyright holder, 3) specify he releases the image under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license, and 4) specify how likes attribution to be made.
In this specific case I think it is OK, but I can't guarantee that I will be the agent handling this. I'll bring up two downside to writing your own:
Another common situation is a licensee, knowing the noncommercial nature of Wikipedia, assuming that a license will also have a non-commercial clause. If they send us the standard form, where is says " I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product", well, they might miss it but the burden is on them. If they simply say "released under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license" we are probably on solid legal ground (but I am not permitted to issue legal advice), however, it will be quite sticky if they misunderstood, in view of the clause " I cannot withdraw this agreement". We'd prefer that people use the form, so they have at least had the words in front of them. In the case of this specific image, I don't think that will be a problem, but if it was, say, a screen shot of the new iphone, we might press for more specific assurances. So using a non-standard response might work, but it might not. I'm not the biggest fan of the current wording. I'd like to address the dual license issue (but I need to do some homework) and the "ported" issue (likewise). Are there any other aspects of it that troubled you?
I'll respond to the other questions, but I have to do some research for some, and I'm at work, so must handle that first. -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason given for rejection is consistent with the notice I recently received re CSD F11. (It is about getting from the copyright holder a specification on the license he agrees to release the image under.) In her mail she suggests the form can be used but is not necessary. (That is why I felt free to elect to skip it, and for reasons above.) That raises a question if the additional language in the form is consistent with the language in the legal code for CA-BY-SA 3.0, and, now I'm compelled to read both and compare, and not being an attorney, it is giving me a headache even thinking about doing same. It seems the additional language in the form, as you mentioned, is designed to assure: "You are agreeing to CA-BY-SA 3.0, but do you really know what that means?" Well, if the additional language in the form doesn't legally match the meaning in the code, then that is all messy and incorrect and misleading and confusing. So I assume the add'l language in the form is *guaranteed* to match the meaning in the code. [Can you assure that?!]) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)If we are provided with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed. Thank you for your understanding! Please see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> for more information. Yours sincerely, Sarah Stierch
( edit conflict) Okay, I'll take a stab at answering your questions.
A1. You can upload to either Wikipedia or Commons. If it's on Wikipedia you can use your local Watchlist to keep track of the file; if it's on Commons you'd have to log in over there to check on it/modify it/etc. On the other hand, Commons is preferred because then editor's from other language Wikipedias and WMF projects then have access to it. There are some differences between what copyright situations are accepted at each location, but nothing that concerns a photo of a person.
A2. Dual-licensing is required for your text contributions, but not for images. For images you can use any licenses you prefer so long as you include at least one free license. CC-BY-SA-3.0 is a free license, so you don't really have to worry more about this part, but should you be curious and/or masochisitic, we have guidelines for what constitutes a free license at Wikipedia:File copyright tags and a somewhat outdated (so possibly not entirely accurate) and more extensive list of acceptable licenses at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses.
A3. CC licenses are intended to be usable worldwide -- that's the unported version. There are some different versions which have been ported to different legal jurisdictions to match the text of the various local statutes and make interactions between the license and the law clearer, but the license operates the same way regardless.
A4. Yes, you can skip the form so long as those elements are clearly and explicitly stated. It would actually be easier on the volunteers to specify the location of the already-uploaded image rather than attaching a new one, so they/we don't have to go searching for it and compare the versions to make sure they're the same.
Now since copyright is held by the photographer and not the subject of a photo, I would recommend a statement regarding how he is the copyright holder, although this is not strictly or uniformly enforced by all of the volunteers handling email permissions so this could be omitted unless asked for.
A5. Either forwarded or directly emailed works, and technically either address would work since they can be moved back and forth between the email addresses as needed. As Sphilbrick mentioned above, the backlog for here on Wikipedia is shorter and the image is already located here, so that would likely be more quickly processed. The address is permissions-en@wikimedia.org. At this point I'd say skip the old ticket number, since that could get it automatically routed to the agent who processed the previous email who may or may not be active just now. Starting fresh will leave it in the queue for whoever is available to grab and process it.
Hopefully that clears some things up for you. If not, I'm open for providing further clarification. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Would an OTRS volunteer please take a look at the permissions for the files (album covers) used at Karl Ferris and confirm that they are appropriate? I was wondering who actually gave the permissions for those files. If the copyrights are owned by the Hendrix estate or his record companies, I am very surprised that appropriate permissions have been granted. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Can an OTRS volunteer check out the tickets for the File:Ghez9.jpg, File:Lucevela.jpg, File:PollardRG1963.2.jpg, and File:Silamarigonzales.jpg? All with confirmed permission, but no licensing. — ξ xplicit 22:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Have you received any permission statement for this file? The uploader claims that permission was sent to OTRS but it was still deleted. See User talk:Stefan2#Question about deletion. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The uploader of the image File:RaphaelXavier.jpg has notified me that they sent an email confirming the permission of this image. I know there has been a backlog for quite some time, but I was wondering if someone could look into this. Thanks. — ξ xplicit 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Wpcplogo.jpg is tagged as a non-free file, including a rationale. But there is also an OTRS tag on the file description page, claiming ticket 2011121910019394. Is this OTRS ticket valid? If so, has the image been released under a free license? If so, which? — Bkell ( talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Logomaunakeatech.jpg has a tag indicating that it has been released under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. The description says, "Mauna Kea grants license, as per email FWDed to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' June 27, 2011, 2:51pm EDT," but there is no OTRS ticket number given. Does this permission check out? — Bkell ( talk) 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Tijuana Projection 2001 e SMALL.JPG is tagged as a non-free file, including a rationale. But there is also an OTRS tag on the file description page, claiming ticket 2011120110020469. Is this OTRS ticket valid? If so, has the image been released under a free license? If so, which? — Bkell ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you please confirm whether you received an email from me including permission from Professor Dick Schoech for the reuse of material used within the HUSITA article (formerly Human Services Information Technology Applications)?
If the email was received, did it contain sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license? If not please let me know what additional information is required.
If the confirmation is acceptable can someone please replace the WP:OTRS template still attached to the HUSITA article?
Thanks.
NeilBallantyne ( talk) 07:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Done! If you do have suggestions on how the process can be improved, feel free to start a discussion at WT:CONSENT. Legoktm ( talk) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
While editing an article about Moni Aizik I uploaded this file: File:Moni Aizik training.jpg. It comes from here Commando Krav Maga site. Moni Aizik gave me the permission to use any of his photos for Wikipedia edits and he also sent your team a declaration of consent. Why has it been removed then? If the license was not proper, under which license should I tag it? Romayan ( talk) 05:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
MorganKevinJ, what needs to be specified? Just let me know, and you will receive an expected answer. Thank you! Romayan ( talk) 15:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 4#File:Rakaposhi 3.jpg. Some of the images are sourced to Dr. Volker Thewalt. One of them has OTRS permission referring to ticket:2012051710001462. Maybe the ticket also applies to the other images by Dr. Volker Thewalt? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the file " File:Gene Paul, Mary Ford & Les Paul in the mid-1960s.jpg" was deleted from the Gene Paul Wikipedia article despite Gene Paul emailing proof of copyright to Wikipedia as instructed. Can you please advise on why this was deleted? The discussion page said "Gene Paul holds the copyright for this picture and is emailing verification to Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org on 8/28/12." Please let me know what needs to be done to assure Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that this is not a copyright violation. Thanks. Lovelounge ( talk) 16:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The file File:Deaf School at The Garage, London - January 2011.jpg was deleted on December 11 for lacking evidence of permission. However, the uploader claims that they sent an email to verify permission on December 9 at 13:32 GMT. Can someone look into this? — ξ xplicit 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Similar to the case directly above, the uploader claims that the email containing the permission for File:Eugene A Tan.jpg was sent prior to the file's deletion. They used the email address duchess@duchesspr.com. — ξ xplicit 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, could anybody please tell me what permisisons have been logged in ticket 2012092510011581 and if its okey for me to use it on my userpage? Hybirdd ( talk) 17:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
In response to this issue regarding a part of the text in the article Olm, I asked the copyright holder to provide an OTRS grant, which he did yesterday (I was CC-ed the e-mail). I'm not sure now where to put the {{ OTRS-pending}} template now. Can someone help? Thanks, — Yerpo Eh? 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim here that "Daffodil International Professional Training Institute(DIPTI) web team email to at "permissions@wikimedia.org" that there is no problem with copyright. Please check the mail as soon as possible. --Wikiwebsbd (talk) 1:08 pm, 22 November 2012, Thursday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC+0)
I don't speak a word of Russian, while the folks at the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia (who hold the copyright on an image which I wish to include as an illustration for a Wikipedia article) don't seem to speak that much English.
We've been using Google Translate to communicate by email - with some success, I might add - but I'm afraid it looks at this point like they're going to be mailing a hard copy of their declaration of consent (or something like it) to my home in Texas.
Eek!
Is there any way I can provide them with a link to an online version of "Declaration of Consent" which is translated into Russian, to hopefully prevent their going to all that trouble in the first place? I think my biggest concern at this point is about wasting their time - they've already been extremely helpful; and I don't want to wind up sending them on a wild goose chase only to wind up with a hard copy of a declaration of consent in my hands which might (or might not!) be specifically what Wikipedia requires for image licensing.
Any feedback - comments, critiques, whatever - would be more than welcome since I've never done anything quite like this before.
Thanks! ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།། xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ { say it} { contribs} 01:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Vandalizing Mount Sinai School District again, User:FreplySpang says at top of talk that school admin had requested a block filed in OTRS. ⁓ Hello 71 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a OTRS ticket number on this, but based on the use rationalle, I have reason to suspect that the editor claiming the licence is not being honest. In addition Tineye reveals that this image was used on a seperate artist's page. Thank you Hasteur ( talk) 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
This file has OTRS permission, but a user thought that the user might be unfree and started a discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 21#File:A.R.S. Lions logo.jpg. Is there something wrong with the OTRS ticket? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Willows in Sunlight by WIlliam Newport Goodell.jpg was tagged with {{ OTRS received}} quite a few months ago, but there doesn't seem to be any development beyond that. It's also a non-free file, making the case a little odd. Can someone look into this? — ξ xplicit 01:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! The Template:OTRS received does not have any field like reason=processing as seen in the corresponding template of Commons. Could someone please create such template? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
|reason =
parameter that will replace the text This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published.
. Basic, but it'll do the job. —
Theopolisme (
talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Please confirm whether the OTRS ticket information is correct at File:Agron at GLAAD.jpg. An apparently identical image appears at Zimbio attributed to "Araya Diaz/Getty Images North America". Thanks. – Wdchk ( talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader used the same tag for File:Celebrities Anonymous Poster.jpg. It was subsequently removed by User:Legoktm as invalid. – Wdchk ( talk) 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
This issue came up during a FA-nomination [ [5]], the image is used as infobox image. The image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia and later moved to Commons, unfortunately the original uploader User:Sdsouza seems to be inactive since 2007/2008. The image summary states, that a permission message was sent to permissions@wikimedia.org, but information about the exact ticket number is missing. According to the summary the permission was only granted for "representation in Wikipedia articles" (which would be an invalid limitation for a Wikipedia-license imo).
Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Our instructions for copyright holders of text on the English Wikipedia marked as a copyright violation ( WP:IOWN) advise people to send permissions emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is that the most appropriate address? It seems to be the one for Commons images. Hut 8.5 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently trying to port an article from the Italian WP over to this one. Several images in that article are apparently not able of being used here due to copyright issues. The images are:
The original uploader has informed me that there is an OTRS ticket concerning those images that should be valid here too. He also directed me to EDP policy which apparently is what permits it.wp to host those files. I opened a ticket at the help desk and was informed this was the place to ask so here I am. Any help will be much appreciated. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Would a volunteer please confirm the validity of the license for File:Omey Island Map.jpg? Confirm that Bango Art=Sean Corcoran.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 03:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader added {{ PermissionOTRS}}, but the uploader doesn't have any OTRS flag on Commons and isn't listed at m:OTRS/Personnel, so the uploader doesn't seem to be an OTRS member. It says that the image has been cropped from File:Pride of Performance Award by President of Pakistan.jpg, but this is obviously not the case. Does the OTRS ticket provide any information about the image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Requesting information on ticket 2013020510008188. File was listed as having been sent to the uploader individually, however very similar image appears at [6] with minimal photo manipulation to get from image on champmag to uploaded image. I have reason to suspect that this is not an officially licenced image and therefore am requesting details of the permission grant to determine if the grant is appropriate. Hasteur ( talk) 20:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
At 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and Nik Stauskas, I would like to include a picture of a derivative of the Flag of Canada that can be seen in this tweet. I am in communication with the owner of the flag owner by email. I have been informed that a friend of his designed the flag, a third party company constructed the flag, and he is a part owner of the flag along with its designer. What permissions would be needed for a picture (taken by him) of this flag to appear in WP or is there a fair use option?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
In 2006-7, User:Anlace published multiple photographs attributed to "C. Michael Hogan", including File:Annadelviewofsonomamtn.jpg. I was considering transwiki-ing that image to Commons, but I want to double-check that Anlace was entitled to release it. Some of the images had permission filed under OTRS: e.g., File:Roundbarnsocounty.jpg under this ticket, or File:Sedimentpondsfoundtaingrovelake.jpg under this ticket.
Does User:Anlace have global permission to publish photographs from "C. Michael Hogan"? If so, which OTRS ticket can I refer to? — hike395 ( talk) 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This ticket 2007032610020751 covers:
This ticket 2007030610001835 covers:
Another ticket 2007040310004425 covers:
This ticket 2007032110001968 covers:
(This one is slightly confusing because it refer to three images, yet there are four listed. However, one is covered by another ticket)
This ticket 2007022310025941 covers:
I do not see any general permission.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Has OTRS permission, but there are four different versions in the history, and some were uploaded after the OTRS permission tag was added. Does the OTRS permission apply to all of them or only some of them? From the file information page, it is not clear whether all photos were taken by the same photographer or not, so different photos might need OTRS permission from different people. One of the four photos is currently up for deletion as replaceable fair use at File:Trevor Sheldon portrait photo.jpg. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Njarecki-pic.tiff has an OTRS tag referencing ticket 2012092910006428. But the file description page does not have a licensing tag indicating what kind of permission has been granted. What license is specified by the OTRS ticket? — Bkell ( talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe User:Rafaelcarmen sent a mail giving permission to use "the article The Organization Workshop (OW™) - Seriti Institute on the www.seriti.org.za website" under a CC license. The relevant Wikipedia content is the now-deleted-and-recreated draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop and the duplicate draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW). For more details see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop. Huon ( talk) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Do I need to submit an OTRS thinger for my self published Image File:Dazzler mounted on M-240B in Iraq.jpg? I was just wondering because I may not always be here due to RL if someone asks me about it on my talk page. Thanks, — - dain omite 22:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
File:Dr PC Bagchi at work.jpg has an OTRS tag, ticket #2012082110008451. Two very similar images, File:P.C.Bagchi in Indo-China 1922.jpg and File:Satyendra Nath Bose and P.C.Bagchi in Paris 1924.jpg, are currently listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 7 with the concern being that, while these images claim to be from a photoalbum, they look like halftoning (the nominator says they look like they're "from a book," but that's what she means). Could someone check that ticket and see if it sheds any light on the provenance of these photos? Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
These articles have {{ PermissionOTRS}} errors because no id or ticket is specified. Please confirm and enter the correct id or ticket template parameter, or remove the template, or revert to previous {{ confirmation}} template use. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone with OTRS access go through Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days and tag for deletion where appropriate? — Train2104 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
See WP:FNN#Contacting user to confirm permission: a few images got {{ PermissionOTRS}} without ticket numbers in 2008. Would it be possible to dig up those ticket numbers? Also, does the permission apply to the other images in the discussion too?
Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID currently contains 10 files, so there are also other files to fix. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Has permission been received for File:AMT ALP-45DP.jpg, or is it just a con job? See User talk:Mtlfiredude for previous copyright infringements. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 19:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I am posting to request the reinstatement of the above Wikipedia entry. See conversation below:
You just deleted the entry "Relative market share," although valid copyright permission has been sent to Wikipedia.
See Market penetration for an example:
OTRS icon The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Farris, Paul W.; Neil T. Bendle; Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein
(2010). Marketing Metrics: The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 0137058292.. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2012021110008071. Permission applies only to such content from this book as was present in the article at 18:41, 2 January 2012. See item #55 in the OTRS records This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
karenmscheller 00:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey ( talk • contribs)
Thank you! karenmscheller 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey ( talk • contribs)
OTRS tag doesn't seem to have been added by an OTRS member. Is the permission valid? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The file description indicates that a number of messages have been sent to OTRS about the purchase of this image but there doesn't seem to be any agreement about a free license. Have you actually received anything useful on that score? Please see also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 16. De728631 ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the following Query I note a number of image which claim to have an OTRS permission, Surely the sources could be added in from the OTRS submission? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been trying to upload a map from a third party source and have been directed to send post my documentation here. This was from the talk page on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions:
I would like to upload a map from the Episcopal Church of the Sudans website, showing their diocesan boundaries.
http://sudan.anglican.org/images/sudanmaplarge.jpg
They also have a separate map for the dioceses in South Sudan, though its in PDF format
http://sudan.anglican.org/files/sudanmap.pdf
Can either of these be added to the Episcopal Church of the Sudan wiki pages under fair use?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I just got an e-mail from the church giving me permission to add the map to the page. I should certainly be able to now, right?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
And here is the e-mail I received:
Jonathan,
> Dear Episcopal Church of Sudan > > I would like to upload this map onto the Episcopal Church of Sudan > wikipedia page. > > http://sudan.anglican.org/images/sudanmaplarge.jpg > > However, I am unsure if that would be permitted right now, under > wikipedias rules governing such content > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCCP#Policy > > I would certainly be permitted though, if you would be kind enough to > give us permission to upload the file to the page to illustrate the > locations of the dioceses.
You are welcome to use this map. Be aware that it is not the best possible representation of the Sudanese dioceses - it is a task that I keep setting myself and which gets superseded by other tasks! The drawn boundaries represent the best information that I could access in 2009. I do have better data now - and the relatively newly published Gizi map provides a better base image on which to construct a new map - but I am afraid that the ink is still in the pen.
With prayers and blessings
Chris Wright Webkeeper for the Anglican Province of Sudan Based in Bradford, England
So, per Wiki policies, am I allowed to upload the map?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 19:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This image needs the author or copyright holder's name, and maybe more information about the sourcing. — innotata 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Could someone check this? Does the OTRS ticket really contain permission from Apple Computer (for the background image) or Nintendō (for Super Mario Brothers 2)? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on created dated OTRS categories for {{ OTRS pending}} and {{ OTRS received}} like Commons has? I gave a cursory glance at some of the images with these templates and there are plenty of very old ones where enough time has elapsed that we're not going to get anything. I think it would be potentially a worthwhile endeavor, in some cases, to follow up rather than just engaging in mass deletion, but that followup would be far more efficient if we had dated categories. We could get a bot to retroactively populate the categories based on the last edit date for current images and auto-date the templates on a day-forward basis. -- B ( talk) 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Does the ticket confirm the permission for this file? And if it does, is there any information regarding the author, date, etc? ALH ( talk) 08:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for receiving the emails you got from "tommee3d@yahoo.com" for the photos on the page of Funk Trek. You did say though that the permission was not sufficient because the photos were not proven to be under free use. Now, the question I have is, that if I reuploaded the pictures and went through the proper procedure to make them free use (since they are already approved of by the author), would a new email have to be sent to you? I do not know what your reasons were for flagging it, but I want to do everything to reverse that without the pictures being taken down; this is the farthest I've gotten before. So what I'm asking is for your guidance in reuploading since I'm sort of new to this.
If the problem was the inconsistency with emails, I can assure you that the email you find for Tom Murnan on Facebook will not match because he lists his email on there @facebook.com, which does not have an inbox like others. I know for certain he logs in with tommee3d@yahoo.com and if you want me to provide further proof, I'll go search for it.
Just let me know what's proper uploading for free use in this situation and if I have to do more email work.
Thanks,
Nirvanafanatic619 ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The USHMM website is copyrighted, [7] with clearly visible tag at the bottom of each and every content page stating in capital letters: Copyright © United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC. Would you please confirm that the OTRS ticket has been filed, and most importantly, explain how much material it could cover under our own guidelines? The same OTRS ticket no. 2007071910012533 is mentioned as rationale in an exceptionally long series of articles, including: Père Jacques, Nazi book burnings, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Auschwitz concentration camp, Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany, Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, Jewish community of Amsterdam, Category:Hungarian military personnel of World War II, Gardelegen (war crime), Chełmno extermination camp, 11th Armoured Division (United Kingdom), Bergen-Belsen displaced persons camp, Trawniki, Tarnów, Mühldorf subcamp, Aktion Erntefest, History of the Jews in Kalisz, Hadamar Euthanasia Centre, Mechelen transit camp, List of subcamps of Natzweiler-Struthof, Kaunas, Kovno Ghetto, Kaufering, Halle concentration camp, Hainichen concentration camp, Hainewalde concentration camp, HeHalutz, Jung Borochovistim, Parczew partisans, and a lot more. See: Special:Contributions/USHMMwestheim. — What troubles me most is that all text, copy-pasted en masse can at times be also inaccurate... and often is, especially when the subject gets controversial, but the aura surrounding the grand OTRS ticket is such that the material added (with so little effort) is somehow indisputable, or better than ours. I run into this while working on a couple of different articles from the above list. Facts are not always accurate. Many paragraphs have no inline citations at all giving the impression of original research. Some paragraphs take days to fix. How much can I change and/or remove if necessary without having to deface the article I work on with an avalanche of nasty templates and flags. This sort of thing leaves me in a total quandary. Thanks in advance for your help, Poeticbent talk 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_May_14#All_uploads_from_Imparo Admin with OTRS may wish to go through and delete after checking.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Following my upload of the Janie Schaffer portrait photo, a permission warning box was added. I contacted the copyright owner of the image, Jane Hilton, who emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org to grant permission for the free use of the photograph of Janie Schaffer. Despite this the permission warning box remains and I'm unsure as to why this could be? Thanks for your help Vivj2012 ( talk) 10:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
what does the owner have to to prevent deletion? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The photograph of James Ramsbotham , 2nd Viscount Soulbury,was uploaded with prior permission of the Ramsbotham family. The image displayed is an exact replica of the original held by the Ramsbotham family . User talk : The Honourable Herwald Ramsbotham (heir apparant to the Title Viscount Soulbury). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.26.55 ( talk) 04:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
When creating St. Clair Square, I noticed that a previous version was deleted in 2008 via OTRS ticket 2008050710001159. Can someone give me any more details as to why the previous version of the article was deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Requesting information regarding File:GordonDougan.png as the file was uploaded a while ago and OTRS was claimed for sending permission. File was originally emailed to the user so there may be questions regarding the user's ability to go be available for Commons. Image was discovered when working the AfC backlog. Hasteur ( talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Has a permission ever been forwarded for this file as claimed in the information template? This was uploaded in 2011 but has recently been tagged for missing evidence. De728631 ( talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This is tagged as lacking evidence of permission. However, it also says "Ticket: 2013063010004172". This number looks like an OTRS ticket number. Does it contain any permission for the image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the OTRS cover both the photo and the artwork? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The OTRS permission was added by the uploader, is it valid? January ( talk) 11:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Perhaps this Q is pretty dumb (sorry if so): If I own a book, can I scan its cover and put the scanned image on COMMONS as free-use? (I suppose that's a "definite no" or "definite maybe", but I thought I'd ask.) Thank u! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 18:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. The following images ( File:ErnaLowSki.jpg, File:ErnaLowBrochure.jpg, File:ErnaLowSki2.jpg, and File:MarkFraryAimingHigh.jpg) were all tagged as no permission a while back. The uploader then tagged them all as "OTRS pending." They've all stayed pending for well over a month now. Have any emails actually been received in regards to these images? ALH ( talk) 00:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
E-mails sent to "permissions|" today have been returned. I'm aware there have been issues with lost attachments. I'm getting e-mails from the address ok. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Garrettwasnothere has uploaded several images. He claimed that he has sent the permissions to the OTRS, but since he has previously uploaded unfree images, I seriously doubted that claim. Can someone check them? Thanks.— Chris! c/ t 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
341SPI7 has apparently sent an email regarding several of his uploads that show the so-called Heli-FX system. Does the permission explicitely include File:EndoAnchor.jpg? I'm asking because the user either forgot to tag the file with "OTRS pending" or could not confirm the license for it. I've now marked the file as OTRS pending for the time being but will delete it if there's no proof. De728631 ( talk) 22:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
What about File:Heli-FX System Updated.jpg? This is a new one and has probably not been included in the first batch of permissions. De728631 ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Editor52 ( talk · contribs) uploaded File:Nicholas Johnson.jpg for use in the Nicholas Johnson article, but it was deleted as a copyvio because the source page had no permission statement. Editor52, who is Johnson himself, has since edited the source page by adding an explicit cc-by-sa release, so I've undeleted the image. However, this is a Blogspot site: it can be changed in moments by Johnson should he change his mind, and we'll lose evidence of permission. Since we don't have anything comparable to Commons' Flickrreview process, would OTRS be able to get involved here? I'm thinking of an email (either from me or from someone else) saying "As of [date], this image was marked as being freely licensed at the source page". I would hope that an OTRS template for such a statement would prevent {{ db-npd}} tagging and other copyright problems. Nyttend ( talk) 00:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Can some one verify the OTRS ticket on this newly uploaded file please. LGA talk edits 09:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the uploader, the copyright holder, one Mr Crawfurd Hill, has now sent a permissions email for this one. Can you confirm this claim? De728631 ( talk) 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
An OTRS permission tag was added by Superboy44 ( talk · contribs) but according to Commons:Special:ListUsers/Superboy44, this user isn't an OTRS member. Is the tag valid? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This ticket about "copyright concerns" has been referenced at Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Can you tell me if it was about the images shown in the article or about copyrighted text passages? And what was the result? Please respond at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Thank you. De728631 ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The permission for use of File:Chinmoy Guha.jpg, File:Chinmoy Guha with Derrida.jpg, File:Chinmoy Guha with Le Clézio, the 2008 Nobel laureate in literature.jpg and File:Chinmoy Guha with Romain Rolland's biographer Bernard Duchatelet.jpg has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system and it is available as ticket 2013090910016515 for users with an OTRS account. Can the permission be confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvapar82 ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any information about this file? The uploader claims that permission was sent to OTRS but that the file was deleted anyway. See User talk:Stefan2#Help again with photo. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A user as uploaded multiple images to this article, they where tagged as non-free, but now have an OTRS pending ticket, can someone review the ticket? Werieth ( talk) 10:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
According to tickets: #2011101710007029, #2011091510017435 and #2011102010007675, respectively from File:UN corp dovelogo.jpeg, File:Dove logo.jpg and File:Logo Knorr.jpeg, Unilever Russia released them under a CC license. I like to know if the permission covers only these images or if it can be exanded to our fair-use images File:Dove dove.svg and File:Knorr.svg to stop labelling them as fair-use, or this should be taken to WP:NFR? Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ticket 2010112310034194 was received for the GFDL/CC-BY-SA book cover File:Whiteness.jpg. I note that this book cover includes a film still in which copyright separate from the book design may persist. Could a volunteer please confirm whether the OTRS ticket includes evidence of permission from the film studio as well as the book publisher, or provides evidence that the film still is now in the public domain? — Psychonaut ( talk) 09:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is some issues with two (or more likely just one) editors over the following files
and also this interesting comment insertion at Marc Y. Chenevert .
Can someone check to see if the relevant information has been supplied ? LGA talk edits 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you check whether {{ move to Commons}} is correct here? I suspect that it should be {{ FoP-USonly}} instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Ticket 2010112110021988 was received for the CC-BY-SA book cover File:Film Talk Cover.gif. I note that this book cover is provided at very high resolution and includes several film stills in which copyright separate from the book design may persist. Could a volunteer please confirm whether the OTRS ticket includes evidence of permission from the film studios as well as the book publisher, or provides evidence that the film stills are now in the public domain? Psychonaut ( talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013
It would seem we got 3 files at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 26 held up from being closed due to OTRS issues. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate if someone could check for an OTRS ticket for this image obtained from this photo at http://www.pooppeepuke.com/. It has been marked as pending since February. Thanks. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone check the ORTS que for anything on these images please (or for that matter on anything else uploaded by Politicsofculture). LGA talk edits 09:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi was wondering if the permissions e-mail sent about a week ago for File:Mediator Mike Gaston.jpg has been looked at or if there are still issues with dealing with this as I have herd nothing about this.
Rachend ( talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok, thank you very much I didn't realize there was such a backlog.
Rachend (
talk) 11:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The OTRS-pending template on File:Emad Rahim.jpg is over 3 months old. Please update or remove the template and if appropriate, nominate for deletion. Yes, I realize there are over 300 files which have been waiting over 60 days, and yes, if there are files that have been waiting longer than this one they should probably be dealt with first, but 90 days is kind of stale.
Note: This image was mentioned on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/News and notes earlier this week: "A different Wiki-PR employee added a picture [of Emad Rahim] on 12 July, which is not included on the current article but has nevertheless not been deleted." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across comments on Commons:User talk:Jcb about images someone claiming to be Frank Sanello uploaded. They say they submitted an OTRS, and asked why the images were deleted anyhow. The reply from the administrator in question implies they deleted the images not due to a failure to establish that the uploader was also the photographer -- but rather because, at some point in the process the uploader used foul language.
Of course it is unpleasant for OTRS volunteers to have those they are trying to help use foul language. But has it generally been the process here that those who have used foul language get their requests denied?
Surely, many of those writing to OTRS are already extremely frustrated, have had trouble navigating the WMF rules to even find the OTRS address; may have had WMF volunteers address abusive comments to them.
Isn't there a process for asking a second OTRS volunteer to take over the correspondence on a ticket when the first OTRS volunteer feels their attempts at civil communication have broken down?
I am going to request other OTRS volunteers (1) review this ticket; (2) if the main reason the outside correspondent's images weren't restored was the first volunteer's emotional reaction to foul language, could some other OTRS volunteer contact the outside correspondent, and tell them they had taken over responsibility for the ticket? Geo Swan ( talk) 14:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The following pages have all been indefinitely semi-protected since 2007, citing an OTRS ticket as the reason for the protection:
Can someone look over these and see if the protection reasons are still relevant/necessary, and if not, unprotect the pages? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This is unfree, but tagged with {{ OTRS pending}}. Other images in the same article by the same uploader cite ticket:2013012410009223. Does the ticket apply to this image too? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Unilever_brands that could use clarification from an OTRS member about potentially derivative files of the images listed in: ticket:2011101710007029, ticket:2011091510017435 and ticket:2011102010007675. Please and thank you for your assistance. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Claimed to have permission but doesn't have any {{ PermissionOTRS}} tag. Could someone check this file? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the Commons:OTRS/backlog is only 7 days, if permission had been sent I assume that it should have been processed, can someone confirm in case it may have been missed and if not please delete. LGA talk edits 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to confirm the permission to the use of this file: ticket 2013092010000573. File:Harry_Giese_1913-2000_Darwin_Australia_in_the_1970s.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCGiese ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello am writing to follow up on a copyright permission which was given some time ago by myself for [ [8]]. It has been listed as a possibly unfree file by Stefan2 Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_21#OTRS_pending_since_September.
As the author/creator of the work I gave permission for use of the work back in June and sent an email inaccordance with wiki process. However it seems it wasn't processed?
Can you please advise on my next step to clear this situation up. MrMoog ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)