Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

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

Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 7 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

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

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN


ticket:2010052010036986 and User:ThF

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

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

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

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

I handled the ticket in question, so I will explain why I denied OTRS verification in this case. The e-mail we received from (I'm assuming) you on 5/20/2010 was not appropriate, because you cited a Creative Commons license which is not compatible with our licensing here at the Commons. You stated "CC-by-nc-nd." Please see COM:L and Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons licenses. In short, all content on Wikimedia Commons must allow third parties to reuse, modify, and even commercially use our media. The only Creative Commons licenses which allows that are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. Any other descriptors, such as NC and ND are against the Commons licensing, and we cannot accept them. If you want to donate your images again, you'll need to resend your permission e-mail again (I can easily provide you with a copy of it), and just modify it to state one of the compatible licenses. However, I can understand if you don't want to allow Commercial or Derivative work. It makes sense in some ways to restrict your content in that manner, however, we don't allow those restrictions here, because we focus on FREE content. I hope this explains it in a clear, simple manner. I apologize I don't speak French, but perhaps we can find a francophone volunteer if you need further help. Also, I explained all this in my rejection e-mail which I sent you on 7/1/2010, but maybe you didn't see my reply because the e-mail software "bottom posts" or puts new messages at the bottom of the e-mail. Anyway, I'd be glad to help out further in any way, such as undeleting the images and processing a new permission e-mail, if you decide to allow commercial reuse and derivative/modifications. -Andrew c (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

samborowski2 - 2011030910001974

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

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

  • I concur. It is in no way certain that the ticket is verifiably connected to the copyright holder, and it is insufficient in other ways as well (ticket notes have been left which OTRS users can read). Stifle (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since further discussion on OTRS and no reply from the requester, I have withdrawn the verification from the first 3 images above, marked them for speedy deletion and left a note for the uploader. --Fæ (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Fugh.jpg

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

After a fair bit of search I've finally found the ticket in question. The file was sent to OTRS by a relative of the subject; it is, however, a work from the US Army. Hence, I am sorry to say that I see no way to help you in your search. Regards, odder (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odder, I removed the OTRS template because there is no relation between the ticket and the current licensing status. —Pill (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right — my bad. Thank you for noticing that! This is ✓ Done. odder (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TITUS RIC II 115-2100253.jpg

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

The copyright holder has clearly stated that the permission for using all images from the website cngcoins.com given back in 2006 does apply to all images published on the said website after that date. There is, hovewer, no information about the permission for using the description text whatsoever. Regards, odder (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the original part of the description; could someone delete the older revisions, containing the non-free text? –Tryphon☂ 10:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, thank you. odder (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resized madonna.jpg

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

Can't find anything in the permission queues (except for the shocking finding that there's way too many Madonna-related permission stuff in OTRS). —Pill (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither couldn't I find the alleged OTRS permission. ✓ Done, photo deleted, thank you. odder (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


File:Atanas Zehirov.jpg

Could one of you, bulgarian speaker preferred, check whether this ticket does indeed cover this image, despite what had been written here by Oleola. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps odder can have a look. —Pill (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry for such a late reply :-). I did indeed have a look at the DR and posted an information about the confirmation of the permission that we've received recently on OTRS. This is ✓ Done. Regards, odder (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChangiVillageBusTerminal2.jpg

"File:ChangiVillageBusTerminal2.jpg" has an {{OTRS pending}} tag on it, but this seems to be an error as the uploader asserts that he or she took the photograph personally and has licensed it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. Could a volunteer check? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a related ticket. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Must be an error, then. I'll remove the tag. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! —Pill (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldlodgewh.jpg

This file has been pending OTRS verification since December last year. Please check. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No luck here either, couldn't find anything related. Cheers, —Pill (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serhiy kusnetsov.jpg

Is there any permission for this file? -- Common Good (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything. —Pill (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second that -- Taketa (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abedi Ayew Pelé.png

The claims on File:Abedi Ayew Pelé.png seem a bit unlikely. Foot01.com credits the photo to Icon Sport. Has anything actually been sent in to OTRS to clarify the situation? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything. -- Taketa (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't either. Courcelles (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:El polaco 6.jpg

I suspect the OTRS tag is a fake - please verify. Uploader most likely just another sockpuppet of User:Candy475. --Denniss (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket does not apply to this file. -- Taketa (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

translation for ticket:2011040410008206 (polish) urgent needed

Since there is a huge amount of bird pictures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pkuczynski/Marek_Szczepanek/Birds that have been marked as copy rights violation, I think we need to know what the status of the OTRS ticket is. Can anyone with some knowledge of polish put a summary of the actual situation as a note to the ticket?

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didnt noticed this pictures was made for deletion. Marek Szczepanek grants all the rights to publish these photos under the license as it si marked on the photos (usually GFDL). I published most of them few years ago. However he recently offered some more photos asking if we could add a note and in case someone wants to get high-resolution pictures for publishing or printing, he can contact him to get the terms - I guess he might want to sell them in that case. I dont think that violates the license, as the media which got uploaded in that resolution are licensed under GFDL - am I right or wrong here? Regards Piotr Kuczyński (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sp5uhe and Wpedzich seem to be the best bets. I'll alert them both to this thread.--Chaser (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We now also have a comprehensive list by language: Commons:OTRS/List of members by language.--Chaser (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this is a misunderstanding. Would be best when Polimerek explain this. Sp5uhe (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done there was probably a misunderstanding, the deletion request have been removed --Neozoon (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New list of OTRS members by language

Since we periodically get people searching for someone that speaks a particular language (like Polish in the thread just above this one), I created Commons:OTRS/List of members by language. It is linked from the word "multilingual" in this noticeboard's header for easy reference. If someone is looking for a certain language, they can be referred to this list. Any help maintaining it would also be appreciated.--Chaser (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking legitimacy of an OTRS grant

Hello, I've recently received a communication from the person who took this picture

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norfolk_Island_convict_buildings.jpg

which is associated with ticket otrs:2353035. He's told me in person that this image is "all rights reserved" and licensed through Getty images.

I'd like to know what the basis for the OTRS verification of this image and to know what the actual license status of this image is.

The license es cc-by-sa 3.0 according to the ticket --Ezarateesteban 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the basis for this: was it cc-by-sa on flickr at that time?

Bear up bison (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask if you referred him specifically to the license on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norfolk_Island_convict_buildings.jpg? —Pill (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мишка на Севере 009.jpg

Is there any permission at OTRS for this image? --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything. -- Taketa (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything, either. Courcelles (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the uploader provided this ticket #. --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely in Russian, so I can't read it. There's a similar link there to chocolader.narod.ru, but it's to a different image (http://chocolader.narod.ru/gallery/guest_mkek/images/mk168.jpg). As above, I can't find any reference to the specific website or the specific images used as the source. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no permission yet rubin16 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who sends the permission?

Hi.

Is it mandatory for the copyright holder to send the permission email himself or can I forward the permission to the OTRS system myself (along with the conversation history)?

Also does the domain name of the email of the author need to match the domain name of the website where the images come from?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you should consider updating the page Commons:OTRS. Badzil (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is helpful if the holder sends the email directly, and also helpful if the domain matches. In the event that this is not the case, the permission can still sometimes be processed anyhow. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS for mass upload

Hallo. Wir erwarten eine Bildspende für das Denkmalsprojekt von voraussichtlich 3000 bis 4000 Fotos, die ich in mehreren Schüben erhalte und hochladen möchte. Eine der technsichen Fragen, die sich hierfür stellt: Kann der Bildspender erst - je Paket - eine Bildfreigabe (@de) ans OTRS mailen, so dass ich das fertige Ticket bereits in den Massenupload einbinden kann? Wie wäre dann der Ablauf? Oder was braucht es von mir bzw. in der Freigabe, damit die Tickets nicht manuell an jedes Einzelbild eingetragen werden müssen? --Martina talk 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Martina, ja, der Bildspender kann die Freigabe auch im Voraus senden; dies schon allein deshalb, weil wir jede spätere Korrepondenz derselben Ticketnummer zuordnen können. Geschickt wäre natürlich, wenn sich die Bilder irgendwie eingrenzen ließen - zum Beispiel weil alle von einer bestimmten Internetseite entnommen sind. Dann könnte der Bildspender eine Genehmigung bezogen auf die dortigen Bilder senden (oder du schickst eine eingescannte, unterschriebene Genehmigung von ihm), du gibst uns (sofern möglich) Bescheid, wann sie geschickt wurde, wir legen eine Vorlage wie http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Images_by_Rob_Lavinsky an, und du lädst die Bilder dann mit Einbindung dieser Vorlage hoch. Wäre ein denkbarer Weg. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Pill, das klingt super. Es müsste auch schon eine erste Freigabe für diese Bilder bei euch eingegangen sein (warum für so wenige, wäre eine längere Geschichte). Kann ich in Zukunft also dieses erste Ticket wiederverwenden? Ich (oder der "abarbeitende" Supportteamer?) würde/könnte es in die bereits vorhandene (beim Upload gesubstete) Credit-/Lizenzvorlage einbauen, oder? Dann kläre ich als nächstes mit dem Bildspender, dass wir für alle weiteren Bilder möglichst nur eine Freigabe bzw. nur für größere Pakete zu diesem Ticket hinterhersenden. --Martina talk 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS zur schon vorliegenden Freigabe: Falls es an Inhalt oder Form der Freigabe noch Verbesserungsbedarf gibt, sagt mir bitte Bescheid. Wobei aber natürlich die weiteren Freigaben keinen Commonslink können, sondern einen Bildnamen/Bildtitel enthalten werden. --Martina talk 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Martina, die E-Mail (bzw. die zwei E-Mails) ist (bzw. sind) eingegangen. Ich habe auf der Lizenzvorlagenseite einen Hinweis auf das Ticket eingebaut, die Genehmigung ist formal o.k. Der Rechteinhaber sollte in Zukunft seine Mails mit Folgendem im Betreff senden: [Ticket#2011020910015121] -- die Mail wird dann automatisch dem Ticket zugeordnet. Grundsätzlich ist es o.k., wenn zukünftig kein Link in den Freigaben steht, zumal wir die Genehmigungen ja ohnehin nicht auf jeder Seite einzeln eintragen müssen. —Pill (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Vielleicht können wir, wenn der Freigabeprozess ganz abgeschlossen ist, dem Urheber [nebenbei: es ist etwas ungewöhnlich, dass da zwei Urheber stehen bzw. sich in der Mail beide als Urheber bezeichnen, aber gut] auch noch einen Link auf die Kategorienseite zusenden, sodass er uns dann nochmal, um ganz sicher zu gehen, seine Freigabe bestätigen kann.[reply]
ergänzung: die zweite mail enthielt auch genehmigungen für http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:11_Kurf%C3%BCrstenstra%C3%9Fe_13_(Eg[..]], http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10_Kurf%C3%BCrstenstra%C3%9Fe_1_(_Eg[..]], http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_der_K44_(Binsfeld).jpg[..], http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_der_L271_(Binsfeld).jpg[..] (die links sind kaputt, ich habe das jetzt nur aus der mail kopiert, aber die bildnamen sieht man ja -- die bildbeschreibungen enthalten die nun OTRS-getaggte vorlage noch nicht. kommt das noch oder muss die genehmigung dort manuell eingetragen werden? —Pill (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Pill, danke nochmal! Die bisherigen Fotos habe nicht ich hochgeladen. Ich bringe die jetzt alle in Ordnung (auch File:11 Kurfürstenstraße 13 (Eggersheim).jpg und File:11 Kurfürstenstraße 13 (Eggersheim).jpg) und subste bei weiteren Uplaods die Lizenzvorlage inkl. OTRS-Ticket. Weitere Freigabe-Mails kommen dann demnächst mit [Ticket#2011020910015121]. Sie werden einen Vermerk enthalten, dass das bereits vorhandene Ticket weiterverwendet wird und dass ihr nichts mehr machen müsst. :-) --Martina talk 10:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, gut. Ich habe oben einen Fehler gemacht, der mir jetzt erst aufgefallen ist: Im Betreff sollte nicht [Ticket#2011020910015121] sondern [Ticket#2011040610021812] (also die Ticketnummer, die auch im OTRS-Baustein eingetragen ist) stehen, ich habe da leider die falsche Nummer im Zwischenspeicher gehabt. Tut mir leid :(. —Pill (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also [Ticket#2011040610021812]. Kein Problem.
OT: Das dauert jetzt eh eine Weile, weil ich noch einen Uploadbatch für den Commonist brauche, damit ich möglichst viele Bildinfomationen automatisiert aus Excel in die individuellen Bildbeschreibungen übernehmen kann. Sonst kommt da eine Menge Nacharbeit auf uns zu. Hat jemand eine Idee, welchen Programmierer ich auf sowas ansprechen kann? --> Commons:Batch_uploading#Monument_lists --Martina talk 12:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) edit 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to license an image

I received an image to post from the author of the image. What do I need to do in order to answer the request below? Thanks for uploading File:Sass Artist 001a.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Do I just need to get the author to put her name and date on the standard permission letter?

The image in question in the image in the Sasson Soffer wiki page, entitled File:Sass Artist 001a.jpg

Thanks,

New York Art Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by New york art editor (talk • contribs) 12:06, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

No... what we need is a statement sent to OTRS saying that The Sasson Soffer Foundation consents to the use of the image under the stated license. Read the section of text here for more details. Tabercil (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake OTRS ?

In picture File:Soyanna.jpg are OTRS-permission but only line in history are uploader, are the permission fake?--Motopark (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket seems OK to me, although it's in Polish, for which I used Google Translate to read it more or less. The OTRS volunteer instructed the uploader to paste {{OTRS|2011040710018744}} in the permission field, so at least the uploader acted with good faith. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And who sent the permission? The exif data contain another author's name than the description field. --Martina talk 15:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the ticket say, who is the photographer? The EXIF photographer name, Bartosz Klonowski, differs from what the uploader wrote in the author entry, Hadrian Kubasiewicz. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The permission seems to be sent by the uploader, but contains a scanned document, which contains the signature of the photographer. I think we need a PL speaker to tell us more. I will see if I can find one with OTRS access. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Odder. Jcb (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say why the EXIF data contain a different name of the photographer than the one which is mentioned in the OTRS ticket (maybe he's just borrowed the camera from a friend?). There is, hovewer, a formal contract attached to the e-mail in which the photographer, Hadrian Kubasiewicz, transfers his proprietary copyrights (because there are two kinds of copyright in the Polish copyright law) to the subject of the photograph, Anna Sochacka (Soyanna). The contract seems genuine so I've added the information to the image page; the case may be marked as ✓ Done, I hope. odder (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Martina talk 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

Could somebody please check if the OTRS ticket for File:Actor Vijay on birthday.jpg (otrs ticket: [1]) is plausible/trustworthy? I'm wondering because the image is credited to a commercial news source, the original uploader on ta-wiki doesn't look like they are related to that news source in any way, and the OTRS ticket apparently only turned up quite recently, long after the initial upload. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket contains a direct message from kollywoodtoday.com to us in which they release all their images under CC-BY. Jcb (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Wow. Interesting things happen. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or... wait. Dang. Looking more closely at the site, I have strong doubts if kollywoodtoday.com site actually owns what it's giving away. I see no signs this is a responsible journalistic medium. It's a fan site. It's got a disclaimer page [2] that speaks about users freely submitting material in their own responsibility without systematic editorial control. Looking at its picture galleries: in this one, there are tons of pics that are evidently movie screenshots, all watermarked "kollywoodtoday" when they can't possibly be the copyright owners. In this one, we have a series of professional portrait shots with the copyright mark of another side, over which the "kollywoodtoday" mark is crudely overlaid. In this one, we have another series of professional portrait shots, several of which also appear (in better copies) on other sites [3]. All of these appear without any photography credits, source documentation or anything. I'm afraid we should not treat kollywoodtoday as a reliable source in terms of copyright claims. What's the easiest way to find out how many images have been uploaded sourced to them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission access request

Hello, I'd like to access a copy of the permission granted for the use of File:LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg, as I'm curious as to whether the entire series of maps on the original website is released under the same licensing. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket applies to "the Global Paleogeographic Views of Earth History" MorganKevinJ(talk) 06:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, because the site's mother site by the same author says that all the paleogeophic maps are protected from commercial use by copyright. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's common. Copyright owners can override their own global site copyright notices.--Chaser (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So any maps featured on the daughter site are free for noncommercial use under Creative Commons, but the rest of them are all protected. Thanks for your assistance! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ariss-radioamateur-iss.jpg

Baftek claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for this file has been sent to OTRS. This seems unlikely given that the file was obtained through Google and that the stated "permission" is that the work is supposedly in the public domain because it was created by an employee of NASA as part of their official duties. Is there anything in OTRS confirming that this was indeed created by an employee of NASA as part of their official duties? (I'm a bit skeptical, since it seems that most ARISS project participants are not NASA employees and those that are participate during their free time.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search for both "File:Ariss-radioamateur-iss.jpg" and "ARISS project logo" in the permissions queue returns nothing but the file name is not always mentioned in the ticket. MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that ARISS is an international program consisting of MOUs of ISS participating countries and amateur radio groups. I find it extremely unlikely that the uploader, or the website he cites as a source, has any right to license the image that way. I've found no evidence that NASA was the creator or owner of the graphic. If anything, I would suggest the likely holder of copyright would be AMSAT (http://www.amsat.org), though again, no evidence of this could be found. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've nominated it for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Básquet.jpg and File:CBF Cerdanyola.jpg

Claudia y Judith claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for File:Básquet.jpg (which permission – it doesn't have a licensing tag), which they found on Google, has been sent to OTRS. It's been over two months now, so please check this.

The same user also claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for File:CBF Cerdanyola.jpg has been sent to OTRS. For this image, they are claiming to be the author and copyright holder. However, http://www.esportfemeni.com/archives/440 credits the photo to Lídia Larrossa. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text searches on all the above file names return no tickets MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:El rapto de Europa de Valentin Serov.jpg

Steleto claims that an e-mail containing details of the permission for this file (which permission – it doesn't have a licensing tag), which they found on Google, has been sent to OTRS. It should be old enough to be in the public domain given that Valentin Serov died in 1911. Is there anything in OTRS that we need to be aware of before tagging it accordingly? It's been sitting around for two weeks now without a licensing tag, so please check this. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Text search on the above file name returns no tickets MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tagged it as a duplicate of File:Europe serov.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which was reverted without bothering to correct the file description, leaving it in that state for yet another week until I noticed. Sigh. Done now. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bianca-mastenbroek-1301660437.jpg

Hi, could someone check if we have any information about this file in OTRS? The description page says uploaded to wikiportrait.nl by OTRS Ticket#: 2011040110014768, but I don't know if it's the same OTRS system or if the emails have to be forwarded to commons. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 10:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiportret is a special Dutch queue; normal permissions agents don't have access, only info-nl agents. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket seems fine. Wikiportret is a system of the Dutch queue where people can send their images with information and we upload the files for them. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's now conflicting licensing information on that page. Could you check which of cc-by-3.0 and cc-by-sa-3.0 applies? Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 17:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Licence in ticket is CC-BY/GFDL. Best regards, Taketa (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Djslasher

Djslasher claims that an e-mail containing details of the permissions for File:Park Bom of 2NE1.JPG, File:2NE1.PNG, File:Sandara Park.jpg, File:Minzy-2ne1.jpg and File:DARA.jpg (which permissions – none of them have a licensing tag), which they found on Google, have been sent to OTRS. The files are credited to "AsianPopcorn" and at least two of them have different watermarks. Given the Google source, lack of license and range of watermarks, I'm suspecting the OTRS claims are false. Was anything actually sent in? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No ticket found for any of these files. - Taketa (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tagged for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mika Totem 2011.png permission

Can someone do a search of the OTRS permissions to see if this image has a valid ticket? The author is given as PR Photos, which is a photo service like Getty or WENN, so I strongly suspect it's a copyvio but given that there's a OTRS Pending tag on it... Tabercil (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagged A search on the file name returns no tickets. I also did a search on PR photos and found a copyvio ticket for a picture owned by PR Photos(Ticket#: 2011012910011072) MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - flushed. <G> Tabercil (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Janet Jackson at the Verizon Theatre at Grand Prairie.jpg

This image comes from Fame Pictures, Inc - Santa Monica, CA, USA - +1 (310) 395-0500 and copyright is claimed to belong to (c) 2011 Fame Pictures, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA. I doubt that an image agency provides photos via photo submission for free commercial reuse. Possibly someone tricked the photosubmission for license laundering. --Martin H. (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then they would have tricked me, since I handled the ticket. Tony Keith (listed as author on file) asserts quite heavily that he took the photo himself. Where are you getting the information above? Is there a ticket in the copyvio queue relating to this? – Adrignola talk 17:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, its written in the EXIF. And the photographer is Cindy Bar. --Martin H. (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no EXIF data for the photo linked above. I do not see where you are getting this information. – Adrignola talk 23:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The uploder manipulated the EXIF, he removed the visible properties that you see if you download the file. The file however still contains the hidden EXIF fields. And if you then search on the web for the caption you will come to a page like this where the full EXIF is preserved without this (IMO: criminal) email senders modifications respectively with that parts that he removed. --Martin H. (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a neat tool and I'm going to have to employ it on any future submissions without visible EXIF data. Criminal indeed. This person went through a lot of trouble to launder this license. I've deleted it immediately given your evidence. Ticket 2011040410025581 for future reference. – Adrignola talk 01:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. For the tool: If you use firefox (and possibly other browsers, but not IE) you see some very nice feature at the upper right of http://regex.info/exif.cgi. --Martin H. (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note translation

I was wondering if a German speaker can translate the note on ticket 2011041410018311. I got sent a copy of it because I merged tickets to it but my machine translation of it is not a positive one. – Adrignola talk 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a translation. cheers, —Pill (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My concerns have been confirmed. – Adrignola talk 01:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aynrand.png

Ticket 2010111410014437 has the uploader stating that the rights to the work and the work itself were purchased for $20 but there is no evidence provided to support the statement. Do we believe the uploader? My inclination is a deletion based on the precautionary principle. But a second opinion would be good as this is apparently being used by all the Wikipedias that don't allow fair use for illustration of Ayn Rand articles. – Adrignola talk 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions of Special:Contributions/Aehtna (not my account)

Tomorrow, the tolerated limit of time without a permission will be exeeded. I got an e-mail that the uploads were justified from this website by Prof. Dr. Johannes Breuer and forwarded it to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org but I got no response and there are no OTRS-Tickets. I asked whether you will take the steps that are necessary to validate this and whether I should add an {{subst:OP}} to the files.

Here is the mailheader: 

Message-ID: <4DA6BD29.100XXXX@t-online.de>
Disposition-Notification-To: Rainer Rillke <rXXXXXXXXXXX@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:23:53 +0200
From: Rainer Rillke <rXXXXXXXXXXX@t-online.de>
User-Agent: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org
Subject: Fwd: Antwort: Grafiken aus der Patientenberatung
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TOI-MSGID: f932f623-19e9-48c0-908a-1080891XXXXX

What I did wrong? -- RE rillke questions? 14:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Du hast nichts falsch gemacht, aber wie du den /FAQ entnehmen kannst, dauert die Bearbeitung oft einige Zeit -- nur selten können Mails schon nach einem Tag bearbeitet werden, in der Regel bewegt sich die Bearbeitungsdauer eher zwischen einer und zwei Wochen. Grundsätzlich ist angeraten, {{subst:OP}} zu verwenden, wenn man bereits eine Mail geschickt hat, ja. Da ich das Ticket aber ohnehin eben schon gesucht habe, kannst du in diesem Fall die Bilder auch gleich mit {{OTRS received|reason=processing|ticket=2011041410009375}} kennzeichnen. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meine Mail (nicht sichtbar) war aber ausdrücklich eine Vorab-Anfrage, das heißt die Antwort der Professors ist noch keine eindeutige Zusage. Wenn noch keine vorliegt, könnten Sie bitte noch entspechende Maßnahmen einleiten (Asking for explicit permission.)? Danke -- RE rillke questions? 15:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte entschuldigen Sie die Störung. Ich habe die FAQ jetzt gelesen. -- RE rillke questions? 15:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Nach Bearbeitungskonflikt:) Hallo, die Vorlage, die ich oben vorgeschlagen habe ({{OTRS received|reason=processing|ticket=2011041410009375}}) sagt nur aus, dass unter der Ticketnummer eine E-Mail vorliegt, die noch nicht bearbeitet wurde. Das Vorgehen ist also so, dass du die Vorlage auf die Bildseiten einsetzt (und einen allfälligen "no permission"-Baustein entfernst), wodurch die Löschung der Dateien zunächst einmal abgewendet wäre. Dann wird sich in den nächsten Tagen (ggf. Wochen) ein Bearbeiter aus dem Support Team (ich oder jemand anders) der E-Mail annehmen und prüfen, welche Schritte noch zur korrekten Genehmigung nötig sind. Sind diese schließlich erfolgt und liegen alle Freigaben in ausreichender Form vor, wird er den von dir eingefügten {{OTRS received}}-Baustein entfernen und stattdessen die finale Genehmigungsvorlage einfügen. Grüße, —Pill (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2011041310016074

Hi, there is an issue on en.wp about use of a Commons image to which OTRS ticket 2011041310016074 relates. The issue is discussed here. Can anyone shed any light on what the significance of the OTRS ticket actually is? Rd232 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket contains permission by author for use of the image. Nothing else. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. To be clear: is it verified that the author of the image is Diego Arria, as the file description claims? Or is it merely verified that the person who took the image gave permission? Rd232 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=53252233"