Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2020

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

Verification of Ticket #2019120210007824

Can an agent check the following ticket Ticket:2019120210007824 contains permissions for File:Annika Falkengren2.jpg ? Sincerely, --PierreSelim (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Since our follow-up question was never answered, the permission process was never completed. So no: there's no confirmed permission in OTRS for the mentioned image. Ciell (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer Ciell. Do you think we should send a reminder or should we proceed with deletion of the content ? --PierreSelim (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Normally we don't send reminders, but it isn't too much of an effort, so I send one and gave the person another 7 days to reply. Ciell (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --PierreSelim (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yw. Ciell (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ticket#2020010510001413 (German)

Hallo zusammen; ich stehe in Kontakt mit de:Benutzer:Arsenius. Arsenius arbeitet in der deutschen Wikipedia an einem Entwurf über den Literaturwissenschaftler Hans-Jürgen Schrader und hat nun von seiner Frau Eveline Schrader ein von ihr gemachtes Foto erhalten, das Frau Schrader freundlicherweise unter CC0 freigibt. Diese Freigabe-Erklärung hat sie bereits an das OTRS geschickt; Arsenius hat mir die Antwort mit Ticket-Nummer #2020010510001413 und das Foto weitergeleitet. Da Arsenius sich auf Commons noch nicht so auskennt, habe ich das Hochladen übernommen. Es handelt sich nun also um File:Hans-Jürgen Schrader.jpg - kann ein OTRS-Teammitglied die Freigabe bestätigen? Vielen Dank! Gestumblindi (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I added a note to the ticket, Ticket:2020010510001413, so I hope a German speaking OTRS-agent will finish the procedure. If this does not help, please mail to the OTRS system, please mention the ticket# in the subject line (Sorry for the English answer, I do not dare to write in German). Kind regards, Elly (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Erledigt von Reinhard Kraasch, wie ich sehe. Vielen Dank! :-) Thanks to Elly, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Penny_Pennington_portrait.jpg

Could someone please look in on Commons:Help desk#Deletion of file: Penny_Pennington_portrait.jpg? - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jmabel, I have answered there. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hello, Please delete my following upload immediately: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:13_fuehrerscheine_-_dreizehn_juedische_schicksale.pdf The exhibit panel of the mentioned author contains commercial advertising for a company which I didn't noticed when I uploaded this file. The file itself will get cut off soon and uploaded again. Best regards, Wereldnieuws (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Photo Myriam Charleins

Bonjour, J'ai reçu un message du photographe Georges Biard signalant qu'il a reçu un message de l'actrice Myriam Charleins qui souhaite supprimé sa photo de wikimedia commons en l’occurrence celle-ci : File:Myriam Charleins Cannes 2016.jpg. A qui dois-je envoyé la capture du message pour la preuve ? Cordialement--Durkheim21 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Permission was validated by an admin. I think the best it's to open a deletion request, but I don't think it will be success, since there is no valid reason for deletion. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Durkheim21: Just ask George Biard to write us the request, including [Ticket#2012010510013998] in the email subject. The request will then be granted by an admin. (you can also ping me when it's sent) Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 20:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Ok, à quelle adresse mail doit-il envoyer le message ? Merci--Durkheim21 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Durkheim21: Celle habituelle: permissions-fr@wikimedia.org --Ruthven (msg) 17:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Scott Smith futurist.jpg

Hello -- I made a mistake when uploading a photo for an article on English Wikipedia I had recently created and would like to sort it out. I contacted the subject of the article and he provided a photo and said "I own the copyright" for it. I uploaded the photo, said it was a "work for hire" situation and sent in an OTRS request. When responding to the OTRS request, Scott Smith the copyright holder let the OTRS volunteer know that it was actually a self-timed photo. This message conflicted with the information on the photo. I corrected the incorrect information on the photo and am not sure what the next step is. Another volunteer accused me of writing this article as an editor-for-hire and I'd like to be very clear that I do not do paid Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons work and this was not a work for hire in any way. Thanks for your time. ticket:2020011110004686 Jessamyn (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I need a fresh pair of eyes in ticket:2020011110004686. First, the subject in the file claim to be copyright, even when the file says it's a "work for hired". When I request explanations, the subject says he's got no clue what does it means, because it's a self-timed file, took it with an iPhone. I've asked the uploader, who says it's a misunderstood - He understands that self-timed means work for hired... so it fixed the statement in the file. It's too hard to me believe this, but, perhaps I'm the one who's wrong. I've released the ticket, to see if someone else can understand what's going on here. Courtesy ping to @Jessamyn. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I'm not sure why I didn't have a CoE when write this, but I add my comment to the previous one since it's about the same file and ticket. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 Comment @Ganímedes: I could certainly see how it would be plausible. Would you like for me to take over the ticket? (P.S. CoE?)--Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I've released, so of course. (CoE=Conflict of edition) --Ganímedes (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

File:3 Cycles of minor thirds - BassLessons.tv.webm

OTRS ? permission received ? -- Eatcha (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2018021010000318 applies to the files in question.--Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 09:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Ruthven, Koavf --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 09:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The permission was given years ago. Can we please just be over this? How on Earth is this still ongoing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
From why I could tell, it seems that something was overlooked and there was no confirmation/permission acceptance regarding the video files. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 12:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, finally: this is the explanation needed here... --Ganímedes (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I've checked the ticket and it's a valid permission IMHO... I see no reason to delete files. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

File:François Coty. 2.png

How can an alleged PD-US work from 1930 have an OTRS approved license? @Kvardek du. — Racconish 💬 14:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Racconish: my bad, I did it too quickly. Licence is CC BY SA 4.0. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 20:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kvardek du: thank you for your prompt answer. Nevertheless, I am still puzzled: if the license stipulates "BY", why isn't the author named? — Racconish 💬 12:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Racconish and Kvardek du: The image was taken from a book published in 2006, which got the image from the private archives of the subject's heirs. The image's caption in the book does not mention a photographer. The ticket also does not mention a photographer. CC-BY licenses only require the attribution of the creator's name if it has been supplied, which it has not been in this case.
My concern is how the copyright got from the photographer to the heirs of the subject. French law provides for copyright transfer by will or by automatic succession, neither of which usually would include the subject of a work. Depending on the true anonymity of the author and the date of first publication, the image is most likely still protected by US law and probably French law. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kvardek du: since you explained the OTRS process was not used to prove the PD status, can you please clarify what justifies this strange CC-BY-SA claim? — Racconish 💬 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If I remember well, when I handled the ticket, the photo was published on the website francoiscoty.fr and the e-mail adress used came from this website. So, I assumed their responsability on the publication was already engaged (plus the legal risks are minimal), and added the OTRS ticket. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kvardek du: OTRS agents are supposed to check if a copyrighted artwork is released under a Commons compatible license by the copyright owner. I suggest you should now nominate the file for deletion since you have not been able to verify this CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. — Racconish 💬 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kvardek du:  ? — Racconish 💬 09:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There are debates between OTRS volunteers concerning this kind of case, as we lack a precise rule. I checked the identity of the permission sender, and we can suppose the good faith of this official sender concerning its management of the copyright rules in its archive. Anyway, the responsability in case of problem would not be ours. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
There is not a "debate" on this matter nor do we lack a precise rule, it's always been the accepted responsibility of OTRS agents (who have access to the permissions queues) to ensure the copyright used is accurate (which you have certainly not done in this case). It's also not up to you to decide what level of "legal risks" there are. You are simply to ensure we aren't violating laws with our media inclusions. Many people come around with official email addresses claiming to own the copyright of a file, and many times it turns out they don't (usually a result of them being the subject of the photo, and the photographer being the one who owns the copyright). It's your job to ask the correct questions to get to the root of the matter: how does the person emailing us own the copyright? I second what was said above by AntiComposite as to the French/US laws that apply here, and after reviewing the OTRS ticket have decided it is not a sufficient statement of permission to verify they own the copyright. As such, the license on the file is invalid... so, I'm removing that, as well as de-marking the file as being reviewed by OTRS. I recommend you now email back the individual and ensure there is a way to verify the copyright was transferred to them by the photographer. — Coffee // have a cup // 22:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
A work of unknown author cannot be the object of a CC-BY-SA license, it is a contradiction of terms and there has been no claim of copyright ownership provided to OTRS. The statements "I assumed their responsability on the publication was already engaged (plus the legal risks are minimal)" and "Anyway, the responsability in case of problem would not be ours" are in my opinion out of line for an OTRS agent. In practical terms, the CC-BY-SA license is wrong : see here. — Racconish 💬 12:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

OTRS Needed?

Should a tag be put on this file File:MeredithMacNeill.jpg stating that it is copyright violation if no OTRS is forthcoming?--NL19931993 (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

en:File:Girl-on-a-bicycle-poster.jpg

Hi! There is a broken OTRS template on this file. Could you check if it is valid and if yes transfer to Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: FYI. De728631 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 Info Per Ticket:2013111910013307 (along with Ticket:2013110410010105, Ticket:2014010910014182, Ticket:2014013010009844), I do not see any explicit release under a free licence. Only permission allowing use on Wikipedia. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 12:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Then we cant copy to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Check OTRS Status

Would it be possible for someone with OTRS permissions to check the status/validity of the permissions for this ([1]) image? The ticket number is 2019122010008951. Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The ticket has not been valid, and an agent has handled the ticket. There has been no further response to the ticket after the agent's first email. Ahmadtalk 16:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

How to add Movies Poster

Hello, I try to add a movie poster (File:Affiche garabandal 2020.png) but it was rejected because "copy violation". I saw plenty of over Movie poster on wikimedia, with OTRS Licence. Ex : File:Every_next_day_poster.jpg ou File:Ad-vientu_Poster_Asturian_(dir._Roberto_F._Canuto_y_Xu_Xiaoxi).jpg. What should we do to have this licence for Movie poster ? I never did it before. Thanks for your help. --Bergil (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@FERNANDES Gilbert: Hello. The copyright holder (usually the author) of the poster should send their permission to OTRS. COM:relgen can be used for this purpose. Ahmadtalk 10:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How much is enough? Or there's no limit for a painter's work?

Nica Schmidt, heiress of Elisa Maria Boglino, has sent lots of files and tickets about the artist's work. The article in da- is plenty of them. Now, we've received another ticket about 2 other files. So, the title: How much is enough? Or there's no limit for a painter's work? --Ganímedes (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, all artistic works created by notable people are presumed to be in scope. GMGtalk 16:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Place for deletion request?

Is this the place to request deletion of files I uploaded? Caballero//Historiador ☊ 01:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No. You must open a commons:Deletion request. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If a photo is upload under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication from Flickr, does it need to be Flickr Reviewed?--User19004 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not within the scope of this noticeboard, please ask at the COM:Village pump. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Can otrs verify dob of a person ?

See Commons:Village_pump#Please_review_photo_of_a_driver_license -- Eatcha (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eatcha: The OTRS team does not accept photos or scans of physical identity documents, at all, ever. If they are sent to OTRS, they will have to be permanently deleted. There are two reasons: First, All security measures on physical identity documents either rely on the identified person being there (biometrics) or show when the document has been copied. As photos and scans are copies, these markers are useless for us. Second, identity documents contain a significant amount of personal information, including information that could be extremely harmful if released. Neither the OTRS team nor the WMF wants this information. Under the privacy policy, the amount of private data collected and stored must be minimized to prevent disclosure. Volunteers are also restricted in their handling of the information by the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. For these reasons, we would not be able to disclose any information from identifying documents. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:WEF

Want to know about the OTRS ticket inside the template. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: There's nothing interesting about it, just the World Economic Forum confirming that they did intend to license the CC-BY-SA-marked photos on their Flickr page as CC-BY-SA. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I fear it's not that easy. Currently, WEF's Flickr-stream is licensed CC-BY-SA-NC. Some years ago there has been this short discussion at Template talk:WEF (second thread). So, does the available ticket 2008032810015671, on which the WEF-tempate is based, blanketly override the non-compliant licensing on their Flickr-stream? In other words, can the {{WEF}} still legitimately be used to upload new images from their Flickr-stream? --Túrelio (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
IHMO Ticket:2008032810015671 would definitely cover anything prior to 2008-04-01 and anything after tagged as CC-BY-SA, but new images post-2008-04-01 with the -NC tag should not be uploaded and {{WEF}} cannot be used UNLESS someone can contact them to reaffirm that their images are CC-BY-SA and not CC-BY-SA-NC. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 12:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with Nat's assessment. The ticket does not override anything that has not been marked CC-BY-SA on WEF's Flickr stream. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of ;File:Natasha Akpoti.jpg

Hi OTRS Team,

Please note that the above named file was deleted after permission to use the file on Wikipedia was properly submitted by the rightful owner and approved by an OTRS team member..

See the following evidence for verification of notice of approval and Ticket: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot_of_image_permission_of_Natasha_Akpoti_on_Commons.png

Deletion details

Natasha Akpoti 13:30, 12 January 2020 Arthur Crbz talk contribs deleted page File:Natasha Akpoti.jpg (OTRS pending as of 29 December 2019) 

Thank you for your prompt action Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2019123110003631 appears to give permission for File:Natasha Akpoti.jpg. User:Arthur Crbz and/or User:Krd, could you take another look at this please? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done The file has been deleted because the template "OTRS Pending" was still used in the file description. As the file has a valid permission, it has been undeleted. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Importing files with an OTRS

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T213409

Hi! I wanted to import some files from ro:Categorie:Imagini oferite domeniului public de către posesor to Commons. So I tried to import ro:Fișier:Tibor Moldovan.jpg to Commons but the system complain that I'm not an OTRS member. Thats true. So I tried to changed to OTRS pending and I even tried to delete all text except the license. But the system still complain. Perhaps an OTRS member could try to import to see if it works? --MGA73 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I imported that file, would you like me to import any others? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Any attempt to import a file with {{OTRS}} on it will be blocked by the abuse filter as you are not an OTRS member. I recommend removing the template prior to import and then asking an OTRS member to re-add it, that way you can import them efficiently. ~riley (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! But as you can see in the filehistory I tried to remove the template. I even tried to delete everything but the license.
I think the import may check each version of the file and if there ever was an OTRS on the file it will be blocked. Even if its an old version.
So yes please I think we should move the rest of the files in that category. Would you like a list or is it cool enough with the link to the category? --MGA73 (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: no hurry - just wanted to make sure you saw my reply :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: Unfortunately, I don't have access to the tickets for most of the files in that category. ticket:2009062610044431, ticket:2008110410022059, and ticket:2010021710024698 aren't in a permissions queue, so they're probably in info-ro. You'll have to ask someone else for help with those. I do have access to ticket:2015032310027798 for Aurel Tămaș images, but I'm not confident enough in the release to move those files to Commons.
As for why it didn't work in the first place, the FileExporter beta feature currently applies the AbuseFilter to every revision during import. This is a known issue and should be fixed before the feature leaves beta. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you. Okay just close this request then. We should not move unless we are sure. So unless we get someone from ro.wiki to confirm and move the permission we should let the files stay there. --MGA73 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Unsure on how this works

Hi, I came across a picture of a footballer (File:Malcom_in_Zenit,_2019.png) which has been downloaded from the club's official website. The licencing states that "Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive."

Now, how would I do the same, but for another football club (A.C. Monza)? Do I send an email to them, and ask them if I can use the player pictures on Wikipedia? And then, how do I get it to go through the OTRS process? I need someone to clear up the whole thing for me, please. Thanks in advance, Nehme1499 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: To upload someone else's works to Commons, you need to contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the works under a free license. The English Wikipedia has some advice about how to do this, but I'll summarize it here.
  1. Contact the copyright holder and ask them if they'd be willing to release their works under a free license so that anyone can use them, for any reason. We can't accept photos that can only be used non-commercially, can't be changed, or can only be used on Wikipedia. CC-BY-SA-4.0 is usually a good license.
  2. If they're able and willing to do so, ask them to place a statement on their website saying something to the effect of "These images are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license." In this case, a license reviewer can check the file when it is uploaded to Commons.
  3. If they don't want to add such a statement to their website, they can send an email to the OTRS permissions team instead. Once they've agreed to the free license, upload the file(s) to Commons and mark it with {{subst:OP}}. Then ask the copyright holder to send a permissions statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and include the link to the file(s) you uploaded. Instructions for how to do this and a suggested release form are available at COM:CONSENT. The email to OTRS must come from the copyright holder directly and can't be forwarded by you. An OTRS agent will then review the email and confirm the release under a free license if everything is in order. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok I got it. Is there any way the copyright holder can release a statement saying that all photo present in a specific section of a page (say, the player list section) is free to use under CC-BY-SA-4.0 indefinitely (so not only the photos present now, but also the ones that will be uploaded in the future), without having to resort to asking him to change the footer of the website? Or does he have to give permission to every single individual image one by one? --Nehme1499 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nehme: They can just make any sub-page on their website and make the statement there. We can verify it and archive it and notate it here if they will link us to it. GMGtalk 16:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks for your help! --Nehme1499 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Nehme1499 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

ticket #2008111710007855

Can someone please check whether ticket #2008111710007855 applies to File:Oosterlinck André - HTISA 2019.jpg as claimed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oosterlinck André - HTISA 2019.jpg Gbawden (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2008111710007855 is not in a permissions queue and I can not access it. An OTRS admin should be able to figure out where it is and look at it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as I see it is not a permissions ticket. --Krd 05:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Warren Leopold images status - ticket 2019122210005315

Could you please check the verification status for the following images relating to Warren Leopold under ticket:2019122210005315? On December 23, 2019, OTRS received an email from the author, Darren Westlund, which should have contained a release for the following files. Their status 'awaiting processing' has not updated since then. Please let me know if I need to prompt the author to complete any outstanding actions.

Thank you. Waldhorn (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The email has been received but was insufficient to confirm permission. A reply was sent requesting more information, but there has been no response. The agent processing the ticket did not update the tags. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
So that I can bring this to the attention of the author, could you please let me know the date of the reply by OTRS?--Waldhorn (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Waldhorn: It was within a day of the original email, 22 or 23 December 2019. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you. I've contacted the author and hope that he will respond soon with the required information. --Waldhorn (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: A few minutes ago the author sent two emails: (1) a reply from his personal domain to the 12/23/2020 OTRS agent's request for an explanation as to how he became the full and exclusive copyright holder of the images, and (2) a re-sending of the declaration of consent that he provided in December. Please let me know if his explanation is sufficient to complete the verification process. Thank you. --Waldhorn (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Waldhorn (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Permission pending (Achterberg again)

Hi!

I see on the top of the page that the current backlog is down to one day in the permissions-commons queue, which is great! But wasn't our agreement that images tagged with {{OP}} get thirty (30) days before deletion is in order? Or is it now down to seven?

Re: the deletion of File:ASC Leiden - van Achterberg Collection - 03 - 01 - La nef et la tour à cloche de la cathédrale. Palmiers - Bamako, Mali - novembre-décembre 1993.tif by @Arthur Crbz: .

Ciell (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi ~riley, thank you for this: it is the right image and the right ticket-number. But I understand from the WiR who is in charge of the uploads, this image deletion was part of the deletion of multiple pictures with OTRS-pending, in two Achterberg-categories who are now all empty. Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection Achterberg-03 & Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection Achterberg 6. Could you maybe check the logs for me? Ciell (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Will dig into the logs.. once again making a mess. Worth noting the "WiR" also uploaded another collection only for it to be deleted - F van der Kraaij Collection. This is an expensive use of resources. ~riley (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes I know: that's why I asked if he still got 30 days to get the permission in order - because that one isn't okay yet. You refer to Van der Kraaij right? Ciell (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The new Achterberg-ones got uploaded on the 14th/15th of January, the Van der Kraaijs this weekend. So I myself cannot explain these deletions.... Ciell (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: Can you hop on IRC? ~riley (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
So I did. Thanks for taking care of this. Ciell (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:BoundCon

The BoundCon is a yearly event, where bondage artists, bondage models and photographers meet. Photos from the BoundCon can be found in Category:BoundCon. The Website of the BoundCon states, that protographers need (not to publish, but to only) take photos the explicit consent of the individual model they take a photo of. I understand, that such a consent would be stated in commons by usage of the template "this photo was taken with the consent of the model" or by attaching an OTRS ticket, that documents this consent and the release by the model. A quick look over the file descriptons of the fotos in the category showed neither. Is this still ok, or need this files a documentation of the given consent by an OTRS ticket? --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

OTRS verifies copyright aspects and photo permission per property rights (i.e. photo accreditations). OTRS does not verify model releases or personality rights consent. As long as the performances are not copyright protected artwork, you are free to publish the images without OTRS, as far as you obtained the consent from the model. --Krd 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2013040810011067

Could someone please review this ticket and confirm whether it is sufficient ito Commons:Deletion requests/File:Senator stratton taylor.jpg 12:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The ticket supports the photo being PD, but there is nothing about the depicted painting. I think permission in total is invalid. --Krd 12:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

File:ASC Leiden - van de Bruinhorst Collection - Somaliland 2019 - 4484 - A painting depicting an animal story with a lion, a bleeding dromedary and other animals. A mathematical geometric series of 0.5 - Xarunta Dhaqanka ee Hargeysa.jpg

I would like to know who, according to OTRS, is holding the copyright to this painting, since it is not mentioned on the filepage, and I would like to know if that copyright-holder sent an e-mail him- or herself or was supposed to be represented by someone else. My reasons for asking are that 1) the discussion following the deletion request was ended rather unsatisfying, and that 2) the author of the work doesn't seem to be mentioned on the file page at all. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC).

Courtesy pings for Srittau. It looks like this might have been an accident of adding OTRS to the entire category via VFC. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the ticket, but it seems to address the copyright status of the photograph without addressing the copyright status of the underlying artistic work in this instance. GMGtalk 13:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Repinging User:~riley. GMGtalk 13:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so far, GreenMeansGo, that is somehow what I expected to hear. Whether it is an accident or not, I cannot tell, but I think discussions like the ones over this file should be resolved in all clearness, which was not the case. Further, I am a bit irritated, because I have noticed before that the uploader, User:Hansmuller, showed earlier to have a rather loose opinion on how to handle copyright issues – while I do appreciate most of the results of his work, I think this is especially troublesome for a Wikimedian-in-residence, which he is. I must say that I have the impression that this OTRS-ticket might be hussled in in some sort of way, and if that is the case, it would be pretty disappointing AND troubling. I do also think that Hansmuller should have noticed that the OTRS was not resolved in the right way, and I can only guess as to the reason why he didn't, if not out of bad intent, so maybe he can explain himself. [Which reminds me that Hansmuller in the Deletion discussion also claimed that User:Taivo had resolved the issue, so tagging him/her here also (making it apparently three sysops and 1 W-i-R witnessing this 'accident'...).]
I was also triggered to ask my question here, because – as if out of the blue – the apparent author showed up in this discussion (of which the aim is unclear). en:User:Jmgurey is claiming the authorship of the painting, which might be valid, since that user appears to be the ethnomathematician en:Jama Musse Jama. Jmgurey says he is happy to have his image on Wikimedia Commons, so it's not my intention to have the image removed, but the license c.q. OTRS-ticket should at least be fixed. Eissink (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC).
It's not exactly clear what the author means when they say that the image is "on the public domain", and whether that is supposed to be considered a proactive public domain dedication for the work by the author. They may simply be referring to the public domain tag that we ourselves added to the image here on Commons. Besides that, copyright in the source country is...unusual at best. It's not at all clear to me how we ought to proceed for copyright in a country where the government has very nearly ceased to function, and been at least partly superseded by a break-away government that almost no one recognizes. GMGtalk 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Some things about that have been said in the Deletion request, which is an extra reason that one would want this to have been handled with a little bit more care, that is: an explanation or rationale from a closing administrator. As long as there has not been a recognized regime chance, I'd say the old copyright provisions stand – it seems rather peculiar that some European or American steals someone's work saying "Your country is in a civil war, so I can own your work". Eissink (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC).
  • I was not aware of the ongoing deletion request, and unless I opened every single file in the collection (I did vet through, but did not see this painting), I would not have known otherwise. The OTRS given was for the images as a collection, a discussion about the copyright concern over the painting should not have been closed. ~riley (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, I will do that, even though I find it strange and not very comforting and confidence-inspiring that having brought this to attention on the OTRS Noticeboard, no OTRS member nor the uploader seems to be willing to take over responsibilities. Thanks for all your comments and answers. Eissink (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
Done. Eissink (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
Honestly, I tried reading up on the issue some and I'm not entirely sure I know what the heck is to be done with media created in Somalia. GMGtalk 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you expect an OTRS member to do in this case? We processed the blanket category permission from the author (of the pictures) and we have nothing more on our end to do unless we receive permission from the author of the painting. Deciding what to do with Somalia while in a state of war falls on community consensus, it does not fall on OTRS. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Even the current license lays upon the uploader the burden to get information on the identity of the author, including information on the publishing history, which will still require OTRS. While there might be an indication as to the identity of the author (which I, not the uploader, provided here for the first time!), the file page still offers no info on the author. The painting is still anonymous, but presumably not of any age that would allow for any PD-old license, as far as I can see, not even in the current state of the country it was photographed in – I hope you can agree on that. Eissink (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
  • Assuming good faith, I guess it's much more effective and less time-consuming to ask User:Jmgurey (who identified himself as being Jama Musse Jama and who said he is happy having this image of his painting on Wikimedia/Wikipedia) if he can go through the OTRS process and indicate what kind of license he thinks most suitable. I will ask him. Vysotsky (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I have opened a new DR. Please remember that Hansmuller is the one who is falling short here – he refuses to answer and he is, mind you, being paid by Wikimedia for this work. It's sickening. And it isn't the first time. Eissink (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

No problem here, not even for Jurgen Eissink! Be well and don't worry, i am not paid by Wikimedia, but at the moment by my own personal Muller Foundation! The picture legally is {{PD-Somalia}}, but of course it is better now that the author is known that he decides. For acknowledgement etc. {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} would be great! See the comments of the self-declared author (Thank you!!) here. Long live ethnomathematics! We'll contact him. He has already declared that public domain is fine with him. Hansmuller (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, PD-Somalia seems to cover the copyright status in the US, but not necessarily in the source country. It may be technically PD in the source country by virtue of not being registered, because the government wasn't functioning. I've not totally convinced myself I'm comfortable with saying that bit is really operating in good faith on our part. It does seem a little bit like taking advantage of content creators in an active war zone.
Probably yes, the easiest thing all around is have the author of the painting specify a free license or make an active and explicit public domain dedication. GMGtalk 20:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction. It is not a matter of the "war zone", even before warfare Somalia had not signed the Berne convention. A moderator previously went through all this and allowed the image on Commons. Let's now see what the author wants. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If "a moderator" "allowed" the image, why does the license not reflect this "allowance", and why didn't this moderator resolve the Deletion Request? It's the same sort of "don't worry, everything is okay, I know moderators"-humbug that I keep hearing from Hansmuller, but in the meantime nothing happens, except for the next "no problem, be well, don't worry" BS, and other people have to fix the mess. I've got the feeling you might need a severe warning, because all you care about is yourself. Eissink (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
@Eissink: Just a reminder, try to keep things COM:MELLOW. GMGtalk 00:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess I have made my point now. I made a new DR and will withdraw from the further discussion here, because OTRS-members seem to be confused or silent for other reasons. Eissink (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
This is at this point probably well outside the scope of the OTRS noticeboard. But maybe it's helpful for me at least to gather my own thoughts. I'm not aware of any precedent on Commons for a government that functions well enough to require registration, but not well enough to offer any avenue to actually register. The whole thing feels inherently colonial and exploitative...at least to my own intuition. GMGtalk 01:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Just also going to drop a ping for @SSiy (WMF): . I know legal can't offer guidance on specific files, but I would be interested in any broad input they could provide. GMGtalk 01:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2010092010013136

Look like File:Allen Carr.jpeg was moved from fi.wiki. Not sure. OTRS ticket added by User:Musamies - non OTRS member. Can someone check it. -- Geagea (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Str4nd: Noting that the ticket doesn't seem to specify 3.0 as indicated in the license here, although I am not an fi speaker. GMGtalk 13:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems that str4nd not active. Maybe Stryn can help her. -- Geagea (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have access to permissions queue. Stryn (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
So maybe @Para: or @Htm: . -- Geagea (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, using Google translate seems that the ticket ended with confirmation. The ticket is from 2010. I checked this photo because same photo was used in he.wiki with fair use rational and the user that added the OTRS ticket was non OTRS member. As seems that no OTRS finish speaker volunteer is available for now I withrow my request. It is good idea that an admin from fi.wiki will check if the file was originally uploaded to fi.wiki first. -- Geagea (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Stryn and Geagea: Maybe you can check my reasoning on this, but since they specified CCBYSA without specifying a version, and all CCBYSA licenses are compatible with all later licenses, would it makes senses that we can change the license to 4.0, and it would be compatible with any CCBYSA? GMGtalk 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, The ticket is from 2010. As I understand the OTRS agent confirmed the license. My intention was not to dig in the past. Same file was in he.wiki with fair use rational and the file war removed from the article and shold be deleted. When checked, the user that added OTRS ticket was not OTRS member. It probabely moved from the local wiki as the ticket referint to the same file. The ticket have confirmation so I don't see reason to dig at this. I withrow my request. -- Geagea (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Sunnyou31

Could someone check ticket:2008012510003504 against the uploads? Source page reads "Copyright: David W. Carmichael. Do not use photos without the written permission of the author!" and the uploader did add the OTRS tag themself. --Achim (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Achim55: These files should be OK, a response of the ticket from the client gives permission to images on davecskatingphoto.com, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Achim (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

ticket #2015032410033985/SpaceX

Could you tell me if ticket: 2015032410033985 attached to the license template {{Cc-zero-SpaceX}} apply to just a few individual images or to all SpaceX uploads on Flickr? I'm asking since I (possibly mistakenly) changed the license on the following images uploaded by Makandserm (talk · contributions · Statistics) that have a non-commercial and therefore incompatible license on their Flickr source.

Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: The ticket is not clear on that front. The original email in 2015 said "all media" on the Flickr stream. An agent asked about the CC-BY-NC files in July 2018, but the email bounced back and there were no further replies. For this reason, I would say that any images uploaded to Flickr as CC-BY-NC after March 2015 should be treated like any other CC-BY-NC file and deleted unless evidence of a compatible license is provided. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Bjork Cornucopia 6 May.jpg

Please check if ticket:2019051410001213 of File:Bjork Cornucopia May 6.jpg covers File:Bjork Cornucopia 6 May.jpg as well, thank you. --Achim (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nop, only File:Bjork Cornucopia May 6.jpg is listed in the ticket, Achim. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Roehrich, OTRS #2018112910009437

I found some files by Stefan Roehrich (OTRS #2018112910009437) 1, 2. But i'm not sure, did he let to use all his photos? For example I found this photo - [2] Should I ask Stefan's premission?--DS28 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, DS28. Only 2 files are involved in the ticket: File:4X-AOS_Stefan_Roehrich.jpg and File:4X-BAS_Stefan_Roehrich.jpg. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. DS28 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2020020710007895

I would like to know when this image will be approved by an OTRS member File:Caja digital.jpg--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've requested the customer the original, unmodified file for verification. When he sends it to us, I'll proceed. No answer yet. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2020021710004021

The customer has sent a permission in German, in a pdf file. If some german-speaking agent can help me to translate and verify the permission, I'll be very thankful. It sounds to me like a "Wikipedia-only" permission, but I want to be sure. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am Dutch, but I can understand enough German. The permission is valid in general and in accordance with the standard text on German Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Textvorlagen#Freigaben_von_Texten_und_Bildern. (Examples for giving permission for publication of text and images under a free licence). Elly (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Elly. I've released the ticket. Can you please finish it for me as you understand the lenguage? --Ganímedes (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The ticket is closed by another agent. Elly (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elly (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Stupid question

Is the time recorded in the ticket system UTC? GMGtalk 13:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes GreenMeansGo, OTRS agents can see the time each entry in a ticket was made. Ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Everyone can. It's set in the ticket number: year/month/day/etc. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, I knew what we could see, but the software doesn't specify that the time given is UTC. GMGtalk 18:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There is only the day in the ticket number, not the time. --Krd 19:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding File:Joshua&RachelMaeLigairi2009.jpg & File:JoshuaLigairi2009.jpg

To whom it may concern,

I uploaded the files above a little bit ago with permission from Joshua Ligairi, the copyright holder himself, who gave me permission to upload these files under the CC-BY-SA license (I went with 4.0 since it’s the most recent). We communicated this via Twitter DMs. I will give the screenshot as proof below. I wrote this out here because I have no idea how to go through the OTRS email thing, so I decided to put up the stuff here.

- Stinkyjaden (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Stinkyjaden

Hi Stinkyjaden. We can't use screenshots like that to verify copyright permission because there's no way for us to confirm that the screenshot hasn't been edited. Please have the copyright holder send an email confirming the license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, a suggested permission letter and further instructions are at COM:CONSENT. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Re:Regarding File:JoshuaLigairi2009.jpg and File:Joshua&RachelMaeLigairi2009.jpg

Regarding the photos I linked in the section title, the copyright holder, Joshua Ligairi, told me he filled out the permission forms for the pictures to be on here via OTRS. I just wanted to know if the images will be approved under OTRS. Thanks for your time.

- Stinkyjaden (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Stinkyjaden

@Stinkyjaden: Currently we have not received related emails about the two images. I have tagged the files properly, so that they will not be deleted before related emails income. Please stay patient.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:F. van der Kraaij Collection

Hello,

Can another OTRS-agent please do a botrun on Category:F. van der Kraaij Collection? I can confirm the release, but: * tag needs to change from pending to OTRS Permission per ticket:2017120110006751 * and the licence tag should be {{:self|CC-BY-SA-4.0|GFDL|author=F. van der Kraaij}}, instead of just the CC-BY-SA-4.0 Because it's 2100 images, this would be too much work for me with VF.

Thank you! Ciell (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. I would do it via VFC, but last time I confirmed permission for 300 photos using VFC, my browser kept on crashing on me every 20 tagged files. Krd, would you have a bot like Krdbot that could do the job? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: What shall we do with {{attribution|nolink=Fred van der Kraaij}}? --Ganímedes (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This is now included in my proposed license tag, I think? Ciell (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
{on hold} Apparently, not all 2100 images have been uploaded yet. Let me create a template, so the WiR can use this for the designated images. Ciell (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There are about 500 images uploaded, I'm going to ask the uploader to add the template himself with uploading. Meanwhile, could some one with a bot:

Hi all! These 500 images are now up for deletion, because of the 30 day limit for OTRS-pending. Can some one help out please? Ciell (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: did you forget to disable thumbnail loading and increase the number of files to be loaded to 500 or something? I can process at least 5000 files in one go, but I'm not an OTRS agent. Overlooked that you had made a template, I'll add that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ciell: 500 files is not so much. Please tell me the specific categories (since you've said they're not all) and I'll be more than glad to help. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ganímedes: I see that Alexis Jazz already took care of this. Thank you Alexis Jazz. Ciell (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Where can I find the "disable thumbnail loading"? Ciell (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: When you start VFC (the screen where you select your target), select "more options" and disable the checkbox for "load thumbnails". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Nat: this might also solve your problem...! Ciell (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2020030110000856

After grant permission, I've received a message in turkish. I already released the ticket to see if someone else can help. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I reopened the ticket and moved it to permissions-tr. --Krd 18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Permission for File:Wienerschule.jpg

This file is up for deletion on the grounds that the photographer is not named, though it has permission per ticket:2010081610002998. It'd be appreciated if someone with access to that ticket could confirm the permission at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wienerschule.jpg. clpo13(talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clpo13: It's in German, but it's just the German version of the standard CONSENT disclaimer. It specifies only that Österreichische MUSIKZEITschrift is the copyright holder and makes no mention of the original photographer. GMGtalk 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The ticket appears valid to me. --Krd 18:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. clpo13(talk) 18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Italian user?

Hi! Can someone check this file? File:Incentroide.jpg. It's a bit messy but it may have an OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: It was an early OTRS permission from 2006. The website has migrated, but the permission still holds. See the source file at it:File:Incentroide-tetra.GIF. --Ruthven (msg) 19:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Great! Perhaps you could add the usual OTRS template for both files? And make sure the right license is added too. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: Sure. Later I'll add the templates to it.wiki as well. Thanks
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 19:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Request restore images

Hello,

On the Wikipedia page it:Arturo Gilardoni two photos have been deleted:

because they contain "image within an image". We had already written for the ownership of the images and we write to you again to confirm that the images are our property. The photos come from the book "GIl-story 25 anni (1947-1972)" owned by Gilardoni S.p.A.

Before uploading the photos we sent an email to declare the property.

How can we restore the photos? We tried to upload the images again by adding the source but it is not allowed. Our user profile is Gil-men87

Thanks for your attention

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil-men87 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please send permission as described at: COM:OTRS --Krd 11:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of File:Solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS).svg

File:Solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS).svg removed due to "No OTRS permission for 30 days".

According to Commons:OTRS I do not need to contact OTRS if "I created the file myself, it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright", which is the case.

Do I need to submit a declaration of consent for it to be undeleted?

Algertzars (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Algertzars: Did you, or others previously sent an OTRS email? It seems that there are previously OTRS tickets related to the file.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ticket #2010082710003609

Hi there

I am trying to get some information about ticket #2010082710003609, which relates to the image found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EM-Stadion_Wals-Siezenheim_zur_Euro.jpg

On the image's page it says that "Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive."

Unfortunately, I am not able to access the permissions archive and therefore the ticket (which I believe is at the URL: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010082710003609), but I do need to know the date on which that ticket was opened and, by extension, roughly when the Wikipedia Foundation may have received said e-mail.

If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timgarrett1991 (talk • contribs)

From the file page's history you can see the relevant date is 27 August 2010. Timgarrett1991, why do you need more detail than that? Ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The ticket is indeed at that url, which is the one given at the File page. Platonides (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Norton Headquarters in Tempe, Arizona.

This is a beautiful picture, however I went to college in Tempe and know a little about it! The fabulous river that is shown in the picture is FALSE!!

It is the Salt River and it courses through the DESERT. Being in the desert, the riverbed is dry sand which is barely moistened during a heavy desert rain storm.

I am certain the locals would be happy if the river were as full as depicted so they could irrigate their arid properties and grow something more than cacti.

I certainly hope that NLOK is better at performing cyber security than posting photo shopped pictures!

Lee — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.86.0.117 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is related to File:NortonLifeLock Inc HQ 111519.jpg. Not that it has anything to do with the licensing status of the photo, but this may explain the situation: en:Tempe Town Lake. clpo13(talk) 00:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Please use Template:Fact disputed if there is something wrong between the file and its description. Not an OTRS matter --Ruthven (msg) 09:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

SVG climate sensitivity

Could someone please copy the OTRS template to an SVG version I uploaded at File:Hansen & Sato, Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History Figure 7.svg and File:Hansen & Sato, Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History Figure 7 explain.svg? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Done. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I copied the file to Commons File:Incentroide-tetra.GIF :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Romulus and Remus 2013.jpg

Is there anything regarding this file or the one linked to on file page? --MGA73 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Searched the mails for the filename, and I didn't find anything. Do you have any details, such as when the email should came, what is the ticket number (permissions-commons@ address automatically replies with the ticket number) or anything like that? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: No I just searched for files with the word ORTS that did not have PermissionOTRS etc. and found ~30 files with broken templates etc. This file has a comment at the bottom of the page saying "Please use OTRS as you are doing with File:Romulus and Remus with Cara.jpg. You may remove the "disputed" and "comment" templates when you add the {{OTRS pending}} template." --MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, no, I also found nothing. Since the other image was deleted for lack of permission, this one should be as well. I'll DR it due to age and use. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Carnegie Libraries in OhioMackinacbreezer (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Could someone please contact me about adding images. Some of the images I added to the list were flagged and removed. I've messaged with the person who flagged the photos and he didn't realize they were creative commons. He suggested I contact you regarding the other photos I added. My procedure to get the photos for the library list was to email the libraries directly and ask them to send me a copyright free photo to post on the page. The person who flagged my photos said I might have to do something else with you. I want to finish this project and not have any more problems. I would appreciate any help. I'm not a super tech genius and I was surprised myself that I figured out how to post the pictures to the page. Thank you.Mackinacbreezer (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Please contact permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Krd 11:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Is File:Orc mask by GrimZombie.jpg actually a free file?

I'm asking here due to the OTRS ticket apparently licensing it as free because it seems like a derivative work that's admittedly "based off warhammer concept" and not a completely original design. Has Games Workshop themselves authorized the usage of their orc design or just the person who made the mask? Because if GW themselves didn't freely license their orc concept art, this doesn't seem like it's actually a free file. Chess (User talk:Chess) Please ping when replying. 21:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chess: There are three potential copyrights at issue here: the photograph, the mask, and any original work. The photograph and the mask are covered by the ticket. Questions about infringement or non-infringement of any Warhammer art are best answered at the Copyright Village Pump or in a deletion request, as they are not addressed by the ticket. I will say that I don't think the mask here is substantially similar to the images of Warhammer orcs that I've been able to find. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Alright, I was just checking to make sure that the OTRS ticket didn't include the original work. Chess (User talk:Chess) Please ping when replying. 22:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Request from info@vector-shop.de [Ticket#2020030910006578] and [Ticket#2020030910006551] (German)

I've got an email reply from Vector Racing, a link can't be match with the file. Can somebody check this confirmation manually, because I think the filename and the link is correct, and only the robot can't read the link or the HTML formated mail?!

[Ticket#2020030910006578]

and the second request, [Ticket#2020030910006551]:

Many Thanks in advance, regards --Pitlane02 🏁 talk 08:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. For minimize your effort, I've added the the mails again... --Pitlane02 🏁 talk 09:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but this information should not be public and it's the reason why we use OTRS. Permission is writen in german. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pitlane02: Please let the permission sender provide the file links with the permission. We need to have a clear statement which files the permission applies to. --Krd 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Hassan Rouhani.jpg

Hi, as the volunteer who worked in 2013 on [3] this ticket is no longer an OTRS agent, could someone please check whether the correspondence contains the author-information and then correct the author-entry, as surely BotMultichillT is not the author of File:Hassan Rouhani.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Several files were deleted in 2017 because there were some doubts about the identity of the photographer. One agent wrote: "To be honest, how can Mojtaba Salimi be the author of both File:Hassan Rouhani 2.jpg and File:Hassan Rouhani in Nofel Loshato.jpg, the latter belonging to almost 40 years ago!". Does it help? --Ganímedes (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Mujegpalya Ice Rink.jpg

I just noticed that an OTRS tag was added to this image, my own photo, when it was merged with another file. I don't know that I've ever used OTRS so this is a little puzzling to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I think it's written in hu, so we need an agent that can read that language...--Ganímedes (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill and Ganímedes: It is a permission for a site, so maybe that site was marked as the source of the file. I am not sure because I cannot see this edit history, but the mentioned ticket has clearly nothing to do with the file. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Bencemac: You're right, and both sites are not longer available... --Ganímedes (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I checked it again (I speak Hungarian) and I still think that it was added by accident. Just in case, I ping Grin and Regasterios who can see the mentioned edit history and read the ticket. Please confirm. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I remove the OTRS template. @Bencemac: az a helyzet, hogy a forrásoldal a Commonsról szedte le a fotót. A többit nem kommentálom. --Regasterios (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The original was uploaded to huwp by user:Tambo from the website http://www.budapestcity.org/04-keruletek/14/Varosliget/index-hu.htm then he moved the file from huwp to commons by the same name. It's been deleted from hu due to commons and deleted from commons due to duplicate. The OTRS template properly permitted redistribution all budapestcity.org images but mentioned that "some" "articles" has different authors and there "permission shall be requested individually". So there was no accident, apart from that the uploader has a history of misattributed and mislicensed imagery being deleted (apart from huge amount of proper uploads). --grin ✎ 11:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: @Bencemac: @Regasterios: forgot to ping you all. ;-) --grin ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Grin: Was permission requested individually for this image? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bohumír Rakušan / RTN

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bohum%C3%ADr_Raku%C5%A1an — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdenbe (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC). auth... Zdenbe (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I was warned about the content and got a recommendation to ask for help with my file uploads here. I can't find any information now.. who told me and where told me to do that..., sorry. This is the situation: we have private-owned materials (owned by our company, I am responsible person) and we would like to publish these documents, based on the contract in between us and heir of the archive. This document is not a public doc and this is (OTRS) the way how we can solve this problem, isn't it?? Zdenbe (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for uploading an image for last White Giraffe in Earth

Dear Admins , Reference to news . We have no images for this specie which slaughtered by poachers. Omda4wady

File says "Image: © Hirola Conservation Program". We need permission from them releasing the file in a free, compatible license. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Some other photos need same OTRS notice

The OTRS notice in File:Gettysburg Battlefield, Pennsylvania, US (23).jpg should also go on

I asked the sculptor about these. Bubba73 (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done They are crops of the original sculptor's images. --Ruthven (msg) 13:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Bubba73 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Folder Size.png (Ticket #2013012910013503)

I'm curious how permission for this file is received. Shouldn't the software be free (which isn't or at least there's no evidence of a free software license on the website) for this file to be kept on Commons? This is a derivative work. Unless I'm missing something here, I think this should be deleted per COM:DW. Thanks, pandakekok9 13:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: See File:Screen shot decision matrix.png. If the software is free, anyone can take any screen shot they want. If the software is non free, the owner can license a screen shot without that affecting the underlying license of the software itself. You cannot freely license derivative works of other's non-free works, but you can license your own derivative work of your own non-free work. GMGtalk 13:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
However, that would require the one releasing the deriviative work owns all properies displayed in the work. In this case a lot of the icons in the screenshot is copyrighted by Microsoft and are non-free. One can not license a screenshot (albeit form your own software) if you do not yourself own all properties displayed in said software. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, the question there is whether these icons are protected. Compare Category:Microsoft Office program logos. If we feel that they are, probably a discussion to be had at DR. Everything from an OTRS perspective seems fine. GMGtalk 14:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Having read the ticket, I agree that OTRS processed and tagged it fine, but a follow up question could have been raised regarding if the software creator owns all displayed work in the file (just as if a photographer license a photo of a 3D-artwork). A DR has been started non-the-less. Feel free to leave input. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ticket #2019031710003522

Just for your information: I added the source („Collie Herb (by Omid Taslimi #3).jpg“) and the photographer to the file site.--46.140.1.195 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

An Appeals and Mediation Board: a proposal

Dear Wikimedians,

(If this proposal belongs at the Commons Village Pump, please let me know so that i repost it there.)
Wikimedia Commons with its mission: free access to free media! (FATFM), is of course a great success involving many people. It is coming of age, so we perhaps should evaluate the organisation here and there. Of course, statistically mishaps are bound to happen. How can we improve Commons?

In recent months i clashed with two OTRS-members and also somewhat with a moderator (who deleted an important image out of ignorance, and kept it deleted, so others had to resolve this), who apparently all of them did not support the mission FATFM. I'll focus now on the hassle with the two OTRS-members. My uploads of photographs with author permission for a large GLAM were repeatedly deleted for many weeks, there was gross abuse of power (remember "power always corrupts"), bullying, desinformation, intimidation, stonewalling, refusal of communication, own invention of new illegal (or extralegal) and impractial rules, and ignorance of copyright laws and jurisprudence. (I confess I have entered the fray to try to defend my photo donor and my GLAM with justified remarks i think, which were resented by an OTRS-member when WMNL kindly tried to mediate.) After three months of mismanagement, fortunately a more sensible OTRS-member stepped in and saved the donation at issue.

However, to fulfill our great mission in good faith and with joy, conflict and hassle should be unnecessary, or at least properly handled. In part, the problems were caused by electronic communication, which is not suitable to manage conflicts. The fact that Wikimedia (WMF) invites GLAMs to donate free media, legally entails that GLAMs have certain rights when they want to upload donations.

In Dutch law and jurisprudence judges decide cases using criteria like good faith, accountability, due diligence, verisimilitude and availability of options to appeal. Wikimedia Commons and OTRS procedures are lacking on the last point. We can mend that.

So i propose that an authorative Appeals and Mediation Board (AMB) be instituted (on Wikimedia Commons where it belongs),

  1. consisting of an
    1. odd number of
    2. knowledgeable, wise and fair(ly independent) Wikimedians (odd number so that voting always leads to a decision)
    1. to mediate when problems arise and
    2. to resolve conflicts by making authorative, well-argued decisions.
  3. The board reserves the right to NOT accept certain requests for mediation and/or conflict resolution, but should then provide reasons for doing so.

On the Wikipedias we have similar Boards (Arbcoms), which work well.

How the appoint the members of such an AMB is of course open to discussion. Experienced Bureaucrats and Admins might be obvious candidates. Without an option to appeal decisions (or lack of them, stonewalling) the present OTRS procedures are not legally defensible. Thank you for considering this proposal. I think we should act now. Hansmuller (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, if you have so many problems with OTRS agents or procedures, have you tried to get in contact with OTRS agents or admins and discuss the issues? --Krd 13:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, this dispute went from here, to UDR, to AN, and back to UDR before it was resolved.
Having said that, there is already a mechanism for collective oversight in the form of the OTRS mailing list, but I can understand how this is less than satisfying to non-agents as it is non-public by necessity.
I'm also inherently skeptical of proposed solutions that mandate layers of pseudo-judicial bureaucracy, and especially ones that elevate the opinions of a small subset of users over that of the community, in a project that is at least supposed to be primarily community- and consensus-driven. Even if this was clearly the perfect solution, we would need the consensus of the community in order to cede any portion of the mandate of the community to some specialized decision-making body. For example, without that mandate, in any situation where the decision of this body was contradicted by community consensus, the opinion of this body would be merely advisory and non-binding. GMGtalk 14:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
One of the issues that Hansmuller raised was that of "invention of new illegal (or extralegal) and impractial rules". This is indeed worrying. He also said "the present OTRS procedures are not legally defensible". May I point out that WMF abides by the Law of the State of California and it is to that state's laws that we must look to decide what is and what is not legal. One precendent that is worth looking at is the case Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists. In that case,the judge hightlighted the difference between organisations that perform a public service and those that do not. In its early days, Wikipedia (and WMF) did not render a public service even though they might have aspired to do so. Now however they do render a public service, but the mentality (in the English Wikipedia at any rate) is still firmly embedded in the mindset that developed in the early days of Wikipedia.
Any procedure regarding appeal mechanisms should be set up so as to ensure that it complies with the law regarding organisations that actually render a public service, rather than those that merely aspire to do so. These laws include the concept of the right to "natural justice" (which is what I believe was User:Hansmuller main point). Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Quote: "This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers, or OTRS volunteers with one another. You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance." An an OTRS volunteer I disagree with anything above, not least because no actual issues have been described in the original posting. --Krd 08:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
We don't normally apply the standard of the law at all; we normally apply the much higher standard of free cultural works. Common in theory could host a great deal more works under fair use or non commercial use in a way that would comply with the law, but we do not because it does not comply with our mission. When we evaluate the copyright status of a work, we are not normally evaluating whether it is legal; we are evaluating whether it meets our definition of free. GMGtalk 14:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not going to fly, this is the wrong venue and building on one case rather than a case book is unwise.
However, there is an underlying issue with accountablity or good governance for OTRS and it may be worth observing here that:
  1. There is no published process for appeals.
  2. There is no governing body apart from OTRS administrators, and they are not subject to public accountability, nor as a body do OTRS administrators follow a published process for how they themselves should govern OTRS and volunteers given database access.
  3. "Natural justice" mentioned above requires there to be an appeals process and a "right" for those affected by decisions to examine evidence and have the opportunity to correct evidence or possible failures in the decision making process. This does not exist for OTRS.
Perhaps someone like Krd with their joint OTRS + Commons hats on, might consider and advise if there is a better public place to highlight governance and transparency improvements. Thanks
PS this is a tangent, but OTRS does not have agents. There are unpaid volunteers and there are WMF employees who have access. As both types of person have agreements or contracts in place that constrain their actions, it's a legally meaningful distinction. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
OTRS volunteers use the terms "agent" and "customer" because those are the terms that the software uses. It's a lazy shorthand, but it's not going anywhere. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Except, you just correctly used "volunteers" rather than "agents". As for the software, the UI glossary ain't that hard to change. --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, adding also that OTRS admins mostly just serve a clerking function, entirely or almost entirely confined to the processes of requesting and removing access. They only really serve an enforcement or oversight role in the rare case that an agent has their access removed for cause. But I think I've only seen that happen maybe twice? GMGtalk 15:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ, as you addressed me directly: I second your statement. For appeals in general, the story is short and easy. If it is a content dispute, i.e. if a permission ticket is valid or not, one can post here for additional opinions by other OTRS members. If there is any conduct or privacy issue, contact OTRS admins. --Krd 16:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think it is worth also discussing if OTRS is our most effective way of helping GLAMs to verify their 1000+ (or 2,8 million...) images. It is a big responsibility for "just a volunteer". Ciell (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Normally OTRS is working just fine. Just not in the rare cases that the GLAM contact is either not skilled enough and/or is rather abusive. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krd Dear Krd, please do not close this discussion, there is as yet no resolution at all! I have lost hundreds of hours of work due to... unnecessary deletions and hassle, caused by people who otherwise have been valuable for Wikimedia, just not at OTRS-nl. It can happen every day again, as there is no check to what i consider abuse - you agree? (For Dutch law etcetera, there is no difference between voluteers and paid people, OTRS simply represents WMF and the Wikimedia-movement and can be held responsible as they should.) I agree with Ciell, the task of managing GLAM contributions can be far too heavy lifting for OTRS volunteers. I want to thank all OTRS volunteers who support the mission and do a splendid job. And i want to apologize if my remarks on OTRS-members have been unjustified.

  • Please, what solution do you and others suggest? We just can't continue this way, it makes no sense. I would want say a three-person Appeals and mediation committee/board...

There should be a way to mediate and appeal OTRS-decisions (or lack of them, stonewalling/obstruction/refusal to give permission for legal donations), even if this solution is informal or temporary. In the Dutch situation appeal and mediation is standard and just common sense. Because there is no way to solve problems on Commons, i now have to sort it out with WMNL because an OTRS-member resents the mediation attempt... I just want "free access to free media", that is our mission, isn't it? Thank you. Hansmuller (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ciell @GreenMeansGo @Martinvl @Krd @Fæ @AntiCompositeNumber @Natuur12 @Ellywa @Effeietsanders
OK, most of the times everything on Commons and OTRS run smoothly and pleasantly. But what if, as in my case of 500 deletions from Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection, that is not the case and there is a very unproductive (to say the least) violation of the mission of Wikimedia, how can we protect legal donations from GLAMs in a general way, not depending on the incidental goodwill of an OTRS member after more than a month (thanks Ciell!)? Perhaps the Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard is an incarnation of my desired Appeals and Mediation Board? Then we should state this clearly.
Anyway, can we solve this vital point of protecting legal uploads from deletions and hassle? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Individual cases shall be handled individually, and single individual cases are no reason for any exaggerated solution. Please try to close this discussion are reopen one on your actual problem, describing it precisely and with as few words as possible. --Krd 12:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction. I mentioned two cases and i have more, so the problem is not a single but a general case. Of course I can spell the case of the 500 deletions out, that will be resented. I should do that? Hansmuller (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hansmuller,
If I am correct, your initial problem with the uploads has been solved. What I understand from our conversations, is you mean you would like a broader discussion with some one who is "higher up" then just the permissions-nl volunteers. But as almost everything, rules and regulations on the projects are a mixture of official (American, European and national) laws and community consensus. And from there on, there's is a personal preference in how to process things: what to do with templates, categories, etc, etc. You seem to think there is some hidden hierarchy, but there actually is non.
Though every feedback on our processes is welcome, we talked about your case lengthy over OTRS-mail in December/January, then had a personal meeting with two members of WMNL and your GLAM contact at the WMNL office, and still it is not enough for you. Yesterday, I restored an image per your undeletion request, to which I pointed out that sometimes it is your own wrong doing that things get deleted because you forget things, or don't work according to our procedures. I've noticed you get tickets mixed up, forget to follow up on emails, or work with procedures that we had nine years ago, even though I've told you several times they've changed. Maybe you could try on cleaning up and improving your own work first, before adding to the work of others. Ciell (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Ciell for your reaction. @Ellywa @Effeietsanders . Yes, of course i make mistakes, i apologise.
The fact that a legally correct donation by a donor was mismanaged for three months and was met with gross abuse of power, intimidation, stonewalling and obstruction, disinformation and outright agression (and yes, silliness! :-) and of course deletion of some 500 legal images for more than a month goes to show that something fundamentally can be improved on Wikimedia Commons. In money the damage to my project would be something like Euro 5000,-. My work in 2017 and 2019 on the 500 deleted photographs cost 200-250+ hours. The placement of (temporarily) deleted images in Wikipedia articles could not be restored. What happened to me, my GLAM and my donor, can recur any moment, because there still seems to be no proper way to appeal a decision (or lack thereof, obstruction/stonewalling). Is Commons in the end sometimes a blind autocracy? The fact that you react (thanks!) but NOT the two abusing cowardly OTRS-members who I pinged as well of course is a sure sign again that they have no sense of any responsability for their destructive behaviour, they never had in this case, how strange.

  • On Wikipedias there is an Arbcom, there is no counterpart on Commons?

The contacts i had were very inconclusive as you know (simple promises were not kept, and unhelpful unfortunate blaming of the victim occurred, by people with apparently insufficient experience on Commons), this is not serious at all. But Wikimedia Commons really is a serious project which deserves better. Donations should be protected. "Free access to free media", don't you agree?

  • So where appeals are possible, the WMF?

Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Hansmuller. Once more I'd like to strongly ask you to either report any conduct related issues of OTRS members to the OTRS admins, including evidence, or stop your accusations against OTRS users immediately. Please feel free to escalate this to the WMF at any time, as so will I if you behaviour continues. --Krd 10:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just for your information, Hansmuller has been blocked on March 23 for 3 days because of yet another personal attack. - Robotje (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Krd @Fae @Ellywa @Effeietsanders @Ciell @GreenMeansGo @Martinvl @Fæ @AntiCompositeNumber @Natuur12 Please Commons experts, can you provide a single email address where i can post my appeal? Commons is growing up and should have a clear option for mediation, appeals, and the like, right? (One of the boons of our mostly civilised western world.) That would cut short the above literary works :-) , thanks Hansmuller (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
PS By the way, no personal attack was intended in the above (i have no time for that, i just want to upload of course), i was just rightly prompted by Krd to provide factual information on the matters, by way of example. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Your contact for OTRS issues is the email address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --Krd 14:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks, it can be that easy? Let the truth be told, if needed, right? Hansmuller (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. Did you take the suggested steps? Have they been successful? Are there any unanswered questions? --Krd 13:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krd Dear Krd, What steps? You probably mean just mailing to the general permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, it takes some time to translate the Dutch etcetera (you might be able to understand the Dutch in the correspondence of the Van Achterberg ticket right away, after all the Dutch and German languages are cousins.) Unanswered questions? This option cannot be a general solution, but it seems at the moment the best you can offer. It is so easy: a serious organisation needs a separate mechanism to address problems and solve them. These problems may be of a discrete nature involving persons.
  • Victims should not be blamed or punished when they tell the simple truth when prompted like here, you remember?
  • Whistleblowers, if you would call me that, should not be muzzled like here with blocking for instance. But let's try this general address, if Commons still has growing pains. A lot of people can read everything on permissions? You are from a German speaking nation? Surely organisations there will by now have serious processes for mediation and appeal. Let's give it a go. Cheers, hansmuller

PS Correction of a typo in the above, sorry: there was disinformation (not "desinformation") provided by an OTRS-member. Hansmuller (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you fail to prove your accusations and refuse to follow the existing workflow. I think your request is not within the scope of this noticeboard, and will again tag is a resolved. --Krd 10:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to add additional logos for the same software

This file File:Autokey-logo.svg was transferred from Wikipedia, having this OTRS ticket.

I am requesting permission to upload all variations and formats (.png and .svg) of additional Autokey logo files from the same OTRS holder. All images contain the word "Autokey" in their file names. The different colors are used indicate the software operating status and provide contrast to the installed desktop theme.

Earlier today, I uploaded two more Autokey logos stored in this category but the others were rejected.— Ineuw talk 19:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ineuw: The logo is released under CC BY-SA 4.0. This means that you can create derived copies of it, and publish them under the same license and linking the source/author. But please, don't overwrite this file. --Ruthven (msg) 16:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Korea.net

Want to know about the OTRS ticket inside this template. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

What is you question? --Krd 06:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Blanket permission

I got permission by e-mail for the release of all files on a certain website under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. The OTRS procedure for a single file states that I should first upload it, and then ask the copyright holder to forward our conversation with the link of the file. But this would be impractical to do 100 times over.

So, can I first upload all files so that they're handled by a single OTRS request in a single e-mail? Or is it necessary to repeat the process for each individual file? – OfficialURL 21:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Ask them to add a line to the actual website itself that states that all images on this website are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Problem solved. There are alternatives but that is the best course of action. --Majora (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
How many files are affected, and over which time frame will the upload take place? --Krd 13:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to close this section.

This section was archived on a request by: OfficialURL (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

[Ticket#: 2020040310005855]

Ladies / Gentlemen, reference is made to a photo published on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fòto_do_Carlini.jpg I have been trying to help Mr. Carlini, who is well over 80 years old, to keep his photo on Wikimedia Commons. Mr. Carlini is a great translator for the Genoese (Ligurian) language, but unfortunately he is not so good at working with computers like young people. On top of that, his English knowledge is low, so he answered your questions but apparently in the wrong way. Can we please find a way to help this poor man who has given up his rights about his photo with a written declaration in order to have his photo published on Wikisource? Can we please use common sense and understand that elderly people need to be treated fairly? He has a right to have his photo published on Wikicommons / Wikisource, so please find a way to communicate effectively with him, possibly through me as I usually publish his works / translations on Wikipedia Ligure and Wikisource (and yes, he is unable to upload his texts, so I do the work for him). All the best, --Luensu1959 (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Permission should come from the photographer, not the subject in the photo, unless they've got a contract, in such case we need to see it to verify the full transference of copyrights. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: After so many years spent working for Wikis I think I know the basic principles. Sometimes we need to use our common sense like in this case: the photo (if you examine it carefully) is not a professional one and has been taken by his wife who is now almost 80 years old. They both live alone in a solitary place and these days they are in lockdown because of the coronavirus, but their life has not changed much. The way to a photographer in the city is a long one, especially if you do not drive anymore because of your old age. Could we please use common sense and finally grant Mr. Carlini his right to use his own picture taken in his own house by his own wife? Awaiting your kind and prompt reply. --Luensu1959 (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Luensu1959. You may imagine that it's almost impossible for me to guess all this from your previous message. With this saying, I don't feel comfortable granting permission in this case (starting with the fact that I can't read Italien). If someone else can, please be my guest. @Ruthven, can you perhaps help? Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes and Luensu1959: Of course the permission is acceptable if it's from a close relative. I answer you by email. --Ruthven (msg) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2010110810006332

Hi, is it possible to see the copyright owner for ticket:2010110810006332 (paintings by Erik Tryggelin)? Ambrosiani (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright holder is the "daughter of the painter Bianca Wallin, who died in 2006". Not mention of Erik Tryggelin in the ticket... --Ganímedes (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
(edited) thank you – it seems the uploading user thought the OTRS ticket was valid for Tryggelin as well. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Wallin,_Erik_Tryggelin_med_Bianca,_1912.jpg. Tryggelin died in 1962 so his paintings are still under copyright. Adding deletion templates. Ambrosiani (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Ambrosiani: files involved in the ticket are:
Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am the heir to the art of Bianca Wallin (1909-2006) and to her father's art, David Wallin (1876-1957). I am the daughter of the artist Bianca Wallin, who died in 2006. When I inherited Bianca Wallin's art I also inherited some paintings by Erik Tryggelin (1878-1962) at the same time and which belonged to her and were included in the legacy. I know that Erik Tryggelin died in 1962 so his paintings are still under copyright. The art of Erik Tryggelin that I inherited were just two pictures:

  • File:Erik_Tryggelin,_Paris,_April_25,_1912.jpg, an oil painting, and
  • File:Erik_Tryggelin,_Humlegårdsgatan,_Stockholm,_10_7_1918.jpg, a pencil drawing.

Is it possible to include just these two work of art, that I have inherited, in the same Permission OTRS Number 2010110810006332 intended for Bianca Wallin and David Wallin? Kindest regards Bysmon

Regarding David Wallin's oil painting I have now corrected the license for the picture

  • File:David_Wallin,_Erik_Tryggelin_med_Bianca,_1912.jpg to the correct OTRS permission, with the OTRS Number 2010110810006332. So now I have deleted deletion templates. Kindest regards Bysmon
Hi, Bysmon. The fact that you've inherited the paintings doesn't mean you've inherited them copyrights. I've thought there's some kind of misunderstood here. Are you the inherited of the copyrights of Tryggelin or just inherited of his work? --Ganímedes (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
And you shouldn't delete the templates IMHO. Always we can restore the files after verify the correct copyrights. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the conclusion here, which questions are open? --Krd 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This and this DR are still open; this file was deleted; no further communication from Bysmon or copyright holder. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sender requesting a copy of OTRS ticket

We (Wikimedia Sverige) were at a meeting with the National Archives of Sweden discussing an image upload they did in 2014. They were having difficulties tracking the decision making process which lead to the selection of the specific Creative Commons license. Since the whole upload is connected to OTRS-ticket 2014040410008915 I was wondering if a copy of it could be supplied either to us (Wikimedia Sverige) or to the National Archives (I can provide the contact details over e-mail).

Since I drafted the letter I'm pretty sure I know what it says (and that I'm mentioned by name in it). But since I wasn't CC:ed I cannot guarantee that nothing was changed. Likewise I'm pretty sure I know who sent it and that that person no longer works at the National Archives (hence simply replying to the e-mail will likely not work).

Kind regards, André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm...this is a complex one. I will ask for more input. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This disclosure would fall outside of normal OTRS processes. Under the Access to nonpublic personal data policy, approval from the Wikimedia Foundation is required, and I have started that process. No OTRS agent should disclose the requested non-public information unless approval from the WMF has been granted. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@André Costa (WMSE): We cannot provide a public copy of the ticket, but I can say that the permission authorised you (and your bot) to upload under CC-BY-SA 4.0 the files from National Archives about Coat of Arms drawn by Vladimir Sagerlund and that were provided to Wikimedia Sverige for the occasion. This also means that the permission doesn't extend to any other upload from the National Archives.
If you need help to draft a (new) permission for Commons and OTRS, you can contact me or any other OTRS volunteer. We will be glad to help. --Ruthven (msg) 09:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll forward the details above and the privacy issue to the National Archives. A follow-up question. Would you, under the normal OTRS rules, be allowed to send the information back to the original sender? This is not a solution right now since that address would likely bounce but it would be good to know if that type of disclosure would also be disallowed. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@André Costa (WMSE): What I can do, is to answer back to the sender using the email used in the ticket. Also, if the customer (using the same email or one from the same domain) writes us asking details about a ticket opened by them, we will answer without problems. --Ruthven (msg) 15:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clarification. Then I'll let them know that they can write to the OTRS list if they need a copy of the original. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. logo question

Can someone that speaks Russian please confirm whether File:Наёмники(лого).png is covered by this ticket?

  • If it is covered, the license/information section on that file is still a false claim of own work and needs to be fixed.
  • If it's not covered, it and File:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. mercenaries.svg need to be deleted.

Many thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't speak any Russian, but, through the magic of my browser's translator, Ticket:2009020610021884 seems to only cover screenshots of GSC Game World games under a GFDL 1.2 licence. So if File:Наёмники(лого).png is a screenshot, it is incorrectly tagged as CC-BY-SA-4.0. A Russian speaker should be able to confirm. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 06:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nat! In that case, we'll also want to have the native speaker confirm whether it's only still images or if it covers clips, as File:Видеоскриншот_из_игры_S.T.A.L.K.E.R._Mobile.gif is a second-long gameplay clip, and is in use across several projects. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Files in question have been deleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Scot Nelson

Do we have anything in OTRS from Flickr user Scot? We have a lot of photos from him licensed with PD-Mark. And that is not a good license. Before I start a mass DR I would like to be sure we dont have an OTRS that can save the photos. --MGA73 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The "About" page on the Flickr account says "All images and videos in this Flickr collection are in the public domain". I would hope that that's enough to get the license changed to PD-Self, as that's clearly the author's intention and the issue is simply a technical one with Flickr. If that's not enough, we might be able get him to change that line to something else by reaching out via Flickr message. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah but it would be better with a permission in OTRS if we have one. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Why? --Ganímedes (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Being able to point people at a discussion that consensus was achieved that his statement constitutes PD-Self, whether in the form of an OTRS ticket or otherwise, will reduce the chances that the works get nominated for deletion later. It's been a long time since I was an OTRS volunteer and I don't remember if we can just dump this conversation into a ticket or not. If not, considering that the project can likely use many of the 15,000 images Scot uploaded, we might want to create a custom template. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: We use OTRS to keep proof that we have a permission to use photos that come from another website. I assume you know about that. Per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images Commons do not accept the PD-mark license. That means we can't keep the photos he uploaded. At least not unless we decide we can keep his images even if they are licensed PD-mark.
It would be a waste of time to contact Scot again if we already have a permission in OTRS. Also it would be a waste to start a DR and delete hundreds of his images if we have an OTRS. As far as I know it will take about 20 seconds to search in OTRS so I was hoping someone would check. --MGA73 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I only found Ticket:2015091310002591 regarding en:File:RawyaRageh.jpg and File:RawyaRageh journalist.jpeg. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

{{section resolved|1=[[User:Ganímedes|Ganímedes]] ([[User talk:Ganímedes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)}} - Un-marked as resolved by TSC per below.

@Ganímedes: Does that ticket apply to all uploads, or only those two? What's the resolution on the question of the other images? Keep and template or delete? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: As I've said, I only found one ticket related to 2 files. I didn't find anything else. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes and The Squirrel Conspiracy: So we do not have a valid OTRS. We can either a) write to Scot to get an OTRS, b) use the text on the userpage and keep all files or c) we can start a mass DR. How do we proceed? If the old OTRS is valid perhaps someone from OTRS team could reply and ask if he is okay with all files are PD (and hope that he still uses the original email). --MGA73 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Double-checking, ticket belongs to Scott Nelson, not Scot. I think the best it's to try to contact him through he's Flickr account, but I've got not account there. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: As far as I'm concerned, the photographer's intent was unambiguous that he wanted to release the files into the public domain. He has 15,000 photos, most of which are suitable for Commons, so I put together this template for our consideration:
Public domain This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Scot Nelson. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
Scot Nelson grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

The photographer states on their Flickr about page "All images and videos in this Flickr collection are in the public domain". (Archive)

Let me know your thoughts. If it looks good, we can get a bot to apply it to all of Scot's photos. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: It looks absolutely great to me but I'm one of the users that tries to keep files instead of deleting them. So it would be nice to hear if one of the more careful users agree. --MGA73 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: Can you ping them? I don't know who they are. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh Im not sure either :-D But I will ping some that commented on Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images to see if we can get some comments on the suggested template.
@Fæ, Ghouston, Yann, Clindberg, Jarekt, and Josve05a: sorry to disturb you but we need someone to comment on this case. --MGA73 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the easiest, fastest way to contact him, verify the license and creates the template? --Ganímedes (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I've always taken the position that using PD-Mark on your own works is basically equivalent to a statement like "I place these in the public domain", which we normally use {{PD-author}} for. It's frustrating because a better license (CC-Zero) is available right there on Flickr, and is far preferable if we can get him to switch to that. However, many files have been deleted with this same situation, since other folks here disagree. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Carl Lindberg that flickr images tagged at flickr to be "Public Domain" should be treated as {{PD-author}} if it is clear that they were taken by the flickr photographer. I understand that there is a link to PD-Mark on the page and that PD-MArk is not a license, but for me that should not disqualify the image as public domain. Many out PD templates also have link to PD-Mark. The only possible issue is the same as with other flickr images, which is to make sure that the person uploading is the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The issue was that it was decided on Commons at some point that stating that a work is public domain isn't sufficient, it needs to be explained why it's public domain. Then Flickr introduced its PD-Mark, which is a way of marking that something is in the public domain, but without giving a reason, which is why it's not sufficient for Commons. Perhaps we could accept that in cases where somebody has stated that something is their own work, and attached a PD-Mark to it, is equivalent to a public domain dedication, but this hasn't really been accepted in previous discussions, because of the wording of PD-Mark. In any case, there's no suitable template to use: obviously not {{PD-author}}, because they haven't agreed to the "fallback" license on that template. --ghouston (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If there's to be a policy to keep such files, I think what should be done is to decide on a wording for a new template, specifically for own-work Flickr uploads with PD-Mark, then have a discussion somewhere about whether this is acceptable on Commons, on the Proposals page I suppose, and also to decide what evidence is required to establish that something is the own-work of the Flickr user. --ghouston (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is whether the inferred public domain dedication could be treated as irrevocable: what would be done if the license was later changed on Flickr? --ghouston (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, using PD-Mark on someone else's works (which was the designed use of the tag) isn't enough to upload -- so we clearly can't accept any PD-Mark work. We would need to find the reason those became public domain, which is of course why we can't allow those to be auto-imported by Flickr bots. However when using it on your *own* works, it is a form of a license (or rather an abandonment), not just worded as strongly and clearly as CC-Zero -- but it likely has legal effect, as the only way they are PD is if the copyright has been abandoned. As for when to accept it, it would be the same as any CC-Zero or CC-BY work we accept from Flickr -- if the Flickr user doesn't own the works, then we obviously can't accept CC-BY or CC-Zero licenses any more than we could take PD-Mark. We should do a license review on them, of course, and "problem" Flickr accounts would be as much a problem for these as with regular licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
As for revocability... once public domain, it's public domain. There is no going back, short of a law change. That is what happened in Carol Highsmith's lawsuit -- she probably wishes now that CC-BY had existed when she instead placed many of her works in the public domain long ago (which the Library of Congress now has, and of course Getty snarfed, as they do with PD works from Commons). So, a PD-Mark declaration (on your own works) would probably have a similar result as Carol Highsmith's photos -- sure seems like it would have legal effect at least in the U.S. For other countries, it's odd to me that if you have the rights to sell or otherwise transfer rights, you don't also have the right to completely abandon them if you want. Maybe civil law countries are more likely to have theoretical issues there, which is what CC-Zero was designed to deal with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The country of origin is another issue, since Commons requires that the file be free there as well as the United States. So the relevant country would need to accept public domain dedications (and inferred copyright abandonments) that aren't accompanied by any fall-back licence. There's still the problem that Commons has no suitable template, PD-Author is just wrong. --ghouston (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure there are any clear legal precedents of places where such a declaration was not permitted, but I could be wrong there. Part of CC-Zero is regarding moral rights, which indeed are often explicitly not transferrable and thus not abandonable, but those are not an issue for the "free" status (PD-Mark works should still conform to moral rights and identify the author). PD-author is the closest we have at the moment, but yeah I would probably create a PD-Mark-owner template for these cases. That way, Flickrreviewr could match that against the PD-Mark at Flickr for review, and we can more easily identify them as a class if needed. (I don't think the import bots should allow that tag at all, but the reviewer is a different matter.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Comment I've created a Flickr account, and I've sent Scot an email asking him to change the message to CC-Zero or email OTRS. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I am still of the strong belief that we should  Delete all of these images. Since the author has not stated that they wish the images to be released into the public domain, we can not claim that they have either if they were to change this "license" at a later time on Flickr. Creative Commons licenses have such a nifty thing written into them that they are non-revocable. Actually "releasing" something into the public domain (where possible) is also not revocable. But we can not say here that they have done so, since the tag is not meant to do so, only tag images already in the public domain (or which the uploader believes the images are in the public domain). If an uploader uploaded an image to Commons with the description "I believe this is in the public domain" but without adding a license template, we wouldn't go tagging it with {{PD-self}} we'd either ask the user to expain why they beleive so and ask it to provide evidence, or ask it to actually add a license template (due to {{No license}}). This one of the rare instances I disagree with Clindberg's reasoning because his premise is based on the PDM should be construed as an actual "release" to the public domain if applied to an image by its copyright holder, despite the tag on Flickr actually not saying that it does so when applying.
Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

— Creative Commons, https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/PDM_FAQ
Comments by users

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

— Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/45355

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Josve05a: To me, it's still legally operative. It's correct that Creative Commons did not intend for it to be used on your own works, and in their intended situations it's not operative (just a declaration) since you wouldn't own the copyright to the work you mark. But when you declare your own works to be public domain, which is effectively what putting that tag on your own works is doing, I fail to see how that is not operative, regardless of Creative Commons' instruction. You are saying your own works are public domain, and the only way that is true is if you just placed them there. It matters more what the owner's intent was, not what Creative Commons had in mind. Creative Commons did not intend for the copyright notice placement to effectively bar many derivative works by their wording of keeping the notice intact, which they intended (by explanations) to only mean the text should remain intact, not its location -- but a court case ruled that by the wording of the license itself, removing the notice in the image could violate that license. So Creative Commons' instructions on their intent was not legally operative there either. The text of PD-Mark says This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. If you put that statement on your own works, well, that's the same as saying "I place these in the public domain", with just as much legal effect. Surely you know your own copyright, so if you state that there are no known restrictions based on copyright, then you have just relinquished yours. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
While I disagree, I must say you give a convincing argument why a legal case might be won if something like this were to be discussed (but that is not a reason to keep an image. We should only host files we know to be free imo, not "we won't be sued" or "if a re-user is sued, they have a chance of winning based on our speculations. An actual release statement or something which says it has a legal effect should be needed). I welcome a new RfC on the subject (I closed the last one based on the result of the discussion), but as it stands the current consensus made from the previous RfC and numerous DRs has resulted in a de-facto policy to delete such images and not relicense them as {{PD-author}}. That needs to be "overturned" by the communty at large before doing something like the above, since community consensus overrules logic and reasoning. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that it should probably be discussed by a wider audience, and that recent de facto practice has been to delete. One comment though -- copyright is complex enough that we hardly ever actually know anything for sure. We assume good faith on uploads, but we don't know the uploader actually owns the copyright -- we can only prove them wrong by finding the image elsewhere. Without that, well that might win a legal case, but if a copyright owner proves the uploader did not own copyright (or claims they did not upload it and we can't prove the uploader's identity), then you will lose in court on those too. We just have to be sure enough beyond a significant doubt, which is the COM:PRP level -- and to my mind, the owner's intent is fairly clear with PD-Mark, and I really don't think there's any more of a problem with these than CC-BY, other than maybe how the law interprets that in other countries. Moral rights are unaffected, unlike with CC-Zero, but those aren't a real issue. We have a disclaimer which says basically we can't guarantee the information here, and to make your own judgements based on the information provided. If we make a PD-Mark-owner tag, we can mention some of the legal uncertainties. But to me, the copyright owner's intent was fairly obvious, and they did put a statement that says you can use it in any way without asking permission, which is effectively a license even for more legally-uncertain countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Josve05a: If we can only host images we know is PD then we can't host many images. I can easily upload a photo and claim it is own work and put on CC0. I can also do the same on Flickr or a website. I just commented a DR about a US Navy photo. They give conflicting and perhaps even wrong info. So if we can't even trust the US Navy then it will be hard. I think it is about if we have a reason to trust that it is PD or not. Most times when ppl upload files to Flickr they do not add a statement next to the photo "I created this photo". We just assume that they are the photographer. --MGA73 (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
And thank you Ganímedes for writing Scot. It is much better if he change the text or if he send a mail to OTRS. I wrote to him long ago but never got a response. But to be hones my mail may have been a bit confusing. --MGA73 (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I just sent an email to his work email as well. If he's no longer on Flickr (it has been years since he posted), he might get this but not that one. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I just got a response to the email I sent to Scot's work address. He confirmed that he was the photographer and that he released the images into the public domain. That makes everything even more explicit. I'm going to forward this to permissions-commons for archiving purposes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
See Ticket:2020040610007955 for the above referenced conversation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Does the above change your opinion on the matter? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That's great! Hugs the The Squirrel :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If approved we should remember to check for deleted files. I found this one for example: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-01#File:Algal_fruit_spot_of_guava_(9580462986).jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Scot has sent an email to the permissions queue, but I can't retrieve the ticket number because I am away from my computer. It would have come in within the last 30 minutes. Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2020040610008589 has arrived releasing "all images at https://www.flickr.com/people/62295966@N07" in public domain. Regards.--Ganímedes (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've asked to confirm if "public domain" means CC0, and he confirms. Now we're waiting to see if this applies to all future upload files in Flickr. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Awsome! Perhaps you could make a note at Category:Photographs by Scot Nelson?
And we need template we can add to the files. If I add an otrs tag the filter will complaint ;-) --MGA73 (

talk) 07:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The ticket has "soon" been marked as resolved. In the meantime, all files can be tagged with {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we need a bot in here... --Ganímedes (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I will handle it with AWB, since there are only 300 files. Can someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aphelenchoides feeding in fungal synnemata.ogv now that this is resolved? Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

DR for license template

Can I get OTRS agent's attention over at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Cc-zero-Scot Nelson? (No intention to canvass due to bias, only notifying other OTRS agents with access to the ticket.) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Imane_Kamal_Idrissi.jpg. Ticket#2020022610008554

Bonjour, je vous contacte au sujet d'une image que j'ai ajouté, pas encore publié, pour vérification alors que le le titulaire de droit d'auteur avait déjà envoyé sa déclaration de droit d'auteur Ticket#2020022610008554 Merci de la publier comme les autre images, comme elles font sujet d'un article en cour, et il s'agit de la photo de profil de l'artiste. File:Imane_Kamal_Idrissi.jpg --Sofia lehlou (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Sofia lehlou

 Comment Permission should be sent to OTRS by the photographer. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

YAM

Hi! Files like File:BSA C 11 (250 cc) 1955 engine right side.jpg is uploaded with both {{YAM}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Could you check if OTRS:2007071710013063 what the permission is good for? Is it only 2.5 or also 4.0?

If it is only 2.5 perhaps you could send them a reply and ask if they agree to 4.0 also? That would make license migration so much easier. --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ciell: Can you please check if the permission includes this image? --Krd 08:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I will send the owner a follow up, but need some one else to give the final okay, because of COI. Ciell (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: Could you maybe help me adding the code that puts all the YAM-images in one category, in case the owner asks which images it concerns? This donation is from 2007, so it might help to have them together. And do we have a link (or does Creative Commons have a link) to the differences between the 2.5 and 4.0 licences? Or even on the use of the updated versions?
Sorry, never had to handle the question before and I've been searching, but cannot seem to find this information on their websites. Ciell (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: I'm no longer an admin (i took a long break) so I can't edit the template. As for the differences I don't know if we have a good way if telling the differences. I think that on the overall it is the same. It is the wording of the license terms that have been updated.
If they are willing to add 3.0 or 4.0 to the license then we can forget all about the license migration and make it a lot more simple. Because then the license migration is redundant. --MGA73 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: Yes, that's what I figured: I asked them if they would be okay with only cc-by-sa-4.0. I changed the protection level of the template: please ping me when you're done. Thanks for helping! Ciell (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: I added the category. I just need to Make it pretty. So you Can protect the template again. --MGA73 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ellywa: : could you please confirm for me, the positive reply of the copyright owner in ticket:2007071710013063 to the re-licensing of the images in Category:Files from Yesterdays Antique Motorcycles or the Classic Motorcycle Archive to CC-BY-SA-4.0? Ciell (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ciell: : confirm, the owner of the copyright agrees with relicensing to CC-BY-SA-4.0 since this morning. Elly (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ellywa! Ciell (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2019122710006207

Hi. Hoerfunkbayern (talk · contribs) who is not an OTRS Team member adds the ticket:2019122710006207 to different files. May an agent verify that all is clear? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: Hi. Was it on multiple files? I could only find File:Dominik Kollmann 3.jpg.
@Krd: Can you please advise if the OTRS tag added to File:Dominik Kollmann 3.jpg is valid or not? Thanks. Ahmadtalk 05:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
File:Dominik Kollmann 3.jpg is invalid, not mentioned in the ticket. --Krd 11:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Does a change in URL change the licence

Last year Professor Luke Roberts told me that the IT department of the University of California at Santa Barbara had changed the URL's of their faculty staff's personal websites. Please see {{East Asian Cash Coins}}, but the URL's were all migrated (without leaving a redirect) to pages like "http://roberts.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/coins/Charms.html" & "http://roberts.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/coins/Chinesecoins.html". So does the original license (as given through OTRS permission) still extend to these migrated pages? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The ticket applies to http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/roberts/coins/* with the exception of http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/roberts/coins/manufacture.html. Under a strict reading of the ticket, the release would not apply now that the pages have been moved. In any case, works that were previously available at the old URLs would still be covered by the release. Considering the " (last updated 10/24/03)" on http://roberts.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/coins/index.html, that probably covers everything. However, for the avoidance of doubt, it would be best for the copyright holder to send a note to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org acknowledging that the site has been moved and that the release still applies, and mentioning the previous ticket number (Ticket#2018032110011865). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I'd ask, but since my old e-mail addresses got full I can't use them to send e-mails and as I need a mobile phone number to activate sending e-mails I can't send any new e-mails. But as it's essentially the same website and the files were irrevocably released with a free license I think that I will upload them with a note that it originally came from another URL. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine can be used to verify the copyright © license. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Fayer, Wien photos

I noticed that File:Pollaczek, Klara Katharina.jpg was given OTRS permission to be here. I have a few questions about this:

  1. Am I allow to receive private access to the emails given? I'm not part of OTRS, but I have signed both the General Confidentiality Agreement and the OTRS Users Confidentiality Agreement. I can read German.
  2. Do the permissions cover File:Clara Katharina Pollaczek (1875–1951) © Georg Fayer (1892–1950) OeNB 14615903.jpg, which is a different crop of the same image?
  3. Is it possible to receive permission to use everything else in Category:Photographs by Georg Fayer or Category:Georg Fayer? (The latter has signatures which may be above the U.S. TOO.)
  4. In 2021, the works' copyrights will expire in Austria. Do we still need to keep the OTRS permission templates around for the sake of countries with copyright terms longer than 70 years pma?

-BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the only way to access the emails is having access to the corresponding OTRS queue. We are required per meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information to protect nonpublic personal data. Secondly, this permission covers File:Pollaczek, Klara Katharina.jpg only which is derived from this ÖNB archive photo. Thirdly, File:Clara Katharina Pollaczek (1875–1951) © Georg Fayer (1892–1950) OeNB 14615903.jpg is from the same source but with the original frame which was cropped from the other copy. The permission extends to the other version as well, as the difference is below the COM:TOO. Other photos are not covered by this ticket. Finally, we continue to keep the correspondence and the permission notice even if the copyright expires. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I have now added the OTRS permission to File:Clara Katharina Pollaczek (1875–1951) © Georg Fayer (1892–1950) OeNB 14615903.jpg. Neither {{PD-Austria-1932}} nor {{PD-1923}} applied without a proof of publication. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. AFBorchert (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
interessant, wahrscheinlich darf der OTRS-Kollege hier auch nicht verraten, ob 2017 die Hochladerin das Ticket eingereicht hat oder ob ein Mitarbeiter des Bildarchivs Österreich oder der ÖNB oder ein Erbe des Fotoateliers Fayer das Ticket eingereicht hat, oder eben ein geheimnisvoller Unbekannter.
assuming good faith. naja. Klarheit in den Commons-Abläufen bleibt auf der Strecke und das ist keine Werbung, um andere Institutionen zur vertrauensvollen Zusammenarbeit mit den Freiwilligen hier zu motivieren. --Goesseln (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

File: Aman Bassi.jpg

Please review the file file:Aman Bassi.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.173.137.245 (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Krd: , your bot added {{OTRS received}} on that file, but I can't find a ticket with that ID in the system. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Me neither. I have removed that now. --Krd 04:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Erath

Comments — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.27.67.167 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nothing actionable here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ticket:2020042410008161

Comment retired - --Ganímedes (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You may understand: I had just woken up :P --Ganímedes (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

kapanlagi.com

Hi! On ms.wiki I found this ms:Templat:Kapanlagi.com where there is a permission for photos. There are 28 files in ms:Kategori:Gambar daripada www.kapanlagi.com.

It seems to originate from id.wiki where there is id:Wikipedia:Permintaan izin/kapanlagi.com and 6 files in id:Kategori:Gambar dari www.kapanlagi.com.

On Commons we have a few files like File:Agnes at AMI 2004 2.jpg that mention OTRS:2011060910001718.

Could anyone check if the permission is valid for a few files only or if it confirm that all files on Kapanlagi.com was included?

If permission is good for the 28+6 files on ms.wiki and id.wiki I would like them moved to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Permission in that ticket it's limitated to File:Agnes_at_AMI_2004.jpg and File:Agnes_performing_as_a_guest_star_at_2007_Asian_Idol.jpg. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Not what I hoped for but thanks a lot for checking :-) --MGA73 (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OTRS on SDC

Hello, I proposed at Commons:Bots/Requests/JarektBot (1) to copy OTRS ids from the {{PermissionOTRS}} template to SDC's Wikimedia VRTS ticket number (P6305) property, as I have done in this test run. The purpose of this would be to allow, variety of database queries (once phabricator:T221921 is completed) which would allow incorrect use of OTRS permissions. For example queries for images by different authors or license with the same ID. It would also allow a link from the template to a database query listing other works sharing the same OTRS ID. --Jarekt (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but traditionally data is copied from one sister project into Wikidata, and then other sister projects can copy the data into their own projects. For example, Wikidata extracts information out of an infobox on English Wikipedia, and then Dutch Wikipedia can generate an infobox using Wikidata data. In this example, nothing changes on English Wikipedia; a person adding new information to the infobox still does so on English Wikipedia, and no information is removed from English Wikipedia.
I am extremely concerned with your statement "I would vote to modify our current tools to add OTRS parameters to only SDC in the future uploads". First, it would mean asking OTRS agents to use a project that they are not necessarily familiar with, not comfortable using, or in some cases, do not have confidence in. Second, it would mean that control of the ticket information is not in the project that it is being used on - Commons would need to rely on the Wikidata community to safeguard ticket information from vandalism, misplacement, etcetera.
Therefore, while the example queries you posited sound useful, I strongly oppose any implementation of this unless:
1) the ticket data is first placed on Commons (as it is now)
2) the ticket data remains on Commons after Wikidata copies it. (If Wikidata queries identify potential issues, OTRS agents can look into them and make changes on Commons, and a bot will update Wikidata accordingly.)
3) only users with the OTRS member flag would be able to add, modify, or remove OTRS ticket data on Wikidata; the software would prevent anyone else's edits to ticket fields from being saved (approved bots would need to get the global flag)
4) Wikidata pages cannot be deleted and cannot be moved without leaving a redirect while they have OTRS ticket data on them (so that there's always a trail to trace if something gets screwed up)
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Um, While SDC is using structured data, it is located and stored on Commons on the file pages (under the structured data tab). This proposal has nothing to do with Wikidata, and I as an OTRS agent does not have anything against this (only some questions what to do with files which does not have an OTRS permission template on it, but rather a "license template" which also has an OTRS-ticket attached in it). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Jonatan is right, all the data stays on Commons; it is just kept in predictable place in SDC database as opposed to buried somewhere in wikitext. I would modify {{PermissionOTRS}} to allow ticket ID to come either from the template or from SDC. Eventually some javascripts we use to add ticket IDs should get updated to also add it to SDC, but otherwise nothing would change for OTRS agents. The benefit, as I mentioned earlier would be that we would be able to do database queries based on ticket IDs and other properties. Jonatan, to answer your question about {{PermissionOTRS}} added to files through templates: my proposed approach is immune to it, since it does not scrape ticked IDs from wikitext, but instead searches in the SQL database for links to the OTRS wiki and scrapes ticket from the URL. So if you can see URL on the page than it is also in the SQL database and we can get it from there. --Jarekt (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... I didn't realize that this was entirely local. I saw the original post linking to a Wikidata item called "Wikimedia OTRS ticket number (P6305)" and misunderstood, thinking that OTRS data was going to be recorded using that field in Wikidata. My apologies. If it's entirely local, I don't have any issues, so long as - as Krd mentioned on the bot approval request - the tools are all changed over so that there's minimal/no disruption to agents' workflows. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

photo

Bonjour cela concerne ces photos, pourquoi un bandeau a été apposer affirmant qu'un message été reçu concernant ces fichiers alors qu'un autre message en dessous affirme l'inverse ? Georges Biard confirme régulièrement les photos que j'importe pour lui ! Quand est-il de cette fois-ci ? Merci Cordialement. Durkheim21--Durkheim21 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 

   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ANTONIN_BAUDRY_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ARNAUD_DESPLECHIN_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C%C3%89LESTE_BRUNNQUELL_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DJANIS_BOUZYANI_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EDOUARD_BERGEON_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EVA_GREEN_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FANNY_ARDANT_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAPSATOU_SY_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J.R._CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Pierre_Darroussin_C%C3%A9sar_2_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JOSIANE_BALASKO_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KARIDJA_TOURE_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LUKAS_DHONT_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LYNA_KHOUDRI_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MARISA_BERENSON_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melvil_Poupaud_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MOUNIA_MEDDOUR_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NOEMIE_MERLANT_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THOMAS_SCIMECA_CESAR_2020.jpg
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_Rodriguez_Cannes_2018_2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durkheim21 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. An email was sent back to him on March 3 asking for more information, and I do not see a response from him. Please ask him to respond to that email.
Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: : d'accord, je rappel simplement que la confusion vient peut être du fait qu'il a changé d'adresse email qui était auparavant georges.biard@orange.fr mais qui est maintenant capcorbirdy@yahoo.com . Mais il a toujours rempli les informations de la même manière. --Durkheim21 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC) @The Squirrel Conspiracy: :Bonjour, George m'a informé qu'il a renvoyé le mail de confirmation 2 fois avec les 2 adresses différentes, pouvez-vous verifié s'il-vous plait ? Merci. Cordialement --Durkheim21 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing a picture by T. Rolke from Ukrainian page uk:Ягода Мирослав Якович

A photo by Tadeusz Rolke was removed by CommonsDelinker from the page uk:Ягода Мирослав Якович with the following explanation: Вилучив файл File:Художник_Мирослав_Ягода._Фото_Tadeusz_Rolke.1990.png, оскільки він був вилучений з Wikimedia Commons користувачем JuTa. Причина: No OTRS permission since 2020-02-05. In fact, Tadeusz Rolke, the author of this photo, sent his permission to wiki (permissions-uk@wikimedia.org) on 05.02.20; I have a copy of his mail and can forward, if required. So there is no reason to claim no permission. Just now @JuTa: clarified that he deleted it from the Wikimedia Commons as for some reasons the release was not confirm by an OTRS member. Please confirm and restore the photo. Best, --Yuri Git (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Yuri Git

Please let the copyright holder send the permission again. --Krd 08:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Can’t permissions be moved from one queue to another? --MGA73 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we can, but I think the problem is the confirmation from the rights holder that has not yet been received by OTRS. Ciell (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Krd I will ask the right holder to resent (would take some time...). Meanwhile I've forwarded the original confirmation mail (dated 05.02.20). Would it be good enough (meanwhile) to restore the page/photo right now? Thanks --Yuri Git (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Yuri Git

en:File:DavidNadlerOberwolfach(2018).jpg

Hi! Can I move this to Commons? (Or perhaps an OTRS-member have to because of the filters). --MGA73 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that image is within the scope of the ticket. The ticket covers any image that meets the following criteria:
1) Is from the Oberwolfach Photo Collection site
2) The author is George M. Bergman
3) The year is 1968 or later (if it's dated before 1968 and attributed to George M. Bergman, the attribution is erroneous)
You should be able to move the file over without being an OTRS member, but I'll go ahead and move this one over. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Great! Perhaps we should make a template like {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}} as it seems there is a lot of photos on the website that can be copied. Instead of just GFDL perhaps you could ask if he is willing to relicense to include {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. --MGA73 (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Krd: looping you in on this conversation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the question? --Krd 20:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Is reaching out to someone through an old ticket to request a re-license an appropriate use of OTRS? Should it be the person that handled the ticket originally? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be a good way to do it because that will make sure we keep the same OTRS-number and the copyright holder can see that it is not some trick. The benefit of creating a template for it is that is easy for other users to see that there are more pictures to go look for. If I just see the OTRS I would think that the permission is only valid for this picture only. --MGA73 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I'm fine with the template - I planned on making it tonight and applying it to a bunch of files that are already on Commons. What I want @Krd: to weigh in on is whether we can reach out to people through OTRS like you're proposing. If the photographer's email address is public, I have no issue with someone reaching out with their personal email, but going through Wikimedia is a different beast altogether. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: There are now two templates:
1) {{George Bergman GFDL-1.2}} can be used for photographs at the Oberwolfach Photo Collection taken by Bergman
2) {{George Bergman cc-by-sa-4.0 and GFDL-unspecified}} can be used for high resolution scans uploaded by Bergman or user:George Ho.
I've moved the categories, and will be working on cleaning up the existing photographs shortly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot @The Squirrel Conspiracy: . Too bad the chosen license is GFDL only on the old files. --MGA73 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: Bergman's Berkley email address is public. If you want to reach out from your personal email and request a re-license, go ahead. I'm not going to do so through OTRS though. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Aвторские права на фотографию

Hello. Im looking fore information about photo on page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Female_prisoners_in_Ravensbr%C3%BCck_chalk_marks_show_selection_for_transport.jpg?uselang=ru

I want make sure free licence agreement to use this photo in my worn and

Page have code of work your volunteers who check authors agreement

  1. 2008121210009048

Can I take access to this work please?



Уважаемые добровольцы OTRS, всвязи с работой над документальным фильмом на тему Великой Отечественной войны меня интересует фотография по ссылке: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Female_prisoners_in_Ravensbr%C3%BCck_chalk_marks_show_selection_for_transport.jpg?uselang=ru Для моей работы очень важно наличие полностью свободной лицензии на использование.

"Эта переписка была проверена добровольцами службы OTRS и помещена в архив разрешений. Доверенные участники, имеющие учётную запись в службе OTRS, могут получить доступ к переписке по номеру #2008121210009048."

Могу ли я получить доступ к переписке с автором?

Заранее спасибо — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.185.26.159 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@93.185.26.159: Our OTRS colleagues have checked that the image is currently in Swedish public domain, and per {{PD-US-not renewed}}, the image is also in U.S. public domain. Please feel free to use this image for your film project, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2019101410003005

It seems unlikely File:Fotolia 119364860 L.jpg, File:Virtuelle-realitaet.jpg, File:Sicher-im-netz.jpg and File:Online-behoerde-neu.jpg and produced by this source.

Is there anything in the ticket to suggest otherwise, before I send most of their uploads to COM:DR? --BevinKacon (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. The ticket on the file pages you mention is ticket:2019101410003005. Elly (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
That ticket then.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I sent you a confirmation of copyright on the photo by email, please consider it, since the photo is marked for deletion. I have permission from the photographer and singer to use them for her Wikipedia article. I urgently need to confirm everything so that they are not deleted... Елена_Максимова_Маладе.jpg: Елена_Максимова_Маладе.jpg: Тhank you very much in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by A0924 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A0924: I presume you are asking about this photo File:Елена Максимова Маладе.jpg for which an OTRS ticket, in Russian Ticket:2020042310007682. I've added the ticket number to the file page but that file is attributed to © Alena Prisyazhnaya and they, assuming they are the photographer and copyright holder as is usually the case, will have to provide their freely licensed permission sent directly from their own email to the ticket. There is another image File:Елена Максимова Malade.jpg, also up for deletion, being used in the Russian article about the subject and that also has no evidence of permission. All I can tell you is, it is in the Russian language queue and someone will attend to it in due course. Ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

These are two photos of the same author-photographer, taken in the same day. Here is the photographer's website - http://www.prisyazhnaya.ru/ . We will send the official permission from her email. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by A0924 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC) --A0924 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2019102910005959

Could an OTRS team member please have a aKlook at this ticket - specifically whether it refers to the underlying satellite image and what it says about the source? This is in connection with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Khewra, so a comment directly there would be most helpful. Thanks in advance! Gestumblindi (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: ✓ Answered on DR page --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2020042710000029

Can an OTRS member please check the above for the specific license granted? File:Emilio Insolera in London 08.jpg indicates that the photo is available under cc-by-sa-4.0, whereas the photo on Flickr is available under cc-by-sa-2.0. Chenzw  Talk  07:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ticket says "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Permissions added by a non-OTRS member

Please check and add {{OTRS permission}} if everything's OK. As per descriptions, there's no indication that permissions were obtained from photographers, instead of people depicted:

Thanks, Sealle (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've checked a few of them and generally the subject has clearly asserted that they are the copyright holder but were not pressed by the OTRS agent to clarify why. Most of them are pretty old; back then did we regularly ask people how they acquired the copyright in images they didn't take? If not, is there a grandfather clause for such cases? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Not really, COM:PRP thrumps good faith. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Caution is fine, but the prp clause that significant doubt must exist becomes naturally stronger over time. Interpreting as grandfathering is a reasonable informal norm with no hard lines. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Korea net

Hello. May I ask what is the content of the OTRS ticket in the {{Korea.net}}? --A1Cafel (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Korea.net hasn't been very consistent in their Flickr licensing, sometimes tagging photos with NC and/or ND. If you contact them on Flickr, they may be willing to change the license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Himmler_talking_to_Prinz_Eugen_division_after_the_Operation_Kopaonik.jpg

The file I uploaded was deleted although nobody checked the OTRS ticked I provided at this link. I would appreciate if somebody can check if this OTRS ticket (ticket 2013062410008797) can be valid for this image?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me ping dungodung for you, he handled the ticket back in 2013, and is a native speaker. Ciell (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
That ticket relates to the website www.pogledi.rs. If that image didn't originate there, but from elsewhere, this release wouldn't apply. --Filip (§) 13:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dungodung. Yes, the image did originate from website www.pogledi.rs. Is this ticket valid for all other images from website pogledi?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Technically yes, the release covers the whole of pogledi.rs, but I would not count that as valid at this point -- we generally don't accept whole site releases anymore. The "rules" were much more relaxed back in 2013. There is certainly no way to know for sure if the person who signed the release back then (editor of the site) was actually able to give release to all content there, including images. I would not keep this image out of precaution. --Filip (§) 07:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dungodung. Will you please be so kind to present the link to rules that imply that releases from 2013 are not valid anymore? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dungodung: What is the free licence for this image according to the ticket? When it was deleted it had a Cc-by-sa-3.0-de licence attributing the German Federal Archives. This, however, was the reason for the deletion in the first place. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The ticket doesn't mention that image at all. It's a blanket release for the whole website. The release is for CC-by-sa-3.0 unported. --Filip (§) 14:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Dungodung, please do not forget to present the link to rules that imply that releases from 2013 are not valid anymore?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Racconish: You closed the DR and deleted this file. What do you think about undeleting it in light of this blanket OTRS permission? I for one am very doubtful about the validity of a CC permission for an image from World War II where the licensor has no obvious ties to the original photographer. This looks a lot like licence laundering to me. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest an undeletion request would be more appropriate and any argument for undeletion should be presented there. — Racconish 💬 22:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ticket

Hello!

May I ask what is the content in {{PermissionOTRS|id=2014040410008915}}?Jonteemil (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It concerns specific coats of arms drawn by a specific artist that were given physically to WMSE. It states ownership is National Archives of Sweden/Riksarkivet and authorizes a WMSE representative to upload them by bot under a CC-BY-SA license. Storkk (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2020053010006426

As regards the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jacques Chirac, 1974.jpg. AlbanGeller (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the original email from the EC is from January. It confirms the reasoning in the DR ('EC has never given general authorisation for CC-BY licensing of their images ), but that they do release at a case by case scenario. "This may take some time.". Ciell (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Ciell, it has been nearly five months and they are yet to authorise the use of these images. The DR is now over two months old, so would you please consider closing the request? AlbanGeller (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Ciell (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How to become a otrs member how to apply?

How to apply for otrs membership I wont to be part — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetal parmar (talk • contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

See m:OTRS/Volunteering --Krd 04:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sheetal parmar: Do note that given your small number of edits, you are unlikely to be approved as an OTRS volunteer. Or are you perhaps looking to send an OTRS permission statement? In that case you don't need to be an OTRS member, just follow the instructions on COM:CONSENT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

URAA case?

Hi. In Ticket:2020043010008159, the user:RevengerTime says File:Raquel_mancini_1990.jpg and File:Raquel_Mancini_Gente_1980.webp are in public domain in Argentina, so they could be uploaded to Commons. However, I think this is a URAA case, but I've never handled this kind of situation, so I'll be happy if someone helps. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. First, if the photo was taken in 1990, it became public domain in Argentina in 2015. Since it was still copyrighted in 1996, it's not in the public domain in the United States. Second, even if the photo is public domain, the magazine cover is not. I believe that falls under "The ownership of anonymous intellectual works belonging to institutions, corporations or legal persons shall last for 50 years from the date of publication of those works.", so would be public domain in 2040 in Argentina. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated the image and its crop for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not PD in the US (and maybe not PD in Argentina). If the magazine cover is treated as a "photograph" under Argentine law, it expired in AR in 2015, but is not in the public domain in the US until (1990+95yrs =) 2085. If the cover is not a "photograph" under Argentine law, it is copyrighted in Argentina until 2040 (if it's anonymous) or life+70 (if it isn't). In any event, it cannot be uploaded to Commons. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(double EC) The magazine was published in December 1990. So the file it's from that time, or before. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Authorization text directly stated in file description

I am wondering about file Jorge y gardel.jpg that seems to state, below the information template, the text of the exchange in Spanish with the subject of the picture. Not familiar with OTRS but can someone please double-check that file? The permission-related text was added by this diff. Thanks - Laddo (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That information should be hide, since content personal data... --Ganímedes (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
But I still can see the phone number... --Ganímedes (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I checked OTRS ticket and it seems fine (it exist and it relates to that image). I also removed the email text from the file description. You can sometimes find stuff like that in very early images from before OTRS was established. --Jarekt (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

ticket:2020051810007556

I read the FAQ, and I'm unsure whether to wait one more day before posting this. I just would like to know whether the forwarded message validates permission given by the copyright holder. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's the photographer? --Ganímedes (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The image was captured from a YouTube interview video, Ganímedes. Are the links to the images provided via email helpful? --George Ho (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Please copy and paste here the source-link. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfED0odBQ80 --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Proof of copyright holder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfED0odBQ80&t=3544 --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What I see in the video is: "Copyright:2003 Washington State University." Does the Uni already sent permission to OTRS? Please send us the link. If not, we need their statement, as here: Commons:Email templates/Consent. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The university did send its statement, but the representative of the copyright holder had trouble being elaborate, so I forwarded previous email correspondences, which includes links to the following:
  • File:Allan G Johnson 2003.png
  • File:Allan G Johnson 2003.jpg
  • File:Allan G Johnson 2003.tif
    • Did the method help, or must I ask the representative to rewrite the statement more elaborately? --George Ho (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    Does ticket:2020051810007556 help? George Ho (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    We don't accept forwarded permissions. Perhaps he can refill and sign the text and you send it in a pdf or jpg? --Ganímedes (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: We already have a direct email from the representative of the school, so that's not the issue. The question is how WSU became the copyright holder of the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    I took the screenshot from the video, which was made by the University. The copyright notice at the end of the video identifies the University as the copyright holder. How is that not enough? Must I ask permission from the following people: Scott Fedale, producer and host; Brady Ratsch, program director? Or do you mean Washington State University Extension? Or what else do you mean? George Ho (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    I see. Pinging Krd to take another look. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    I have accepted the permission and restored the images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    This section was archived on a request by: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

    Category:Night Phoenix Press characters

    These files are all tagged with ticket:2010110310014841. Some of them seem to have different authors and others are missing this information. Could an agent please check the ticket and update the information as below? Could you confirm if the ticket is from Night Phoenix Press? Neither his DeviantArt page or his website indicate any licenses.

    Thank you. FredWalsh (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

    @The Squirrel Conspiracy and Krd: Thank you TSC. Has there been any progress? FredWalsh (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    I personally haven't done anything further on this ticket. There's a question about whether any of these are in scope to begin with - the corresponding Wikipedia articles were deleted, if I recall correctly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

    David Fried

    Most members of Category:David Fried have tags saying they are covered under otrs:2013081710001795. Is File:Genesis-The art of creation, 2008, Zentrum Paul Klee, Bern.jpg also covered under that ticket? Wikiacc (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

    No. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

    File:NoetherFamily MFO3120.jpg

    bei dem Foto wurde als Autor Konrad Jacobs eingetragen, gemeint war wohl der Fotosammler de:Konrad Jacobs. Das habe ich provisorisch auf "unknown" geändert. Kann bitte ein OTRS-Befugter mal in dem Ticket TicketNumber=2008042410024381 nachsehen, ob dort etwas mehr zum Fotografen steht. Ansonsten wäre das Foto ein Fall für einen DR, und vielleicht noch mehr Objekte, die mit dem Ticket gesegnet wurden... --Goesseln (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

    I and searched and it seems that de:Konrad Jacobs collected photos from different sources. We have permissions from more than one source OTRS:2008042410024381 mention George Bergman, OTRS:2014011310007717 mention "Copyright: MFO" and OTRS:2009112610052653 mention Peter van Emde Boas. I think there are more depending on how you search. To me it looks like he did a good job securing copyright. I could not find the specific photo. Perhaps someone else would like to try to search? --MGA73 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

    un-uploaded files

    Last week I sent out a few emails to political candidates to try and get free images for use on Wikimedia. But apparently the image needs to already be uploaded? This doesn't quite make sense because I'm expecting that the response rate is fairly low. It creates a communication barrier. Can't an OTRS volunteer upload the image themselves after it's been emailed and permission has been verified? Kingofthedead (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

    In what queue are they? --Ganímedes (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Remark aside: Please note the candidates do not posses the copyright of their photo in most cases. The photographers are the copyright owners. Regards, Elly (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Kingofthedead: I've noticed this issue as well. We steer people towards COM:CONSENT, and the email in that form puts tickets into the permissions queue (which assumes images are already uploaded), while many people writing in probably should be in the photosubmissions queue (where an OTRS agent does the uploading). Our processes could improve on two fronts - 1) making it easier for photosubs to get into the photosub queue, and 2) on the agent side, going the extra mile to upload files instead of kicking it back to the emailer to upload themselves (when possible). I recommend the following as a stop gap:
    1) When you request someone releases a file under a free license, make sure to ask that they copy you on the email to OTRS
    2) When the OTRS agent emails the rights holder about the file location, if you were copied on the original email, you'll be copied on the reply. You can then respond that you'll upload the image yourself, then reply again with the link(s) once the file(s) are uploaded.
    Since the OTRS agent doesn't care who uploaded the image - only that the license is valid and that it's on Commons - I've done this a few times successfully. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    It could be helpful if instead of "the copyright holder" the statement says "the photographer in most cases". A huge amount of tickets are sent by the subject of the file, and this implies a lot of job, emails come and go, to explain this simple situation. People tend to get frustrated after 4 o 5 emails and don't understand why they can't release the file. "I'm in the file"; "I pay for it, so I should be the CH"; "the photographer was my brother/mother/friend... so it's not professional and I don't need his permission"; "he took the photo with my cellphone, camera, etc, so I should be the CH", and a long list of etcetera. The fact that "the photographer is the copyright holder (unless there is a contract; in such case, we need to see it to be sure of the terms)" I think is not enough explicit anywhere. If were, it could save us a lot of work, and a lot of frustration to the customer, who actually is not familiarized with CR or Commons rules (and probably never will). --Ganímedes (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    And 'yes', I've uploaded several photos at request via ticket... (most all with people). But I agree this is not a frequent practice. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'm not sure I understood the topic right. But if the question is if we can send a mail from OTRS and ask for a permission or for someone to donate photos to us I would say yes. I think it would be much more official and give a better chance for success if we send a mail from official addresses.
    It may not be the way OTRS was designed to be but if it works then I see no problem doing that. We could of course question if one person should be able to start a request and also finish it (2-eyes vs 4-eyes). But I think that could be solved. I'm sure we can make a filter that gives an alert if someone adds an OTRS to own upload. --MGA73 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

    IC3PEAK

    One of the editors put "paid contributions" tags for the notable Russian band, oppositional to the Russian government known very well in Russia and internationally). The band doesn't need any contributors and was edited by tens of volunteers, yet someone put a tag without any substantial proof. I'd like to ask Wikipedia community of volunteers to double check the page and find if it actually needs any "clean-up". No advertorial information was found by me. i believe there is a case of biased or groundless accusations here and possible abuse of power. Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IC3PEAK

    --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A8BE:F9AB:6F2B:A569 03:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

    User:Markus Kilp / jugendherberge.de

    Hey there, Markus Kilp (talk · contribs · count · global contribs) is uploading lots of valuable images of German Youth Hostels by various authors from https://jugendherberge.de (the official website of the German Youth Hostel Association). He is the online person for the Association (https://www.jugendherberge.de/ueber-uns/djh-verband/hauptverband/mitarbeiter/marketing-vertrieb-mitgliedschaft-qm/), and his account has already been verified over at de.wp (see de:Benutzer:Markus_Kilp, and ticket 2020032510005842). But the uploads have no OTRS-ticket assigned to them and one has already been deleted because of that. I don't have the time to get involved in this, so I'm just leaving this here hoping that somebody can pick it up … Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

    looking into this now. Ciell (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    So, this ticket is not in the permissions-queue, most likely it is in the info-de queue (where German language tickets normally end up) and I don't have access to that one, only to permissions. I can try and find a German volunteer for you who can access the queue, and see if the ticket is enough for verification on Commons as well. Ciell (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    User verification doesn‘t replace file permission, especially when the verified user isn‘t the creator. --Krd 17:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Olaf Kosinsky: FYI --Jarekt (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    I checked https://www.jugendherberge.de/en/legal-notice/ and it seems that German Youth Hostel Association claim to control the copyright. Perhaps the creators transfer the copyright to German Youth Hostel Association? To feel safe I would like to see an example of such a contract. --MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Some files have OTRS permission now, so I think this can be considered resolved. If anything is missing, please advise. --Krd 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

    Possible false permission

    Hi all. Can I get a second pair of eyes on Ticket:2019052310000457? The notes from another agent, at the bottom of the ticket (link), can bring you up to speed on the situation.

    Anyone else should feel free to delete/undelete as necessary, I don't even need to be looped in. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

    File:Mark McKinnon - arrest.jpg

    Could someone please take a look at the OTRS ticket and confirm that it is valid? Some concerns have been raised in a DR for this image Gbawden (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

    File:Marco Brambilla.jpg nominated for deletion despite OTRS approval

    Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marco Brambilla.jpg claims that the OTRS approval doesn't explain enough. Someone may want to reply over there. --Closeapple (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

    Kept. --Krd 10:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think the point of the nominator is that the permission is from the person on the photo and not the photographer. As you all know the copyright usually belong to the photographer and not the person on the photo. In this case the person on the photo is the owner of the studio so I think it is safe to assume that it is either 1) taken with a timer or 2) by an employee and that the copyright is taken care of. --MGA73 (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

    File:NowThatYouGotIt.jpg

    Please check: OTRS tag ticket:2007051010002573 has been added by the uploader while given flickr source says ARR. --Achim (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

    Hi Achim! The permission has been accepted in 2007 by an OTRS volunteer. The permission is for cc-by-2.5 and is for "the pictures you took of Gwen Stefani's tour". And "you" is https://www.flickr.com/photos/tanabi/ so I would say that the permission is valid. --MGA73 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Michael, mange tak! --Achim (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Michael Perhaps in 2007 forwarded messages were enough, but this is not acceptable today. Shall we follow the old method or ask for permission again? --Ganímedes (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I think we whould accept old permissions even if we make new standards. See {{Grandfathered old file}} for example. If we fix this we should also fix others like it. Great if Flickr user is active but what if they are not? Also I do not think it is possible to send an e-mail from a flickr account to our permissions e-mail so what do we do if we get an e-mail from a random gmail for example we do not know is from that Flickr user? A better alternative would be to ask Flickr user to change the license. If they change the license we do not need ORTS but if they do not we will have to delete files with OTRS because we made new standards. --MGA73 (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    I don't agree with that logic. Nobody is proposing to delete or invalidate the old permissions, but I don't think we can't accept new files over old bases, especially if permission came from a forwarded message. This kind of matters should be solve case-by-case, IMHO. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: If you are not talking about File:NowThatYouGotIt.jpg (from 2007) then what do you mean? Do you mean if we can go look at her Flickr account today for other photos of Gwen Stefani? --MGA73 (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean but if you think it's ok, who am I to say otherwise? Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Your opinion can be just as good as mine :-) Have a wonderful day! --MGA73 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    Category:Media without a license, but with OTRS permission

    Help is needed with files in Category:Media without a license, but with OTRS permission. They do have a OTRS permission but do not have a license. I added a license mentioned in the OTRS ticket to a dozen of those, but there is still plenty left. can some of the OTRS agents give me a hand with those? --Jarekt (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

    Great idea to put them all in a Category (67 files atm). I poked a few users a few days ago about Category:Media without a license: needs history check including ORTS and most are fixed now. Generally I do not like to touch other users tickets but if it is okay to do I will look at some files later. --MGA73 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    I fixed a few but there are also some tickets that do not mention a specific license. --MGA73 (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    The purpose of the ticket is so we have a record and can verify at latter stage who gave permission and to what. Verifying if we have correct license or what license we ought to have is part of this, so if we can figure out the license based on the OTRS ticket we should add it. Luckily majority of OTRS permissions follow the same patterns no matter what language. For the files we can not figure it out, we should contact OTRS agents who handled the ticket. --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    Problems in Category:Media without a license, but with OTRS permission

    Hi. I noticed a few tickets in Category:Media without a license, but with OTRS permission have issues that need addressing. As I do not currently have access to permissions queues, I'm collecting them here. I am also pinging the users who handled each ticket so they can review it. (I will sign next to each so the pings work). Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

    List

    Discussion

    • I agree with you on [the first two dots].Note, I refactored this section, and edited "both dots" accordingly. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)And as I wrote above it also seem that there are a few files where the permission does not specify a license. --MGA73 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm working with this category, please give me some minutes. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think this discussion can be close, isn't it MGA73? --Ganímedes (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    Poppy Morgan

    There are two photos of this person which have the same OTRS number. Both are purportedly the work of the subject. The source link is to an inactive website. Could someone please check whether permission was received from the photographer rather than the subject?

    Thank you. FredWalsh (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    Well... this is a 2007 ticket. Perhaps someone with more expertise like Ruthven or Krd can evaluate the ticket and tell if it's right according to 2007 OTRS rules. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    The permission was given by the copyright holder, so I think the ticket is valid. --Krd 17:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    Isn't Poppy the person in the photo? --Ganímedes (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, Poppy is the person in the photo. This is why I asked if the permission is from the photographer. FredWalsh (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    Asked and answered, the permission was given by the copyright holder, which is the subject of the photo in this case. --Krd 07:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    So that is a "no" to my question. The permission is not from the photographer(s). FredWalsh (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    Uploads by verified accounts

    There has been some confusion regarding uploads made by verified accounts. While I was under the impression that they do not need to have their uploads verified again in terms of stamping each file with an OTRS ticket, EugeneZelenko just told me the opposite was true. So could you guys please explain the required procedure for uploads made by verified role accounts? De728631 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    If you're asking about a specific case, please provide more information so we can better help you.
    For a license to be valid, we need to confirm the identity of the person making the release, that they are authorized to make that release, and that it applies to a specific file on Commons. In most cases, a "verified account" has only had their identity verified, and that's not sufficient to apply {{OTRSPermission}}. We'd typically want to see information about which files are covered and why they are authorized to release those files. With clear criteria for which files are covered, we can create a specific license template. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, that makes sense. I'm talking about File:Podcast Die vergessenen Drei P.M. History.jpg which was uploaded by Gruner + Jahr in particular, but there are many more such cases when you browse through Category:Verified accounts. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azeridus.jpg

    Perhaps an OTRS volunteer can clarify the ticket for this file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for checking on this Ww2censor. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    ticket #2013061310007371

    Please can someone confirm the scope of ticket #2013061310007371? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    Pigsonthewing: the images the Foreign and Commonwealth Office hold the copyright for are covered by © Crown Copyright under the Open Government Licence, and that they publish photographs credited to third parties, where this doesn't apply. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 10:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Alex Noble Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    Questions about two images

    I can confirm that an email has been sent by the author of File:Killian Hayes Gerald Robinson.jpg releasing it under an appropriate license, but it is yet to be looked at by an OTRS volunteer (almost a month since being uploaded). Could someone please update me on the status of this request?

    On a separate note, File:Jalen Green.jpg has been in a queue awaiting processing for nearly three weeks, so could someone let me know if there is an issue?

    Sportzeditz (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2020050810004238 belongs to File:Killian Hayes Gerald Robinson.jpg. Perhaps @Nat can say more. About File:Jalen Green.jpg, I've accepted it. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

    Vietnamese permission

    Hi! Could anyone have a look at this photo? File:Lieutenant colonel Dam Thi Loan.jpg. I added a link to a permission based on th file from vi.wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    @MGA73: ✓ DoneI have inspected Ticket:2011041410001293, and made relevant edits on the file and the Vietnamese Wikipedia file page. The file was inspected by one of our volunteers, and the copyright status was verified. Is there any more problems that I should aware?廣九直通車 (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    @廣九直通車: Thank you! No all is good then! I just wondered because there was no permission tag on Commons and the licenses were not the same on vi.wiki and Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Fixed by 廣九直通車. --MGA73 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member

    Please check File:После вручения боевых наград Родины, Ханой, январь 1966.jpg - @Iluvatar, NoFrost, and Dogad75: . Thank you. --VLu (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --VLu (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    Email exchange verification

    Hello! @Ytoyoda: said I need to go through a special process related to verifying an email exchange in order to validate the license of this image: File:Old_Town_舊城區,_CeLe_策勒,_XinJiang_新疆,_China_中國_19605097148_a9e344a702_k.jpg This is my first time uploading something someone sent me for use on the wikis. Let me know what I should do. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

    @Geographyinitiative: Honestly, the simplest thing would be to ask the Flickr user to change the license to one that allows commercial use and modifications. If they’re okay with their image being on Wikipedia, they should be okay with the license, and it takes just a few clicks to change the license. OTRS verification is the more complicated process, in my opinion. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    I agree. But I already asked Wong to change the license on the pictures a week or so ago. If you read the conversation we had, you will understand how this happened. I'm also interested to see how this process will work (or whether or not it will work). I don't want to keep bothering Wong with things that might be too hard to do or to too hard to explain/understand. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    At first, Wong wanted to upload the pictures to Wikimedia Commons himself. After the eight day waiting period, he still couldn't upload pictures. I asked him to change the copyright several times and told him what to change it to, but Wong didn't get it. In the end, the user asked me to upload them and I said I'd try to do it. The user sent me an email with four pictures, and this was the one I thought was most appropriate among the four pictures to serve as the main picture for Qira County, a county in Xinjiang with 150 thousand people- about the same population as Guam- that has no other pictures on Wikimedia Commons. I don't want to keep bothering Wong, and I'd like to try to go through this verification process (even if the process fails and the picture has to be removed). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Geographyinitiative: A permission "for Wikipedia" is not a good wording for a permission. If Wong send an email with a permission we need to be able to verify that it is him sending the mail. I do not think it is possible to send a mail from flickr to a normal email address. So I agree that it is much simpler to change the license on flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    I agree it would be simpler to do it that way in theory, but what I'm trying to say is that 1) I already tried that route and 2) I don't want to keep bothering Wong because I hope to ask for more pictures in the future and if I bother the user too much, they may not want to work with me. I have a collection of several weeks of back and forth including attempts to get the user to change the license on flickr and I also have confirmation after the image was posted on Wikipedia that what I did met with the person's approval. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Honesty, I think the easiest thing to do would be to create a very specific request for permission that checks every box on Wikimedia Commons I would need to ask from Wong that would lead to a response that would either absolutely permit or absolutely disallow the usage of this image. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Please see COM:CONSENT. If anything is still missing, please advise. --Krd 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nothing more we can do. --MGA73 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    About Moz anri 02.jpg

    Regarding Moz anri 02.jpg, the operator has obtained permission. However, when I try to upload to the wiki I can't, but how can I allow the upload and avoid the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kier~jawiki (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    It's File:Moz anri 02.jpg. File it's watermarked with "Ulike" and has no EXIF. The copyright holder (usually the photographer) must send this permission directly to OTRS, since we don't accept forwarded messages. Possible we'll request the original, unmodified file for verification. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS ticket #2020012110005817

    According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Mahringer - 20030227.jpg this ticket requested the take down of this image and the original image. But the nominator isn't an OTRS volunteer - can someone please confirm that this OTRS ticket requests deletion? Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. The DR have now been closed. --MGA73 (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS ticket ticket:2016030410008521

    Could an agent please thoroughly check whether File:Bundesratsfoto 2020.jpg, which is sourced to admin.ch (expressedly restricing to non-commercial use), is really covered by the above mentioned OTRS ticket. The image hadn't been uploaded under this ticket, but was said by others (User_talk:Túrelio#File:Bundesratsfoto_2020.jpg) to fall under the associated permission. Note: 8 years ago there had been controversy ([4]) about whether the "Swiss Government Portrait" permission is really a blanket approval for all images from that source. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    The ticket applies to Template:Parlament.ch only, which is not the source of the mentioned image. --Krd 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    There are two other tickets mentioned in Template:Swiss Government Portrait. That would be the right template to apply to these images. The tickets are #2007080810014523 and #2008022410010827 --PaterMcFly (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    United Nations

    This map is excerpted from https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm #37 https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_vnm_37_2009.htm Executive Summary https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/vnm37_09/vnm2009n_executivesummary.pdf

    It was submitted by Government of Vietnam to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

    Can someone help with applying the appropriate license?

    thumb|Vietnam 200 nautical mile EEZ and requested continental shelf wedge

    Thanks --JWB (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    @JWB: This noticeboard only deals with OTRS-related issues, and we didn't received any related OTRS tickets. Should you have problems on licensing, please contact COM:HD or COM:VPC, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    File: Corrado Ocone.jpg

    Biglietto OTRS 2020061610004579. So che è stata rilasciata e inviata autorizzazione dal detentore dei diritti Popsophia.it Chiedo il ripristino della foto Corrado Ocone.jpg nella pagine Wikipedia del filosofo Corrado Ocone. Grazie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stematar (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. I checked and an OTRS have been added to File:Corrado Ocone.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Please double check Bollywood Hungama OTRS ticket

    Hi there, I just got slapped with a copyvio notice for cropping an image that was labeled as in the Creative Commons, and which bore a legit-looking OTRS notice that suggests the permission is appropriate.

    The main image in question: File:Ashish Chanchlani at the special screening of Men in Black International.jpg
    The image I extracted: File:Ashish Chanchlani at the special screening of Men in Black International (cropped).jpg
    The OTRS ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2008030310010794

    If someone could please double-check this, and clarify for me what the specific permission is, I would appreciate that. I mean, it really would be helpful to know what Bollywood Hungama said specifically, and have that information in that OTRS template on the files' pages, like: "According to documentation received on DDMMYYYY, Bollwood Hungama has given Wikipedia authorisation to use images from its website" or whatever the case may be. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Also pinging Curb Safe Charmer, since they are likely to benefit from the result of this query. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Cyphoidbomb: I saw the OTRS ticket link a few moments after I had tagged the image as a possible copyright violation. When I did so I undid the change, removing the tag. I forgot to remove the notice that would have appeared on your talk page. Sorry for that.
    My understanding is that the OTRS ticket would give permission for the use of a single image. If it were to say that they gave permission to use any image on their site, I don't see how that would be administered. If they wanted that to the be case then Bollywood Hungama should remove its copyright notice from its site and replace it with a CC0 licence statement. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    The custom license template, such as this one, Template:BollywoodHungama, are specially created when a copyright holder allows many of their images to be uploaded using the same license and OTRS ticket number without the need for tons of OTRS tickets taking up a lot of OTRS agent's time. The template pretty clearly states the details of what types of images are allowed or not. Ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nothing more to do. --MGA73 (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    File:Thomas_of_Cana.jpg OTRS Violation suspected

    The following image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Thomas_of_Cana.jpg is available in commons with id=2019012210001349|user=Ganímedes. Its not easy to establish that the Editor of the book Book created the painting. As the following images are available from 2016. Further this image look like a photo of a printed image (not painted) Further, Claim of artist is suspicious as image is existing in the internet with copyright protections Picture on Uploaders/OTRS Book Picture available from Intenet

    This shows that, OTRS provider got thr picture from unknown source (Though internet or printed publications) and used the same in his book and a photo uploaded to wikimedia with OTRS to make it credible, and further claim as the author of image. This image is not an amateur drawn image as uploader/OTRS provider doesn't seems to be a painter/artist

    - Qowa (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

    I think your doubts are reliable, Qowa. I'm re-processing the ticket. Thanks a lot. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

    Kentlogo.svg

    Hello, I recently uploaded a vector version of the file File:Kentlogo.png at File:Kentlogo.svg. The PNG has an OTRS ticket on it (Ticket #2010081110016901) since the city released the logo into the public domain since it cannot be copyrighted. What is the policy on that? Is it safe to assume the vector version, which came directly from the city, is also public domain since it's the same basic design? --JonRidinger (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    If the png is PD I see no reason why the svg should be if the uploader made the svg and did not just copy it from someone else. --MGA73 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    @JonRidinger: I made a comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kentlogo.svg --MGA73 (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Further comments in the DR --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS Permission for files

    Hi everybody, well I need your OTRS permission check for my files - File:Student during Coronavirus in Mexico.jpg and File:Student during Coronavirus in Mexico (2).jpg hope you can help me as quick as possible, thank you so much for your time. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    One of the files is mentioned in this deletion nomination has this Ticket:2020070110000081 number. An OTRS agent will deal with it when they get to it, so please remember that the OTRS agents are all volunteers there is no deadline for ticket completion. Ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    If files are finally deleted, they will be undeleted when an OTRS verify the authorship. So, don't worry, there's no hurry. I'll verify anyway. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've answered the ticket, TheBellaTwins1445. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have sent them to the same e-mail. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Please continue in the ticket, not here. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    But how? I dont have an OTRS account? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Answer the email you've received. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hi me again, I already answered the email, but I haven't received any response to the files I have sent in order to help my files in question from being deleted, so I re-open this discussion by now. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    You've received an answer: I answered in the DR. I won't receive or write more messages here. We're discussing this in the email and de DR, so another place it's not convenient. Please focus on those places, and don't spread the discussion. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    2007071310015176

    Hi! Could someone check OTRS:2007071310015176. Fair use? --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    Oh seems it was released as GFDL per https://web.archive.org/web/20070928024238/http://www.sourcefortsmod.com/boards/showpost.php?p=125931&postcount=1 (perhaps it would be a good idea to add a note to the permission with this link?) --MGA73 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MGA73 (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    File:Annamie Paul in Toronto Regent Park.jpg

    Let's see if someone can help me. I've verified ticket:2020071510011007 and I'm trying to add the permission with the right license (CCBYSA 4.0) to File:Annamie Paul in Toronto Regent Park.jpg but the software don't allow me and only show me the "OTRS pending" template. Can someone take another look? the file has been temporarily undeleted to proceed. Thanks, --Ganímedes (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

    Ganímedes That is the strangest file I've ever seen. I can't edit old versions of the file. :-o --MGA73 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    Someone pointed me to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T225897 that seems to be related. --MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ajaaaa....... So it's not me... Thank God, I was very worried. Perhaps we can ask for the deletion of the file and a new upload? Maybe I should ask about this in the AdBoard... Thanks, MGA73. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

    Fixed by Green Giant. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

    Quey about image

    Hi, please could someone from OTRS verify that File:Ekaterina Alexandrovskaya and Harley Windsor at the 2017 Four Continents Championships.jpg has a genuine OTRS ticket from the photographer, confirming the licence terms? His own website, where the photo was published, does not apparently release them under any CC licence. Thanks Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

    Also, as an aside, it seems odd to me that there's no way for ordinary editors to verify that the ticket says what it claims to say. Currently anyone can add that OTRS template to a file, but when I click the link to the ticket system I'm hit with a login/password screen and can't access the ticket itself. It seems like for each ticket there should be a public summary, saying for exactly what the ticket grants permission, although obviously without divulging any personal information that the copyright holder may have passed to the OTRS team. Cheers Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Amakuru: Yes, that is a "genuine OTRS ticket from the photographer, confirming the licence terms".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: thanks. Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS Ticket:2020061510004624

    How I now the status of my images? Wiki82esh (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    Wiki82esh: The agent dealing with this ticket has not yet verified the last information received. Please be patient; they are all volunteers working in their own time. Ww2censor (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS ticket=2020070310005368

    I uploaded the image I shot, but due to reports of people who have some bad intentions, the Korean proxy manager requested to check whether cookie_s.f.c is copyrighted and sent the relevant data via e-mail. Hope for a quick reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankooni (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

     Comment The URL of the file it's wrong or the link it's broken. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: This appears to be about the user's only upload here, File:모델 habin s2 와 테디.jpg. I updated Ticket:2020070310005368.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

    Category:Kelly Madison

    This ticket seems to link about ten photos in this category but they seem to suggest the subject is the author. Please could an OTRS agent confirm if permission was received from the photographer? Please note I am not asking if permission was received from the author/copyright holder. If it was from the photographer, why are they not credited? If it is from the subject, was there a transfer of copyright? Thanks in advance. FredWalsh (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

    Pinging @Sodakan as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    @FredWalsh: Sodakan appears not to be available for comment, having last edited 11+ years ago. We got permission from the copyright holder, reached through the subject's website at the URL provided.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thank you for looking at the ticket. I’m not sure if you saw my questions above. Could you please confirm if the photographer issued the license or not? Does "through the subject's website", mean it was the subject saying the photographer gave permission? Is the photographer named in the correspondence? Thank you. FredWalsh (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    @FredWalsh: No, "through the subject's website" does not necessarily mean it was the subject saying the photographer gave permission. No photographer is named in the correspondence. I cropped a photo in the subcategory Category:Kelly Madison at MGM Grand Las Vegas. I wouldn't have done that if I didn't believe the licensing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thank you for confirming about the photographer. I will start a deletion request because I have doubts about the license. FredWalsh (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    @FredWalsh: What are your doubts?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: My doubts were raised when I saw the subject named as author and confirmed when you stated there was no mention of the photographer(s). This suggests to me that the uploader asked the subject for one or more photos and the subject decided what the license would be. FredWalsh (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    Don't forget this is a 2007 ticket. Are you sure the rules were the same that now? --Ganímedes (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: The approach to OTRS may not have been watertight but bear in mind that copyright rules have not changed hugely in 13 years. The copyright (and the authority to license) would ordinarily belong to the photographer. All I’m really trying to ascertain is whether the license was correctly issued. FredWalsh (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    @FredWalsh: Our correspondent was not the subject.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Can we know who the correspondent was? FredWalsh (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    @FredWalsh: No, sorry, that would violate their privacy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    I understand. Thank you Jeff. FredWalsh (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    @FredWalsh: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. FredWalsh (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

    Use of image by Trump campaign without credit

    The following image, File:A police officer attacked by protesters during clashes in Ukraine, Kyiv. Events of February 18, 2014-1.jpg has been reported as having been used in a Trump campaign ad on Facebook, according to this article on Gizmodo. According to the article, no credit was given for this usage, putting it in violation of CC3.0 under which the photo is licensed. Facebook is generally responsive to DMCA takedown requests, having recently taken down a Trump ad which used one of Linkin Park's songs without permission. This ad is probably on Twitter too. Is this the correct place suggest that a takedown request be sent out by Wikimedia or is there a more appropriate venue? Skyerise (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Skyerise: All Wikimedia contributors retain the copyright to their works. Under US copyright law, only the true copyright holder or their agent can enforce their copyrights. Unfortunately, this means that the Wikimedia Foundation can not legally send any takedown requests on behalf of contributors -- only the copyright holder, User:Mstyslav Chernov, can do that. For more information, see Commons:Enforcing license terms. Of course, that doesn't preclude anyone from loudly and publicly complaining about it.
    For the record, no, this is not the correct place to ask that question; one of the village pumps would have been better. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    @AntiCompositeNumber: Thanks! Sorry about the misplacement. I figured it might be the right place if your answer had been in the positive. Now I know! Skyerise (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

    Old deletion request check

    I'm trying to clear up some of the old deletion requests that have been closed, came across File:L'équipe de spéléologues lors de la découverte.jpg and File:Photographie de 1965..jpg, which seem to be in a big set which was kept because permissions were gained. Can someone check that 2019111410009151 applies to said image and add the relevant tag? --Lcawte (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

    Files in the ticket are:
    • Grand Rappel à la Salamandre.jpg
    • Visite Guidée dans la Grotte de la Salamandre.jpg
    • Coulisses à la Grotte de la Salamandre .jpg
    • Concrétion Orgue avec personnage.jpg
    • Article de la découverte 1965.jpg
    • Calcite.jpg
    • Orgue avec personnage.jpg
    • Stalagmite Athéna.jpg
    • Topographie et cheminement de la Salamandre.pdf
    • Colonne et draperie.jpg
    • Draperies.jpg
    • Descente dans l'Aven.jpg
    • Accès à l'Aven.jpg
    • Vue du belvédère.jpg
    • A l'échelle de la taille humaine.jpg
    • Concrétion en pile d'assiettes.jpg
    • Concrétion sous forme de calcite.jpg
    • Topographie de la Grotte de la Salamandre.jpg
    • Roche composée de fossiles.jpg
    • Plaque commémoration 50 ans.jpg
    • Travaux d'aménagement de la structure d'accueil.jpg
    • Creusement d'un tunnel.jpg
    • Travaux dans la grotte.jpg
    • Entrée naturelle avant aménagement.jpg
    • Vue d'ensemble de la Grotte depuis le Belvedère..jpg

    Unless I miss something, those files are not included in the ticket. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

    Thank you. As there is no permission for those particular files, should they be deleted per the DR? --Lcawte (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well, not that DR from 2019. ¿Did you try to talk to the uploader? --Ganímedes (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

    Medija Centar

    BokicaK claims on my talk page File:Srbijanka Turajlić.jpg is covered by ticket:2012011710005331. The same could possibly apply to other files for which I raised a lack of permission and which are currently at DR [5]. If such would be the case, a custom license tag might be appropriate. I am puzzled by the fact the above ticket is already used on other files where it was not added by an OTRS agent [6] and which do not clarify the name of the photographer. Please note the following:

    1. The source given for File:Srbijanka Turajlić.jpg was [7] and the credited author, Medija Centar.
    2. The English page of Medija Centar [8] says "all rights reserved".
    3. On the various DR raised on May 14 to challenge the speedies, BokicaK makes reference to a permission published on the Serbian Wikipedia, which may or may not be the same as the above ticket.

    Thanks, — Racconish 💬 08:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

    Medija Centar gave us permission to use their content under Creative Commons. Requirements of CC (editing, redistribution) were always in email we used to send asking someone. I sent email asking them, they agreed. For Stevan Kragujević, it was not me who asked his daughter. I only pointed that such permission exist -- Bojan  Talk  09:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    The page you refer to on the Serbian project has no OTRS ticket number, nor evidence it has been reviewed by an OTRS agent. It names 3 files : image001.jpg, image002.jpg, and Medija centar Beograd.jpg, and I cannot reconciliate these names with those of the files named hereabove. As far as I can see, it does not state any Commons compatible license. — Racconish 💬 10:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

    Ask user @Dungodung: . He had/has access to OTRS at that time. -- Bojan  Talk  11:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

    Please refer back to this conversation. --Filip (§) 21:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

    Unlike Pogledi (photos from World War Two), Medija Centar is creator of images from their website. Stevan Kragujevic is also author of images released under Creative Commons by his daughter.-- Bojan  Talk  14:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

    Please advise what is missing here, if anything. --Krd 09:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

    Письмо о авторских правах. Кому адресовать?

    Здравствуйте! Какой текст письма и кто адресат?

    Спасибо 

         PlastininWlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlastininWlad (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    Google Translate: Извините за задержку с ответом. Нам нужна дополнительная информация, чтобы помочь вам! Возможно, вы можете Google переводить часто задаваемые вопросы? --MGA73 (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Files with multiple Permissions

    What should we do with files with multiple permissions, like files using {{Jose Fernando Real}} template. i think the status is much more clear if we only use one permission link and either merge tickets or provide "See also" notices at those tickets. --Jarekt (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    Personally I prefer that such permissions specify what they are valid for. If the ticket is only valid for xx photos there is no need for a template. If the ticket is valid for "All files uploaded to URL xx" then the template should say that so that it is easy for everyone 1) to spot files uploaded from another URL and 2) go to URL xx and look for more cool photos to upload. As an example see {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}} that specify what the permission is good for.
    So perhaps we could make a template with a text like
    "In several emails to Wikimedia Commons' Volunteer Response Team, José Fernando Real has released all content from a number of Facebook pages under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. The facebook pages covered by the permission are:
    • Page 1
    • Page 2
    • Etc."
    and collapse the OTRS-permissions if there are many. And perhaps also the list of facebook pages (and change the text to "The facebook pages covered by the permission can be seen below if you uncollaps.". --MGA73 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Email not sufficient for permission

    An image I have uploaded to wikimedia, File:Shenkar Frenik.jpg was found without sufficient information. Although information sent from the same creator for different image, File:Shenkar Building New.jpg, was sufficient. What is missing from the first image? Eladlavy12 (talk · contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladlavy12 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

    Pinging @Geagea as tagger.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    I alredy answerd to Eladlavy12. We need permission from the photographer. The permission of this files is not from the photographer. -- Geagea (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Category:OTRS received

    Could someone look after Category:OTRS received please. There is a backlog until december 2019. Thx. --JuTa 21:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

    @JuTa: Any files in categories more than a month old can be deleted by any administrator. If the template names an agent other than Krdbot, you can be assured that there is no permission for those files. Files that have not been tagged by a human agent may or may not have been reviewed, but should still be deleted. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
     Comment I've checked all from 2019. I've tagged almost all for deletion. Still remains some ticket I can't process, and if someone helps, I'll be more than thankful:
    I now start working on it by deleting the oldest files.... --JuTa 22:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

    ticket:2012011710005331

    Can someone please check if this ticket is applicable for all files from http://www.mc.rs, and if it is OTRS template should be added to files uploaded from this website by User:Elserbio00. See also Category:Images by Medija centar Beograd. Same goes also for File:Filip-David-Udruzenje-Crnogoraca-Kosova-04.jpg --Smooth O (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

     Comment This ticket is written in sr. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps we should create a template (similar to {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}} and other templates) explaining that the permission is valid for all files from www.mc.rs (if someone can confirm that - my guess based on typing one line into Google Translate is that it does). --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Brest and Dungodung: We have a permission in sr. Can any of you access it and check it? --MGA73 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
      Technically, this release from 2012 does cover all media from that site --Filip (§) 05:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    • See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Medija_Centar above. --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Dungodung: At this discussion here you have said that we do not like site releases anymore. Do you think that the permission for www.mc.rs is valid or not? And if it is valid what do you think of creating at template similar to {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}? Websites can change over time so it is also possible that it was once okay but no longer if that is the case a template should set some terms so it is possible to find out what is covered and what is not. --MGA73 (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • To be honest, I would invalidate the whole release and any such lingering releases that we have, but I think that decision shouldn't come from me, but should warrant a larger discussion. At least I'd like to hear from @Miljan Simonović: . --Filip (§) 16:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Dungodung: Thanks! Sadly I do not understand the language. I can just see the URL and a signature from someone called a "director". Personally I would think that i a top director of an organization send us a permission it would be ok. But as I said I do not understand the language and I do not know the organization so I do not know if it was someone in top. --MGA73 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @MGA73: Additionally, it's quite an old release, made under different circumstances with different (lower) criteria of inclusion. We've raised the bar since and I don't think we would accept a release like this nowadays, because it's quite vague and broad. --Filip (§) 05:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            • @Dungodung: In that case the conclusion is perhaps that permission is good for the old files but if someone want to use new files they should ask for a new permission. --MGA73 (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            • @Racconish and BokicaK: Hello! You commented in the discussion above so I take the chance and ping you here :-) Instead of using old permissions perhaps you or someone else from Serbian Wikipedia could ask them for a new permission? --MGA73 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
              • There is a balance between being diligent to protect the project and making things overly complicated for the sake of bureaucracy or paranoia. Unless someone can clearly articulate an issue in the release, revisiting old releases and deciding they're no longer valid swings very heavily in the direction of paranoia. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    Need to change my image permissions from public to private.

    Hi there.

    I took this image of William Fichtner in 2003 but I do NOT recall giving permission for free use of it.

    I happened just to notice this today and it’s a bit alarming.

    How can I change this to a setting where permission for Use must be requested from me? (For this and all of my images on Wikipedia).

    I don’t recall allowing for use. Please advise and thanks.


    Beth Herzhaft herzco@earthlink.net beth@herzco.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.91.16.42 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Alex Noble: The permission to use the file was given when the file was uploaded to Wikipedia with the license GFDL. The mail is "only" a confirmation that the uploader is the copyright holder. --MGA73 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • When you uploaded the picture on Wikipedia (w:File:William_fichtner.jpg), you applied the license w:Template:GFDL-self to it. The act of uploading the image with such a license is your authorization, and I'm afraid licenses are irrevocable once granted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      King: How can permission be irrevocable?? People can choose to change the usage rights allowed for their images can’t they? I understand I cannot change what happened in the past but can I limit it NOW? How would I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.91.16.42 (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      That is the spirit of the free content movement. You can cease distributing your work under a license, but you cannot stop a licensee (in this case Wikimedia Commons) who has already received your work under that license from continuing to distribute it. Consider what would happen if we allowed people to withdraw their permissions. If somebody adds content to a Wikipedia article and the article is edited substantially afterwards, a single contributor could get the entire article taken down if they no longer want to license their contribution. Likewise, this blank world map has been used to create a lot of derivative works, including the results for all past world cups (e.g. File:2010 world cup.png). If the creator were allowed to withdraw their permission for the blank map willy-nilly, then we'd have to redo all the work for every world cup on a different blank map, and still have to worry about the day the creator of that map decides to withdraw their permission. Generally, all of our licenses specify in the legal text that the license is irrevocable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      On your own social media, you can delete uploaded images are posts. However, content added on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia is not 'your content' anymore (in the sense that you decide over what to do with it). You've donated that to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia under a free license. The same way that money in your wallet is yours to do what you want with it, but once donated to the Red Cross, you might be able to see where your money goes, but you don't have control over it. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
      Some licenses are revocable, or only applicable for a limited time. You could revoke the licensing for those (although perhaps subject to other caveats, for instance your editor would probably be quite unhappy if you decided to revoke your licensing the day before it started selling your books). Other licenses are designed to be irrevocable. This allows receivers to use the works without fear that any of the hundreds of contributors changed their mind.
      GFDL is one of those irrevocable licenses, as section 1 state: it «grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein». This is the license chosen when uploaded by en:User:Herzco. We later confirmed by email that this was not someone else illegally licensing your work without authorization. The fact that the license is irrevocable was also mentioned there. Perhaps you do not remember any of this, as it happened over 11 years ago. I will be re-sending you the relevant email.
      -- Platonides (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      @Platonides: To be clear: "Some licenses" refers to licenses that exist in the wild, and does not include most free licenses. On the contrary, all licenses which are accepted on Wikimedia Commons are irrevocable, as it is a requirement of COM:L. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

    Concerning deleted files

    • Hi Juta.Could you please restore the following

    File:Jesus_ved_den_syge_Pige._Elisa_Maria_Boglino._Tusch_og_Akvarel._Ca.1970.jpg, and File:Den_Barmhjertige_Samaritan._Elisa_Maria_Boglino._Tusch_med_turkis_Akvarel._ca_1980.jpg ...they belong to the article about the danish artist Elisa Maria Boglino, I am the owner of the copyright, and commons have signed papers about this- Arthur Crombez knows about it, and also Jcb , who might not be active anymore. If you have not recieved release mails from please help me to make new ones. I do remember very little about writing in wikipedia so please forgive me , for not doing it wright. I also beg you to look at the other pictures in the article which still not have persmission. I have uploadet all the pictures in that article , and I am the owner of the copyright. Please write Arthur Crbz about it , if he is still active. Thank you.User:HNBS

    Hi, there was no confirmation for them by OTRS stuff. Pleas ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for these cases. The Ticket numbers were 2019060210001172 and 2018100510004327. PS: You are very likely not the copyright holder, as you are not the painter of those painting. Misses Boglimo died in 2002 this makes her work cpyrighted (by her heirs) until end of 2072 in most countries. --JuTa 23:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    I am actually her heir, I am her grandchild and own the copyright together with my uncle and my sister, I prooved this some Years ago to commons , with a lot of signed papers and as I wrote to Juta, Arthur Crombez knows about it and also some other ones who worked with it at that time.I am the writer of the article and I have uploadet all the pictures ,and as you see most of them have permission. Please help me with the ones that still not have persmission, it has been a lot af work and it would not be fair if I should redo all this.Thank you.Ciopone. (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

     Comment There is a large number of tickets related to this case (I think like 20 or more if I remember correctly). Almost all have the problem with the interactive release generator (the customer has got problems to properly use it) and the large number of tickets has spread and complicate the procedure. It's not limitated to 2 o3 tickets, and not limitated to 1 or 2 days. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Pinging @Arthur Crbz re Ticket:2019060210001172 and Ticket:2018100510004327.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by HNBS (talk • contribs) 13:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Ciopone. (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC):: Hi , I have sent an releasemail to commons, ticket:[Ticket#2020073010006511].....Hope this will do it? Otherwise please write me again.Thank youCiopone. (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Ciopone.: is it possible to get a list of the files with tickets not processed yet? --Ganímedes (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hi @Ganimedes: Thank you for trying to help me with this. Ciell restored the ones mentioned here that were deleted. In the article there are only 3 files left , that still not have permission, but as they were uploadet with the lizzard I dont have tickets for them. I only have the titles of the files, and I sent the releasemail mentioned above:Filenames are:: "File:De Gode Gerninger. Elisa Maria Boglino. Foto af Fresko (oprindeligt i farver) , ødelagt under bombardement. 1928.jpg"( was destroyed during ww2), "File:Triptykon. Halshugningen af Johannnes Døberen. Elisa Maria Boglino. Ødelagt under bombardement.Olie på træ.1930.jpg" ( also destroyed) and this little painting:"File:En Pige. Elisa Maria Boglino. Olie på lærred. ca 1926.jpg" If you have the possibillity to find an save theese by giving them permission it would be nice, but I think the two of them that are destroyed dont need?Yours sincerelyCiopone. (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    Took me a while to master the confusion, I was sure I answered on this case: Commons_talk:OTRS/Noticeboard#Help_to_restore_deleted_files._Ticket_2019060210001172_and_2018100510004327.. I'll look into this follow up later on today or tomorrow, if that's okay? Otherwise another agent is free to step in. Ciell (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    There's no need to send us more permissions at the moment, this will only further confuse the process. Ciell (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Ciopone, these images all seem to still be intact they weren't deleted: I've added the OTRS permission to them as well. I do not see any red links left in the Danish article, but please let me know if I can help you with anything else. Ciell (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hi @Ciell: Once more thank you so much. I think the article is finished and safe now, and I and I am happy about that:)But I will remember you, I still have a small question I might write you about.Ciopone. (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS & Wikidata

    Please see: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Images for Wikidata - "Global Young Academy" where, it is suggested that it is OTRS policy to reject images that are not provided for use on a specific Wikipedia article, even if they have potential use on Wikidata. If so, this would be very damaging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

    The "guideline" at OTRS photo-submissions is not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article. A Wikidata entry not linked to any project file is a fine way to avoid the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, IMHO. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Moreover, the discussion here should be if a photo for a WD entry it's in scope of Wikimedia Commons. What difference this from any other personal photo? --Ganímedes (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for confirming this. It is most troubling that media wanted on non-Wikipedia sister projects could be (is being?) rejected in this manner. When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted? I've answered your latter question where I first saw it, on the Wikidata page linked above. As for scope, please see COM:INUSE - with which one would hope all OTRS account-holders would be very familiar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What I see it's the misuse of Wikidata for a not very clear purpose. Not everyone has an article in Wikipedia, but... we must accept his photograph because someone creates an empty q in Wikidata? Does it make it notable? I'm very worried about the implications of this. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    COM:INUSE is unambiguous, and is part of COM:SCOPE; it is not for OTRS to override. Your post does not answer my questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    This is the trick: according to Wikidata guidelines (Wikidata:Notability): "An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals, that is if it meets at least one of the criteria below: 1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." So, adding a file to Wikimedia Commons and linking it to Wikidata, the young scientist creates an element in Wikidata under scope. So, they become notables. This is how this work, right? Even if the file is in use, can be deleted if the photograph is not in scope. Self-promotion is not in our scopes. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    You've just posted virtually the same screed on Wikidata. It really would be better if you did not split the discussions between venues. COM:INUSE remains unambiguous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    You did it first bringing the discussion here. However, as you've said, "COM:INUSE is unambiguous, and is part of COM:SCOPE". COM:SCOPE also says COM:NOTUSED: "File not legitimately in use. A media file which is neither:

    • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
    • legitimately in use as discussed above

    falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." All these photographs are not in our scope because even when existing the possibility of been used one day in the article of a notable scientist, the truth is they're not. Their only purpose is the promotion and can be deleted. The "potential use in Wikidata" in an empty element for self-promotion it's clearly not in our scope, and not a responsibility to OTRS. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    As I noted on the other thread you have running on this issue [9], there is a realistic possibility of the educational use of these images, by dint of the general academic excellence of the individuals. Really, just drop the stick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    That doesn't erase self-promotion. It's the same with painters, singers, footballers... --Ganímedes (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    "You did it first bringing the discussion here." No, I posted a pointer here, to a discussion elsewhere. I'm tired of your fallacious finger-pointing, at both venues. Your own quote from COM:SCOPE shows that images used (or intended to be used) on Wikidata items are allowable. If you're not prepared to abide by that community consensus, what are you doing replying to people on OTRS? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    To be clear on this point: WD does want freely licensed images of every singer, painter, footballer, scholar that an editor sees fit to make an item for. That's much broader than the range that have their own WP article. [There may still be concerns about self promotion if the editor has a COI, and Wikidata will have to deal with those on time. But a) that is for WD discussions to manage, and b) I see no such concern here.] Moreover, notability decisions should be the union of those on all involved projects -- If any project feels that knowledge is notable, it should be included. We are not here to police what free media other projects can read, see, or think, just to maintain a healthy shared commonspace. --SJ+ 14:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

    Since this seems a better place than Wikidata to discuss the matter, I'll repeat what I asked there. Where (if anywhere?) did OTRS end up with that very limiting policy? I'm completely with Andy on this. I doubt that even half of our pictures on Commons relate to any Wikipedia article, unless you count, say, that any picture of any part of a city corresponds to us having an article on that city, or other reductio ad absurdum interpretations (which would lead to a far more liberal policy for OTRS, anyway). For example, we do not have, nor are we likely to have, a Wikipedia article on this long-gone Lutheran church in Seattle, but we'd certainly want more pictures of it. I could come up with a hundred similar examples, probably without venturing more than an hour's walk from that building. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Not every image, but I can warranty you that more than once I've approved files in OTRS only to see how Commons deleted them because they're from painters without an article, or musicians deleted in Wikipedia for self-promotion. It's not OTRS the problem, believe me. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Jmabel, as both an OTRS agent and Commons admin, I'm not going to upload a file which is contrary to Commons policies, e.g., derivatives of copyrighted artworks, FoP (depending on country), CSCR (again, depending on country), and so forth. The example of the church you cited is not an issue, because it certainly could have an educational purpose and meets SCOPE. No one has disputed that, to my knowledge. The question I raised in the first place concerns only what we as OTRS agents should do about non-notable persons having no Wikipedia article, in light of OTRS Help:Photosubmissions (which has been the case since 2010), but where there is a Wikidata entry albeit lacking any WMF project use. By the way, in ticket:2020022410001019 there's now additional correspondence.  JGHowes  talk 02:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    This seems to contradict what was said above and on Wikidata. Is the guideline "not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article" or is it not? Because the example I gave would be exactly that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What was said was taken out of context; to be clear, the original question was posed at WD specifically about photo submissions for people not having Wikipedia bios and the OTRS guideline's application pertaining to the Global Young Academy WD entries for such persons. The guideline, which I already linked above, states: "If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have an article for), it might be best not to upload it. Use the 'no article, not notable' boilerplate." – nothing to do with churches!  JGHowes  talk 05:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    And it's clear that that guideline which was written two years before Wikidata came into existence is harmful. [Also, note that the linked OTRS wiki page, on which the policy you cite lives, is not publicly viewable.] The questions I asked above, which have so far been ignored, were "When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted?. It would be good to have some answers, and soon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What is harmful is the misuse of Wikidata to introduce not-notable person information avoiding the control systems of the other projects. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    You're becoming tendentious. If you wish to change COM:SCOPE, raise an RfC and see how you get on. If you wish to change Wikidata's notability criteria, raise an RfC on Wikidata. Otherwise, you must accept those policies, and that they exist by consensus on their respective projects. If you do not do that, you should not be working in OTRS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    "non-notable persons having no Wikipedia article" You seem to be conflating two issues. "no Wikipedia article" does not necessarily equate to "non-notable". Firstly, it may be that a Wikipedia article has not yet been written; and secondly. Wikidata has its own definition of notability (to which you have been referred in the parallel discussion on that project), which rightly differs from Wikipedia's (for any of the 300 Wikipedias; since you don't specify). "where there is a Wikidata entry albeit lacking any WMF project use" Wikidata is a WMF project, so that statement is illogical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps GYA should start by writing those articles and submitted by revision. If those scientists are so notables, certainly there will be no problems to finding sources. When the article is approved, we'll be very happy to received and approved their files, if the permission come from the right copyright holder, of course... --Ganímedes (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    "When the article is approved, we'll be very happy to received and approved their files" There is no such requirement. Do keep up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    It should be, then. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    As is quite clearly set out in the COM:SCOPE policy, “a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata. Commons does not rely in any way on the narrow definition of ‘notable’ as used on the Wikipedias, nor whether a Wikipedia article does or could exist; that’s simply not relevant.

    Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.

    If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence the link to the image on Commons. Commons would then delete the image as not in use (if not otherwise educational).

    The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I know no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    •  Comment. Well, if I'll receive as OTRS agent a file that might consider not to be in project scope I'll upload it and add permission (if the copyright issue is ok) and open a DR for the scope issue. I don't think it is only my own decision as a OTRS agent. It should be a community decision. If the file legitemily in use in Wikidata then definitely not be deleted. -- Geagea (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Global Young Academy

    Dear all, thanks a lot for all of your engagement and countless volunteer hours. I'm representing this effort of the Global Young Academy as well as many different other networks who have joined this effort to bringing excellent young scientists to wikidata (from India to Iraq to Italy). We are happy to receive advice on how to streamline this process. We are asking that scholars of national young academies themselves upload their pictures rather than doing this in bulk. Most scholars are professors, all of them are prize-winning scientists and all have wikidata entries now (Wikipedia pages exist for a great number of them, but these are not written by us (see here: https://w.wiki/DQr)). The Bangladesh Young academy https://nyabangladesh.org/ (to take one example out of 50) is one of the first contributors. Sooner or later, all 50+ national young academies will be submitting pictures. The plan is to then engage our senior academies and senior academy networks to do likewise, as well as the framework organizations through which they are organized (InterAcademy Partnership, ALLEA, African Academy of Sciences, Royal Academy...). So we are very much interested in setting up a process by which this is streamlined. Apologies for the many individuals who do not send in photos with the correct specifications, we want to support wikimedia as much as possible, help us to do this. PPEscientist (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    I've seen some consent-templates refilling with "I took the picture and am the photographer.". And then you see the file and found this: (general case but no related to GYA). How could he be his own photographer???? Start with honesty could be a good touch. Maybe you should start from here, introducing yourself and explaining your intentions, instead of wait to see nobody notice what you're doing... --Ganímedes (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The elements in Wikidata are worthless, because they're empty. Only the name and a date, nothing else. Not even a link. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Your claim is false; as I have pointed out, with examples, in the above-linked Wikidata discussion, where you also posted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Given User:PPEscientist's comment above, it would seem that the current OTRS policy as described here runs directly counter to WMF's current initiative to better cover areas of the world where traditional sources may be relatively sparse. An initiative like the Global Young Academy would seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that would help us identify people worthy of coverage in those areas. It is no surprise that Wikidata would be the first place where many of these would show up, because the efort is lower to create a Wikidata item than a Wikipedia article. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    I have no clue what is discussed here, but I'm quite sure that if a file is within Commons project scope, it will be processed by other like any other case. If anybody thinks different, please advise. --Krd 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    The issue is that some OTRS volunteers dispute that images for use on Wikidata are in scope. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Evaluation

    I'm trying to evaluate the discussion above, and I am stuck at one point. I think there is merit to the points raised by both Pigsonthewing and Ganímedes, but for some reason you do not address each other's points directly. Please tell me if I'm summarizing your points accurately:

    • Andy: The overriding policies are clear, permitting images on the basis of just a Wikidata item. Any subordinate policy or guideline that disregards that is inappropriate and should not be followed if it contradicts the overriding policy.
    • Ganímedes: If the policies are interpreted the way Andy says, there is a substantial loophole that will bring problems to the Wikimedia projects: if both Wikidata and Commons permit inclusion merely on the basis of inclusion on the other project, that makes it possible for a self-promoter or vandal to introduce any arbitrary Wikidata item and associated media file.

    If my summary is accurate, I have a question for each of you.

    • Andy, do you understand Ganímedes' concern, and could you respond directly to it? Do you (a) have some reason to believe that spam and self-promotion would not substantially increase, or (b) think we should blindly follow the policies, even if that would result in a firehose of spam; or (c) think we should work to modify the policies in some as-yet-unspecified way, to mitigate that spam, or (d) something I've missed?
    • Ganímedes, do you recognize that policies pre-dating those you are following/advocating dictate that files should be included on Commons if they illustrate a Wikidata item? If so, what policy approach (as opposed to practice) do you think would help create a clearer framework for volunteers to follow, and mitigate your spam concerns?

    I hope this helps clarify things. The questions here are tricky, and in my view there is no easy answer; but answers become almost impossible if we let the discussion devolve into personal animosity. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks! Pete Forsyth. Yes, it's exactly as you summarizes. And the problem it's exactly that: we're opening the door to anybody to creates a q element and upload his files here, notable or not, spammer, vandal, anyone, just because it's got a q in WD. AS the article of the GYA says (translated in some other Wikipedias), the GYA has 200 members, who change each 5 years. So, it's to spect we'll receive more of these files. Even more, checking the first name, Patrick Cobbinah (Q64907170), there is not even one independent reliable source. And that's the problem exactly: by linking directly to Wikidata there's no need of any source. Yes, our policies say if the file is linked to a sister project the file can stay, but... What if this is a cross-wiki spam case (i.e.)? Is still valid the same argument? But, I think this discussion it's in the wrong place. Is not in OTRS board, but in Village Pump, were should be pointed, IMHO.--Ganímedes (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The first email from Robert Lepenies (of GYA) it's over 180 days, so it's not a new issue, but it wasn't a problem till more photos see the light in Commons and OTRS. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you, Pete and Ganímedes. it seems to me the discussion you want (about whether WD should have an entry for someone who no independent source online) is worth having, and should be had at WD. (Andy: what is the best forum for that?) Maybe if -- only after! -- photo spam becomes a particular problem, there could be a discussion board on WD specifically for entries with uploaded photos. But commons should not be making that decision. And thr OTRS permissions queue is definitely the wrong part of the process to make that decision. --SJ+ 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Do you have permission from that named individual to reveal such details of their OTRS correspondence publicly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The name it's in the main category; the date of the permission, in the OTRS ticket of the file, all in the public domain. What permission do I need? --Ganímedes (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't ask about that; I asked you about the personal information in your post - information which is not in the category or file description. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Pete: you say "The overriding policies are clear, permitting images on the basis of just a Wikidata item", and indeed they are. But that is not what we are big told by OTRS volunteers; it is not what the garishly highlighted quote above says (and it certainly not how it is being interpreted by OTRS volunteers).
    We who are not OTRS account holders are not able to see for ourselves what the quoted OTRS policy says, because instead of being on Commons, it's on password-protected wiki. I have asked some simple questions, above, about that policy: "When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted? They remain unanswered. I wonder why that is?
    Yes, I understand Ganímedes' concerns; he believes - and has clearly stated his belief, not least in the discussion here - that images of people should only be accepted if they are for an existing Wikipedia article, and that mere use on Wikidata is insufficlent. I have quoted and refuted this (as indeed have others), and suggested courses of action should he wish to pursue them, in the original discussion on Wikidata - where his response was to accuse me of not answering his unspecified questions; when I asked his for evidence of that, he failed to reply (and that's not the only time he has ignored my questioning his baseless assertions).
    From what little we do know (and we don't know what other cases exist), at least some volunteers have been rejecting images provided in good faith to illustrate items on Wikidata that are well within scope (which, incidentally, d:Q64907170 most certainly is; note that it currently lacks an image) - images which would almost certainly be kept if uploaded and subjected to a Commons deletion discussion. A figure of twenty such instances has been mentioned from this one set of contributors alone.
    The questions in hand are not "tricky" and there is an easy answer: COM:SCOPE says that if an image is used (i.e for use) on Wikidata, it is in scope. it is not for OTRS to unilaterally overrule that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Andy, by "overriding" I don't mean OTRS, that's the opposite. And I'm trying to express what I understand to be your point, which I think is a good one, not make one of my own. OTRS policies need to comply with the inclusion policies of the projects, not the other way around. I think the OTRS concerns here are subordinate to the question of what the main policies of the projects tell us to include, so to me it seems natural to talk through that stuff first, before getting into the questions around OTRS.
    As for what's tricky, here's what I mean: If you make policies broadly more inclusive, the possibility of increased spam tends to go along with that. Finding a balance (including more good stuff without including more bad stuff) is the kind of thing that requires careful thought, observation of unintended consequences, etc. etc.
    I'm glad to hear that there has been good discernment. So far, I've only looked at the discussion on this page, and I probably won't have time to delve into those specifics. So it's helpful (to me at least) to have them summarized here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I don't suppose that you are making your own separate point; and my use of "overriding" was to describe the demonstrated and admitted actions of those OTRS volunteers posting here. They argue the unseen OTRS policy, or their interpretation of it, overrides, or should override, COM:SCOPE.
    This is the secondary discussion; the primary one is that on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What WD accept or not, is not our concern. We must be worried about what we accept here. I don't want to continue arguing in circles. What is missing here it's the fact that, to be included in another project is not enough; if there is other concern as spam, promo, notability, etc, files can also be deleted, even if they're "in scope" (because they're linking to a q in WD). So, the question is: is it enough to have a q element in Wikidata to be in Scope in Commons? I know Andy, you'll say yes, but that's what I'm challenging and that's the point Wikimedia Commons must discuss. And I'm sure that can't be done from OTRS/Noticeboard, that has another goal, and has been long misused the last two days. This is my last intervention here. Thanks. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    You say you don't want to argue in circles, yet you keep doing so. So here it is again: COM:SCOPE says, explicitly:
    File in use in another Wikimedia project
    A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose [...] It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.    .
    Don't be surprised if I decline to respond to any posts where you ignore this again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Actually Wikidata rather than using images catalogues them.
    Moreover, COM:SCOPE current content is roughly four years older than Wikidata itself, I wonder wheter it would had be worded in a different way if written after Wikidata creation. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Poppycock. Anyone sighted can see an image on d:Q181, for example; and many on https://w.wiki/GbZ once the query is run. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Apart from bringing the usual, unecessary, rudeness this doesn't reply to any of the above. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    OK. From where I sit, it seems that the combined inclusion policies of Wikidata and Commons could allow for some really nasty inclusions -- e.g., if somebody created a Wikidata item for the regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds, and uploaded a photo of them to Commons, and linked the two, then the photo on Commons would be allowed (by virtue of the existence of a Wikidata item) and the Wikidata item would be allowed (by virtue of a photo on Commons). What could prevent it would be good faith discernment of volunteers; that's a reasonable approach in the short term, but over time I'd hope that the policies and inclusion criteria could be refined to rely less on subjective judgment.
    If the volunteers executing the discernment are OTRS volunteers following an unpublished internal policy, I agree with you, that is less reasonable as a solution. It doesn't live up to our shared values of transparency, and there's not much to inspire confidence in the rest of us that it will be sustainable or consistent. Still, it does leave a big question, and I don't see what the answer is: If the OTRS crowd were to stop excluding these uploads, what mechanism should we expect to address the spam? Is your argument simply that we should expect volunteers in an open decision-making process discern between what "feels" worthy of inclusion, until and unless more nuanced policies emerge?
    If that's your position, it seems sensible. I'm honestly not sure whether I agree or disagree. I'm still at the point of trying to understand your position. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    You suppose, wrongly, that "a Wikidata item for the regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds" would meet Wikidata's notability criteria. But yes, the lack of transparency is a significant concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, looking more closely I see at Wikidata:Wikidata:Notability item #4, which I had overlooked:
    "Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement, such as category for pictures taken with camera (P2033)."
    This was indeed a significant gap in my understanding, thank you for pointing it out.
    @Ganímedes: What do you think of this? I'm looking at your first top-level comment above in this discussion -- it seems that you missed this point as well, no? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    First, they've created the main article, en:Global Young Academy. Then, it was translated or re-created) in some other Wikis (4-5, not sure). Later, they've started to created q elements in Wikidata. Then, they've created their own category, and finally, started to upload their own files, asking to OTRS volunteers to do it. If someone complains in Wikidata --> "But we're linking to Commons..." If someone complains in Commons --> "But we're linking to Wikidata!..." It's more of the same. The category came with the combo. But... Who am I to argue? --Ganímedes (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    en:Global Young Academy was started in Match 2011 by David Eppstein. Category:Global Young Academy was created in July 2019 by Victuallers. What evidence do you have that either did so on behalf of the organisation, or otherwise acted improperly in doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    No answer, User:Ganímedes? No evidence? Perhaps you will now strike your false allegation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I've said I don't will to continue answer and argued with you in this place, and that's what I pretend to do. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think that means you are refusing to answer. That much was already clear. My point is, that if you refuse to provide any evidence to support or defend your claim, which is false, then you should strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm quite late to the party, but only just noticed this in my notifications. Anyway, I created the :en: article in 2011, as stated above. I have never had any association with the GYA myself; it came to my attention at that time because someone I worked with belonged to it, but my creation of it was independent of that work and I created the article purely because I thought it was a topic worthy of having an article. I have since grown quite unhappy with the long-term promotional behavior displayed by representatives of this organization and have blocked some of its editors on :en: for violations of policy there. So, yes, User:Ganímedes' accusation that the GYA created their own :en: article is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Very late in deed, David Eppstein (around 40 days from the last comment and almost 5 month from the above), but I appreciate your comments. I apologize for mine, and I thanks that at least someone admits that the behavior of the organization is promotional. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Even if their behaviour is promotional the images are in scope. It is not in your gift to "punish" behaviour that you do not like by refusing to accept in-scope images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict)No regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds but anyone ever being listed among the authors of a scientific paper. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I see the harm in publishing a photo and wikidata item for an author of a published scientific paper. It seems natural to me that a knowledge-focused project like Wikimedia would help the public access information relating to the provenance of published information. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    If you wish to propose a change to Wikidata's notability policy, then this is not the venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Pigsonthewing: Were you talking to me here? If so, you've got my point backward. I said that Wikidata's policy (as interpreted above) seems sensible, not that I'd like to advocate a change. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I wasn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    To repeat, the current OTRS guideline was adopted in 2010 and it states precisely what I've quoted (and highlighted) above. If you're unwilling to observe AGF on that, then this discussion is at an end, for my part. I don't know the answer to your other questions nor can I speak for other OTRS team members. All I can say, definitively, is that I myself have never "rejected" a GYA ticket at OTRS and, to be sure I was on solid ground with this one, brought the question to the Wikidata noticeboard for further advises and clarification, in light of the seeming disconnect between what is longstanding recommended practice for OTRS volunteers and the subsequent development of Wikidata.  JGHowes  talk 20:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I have never said that I doubted that it includes what you quoted, but I very much doubt that you quoted the entire policy, so my statement that "We who are not OTRS account holders are not able to see for ourselves what the quoted OTRS policy says, because instead of being on Commons, it's on password-protected wiki" is fair, reasonable and true. Perhaps you can provide us with a full, unredacted and current copy? Preferably via wiki import, so we can see the full history, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I quoted all that is relevant to this discussion. The rest of the page is a step-by-step "how-to" guide for new OTRS volunteers, dealing with how to process and format tickets, syntax examples, use of templates, etc.  JGHowes  talk 01:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • INUSE is pretty clear on this. If anyone wants to change that, then they need to go to VP, not here. If WD wants to change their standards, that's for them to decide. Just as Commons should not be making editorial decisions on behalf of sister projects, OTRS should not be making editorial decisions on behalf of Commons. We follow local policy as we follow local policy. GMGtalk 22:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, please define what you mean by "editorial decisions on behalf of Commons". Do you, as an OTRS volunteer and Commons admin, upload to Commons files submitted to OTRS that violate COM:FOP or COM:CSCR or are out of Scope, such as a non-user's family photos of the kids with Fluffy the cat? I won't.  JGHowes  talk 02:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Probably the kids and Fluffy are out of scope. Unless, of course, one of the kids (or Fluffy) is notable. But that is not what we are dealing with here. I'm pretty certain that in the case you are thinking of, neither the kids nor Fluffy have published scientific papers, hold an academic appointment, have won prizes in the sciences, or have a Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @JGHowes: What I mean is, when I answer tickets on behalf of the English Wikipedia, I do so according to local en.wiki policy, and when I answer tickets on behalf of Commons, I do so according to local Commons policy. Barring any license issues, a large part of the current policy on Commons is that media be used or realistically usable on sister projects. If Wikidata has defined usability for their purpose in such a way, then current Commons policy follows suit. The way to change that is to change Commons policy regarding scope to account for Wikidata, if the community wishes to do so. But so long as that remains Commons' policy, then OTRS should operate within those bounds. GMGtalk 14:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Hi User:GreenMeansGo, I fear that you may have been basing your OTRS work on a misunderstanding of Commons policies on Scope. Please see my comment, here, in the discussion above. To be absolutely clear, an image which is already in use in good faith on Wikidata is by policy definition in scope on Commons. Even if the image is of something you personally consider useless for educational purposes (self-promotional, a standard selfie, Fluffy the cat) that does not matter. If the image is in use on Wikidata, that is enough, and assuming the licensing and privacy aspects are OK you should as an OTRS agent accept it. The rule against images that are "not useful for an educational purpose" isn't a separate step to be considered independently of whether the file is in use. Anything in use on Wikidata is by definition considered by Commons to be useful for an educational purpose.
    And, to repeat what has been said above, that isn't a loophole since links on Wikidata to unwanted images will be deleted there; the files will then no longer be in use and will be deleted from Commons. Commons policy on this was very carefully drafted to ensure that Commons doesn't override the needs of local projects, is quite clear if you read through the text, and has been unchanged for over a decade. The issue isn't with Commons, it's with the incorrect application (perhaps accidental misunderstanding) of Commons rules by some OTRS agents.
    As others have suggested, what needs to happen here is simply for the OTRS private guidance to be published, and probably revised. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'm mistaken at all. I completely agree with you in fact and that it what I was saying to the letter in so many words. GMGtalk 19:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm so sorry. Reading what you said again I really can't understand how I thought you meant the opposite. I have struck the first sentence. My apologies. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep - because these scientists are possible future Jobs, Gates, or Tolkien. This is similar to going to US Library of Congress author conventions And taking photos of up and coming authors. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep - because after reading this wall of text my takeaways are: 1) OTRS file acceptance follows secret guidelines that have different outcomes than the default uploader and these need to be transparent for all projects, including Wikidata and 2) the project looks like something we want, period. Now going to read the followup wall of text on how to prevent this happening in future (and can't help wondering here what on earth we have been missing since 2013 when Wikidata slowly started to get illustrated with Commons files!!) Jane023 (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    Improving processes to avoid this

    Hi all

    What additional information could be added to the documentation for OTRS volunteers to avoid this confusion around rejections in future?

    John Cummings (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

    Great question, but possibly a little too narrowly framed? It seems to me that if OTRS were to publish its policies and procedures, with some explanation of why they are in place, and define a straightforward way to ask questions, give feedback or commentary, that might go a long way toward mitigating the kind of issue that arose here. Of course, all that takes work...but it seems like important work to do. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    One extremely simple answer is to make all policies and templates on the OTRS wiki public.
    Though everyone can understand why specific cases cannot be published, there never has been a good reason as to why all the processes and policies that OTRS volunteers follow should be kept a secret. There is nothing there that would be a surprise to anyone. This is not Fight Club. --Fæ (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I contend that an OTRS volunteer should not upload an image to Commons if it's in violation of Commons policies, especially if they are also a Commons admin with a good working knowledge of Commons policies. Take, for example, COM:FOP. Right now, en-wiki has a non-Commons image of the Hallgrímskirkja‎ in Iceland because Iceland does not have FoP. Yet, File:Hallgrimskirkja (21877785058).jpg‎ copied from Flickr is on Commons and used at d:Q271466. This is a violation of FOP and it should not be hosted on Commons.  JGHowes  talk 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @JGHowes: This seems like a good principle, at least for a case where policy or law clearly disallows a file. But it seems irrelevant to the present discussion in several ways. This file was copied from Flickr, not uploaded via OTRS; it's a clear case, unlike the examples above in which there is more of a need to evaluate interrelated policies on multiple sites. Is it relevant in some way I'm missing, and if so, what's your suggestion for ensuring things work more smoothly in the future? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: Yes, Pete, I realize that. But now that the discussion is moving towards possible changes in the instructions to OTRS agents, I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the agent's discretion entirely.  JGHowes  talk 01:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I've got no problems. If after verified the authorship and the copyright holder I upload a file from photosubmission queue and it's deleted, certainly a Commons admin will explain to the customer why the file was rejected even with an OTRS ticket, since it's up to us to take that decision, right? So, no problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

    We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion):

    1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
    2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?
    3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
    4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)?
    5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
    6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
    7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
    8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
    9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
    10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?

    Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

    Excellent list, Andy. I concur. I greatly appreciate the service that OTRS agents perform for the projects, and I think it would be very much in the interests of OTRS agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of questions in a forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing policies and a process for amending policies). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    See m:OTRS/Recruiting and the links provided there. It's not password-protected.  JGHowes  talk 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    @JGHowes: I'm confident that most people who have followed the discussion this far are familiar with that page. But do note that (a) it only addresses a small portion of the concerns identified above, and (b) the all-important pronoun "we" is defined nowhere on that page. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with that page, and its subpages, It doesn't answer any of the above questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

    Hi all, just few words to clarify how the relationship between OTRS and Notability works, for those who aren't familiar with the service. OTRS permissions-commons is concerned on files uploaded on Commons, thus it is Commons' SCOPE that is relevant for this queue (NB: Commons' inclusion criteria is, in a nutshell, (potentially) having a content page on any Wikimedia project). However OTRS agents are not admins that perform speedy deletions, nor they can replace the community in performing DRs by themselves. Generally it is only blatant advertisement or clear out of scope submissions that are (or should be) rejected. All the rest is generally accepted, given that the files have a valid permission. Then it's Commons' community that decides whether to keep or delete the files following the regular processes. --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for this clarification, but it does not address the concern, which is that COM:INUSE policy on Commons does not include usage on Wikidata. Jane023 (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    What? Of course it does! It covers usage in any and all Wikimedia projects. Please see multiple posts above. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    As I have already pointed out above, the issue is that some OTRS volunteers dispute that images for use on Wikidata are in scope, and it is clear that those OTRS admins agents have been rejecting wanted images, supplied in good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    OTRS agents are bound by OTRS policies and the policies and guidelines of the wikis they edit. Most OTRS policies have been copied to Meta and are available here. Best practices for handling tickets are described on otrs-wiki and are covered by the confidentiality agreement. They are written and revised through consensus among OTRS agents and are typically discussed on the mailing lists, which are also covered by the confidentiality agreement. If you have questions about an agent's actions, you should contact the OTRS administrators, who have the sole authority over a volunteer's access to the OTRS system. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. there are 214 pages linked to, from the link you give above which one(s) answer which of the above questions? Which one of the 214 includes the policy from which the the highlighted quote above was taken? When you say "They are written and revised through consensus among OTRS agents", what is "they" (polices, or best practices)? And why are "best practices" covered by a confidentiality agreement? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    You asked what the OTRS policies are: the OTRS policies that have been copied to meta and translated are included in that list. All other content on otrs-wiki is considered non-public information. Best practice guidance is written by OTRS voluteers, policies are written by the OTRS administrators and the WMF. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    What does Wikidata have to do with this? Gryllida (chat) 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Gryllida: The very first post in this section, made by me and timestamped '19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)' says "Please see: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Images for Wikidata - "Global Young Academy" where, it is suggested that it is OTRS policy to reject images that are not provided for use on a specific Wikipedia article, even if they have potential use on Wikidata. If so, this would be very damaging.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

    I added some garish highlighting for Andy's questions, and also for the only answer so far, which does not answer any of the questions. Still waiting. Jane023 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    It seems to me that a fairly robust consensus has emerged among many non-OTRS agents in this discussion, that it would be worthwhile for OTRS to adopt greater transparency in its policies and procedures, and perhaps consider some changes to them. Is there an OTRS agent who can acknowledge this feedback, and commit to raising the question among the other OTRS agents, to explore whether some action can be taken based on it? Pinging Ganímedes and AntiCompositeNumber, two OTRS agents who have been involved in this discussion. Can you help? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

    I can bring it up on the mailing list. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you AntiCompositeNumber. If you're willing, I think it would be helpful if you could post the text you send to the mailing list here, so that even skeptical Wikimedians can see that the points were accurately captured. Also, I hope you will be able to report back how the discussion goes, and any decisions or efforts that result from it, at whatever time is most appropriate. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating your efforts to move this to a resolution. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    "I hope you will be able to report back how the discussion goes" It would be better if the email to the mailing list simply pointed to this discussion and asked people to comment here, in plain view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    I don't entirely agree with Andy on this point. While it's true that there is a great advantage to having all the discussion public, I don't think it's realistic or reasonable to require it. I think it's safe to assume that some discussion will be carried on in private; and if that's the case, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask that the outcomes of that private discussion be reported publicly. That's what I'm asking AntiCompositeNumber to do (or alternately, to ensure that somebody else is assigned to do it). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    As long as the relevant OTRS wiki remain confidential, discussion of their contents will have to as well, and that means restricting the discussion to the OTRS wiki and mailing list. I will likely be able to share if any changes result from this, but likely not in great detail (unless of course, the relevant pages are made public). The mail I sent follows. As a point of clarification, while this section is the only one linked, it is not the only discussion I am referring to.

    Hello,

    As I'm sure many of you are aware, non-OTRS members of the Commons community have recently expressed concern around the processing of OTRS tickets, especially relating to photosubmission tickets. These discussions have been spread across many fora, but a significant portion took place at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata>.

    While some of the commentary has been somewhat misguided, I do think that the discussion has brought up some important points that are at least worth acknowledging:
    1. The guidance to OTRS agents is lacking in some areas, and needs improvement
    2. There is no systematic review of permissions or photosubmission tickets
    3. OTRS procedures are non-public, leading to misconceptions and misunderstandings from the wider community

    Thoughts on how to address these points, if it is necessary to address them at all, are appreciated.

    AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Hi AntiCompositeNumber, I saw your email and would like to help. Where will we be brainstorming about this? Ciell (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Ciell: The mailing list is probably a good place to start, but a page on the otrs wiki might also be good for longer discussions on one of the more specific points. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

    Thank you AntiCompositeNumber. I look forward to seeing where this goes, and I'm hopeful that OTRS can increase the wider wiki community's understanding of how it operates. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

    @AntiCompositeNumber: It's been over a week, and there have been no responses here. Have there been any on the mailing list? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

    ...tumbleweed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

    Hi Andy,
    Yes we do have contact over our email list, and several of us want to be involved in any follow up. But conversation are a bit slow at the moment, I think because there are time consuming other issues in many of our lives right now - COVID pandemic and all. But there's no need to rush, right? We won't forget. Ciell (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

    Another four weeks have passed, with no response whatsoever from anyone representing the OTRS team; and it is over eight weeks since I posed the questions, above. Can we at least have some indication of when we might get answers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

    @AntiCompositeNumber: Ciell (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

    It appears that those of us who have raised concerns are now being ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

    I'm sorry to say this, but I think this is not the place for this discussion. I think you may take it in the Village Pump, or Meta. But here is a place where few agents helps reviewing tickets. If you want to change a policy, then you need a more open space with more users involved. That's my humble opinion. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    From the header box on this page: "This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers". And we've already been told that this discussion has been flagged up on the OTRS mailing list. Before anyone can decide whether policies need changing, we need to know what the applicable policies are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    As you wish. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

    Redux, June 2020

    Restored from the archive, as this remains a live issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Pigsonthewing: I think the policy for Commons is very clear. We host files that are in scope and licensed under a free license. Wikidata is a Wikimedia project so any files that is used there in in scope. Personally I don't care about scope when looking at OTRS. Perhaps if someone send me 1.000 dick pics and asked me to upload them I would say no thank you knowing that I would spend hours uploading them only to see the "penis patrol" nominate them for deletion.
    There may have been some confusion about Wikidata before but as I read the comments above it has been clearly stated that Wikidata is a part of the Wiki-family so files used there are in scope.
    If some OTRS volunteers refuse to upload a photo and say it is because of scope then I suggest that you/they/someone make a post here and we can have someone else review it. Or perhaps just have the ppl create an account on Commons and upload the files themselves. --MGA73 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    You say you "think the policy for Commons is very clear", but this whole issue arose because individual OTRS agents were interpreting it differently to each other. The individual agent in the case cited has not said that they will change their behaviour, nor has anyone else indicated that they will be prevented from rejecting material which the policy apparently says should be accepted. Furthermore, there are ten questions, highlighted above, to which no answers, let alone "clear" answers, have been given. The questions cannot be avoided indefinitely. We generally have no way of knowing when a valid image has been rejected via OTRS, since the system is not public. Your comment about pictures of penises seems to be a - rather bizarre - straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Anyone can edit I support Andy or anyone else producing the documentation to answer these questions. I expect that as an experienced Wikimedia contributor, Andy's first guesses of the answers to all these questions would be correct, and that his reason for asking is not about getting answers but about wanting more infrastructure.
      The request here is for a lot of documentation, and I think the reason why this has not been done is because it is a lot of work on volunteers' time, and because these questions are about some fundamentals of Wikimedia operations which are ubiquitous, a bit boring to established Wikipedia editors, and hard to explain. I volunteer to meet Andy or a group of people in a video-recorded live conversation which we post here in this thread to answer the questions. Talking things through is much easier than producing written documentation. I do think that it is too much to ask that the Volunteer Response Team produce a guidebook, which seems to me what is being requested here. I think it is reasonable to want guidebooks for many aspects of Wikimedia projects, but written explanations for any parts of Wikimedia projects have rarely either satisfied people asking for them or been very helpful for transmitting culture.
      I do expect that voice conversation would resolve most or all concerns quickly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • [ec] "I expect that ... his reason for asking is not about getting answers but about wanting more infrastructure. You expect wrongly. "a guidebook, which seems to me what is being requested here" Also wrong. Please do not attempt to speak for me again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing and Bluerasberry: Yes I think the policy is very clear: Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing. But if you go look at Commons:Deletion requests you will see thousands of DR's because we are a community of thousands of users so every one have their own opinion on what scope is and how to understand copyright.
      As I said I normally do not care about scope when I look at OTRS. If it has a free license (and I think it is legal) I will upload/accept it. If I think it is useless I might start a DR. It has to be really bad before I would say no (like I said if it was 1.000 penises).
      We are all humans. If you disagree with someone about an OTRS case then talk to them or make a post here. --MGA73 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • In case you did not notice, I made such a post here, half a year ago. This long section is the result; and yet the issues raised are still not resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes I noticed the long post :-)
          But as I see it the post started with a question if Wikidata is in scope and the answer is after some discussion that it IS in scope.
          Then there is a request for someone to write a lot of text. But for what? We do not need extra text.
          If you have a specific ticket start a request about that :-)
          We are volunteers so we are not going to look for work by reading old tickets to see if someone made a good reply or not. Well at least I'm not. --MGA73 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • "The long post"? It contained just 49 words. If you see "a request for someone to write a lot of text", then you must see it elsewhere, for there is none on this page. There are ten questions, the answers to which may be long, or short, or simply links. Nonetheless, they remain unanswered, and they are not unreasonable questions. I wonder why they remain unanswered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    No more Nutella?
    • Read Commons:OTRS, m:OTRS/Volunteering and Commons:Policies and guidelines. If you have a problem with a permission or a picture ask here. If you have a problem with an OTRS member then go talk to them or start a request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. As I already said we do not go around and check eachother unless someone ask a specific question. --MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Note to OTRS agents: Refer to rule 55. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • From this we can conclude that OTRS is not Nutella - we can't make everyone happy... --MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Not sure how Nutella taste, but I chatch the idea XD Andy Mabbett: I've told you long before what I think, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. All the doubs you've got are valid, but, again, this is not the place. If you want to know the answer, I think the place it's a RfC in Meta. If you want to discuss why delete file without article or if we should accept files only because they're linking to WD, I think the place is the Village Pump. Only if you need to know about any specific ticket, this is the place. If not, I'm not sure how we can help you (but of course, you're alway be wellcome). Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, I saw your comment about the venue the last time you made it, and I responded: "From the header box on this page: "This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers". Indeed, you replied to my response, so must have seen it then. Your claim that "Only if you need to know about any specific ticket, this is the place" is contradicted by that statement, and does not seem to be supported by any other policy, or actual practice.
          I have no particular desire to discuss NISHANT_BHUSHAN.jpg, never having seen it or been aware of it before your linking to its now-deleted page. It is true that I came here to discuss a particular set of images, which you personally had wrongly rejected. Your error in doing so seems to have been confirmed in the above discussion, and in the clarification to the guidelines noted by JGHowes a few hours ago, just below this comment.
          It is therefore rather troubling that you nonetheless still question "if we should accept files only because they're linking to WD". Are you now prepared to abide by the cited guidelines, and what are you doing to resolve the issue of the images which you previously rejected, contrary to that guideline?
          That said, although I came here to discuss some specific images, the discussion has uncovered some wider, generic issues - encapsulated in the ten highlighted, and as yet unanswered, questions above - and it important that those issues are resolved. As I also noted in our previous exchange "we've already been told that this discussion has been flagged up on the OTRS mailing list" . We await the overdue results of that non-public discussion.
          You suggest an RfC on Meta. As I also said in my previous reply to you: "Before anyone can decide whether policies need changing, we need to know what the applicable policies are".
          You ask how you can help: It is curious, and somewhat of a pity, that the energy and time that you and others have spent critiquing the above questions, which are not unreasonable, nor complex, have not instead been expended in answering them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Pigsonthewing, Your concern about the old guideline for OTRS volunteers vis-a-vis Wikidata was addressed on Feb. 28 when a WMF staff person updated the guideline. (The old guideline, which was written before the introduction of WikiData, said: "‎If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have an article for), it might be best not to upload it",) The current guideline is now amended to read, "‎If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have a page on any project for) ‎...". ‎—  JGHowes  talk 23:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Is that guideline on a public wiki, or the private OTRS wiki (see question 2 in the set of ten highlighted above)? If the latter, may we know which WMF staff member made that change? Was that change made in response to this discussion, and if so, why did that WMF staff member - or any - not comment here? Was anything else done, to notify individual OTRS agents of the clarification to the guideline? What steps are in place to ensure compliance with the guideline, and to deal with any cases of OTRS agents who persist in disregarding it, and to review their interactions (and those preceding the clarification) with good-faith providers of rejected images (see question 8, above)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
        • As previously noted, the guideline in question is one of the "helpful tips" for OTRS volunteers and is not publicly viewable. Obviously, the modification was prompted by the discussion taking place at the time here and on OTRS' IRC channel. Indeed, the edit summary accompanying the page change states, "update the tip to include all projects". That's as far as I'm going with this.  JGHowes  talk 01:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Pigsonthewing Just to make things clear Commons is a Wiki so EVERYONE not blocked can upload photos to Commons. Photo submissions is a service designed to make it easier for people that do not have a wiki account to upload photos that we really, really want. It is not meant for being a way for lazy wiki users to have a shortcut to make other users upload photos. So if A send a photo to photo submissions and volunteer B think everything looks okay then B will upload the photo. If B think that the photo is useless then B will probably ask what photo can be used for and if B does not get a good answer then B may not upload it. If A is not happy with the answer then A can just upload the photo him-/herself. Problem solved!
          This long discussion started months ago with the question if photos only used on Wikidata was in scope and it was cleared months ago that it IS in scope. Problem solved!
          As said before we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does. If someone have a problem with a specific user or a specific ticket then they can write it here.
          So do you have any recent examples of rejected photos or are you just stuck in this to get revenge over someone you do not like? --MGA73 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
          • The statement "we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does" is very troubling. The rest of your comment appears to be made in bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
            • I'm trying to figure out why you keep going in this discussion. To me it is important to know if there is a problem or if you are on the hunt for someone. If you do not have any recent examples I there is no reason to spend more time on this. --MGA73 (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

    Please tell me [10] progress

    File:Cassie Mogilner Holmes.jpg It has been on {{OTRS received}} for two weeks, but there is no result yet. I want to know how OTRS are going, Thank you. 轻语者 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

    • We are still awaiting a license from the photographer/copyright owner. As stated in our email of 10 July, we can't accept forwarded permissions or statements such as, "My photo can be used on Wikipedia", etc. What is needed is for the photographer to email a Creative Commons ShareAlike license. Without that, this photo won't be accepted.  JGHowes  talk 04:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2020022010007011

    An OTRS email for File:Innocent Umezulike.jpeg (ticket 2020022010007011) was sent in February and approved (according to the person who provided the file), but the file was recently deleted. Could you kindly verify whether the email was received? Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    Eheeemmm.... I've got the impression this ticket is not finished. The agent made a question long time ago and never got an answer. @Nat: ? --Ganímedes (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes and Nat: Apparently the copyright holder responded in March with more info on when the picture was taken and who owns but received no further correspondence. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 18:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    The initial OTRS email was sent on 20 February. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    The last email of the ticket it's from the OTRS agent on 02/21 at 18:57. There is no further activity in that ticket. Perhaps the CR holder send the info in a different email and so get a new ticket number? --Ganímedes (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    I wasn't able to find anything using the world-famous OTRS search system. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    I took a gander, and it does not appear that there was a response to the query nor was there another email sent by the sender. The permission has not yet been accepted. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Nat, AntiCompositeNumber, and Ganímedes: Another permission email's just been sent by the copyright holder (admin@umezulikefoundation.org). Kindly confirm. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    This has been received but not yet processed as ticket:2020080410006578 ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    We've received the statement (again), but previous question remain unanswered. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Is there any info in particular that needs to be provided? As far as I'm aware the statement was to provide permission for the file to be used on Wikimedia. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 15:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    That discussion it's taking place in the ticket, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of spreed it outside OTRS. Sorry. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Davykamanzi: I had it undeleted via COM:UDR#File:Innocent Umezulike.jpeg and added it to Wikidata and English Wikipedia. Please have your correspondents carbon copy you on email messages via OTRS to keep you in the loop.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thanks for letting me know. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 11:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Davykamanzi: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    File:Karen Lorre and Angela Lauria 2018-12-13.jpg

    I uploaded the file File:Karen Lorre and Angela Lauria 2018-12-13.jpg on July 28. The photographer (not me) sent it as an attachment to permissions-en (and cc'd me), along with a free license statement (cc-by-sa-3.0). permissions-en replied that the image had to be uploaded to Commons before it could be reviewed. To speed things up (since the photographer didn't seem familiar with how to do that), I uploaded it for them, and I put the {{OTRS pending}} tag on it. I also advised permissions-en of the upload. If it's still waiting to be reviewed, that's fine, but if there's a problem that needs addressing (like the photographer needs to send another email), please let me know (and/or let them know). --Rob (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

    Hi, please let us know the ticket number received by the photographer. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Ticket#2020072810000325 --Rob (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Usually I'm involved with tickets in Dutch language, but this permission is fully clear, so I added the permission to the image. Thank you for reminding and for your effort and help. Please note in Dutch we have a website wikiportrait.nl, which makes it easy for persons to upload images. OTRS-volunteers will check the permission and upload the image in a highly automated process. If you want to read more: https://www.wikimedia.nl/blog-entry/5000-portrait-photo-s-of-famous-dutch-and-flemish-people-on-wikimedia-commons. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elly (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    User:MVASCO

    Hi! The user had his identity confirmed via OTRS in 2011 but looking at his talk page I see that many files have been deleted after that date. I wonder if the deletions are okay or if users/admins missed that the identity was confirmed. Should the uploader have done something else? I'm not an admin so I can't check the deleted files. --MGA73 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    @MGA73: As far as I see, most of the user's file start with "BORN WITH STYLE", so it looks like the previous files is likely to be those files related to the user, while the latest deleted may not. But anyways, IMO it is better to raise this issue on COM:AN.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

    Jahyanaï_wikipedia.jpg

    Bonjour,

    La photo "Jahyanaï_wikipedia.jpg" à été autorisée par son propriétaire pour l'utilisation sur wikipédia. Nous sommes en attente de cette validation par OTRS depuis plus de 2 semaines.

    Je vous remercie vivement de votre retour, Bien cordialement, — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:861:3284:1DF0:749A:9C27:663C:7C32 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

    Hello,

    The photo "File:Jahyanaï wikipedia.jpg" has been authorized by its owner for use on wikipedia. We have been waiting for this validation by OTRS for more than 2 weeks.

    Thank you very much for your return,

    Best regards,
    translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Victoriaquerule (talk • contribs • block log • filter log): Salut et bienvenue. Je suppose que c'est vous, mais veuillez vous connecter. J'ai répondu à Ticket: 2020070610005255. Nous avons besoin d'une licence spécifique du vidéaste par COM:L/fr et d'un consentement sous la forme spécifiée par COM:CONSENT/fr.
    Hi, and welcome. I guess this is you, but please login. I replied to Ticket:2020070610005255. We need a specific license from the videographer per COM:L and consent in the form specified by COM:CONSENT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

    Wiki Commons image edit

    I am being harrassed by an administrator. I uploaded a scanned anolgue image to Wiki Commons and have provided proof that I had authorisation to do so from the creator of that image. The creator of the image is a lawyer who sent his sworn statement of his ownership of the copyright in that image directly to the permissions team. Can any fair administrator help me with this image. The sister image from the same set from which similar proof of authorisation was also submitted, remains unchallenged on the site. Ticket#2020063010000411 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_Holzner_Raumplan,_north_facing_fa%C3%A7ade._Hronov,_Czech_Republic.jpg the accepted image as you can see is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_Holzner_Raumplan,_south_facing_façade._Hronov,_Czech_Republic.jpg Wasuwatanabe (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not sure to understand. Do you say it's the same angle? The same photo but cropped? --Ganímedes (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    As I understand it the 2 photos are taken by the same person and the photographer is trying to send permission(s) for the photos. One ticket seems to mention both files but there is also a separate permission for one of the photos. So I think the 2 tickets should be linked to help the volunteer. --MGA73 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Nat and JJMC89: Just for info! --MGA73 (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

    ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    2020071610006057 – is it rejected?

    User:Stefanraduionescu claims he has not received any particular response for ticket 2020071610006057 than the automatically generated one (..."This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received"...). The tagged files, however (1, 2), state that "the message was not sufficient to confirm permission". Can we know ticket's status and, if it was rejected, why exactly? Gikü (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Gikü and Stefanraduionescu: Ticket:2020071610006057 jest przetwarzany, czekamy na identyfikację i zgodę fotografa.
    Ticket:2020071610006057 is being processed, we await identification of and permission from the photographer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

    The ticket is being processed. @Jeff G.: The native language of the user seems to be Romanian, not Polish. Ankry (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    Serbian agent

    Hi. Ticket:2020073110003209 it's written in the Serbian language. Some help it's appreciated. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    processed in permissions::permissions-sr Ankry (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS and COI users

    Hello! Genral question: if an art gallery uploads images to commons, as well as copyright permission via OTRS, then hides their promotional/COI editing on wiki, is it possible to connect these actions? Would an OTRS volunteer be able to confirm/deny a conection, or is that against policy?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

    This is specifically related to this very confusing discussion in en.wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    The gist of it is the user Art of Odessa on en-wiki who strongly promotes the work of Stepan Ryabchenko. In the linked commons category, they have uploaded all the images and most have OTRS copyright release approval. The uploader was previously blocked here on Commons for using two other usernames with Ryabchencko in them. The COI is pretty obvious. What I'd like to know is if the COI can be confirmed via someone looking at the OTRS tickets.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    OTRS does not generally have information that would connect two user accounts, unless someone literally sends us an email that says "I am user A and user B." In that case, information could be turned over to Stewards, a local ArbCom, local Checkusers, or local administrators with OTRS access as appropriate considering local policies, meta:ANPDP, and meta:CAFNI. The existence of such information would not be publicly disclosed unless necessary to prevent abuse or disruption to Wikimedia site. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    @AntiCompositeNumber: Since this editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet, it might be worth reexamining the images he or she uploaded and the related information as he or she might also have been deceptive in those actions, too. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    Not sure if this is valuable info to Commons, but it got all taken care of by CU block on En.wiki after Art of Odessa was found to be socking .ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

    Nothing to do in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS Ticket:2020061510008461

    The permission for this image [11] has been sent by email on 15 June 2020. Regards. --Guise (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Guise: Did you not get our email message dated Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:14:22 +0000 requesting permission from the photographer? Convenience link: File:Amethyst x Pearl - Steven Universe Cosplay by Ivy Hale.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

    File deleted for lack of OTRS email, but the other image was validated

    This involves file File:Christopher Cantwell at Unite the RIght pepper-sprayed.jpg. It was recently deleted due to lack of an OTRS permission email. However, I suspect that this email may have been overlooked. Here are the details:

    I uploaded two images for someone, the one recently removed one this one. As you can see, the latter has received an OTRS email. I helped the photographer draft the OTRS email, so I am pretty sure that the same email that validated the second photo also validates the recently-deleted one.

    If someone could check this I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. It was likely missed due to be renamed. Ankry (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

    #2020081710000933

    I'm surprised to see File:Bryan Miller.jpg with a verified OTRS ticket, since it's a Getty Images photo marked editorial-only and it's by a staff photographer, not a freelancer. Is this ticket actually legit? Ytoyoda (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Ytoyoda: Ticket:2020081710000933 appears to be legit, permission was posted here in this edit. It appears that Getty Images staffer is allowed to double dip, selling the image via Getty Images and licensing work for hire for upload here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, just thought it was weird, but Krd has seen it and thinks it's fine so I don't have an issue. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Ytoyoda: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

    Just noticed this takedown request submitted by someone claiming to be from the the UK Ministry of Defence. It seems to have originally been submitted back in February and a formal Deletion Request created in April. Image still up. Sadly, it's a quality image and used by a whole bunch of articles across many multilingual versions of Wikipedia. But it does seem to violate our copyright and licensing provisions. I have no interest in this other than pointing it out. Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 21:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

    Is there an OTRS ticket related to it? Please let us know the number. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

    en:File:Nityanand Swami.jpg

    Hi! This file claim that a permission was send in 2009 (or earlier). I could not find a permission. But there seems to be several permissions related to AroundTheGlobe and Swami. For example OTRS:2008101410045759. Perhaps someone are better at searching that I am? --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    MGA73@ Why do you consider that the ticket:;2008101410045759 is not valid? Apparently the permission is for "any images/text from our website under the GDFL license". (if there are private details you wanna discuss, we can move this conversion elsewhere) --Ruthven (msg) 09:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Cuirt_Festival_1986_Poster.jpg permission

    Regarding https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JuTa#Cuirt_Festival_1986_Poster.jpg_permission, please advise what I need to do beyond what has already been provided. The permission for the image was been sent by email by the author/artist on 18 June 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogieone (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Phogieone: Sorry, we got no answer to our request dated Fri, 19 Jun 2020 04:17:54 +0000 on Ticket:2020061810005949 about File:Cuirt Festival 1986 Poster.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    Jeff, what was the form of the request? My understanding was that the email from the author would release the image for use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogieone (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Phogieone: The identities of the creator(s) of the image(s) depicted in the poster, the creator of the poster, and the photographer have not yet been revealed. You are welcome to join the conversation by emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with "[Ticket#: 2020061810005949]" in the subject and with a carbon copy to the email address of the author/artist, and subsequently replying to all.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks, Jeff. Email sent as instructed. --Phogieone (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Phogieone: Received. Pinging @Nat as locking Agent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    Jeff, would it be possible to restore the image while this is being discussed? I'd rather not go through the whole process of uploading again as I feel I have provided all that was asked for already. --Phogieone (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    Hi, Phogieone. The OTRS agent will request the undeletion when he verifies permission. Don't worry. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    File:Polly_Morgan,_cinematographer.jpg

    Hello, regarding File:Polly Morgan, cinematographer.jpg, can someone please let me know what was missing in the OTRS process? I had an email exchange with the cinematographer in which she provided that file. I provided her the OTRS release generator but am not sure if she followed through. Did she or not? Did an OTRS agent not take any final steps to finalize this? Erik (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Erik: We asked for a release from the photographer in Ticket:2020032510008438 in March, but never heard back. The above advice applies.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Can you clarify what the "asking" was? Did you email her or what? Would like to know what to say exactly when I email her following up about this. Erik (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Erik: The photographer should email us directly, if possible using the consent and adding Re: Ticket:2020032510008438 in the subject line of the email. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, I emailed her with your instructions. Erik (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Erik and Ganímedes: The proper syntax in the subject line should include "[Ticket#: 2020032510008438]" without quotes. I believe the square brackets and "#" are important.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    File:Paul Klee Puppe Ohne Titel (Frau Tod).jpg

    The image has been deleted, although the permission was accepted by permissions-de@wikimedia.org in December 2019. The permission was part of a whole set of 30 images. The final approval mail was sent to me on 30.12.2019. I do not understand why this specific image suddenly should not have permission. DomenikaBo (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

    Discussion moved from COM:UDR --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Nat: Pinging Krd is futile. I can't access that ticket, either. How did that file get to the point where it had "No OTRS permission for 30 days"? Pinging @JuTa as deleting Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have moved it to permissions-de. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have no idea what you are talking about, haha, but thank you for taking care! It was quiet a process to get this set of photos with an official permission and I would love to keep it. Thank you! DomenikaBo (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have again checked the issue - apparently I forgot to put the permission template on the file - I have restored it and added the template. Everything should be OK now. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    Pinging @DomenikaBo as OP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    Pinging @Jeff G. Thank you! DomenikaBo (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
    @DomenikaBo: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS

    Can someone please check: File:National Scouting Museum - Philmont Scout Ranch (46104433994).jpg?

    Thanks.

    Evrik (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

    An update to ticket:2020051510000951 was received today, and has not yet been processed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    Pinging @Nat as locking Agent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Evrik: We now have direct email contact with a representative of the photographer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

    Release of huge archive

    Hello, I have received permission from Professor John Emigh for the release of his audiovisual documentation of Odisha's culture (Odisha is a state in India), especially a traditional performing art called Prahallada Nataka on Commons under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Since he is not experienced with using Commons, I will have to handle the uploading and metadata part myself.

    What is the best way to go about it?

    • To upload all the content in a single batch and then ask him to send the OTRS template with all details
    • There seems to be a way to authorise another account to release a creator's content. How to go about this process?

    The second option seems to be an optimal method since the archive is huge and I doubt I can upload everything within the 7-day deletion deadline and get the OTRS mail work done. There's not much info on what process to follow to authorise another account (in this case, my account) to add the appropriate pre-stated license to the creator's works. This saves the hassle of sending multiple emails to the OTRS team. Any guidance, please?

    -- Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

    Hi,
    I don't think we have anything on the bigger releases on Commons, but in Dutch we recently wrote our 'best practices' in nl:Wikipedia:OTRS/Groot aantal afbeeldingen. If you would like, I could translate it to English here on Commons.
    It basically follows your option 2: we ask the contact, mostly a WiR, to do 3-5 test uploads, and an original email from the copyrights holder (in this case, Professor John Emigh) with the contact in cc:. Then OTRS can verify the permission, the license, the scope of the permission and maybe help with the procedural aspects of Commons, e.g. categories, templates used (in which we can include the permission ticket since they are only to be added by OTRS-agents), etc.
    Maybe other agents have different experiences? Ciell (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    I created the translation, but remember: this is not the only way, but it should give you an idea of what we as OTRS will do, and what we expect of you. The role of OTRS in this is very limited, we do not have the time to assist you through the whole upload procedure. If you need help with uploading, you might for instance want to reach out to your local chapter, or another volunteer first.
    This is my personal translation, forgive me for any Dutch-English translation errors (feel free to fix them!): Commons:OTRS/Release of big collections. Any questions, comments, unclarities, etc can be given in my talkpage or the talkpage of the upload guide. Ciell (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

    [Ticket#2020062210007993]

    Once upon a time (actually about six weeks ago) an author and feminist (with biographies in german, finnish and two more wikipedias) jogged and happened to see a poster posted on an information board about the male priviledge to go topless without fears, that women and trans people suffer, if they do the same. She took (standing on public grounds and covered by FoP in Germany) a picture of the poster and posted it to a social media software that is popular in Germany. The post was reposted and liked and commented on some thousend times. I.e. by men feeling unjustly accused and discriminated against. The story even made it to national printed press.

    I went on a foto safari and took a number of pictures of the public parc, where the poster had been posted, but was sadly unable to locate the poster itself. As the time I could dedicate to this project was limited, I choose plan B and asked the photographer, if she was willing to donate her photo to wikipedia. She instantly replied and sent me her photo (made with a iphone). I told her about the licensing requirements of Commons and lined out three possible ways to fulfill this requirements: Post the image herself to Commons, sent the phote with email to the OTRS team or post it to a foto site like flickr and flag it as either cc-4 or cc-0. As she was unwilling to create an account at Wikimedia or to interact with OTRS, she created a flickr account and made the file available under cc-0. I used the flickr import feature of the upload wizard (that inserted information about the flickr import into the upload commoent) and the flickr review bot added a review notice in the file description (with an edit comment vwerifying the cc-0 license). After that the photographer deleted the no longer needed flickr account. To addtionally verify the identity of the author of the social media post with the uploader of the identical image to flickr, i disclosed the conversation between me and the author to OTRS just to make sure, that the image will not be deleted in later time as a possible copyright violation ([Ticket#2020062210007993], sorry it is all in german, I didnot expect any problems occuring with the ticket). After some time a german speaking OTRS agent claimed the ticket, but raised doubt on the validity of the upload commnent generated by the upload wizard and the review by the review bot. He marked the file for deletion because of missing permission and asked me to contact the author to have her send permission to OTRS (the very thing he knew, that she wandted to avoid by using flickr and the flickr review process of commons). Within two hours I clarified in a mail to OTRS, what had already been said in my original mail to OTRS: this was not about permission (the permission had been documented already) but to verify identity. I was under the impression that the deadline for deletions is seven days so I panicked after two days without any any more action by the agent who had claimed the ticket and as I found out was now taking a break from wikipedia (no edit and no logged actions for two days at that time) therefore I sent wikimail to another (german speaking) OTRS agent and asked him to look into the ticket as to avoid a deletion of the file. He did not answer by wikimail, OTRS or to my email address, but posted a message to my talk page on the german wikipedia, that I only found by chance as I do not do much on german wikipedia and have turned of most notification to not deluge my commons notification emails even more. He told me to assume good faith and take no more action ("ohne Diskussionsbedarf"). By now i have assumed thirty days of good faith and the file has been deleted yesterday for missing permission.

    In conclusion: I will inform the photographer about the deletion and as has now been confirmed by an OTRS agent, and a buerocrat and an admin, that upload wizard comments and review bot messages do not constitute a valid permission for a file on commons start DRs for affected files as my time allows. I will also rest the case of the male topless priviledge supremacy and go on with my uploads from the Hamburg dyke march (that I would alreads have done, if I had not taken the time to write this story) and maybe some more categorizations of intersectionality images on commons. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what you want from us in this story.... another extra opinion? I've reviewed the ticket and the image, and I do agree that if she indeed does not want to send us an email in OTRS, there is no way for OTRS-agents to verify the permission. Only a screenshot from a DM conversation is insufficient for OTRS.
    If you would like to discuss the validation of reviews by bot from uploads that come in through Flickr, I'd like to refer you to the Village Pump. It is not up to OTRS to decide whether or not validation through a bot in this case would have been enough.
    Images can be restored on Commons if undeletion is in order. Ciell (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    @C.Suthorn: On second thought: because it seems no one was questioning the permission for the image, nor the review done by the Flickrreviewbot was questioned as far as I can see, you could simple ask for undeletion on these grounds. Is it my correct interpretation that you triggered the OTRS-procedure by accident? Because the image was deleted because of insufficient OTRS-validation, no other reasons are mentioned. Ciell (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    C.Suthorn: An OTRS agent always can request the undeletion of the file when it's needed; there's no need to get worried about it. Now, if she doesn't want to email to OTRS, perhaps she can agree to sign the permission template and you send it in her name as PDF or jpg? Could this be a solution for her? Usually work for us...--Ganímedes (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Ciell In fact I did question the permission for the image as well as the review done by the Flickrreviewbot. The picture had been existing on Flickr only for one or two days, hence it was impossible to counter check it. A bot is not infallible, so at least for a couple of days it should be possible to countercheck its results. – The poster of which the photo was taken was itself a hoax. There was and there is no official request from any institution of the city of Hamburg that men should cover their upper body in the park. The whole action looked very much like an attempt to abuse Wikipedia for a hoax. If you have access to OTRS, read the conversation in the ticket, and read also Alfred Neumann's comment in the ticket. --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
     Info I did not get this "Alfred Neumann's comment" in my email. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you @Mussklprozz, I did not read into his comment that this was a hoax. Can you tell me where you questioned the review done by Flickrbot? I don't see a DR linked to the deleted image, or a deletion request on the file-page describing your doubts. Not that you have to - it's just for cases like these nice to communicate out in the open where possible. Ciell (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
     Info I did not get this "Alfred Neumann's comment" in my email. It was also never said, that this poster was made by the city of Hamburg. It does not matter, who created the poster (actually so called Ad-Busters). The photo is not a hoax. The file description contains a link to the twitter thread (in which it is discussed, that the poster is the work of ad-busters). The cited DM in the ticket disucsses the very fact, that the poster is a form of Ad-Busting. The media coverage in national press can be found with any internet search engine (startpage, ecosia, bing). So can the information about Ad-Busters in Germany (and Ad-Busting is a notable subject for Wikipedia and this image is the only image of Ad-Busting on Comnmons I am aware of). --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
     Info I did not get this "Alfred Neumann's comment" in my email. (checked my mailbox just now) --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry that things are mixing up a bit now: Some of the information I gave is available to OTRS agents only. I questioned the review done by Flickrbot in my email to the uploader. To make it short: the whole story looks highly suspect as a case of Flickr washing. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Convenience links: File:Hamburg, Am Wall, Grünanlagen, Juni 2020 nach Covid-19-Lockerungen, Oberkörperfreiprivileg, 01.jpg and Ticket:2020062210007993.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    The copyright issue is of course independent of the contents of the image, but the story of being "unwilling to interact with OTRS" but willing to create a Flickr account instead - that vanishes after a few days - sounds not very credible to me. But anyway: This is not an OTRS issue, but rather a matter of an undeletion request. If there is an admin willig to undelete the image, then it will be undeleted, that's it. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    @C.Suthorn: Yes, I agree with Reinhard here. There is nothing that OTRS can do for you: even if we could solve the permission-question, there would be a complaint about flickr washing, that is not up to OTRS to handle. I'd like to direct you to the links and procedure in my first commons @10:58, 2 August 2020. Ciell (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    I answered to the OTRS agent within 2 hours, I did not get an anser for 30 days, than the file was deleted even so it has an flickr review by the bot in the file description, I get knowledge about a "comment" but still no anser in my email from OTRS system and I still do not have this comment. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    The agent made a private comment and should not be mentioned here. That was a mistake I think. The easiest thing to solve this problem is that the artist sign the permission and send it to OTRS, directly or in a pdf or jpg file as I said before IMHO. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    @C.Suthorn: an OTRS-agent replied to the email address from which the screenshot of the DM was send to us on 23-06-2020 09:39, giving directions for the extra information we need. We did not received the essential information for us to verify, therefore the image was deleted because of lack of permissions. Ciell (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    The agent replied to my address and I did sent an answer at 11:25 - less than two hours later. I still have no answer to this mail in my email. I still have no knowledge about this "private comment" ("That was a mistake I think." <- probably that comment was a mistake). --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hi C.Suthorn, the OTRS software enables agents to exchange thoughts on tickets: a line of thoughts for giving a certain reply for instance, or questions that need answering, or to refer to the image or discussions that are happening online. These notes are not public, and you will not be notified of them. There is no need in assuming bad faith here in the sense of "that was a mistake".
    Yes, you replied to the 23-06-2020 09:39 email, but your reply did in no way answer any of the questions that were asked in our mail. We (OTRS) cannot verify anything on the base of a screenshot of a DM, and a Flickr account that existed for 2 days. Ciell (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have already written in the first message in this section, that - after I did not get an answer to my mail to OTRS for two days and than noticed, that the agent had stopped to edit Commons some minutes before I sent the email - I asked another OTRS member for help in a wikimail. The only reaction to that was a message on my german WP user talk page, that said "assume good faith and wait" - no more action by me needed. I assumed good faith for 30 days than the file was deleted. I still have no knowledge of this "comment". --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not taking this discussion any further now. I will not restore the image because of lack of permission, and will again refer to the email from 23-06-2020 09:39 for everything that was missing in your email up to today. If you cannot or will not send us anything better, I there's nothing OTRS can do for you. Ciell (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

    Source of File:Jimmy Cleveland.jpg

    At en:Talk:Jimmy Cleveland, an editor claims that this image does not depict Jimmy Cleveland. A short Google search leaves me not convinced this is the correct person. Does the OTRS ticket shed any further light on the source of this image that could help? Kusma (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

    @Kusma: The ticket is from the author of the photograph. There is additional information in the ticket that implies that the photographer should be fairly certain of Cleveland's identity, though there's nothing useful to prove that the image is actually of Cleveland. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you AntiCompositeNumber! We'll continue trying to verify this elsewhere. Kusma (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

    ticket:2020061510007363

    File:Dervla Murphy Iran 1963 A.jpg ‎and File:Dervla Murphy Iran 1963 B.jpg ‎were both recently deleted. I was under the impression (incorrectly it seems) that you were satisfied that Murphy owned the copyright to those images, but that they did not own the copyright to the other one File:Dervla Murphy and dogs.jpg -- U003F? 08:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

    Giving this a nudge. As I said, I thought that we'd decided that Murphy owned the copyright to the photos of herself, taken on her own camera, via the 1963 Copyright Act (Ireland), but the fact that both were deleted suggests no decision had been made. -- U003F? 19:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    I also note that File:Dervla Murphy and bike.jpg was deleted under the same sweep. -- U003F? 07:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Nat: Ankry (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    @U003F: OTRS never received a confirmation from the representative of the copyright holder, only a stated opinion from a 3rd party. The ticket can proceed once we have that confirmation. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

    User need help

    Hi! I contacted User:Bluyten about some of his uploads at User talk:Bluyten and he wrote back to me at User_talk:MGA73#Reply_to_your_permission_request_(Bram_Luyten_/_Denis-Chris_Luyten_De_Hauwere). Perhaps someone can have a look? I don't know if she have an email or she can write something on paper to scan and mail? --MGA73 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

    Hi Bluyten,
    If you fill in and print the template on Commons:OTRS#Email_message_template_for_release_of_rights_to_a_file and have the widow sign the release, the niece can scan and send the document to OTRS. Most of the time this is a perfect alternative. Ciell (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    Hi! I think the meaning was to ping User:Bluyten and not me :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Please advise the on COM:OTRS. Nothing more we could do. --Krd 13:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    Apologies for the belated reply Ciell and MGA73! I've read the template, but that looks like it will be necessary for each individual image. Is there a possibility to have such a statement for a whole collection of images? The other approach I see is that my aunt creates an account herself, and that I work within her account with her permission. I have paused my uploads, but still have tons of their material to go through. Thank you. --User:Bluyten
    @Bluyten: If the images have not been previously published in any form (including blogs, social media, newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc.), then having her create an account is the easiest way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

    Muhammad Didit

    Has someone under the name of Muhammad Didit send an OTRS? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Jeromi Mikhael: not this year. Also, please see "The first comment in a section has no colons before it" at en:WP:THREAD.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

    Josethewonderful uploads

    Have any emails been received regarding File:Zaleb Brown smiling.jpg and/or File:Jdagr8 smiling 17.jpg? The uploader claims to have contacted OTRS with permission information (otherwise both images are pretty blatant copyvios, as they can be found in many other places online), but based on their comments both here and on enwiki (where they have been blocked for socking), I am extremely doubtful that anything was actually sent. Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Nathan2055: We got a forwarded email message from a username that included Jdagr8 on Ticket:2020080710009346 and replied on 7 Aug 2020 23:59 (UTC), but we haven't heard back. We have not yet gotten the identity of the photographer of File:Zaleb Brown smiling.jpg on Ticket:2020080910004454 since we asked 11 Aug 2020 02:29 (UTC). Also, please have your correspondents carbon copy you on their email messages via OTRS, and reply to all subsequently, to keep everyone in the loop.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket 2010102810009679

    Would this ticket also apply to File:Zoro Mettini. Kurdin.1969.jpg as asked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zoro Mettini. Kurdin.1969.jpg? Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

    Convenience link: Ticket:2010102810009679, 9+ years old, in German.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Replied in the DR. Ciell (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

    File:Félix Huerta y Huerta (1901) cuadro.png

    Hola:

    El dueño de este cuadro (Arsenio Lope Huerta, bisnieto del personaje retratado Félix Huerta y Huerta) dio su permiso el 21 de abril de 2020 por correo-electrónico remitido a permissions-es@wikimedia.org (en el apartado "permiso" del archivo de cuadro puse el número del OTRS tickets) para que se pueda publicar en Wikimedia Commons. Desde entonces no ha habido una resolución por parte de OTRS, y el fichero ha sido borrado el 29 de julio de 2020 por User:JuTa.

    Por favor, ruego que sea atendida la autorización del dueño del cuadro, ya que esta obra es de 1901, y la firma que aparece, "B. Buj", no ha permitido identificar al pintor. El personaje (Félix Huerta y Huerta) tiene gran relevancia, porque fue 4 veces alcalde de Alcalá de Henares e inició una saga familiar de gran relevancia política y económica en dicha ciudad. Un cordial saludo:Raimundo Pastor (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

    Hello:

    The owner of this painting (Arsenio Lope Huerta, great-grandson of the portrayed character Félix Huerta y Huerta) gave his permission on April 21, 2020 by email sent to permissions-es @ wikimedia.org (in the "permission" section of the chart file I put the number of the OTRS tickets) so that it can be published on Wikimedia Commons. Since then there has been no resolution by OTRS, and the file has been deleted on July 29, 2020 by User: JuTa.

    Please, I beg that the authorization of the owner of the painting be attended, since this work is from 1901, and the signature that appears, "B. Buj", has not allowed the painter to be identified. The character (Félix Huerta y Huerta) has great relevance, because he was mayor of Alcalá de Henares 4 times and began a family saga of great political and economic relevance in that city. A cordial greeting:
    translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Raimundo Pastor: Hola y bienvenido. Encontré Ticket:2020031510005432 después de una excavación innecesaria. Envió un correo electrónico a dos personas solicitando permiso para esta foto de una pintura, una el 15 de marzo de 2020 23:10:13 +0000 (UTC) y otra el 18 de marzo de 2020 23:23:23 +0000 (UTC). ¿Cómo pueden ambos ser titulares exclusivos de derechos de autor? Pinging @Ganymede como agente.
    Hi, and welcome. I found Ticket:2020031510005432 after some unnecessary digging. You emailed two people requesting permission for this photo of a painting, one 15 Mar 2020 23:10:13 +0000 (UTC) and another 18 Mar 2020 23:23:23 +0000 (UTC). How can both be exclusive copyright holders? Pinging @Ganymede as Agent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Raimundo Pastor: Como te dije en su momento, tu nos enviaste la copia de tu comunicación con la persona (cosa innecesaria desde mi punto de vista) pero la poseedora de los derechos de autor (heredera del pintor, imagino) nunca envió el permiso o nunca lo recibimos. Te comuniqué esto el 21/4/2020. Y nada ha cambiado desde entonces. Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hola,

    1.- Se desconoce quien es el autor y, por lo tanto, desconozco su fecha de fallecimiento y quien son sus herderos (si los tiene). En el cuadro aparece la firma "B. Buj.". He buscado un nombre que encaje con esas iniciales en libros de biografías de pintores y por Internet, y no he localizado un artista de finales del siglo XIX o principios del siglo XX (el cuadro es de 1901) que cuadre con esas iniciales. El dueño del cuadro desconoce quien es autor.

    2.- El dueño del cuadro es Arsenio Lope Huerta (bisnieto de la persona que aparece en el cuadro, Félix Huerta y Huerta). Sólo he mantenido correspondencia con esta persona. La primera vez en marzo, y parece que su respuesta no se localizó o no llegó; por eso le volví a pedir la autorización en abril, y me envió una copia del mensaje con la autorización según el modelo de Wikimedia Commons el 21/04/2020 a las 13:04 horas. Si es preciso puedo reenviar este mensaje a quien me indiques. Por lo que estoy seguro que Arsenio Lope Huerta ha dado su autorización para que este cuadro se publique en Wikimedia Commons. Un cordial saludo: Raimundo Pastor (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

    Los permisos reenviados no son válidos para nosotros. Por otra parte, se necesita permiso del pintor o de sus herederos. Si el autor es desconocido, es necesario esperar una X cantidad de años para que esté en dominio público, que depende en general del país, pero por norma no es inferior a 100 años. ¿De qué país es la obra? PD: Estar en posesión del cuadro o ser heredero del sujeto del mismo no tiene implicancias sobre el derecho del autor de la obra. Saludos. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

    Warum keine Bestätigung der Freigabe von File:Mozart_Quintett_Bassettklarinette_Menuetto.ogg_und_3_weiteren

    Zunnächst sh. hier: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JuTa#Löschung_von_File:Mozart_Quintett_Bassettklarinette_Menuetto.ogg_und_3_weiteren_am_30.8.2020

    Jetzt die dort gestellte Frage: Warum wurde nach dem Mail vom 27.7. die Freigabe nicht bestätigt und warum nach der neuerlichen Freigabe durch Herrn Weverbergh am 3.9. immer noch nicht? --Gisel (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    This section was archived on a request by:  JGHowes  talk 12:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    File:ISG S7Wer 00260-0002 Frauen demonstrieren in der Frankfurter Innenstadt gegen den Paragraph 218.jpg and two more photographs

    Good morning! Could you please explain to us why these three photos have been deleted? We sent a license agreement to permissions-de@wikimedia.org for all three photos. This agreement could not be accepted due to an illogical sentence, as Alfred Neumann, Wikimedia-Support-Team, told us. Thus, the agreement was corrected by our contact person at the Institut für Stadtgeschichte which is the copyright owner of all photographs taken by Inge Werth. The corrected agreement was sent to permissions-de@wikimedia.org, but we did not receive an answer or further mail. Now the 30-days-deadline is over, and the photos have been deleted. Is there anything we can do to upload the photos (again)? This is the [Ticket#2020071810002477]. Thank you for your help and kind regards--SiSu-JZ4W (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC) (Women Writing Wiki)

    Is this a pattern? Alfred Neumann edits the ticket for "Oberkörperfreiheit" and 30 days later the file is deleted. Alfred Neumann edits the ticket for "Paragraph 218" and 30 days later the file is deleted.
    @SiSu-JZ4W: Until the issue with your ticket is cleared up, you might consider images from this categeries as a workaround (images from Frankfurt): Category:150 Meter Schutzzone, Category:40daysforlife in Germany
    --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    @SiSu-JZ4W: I'm not a natural speaker of German, but I believe that permission it's what we call "Wikipedia use only". I think this could be lot more easier if they can sing a form like this: [12] (in German it's also ok). Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

    File:Portrait of Julia Lockheart, Goldsmiths and Swansea College of Art, taken by Paul Duerinckxn.jpg

    Hi, do you know what happened to this photo, please? The Ticket number was 2020050410007421.

    Julia Lockheart uploaded it and mistakenly claimed it as her own work. It was actually taken by Paul Duerinckxn, and was deleted, then temporarily undeleted, and finally deleted for lack of permission since April 2020. I was led to believe that the author, Paul Duerinckxn, had sent permission to OTRS (?). Was something missing from, or wrong with, the permission?

    Many thanks, Esowteric (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    Hi, Esowteric, in may the agent's requested a prove of authorship and never gets an answer. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    Right, we never got a response to our request of 4 May 2020 17:31:25 +0000.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot, Ganímedes and Jeff G. Esowteric (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket#2020071510006728 - Für dieses Foto lag alles vor - es wurde zu unrecht gelöscht.

    Hi, ich hatte ziemlichen Aufwand für dieses Foto File:Ingvild Richardsen @Monacensia 2018.jpg (Fotograf und Uploader: Matthias Junken) die Rechteerklärungen der Ausstellungsveranstalter (Monacensia München) und des Austellungsdesigners zu erhalten. Auf dem Foto sind außer der Ausstellungskuratorin Ingvild Richardsen im Hintergrund noch 2 Fotografien von Münchner Literatinnen zu sehen. Diese historischen Fotografien entstanden um 1900 - Der Fotograf ist mit Sicherheit seit 70 Jahren tot! - Möglicherweise wurde dieser letzte Hinweis von mir, dass hier keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vorliegt, von "Permissions" übersehen. Ich hatte ihn jedoch zugeschickt (ich bin die Hauptautorin dieses Artikels und habe mich deshalb um alles gekümmert). Per Email habe ich euch jetzt noch einmal den ganzen Emailverkehr (2 Emails) mit den Bestätigungen der Rechteinhaber erneut geschickt. Bitte seit so nett und macht die Löschung rückgängig. Es gibt keinen Grund für sie - und ich habe wirklich sehr viel Zeit in dieses Foto investiert! Danke! --Amrei-Marie (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    Ich kann bestätigen, dass in Ticket 2020071510006728 eine hinreichende Freigabeerklärung vorliegt. Bitte wiederherstellen. --Seewolf (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    Restored and "renewed". @Seewolf, please update the file description page. regards --JuTa 20:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    Vielen Dank für die Bearbeitung der Freigaben und das Wiederherstellen des Fotos. Und das auch noch so schnell! Freue mich! --Amrei-Marie (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Seewolf (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

    Portrait of Raphael De Niro

    Hi, On Auguat 9, 2020 I uploaded a photo of Raphael De Niro and requested that the photographer, his wife, Hannah Carnes De Niro, send a permission letter to Wiki Commons. I am not sure if she sent that email in August, but when I saw that the file did not obtain OTRS permission, I asked her to send another email once again including her permission, agreeing to license Share Alike 4.0. She informed me that she has done this. I hope you are able to find her email and allow the picture to remain on Wikimedia Commons. The URL of the file is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Raphael_De_Niro_1.jpg Thank-you for your time and help. Mappingitout (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, it was received by photo-submissions. There is a backlog though, and we have a maintenance window coming up next week in which we cannot process any mails. Please bear with us: if everything is sorted, we can always restore if and when the image was delete in the meantime. Ciell (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    The ticket has been merged into ticket:2020090910006781. We're waiting answer from the copyright holder. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

    Question about ticket

    A museum owner submitted a picture to OTRS, but he told me that he isn't sure if it is was completed correctly. I understand that there is a backlog, but I'm just trying to make sure that he doesn't have to repeat the steps after the ticket is received. Ticket:2020082210007079. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

    @SL93: I replied. Please have your correspondents carbon copy you on their email messages via OTRS, and reply to all subsequently, to keep everyone in the loop.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hogwarts Model at Matchstick Marvels Museum.jpg for a discussion of a photo of another model from the same DW artist at the same museum.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

    AIDE suite à réception pour non conformité.

    Pardonnez moi , mais je ne comprends pas tout .Pourriez vous m'aider.

    Je viens de recevoir cela , que faire ? En vous remerciant Gég — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gég (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 August 2020‎ (UTC)

    HELP following receipt for non-compliance.

    Forgive me, but I don't understand everything. Could you help me.

    I just received this, what should I do? Thanking you

    Gég
    translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Copyright status
    File:REQUIN BLANC SÈTE Octobre1956.jpg

    Copyright status: File:REQUIN BLANC SÈTE Octobre1956.jpg

    bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
    Warning sign
    This media may be deleted.
    Thanks for uploading File:REQUIN BLANC SÈTE Octobre1956.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

    If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

    If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

    Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

    This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Gég: Salut et bienvenue. Le libellé que vous avez utilisé, «Propriété de la famille AZAIS POLITO (CC BY-SA 3.0)», en anglais «Owned by the AZAIS POLITO family (CC BY-SA 3.0)», fait référence à une licence mais ne contient pas de licence. Je l'ai remplacé par "{{CC BY-SA 3.0}}" sans guillemets ou t2 et j'ai supprimé la balise de suppression pour vous.
    Hi, and welcome. The wording you used, "Propriété de la famille AZAIS POLITO (CC BY-SA 3.0)", in English "Owned by the AZAIS POLITO family (CC BY-SA 3.0)", refers to a license but does not contain a license. I replaced it with "{{CC BY-SA 3.0}}" without quotes or t2 and removed the deletion tag for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Please let the copyright holder send permission per COM:OTRS. --Krd 08:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

    ticket:2008100710051541

    Could this ticket for posters of modern artworks be reviewed please? The uploader has a weak understanding of copyright based on having as many files deleted on Commons as hosted, and this old ticket may not have been verified as much as we would expect 12 years later today. Thanks --Fæ talk) 08:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

    What posters does it concern Fæ? The links in the ticket go to the German Wikipedia. Ciell (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    The release is very explicit, I have no reason to doubt it without the image links: three posters are mentioned. Ciell (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. Just noticed this would also cover the release by the artist in 2017081510013859.
    Raising the question because the release should be from Thorsten Zwinger as the named artist, and the release is not just for the small thumbnails or the thumbnail of a poster currently hosted on Commons, but for any reproduction of these artworks at any resolution in the future. It's this later aspect that may not have been clear to Zwinger at the time of the original correspondence. --Fæ (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    The 2017 release only mentions the one image specifically. No limitations concerning image-size is mentioned in either ticket. Ciell (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    And yes, they were released by the artist himself. Ciell (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for the assurance. Uploaded File:Palmers Pausen.jpg as a better image than the poster we have the release for. --Fæ (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if I can confirm that one, since he explicitely released the poster, not the image used in the poster? Ciell (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    The license chosen means that derivatives are fine, including cropping out the painting from the poster, and increasing the resolution of it. It's a 2D work, so in terms of the license, any reproduction of the same artwork is covered. --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    I'd appeciate the opinion of another OTRS-agent in this: the ticket in in German. Ciell (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    I think the ticket is valid. --Krd 08:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

    Licensing the image of Chico Mendes for a documentary

    Please advise who I can approach in regard to licensing the Chico Mendes photograph of him and his partner. The image will be one of a number in a montage of people killed for their cause as conservAtionists in the Amazon basin.

    Thank you

    Larry Keating Producer Mediawave Productions Ltd Auckland New Zealand +64-21429008 larry@mediawave.co.nz

    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket number: 2020072910011008

    Hello, user:JuTa deleted the photo File:Godfrey Thomson - 2014.jpg which I uploaded and had the photographer and copyright holder (Nicholas Karlin) send in the appropriate permission to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org The permission was sent on July 29th. On my end it appears everything was done correctly and this photo should not have been deleted by user:JuTa If possible please let me know what was missing and how to undelete the photo. The Ticket number was 2020072910011008 Thank you.2pennyworth (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    Photo has been undeleted, with the permission tagg. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

    /* File tagging File:Nirjhar.jpg */

    hello, i took this photo and upload it to wikimedia. why do you think you should remove my photo? regards jahed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shopnobazbd (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 September 2020‎ (UTC)

    Hi, even when I think this is not the right place for your question, I think the answer is here: [13]. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Shopnobazbd: File:Nirjhar.jpg was deleted pursuant to the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nirjhar.jpg, 7 days UTC after your account Nirjhar goswami was notified of the discussion in this edit. You neglected to participate in the discussion. What educational value does that file have? Where would you want to use it? How does it qualify for our Project Scope? This was all 7 years ago. You had not been heard from in the 8 years that have elapsed since uploading a batch of files in 1-2 minutes on 5 Jul 2012, why did you make a new account? What other accounts do you have?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

    Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steamboat2020

    Can anybody provide me with a status update and let me know if there is anything else I can do to resolve this issue. --Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC) OTRS ticket number 2020090710006472 --Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

     Comment Ticket in Hebrew. --167.58.131.217 21:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    I see that a hebrew speaking OTRS agent has contacted me by email. Thank You --Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    I do not require any further assistance--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

    Category:Files with PermissionOTRS template but without P6305 SDC statement

    Can someone please tell me what means "Category:Files with PermissionOTRS template but without P6305 SDC statement"? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Ganímedes: It means that Wikimedia VRTS ticket number (P6305) is missing from the structured data panel. Here is an example where it's not empty. You don't have to do anything, a bot will do the job. Bencemac (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket 2020090110005135

    Because of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:W3C SVG logos#SVG Logo alone and with "SVG" (no W3C logo). What excactly was the problem with the ticket? Habitator terrae 🌍 18:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

    We don't accept forwarded statemets. Please ask the copyright holder to email us directly or send the statement as pdf or jpg. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Habitator terrae and JuTa: No ticked needed. I restored the file as {{LicenseReview}}er, with the explantation by User:Chaddy and User:Habitator_terrae at Special:Diff/482907324 see https://www.w3.org/2009/08/svg-logos.html#LogoWithoutW3C  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by:  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    File:Starship 2019.png

    I want this image to delete because it is copyrighted by SpaceX (the "licensing" section contains an obsolete template). However, editors are declining in every single request. I have to contact SpaceX to release this image in an appropriate license. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    What is the request towards OTRS volunteers? --Krd 08:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

    File:Sarah Lohman and Eight Flavors, 2017.JPG -- Ticket:2020081910008888

    I started w:Sarah Lohman, so I saw that File:Sarah Lohman and Eight Flavors, 2017.JPG was deleted.

    I requested Ms Lohman release a photo, and I received carbon copies of her correspondence with OTRS. I just checked that correspondence. She was told that she did not own the rights to this image, because she handed her cell phone to a volunteer, at a conference, and asked them to snap a photo. She was told the volunteer, whose name she never learned, was the actual owner of the IP rights to this image.

    I know the law can be counter-intuitive - sometimes wildly counter-intuitive.

    If I understood that correspondence the OTRS member who corresponded with Ms Lohman was implying that Ms Lohman should have first had the volunteer sign a note indicating they were signing over all their IP rights to her, prior to handing them the cell phone, or at least got the volunteer's contact information, so they could agree to release their IP rights, later.

    If I were a volunteer at a conference I'd be very willing to pause for thirty seconds to snap a photo on someone else's cell phone. I'd tap my toe, and consider walking away, if they started to draft a legal document for me to sign, before I took that photo. Just because someone is a conference participant does not mean I am going to feel safe sharing my contact info with them.

    The WMF is in the rare position of being a non-profit that is cash-rich. We can afford to pay for the legal advice of lawyers who specialize in intellectual property law.

    Situations like this - someone hands their camera to a random person for a few seconds to snap a photo - must be extremely common. I am not going to recommend anyone rely on my intuitive sense that a volunteer's verbal agreement to snap a photo of someone, using their phone, constitutes waiving all legal rights they have to the photo. But I am understandably reluctant to accept the opinion of other non-lawyers that a written waiver is required in instances like this.

    I am not aware of any guidelines that document a requirement passersby require a waiver.

    Since situations like this are likely to recur, over and over again, and the WMF retains trusted lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights, I would like to see those lawyers give their informed professional opinion over whether or not the individual who agrees to use briefly our cameras to take a photo of us has to sign a waiver, or whether their verbal agreement to use our camera, for our purposes, implies they waived their rights.

    I gather that some of the third parties OTRS deals with can be unreasonable, impolite, tendetious, or all three. Others are reasonable and polite. I suggest that we owe them an obligation to only insist they take steps that they are legally obliged to take. Geo Swan (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

    @Geo Swan: It sounds like this case falls into the broader topic of "bystander selfies", which have been the subject of several disputes on Commons. meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership is the best guidance we currently have on the topic from the WMF Legal team, and it presents a complex situation not easily summed up in a bright-line rule. OTRS agents typically err on the side of caution when reviewing permissions tickets, and in this case that means assuming that the person who pressed the shutter button is the copyright holder unless copyright was transferred by written contract or an action of law. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    A legal opinion has already been offered in 2014: meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership. That said, one thing I would like clarification on, that the page does not touch on, is the following situation: 1) The owner of the camera requests that someone else takes a photo of them. 2) The bystander takes the photo and hands it back to the owner. 3) No contact info is exchanged, and the bystander does not retain a copy of the photo. Currently, the Wikilegal page requires an analysis of whose intellectual creation it is. However, there is a plausible argument that (regardless of who conceptualized the photo) the bystander has abandoned their rights by leaving themselves no option to exploit the work: they can't make money by selling/licensing the photo because they don't have a copy of it, and they can't make money by suing others because they can't prove that they took the photo. That is one area where I think our lawyers can weigh in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    • In 1979 I traveled to Swarthmore Pennsylvania, to volunteer to work on Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu. The day I arrived Ted wrote out a non-disclosure agreement on the back of a placemat at the greasy spoon we stopped for lunch. I agreed to not reveal any Xanadu secrets, in return for one dollar. When I signed the agreement he then gave me an American dollar coin - something I have never seen before, or since. Ted explained that under US law a contract usually required some kind of exchange, in order to be legally binding.
    • I wish I still had that coin.
    • Anyhow, I wonder, if you, or I, or anyone, who handed over our camera, and asked someone to take a picture of us, then handed the person who took the picture a dollar, or a quarter, and said, "I am giving you this quarter in return for your verbal agreement to surrender any intellectual property rights to the image you just took, back to me" - could that hold up in court? I remember that dollar coin, even though it was 42 years ago. The volunteer who took this picture, for Ms Marts, is very likely to remember he or she agreed to surrender their rights, in return for one quarter, because it is such an unusual thing for someone to say.
    • If I ever have to request a stranger to use my camera to take a photo, I am going to hand them a quarter, and make that speech. Geo Swan (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    I think the ticket has been handled correctly. --Krd 09:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

    Need German speaker to understand OTRS tags for Landtags project

    There is a bunch of templates related to German Landtags project, which have {{PermissionOTRS}} templates to tickets which do not seem to be related to copyrights. Can a German speaker look at them? I think they are a bit like Template:Consent template as I think they store consent forms from photographed individuals. But they might be some other type of permission like Template:OTRS accreditation, etc.

    --Jarekt (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    Should be checked again in detail. As a first guess I'd say the tickets contain accreditations at most. At least one ticket contains nothing at all as far as I see. --Krd 13:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    With exception of 2013041910011699 each of the ticket has about 100 signed forms described as " Einverständniserklärungen" which according to google translate is declarations of consent. I can not cut and paste none of the original text from PDF and I was curious what do those form say and term declarations of consent has a lot of meanings in English, but I assume that they all agreeing to be photographed and for the photographs to be released on Wikipadia. ticket:2013041910011699 is odd as it is a conversation between otrs agent and a guy with the same first and last name. There seem to be a list of the people to be photographed but nothing else. I do not think it is correct to apply {{PermissionOTRS}} to those photographs as that template talks about photographers copyrights, which are not addressed in the emails and the Landtags templates were used by many photographers. I guess a better template would be {{OTRS info}}. --Jarekt (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Jarekt: Most of those are indeed declarations of consent of each MP to be photographed and published under a free license. Basically a model release. {{OTRS info}} would be more appropropriate here. ticket:2013041910011699 is a declaration, that the listed photographers have consented to be collectively credited as "Foto AG Gymnasium Melle". --MB-one (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry MB-one, but this is wrong. These are just no model releases, just (completely superfluous) declarations of consent to be photographed for Wikipedia under a free license. A model release (just like you linked it) would include the right to commercial use of the photos (from a personality right perspective). This is definitely not the case here, use is only permitted for editorial purposes. The declarations even explicitly state that personal rights remain unaffected. At that time (almost 10 years ago) these declarations were an initial mistake in the parliamentary projects (including by myself). --Stepro (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

    I changed {{PermissionOTRS}} to {{OTRS info}} with link to {{Consent tag}} for the above templates. In Template:Landtagsprojekt Niedersachsen 2013 Foto AG I replaced {{PermissionOTRS}} with {{OTRS accreditation}} template. Thanks for the feedback everybody. --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

    TicketNumber=2020093010006062 Please add OTRS permission

    Please add OTRS permission to TicketNumber=2020093010006062 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leeminho-photoshoot-modelling.jpg Photoby55 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Photoby55: Hi, and welcome. Ticket:2020093010006062 has a reply.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

    ticket:2020093010017032

    Could another admin take a look at this and close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hayfestival-2016-Horatio-Clare.jpg?  JGHowes  talk 16:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

    Hello OTRS team, please have a look at that. I'm pretty sure, a subsidary can't give a permission for free licensing of an international used logo. Pan Tau (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps it's a better idea to get that reviewed by somebody who is not involved. From my point of view, I have no reason to doubt the claims made in the ticket. --Krd 09:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

    ticket:2009040110056227

    Could someone please confirm that ticket #2009040110056227 covers all kam.it images as questioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by *SGR*. TIA Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

    Because of an update to the OTRS-system, we cannot receive, process, of even check OTRS mails. We hope that within 20 hours everything will be back online. Sorry about the inconvenience. Ciell (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    The ticket only covers a specific list of files. --Krd 09:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    I think the usage of this template needs a complete review. --Krd 09:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    In the DR I pinged the user that created the template. If no more permission arrives, I'll proceed in fixing this copyright issue. --Ruthven (msg) 09:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

    File:Sarstoon village, Belize.jpg

    You received permission for this photo by the owners in the following license. How do I get this added to the page File:Sarstoon village, Belize.jpg  ??? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)

    @Jzsj: If you are the photographer who took the photograph or if you represent organization who owns the copyrights to this photograph than you should follow steps outlined in COM:OTRS#Email_message_template_for_release_of_rights_to_a_file and send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. In case you are representing an organization, like Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States (Q16850071), you should send the email from an email account which can be traced to that organization, or mentioned by a webpage controlled by the organization. Let me know if you have more questions. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

    ticket #2020091610019129

    Ticket:2020091610019129 was processed and linked to File:200901 EPFL Wendy Lee Queen Portrait.jpg. Is the wording of that ticket specific to that file, or can permissions be extended to all current and future uploads by EPFL-MEDIACOM? Vycl1994 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

    Hello Vycl1994. Thanks for getting back to me. The letter states that material from the online mediatheque of EPFL from certain authors (Herzog, Caillet, Ray, etc.) are free to use under CC 4.0. Kind regards, EPFL-MEDIACOM (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    Then it follows that, if the authors are named in the ticket, the ticket can and should be attached to their work upon upload to Commons. If an uploaded file was created by another person at EPFL, but they were not listed in the letter by name, another OTRS communication should be sent, expressly naming additional authors that are willing to agree to CC 4.0.Vycl1994 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

    Undeletion request

    File:Krilin - La Tarara.mp3. OTRS file signed by author was sent September, 21th.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

    @TaronjaSatsuma: Sorry, I can't find it. What is the OTRS ticket number they got in response?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    IDK either, but I have sent again the file.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    Please stop sending it, now we have three mails already.
    It's 2020100410004502, in Spanish. The deleted file mentions three authors, but the permission is only from one person? Ciell (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry for the inconvinience. There are three authors, so each author must send a file authorizing it. In this case, #2020090110004207 should be used to identify the second voice. A third file is on the way.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, I see! If you could collect these scans before sending them to us next time (thus sending them together in one mail, this might be less confusing in a big queue like permissions-commons. (This is different from having all three authors sending us a confirmation email, these are scans of signed documents).
    I'll leave them to one of the Spanish agents to process. Ciell (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, sorry for the inconvenience. Sometimes I had problems when sending files without sending the original email, because some people believes that way they can't check who originally sent the file.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, correct. I did not see these files were Word-documents, so we do indeed need the mail as well, but forwarded emails are generally not accepted (anymore). And they still look like three times the same file to me...? But again, I do not speak the language. Ciell (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    The customer writes in Spanish, but apparently the email it's a conversation between two people; the other one (as the statement) is written in ca (I can't read that language). So it's a forwarded conversation in two languages; quite hard to follow. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    As I can read both languages, I've answered. ✓ Done --Ruthven (msg) 09:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS & Wikidata

    Please see: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Images for Wikidata - "Global Young Academy" where, it is suggested that it is OTRS policy to reject images that are not provided for use on a specific Wikipedia article, even if they have potential use on Wikidata. If so, this would be very damaging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

    The "guideline" at OTRS photo-submissions is not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article. A Wikidata entry not linked to any project file is a fine way to avoid the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, IMHO. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Moreover, the discussion here should be if a photo for a WD entry it's in scope of Wikimedia Commons. What difference this from any other personal photo? --Ganímedes (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for confirming this. It is most troubling that media wanted on non-Wikipedia sister projects could be (is being?) rejected in this manner. When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted? I've answered your latter question where I first saw it, on the Wikidata page linked above. As for scope, please see COM:INUSE - with which one would hope all OTRS account-holders would be very familiar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What I see it's the misuse of Wikidata for a not very clear purpose. Not everyone has an article in Wikipedia, but... we must accept his photograph because someone creates an empty q in Wikidata? Does it make it notable? I'm very worried about the implications of this. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    COM:INUSE is unambiguous, and is part of COM:SCOPE; it is not for OTRS to override. Your post does not answer my questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    This is the trick: according to Wikidata guidelines (Wikidata:Notability): "An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals, that is if it meets at least one of the criteria below: 1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." So, adding a file to Wikimedia Commons and linking it to Wikidata, the young scientist creates an element in Wikidata under scope. So, they become notables. This is how this work, right? Even if the file is in use, can be deleted if the photograph is not in scope. Self-promotion is not in our scopes. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    You've just posted virtually the same screed on Wikidata. It really would be better if you did not split the discussions between venues. COM:INUSE remains unambiguous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    You did it first bringing the discussion here. However, as you've said, "COM:INUSE is unambiguous, and is part of COM:SCOPE". COM:SCOPE also says COM:NOTUSED: "File not legitimately in use. A media file which is neither:

    • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
    • legitimately in use as discussed above

    falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." All these photographs are not in our scope because even when existing the possibility of been used one day in the article of a notable scientist, the truth is they're not. Their only purpose is the promotion and can be deleted. The "potential use in Wikidata" in an empty element for self-promotion it's clearly not in our scope, and not a responsibility to OTRS. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    As I noted on the other thread you have running on this issue [14], there is a realistic possibility of the educational use of these images, by dint of the general academic excellence of the individuals. Really, just drop the stick. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    That doesn't erase self-promotion. It's the same with painters, singers, footballers... --Ganímedes (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    "You did it first bringing the discussion here." No, I posted a pointer here, to a discussion elsewhere. I'm tired of your fallacious finger-pointing, at both venues. Your own quote from COM:SCOPE shows that images used (or intended to be used) on Wikidata items are allowable. If you're not prepared to abide by that community consensus, what are you doing replying to people on OTRS? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    To be clear on this point: WD does want freely licensed images of every singer, painter, footballer, scholar that an editor sees fit to make an item for. That's much broader than the range that have their own WP article. [There may still be concerns about self promotion if the editor has a COI, and Wikidata will have to deal with those on time. But a) that is for WD discussions to manage, and b) I see no such concern here.] Moreover, notability decisions should be the union of those on all involved projects -- If any project feels that knowledge is notable, it should be included. We are not here to police what free media other projects can read, see, or think, just to maintain a healthy shared commonspace. --SJ+ 14:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    +1--So9q (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

    Since this seems a better place than Wikidata to discuss the matter, I'll repeat what I asked there. Where (if anywhere?) did OTRS end up with that very limiting policy? I'm completely with Andy on this. I doubt that even half of our pictures on Commons relate to any Wikipedia article, unless you count, say, that any picture of any part of a city corresponds to us having an article on that city, or other reductio ad absurdum interpretations (which would lead to a far more liberal policy for OTRS, anyway). For example, we do not have, nor are we likely to have, a Wikipedia article on this long-gone Lutheran church in Seattle, but we'd certainly want more pictures of it. I could come up with a hundred similar examples, probably without venturing more than an hour's walk from that building. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Not every image, but I can warranty you that more than once I've approved files in OTRS only to see how Commons deleted them because they're from painters without an article, or musicians deleted in Wikipedia for self-promotion. It's not OTRS the problem, believe me. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Jmabel, as both an OTRS agent and Commons admin, I'm not going to upload a file which is contrary to Commons policies, e.g., derivatives of copyrighted artworks, FoP (depending on country), CSCR (again, depending on country), and so forth. The example of the church you cited is not an issue, because it certainly could have an educational purpose and meets SCOPE. No one has disputed that, to my knowledge. The question I raised in the first place concerns only what we as OTRS agents should do about non-notable persons having no Wikipedia article, in light of OTRS Help:Photosubmissions (which has been the case since 2010), but where there is a Wikidata entry albeit lacking any WMF project use. By the way, in ticket:2020022410001019 there's now additional correspondence.  JGHowes  talk 02:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    This seems to contradict what was said above and on Wikidata. Is the guideline "not to accept files emailed to us for Wikimedia Commons if there's no related Wikipedia article" or is it not? Because the example I gave would be exactly that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What was said was taken out of context; to be clear, the original question was posed at WD specifically about photo submissions for people not having Wikipedia bios and the OTRS guideline's application pertaining to the Global Young Academy WD entries for such persons. The guideline, which I already linked above, states: "If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have an article for), it might be best not to upload it. Use the 'no article, not notable' boilerplate." – nothing to do with churches!  JGHowes  talk 05:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    And it's clear that that guideline which was written two years before Wikidata came into existence is harmful. [Also, note that the linked OTRS wiki page, on which the policy you cite lives, is not publicly viewable.] The questions I asked above, which have so far been ignored, were "When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted?. It would be good to have some answers, and soon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What is harmful is the misuse of Wikidata to introduce not-notable person information avoiding the control systems of the other projects. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    You're becoming tendentious. If you wish to change COM:SCOPE, raise an RfC and see how you get on. If you wish to change Wikidata's notability criteria, raise an RfC on Wikidata. Otherwise, you must accept those policies, and that they exist by consensus on their respective projects. If you do not do that, you should not be working in OTRS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    "non-notable persons having no Wikipedia article" You seem to be conflating two issues. "no Wikipedia article" does not necessarily equate to "non-notable". Firstly, it may be that a Wikipedia article has not yet been written; and secondly. Wikidata has its own definition of notability (to which you have been referred in the parallel discussion on that project), which rightly differs from Wikipedia's (for any of the 300 Wikipedias; since you don't specify). "where there is a Wikidata entry albeit lacking any WMF project use" Wikidata is a WMF project, so that statement is illogical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps GYA should start by writing those articles and submitted by revision. If those scientists are so notables, certainly there will be no problems to finding sources. When the article is approved, we'll be very happy to received and approved their files, if the permission come from the right copyright holder, of course... --Ganímedes (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    "When the article is approved, we'll be very happy to received and approved their files" There is no such requirement. Do keep up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    It should be, then. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    As is quite clearly set out in the COM:SCOPE policy, “a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata. Commons does not rely in any way on the narrow definition of ‘notable’ as used on the Wikipedias, nor whether a Wikipedia article does or could exist; that’s simply not relevant.

    Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.

    If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence the link to the image on Commons. Commons would then delete the image as not in use (if not otherwise educational).

    The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I know no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    •  Comment. Well, if I'll receive as OTRS agent a file that might consider not to be in project scope I'll upload it and add permission (if the copyright issue is ok) and open a DR for the scope issue. I don't think it is only my own decision as a OTRS agent. It should be a community decision. If the file legitemily in use in Wikidata then definitely not be deleted. -- Geagea (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Global Young Academy

    Dear all, thanks a lot for all of your engagement and countless volunteer hours. I'm representing this effort of the Global Young Academy as well as many different other networks who have joined this effort to bringing excellent young scientists to wikidata (from India to Iraq to Italy). We are happy to receive advice on how to streamline this process. We are asking that scholars of national young academies themselves upload their pictures rather than doing this in bulk. Most scholars are professors, all of them are prize-winning scientists and all have wikidata entries now (Wikipedia pages exist for a great number of them, but these are not written by us (see here: https://w.wiki/DQr)). The Bangladesh Young academy https://nyabangladesh.org/ (to take one example out of 50) is one of the first contributors. Sooner or later, all 50+ national young academies will be submitting pictures. The plan is to then engage our senior academies and senior academy networks to do likewise, as well as the framework organizations through which they are organized (InterAcademy Partnership, ALLEA, African Academy of Sciences, Royal Academy...). So we are very much interested in setting up a process by which this is streamlined. Apologies for the many individuals who do not send in photos with the correct specifications, we want to support wikimedia as much as possible, help us to do this. PPEscientist (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    I've seen some consent-templates refilling with "I took the picture and am the photographer.". And then you see the file and found this: (general case but no related to GYA). How could he be his own photographer???? Start with honesty could be a good touch. Maybe you should start from here, introducing yourself and explaining your intentions, instead of wait to see nobody notice what you're doing... --Ganímedes (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The elements in Wikidata are worthless, because they're empty. Only the name and a date, nothing else. Not even a link. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Your claim is false; as I have pointed out, with examples, in the above-linked Wikidata discussion, where you also posted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Given User:PPEscientist's comment above, it would seem that the current OTRS policy as described here runs directly counter to WMF's current initiative to better cover areas of the world where traditional sources may be relatively sparse. An initiative like the Global Young Academy would seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that would help us identify people worthy of coverage in those areas. It is no surprise that Wikidata would be the first place where many of these would show up, because the efort is lower to create a Wikidata item than a Wikipedia article. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    I have no clue what is discussed here, but I'm quite sure that if a file is within Commons project scope, it will be processed by other like any other case. If anybody thinks different, please advise. --Krd 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    The issue is that some OTRS volunteers dispute that images for use on Wikidata are in scope. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Evaluation

    I'm trying to evaluate the discussion above, and I am stuck at one point. I think there is merit to the points raised by both Pigsonthewing and Ganímedes, but for some reason you do not address each other's points directly. Please tell me if I'm summarizing your points accurately:

    • Andy: The overriding policies are clear, permitting images on the basis of just a Wikidata item. Any subordinate policy or guideline that disregards that is inappropriate and should not be followed if it contradicts the overriding policy.
    • Ganímedes: If the policies are interpreted the way Andy says, there is a substantial loophole that will bring problems to the Wikimedia projects: if both Wikidata and Commons permit inclusion merely on the basis of inclusion on the other project, that makes it possible for a self-promoter or vandal to introduce any arbitrary Wikidata item and associated media file.

    If my summary is accurate, I have a question for each of you.

    • Andy, do you understand Ganímedes' concern, and could you respond directly to it? Do you (a) have some reason to believe that spam and self-promotion would not substantially increase, or (b) think we should blindly follow the policies, even if that would result in a firehose of spam; or (c) think we should work to modify the policies in some as-yet-unspecified way, to mitigate that spam, or (d) something I've missed?
    • Ganímedes, do you recognize that policies pre-dating those you are following/advocating dictate that files should be included on Commons if they illustrate a Wikidata item? If so, what policy approach (as opposed to practice) do you think would help create a clearer framework for volunteers to follow, and mitigate your spam concerns?

    I hope this helps clarify things. The questions here are tricky, and in my view there is no easy answer; but answers become almost impossible if we let the discussion devolve into personal animosity. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks! Pete Forsyth. Yes, it's exactly as you summarizes. And the problem it's exactly that: we're opening the door to anybody to creates a q element and upload his files here, notable or not, spammer, vandal, anyone, just because it's got a q in WD. AS the article of the GYA says (translated in some other Wikipedias), the GYA has 200 members, who change each 5 years. So, it's to spect we'll receive more of these files. Even more, checking the first name, Patrick Cobbinah (Q64907170), there is not even one independent reliable source. And that's the problem exactly: by linking directly to Wikidata there's no need of any source. Yes, our policies say if the file is linked to a sister project the file can stay, but... What if this is a cross-wiki spam case (i.e.)? Is still valid the same argument? But, I think this discussion it's in the wrong place. Is not in OTRS board, but in Village Pump, were should be pointed, IMHO.--Ganímedes (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The first email from Robert Lepenies (of GYA) it's over 180 days, so it's not a new issue, but it wasn't a problem till more photos see the light in Commons and OTRS. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you, Pete and Ganímedes. it seems to me the discussion you want (about whether WD should have an entry for someone who no independent source online) is worth having, and should be had at WD. (Andy: what is the best forum for that?) Maybe if -- only after! -- photo spam becomes a particular problem, there could be a discussion board on WD specifically for entries with uploaded photos. But commons should not be making that decision. And thr OTRS permissions queue is definitely the wrong part of the process to make that decision. --SJ+ 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Do you have permission from that named individual to reveal such details of their OTRS correspondence publicly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    The name it's in the main category; the date of the permission, in the OTRS ticket of the file, all in the public domain. What permission do I need? --Ganímedes (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't ask about that; I asked you about the personal information in your post - information which is not in the category or file description. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Pete: you say "The overriding policies are clear, permitting images on the basis of just a Wikidata item", and indeed they are. But that is not what we are big told by OTRS volunteers; it is not what the garishly highlighted quote above says (and it certainly not how it is being interpreted by OTRS volunteers).
    We who are not OTRS account holders are not able to see for ourselves what the quoted OTRS policy says, because instead of being on Commons, it's on password-protected wiki. I have asked some simple questions, above, about that policy: "When and where was this guideline drawn up, what consultation took place, and how can it be urgently updated to be fit for purpose? Who can track down correspondence with the authors of any previously-rejected material, wanted by non-Wikipedia sister projects, that should have been accepted? They remain unanswered. I wonder why that is?
    Yes, I understand Ganímedes' concerns; he believes - and has clearly stated his belief, not least in the discussion here - that images of people should only be accepted if they are for an existing Wikipedia article, and that mere use on Wikidata is insufficlent. I have quoted and refuted this (as indeed have others), and suggested courses of action should he wish to pursue them, in the original discussion on Wikidata - where his response was to accuse me of not answering his unspecified questions; when I asked his for evidence of that, he failed to reply (and that's not the only time he has ignored my questioning his baseless assertions).
    From what little we do know (and we don't know what other cases exist), at least some volunteers have been rejecting images provided in good faith to illustrate items on Wikidata that are well within scope (which, incidentally, d:Q64907170 most certainly is; note that it currently lacks an image) - images which would almost certainly be kept if uploaded and subjected to a Commons deletion discussion. A figure of twenty such instances has been mentioned from this one set of contributors alone.
    The questions in hand are not "tricky" and there is an easy answer: COM:SCOPE says that if an image is used (i.e for use) on Wikidata, it is in scope. it is not for OTRS to unilaterally overrule that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Andy, by "overriding" I don't mean OTRS, that's the opposite. And I'm trying to express what I understand to be your point, which I think is a good one, not make one of my own. OTRS policies need to comply with the inclusion policies of the projects, not the other way around. I think the OTRS concerns here are subordinate to the question of what the main policies of the projects tell us to include, so to me it seems natural to talk through that stuff first, before getting into the questions around OTRS.
    As for what's tricky, here's what I mean: If you make policies broadly more inclusive, the possibility of increased spam tends to go along with that. Finding a balance (including more good stuff without including more bad stuff) is the kind of thing that requires careful thought, observation of unintended consequences, etc. etc.
    I'm glad to hear that there has been good discernment. So far, I've only looked at the discussion on this page, and I probably won't have time to delve into those specifics. So it's helpful (to me at least) to have them summarized here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I don't suppose that you are making your own separate point; and my use of "overriding" was to describe the demonstrated and admitted actions of those OTRS volunteers posting here. They argue the unseen OTRS policy, or their interpretation of it, overrides, or should override, COM:SCOPE.
    This is the secondary discussion; the primary one is that on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    What WD accept or not, is not our concern. We must be worried about what we accept here. I don't want to continue arguing in circles. What is missing here it's the fact that, to be included in another project is not enough; if there is other concern as spam, promo, notability, etc, files can also be deleted, even if they're "in scope" (because they're linking to a q in WD). So, the question is: is it enough to have a q element in Wikidata to be in Scope in Commons? I know Andy, you'll say yes, but that's what I'm challenging and that's the point Wikimedia Commons must discuss. And I'm sure that can't be done from OTRS/Noticeboard, that has another goal, and has been long misused the last two days. This is my last intervention here. Thanks. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    You say you don't want to argue in circles, yet you keep doing so. So here it is again: COM:SCOPE says, explicitly:
    File in use in another Wikimedia project
    A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose [...] It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.    .
    Don't be surprised if I decline to respond to any posts where you ignore this again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Actually Wikidata rather than using images catalogues them.
    Moreover, COM:SCOPE current content is roughly four years older than Wikidata itself, I wonder wheter it would had be worded in a different way if written after Wikidata creation. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Poppycock. Anyone sighted can see an image on d:Q181, for example; and many on https://w.wiki/GbZ once the query is run. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Apart from bringing the usual, unecessary, rudeness this doesn't reply to any of the above. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    OK. From where I sit, it seems that the combined inclusion policies of Wikidata and Commons could allow for some really nasty inclusions -- e.g., if somebody created a Wikidata item for the regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds, and uploaded a photo of them to Commons, and linked the two, then the photo on Commons would be allowed (by virtue of the existence of a Wikidata item) and the Wikidata item would be allowed (by virtue of a photo on Commons). What could prevent it would be good faith discernment of volunteers; that's a reasonable approach in the short term, but over time I'd hope that the policies and inclusion criteria could be refined to rely less on subjective judgment.
    If the volunteers executing the discernment are OTRS volunteers following an unpublished internal policy, I agree with you, that is less reasonable as a solution. It doesn't live up to our shared values of transparency, and there's not much to inspire confidence in the rest of us that it will be sustainable or consistent. Still, it does leave a big question, and I don't see what the answer is: If the OTRS crowd were to stop excluding these uploads, what mechanism should we expect to address the spam? Is your argument simply that we should expect volunteers in an open decision-making process discern between what "feels" worthy of inclusion, until and unless more nuanced policies emerge?
    If that's your position, it seems sensible. I'm honestly not sure whether I agree or disagree. I'm still at the point of trying to understand your position. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    You suppose, wrongly, that "a Wikidata item for the regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds" would meet Wikidata's notability criteria. But yes, the lack of transparency is a significant concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, looking more closely I see at Wikidata:Wikidata:Notability item #4, which I had overlooked:
    "Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement, such as category for pictures taken with camera (P2033)."
    This was indeed a significant gap in my understanding, thank you for pointing it out.
    @Ganímedes: What do you think of this? I'm looking at your first top-level comment above in this discussion -- it seems that you missed this point as well, no? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    First, they've created the main article, en:Global Young Academy. Then, it was translated or re-created) in some other Wikis (4-5, not sure). Later, they've started to created q elements in Wikidata. Then, they've created their own category, and finally, started to upload their own files, asking to OTRS volunteers to do it. If someone complains in Wikidata --> "But we're linking to Commons..." If someone complains in Commons --> "But we're linking to Wikidata!..." It's more of the same. The category came with the combo. But... Who am I to argue? --Ganímedes (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    en:Global Young Academy was started in Match 2011 by David Eppstein. Category:Global Young Academy was created in July 2019 by Victuallers. What evidence do you have that either did so on behalf of the organisation, or otherwise acted improperly in doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    No answer, User:Ganímedes? No evidence? Perhaps you will now strike your false allegation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I've said I don't will to continue answer and argued with you in this place, and that's what I pretend to do. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think that means you are refusing to answer. That much was already clear. My point is, that if you refuse to provide any evidence to support or defend your claim, which is false, then you should strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm quite late to the party, but only just noticed this in my notifications. Anyway, I created the :en: article in 2011, as stated above. I have never had any association with the GYA myself; it came to my attention at that time because someone I worked with belonged to it, but my creation of it was independent of that work and I created the article purely because I thought it was a topic worthy of having an article. I have since grown quite unhappy with the long-term promotional behavior displayed by representatives of this organization and have blocked some of its editors on :en: for violations of policy there. So, yes, User:Ganímedes' accusation that the GYA created their own :en: article is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Very late in deed, David Eppstein (around 40 days from the last comment and almost 5 month from the above), but I appreciate your comments. I apologize for mine, and I thanks that at least someone admits that the behavior of the organization is promotional. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Even if their behaviour is promotional the images are in scope. It is not in your gift to "punish" behaviour that you do not like by refusing to accept in-scope images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict)No regular Sunday D&D game enjoyed by a handful of 10-year-olds but anyone ever being listed among the authors of a scientific paper. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I see the harm in publishing a photo and wikidata item for an author of a published scientific paper. It seems natural to me that a knowledge-focused project like Wikimedia would help the public access information relating to the provenance of published information. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    If you wish to propose a change to Wikidata's notability policy, then this is not the venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Pigsonthewing: Were you talking to me here? If so, you've got my point backward. I said that Wikidata's policy (as interpreted above) seems sensible, not that I'd like to advocate a change. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I wasn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    To repeat, the current OTRS guideline was adopted in 2010 and it states precisely what I've quoted (and highlighted) above. If you're unwilling to observe AGF on that, then this discussion is at an end, for my part. I don't know the answer to your other questions nor can I speak for other OTRS team members. All I can say, definitively, is that I myself have never "rejected" a GYA ticket at OTRS and, to be sure I was on solid ground with this one, brought the question to the Wikidata noticeboard for further advises and clarification, in light of the seeming disconnect between what is longstanding recommended practice for OTRS volunteers and the subsequent development of Wikidata.  JGHowes  talk 20:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I have never said that I doubted that it includes what you quoted, but I very much doubt that you quoted the entire policy, so my statement that "We who are not OTRS account holders are not able to see for ourselves what the quoted OTRS policy says, because instead of being on Commons, it's on password-protected wiki" is fair, reasonable and true. Perhaps you can provide us with a full, unredacted and current copy? Preferably via wiki import, so we can see the full history, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    I quoted all that is relevant to this discussion. The rest of the page is a step-by-step "how-to" guide for new OTRS volunteers, dealing with how to process and format tickets, syntax examples, use of templates, etc.  JGHowes  talk 01:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • INUSE is pretty clear on this. If anyone wants to change that, then they need to go to VP, not here. If WD wants to change their standards, that's for them to decide. Just as Commons should not be making editorial decisions on behalf of sister projects, OTRS should not be making editorial decisions on behalf of Commons. We follow local policy as we follow local policy. GMGtalk 22:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, please define what you mean by "editorial decisions on behalf of Commons". Do you, as an OTRS volunteer and Commons admin, upload to Commons files submitted to OTRS that violate COM:FOP or COM:CSCR or are out of Scope, such as a non-user's family photos of the kids with Fluffy the cat? I won't.  JGHowes  talk 02:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Probably the kids and Fluffy are out of scope. Unless, of course, one of the kids (or Fluffy) is notable. But that is not what we are dealing with here. I'm pretty certain that in the case you are thinking of, neither the kids nor Fluffy have published scientific papers, hold an academic appointment, have won prizes in the sciences, or have a Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @JGHowes: What I mean is, when I answer tickets on behalf of the English Wikipedia, I do so according to local en.wiki policy, and when I answer tickets on behalf of Commons, I do so according to local Commons policy. Barring any license issues, a large part of the current policy on Commons is that media be used or realistically usable on sister projects. If Wikidata has defined usability for their purpose in such a way, then current Commons policy follows suit. The way to change that is to change Commons policy regarding scope to account for Wikidata, if the community wishes to do so. But so long as that remains Commons' policy, then OTRS should operate within those bounds. GMGtalk 14:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Hi User:GreenMeansGo, I fear that you may have been basing your OTRS work on a misunderstanding of Commons policies on Scope. Please see my comment, here, in the discussion above. To be absolutely clear, an image which is already in use in good faith on Wikidata is by policy definition in scope on Commons. Even if the image is of something you personally consider useless for educational purposes (self-promotional, a standard selfie, Fluffy the cat) that does not matter. If the image is in use on Wikidata, that is enough, and assuming the licensing and privacy aspects are OK you should as an OTRS agent accept it. The rule against images that are "not useful for an educational purpose" isn't a separate step to be considered independently of whether the file is in use. Anything in use on Wikidata is by definition considered by Commons to be useful for an educational purpose.
    And, to repeat what has been said above, that isn't a loophole since links on Wikidata to unwanted images will be deleted there; the files will then no longer be in use and will be deleted from Commons. Commons policy on this was very carefully drafted to ensure that Commons doesn't override the needs of local projects, is quite clear if you read through the text, and has been unchanged for over a decade. The issue isn't with Commons, it's with the incorrect application (perhaps accidental misunderstanding) of Commons rules by some OTRS agents.
    As others have suggested, what needs to happen here is simply for the OTRS private guidance to be published, and probably revised. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'm mistaken at all. I completely agree with you in fact and that it what I was saying to the letter in so many words. GMGtalk 19:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm so sorry. Reading what you said again I really can't understand how I thought you meant the opposite. I have struck the first sentence. My apologies. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep - because these scientists are possible future Jobs, Gates, or Tolkien. This is similar to going to US Library of Congress author conventions And taking photos of up and coming authors. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep - because after reading this wall of text my takeaways are: 1) OTRS file acceptance follows secret guidelines that have different outcomes than the default uploader and these need to be transparent for all projects, including Wikidata and 2) the project looks like something we want, period. Now going to read the followup wall of text on how to prevent this happening in future (and can't help wondering here what on earth we have been missing since 2013 when Wikidata slowly started to get illustrated with Commons files!!) Jane023 (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    Improving processes to avoid this

    Hi all

    What additional information could be added to the documentation for OTRS volunteers to avoid this confusion around rejections in future?

    John Cummings (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

    Great question, but possibly a little too narrowly framed? It seems to me that if OTRS were to publish its policies and procedures, with some explanation of why they are in place, and define a straightforward way to ask questions, give feedback or commentary, that might go a long way toward mitigating the kind of issue that arose here. Of course, all that takes work...but it seems like important work to do. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    One extremely simple answer is to make all policies and templates on the OTRS wiki public.
    Though everyone can understand why specific cases cannot be published, there never has been a good reason as to why all the processes and policies that OTRS volunteers follow should be kept a secret. There is nothing there that would be a surprise to anyone. This is not Fight Club. --Fæ (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    I contend that an OTRS volunteer should not upload an image to Commons if it's in violation of Commons policies, especially if they are also a Commons admin with a good working knowledge of Commons policies. Take, for example, COM:FOP. Right now, en-wiki has a non-Commons image of the Hallgrímskirkja‎ in Iceland because Iceland does not have FoP. Yet, File:Hallgrimskirkja (21877785058).jpg‎ copied from Flickr is on Commons and used at d:Q271466. This is a violation of FOP and it should not be hosted on Commons.  JGHowes  talk 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @JGHowes: This seems like a good principle, at least for a case where policy or law clearly disallows a file. But it seems irrelevant to the present discussion in several ways. This file was copied from Flickr, not uploaded via OTRS; it's a clear case, unlike the examples above in which there is more of a need to evaluate interrelated policies on multiple sites. Is it relevant in some way I'm missing, and if so, what's your suggestion for ensuring things work more smoothly in the future? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: Yes, Pete, I realize that. But now that the discussion is moving towards possible changes in the instructions to OTRS agents, I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the agent's discretion entirely.  JGHowes  talk 01:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I've got no problems. If after verified the authorship and the copyright holder I upload a file from photosubmission queue and it's deleted, certainly a Commons admin will explain to the customer why the file was rejected even with an OTRS ticket, since it's up to us to take that decision, right? So, no problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

    We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion):

    1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
    2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?
    3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
    4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)?
    5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
    6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
    7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
    8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
    9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
    10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?

    Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

    Excellent list, Andy. I concur. I greatly appreciate the service that OTRS agents perform for the projects, and I think it would be very much in the interests of OTRS agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of questions in a forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing policies and a process for amending policies). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    See m:OTRS/Recruiting and the links provided there. It's not password-protected.  JGHowes  talk 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    @JGHowes: I'm confident that most people who have followed the discussion this far are familiar with that page. But do note that (a) it only addresses a small portion of the concerns identified above, and (b) the all-important pronoun "we" is defined nowhere on that page. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with that page, and its subpages, It doesn't answer any of the above questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

    Hi all, just few words to clarify how the relationship between OTRS and Notability works, for those who aren't familiar with the service. OTRS permissions-commons is concerned on files uploaded on Commons, thus it is Commons' SCOPE that is relevant for this queue (NB: Commons' inclusion criteria is, in a nutshell, (potentially) having a content page on any Wikimedia project). However OTRS agents are not admins that perform speedy deletions, nor they can replace the community in performing DRs by themselves. Generally it is only blatant advertisement or clear out of scope submissions that are (or should be) rejected. All the rest is generally accepted, given that the files have a valid permission. Then it's Commons' community that decides whether to keep or delete the files following the regular processes. --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for this clarification, but it does not address the concern, which is that COM:INUSE policy on Commons does not include usage on Wikidata. Jane023 (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    What? Of course it does! It covers usage in any and all Wikimedia projects. Please see multiple posts above. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    As I have already pointed out above, the issue is that some OTRS volunteers dispute that images for use on Wikidata are in scope, and it is clear that those OTRS admins agents have been rejecting wanted images, supplied in good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    OTRS agents are bound by OTRS policies and the policies and guidelines of the wikis they edit. Most OTRS policies have been copied to Meta and are available here. Best practices for handling tickets are described on otrs-wiki and are covered by the confidentiality agreement. They are written and revised through consensus among OTRS agents and are typically discussed on the mailing lists, which are also covered by the confidentiality agreement. If you have questions about an agent's actions, you should contact the OTRS administrators, who have the sole authority over a volunteer's access to the OTRS system. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. there are 214 pages linked to, from the link you give above which one(s) answer which of the above questions? Which one of the 214 includes the policy from which the the highlighted quote above was taken? When you say "They are written and revised through consensus among OTRS agents", what is "they" (polices, or best practices)? And why are "best practices" covered by a confidentiality agreement? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    You asked what the OTRS policies are: the OTRS policies that have been copied to meta and translated are included in that list. All other content on otrs-wiki is considered non-public information. Best practice guidance is written by OTRS voluteers, policies are written by the OTRS administrators and the WMF. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    What does Wikidata have to do with this? Gryllida (chat) 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Gryllida: The very first post in this section, made by me and timestamped '19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)' says "Please see: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Images for Wikidata - "Global Young Academy" where, it is suggested that it is OTRS policy to reject images that are not provided for use on a specific Wikipedia article, even if they have potential use on Wikidata. If so, this would be very damaging.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

    I added some garish highlighting for Andy's questions, and also for the only answer so far, which does not answer any of the questions. Still waiting. Jane023 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    It seems to me that a fairly robust consensus has emerged among many non-OTRS agents in this discussion, that it would be worthwhile for OTRS to adopt greater transparency in its policies and procedures, and perhaps consider some changes to them. Is there an OTRS agent who can acknowledge this feedback, and commit to raising the question among the other OTRS agents, to explore whether some action can be taken based on it? Pinging Ganímedes and AntiCompositeNumber, two OTRS agents who have been involved in this discussion. Can you help? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

    I can bring it up on the mailing list. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you AntiCompositeNumber. If you're willing, I think it would be helpful if you could post the text you send to the mailing list here, so that even skeptical Wikimedians can see that the points were accurately captured. Also, I hope you will be able to report back how the discussion goes, and any decisions or efforts that result from it, at whatever time is most appropriate. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating your efforts to move this to a resolution. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    "I hope you will be able to report back how the discussion goes" It would be better if the email to the mailing list simply pointed to this discussion and asked people to comment here, in plain view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    I don't entirely agree with Andy on this point. While it's true that there is a great advantage to having all the discussion public, I don't think it's realistic or reasonable to require it. I think it's safe to assume that some discussion will be carried on in private; and if that's the case, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask that the outcomes of that private discussion be reported publicly. That's what I'm asking AntiCompositeNumber to do (or alternately, to ensure that somebody else is assigned to do it). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    As long as the relevant OTRS wiki remain confidential, discussion of their contents will have to as well, and that means restricting the discussion to the OTRS wiki and mailing list. I will likely be able to share if any changes result from this, but likely not in great detail (unless of course, the relevant pages are made public). The mail I sent follows. As a point of clarification, while this section is the only one linked, it is not the only discussion I am referring to.

    Hello,

    As I'm sure many of you are aware, non-OTRS members of the Commons community have recently expressed concern around the processing of OTRS tickets, especially relating to photosubmission tickets. These discussions have been spread across many fora, but a significant portion took place at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata>.

    While some of the commentary has been somewhat misguided, I do think that the discussion has brought up some important points that are at least worth acknowledging:
    1. The guidance to OTRS agents is lacking in some areas, and needs improvement
    2. There is no systematic review of permissions or photosubmission tickets
    3. OTRS procedures are non-public, leading to misconceptions and misunderstandings from the wider community

    Thoughts on how to address these points, if it is necessary to address them at all, are appreciated.

    AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Hi AntiCompositeNumber, I saw your email and would like to help. Where will we be brainstorming about this? Ciell (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Ciell: The mailing list is probably a good place to start, but a page on the otrs wiki might also be good for longer discussions on one of the more specific points. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

    Thank you AntiCompositeNumber. I look forward to seeing where this goes, and I'm hopeful that OTRS can increase the wider wiki community's understanding of how it operates. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

    @AntiCompositeNumber: It's been over a week, and there have been no responses here. Have there been any on the mailing list? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

    ...tumbleweed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

    Hi Andy,
    Yes we do have contact over our email list, and several of us want to be involved in any follow up. But conversation are a bit slow at the moment, I think because there are time consuming other issues in many of our lives right now - COVID pandemic and all. But there's no need to rush, right? We won't forget. Ciell (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

    Another four weeks have passed, with no response whatsoever from anyone representing the OTRS team; and it is over eight weeks since I posed the questions, above. Can we at least have some indication of when we might get answers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

    @AntiCompositeNumber: Ciell (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

    It appears that those of us who have raised concerns are now being ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

    I'm sorry to say this, but I think this is not the place for this discussion. I think you may take it in the Village Pump, or Meta. But here is a place where few agents helps reviewing tickets. If you want to change a policy, then you need a more open space with more users involved. That's my humble opinion. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    From the header box on this page: "This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers". And we've already been told that this discussion has been flagged up on the OTRS mailing list. Before anyone can decide whether policies need changing, we need to know what the applicable policies are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    As you wish. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

    Redux, June 2020

    Restored from the archive, as this remains a live issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Pigsonthewing: I think the policy for Commons is very clear. We host files that are in scope and licensed under a free license. Wikidata is a Wikimedia project so any files that is used there in in scope. Personally I don't care about scope when looking at OTRS. Perhaps if someone send me 1.000 dick pics and asked me to upload them I would say no thank you knowing that I would spend hours uploading them only to see the "penis patrol" nominate them for deletion.
    There may have been some confusion about Wikidata before but as I read the comments above it has been clearly stated that Wikidata is a part of the Wiki-family so files used there are in scope.
    If some OTRS volunteers refuse to upload a photo and say it is because of scope then I suggest that you/they/someone make a post here and we can have someone else review it. Or perhaps just have the ppl create an account on Commons and upload the files themselves. --MGA73 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    You say you "think the policy for Commons is very clear", but this whole issue arose because individual OTRS agents were interpreting it differently to each other. The individual agent in the case cited has not said that they will change their behaviour, nor has anyone else indicated that they will be prevented from rejecting material which the policy apparently says should be accepted. Furthermore, there are ten questions, highlighted above, to which no answers, let alone "clear" answers, have been given. The questions cannot be avoided indefinitely. We generally have no way of knowing when a valid image has been rejected via OTRS, since the system is not public. Your comment about pictures of penises seems to be a - rather bizarre - straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Anyone can edit I support Andy or anyone else producing the documentation to answer these questions. I expect that as an experienced Wikimedia contributor, Andy's first guesses of the answers to all these questions would be correct, and that his reason for asking is not about getting answers but about wanting more infrastructure.
      The request here is for a lot of documentation, and I think the reason why this has not been done is because it is a lot of work on volunteers' time, and because these questions are about some fundamentals of Wikimedia operations which are ubiquitous, a bit boring to established Wikipedia editors, and hard to explain. I volunteer to meet Andy or a group of people in a video-recorded live conversation which we post here in this thread to answer the questions. Talking things through is much easier than producing written documentation. I do think that it is too much to ask that the Volunteer Response Team produce a guidebook, which seems to me what is being requested here. I think it is reasonable to want guidebooks for many aspects of Wikimedia projects, but written explanations for any parts of Wikimedia projects have rarely either satisfied people asking for them or been very helpful for transmitting culture.
      I do expect that voice conversation would resolve most or all concerns quickly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • [ec] "I expect that ... his reason for asking is not about getting answers but about wanting more infrastructure. You expect wrongly. "a guidebook, which seems to me what is being requested here" Also wrong. Please do not attempt to speak for me again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing and Bluerasberry: Yes I think the policy is very clear: Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing. But if you go look at Commons:Deletion requests you will see thousands of DR's because we are a community of thousands of users so every one have their own opinion on what scope is and how to understand copyright.
      As I said I normally do not care about scope when I look at OTRS. If it has a free license (and I think it is legal) I will upload/accept it. If I think it is useless I might start a DR. It has to be really bad before I would say no (like I said if it was 1.000 penises).
      We are all humans. If you disagree with someone about an OTRS case then talk to them or make a post here. --MGA73 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • In case you did not notice, I made such a post here, half a year ago. This long section is the result; and yet the issues raised are still not resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes I noticed the long post :-)
          But as I see it the post started with a question if Wikidata is in scope and the answer is after some discussion that it IS in scope.
          Then there is a request for someone to write a lot of text. But for what? We do not need extra text.
          If you have a specific ticket start a request about that :-)
          We are volunteers so we are not going to look for work by reading old tickets to see if someone made a good reply or not. Well at least I'm not. --MGA73 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • "The long post"? It contained just 49 words. If you see "a request for someone to write a lot of text", then you must see it elsewhere, for there is none on this page. There are ten questions, the answers to which may be long, or short, or simply links. Nonetheless, they remain unanswered, and they are not unreasonable questions. I wonder why they remain unanswered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    No more Nutella?
    • Read Commons:OTRS, m:OTRS/Volunteering and Commons:Policies and guidelines. If you have a problem with a permission or a picture ask here. If you have a problem with an OTRS member then go talk to them or start a request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. As I already said we do not go around and check eachother unless someone ask a specific question. --MGA73 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Note to OTRS agents: Refer to rule 55. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • From this we can conclude that OTRS is not Nutella - we can't make everyone happy... --MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Not sure how Nutella taste, but I chatch the idea XD Andy Mabbett: I've told you long before what I think, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. All the doubs you've got are valid, but, again, this is not the place. If you want to know the answer, I think the place it's a RfC in Meta. If you want to discuss why delete file without article or if we should accept files only because they're linking to WD, I think the place is the Village Pump. Only if you need to know about any specific ticket, this is the place. If not, I'm not sure how we can help you (but of course, you're alway be wellcome). Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, I saw your comment about the venue the last time you made it, and I responded: "From the header box on this page: "This page is where users can communicate with Commons OTRS volunteers". Indeed, you replied to my response, so must have seen it then. Your claim that "Only if you need to know about any specific ticket, this is the place" is contradicted by that statement, and does not seem to be supported by any other policy, or actual practice.
          I have no particular desire to discuss NISHANT_BHUSHAN.jpg, never having seen it or been aware of it before your linking to its now-deleted page. It is true that I came here to discuss a particular set of images, which you personally had wrongly rejected. Your error in doing so seems to have been confirmed in the above discussion, and in the clarification to the guidelines noted by JGHowes a few hours ago, just below this comment.
          It is therefore rather troubling that you nonetheless still question "if we should accept files only because they're linking to WD". Are you now prepared to abide by the cited guidelines, and what are you doing to resolve the issue of the images which you previously rejected, contrary to that guideline?
          That said, although I came here to discuss some specific images, the discussion has uncovered some wider, generic issues - encapsulated in the ten highlighted, and as yet unanswered, questions above - and it important that those issues are resolved. As I also noted in our previous exchange "we've already been told that this discussion has been flagged up on the OTRS mailing list" . We await the overdue results of that non-public discussion.
          You suggest an RfC on Meta. As I also said in my previous reply to you: "Before anyone can decide whether policies need changing, we need to know what the applicable policies are".
          You ask how you can help: It is curious, and somewhat of a pity, that the energy and time that you and others have spent critiquing the above questions, which are not unreasonable, nor complex, have not instead been expended in answering them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Pigsonthewing, Your concern about the old guideline for OTRS volunteers vis-a-vis Wikidata was addressed on Feb. 28 when a WMF staff person updated the guideline. (The old guideline, which was written before the introduction of WikiData, said: "‎If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have an article for), it might be best not to upload it",) The current guideline is now amended to read, "‎If the person is trying to submit an image of a non-notable person (or one we don't have a page on any project for) ‎...". ‎—  JGHowes  talk 23:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Is that guideline on a public wiki, or the private OTRS wiki (see question 2 in the set of ten highlighted above)? If the latter, may we know which WMF staff member made that change? Was that change made in response to this discussion, and if so, why did that WMF staff member - or any - not comment here? Was anything else done, to notify individual OTRS agents of the clarification to the guideline? What steps are in place to ensure compliance with the guideline, and to deal with any cases of OTRS agents who persist in disregarding it, and to review their interactions (and those preceding the clarification) with good-faith providers of rejected images (see question 8, above)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
        • As previously noted, the guideline in question is one of the "helpful tips" for OTRS volunteers and is not publicly viewable. Obviously, the modification was prompted by the discussion taking place at the time here and on OTRS' IRC channel. Indeed, the edit summary accompanying the page change states, "update the tip to include all projects". That's as far as I'm going with this.  JGHowes  talk 01:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Pigsonthewing Just to make things clear Commons is a Wiki so EVERYONE not blocked can upload photos to Commons. Photo submissions is a service designed to make it easier for people that do not have a wiki account to upload photos that we really, really want. It is not meant for being a way for lazy wiki users to have a shortcut to make other users upload photos. So if A send a photo to photo submissions and volunteer B think everything looks okay then B will upload the photo. If B think that the photo is useless then B will probably ask what photo can be used for and if B does not get a good answer then B may not upload it. If A is not happy with the answer then A can just upload the photo him-/herself. Problem solved!
          This long discussion started months ago with the question if photos only used on Wikidata was in scope and it was cleared months ago that it IS in scope. Problem solved!
          As said before we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does. If someone have a problem with a specific user or a specific ticket then they can write it here.
          So do you have any recent examples of rejected photos or are you just stuck in this to get revenge over someone you do not like? --MGA73 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
          • The statement "we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does" is very troubling. The rest of your comment appears to be made in bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
            • I'm trying to figure out why you keep going in this discussion. To me it is important to know if there is a problem or if you are on the hunt for someone. If you do not have any recent examples I there is no reason to spend more time on this. --MGA73 (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

    Still no answer to the questions highlighted above... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

    I still don't understand why you care. If OTRS doesn't have the capacity to handle these images, just don't use OTRS. It's not mandatory, so why this self-inflicted pain? Nemo 07:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    The ten questions are not related to any specific images; nor are they related to OTRS's capacity. Whether you understand or not, they need to be answered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Not really. The answers are well known, they're just not pretty. The underlying question seems to be "how are OTRS actions held accountable". Nemo 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    If the answers are "well known", why has no-one given them, in over six months? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

    SpaceX permissions

    Good day all. I'd like clarification on ticket:2015032410033985, as it relates to {{Cc-zero-SpaceX}}, regarding its exact scope so that I can document it on the template. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 01:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    Aitmatov

    Is this Chinghiz Aitmatov? [15] Are you sure? Please search... See, there are: [16] (Excuse me for my English)--Buzancar (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

     Comment Permission is written in et-. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think it is out of scope of this page to verify file content. If there is reasonable doubt, consider to write a deletion request. --Krd 15:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    ticket#2020100710010562

    Hello, can an OTRS volunteer look into this ticket File:পেৰিছত_এসপ্তাহ_আৰু_অসম.pdf (Ticket link)? --SlowPhoton (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket is open and only a few days old. Please stay patient. --Krd 15:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket#2020101210014576

    Also: Ticket#2020101410012609

    Hello, I opened two tickets about this pdf. Did you have a chance to check? Thank you.--Can (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

    Why you've opened two tickets for same file? --Ganímedes (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    I've merged both in 2020101410012609. Please note that permissions-fr has over 100 days of delay, so you must be patient and wait for your tourn. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for your reply @Ganímedes: . I created second ticket accidentally. Sorry about that. I'm waiting :)--Can (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    rétablir fichier:Plaque auditorium de la Pépinière permission du 15 août 2020 [Ticket#2020081410011598]

    20 septembre 2020 à 05:00 User:JuTa discussion contributions a supprimé la page File:Plaque auditorium de la Pépinière.jpg (No OTRS permission for 30 days) (global usage; delinker log)


    De: Permissions - Wikimédia Francophone <permissions-fr@wikimedia.org> Objet: [Ticket#2020081410011598] Re: release of Plaque auditorium de la Pépinière.jpg Date: 15 août 2020 00:43:44 UTC+2 À: Françoise Auclair Bonjour Françoise Auclair, Merci pour votre courriel. Le nombre de courriels nous parvenant étant relativement élevé, nous vous invitons à prendre connaissance de ce courriel avec attention et de nous transmettre les éventuelles rectifications proactivement pour assurer un traitement le plus rapide de votre demande. Veuillez vérifiez que la permission transmise : • contient la mention explicite de la licence libre sous laquelle vous souhaitez publier le contenu (par exemple "CC BY SA 4.0"), un modèle de courriel est disponible ici : <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:CONSENT/fr>; • n'est pas limitée à Wikipédia uniquement ou ne limite pas les droits à la simple publication ou l'utilisation. • précise en quoi vous êtes le ou la titulaire des droits d'auteur (photographe, transfert par contrat ou héritage, etc.). Vous trouverez plus d'informations à ce sujet ainsi qu'un exemple de déclaration valide ici : <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Republication> Si vous souhaitez apporter des précisions pouvant faciliter et accélérer la procédure, veuillez ajouter la mention suivante dans le sujet de tout nouveau courriel que vous nous envoyez : [Ticket#2020081410011598]. Veuillez noter que les demandes incomplètes occasionnent inévitablement de longs délais de traitement et de réponses supplémentaires. Si votre fichier multimédia ou votre texte a été supprimé, ne vous inquiétez pas, un administrateur pourra le restaurer ultérieurement. Si vous n'êtes pas l'auteur du texte ou du fichier, il nous faut une permission explicite provenant directement de l'auteur (il ou elle peut nous contacter en mentionnant "[Ticket#2020081410011598]" en objet) ou une preuve que les droits ont été entièrement transférés (facture mentionnant le transfert, contrat de cession de droits, etc.). Vous pouvez également nous faire parvenir une autorisation signée de l'auteur des droits patrimoniaux (selon notre modèle <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:CONSENT/fr>) et numérisée. Tous les courriels sont traités par des bénévoles et il peut s'écouler un certain temps avant que vous n'obteniez une réponse. Nous vous remercions d'avance pour votre patience et votre compréhension ; nous faisons au mieux pour vous fournir une réponse adéquate au plus vite. Cordialement, L’équipe d’information de Wikimédia Ceci est un courriel automatique ***


    Je, Françoise Auclair, confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre les fichiers suivants:

    J'accepte de publier les œuvres mentionnées ci-dessus sous Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient(e) de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité(e) pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient(e) qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia. Françoise Auclair 2020-08-14

    --Pierre Dambrine (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC) [généré avec relgen.js]

     Comment I've deleted the email address. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    permissions-fr queue has got a very important delay (almost 100 days), so unfortunately, you must be patient and wait. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

    ticket:2020100610010519

    Hello, would a volunteer be able to look into the following ticket? It relates to 4 photos (File:Castle Bank earthworks.jpg, File:Castle Bank, Cefnllys from the south.jpg, File:Castle Bank, Cefnllys.jpg and File:Cefnllys Castle II.jpg) donated by a local archaeological trust for an article I've been writing on the English Wikipedia. I sent the trust a template email and they confirmed that it had been sent and an automated message received, so I'd just like to check whether there are any further issues. Many thanks, Jr8825 (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Jr8825: This ticket is awaiting a permission statement from the copyright holder. Ww2censor (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ww2censor: Thanks for checking this, could you please tell me what the issue was with the previous permission statement sent to OTRS? This is so I can follow up with the trust and make sure they adjust their statement correctly - the record officer hasn't got back in touch with me since our last correspondence when he confirmed it had been sent, so he may have missed an email from OTRS or not realised there's a problem. Thanks, Jr8825 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jr8825: We are awaiting permission from the photographer, or documentation of copyright transfer. Next time, please ask your correspondents to carbon copy you on their permissions correspondence and reply all to keep you in the loop.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Jeff G.: Sorry to reopen this, I was wondering if a volunteer is able to review the latest email from the photo creator, sent on Monday. Unfortunately he didn't link all 4 photos, although he did quote the ticket number which I hope is sufficient. He also left the template incorrectly unaltered by signing as the copyright holder (rather than replacing this to sign as media creator), which he clearly overlooked as he's very busy and sent it at my request. The copyright was passed to the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, which is why the records officer sent the original release email in the capacity of the copyright holder. I hope this can be resolved with a bit of common sense, as both the photographer and record officer of the trust (copyright holder) have now sent emails agreeing to release the photos attached to this ticket under CC-BY-SA 4.0. Many thanks, Jr8825 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Jr8825: I reviewed it, replied re all 4 photos, and accepted permission for File:Castle Bank earthworks.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thanks again for your help. I was cc'd into what I think was the latest email and haven't seen your reply, did you reply all? Cheers, Jr8825 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    I've seen that OTRS permission has been added, thanks again for your patience and help Jeff G.. Best, Jr8825 (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jr8825: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

    Check license for #2020041110003314

    On files like File:ASC Leiden - NSAG - van Dis 3 - 009 - A view of the abandoned port city on the island of Sawakin - Suakin (Sawakin), Red Sea (state), Sudan - 22 November 1961.tif I see two options:

    Which license is correct? Multichill (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

    Hi @Multichill: ,
    Template:NSAG (Nederlands Studenten Afrika Gezelschap) is the correct one for this ticket and the files of Maarten van Dis, according to the permission Van Dis shared with us. Ciell (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for checking Ciell. I left Hans a note and corrected some of the files. Multichill (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: Multichill (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

    OTRS clerk not replying to and not acknowledging emails

    Dear all, I have an ongoing correspondence with an OTRS clerk that has been stuck for several weeks. I uploaded three images to Commons at the end of September and the copyright holders sent their approvals via email on 2 October this year. An OTRS clerk (or volunteer) responded on 4 October, asking who is the creator of the original photographic material and indicating that this is the final step in the process. One of the two copyright holders responded and provided the requested information but nothing happened. Following further communication with the copyright holders, the information was resent (on 8 October) by the person who originally submitted information on the identity of the photographer, and who this time around also requested confirmation that the information had been received by the clerk. OTRS wrote back (only to me; if an email was sent to the copyright holders, I was not included in the communication) on 12 October, with the comment that none of the photographs had an accepted OTRS, without acknowledging that the final missing and requested piece of information had been provided twice. I went on to send the OTRS clerk three emails (on 12, 18 and 21 October) and received a response on 21 October, saying that they had never received an answer to the question of who took the photographs. I responded that same day, pointing out that the information had been sent on 8 October. I also quoted a portion of the original email and I asked the clerk to confirm that they have indeed received it and if something is missing. No response. Two more emails have been sent by me since then (on 22 and 25 October), which have been met with silence as well.

    I sincerely hope that this issue can be finalized soon, as the files will be eligible for deletion in the not-so-distant future. Alternatively, I would like to ask if the correspondence can be reassigned to a different clerk, one who will be willing to handle the case and respond to and acknowledge emails. I look forward to your feedback and an explanation. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket number? --Ganímedes (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: That appears to be Ticket:2020100210006201, which should be merged with Ticket:2020092910013548 and probably approved.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: As mentioned by User:Jeff G., the tickets in question are 2020100210006201 and 2020092910013548. As stated in the correspondence (which you may or may not have access to; I don't know how your interface works), they relate to the same case but were tagged as separate ones. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Every email gets a different ticket number, so actually if someone doesn't merge them, you may not linked them immediately. Solved. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

    Jack Mitchell photographs

    Hello !

    I'm working on a game board and I'd like to use Jack Mitchell's photographs. Can you tell me more about reusing the ones posted on his wikipedia page ? And what about the ones on his website ?

    https://www.jackmitchell.com


    Thank you !


    Hakim

    His site says "jack mitchell photography Copyright 2020". So, they're not free. About the photos in his WP page, you may use it following the recommendation in the description page of each file. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

    New Zealand Labour Party

    Moved to here from Commons talk:OTRS on 29 October 2020

    We recently uploaded a large number of photos of Labour Party candidates (e.g. this one) following being promissed by the party's (acting) CEO that we could do so. The initiative was discussed on Wikipedia. I've asked to be copied in when the OTRS email gets sent. I have not been copied in and neither are they replying to emails. Can I check with you, please, whether you have heard from Rob Salmond? Schwede66 19:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Schwede66: I searched, but sadly found nothing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Ok, I'll give them a rark up. Thanks for looking. Schwede66 02:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Schwede66: You're welcome. Next time, please post to COM:ON instead.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Noted. Thanks. Schwede66 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Schwede66: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Follow up on the above. The OTRS email has now been sent by Rob Salmond; I got copied in. Does this all look ok? Schwede66 22:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

    Update. An admin has accepted the OTRS email. All is good. I shall remove this page from my watchlist; please ping me if there's follow up. Schwede66 05:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

    Unpublished French family photos

    Regarding this ticket Ticket:2020092410021771, the images are unpublished old (claimed to be about 1900-1915) French family photos whose author is unknown. My reading of the French law clearly only defines the situation regarding published anonymous works. Article L123-3 refers specifically to anonymous work, that enters the public domain 70 years after its publication Article L123-3 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle but these are unpublished images. Otherwise US terms would be 120 years. Any advise appreciated, perhaps from a French speaker such as Ruthven. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    Hi there! You can refer to {{PD-France}} for published works.
    For unpublished works: Les dispositions du premier et du deuxième alinéa ne sont applicables qu'aux oeuvres pseudonymes, anonymes ou collectives publiées pendant les soixante-dix années suivant l'année de leur création., meaning that 70 years after the creation of the work, it falls in the public domain (Article L123-3) unless the copyright holder publishes them, which adds 25 more years of copyright since the publishing date. --Ruthven (msg) 18:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

    File:Leeminho-photoshoot-modelling.jpg

    Hello, can an agent please check to see whether OTRS permission has been confirmed for the above file? The {{PermissionOTRS}} tag keeps getting added by non-OTRS members. Ə XPLICIT 12:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Explicit: Thank you for asking. I have not confirmed permission for this file on Ticket:2020093010006062, as I await further correspondence. Please use any means necessary to prevent the uploader, the apparent named sock, and the apparent IP sock from pretending that permission has been confirmed. I have just warned all three.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Please note that this user has been blocked on the English Wikipedia as a prolific sock. This attempt to release this photo under a free license is not valid. Ə XPLICIT 00:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Explicit: Thanks. Perhaps my "any means necessary" was not specific enough. I think the file, Photoby55, Parkfromphotoby55, and 116.93.120.231 need to go. I just restored Herbythyme's "{{No permission since|month=September|day=29|year=2020}}" after removal in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks - done some tidying up and the image has gone. --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Herbythyme: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: My bad, I thought you meant keep the file on my watchlist. 😅 Glad to see this is sorted. Ə XPLICIT 23:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Explicit: My bad, I didn't come out and write that I wanted all three blocked and the file deleted. I'm also glad to see this is sorted. I have added "COM:CSD#F4, insufficient permission" as a speedy tagging possibility in my toolset.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 20:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

    Undeletion request regarding "Stacey Long by Raymond Lo2.jpg" ticket:2020091910004639

    Would you like to give us a favour? Raymond Lo and I are friend. Raymond Lo is the photographer of the original picture. I was given permission to upload the picture. Recently, an experienced wiki user advise me I should tell the photographer to send an email through OTRS and Raymond Lo has already sent an email through OTRS. Then what else can we do to keep this picture? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Joe FSF (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Joe FSF: We await a reply to our message sent "Sat, 19 Sep 2020 19:39:38 +0000".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: After Raymond Lo sent the email through OTRS regarding "20191026_West_Kowloon02.jpg" and "Stacey_Long_by_Raymond_Lo2.jpg", he received an email from DavMiao telling about the procedure. As Raymond Lo doesn't have any website, it seems that what he can do is sending email through OTRS again. Then, should Raymond Lo send email again? Thank you! Joe FSF (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Joe FSF: Raymond Lo should reply with another way to verify he is who he says he is. @Mys 721tx: Do you have any further advice here?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: We are a group of fans of Miss Stacey Long (龍婷) who is a street singer in Hong Kong. Miss Long welcomes fans shooting at the scene. Raymond Lo is not a wiki user. So we don't know what to do next. Thank you! Joe FSF (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Joe FSF: Enough is enough. Each of you fans who contributed one or more photos to Category:Stacey Long and zh:龍婷 needs to either post or email us via OTRS permission with full size, unretouched, original files with metadata from your cameras for verification. We want to have the best free photos of her, where were the best yesterday?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thank you for your reply! I have already told Raymond Lo to do again through OTRS. Stacey is a street singer so there is scarce traditional media coverage. What we are doing is simply that we want to put a picture on her wiki page. Because of the covid-19, Stacey cannot perform on the street for nearly six months, except doing live show on the Internet. She has just flown to Beijing to look for opportunities. Joe FSF (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Joe FSF: Sorry, I couldn't find that, but I did find Ticket:2020090210001119, in which you claimed to be the creator or the sole copyright holder.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thank you for your prompt reply! I am still waiting for Raymond Lo's reply. I will tell you later if I get the ticket number. The ticket you found is what I've mistakenly done previously since I previously thought that it would be OK if I got the permission from him. I am now trying to remedy it. Joe FSF (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Hello Jeff, Raymond Lo got the ticket number now ticket:2020101410002076. Would you please have a look at it. The two files attached are "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg" and "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg". Thank you! Joe FSF (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Sorry Jeff, Raymond Lo is not a wiki user, so he cannot upload the files. He went through the procedure again with the two files attached. The ticket is Ticket#2020101510002734. Thanks for your attention. Joe FSF (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Joe FSF: We did not receive any files, just more messages generating more ticket numbers taking more time to reconcile. We need files in replies. Why can't he join this wiki?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: I'm sorry, Raymond is not good at computer. After all, Raymond has joined wiki and uploaded the two files. The ticket is Ticket#: 2020101510012054. I presume "Stacey_Long_by_Raymond_Lo2.jpg" and "20191026_West_Kowloon02.jpg" are the derivatives of "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg" and "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg" respectively. Thank you very much! Joe FSF (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    Now we have another account User:偉民1 uploading the image. It is very hard to believe the tickets are submitted in good faith at this point.-Mys_721tx (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Mys 721tx: Here are two of Raymond Lo's previous upload to Stacey's Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/330124011068220/posts/566264897454129/ ; https://www.facebook.com/330124011068220/posts/581301332617152/ Joe FSF (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    Those files have both FAceboock codes. We won't accept this, sorry. We need a clear statement from the photographer (copyright holder); no one else can release a file with a free license. If the photographer is not good with internet, he can complete and print this statement, sign it and you or someone else can send it as pdf, jpg or png, along with the original, unmodified file attached (not in the body of the email) for verification. Otherwise, none of the files will be accepted, no matter how much you insist. We don't accept copyright violations. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Sorry, I have to clarify. The two links to facebook are only to prove that Raymond Lo is the photographer of "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg" and "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg". The original of the two files concerned have been uploaded with Ticket#: 2020101510012054. Joe FSF (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    In ticket:2020101510012054 there is no file attached; only the URL of the two files in Commons. Also we need to verify the account or the identity of the person. Nothing of that has happend. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: In reply to @Jeff G.: , Raymond Lo has finally managed to open the account and upload the two files, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg. Thanks Joe FSF (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Well... It shouldn't re-upload the files. We could request the undeletion after verifies the identity, thing that still is not proved. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg" and "Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg" have never been uploaded before. They are the original of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stacey_Long_by_Raymond_Lo2.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191026_West_Kowloon02.jpg. Thanks! Joe FSF (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    So, suddenly someone who "is not good at computer", creates an account and upload the original version but it's not able to identificate himself by email or send attached the files instead of uploaded here... I think we still need the confirmation of the identity, so I think I'll open a DR in a couple days if this situation persist. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Raymond Lo is in Australia and I'm in Hong Kong. I wrote the steps to him through emails. Then he forwarded the emails to OTRS to me telling me what he had done. I don't know why he failed to attached the files in email two times. I will tell him to do it again. I am writing steps to him again how to send email through OTRS with file attached. I'm sorry about making such confusion! Joe FSF (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

    So, he's able to upload files to Commons, but not to identify himself via OTRS? Sorry, but every thing it's even more and more confusing. I'll open the DR. I'm sure he'll be able to explain all this situation by himself, and not with an intermediate. What Wikimedia page these files are intended for, if I'm allow to be curious? --Ganímedes (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Ganímedes: zh:龍婷.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I'm sorry. I don't know what is meant by DR? Is it "Deletion Request"? I'm making contact with him to see if he can do it again. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I received message from Raymond Lo. He has sent email with two files attached via OTRS and the ticket is Ticket#: 2020102010011171. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

    That email is not valid: anyone can create a hotmail account. Please tell him that we need to verify his identity someway, and tell him to add "Re: [Ticket#2020101510012054]" in the subject line of the email, to avoid spreed the conversation. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

    Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Raymond Lo --Ganímedes (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I received message from Raymond Lo. He was busy with the tax matter these two days. He has already sent informations by email. I don't know if they are adequate because I don't know the content of the email. Joe FSF (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    I'm starting to get sick of this game. He sent a URL to a close Facebook group (not possible to verify) named as two other person, not possible to link to him. Now: or he identifies at once, or I'll reject permission permanently. Period. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I got the forward of the email. He has forgotten to put his personal Facebook. I advised him to add the link. I think he will send again later. I don't know if it is adequate. He is serious. He's even willing to submit the photocopy of his passport and driving licence. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    Please send an email adding "Re: [Ticket#2020101510012054]" in the subject line so you will be add to the chain of emails to not to duplicate all conversations. A Facebook account alone is not enough if is not verificable. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Several days ago, Raymond Lo forwarded some emails for reference and reset his facebook to display his email. I'd like to ask whether there is any further information he should provide. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    Please read my previous message, some lines up. Nothing has changed. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I'm sorry. We really don't know how to do. Do you accept he sends his personal particulars via email? Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Raymond Lo has just released his photos per CC BY-SA 4.0 on http://www.staceylonginfo.com/raymond.html. Can the case be solved in this way. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    That page it's of recent creation. It could be a license laundering case IMHO. I don't understand your previous message. Don't you know how to email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? --Ganímedes (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I don't know permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I used to email to permissions-zh@wikimedia.org. We asked for help from a friend of ours, the owner of http://www.staceylonginfo.com, who is a fan in US. The owner of the site collects the stuff about Stacey. We asked him to create a page for Raymond Lo so that Raymond Lo could release the files per "CC BY-SA 4.0". Then the source of the two files concerned can be located. You can email the owner of staceylonginfo.com to check. The two original files have Exif and the serial number of the camera can be seen. You can asked Raymond Lo to send a photo to show his camera's serial number. I seldom write in English. I write here just to ask for help. I really don't know how to do! Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    It's more of the same. You know what to do. Write in the language you feel more comfortable. Don't worry about zh, we've got agents in that language. We won't proceed till we've got solid confirmation of the identity of the customer (a hotmail address, a close Facebook, or a Facebook account not linking the person with the email it's all useless. Please avoid us to waist our time (and yours), finish with this melodrama and do what it's requested, or let it at once. To grant permission to the files without a serious confirmation of identity (which RL has avoided since the beginning) it's pointless. Please don't insist. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 20:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

    verification of an account using a notable person's name: here?

    The username policy says "Do not use a username that implies you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person. If you are a well-known person, you need to have your account verified." but doesn't specify how that verification is done? Is this the right place? And if it is, the account in question as User:Namira Salim. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Beeblebrox: I have added additional instructions to Commons:Username policy#Well-known names and names of organizations and softblocked the account with instructions to contact COM:OTRS. In the future, such requests are better suited for COM:ANBP. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Noted, Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 20:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket#2020102510003269

    Hi. Can someone confirm that this ticket is valid for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nekkaz conseil constitutionnel.jpg TIA Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Gbawden: I can confirm that the ticket alleges permission for File:Nekkaz conseil constitutionnel.jpg, that it is some 18 hours old, and that is in the French Language. I hope a French speaking Agent will handle it soon.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 20:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

    Undeletion request for ๓_ค_Ր_ງ_น_ค_૪_(_շ_օ_շ_օ_).png: Ticket #2020111110007691

    Achim55 has posted the marking of possible copyvio on the edit #511971762, however the original file I uploaded on Wikimedia Commons is in the entirely different resolution, aspect and format from those of the suspected file on the unknown server that Achim55 provided its URL.

    The original file ๓ ค Ր ງ น ค ૪ ( շ օ շ օ ).png's properties: resolution: 5,625 × 10,000 pixels, file size: 102.13 MB, MIME type: image/png

    The suspected file on the unknown server's properties: resolution: 690 × 1,035 pixels, file size: 0.208 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg

    It is impossible to regard the suspected file in even lower quality and resolution as the formerly existing reference of the original one.

    In addition, there is no watermark on the original file ๓ ค Ր ງ น ค ૪ ( շ օ շ օ ).png meanwhile the suspected file on the unknown server has a line of letters on the bottom of it.

    Therefore, I have committed no copyright violation and the deletion request should be removed.

    Arcamadienist (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

    This is not the place for these arguments, but the deletion request. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

    The tag added to the concerned file page is clearly lecturing below:

    For an update on the issue, please contact the user (Arthur Crbz) who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard. My action is perfectly legitimate. "{{OTRS received|id=2020111110007691|year=2020|month=November|day=11|reason=email|user=Arthur Crbz}}"

    Arcamadienist (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

    That's fine. Why has your account User:Epidometer been blocked? --Achim (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    Show me the undeniable evidences to declare that the user called User:Epidometer is one of Wikimedia Commons accounts I created.
    Besides, what kind of violations against the regulations of Wikimedia Commons has User:Epidometer committed? The log shows no reference URL to compare the deleted media work with anything else.
    What more can I find than just some of arrogant global sysop operators executed mass deletion including even barely concerned contents without discussing anything about each possibility of violation before murdering all of them, didn't they?
    Arcamadienist (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    I was just wondering why User:Epidometer did upload exactly the same 5,625 × 10,000 pixels image claiming it to be their own work. --Achim (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    I do wonder why you can let me know the formerly deleted image was in the resolution of 5,625 × 10,000 pixels, though the whole information of the image is gone or hidden / invisible to all of us the normal users.
    I also wonder why I could create my current account, log in and upload the exacly same concerned media file; nonetheless according to your story I was already globally locked as User:Epidometer.
    Arcamadienist (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    Don't try to fool us. I've had a look at the deleted File:Yanting Ma (2020).png and I also found both of your uploads of File:Marguax played Yue Ying on Bloody Romance (2018).png and your en:Ma Ge (actress) that has been saved to everybodywiki. --Achim (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    For not to be misunderstood: I'm fine with this image being kept after OTRS did pass, even though it is on ameba.jp. --Achim (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    Then you are trying to be convincing everyone on this authentic Wikimedia Foundation's community to trust the external copy-logging websites only collecting the last revisions of the unreasonably deleted articles from Wikipedia, operated by the totally unknown outsiders who have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, giving the permission for nobody to update the stocked legacies on their own servers, any more?
    If you are the owner of the external-uneditable-record holding websites, please make every invisible information public.
    Mentioning the image on ameba.jp, again it is in the entirely different resolution, aspect and format from those of the file I uploaded on Wikimedia Commons.
    Arcamadienist (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Supremarguax.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    I have seen the checkuser page for Supremarguax and what is the paragraph called Suspected related users?
    Why can't the authorities on Wikimedia Foundation make all the IP addresses and access logs public in order to definitively conclude that I am the same person who created those no longer existing accounts; instead of punishing whoever is concerned just for suspicion?
    Arcamadienist (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    Enough is enough, this is clearly not going to succeed, I had requested for a global lock and the account have been locked by a steward. @Achim55 and Jeff G.: thanks for catching them.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: Thanks, see also m:srg#Global lock for Arcamadenist.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Seen. Can we ask for a duck block locally on this account first. The attacks like calling me global rubbish is a little excessive. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: Yes, but an Admin like Achim would have to make such a block.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

    ✓ Blocked indef. --Achim (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Achim: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

    Need help to investigate and/or renew a license ticket

    Hi, I want to include more information about variants of the w:Ruger SR1911 pistol model. And would like to include images of each variant. So I need help from some one with access to the ticket content for

    This file:

    which uses the OTRS ticket #2012121010010568

    Currently w:Ruger have the following SR1911 variants:

    • FULL-SIZE - covered by the mentioned ticket
    • TARGET - see my questions below
    • COMMANDER-STYLE - see my questions below
    • OFFICER-STYLE - see my questions below
    • COMPETITION - see my questions below

    So, I have two questions:

    1. does the existing ticket allow to upload a single picture of each variant ?
    2. if not, could some one ask Ruger to renew the existing ticket to do so ?

    By the way, the "source" currently listed in the ticket is out of date - this URL The current page for w:Ruger SR1911 variants is - this URL

    Regards. --Marcric (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Marcric: Unfortunately, the Agent who handled that ticket 7+ years ago is no longer an Agent. I asked for renewal under our current guidelines.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks @Jeff G.: Could you please elaborate ? You asked who for renewal ? Ruger or another Agent ? I know nothing about all this OTRS stuff... You have access to the ticket content ?? It is for a specific image ??? A regular user like me, can have read only access to the ticket text ??? --Marcric (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Marcric: I asked Ruger. I have access to the ticket. The original email message was forwarded, we don't accept such messages any more. It was also for a specific project and an older license. I addressed all those issues. For privacy reasons, I can't reveal more than that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: OK, any news, let me know 👍 --Marcric (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Marcric: I am in discussion with a lawyer for Ruger on Ticket:2020102310009383.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    — Cool 👍--Marcric (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

    Manifold Garden

    Hi, I was recently cc'd on a new ticket (search for "Manifold Garden") and the files are in my recent uploads (waiting for one more video to process). My OTRS access has expired so I cannot look up the ticket number. Could someone please pull the ticket # for me to add to the file descriptions? czar 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Czar: I pulled Ticket:2020111910012787, added it to the file description pages, and emailed you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

    File tagging File:Iheanyi wearing a native Nigerian attire.jpg, [Ticket#: 2020101610014211]

    Hello there, concerning the above file, I've since asked the copyright owner of the photo to send an email which he did on Friday 16th October 2020. Any idea when I should get a confirmation? Or is there a way to track the progress of the verification? PepperAddict (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

    @PepperAddict: That ticket was merged to Ticket:2020101110006489. Pinging @Ganímedes as Agent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    The customer failed to prove authorship. Please email us adding Re: [Ticket#2020101110006489] in the subject line of the email so you can follow up the conversation. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not French speaker, but as far I can see, permission is not valid since come from the subject, not the copyright holder (is this file a screenshot?) --Ganímedes (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    Ganímedes The file is not a screenshot, also the subject is the copyright holder because the picture was taken by him as a timed self-shot on his phone.PepperAddict (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think I need the opinion of other agents about the file. I'm not convince at all. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    Or not, since I'm not driving the case. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: What do you mean by "I'm not driving the case"? The ticket is locked to you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, Jeff G., I've confused with another ticket. As I said, I think I need the look of another agent. Can you help, please? --Ganímedes (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I replied in the ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Ganímedes You said to email you and I already did but no response from your side. I also see that another agent is on it too, can you please reply my email? Thanks. 197.210.28.49 12:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    Hi, and welcome. The above post appears to be your first edit, perhaps you forgot to login. Logging in is required before uploading here, please do that. There are also many other reasons to create an account and log in. Also, if you already have an account what is your account name? I have been replying to Iheanyi, and copied PepperAddict on my latest message moments ago.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, I forgot to log in. Thanks for the response, I'll revert to it PepperAddict (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

    About 6 files—I’m really confused

    If, on the source of these files below has a symbol linking to the Korean version of CC-BY 4.0 under the six images in the page, does that count as permission?

    Also, I don’t know how to contact the copyright holder if they haven’t been active in their Tistory blog for over a year? And if I do reach the owner, how do I convince them when they don’t speak English, is there a template in Korean or would I have to do it in English?

    —Beetricks (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

    I think it's valid. Perhaps @AntiCompositeNumber: was confused by the fact the license it's a small icon at the bottom and he didn't see it. Maybe we need his opinion. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Beetricks and Ganímedes: Jeez, that is small, and not where I would have looked for it. Anyway, now that it's been pointed out to me, I see nothing wrong. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you, @AntiCompositeNumber: . I was so stressed, considering I tried reaching out to you on my own talk page and I didn’t exactly know what to do after I got no reply for a day so I came over here. I’m glad it’s cleared up now.—Beetricks (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Beetricks: Per mediawikiwiki:Extension:Echo#Usage, you must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit in order to effectively mention and notify them, and even then only if they have "Notify me when someone links to my user page" set (which is the default here). In your case, you did not link to User:AntiCompositeNumber on your user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

    undeletion request for ticket:2020081710009381

    This photo was deleted File:Madeleine Sackler Portrait.jpg on 27 September 2020 by editor JuTa because (No OTRS permission since 19 August 2020). I wrote to JuTa and he/she told me to request un-deletion here, and said if the permission letter could be found and was written properly, the photo would be un-deleted. Hopefully, you will find the permission letter sent by Madeleine Sackler. The ticket number is [Ticket#2020081710009381] Thank you. Somnabulate (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Somnabulate: Hi, and welcome. Ticket:2020110110005274 concerning File:Madeleine Sackler Portrait.jpg is from today, and I have merged it with Ticket:2020081710009381 and replied. Pinging @Ganímedes as initial Agent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    The permission come from the subject but the copyright holder is the photographer. We are still waiting for permission from the right person. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2020102810002639

    I'll gald if someone can access Dropbox and verify the information of the file. I can't. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Ganímedes: verified.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    Peeter Lauritsa foto kasutamine Sirbis.

    Läheks 13. XI Sirpi Peeter Lauritsa ühe-veeruse kolumni juurde. Märgime ära fotograafi Jaan Tootseni nime. Palume luba. Ette tänades Reet Varblane, kunstitoimetaja — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.191.157.37 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

    Using Peeter Laurits' photo in Sirbis.

    I would go to the one-column column of the 13th XI Sirpi Peeter Laurits. We note the name of the photographer Jaan Tootsen. Please allow. Thanks in advance Reet Varblane,

    art editor
    translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    Please see: COM:OTRS --Krd 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2020110210009518

    This person wants their three photos, that were released in 2014 and 2016, deleted under article 17 of General Data Protection Regulation. I doubt that applies to photos, but just to personal information. Comments please. Ww2censor (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

    Copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject, unless there is a contract. If the right copyright holder sent permission for the files, there's no reason to delete them. I've got doubts about File:Sándor Alexandra Valéria.jpg and File:Sandor-alexandra-valeria-tempty-milano-duomo.jpg. The other one I think it may stay, but I think the right thing it's to open a DR. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Ww2censor and Ganímedes: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alexandra Valéria Sándor.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    Want to delet the image

    We want to delete the image on the Aru Group Wikipedia page. The reason is that the picture no longer corresponds to the current situation in production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arugr (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 November 2020‎ (UTC)

    @Arugr: Hi, and welcome. Who is "We"? Which image in et:Aru Grupp or Category:Aru Grupp, exactly? Why can't it be kept to illustrate a historical situation in production? What do your statements have do do with OTRS?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bryan Miller.jpg

    Can an OTRS volunteer take a look at this file and it's corresponding DR? The file is tagged with {{Permission OTRS}}, but it's still being discussed for deletion. Assuming that the OTRS ticket is OK, the file should be OK to keep; however, since OTRS volunteers are the only ones who can see a ticket, there's not much to discuss at the DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Marchjuly: I opined at the DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Marchjuly: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy

    Hello, Commons OTRS members. Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military ticket:2012071110005537 This template has been deleted because OTRS permission isn't valid. Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy ticket:2012061210008721 This template keep. But it doesn't specifies what a license is allowed for OTRS permission like any other. Not is there complete consistency in message. You can also confirm this situation with Google translate. It should be noted as invalid, like other OTRS permission. Also, I amn't entirely sure if they actually wrote this message. Because it looks like a forwarded a message. I would be good if you give your opinion on this subject. Uncitoyen (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

    The meaning of the ticket is as follows, all information on our website is copyrighted. You can use them on Wikipedia (probably Turkish Wikipedia) for only information purposes, provided that you indicate the source of our website. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:OtokarCobraBorderDuty.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy Uncitoyen (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    TOI newspaper 27th July 1961 front page soft copy required

    TOI newspaper 27th July 1961 front page soft copy required. Please mail me on manjiri@soujanya.com

    Thanks Manjiri

    This section was archived on a request by: incomprehensible request --Krd 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    lien vers le site de l'auteur de la caricature de Donald Trump

    Selon le désir de l'auteur stéphane Lemarchand,je désirerais que l'on ajoute ce lien vers le site de l'auteur sur sa caricature de Donald Trump. https://caricature-photo.fr/caricature-trump/ (Armorino (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC))

    link to the website of the author of the cartoon of Donald Trump
    According to the wishes of the author Stéphane Lemarchand, I would like this link to be added to the author's site on his caricature of Donald Trump.
    translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Armorino: Salut et bienvenue. Veuillez demander à l'artiste caricature de publier une autorisation conforme Commons:Licensing/fr pour un tel travail sur son site Web ou sa présence sur les réseaux sociaux ou de vous envoyer l'œuvre et l'autorisation via OTRS/fr avec une copie conforme.
    Hi, and welcome. Please have the caricature artist post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their website or social media presence or send the work and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

    Donald Trump's caricature

    Hello! I'm Armorino, the person who added the picture relating the caricature of Donald Trump in Vikimedia. Fichier:Caricature Donald Trump.jpg I had the permission of the artist Stéphane Lemarchand. The problem consists in the fact that any surfer who clicks on the picture can't reach the author's webside. At the beginning, he asked me to delete the picture because Google elected the picture from Wikipedia instead of the picture coming from his webside. But remarking that this can't be done, he wishes at least that the link https://caricature-photo.fr/caricature-trump/ could be added near the picture. Thank you very much. Armorino Armorino (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

    ✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Túrelio: Thanks for doing this at File:Caricature Donald Trump.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Armorino: I suggest you withdraw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caricature Donald Trump.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    Consentement des publications de ma personne

    Bonjour,

    Je souhaite rendre "libre de droit" des publications Photos et témoignages concernant ma carrière, que dois-je faire? J'ai créé une page Wikipédia: " https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tordjman_(1939)" , personne ne me demandais quoi que ce soit jusqu'à aujourd'hui. En effet on me demande de justifier par des sources directes, mes dires. seulement, je n'étais jusqu'à présent pas en mesure de le faire car mes seules sources étaient sur des "Blogs" exemple: https://www.lesarchivesduspectacle.net/?IDX_Personne=145379.

    Aujourd'hui seulement j'ai pu rajouter un lien de source directe afin de me justifier (https://c.ledauphine.com/culture-loisirs/2020/11/05/charles-tordjman-sa-vie-sur-les-planches-de-theatre).

    Dans l'attente de cet article, j'ai tenté de me justifier par la publication de photos attestant ma présence dans les distributions cités ainsi que des numérisations d'articles de journal dont je ne trouvais pas de lien sur internet.

    Je comprends bien que je ne puis disposer de droits d'auteur sur un article de journal mais en ce qui concerne les photos de ma personne sur scène, je voudrais pouvoir les ajouter à ma page wikipédia.

    je possède les droits d'auteurs et souhaite rendre libre de droit mes publications.

    Dans l'attente du traitement de ma demande, veuillez agréer mes salutations les meilleures

    --Humblement (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Charles Tordjman

    Bonsoir Charles @Humblement,
    si tu désires que tes images soient utilisées sur Wikipédia, le photographe doit envoyer lui-même une autorisation explicite, mentionnant la licence sous laquelle il souhaite distribuer ses œuvres. Or, les droits patrimoniaux nécessaires pour libérer des oeuvres sous une licence libre sont détenus par la personne qui a pris la photo et seule celle-ci peut donner une autorisation de mise sous licence libre, à moins qu'il n'y ait eu un transfert du copyright suite à un contrat ou une opération légale. Donc il faut que tu demandes au photographe d'envoyer lui-même une permission pour cette image, ou que tu clarifies comment le copyright a été transféré avec l'aide de toute documentation utile.
    Pour une image, le titulaire du copyright doit choisir une licence dite « libre » (voir l'article fr:Contenu_libre pour une définition). Pour plus d'informations sur les licences libres acceptables, tu peux consulter la page à ce sujet sur Wikimedia Commons : COM:APL. Note qu'une telle licence autorise la libre utilisation, modification et distribution (même à titre commercial), à la condition de citer le ou les auteurs. Nous recommandons la mise à disposition des images sous une licence CC BY-SA 4.0.
    Une fois la licence déterminée, il est nécessaire que le titulaire du copyright envoie lui-même un courriel du type fr:Aide:Republication/Courriel_Image à l'adresse <permissions-fr@wikimedia.org>, en précisant les pages concernées, le nom complet des ayant-droits et la licence.
    Si tu le souhaites, tu peux télécharger toi-même les images sur Wikimedia Commons, la base de données multimédia commune à l'ensemble des versions de Wikipédia et des projets de la Wikimedia Foundation. Un guide pas à pas est disponible sur la page d'aide : fr:Aide:Importer_un_fichier. Si le titulaire du copyright nous envoie parallèlement une autorisation par courriel, veuille apposer le modèle {{OTRS pending}} sur la page de description de l'image afin de le signaler.
    Salutations cordiales de l'Allemagne, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    File:Trainingskonzept der Knappenkids

    permission from the editor--Mozamaniac (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

    Hi, @Mozamaniac. We don't accept forwarded messages, please ask the photographer to e-mail us directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the template available at: [17]. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    I am the photographer. This is the mail from the editor/owner of the book about his agreement for publication on commons.--~~
    We still don't accept this kind of "permissions". Sorry. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    I am so sorry, but my English knowledge is limited. Maybe you or your colleagues can explain it in German language. The image is OK and the permission is OK. Why didn't it works? --Mozamaniac (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Mozamaniac: In solchen Fällen muss uns der Herausgeber bzw. Autor des Buches direkt per E-Mail kontaktieren. Weitergeleitete Genehmigungen können wir leider nicht akzeptieren, da sie in der Vergangenheit zu oft gefälscht worden sind. Der Ablauf für eine Genehmigung durch den Rechteinhaber wird in COM:OTRS/de erklärt, d. h. Herr Menze sollte sich direkt an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org wenden. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    File:Vanves-Panorama2.jpg (ticket #2009082710031448)

    Bonjour, pourriez-vous s'il vous plait me confirmer que le fichier Vanves-Panorama2.jpg, ticket #2009082710031448 est bien sous licence CC, et pourriez-vous vous m'indiquer depuis quand, par qui et qui est l'auteur ? Merci beaucoup

    Hi, could you please confirm that the file Vanves-Panorama2.jpg, ticket #2009082710031448 is under CC, and tell who has uploaded it under this licence, when, and who is the author ? Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.151.227.152 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

    Salut et bienvenue. La photo est sous licence {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, téléchargée par User: Alt0160, écrite par Arno Bouvier (Ville de Vanves AKA Vanves City Hall), et autorisé par écrit par un fonctionnaire de la ville. Le message ci-dessus semble être votre première modification, peut-être avez-vous oublié de login. Vous devez vous connecter avant de télécharger ici, veuillez le faire. Il y a aussi Beaucoup d'autres raisons à créer un compte et connectez-vous.
    Hi, and welcome. The photo was licensed {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, uploaded by User:Alt0160, authored by Arno Bouvier (Ville de Vanves AKA Vanves City Hall), and authorized in writing by a city official. The above post appears to be your first edit, perhaps you forgot to login. Logging in is required before uploading here, please do that. There are also many other reasons to create an account and log in.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Biotactic Art - Author Christopher Bunt

    Photographs and content produced and or authored by Christopher But and/or Biotactic are copyright protected and are not free for distribution without written consent from the author.

    Dated November 11 2020 , Kitchener, Ontario Canada

    Chris Bunt Biotactic Inc — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.26.132.191 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

    Hi, and welcome. Which content are you writing about, exactly?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Three images were upload by User:Cbunt biotactic as shown here Special:Contributions/Cbunt biotactic and were released under a free licence back in 2014 per the OTRS Ticket:2014021110013793 by your organisation. However, only this image File:1996 a largemouth bass top black crappie middle and a bluegill sunfish bottom in the grand river, ontario.jpg had the OTRS ticket applied and that ticket should probably been applied to the other two image as verified by the ticket. For your information once a licence is given it cannot be revoked. Please see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en Are these the images you are referring to? Ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Cbunt biotactic: I guess this was you, but please login. Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:16:23 +0000, we emailed a 3-part request, statement, and question. We never got a response. Pinging @Ww2censor as interested.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Scope of Ticket:2012081410009446

    Does this ticket cover files from www.zimoun.ch in general and even ones uploaded after that ticket was filed, or only specifically identified images from that era? In particular, User:Biger01 has uploaded several files recently from the same artist that I also see on that same website, and I am wondering if they are covered. DMacks (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

    @DMacks: Thanks for asking. Sadly, the ticket only covers specifically identified images from that era.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Bug in the script for adding permission template?

    I was working on OTRS just now and noticed that when adding a permission template to the page with the script, the OTRS-pending template is not automatically removed (example), and since I also noticed that images in the OTRS pending category get deleted with the batch-task script, I'm afraid we might lose good and rightfully released images.

    Or: is my brain fooling me and am I making a mistake in the process? Just checking with you here, before moving things to phabricator. Ciell (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Ciell: It depends on the script you are using. If you are using MediaWiki:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js, please report on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js. VFC has a "Clean permission-section?" checkbox which can be discussed on Help talk:VisualFileChange.js.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I use MediaWiki:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js. I'll report it there, thank you Jeff! Ciell (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ciell: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

    File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg, OTRS agent unknown, Ticket:2020092210007961 (October 29, November 11, November 16)

    In 1971, Jack Baker "was the Chair of the Target City Coalition, parent corporation for The Gay Pride Committee<ref>Ken Bronson, "A Quest for Full Equality" (2004), p. 38. [https://www.lib.umn.edu/sites/default/files/media/Quest%20copy.pdf#page=42 available online] from ''U of M Libraries'', Minneapolis</ref>, which sponsored the annual Festival of Pride each June."

    • Jim Chalgren, the copyright owner, circulated this photo without a copyright notice to encourage derivative works and free use within the public domain.

    - - -

    Per COM:L: what you provide "must contain the information required by the license [...] and should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws." (underline added) Per COM:EVID: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." (underline added) As has already been explained to you, we have evidentiary requirements that are deliberately more restrictive than "real life" copyright law. A statement by a non-disinterested party that is nothing more than speculation about the actual author's intent and practice is not satisfactory, nor is a attorney's memo reliant entirely thereon. If an analogy will finally assist you in understanding the point: one may, in truth, live at 123 Main Street; but, without verifiable documentation, their mere say-so at the DMV will not get them a driver's license. Эlcobbola talk 18:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. I will pass this information along to our attorney.Y6f&tP4z (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

    [Ticket#2020121310003377]

    Здравствуйте. Мой файл был помечен шаблоном {{dw no source since|month=December|day=13|year=2020}}, срок действия которого заканчивается завтра. Прошу отредактировать файл разрешением OTRS на основании доказательств авторства, предоставленных 14 декабря.
    Hello. My file was marked with a template {{dw no source since | month = December | day = 13 | year = 2020}} , which expires tomorrow. Please edit the file with OTRS permission based on evidence of authorship provided on December 14th. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

    Courtesy link: Ticket:2020121310003377 in Russian. Pinging @NoFrost as tagging Agent for File:Retro (аrtwork of Viktor Pinchuk).jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The author has not provided sufficient evidence that this derivative work is based on original photographs by him. I think that the authorship of the two original photographs does not belong to him. The participant knows about my opinion, as an OTRS agent, but instead of providing the necessary materials, he writes here. This is strange. I close the ticket with a refusal. c:COM:PCP--NoFrost (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    • After this discussion, the author provided the necessary materials and after the verification, I have no reason to refuse permission. Permission assigned to the file. --NoFrost (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket status

    Hello. I'm a Wikipedian helping this file's copyright holder through the OTRS process. Krdbot added an "awaiting processing" tag to the file on November 19. I am not trying to rush the process at all, but I uploaded the file on October 14, and I know that those tags sometimes stay up if the OTRS team is waiting for the copyright holder to follow up on a point of clarification. Is this ticket truly awaiting processing, or are you waiting on the copyright holder? If it's the latter, I'll want to follow up with them. Thanks. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Tartan357: We have been waiting for clarification for five days.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: I followed up with the campaign manager and it seems there was some confusion over which photo we were talking about. This photo was taken by Jerry R Davis, a professional photographer, for the campaign, and all rights to it were released to the campaign. What would be the easiest way to show this? Can the campaign forward a release from the photographer? ― Tartan357 Talk 02:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Please send anything that could be helpful by e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Krd 11:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Tartan357: ... with a carbon copy to you and the following in the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2020101410001826].   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Is that a yes? Will a release from the photographer be accepted if it's not sent directly from the photographer's email address? ― Tartan357 Talk 00:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Tartan357: It will have to be verified with the photographer if it is not sent directly by him.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: Thanks. If the campaign wants to get a release from the photographer indicating that all rights have been transferred to the campaign and that the campaign has the exclusive right to relicense the photo, what language would need to be in that release? ― Tartan357 Talk 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Tartan357: I have seen a paid invoice for transfer of copyright; otherwise, one of them should ask a lawyer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: OTRS has previously told me that hiring a photographer to take photos does not automatically transfer the copyright to the client, and taken down photos for that reason. Which is it? Some straightforward information would be nice. The campaign has lost their patience with the lack of clear instruction here, and I am getting there myself. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Tartan357: Regular sales by professional photographers are of prints or contact sheets. In extraordinary circumstances, they may be convinced to sell their negatives, raw images, or copyrights at extraordinarily high prices, because such sales cut off their future revenue streams, and because they can.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: So an invoice would only work if it specifically states the copyright has been sold? ― Tartan357 Talk 02:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Tartan357: An exclusive perpetual licensing right would also do, as would a nonexclusive perpetual licensing right or just a grant of a license compatible with COM:L. You could ask for quotes for all four and choose the least expensive, but of course the last option would reduce usability in many types of advertising the candidate's team might consider. You should be aware that the file is only 1,200 × 1,800 pixels (2.160 MP) and photoshopped, while the original from the photographer's Canon EOS 6D camera is 2,400 × 3,599 pixels (8.638 MP, 4 times that size), and the camera is capable of taking photos that are 5,472 × 3,648 or 3,648 × 5,472 pixels (19.96 MP, 9.242 times that size).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

    Missing template after reviewing File:06 Coverbild Artwork 2zu3.jpg

    Dear Wikimedians,

    I held a conversion with the author of this work and thankfully he gave his permission to publish this work under a free CC license. The OTRS validation process seems to be done, also a ticket number can be found on the page. But I miss the template. Because I am not authorized to add the template Template:PermissionOTRS and to ensure that everything is fine, I want to ask if somebody can add the proper template, so that nobody adds a deletion request because of uncertainty concerning the OTRS validation. (The given ticket number is 2020122210006428). Due to the template, the file will be added to Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed or similar.

    Thank you very much and merry christmas, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (File:06 Coverbild Artwork 2zu3.jpg)

    ✓ Done --Krd 11:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2020090910000358

    Hello All,

    I received a written permission from Mr. Mark Galperin to use his photo File:KeldyshGalperinStaros.jpg. Also, Mr. Galperin sent his permission to OTRS (ticket:2020090910000358, Sep 16 2020), but his request was rejected due to inability to confirm his email. Mr. Galperin moved to Australia and owns a business there, the email has been sent from his business address. His identity/email can be easily confirmed by googling mark galperin australia, e.g. on Mark Galperin linked page. Would you please review the ticket again and reconsider your decision?

    Thanks, Jacob0790 (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket is in Russian. --Krd 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Krd, can you please forward to someone who can review it in Russian? Thanks, Jacob0790 (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2012021810007728

    Can someone please check this ticket and for what permission is given. Since, for most images ticket is used for pictures from Ministry of Defence of Serbia , and here it's used for picture from Serbian Orthodox Church website (File:Patriarch Irinej of Serbia.jpg). --Smooth O (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

     Comment We need an agent in that language. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Ticket is in Bosnian per google translate. --Krd 14:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Pinging @Dungodung: , he can assist with this. --Smooth O (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    This is a blanket permission for all materials on www.mod.gov.rs and www.vs.rs. It was made in 2012 when we generally used to allow this. Currently, I wouldn't allow such a blanket permission, since it's very arguable whether they really have rights over all materials, especially photos and media in general. --Filip (§) 17:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. Clearly this ticket is unrelated to File:Patriarch Irinej of Serbia.jpg sourced from http://www.spc.rs, and i will nominate it for deletion. Does it mean that all files with this ticket (all uploaded in 2020) should be deleted?--Smooth O (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
     Comment Actually, now i see that material from www.vs.rs website is licensed as CC (source in Serbian), and www.mod.gov.rs footer states that "reproduction is allowed with stating a source", so i think that is not good enough for Commons for second case? --Smooth O (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2013102810006014

    This old ticket is obviously from 2013, but for some reason the relevant images have been uploaded only a few days ago. Could you please check which licence was granted in the ticket, and if all images listed in Forum#fehlende Lizenz, aber Ticketnummer angegeben .... are covered by this release? De728631 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

    I care about the issue. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
     Comment Ticket in German. --Ruthven (msg) 22:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

    Ticket:2019040310009792

    I am not sure whether we have permission to distribute this photograph under the free license. Note that the photograph is created in the interior of the Old Town Hall, Prague, the Czech Republic and it depicts an artwork called Cristal wall made by Stanislav Libenský and Jaroslava Brychtová in the 80s. As there is no Freedom of Interiors in the Czech Republic, we would need permission from the holder/s of the rights to the artwork itself. Looking into the image itself, I can see that the author is Martin Frouz/Magistrát hl. m. Prahy. I am not sure than the OTRS attached is from the holders of the artwork or the photographer. Can you check please? --Juandev (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

     Comment Ticket in Czech. --Ruthven (msg) 22:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

    File:Six months on the islands ... (cover of book).jpg

    Здравствуйте. Мой файл, запрос на который был зарегестрирован под номером [Ticket#: 2020110410006722] уделён, по причине того, что сотрудники службы OTRS не отредактировали его в течение месяца. Я отправил новый запрос, его номер [Ticket#: 2020121310001333]. Прошу восстановить файл.Виктор Пинчук (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    Hello. My file, the request for which was registered under the number [Ticket #: 2020110410006722], was deleted because OTRS staff did not edit it within a month. I sent a new request, its number is [Ticket #: 2020121310001333]. Please restore the file.Виктор Пинчук (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Виктор Пинчук: Ticket:2020110410006722 and Ticket:2020121310001333 have been merged to Ticket:2020081010009518. File:Six months on the islands ... (cover of book).jpg has been restored and tagged as having permission. Please stop sending new tickets for old matters, creating delays and confusion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    Ok. Thanks. It's not my fault, OTRS is slow. The file was deleted for no reason — this is not normal. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    Pinging @Dogad75.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    Лобачев Владимир's lists of photos

    Hello. Recently, entire lists of photos uploaded by the user Лобачев Владимир have been deleted because they were not tagged with the OTRS permission certification.

    They were beautiful and useful photos, used on multiple Wikipedia projects, in multiple articles, so I noticed their sudden disappearance.

    Лобачев Владимир says that the official permissions are in the OTRS archives, and indeed two photos of the list 3 have not been deleted as they have the OTRS tag (1, 2).

    Can you check the OTRS permissions of that year, around that date, so that the lists can be undeleted? Thank you.--Æo (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

     Comment Ticket in ru-. --Ganímedes (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

    Undeletion request

    Please undelete this photo. The correct, second OTRS has number ticket:2020121410023193. Thank you in advance! --Micalek (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Micalek: The current backlog in permissions-commons queue is 24 days. Please be patient.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    File:Agata Różańska 2016.jpg ticket:2020121410023193

    Could you undelete the file: File:Agata Różańska 2016.jpg. A proper agreement has just arrived: See: ticket:2020121410023193. Polimerek (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

    The agent will do if needed. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Polimerek: Admins who can do that monitor COM:UDR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    It is still undeleted although proper agreement has been sent to OTRS. On COM:UDR case is closed and rejected for some reasons I don't understand why. So, what to do in that case? Polimerek (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Polimerek: You didn't open a new request, identify yourself as an Agent, or ping Nat. Try all three.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, come on. The new procedure is terrible. Simpy undelete this file. OTRS agreement is OK. Thank you in advance. Polimerek (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Polimerek: I can't, sorry, I'm not an Admin here yet. When I make such requests, I use my UDR gen link, which uses my User:Jeff G./NewUDR preload to identify myself as an Agent and indicate the relevant ticket number. I put the linked filename in the subject, or a list of linked filenames in the top matter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    It's done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

    ticket:2010020810041052

    Can I use this picture for a publication in a scientific journal? what reference I should use? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.35.38.115 (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

     Comment Permission is written in German. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    Which image do you want to use? --Krd 18:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

    File:Bryan Miller.jpg

    Will an OTRS volunteer please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bryan Miller.jpg and check the OTRS ticket for this file? The DR has been open since August and there have been no new comments since November. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

    Mariana Flórez Carulla files

    Hi, can OTRS agent take a look at File:MarianaFlorezCarulla 4.jpg, File:MarianaFlorezCarulla 1.jpg, File:Mariana Flórez Carulla evento.jpg, File:Mariana Flórez Carulla bookvivant.jpg, File:Mariana Flórez Carulla declamautora.jpg, File:Mariana Floréz Carulla 20200123.jpg? These files were originally deleted as a result of this DR, but were restored due to ticket #2020031810000333 and never had {{PermissionOTRS}} attached. Were these undeletions correct? ƏXPLICIT 00:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

    There was no mistake. The article was deleted later as promotional and files were deleted. Those should be newly uploaded files or something else, since ticket has no activity since 18/03/2020. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    That happens to be the date that all these files were undeleted. Can an agent tag them with {{PermissionOTRS}} and remove the DR templates? I'm cleaning out Category:Deletion requests March 2020 and will take care of these files later at a separate DR. ƏXPLICIT 08:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps it was missing the {{Temporarily undeleted}} tag. There has been not communication in 9+ months. It's pointless to add {{PermissionOTRS}} IMHO. But I do, if you insist. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

    Ticket:2008032210009591

    File:Mane swett.jpg was recently uploaded, and it appears to be a much higher quality version of File:María Elena Swett (Descarado, 2006).jpg, can an agent check the ticket and add it to this new file if appropriate? Dylsss (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

    I checked the ticket and found it left two questions open. I answered to the sender and hope he will readily clarify. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

    Who is "Louis Galibert" ?

    Qui est "Louis Galibert" ?

    Bonjour, Sur cette photo : File:Les-Contamines-Montjoie-1937.(4).jpg l'auteur est cité comme "Louis Galibert".

    Qui est-il ? En quelle année est-il mort ?

    Il y a un ticket OTRS, est-ce qu'il contient des informations intéressantes ?

    TicketNumber=2019051410005942

    Merci, --2A01:CB15:21A:E100:BDC6:7C8E:2065:8F93 18:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

     Comment Ticket#2019051410005942 it's written in French. Regards, --Ganímedes (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    I found no further information about Louis Galibert in the ticket. The person who sent the permission claimed that he is the heir. – Je n'ai pas trouvé d'autres informations sur Louis Galibert dans le billet. La personne qui a envoyé l'autorisation a affirmé qu'il soit son héritier. --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Bon, il y a problème alors... On ne sait pas qui est Louis Galibert, on ne sait pas quand il est mort, on ne sait pas quel est le lien entre ce photographe et User talk:Florent2B.
    Je mets un mot sur sa pdd (mais il n'avait déjà pas répondu pour un renommage de photo mal nommée, toujours pas résolu d'ailleurs).
    --92.184.112.197 09:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    La relation entre le photographe et User:Florent2B n'importe pas. La permission venait d'une personne qui nous a donné son nom et son adresse et qui nous écrit qu'il était un descendant de Louis Galibert. En ce cas, nous supposons de bonnes intentions, par conséquence le collègue Français avait accepté la permission. Nous ne sommes pas des notaires qui exigent des documents personnels.
    J'ai néanmoins écrit à la personne qui nous a renvoyé la permission et lui ai demandé s'il pouvait nous donner plus d'informations sur Louis Galibert. Je vous ferai savoir dès que nous obtiendrons une réponse.
    --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, merci. Bien compris.
    J'espère effectivement en savoir un peu plus.
    --2A01:CB15:21A:E100:DDED:D2D7:3F3B:F114 11:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    Raymond Lo's files Ticket:2020101510012054

    @Ganímedes: I don't know if it is relevant to write here and I can only write simple English, but I really need help! All along, Raymond Lo has been providing informations via emails. Since he can only write in Chinese, it seems to make the communication even more difficult and raise misunderstanding. As he doesn't know what exact information is needed, he has tried hard to guess what information is relevant. Anyway, he has provided information such as his personal particulars etc. He has provided some photos of his camera and lens via emails. The photos showed clearly the serial number and model number. The serial number and model number can be verified by the EXIF information of the original photos. This is the evidence that he has the camera and lens which made the photos concerned. He has also found some YouTube clips in which he could be identified. His image can be seen on his Facebook page. He could be seen in the YouTube clip using the relevant camera and lens to make the photos at the scene that day. It appears that there isn't any response for some time. He doesn't know what more information is needed. Please help! Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

    As it was explained several times, we need clear evidence to link his email to his identity. He has sent the files with EXIF, yes, but we can't linked to him. As those photos have been stated by several persons as "copyright holder", to send the original is useless. He must provide us some way to verify his identity. I've explained this several times to him and to you. He has sent two Facebook pages: one named to 2 other persons (a closed page), and another in which there is no information of contact, so we can't track back the page to him. To put the information in a site non related to him is not usefull neither: in which way can we verify that he was the person if the site it's from someone else?? Also, a Hotmail account is not valid. How can we linked to him if anyone can creates a HM account? This matter has reach ridiculous levels. AS I told you (and him) we've got zh agents that can help, but that also you continue to ignoring, right? --Ganímedes (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Thanks for your reply! I know the case has dragged on for some time and there are misunderstandings. I deeply thank for your patience. As far as I know, the first Facebook link he send is not his Facebook. He just wanted to introduce himself and show some information of his background. But unfortunately he forgot to put his own Facebook link. And worse still, he didn't know not every body could see his email on his Facebook page. I believe he should have clarified in some later emails. I don't have every copy of his emails, but I notice, at least, he has put his Facebook link in the email dated 2020-11-15. On his Facebook page, I can see his image and location as well as his email on the contact page. In this email he has submitted several photos of his camera and lens. He also stated with a link that he has used this Facebook account to upload a similiar photo taken at the same occation. Many thanks for your patience, Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    I've explained this over and over, lots of time. Do you really didn't know? Please. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Thanks for your reply! Please help, we really don't know how to do!! His email can be found on the contact page of his Facebook. He has already submitted some of his personal particulars via emails. He has the camera and lens. The serial number and model number match the EXIF information of the files. He can be identified in YouTube clips that he was actually shooting at the occasion. He has uploaded another similar photo taken at the same occation. Please help, we really don't know how to do!! Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    I'll never understand why people tend to complicate everything instead of follow simple instructions. He has sent an ID card, so I'll grant permission. Please, avoid all these problems at the future by sending the right information at once. The intervention of multiples accounts was the problem in here, as the fact that didn't upload the original, unmodified file at Commons from the beginning. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Thanks for your help! But the files have not yet been undeleted. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I'm sorry. If I don't misunderstand, he has already sent his ID card and it was accepted. I don't know the procedure. So, should I myself go to the member who deleted the files and ask for undeletion? Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I also have a life. ✓ Done Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Many thanks for your help! But I notice that the original files by Raymond Lo have not been restored, Stacey Long in West Kowloon 20191026 by Raymond Lo 01.jpg and Stacey Long in West Kowloon 20191026 by Raymond Lo 02.jpg. My files are only the derivative of them. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Those files are not in the ticket, so I didn't requested their undeletions. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Ganímedes: As far as I remember, you have consolidated the files (1)Stacey_Long_by_Raymond_Lo2.jpg, (2)20191026_West_Kowloon02.jpg,(3)Stacey Long in West Kowloon 20191026 by Raymond Lo 01.jpg and (4)Stacey Long in West Kowloon 20191026 by Raymond Lo 02.jpg into Ticket#: 2020101510012054. Stacey Long in West Kowloon 20191026 by Raymond Lo 01.jpg and Stacey Long in West Kowloon 20191026 by Raymond Lo 02.jpg are files of Raymond Lo with account 偉民1. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    Again: those URL were not included in the ticket by Raymond Lo. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I found the CC of Raymond Lo's email dated 2020-10-16 to permissions-zh@wikimedia.org. In this declaration, he has clearly stated that he was the copyright owner of these two files "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg" and "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg". Then he received the response email dated 2020-10-16 and got Ticket#: 2020101510012054. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    You can request the undeletion by yourself. Or tell me something more accurate to find those URL in the 38 emails of that threat. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: On the 16th of October, he sent the declaration email to OTRS(permissions-zh@wikimedia.org). The title of the email is "release of Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg and Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg ". Then the same day, he received the auto response email with title "[Ticket#2020101510012054] 確認接收回執/确认接收回执（Re: release of Stacey_Lo [...]）". Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    I've asked him to send an email with aaaaaaallll URL at once. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    Please fix the sintaxis when you write a ticket number. It's: "Ticket:2020101510012054"; no space or #. We can't follow the link in another way. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Got it! Joe FSF (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

    Now wiht the other DR open I've got serious doubts about this permission. Files seems to be captured the same that the other, coming from a video. Now, are these 3 files coming from the same video too? --Ganímedes (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Ganímedes: Sorry for my late reply. I didn't notice your message until today! Please don't mix up Raymond's photos with my work. Raymond's camera is very expensive. I took my video with my mobile phone. The quality of my video is very poor compared with Raymond's photos. That is why I have to retouch my screen capture a lot before upload. Raymond's original photos are of top quality. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    I understand, @Joe FSF: ; but it's not what I mean. The files of Raymond looks like screenshots of the video. Same cloth, same make up, same place... --Ganímedes (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Stacey Long is a street singer in Hong Kong. She welcomes fans shooting at the scene. There were many fans shooting every time when she performs. Raymond and I were among her fans at the occasion that day. Stacey Long's fans are all over the world. Many overseas fans come to Hong Kong to see Stacey's street performance. I live in Hong Kong while Raymond in Australia. Raymond has come to Hong Kong to see Stacey's street performance. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    So you're saying that your find eavh other in the same street concert? I'll withdraw the permission and send both files to DR. Let's put this in the hands of the community. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: I don't understand?? She is a street singer. Her street performance is free to watch on the street. Any passerby can shoot her performance. There are hundreds of video clips of her on YouTube. Most of them were shot by her fans. She welcomes this. Raymond and I still didn't know each other that day. So we have never met on the street. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    And the video of one set of photos and the photos of the other photographer were the same day, same place, same cloth... Is that what you've saying? --Ganímedes (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: Yes. I took my video with my mobile phone. Same day, same place, Raymond took his photos with his camera. Two set of images can be distinguished by the resolution and fine details of Raymond's photos. Same day, same place, there were many other people shooting in that evening. Raymond and I were only two of them. Street singer is a form of street culture in Hong Kong. There are thousands of video clips of Hong Kong's street performance on YouTube. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    @Ganímedes: File:Stacey Long in West Kowloon 20191026 by Raymond Lo 01.jpg has recently been deleted for lacking permission. As I have already clarified your questions, would you please raise an Undelete Request for the file. Regards! Joe FSF (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2020&oldid=908382938"