Template talk:No permission since

Grammar error

{{Editprotected}} The syntax of the explanation lacks correct grammar.

It reads "Place the following code on image pages with missing a permission source", when it may be intended to read "...image pages which lack a permission source" or "...image pages with missing permission source". ESanchez013 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the note. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ChrisiPK, I didn't notice you had already edited the page. In any case, I think it's better not to use the word "with", which transmits an idea of inclusion. If you disagree, change it back :) --Waldir ^talk 21:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the template mention Commons:OTRS?

This sentence in the template's descriptive text:

• If you obtained such a permission via email, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and reference it at upload.

seems to allude to the procedure in Commons:OTRS (specifically, in the section: Commons:OTRS#If you need to confirm permission). Is that in fact the procedure the user should follow? If so, then the template should link to the procedure, because the procedure contains additional steps not currently mentioned in the template, such as to add {{OTRS pending}} to the image page, as well as how to follow up if no OTRS volunteer responds to the e-mail. --Teratornis (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nuke

Hello. This template Template:Nuke is realy bad.

1. We already have a common link on the top of the file (then its a dup)
2. There are no integrassion, the look and feel is bad
3. This icon and his label mean nothing. "Delete this file" is more usefull than a strange icon.

~ bayo or talk 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

artwork subject

{{Editprotected}} "This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the image or its subject (in the case of artwork) agreed to license the file under the given license". I know in some countries the subject of a commissioned painting has the moral right to prevent distribution of an artwork, but is that really an issue that can be solved via boilerplate in a template? How many deleting admins would even know what to look for in a case like that? What country's laws would you apply? I think the second clause should be taken out of the template. An issue that complex should only be resolved after discussion at DR. -Nard the Bard 02:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, due to the autotranslate used within this template, all English text is stored at {{No permission since/en}} which is not protected. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'm making the edit. Only the English version seems to contain that text and I don't think that's a valid reason to template an image. -Nard the Bard 02:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

Please see COM:VP#No permission since (file description pages) and Image permission (uploader talk page).  Docu  at 08:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"This also applies if you are the author yourself."

Perhaps the sentence that read "This also applies if you are the author yourself." should be Bold. I have run across several cases where an image was tagged for deletion almost immediately after upload, only to have the Admin remove the tag and say something to the effect, Uploader claims copyright so this tag doesn’t apply. I only think it needs to be made clear that this also apply to those uploading image using {{PD-self}}.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rediculous

Jumping through hoops. That will encourage contributions from authors who are already iffy about releasing their work into creative commons. They have to be pestered to send an email to the OTRS team, or else the photo will be deleted in a week?

Sorry, But I am a trusted user. If I have someone tell me "By all means, use this photo as you please", then I am going to upload it, with the appropriate permissions, and not pester the person to send some official letterhead. Until such time as its shown that a photo could be a copyright issue (in other words, can be found on the internet with a copyright statement), I see no reason why trusted users should not be able to assert the permissions granted to a photo.

This honestly reminds me of my frazzled out ex-OPP officer soils professor, claiming that anybody bringing a photocopy of a page of the text book would be written up for copyright infringement. Conspiracy theory over protection when no threat, real or perceived, exists at this time. - Floydian (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Commons:Permission says otherwise. Commons takes copyright very seriously; images without explicit releases of permission will be deleted; this rule has always been in effect. We cannot say, "Oh, wait till someone sues us before figuring this out". If you have an issue with this, please take it up with the general counsel ... ←fetchcomms 05:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a proposed guideline. Besides, I'd think assume good faith, one of the factors behind the success of our community in my opinion, would trump these. A cease and desist letter would obviously be sent before any litigation proceeded. I am not suggesting that OTRS is useless, but that rather it is "proof", should an issue arise, that we may use the image. The lack of that proof should merely mean such an image would have to be deleted if anybody complained. - Floydian (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not the case for ages. Assume good faith principle is nothing compared to the situation when someone is trying to reuse media from our site and getting sued. VasilievVV (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I liken this to pornographic images and arab nations. The use of those photos would be punishable by a lengthy jail term (if not capital punishment) in those countries. If you don't check the copyright laws of your nation prior to using a photograph, you are setting yourself up for legal issues all around.

The link you provided backs my case up: ...maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed.

To the best of our knowledge, these are free or freely-licensed. - Floydian (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I don't know who Matthew Campbell is, so how do I even know he exists and created those photographs? ←fetchcomms 02:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see how an email from mcampbell@picsonaforum.com proves anything. I can understand this requirement when you upload images, list a website of the author as the source, and that website shows a conflicting copyright license. Then we would require an email originating from that domain name. How does this apply to a user on a forum posting his photos, being asked for permissions, and granting them? How do we know that a subsequent email is tied to the person who posted those photos? - Floydian (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the time for AGFing (although we do prefer "official" emails for images published by a company/etc.). If there is evidence or strong suspicion that the email is not from the actual copyright holder (which does happen), we will request some sort of confirmation (maybe a forum post saying as much) and images have been deleted per false OTRS permission before. However, it's not that common and usually quite easy to tell. In this case, the OTRS permission should be enough, because of the information we can see from the emails. ←fetchcomms 01:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No Permission Since tagged on my photo

Hi. I uploaded a photo under the name Fariha Pervez pic.jpg which has been tagged as no permission since and I have added this under the public domain license as it has been available publicly for use. Its a photo of a Pakistani Musician by the name of Fariha Pervez & I manage her official facebook Page which is https://www.facebook.com/FarihaPervez This photo is available on the given page and it can be publicly used as it has no copyright issues. I request you to please do not delete it. Thankyou.

OTRS isn't needed

See: Commons:OTRS#When_contacting_OTRS_is_unnecessary if you took the picture yourself and didn't previuosly publish it. I assume they mean you didn't sell any exclusive rights when you did publish it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Add zh-hant tag

{{Editprotected}} I created the zh-hant version template, please add it.-Formosania (Chat) 06:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Add az tag

{{Editprotected}} I created the az version template, please add it. --►Cekli829 19:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Add lb tag

{{Editprotected}} I created the lb version template, please add it.--Robby (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Add ar tag

{{Editprotected}} I created the ar version template, please add it.--— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 15:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

non-automated uploader notification instructions

There is a discussion about how detailed the displayed instructions how to notify uploaders without the default-activated Ajax gadget should be. For more information and to share your opinion, please visit Template talk:No permission since/en#Automated tools.    FDMS  4    12:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to Commons:Permission is confusing

The template currently links to Commons:Permission, which was recently moved to Commons:Permission/historical proposal and re-created as a disambiguation page. I don't think it's a good idea to send people to a page that starts with You may be looking for one of the following. A direct link to COM:OTRS is probably not a good idea, because we also have license review. Any ideas on how to solve this? --El Grafo (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is how it all starts?? I’m already losing interest. HistoricBl (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Add ko tag

{{Editprotected}} I created the ko version template, please add it. -- Hwangjy9 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am confused, since there is no place to "add it" ko version should work the moment you created it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Own

One of my most common interactions on this site is with new users who upload screenshots and logos. While they may actually be the copyright holder to those files (and use "own" in the source field), we have no evidence of their permission. I think this template is still the best solution for those situations (reminding them to send permission through OTRS), but I think the wording could be tweaked to better accommodate these situations. Thoughts? czar 15:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I'm fine with using this for screenshots, but not so sure about logos which might be failing COM:TOO. WP:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary clearly lists a number of cases where filing a permission with OTRS is not necessary, and I'm repeatedly seeing this badge on files that are obviously uploaded by the copyright holder. For a semi-speedy process without discussion, this badge is simply undercomplex and daunting. I'm not saying we should abandon it, but we need to be much more specific and restrict its use to clear-cut cases, the way COM:CSD works, while giving advice on how to contest the tagging. --PanchoS (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's not obvious that a file is below the threshold of originality in the source country, or we have no information on what the threshold of originality is in the source country, or we don't know what the source country is, then the uploader either needs to provide that information or prove that they are the copyright holder. The latter is especially true when uploaders themselves assert that the content is copyrighted (by publishing the file under a copyright license or a copyright waiver, typically preceded by the statement "I, the copyright holder"). Since anyone can register an account under any name, it's never obvious that an uploader is the copyright holder of a logo. Even when it's obvious that a user is promoting a certain organisation, they may just as well be an agent or employee acting outside of their authority. This template and OTRS exist in part to weed out such cases. Commons:Guidance for paid editors is relevant in many of these situations. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Détail

Bonjour, petite erreur dans le texte du modèle : le mot "exemple" est reproduit dans sa traduction anglaise "example"… Cordialement Antoniex (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Antoniex. Merci c'est  Done — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 22:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

There is a discussion about this tag is going on at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2017/04 #No_permission_and_no_source_tags. Jee 16:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Jee: I boldly updated the link above which went invalid due to archival. BTW, could you please—as an expert in the field—watch/review this thread? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"This also applies if you are the author yourself."

{{Edit request}} There were no objections raised at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/02#"This also applies if you are the author yourself." to add the sentence "This also applies if you are the author yourself." to this template to match the {{Image permission}} template, so please do so after the sentence "Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org." Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to make the amendments yourself at Template:No permission since/en. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Add uk tag

{{Editprotected}} I created the uk version template, please add it. --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The Ukrainian version works. Please visit [1]. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation to include button

{{Edit request}} This template should be simplified and include a more direct link to confirm copyright ownership. The following text can be removed: "either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This also applies if you are the author yourself". It should be replaced with either (or both):

Confirm copyright ownership by email ← the old system via email (lower tech but gets the job done)

or

Confirm copyright ownership by email ← the new system via OTRS form (probably easier to use)

Note that there's a {{PAGENAMEE}} in the email link that includes the page name that the template is transcluded onto. The "Usage of this tag..." section can probably be collapsed as well. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with simplification. I disagree with removing the statement "providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license" because just displaying a button will not inform a user that providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license is a valid way of proving the license of an image. I disagree with removing the sentence, "This also applies if you are the author yourself." This was added in March to match the wording of the {{Image permission}} template. --Geniac (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! -- User: Perhelion 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

German link to the permission generator does not work

Hi, the link in the German version to generate a email permission (https://wmts.dabpunkt.eu/freigabe3/) does not work (Network-Timeout). Please replace it. -- Jonaes02_/Diskussion^->deWP 15:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)