User talk:JuTa/Archive 18

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Vielleicht kannst Du mein Problem lösen, an dem ich schon ewig herumwurstele - vorab den Orden Wolberg77 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Aktualisierung einer Datei funktioniert nicht

Ich habe eine neue Version der Datei erstellt; bei Wikipedia wird aber immer noch die alte Version gezeigt; nur die Miniatur ist schon als neue Version sichtbar. Was ist zu tun? Alters Bild - soll nicht mehr gezeigt werden): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:360-Grad-Feedback_auf_einen_Blick.png Neues Bild (wird nicht gezeigt): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/360-Grad-Feedback_auf_einen_Blick.png Ich Weiss einfach nicht, welchen Fehler ich mache.--Wolberg77 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ich habe jetzt macl einen purge auf den 800px-thumb gemacht -> siehe [1]. Ich denke das hat geholfen. Zur Vorgehensweise (in Firefox): rechter Mausklick auf das Bild in der Bildbschreibungsseite und Grafik anzeigen wählen. Danach oben in der Adresszeile ein "?action=purge" dranhängen un das nochmals laden. Das wars. Gruß --JuTa 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank. Ich habe leider nur Bahnhof verstanden. Könntest Du mir bitte mit wenigen Worten Sagen, worin das Problem lag? Gruß --Wolberg77 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, in wenigen Worten :) Ich versuchs mal: wenn Bilder in unterschiedlicher Größe angezeigt werden sollen werden von den Wikipediia-Servern sogenannte Thumbs (Vorschaubilder) erzeugt und abgespichert. Wenn dann eine neue Bildversion hochgeladen wird, sollten auch diese thumbs aktualisiert werden, nur funktioniert das manchmal nicht. Und mit der oben beschriebenen Methode stößt man das quasi per Hand an. --JuTa 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Gerardo-dottori.jpg

Hello,

I just saw your message in my talk page.

As I say in the file's talk page, I was unable to select the right licence, because I'm not sure which is it (sorry about uploading it this way).

Please refer to the italian version, where they put all the information (link in the File's page), including the right to upload it to Commons.

If it is still not enough to keep this picture here, then this message in the italian version's page shouldn't be there, and you might notice it to them - and to me, please ;)

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that was a false positive one. I fixed that some minutes later - see here. regards --JuTa 12:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Ice thickness

There is a version of this image from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/europeanspaceagency/9711608958/. Would it be possible to upload it to COMMONS?. Sincerely, --Fev (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. This image has "all rights reserved" on flickr. regards --JuTa 09:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:И.А.Шульга - первый директор Сигнаевской муз.школы.jpeg

Hello! You can delete everything from the fact that I loaded it. It's like almost everything - that's my job, and what was given someone else's work draws copyright was infringed in any way. I'm never going to fill up your website with new photos, you can calm down and as soon as I find a way to remove the loaded me - delete in its entirety.Мавка Лісова (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi,I deleted the 4 I noticed you on your talk page. I checked some of your other upload and they ar looking mostly OK for me. If ou like some of them to get you may put an {{speedy|your reason}} onto them. regards --JuTa 10:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

They were pictures of old newspapers that are accessible to all and did not require the copyright . Just had to help a beginner , and you have all the easier to remove, so do not fool with it. You've done a bad thing. This man is unjustly forgotten, it is almost no information, and he did a great thing for their country . I do not know how to delete your work if you've noticed , I - novice. And when I learn to delete, I delete all uploaded . This site does not deserve to use my pictures . It is a pity that there moderators are working people like you , unable to help the novice and ready to drown him in the very beginning . 'll Try not to get involved with this site, which allow you to work in such as you. Because of your anger and arrogance God will punish you and I hope it will be very soon .Мавка Лісова (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as i said above I would like to ask you to go through your uploads and mark those as {{Speedy}} you have a problem with. I realy don't understand why you so aggressive to me. You asked me to delete them, and I did so. regards. --JuTa 10:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why aggressive response? Because you see, I am not able to manage these idiotic templates, and did not help. After all this stupid templates come up to novice could not download anything, so to humiliate him. And if you're not blind, then on my page in the "Babylon" is indicated in what language I prefer to communicate.Мавка Лісова (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, firstly you asked me to delete everything you ever uploaded on commons, you didn't asked for help with templates. After I deleted a part of it , those without a license at all, you wish me to hell (or sth. similar). OK, I count this as misunderstanding and undeleted the 4 images now. And trying to help you with the templates: We would ideally need to know when the images were taken und best case who did take them and when they died. Depending of this information one of the following templates might be valid: {{PD-old}} (author needs to have died for more than 70 years), {{PD-Ukraine}} (needs to be published in Ukraine before 1951), {{PD-Russia}} (needs to be published in Russia before 1943), {{PD-RU-exempt}} (needs to be an "official" Russian govermental work) or {{PD-RusEmpire}} (needs to be published in Russia before 07-11-1917). regards. --JuTa 11:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Поверьте,что мне теперь наплевать все Ваши телодвижения. Тем,что Вы восстановили никто и никогда не воспользуется, НИКОГДА. Вы загубили доброе дело в самом начале. Я никогда не попрошу Вашей помощи ни в чём, Вы злой человек. Как там по Вашему, ариец, и все остальные люди со своими переживаниями - грязь, особенно грязные свиньи украинцы.Мавка Лісова (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Watch your language pls. I realy tried to help you now.--JuTa 11:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Не смейте угрожать мне! Мне не нужна именно Ваша помощь. Это не помощь, когда её оказывают через давление. Через несколько дней эти злощастные фото будут удалены. И дай Бог, чтоб подобные Вам мне больше не встречались на пути. Цивилизованная Европа...Мавка Лісова (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Images of Tara Teng

Hi JuTa,

I noticed that you tagged File:Miss World Canada Tara Teng.jpg and File:Tara Teng and Marjolein Poppema.jpg as permission not being received by OTRS. I must apologize; I received the permissions several weeks ago and thought I had forwarded them to OTRS, but I had not. I just forwarded the permissions to OTRS today. I hope that my lateness will not cause any problems.

Ambassador Neelix (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I renewed th {{OTRS pending}} tags now. regards --JuTa 20:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Jo de leeuw

Jutta You removed 3 scans I made from old posters. Can you put them back: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_de_Leeuw_(voordrachtskunstenaar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbschoorl (talk • contribs) 2013-11-04T18:18:01 (UTC)

Hmm, as I saw you didn't created those "artworks" yourself, but claimed so. We would need to know who shot the photos and was is/was the lifetime of the fotografers. Thats because photos are copyright protected until 70 years after the author death. Hosting those files without knowing that the authors are dead for more than 70 year woul be a copyright violation. The only image I see a chance is File:WiJo 1943.JPG. This could be interpreded as {{PD-simple}}. But I'm not sure in this case. You better ask on Commons:Undeletion requests for other admins opinions. regards --JuTa 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Kosmo.JPG

You recently deleted Image:Kosmo.JPG, an image that has been in use for years in a number of wikibooks. However, apart from the indication that it was without licence as of april 2013, which I cannot check but would be a bit strange for a file that has been on commons for a number of years, I cannot find any information about the deletion request/discussion, origional uploader etc. The link to the deletion request is a red link! Can you please provide me with as much information as possible, so I can either try to contact the original uploader, find a replacement, or start an undeletion request. KKoolstra (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the deletion was ot realy recently but in April, but anyhow: The original upload happend in 2006 by User:Amrrfr without any description,source o license. Some othe users added {{free screenshot}} and ome categories later. In April a Bot marked it into Category:Media without a license: needs history check because there was syntax error in the "free screenshot" template. I corrected that and marked it as "no souce" because the still was no souce within the descrition and deleted it 9 days later as nothing was corrected. It was a screenshot out of a software, and the GPL license was hopefully correct, but the underlying map and/or satelite image didn't looked like they are free as well. regards --JuTa 04:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

So I understand that this file has been around for 8 years without it being questioned. Then someone questions whether a part of it is indeed copyright free and it is deleted after just 9 days??? 9 days? And that without informing the projects using this image? Do you really think that in 9 days, without noticing the users of the image, there is any chance that anyone would check this out? Do you understand that writers of wikibooks put a lot of effort in finding the right illustrations. Of course it can happen that an licicing error is detected (far) to late, but at least we might expect that first some time and effort is put into finding out whether indeed the complete image is copyright free. I could understand the procedure for files that have been uploaded recently or that are not in use, but this is really something differen!

BTW, can you give a reference to the deletion discussion, you forgot to link to it in the deletion log so I can't find it back. KKoolstra (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You understand completly right. That is the normal method. The uploader gets informed but not any other projects. There was no deletion request discussion. The image was marked with {{No source since}} which makes the images eligible for speedy deletion after 7 days - compare Category:Media without a source. If it is a free software, licensed under {{GPL}} it shouldn't a big deal to reupload a similar image correctly licensed and sourced (for you or anybody else). The maximum I can offer to you is to temporarily undelete the image an renew the problem tag.That woul give you another 7 days to find a comprehensible source and correct the dscription file. regards.--JuTa 08:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats not what I would consider a reasonable method, but maybe here on commons there are different ideas about what is reasonable than in my home project. Anyhow, restoring the image temporarily would at least help in trying to identify what may be the problem with the image and see whether there is an alternative. KKoolstra (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I undeleted the file now temporarily and renewed the problem tag. I also added an empty {{Information}} template. Please try to fill that out as complete as possible. regards --JuTa 22:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try to sort out what is the problem (or not) with the file. I will ask for help on my home project. I will let you know if it is successful. KKoolstra (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently, I have contacted Kosmo. It seems that they are not sure about the map data, so the offered to reupload a different screenshot. Can I refer them to you if they have further questions about providing the right copyrightinformation about both software and mapdata shown? KKoolstra (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of corse, they can contact me here on my talk page if they have any questions. I'll try to help as good as I can. regards --JuTa 16:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Permission for: File:La Nef-Saint-Dié-des-Vosges.jpg

Hello,

The architect sent you the OTRS permission on October 10th and I got a copy.

So what's wrong ?

Sie können auch auf Deutsch antworten.

Ji-Elle (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, ich bin kein OTRS-Mitglied und kann daher die Mail nicht einsehen. Evtl. fehlte eine genaue Lizenzangabe oder es wurde nicht angegeben wer das Foto geschossen hat. Normalerweise sollten der Absender dann eine Mail mit Rückfragen erhalten haben. Frag am besten auf Commons:OTRS noticeboard nochmals nach, dort sitzen di Leute mit Zugriff auf die Mails. Gruß --JuTa 08:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Antwort. Meiner Meinung nach war alles in Ordnung, aber ... ist jemand zu Hause ? :-). Ji-Elle (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ähh, wie meinen? --JuTa 17:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Eun Hee-kyung.jpg

Hallo.

Bitte schauen Sie auf Category:Writers from Korea und Literature Translation Institute of Korea Author Database.

Lizenz ist ausreichend.--Eggmoon (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the page is linking to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ which is th non-commercial version of the CC license. But any image on commons has be reuseable for any purpose including commercial ones. I will check the images within the category you noted an start a regular deletion request. regards --JuTa 09:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreasonable file deletion File: Children-404 logo.png

Hello. You are unnecessarily deleted the file File: Children-404 logo.png After receiving the comments, I added a description of the file link to the source - the original of this image [2]. The description of the original file [3] contains all the necessary information about the license and authorship:

«Использование логотипа доступно согласно условиям лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike

Автор: Иван Симочкин»

(«Use of the logo is available under the terms of the license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Author: Ivan Simochkin»)

I reported this to the talk page of the file and to the my talk page [4] and to the talk page the user who reported an error [5]. You've read my messages? Please read and restore the file. File: Children-404 logo.png
--Ivan Simochkin (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the file is back. I removed the problem tag, but added {{License review}}. regards. --JuTa 02:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Papyrus Berlin 6619.jpg

About your message on my talk page : I understand that a valid copyright tag is needed, but I donnot understand which one. I am pretty sure that this file is valid here because it dates from 1900, but not entirely. I asked on Service_d'aide#Aide_concernant_File:Papyrus_Berlin_6619.jpg, but if I you could help, or give me any information to understand what can be done or not be done with this kind of document, I will appreciate (as the origin is a german journal, perhaps you have some insight). I tried to give all useful informations on the file page (In case it could help : the journal still exists today http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zaes.2013.140.issue-1/zaes.2013.140.issue-1/zaes.2013.140.issue-1.xml;jsessionid=F73653261477CA13E63EE4F4452AE562). Proz (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I should read Commons:Copyright_tags#Non-U.S._works before, sorry, can you please confrm that {{PD/1923|1905}} is the good tag ? Proz (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thats looking good now. --JuTa 11:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Steve Albany

Hi, sry, I don't know what is Steve Albany. If I click on this image - surprise :) - it is gone. So I can't tell you, what WAS wrong. Bye --Zacatecnik (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I told you what was wrong with the image on your talkpage: There was no license - compare Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. regards --JuTa 08:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Wappen des Corps Hubertia Freiburg.jpg

Hello JuTa, you deleted the file named above. I was wondering where I had missed to add the reference / source? I had uploaded a scan of the picture, the scan was my own. What did I miss? What's your suggestion to make sure if I upload another version, that it does not get deleted? Thank you, --WikimanGer (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, thats a borderline case. It was marked as no source, and the given source "Archive Corps Hubertia" was not looking very checkable to me. But anyhow I restored the file and renewed the problem tag now. If you scanned it outof a book or publication please name the title of that publication, the author(s) etc. otherwise the file would be redeleted in about a week. regards. --JuTa 18:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi JuTa, I added the reference. Original was defined in 1874, then cited in the fraternity's meeting protocols and later cited again with a mention of the original source in the openly available book by Wehle in 1979. I put all the info into the corresponding source column. Please let me know if this is appropriate for the source. Thanks! --WikimanGer (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that looking OK now for me. I've removed th problem tag. regards. --JuTa 23:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --WikimanGer  ^{Talk • Mail}   02:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Malformed requests

Hello,

The requests you added on User talk:Harvey Milligan are malformed. Could you please fix that. This user has problems understanding copyright, so this won't help. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there is nothing malformed. There are just too many templates transcluded on the talkpage because of the lots of notifications. But I have now merged a lot of them together - see here. PS: I changed all your "no license" to "no permission" including automatic user natification, because there are license templates used on the file description pages but they just not applicable or wrong. --JuTa 14:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:SP RE notif

Hi JuTa, Template:SP RE notif you just deleted without discussion is used (as here) to notify Commons photographers that their image has been selected for the Renewable Energy Portal on the English Wikipedia per the instructions here. As not transcluded, it might have appeared to you as not in use, but it is a useful template, so would appreciate if you would restore it. --ELEKHH^T 02:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thx for th notice. I've restored the template now. I'M currently working on Category:Uncategorized templates trying to find suitable catgories for those templates, but I also find a lot of test templates never or not anymore in use, which I delete. regards. --JuTa 08:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for categorizing it! --ELEKHH^T 13:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete my template? Template:US MLB blackouts‎. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm currently working on Category:Uncategorized templates, trying to find suitable catgories for those templates. When I see such a template is not used I delete those. In the case a pure text template is just used o 1 or 2 pages, I substing it an remove the tmplate as well. Its IMHO easier to keep the text on just one or too pages then in a template. In this case it was File:MLB Blackout Areas.svg and File:MLB Blackout Areas.png, where I substed it. If you see a broader useage for this template feel free to undelete it, but try to find some suitable categories for it. regards. --JuTa 16:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That presents two issues: 1) it has the potential to break attribution if there are multiple editors in the history, and 2) if it's two pages, then it makes it easier to keep the description in one place. I agree about one page, but I'm not sure about two. I'm not really a categorization or template expert though so I could be wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, in this case there was only one version (by you). And as I said before: feel free to undelete the template an undo my edits on the file description pages. Or I could do that if you like. Do you like? --JuTa 18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"PortasdoCerco1949.jpg"

I would like to know why you removed without discussion a picture that was very hard to find from 1949 of the border gate between Macau and China? It was properly labeled and credited and I seriously doubt anyone would come from anywhere to claim ownership and bury the image, even if the photographer and/or his descendants are alive, the publicity is good for them. I just can't understand that European robotic mentality of labelling the label, a crusade against nothing, disregarding everyone involved who had work in finding this and bringing it to light! I think the only person that would attack this use of an image would never be it's intellectual owner (who may not exist), but a Wikipedia / Wikimedia editor with an erection and no way to scratch it.

What a waste of man hours, for me and for you!

In the end it's not pragmatic and just an exercise in futility. And if one tries to argue or reason a rulebook is thrown at oneself, aren't rules created by necessity? One can argue that due to portraying a Portuguese border crossing and Portuguese border guards that any kind of permission would have to be collected from the government of the Portuguese Republic, as the photographer can't own any of what is shown in his photograph, this specific one. If you want I'll have that permission from the government tomorrow, in the same freedom as the artist. Next time you want to cruise around the internet deleting images without much ponderation, please discuss or ask with the parties involved before you do so.

Sincerely, FernãoMendesPinto (talk) from Portugal

Hi, the reason why this images was deleted is that it had just no license templated include in its description page - compare Commons:Licensing. A long list of possible license templates ou find in Commons:Copyright tags. A possible one would be {{PD-MO}}, but this requires that the author "Jack Birns" as you named him would have to be dead minimum since 1962. For a 1949 created photo its very likely that the photografer was still alive at the end of 1962, which is only 13 years past. best regards --JuTa 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Brueckeremagen 35x35.jpg

File:Brueckeremagen 35x35.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

AFBorchert (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Clara Grunwald

Die Lizenzvergabe und das genaue hochladen der Fotos kapiere ich einfach nicht. Die Urhberrechte zu Clara Grunwald liegen eindeutig bei mir. Die Originalillustration liegt in meinem Archiv, dem Ida-Seele-Archiv. Vermutlich handelt es sich um eine Zeichnung die eine Schülerin einst (1937) von Clara Grunwald gefertigt hat. Mehr istdazu nicht in Erfahrung zu bringen. Manfi.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfi.B. (talk • contribs) 2013-11-19T18:04:11‎ (UTC)

Hallo, es geht wohl um File:Clara Grunwald.jpg. Die Urheberrechte liegen wohl nicht beim Archiv, sondern beim Zeichner dieser Zeichnung, immerhin wurde die Zichnung signiert. Falls der Zeichner wirklich anonym ist/war könnte evtl. die Lizenz {{Anonymous-EU}} passen. Das würde sich dann aber mit Deinem Kommentar Genhemigung: nein, Freigabe nur mit Genehmigung des Ida-Seele-Archivs beissen, denn jedes Bild auf Commons muss für jedermann weltweit für jeden Zweck weiterverwendbar sein. Gruß --JuTa 08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Miyazawa Sae at free charity concert in Iwaki, Fukushima prefecture, Japan at 2013-03-11.png

Hi, you recently removed said picture from commons. The photo was taken by a japanese acquantaince of mine in Iwaki, February 2013. He allowed me to upload it to Wikipedia. The picture itself depicts a public person that has several million google hits to her name, and it was taken during a public and free event. What exactly was wrong with the picture, and how can i upload it again without worrying anyone? Thank you. Rka001 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the fotografer should send a releasing email to the commons support team as describted on Commons:OTRS. You declared that images as your own work, which it wasn't. Only the copyright holder, which is normaly the fotofgrafer, can release an image under a free license. regards. --JuTa 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to retrieve the old copyright declaration? Because i am wondering if i have really declared it as my own work. Also, if the fotographer declares he donated me picture for no other reason than using it for wikipedia, would that also be ok? Because that was exactly what happened. I should have the email still somewhere. Rka001 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, here a copy of the description before deletion:

DescriptionJuTa/Archive 18	English: AKB member Sae Miyazawa at a free charity concert in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan 日本語: 宮澤 佐江
Date	11 March 2013
Source	Own work
Author	Rka001

And a release only for wikipdia only is not enough. Any image on commons has to be reuseable by anybody in the world for any (including commercial) purposes. regards. --JuTa 20:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he didnt care at all. I asked him for a photo to use for the article, and he gave me that. He was at the concert. Anyway, I will talk to the guys at OTRS. May i ask, what made you think it wasnt my own work? Rka001 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me, it was User:Dman41689 who marked the image as {{No permission}} on 20.10.2013. I went through the corresponing maintenance category on 7.11.2013 and deleted this images like a lot of other with similar problems. regards. --JuTa 21:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rka001 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I have now contacted the original photographer. What do we have to do _exactly_ to avoid this situation again? the guys @otrs did not reply to my email, so instead we would like to use a different photo. So, can you please guide us through the process, if you dont mind? Thank you. Rka001 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, he has to send an email to the Commons support team as described in Commons:OTRS. Once you reuploa the imag you better set the template {{OTRS pending}} to the description page, which will prevent deletion for about 30 days or until the case will be decided as vali or invalid. regards. --JuTa 08:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ive been waiting for reply by OTRS-team for a week now. Instead, we decided to use another picture. So, for new pictures, generally speaking - does the photographer need to create his own account? Or how can i prove that he has transferred all copyrights and ownerships to me (which in turn i will release into Public Domain). Thanks for help. Rka001 (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, the OTRS staff is normaly very busy and they have a huge backlog, so please be patient. For the other question: Yes, its allway better that images get uploaded directly by their authors. But be aware if they are allready published anywhere else, someone might find that and mark the images as "no permission" or "copyright violations". In this case its allways better to confirm authorship and release through the OTRS proccess. regards --JuTa 19:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)