This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

The uploader has notified me that permission of this image was sent on July 9, but they never received a response. Can this be looked in to? — ξ ^xplicit 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a ticket ( 2012070910010321) but it might not be sufficient permission. Give it a bit more time while things are worked out. Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I processed this earlier today.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I need to verify ticket before moving this file to commons - is everything OK? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This image was contributed for use on Wikipedia, but the contributor did not explicitly release it under any free license. I would not move it to Commons. — madman 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for info! Bulwersator ( talk) 15:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have obtained permission for using some photos under CC-BY-SA 3.0 NZ, and have forwarded the permission email to you. This is the first time I've got permission from someone else to use photos their on Wikimedia projects. How do I get the ticket information to add to the photos when I upload them? Or do I upload the photos, and give the OTRS volunteers the file names so you can add the tickets to the files yourselves? Or will you upload the files yourselves? Or is there some other process? Sorry if this is covered in the documentation somewhere — I couldn't find it. TimofKingsland ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Until an OTRS responded reviews the ticket, you can add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file. Only OTRS respondents can add the ticket number to the file and verify the permission. You can also request that we upload the files for you. Your choice. Just note that we have a very large backlog and it could take many weeks to respond to your email. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 03:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick response. I've uploaded them now, and put the {{ OTRS pending}} template in the licensing section. As I've sent the email before I uploaded the files, should I send another email with the file links, or will posting them here do? They're at File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, laughing.jpg, File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, smiling.JPG and File:Margaret Mahy at Kaiapoi North School, 27 July 2011, writing.jpg. TimofKingsland ( talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You should always link to the files in the email(s) to OTRS, this will greatly assist the OTRS respondent. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 04:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that now, and will do so in the future, but because I sent the email before I uploaded the files, should I send another email with the links? TimofKingsland ( talk) 04:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

An email was received regarding the above images and the ticket number is 2012080310001072 MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 05:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done All three images have been tagged accordingly. Thank you for providing them, MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 05:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Trauma.org is cc-nc-sa, but one of its images was recently uploaded, and the uploader left the following note at the talk page:

It was my understanding that despite the CC-NC-SA copyright status of Trauma.org it was still allowed to be used. I believe there is an OTRS ticket that can verify this (ticket #2008050410003261, used on another trauma.org image) but I am unsure as I do not have access. Peter.C • talk • contribs 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you check this ticket and resolve the issue? Nyttend ( talk) 18:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That ticket only applies to commons:File:Pulmonary contusion.jpg. The point of contact was very explicit about that. Thanks, — madman 19:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. I'll notify the uploader, since this was obviously done in good faith and confusion. Nyttend ( talk) 20:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear respected readers and respected editors of great Wikipedia articles, I want to make a request today. I am a nobody but I hope that my message gets across. The articles you write for us or the articles we read are a powerful weapon that can unite or divide us. We don't want any more division among us than there already is for wrong reasons. The world is already a place where people will not listen to the truth that comes from someone because they hate something about him or her in person. Articles we read influence our thinking about issues and people around us. Before I make my point, I want you to try to remember the last time you heard any one of the following words; 'Islamist terrorists, Christian terrorists, Buddhist terrorist, Hindu terrorist'. I want us to stop giving crimes/criminals religious identity in articles. It might seem like a trivial issue but the fact is that many hate crimes are been committed by people who are made to believe that crimes/criminals have a religious identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.72.182 ( talk) 20:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is the completely wrong place to make that request. You may wish to post at WP:VPP, where new policy ideas are typically floated. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For some years now the article Bal maiden was a single paragraph cut-and-pasted from a website, authorised under OTRS. I've just replaced the sub-stub with a full-length article, and none of the cut-and-paste material remains. Should I leave the OTRS notification in place on the talk page (in case the "copyvio" version in the article history is ever challenged, or if for some reason it's necessary to revert back to it), or should I remove it (to avoid the confusion of people seeing it and thinking that my rewritten version has been copied from a website)? While I'm sure it exists, I can't find guidance for this situation anywhere.  Mogism ( talk) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd just add a note to the talk page explaining the situation :) No formal advice exists for this sort of situation. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - will do.  Mogism ( talk) 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two copies of the same image, but different licence version numbers:

• File:Law Office, New York City 1977.jpg (version 1.0)
• File:Law Office New York City 1977.jpg (version 3.0)

Which licence is the correct one? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Permission was given "to upload", but no specific license was ever mentioned. It probably doesn't qualify as an appropriate permission, since it is not explicitly unrestricted. Someguy1221 ( talk) 20:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that it absolutely isn't usable permission, since a license wasn't even hinted at or vaguely referred to. VernoWhitney ( talk) 21:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that doesn't look sufficient, which is problematic, as I was the one who approved it. I know there were other emails, which I;m not currently seeing, I'll look further. -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My recollection, vague to be sure, is that there was some back and forth, and this was the final email, but I don't see any evidence for that, so I must be confusing it with another situation. I'll write to her and get more detailed permissions.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the permission provider, asking for a more definitive permission statement. No response yet, will continue to monitor.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ritchie333 ( talk · contribs) accepted the AfC submission {{ OTRS_failed}} at the 3 August 2012. Do we need it? Does anybody know the need for it? mabdul 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Best use I can see for it is that it'd be the follow up for the OTRS Pending template (and associated circumstances). That being said, no, I don't think it's needed. Someone else might though. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I follow up on OTRS pending that's not complete I just use {{ OTRS received}} (and reset the date for any {{ di-no permission}} tag). I don't particularly like the new template because if talks have broken down far enough to need a giant red 'X' then I think it should be immediately deleted as copyvio or converted to fair use. If talks are ongoing I think the 'X' is rather a bit of overkill. VernoWhitney ( talk) 22:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with |VernoWhitney -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've nominated it for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_16#Template:OTRS_failed. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Image has an OTRS tag but no license. Please have a look at the ticket and a possible license. Uploader removed nl tag claiming a proper permission had been sent. -- Denniss ( talk) 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have verified that the ticket was closed successfully, updated licensing information, reviewed for license migration, and flagged for transfer to Commons. Cheers! — madman 02:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it could be migrated to CC-BY-SA. According to Wikipedia:Licensing update it "Must have been uploaded to Wikipedia or to some other Wikimedia project before August 1, 2009.", whereas, unless I'm missing something, this was uploaded on 23 February 2010, so after the applicable date. Dpmuk ( talk) 03:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I'm not sure how I was reading that upload date, but it wasn't correctly. — madman 03:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I only noticed this as I looked at the request earlier but wasn't sure how to deal with such an old "GFDL" release (with no version number or anything) but in looking into it I did notice that it probably wasn't possible to migrate it. Dpmuk ( talk) 03:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do know that it was released under the GFDL version 1.3 as that's where the link in the ticket would have pointed as of that date (and still does). Sometimes it takes a bit of calculation. — madman 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer permission from File:Drewbeer.jpg to OTRS ticket? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so, assuming you are referring to the note left on the image in 2005. We have no way of knowing who left that edit. In fact, that's the point of the OTRS system, a way to ensure that the permission is coming from someone or their representative, and can be contacted if necessary. Maybe someone with more experience has other options, but I've never seen permission granted other than via an email from the copyright holder.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, any images from before OTRS (mid-2006 or so as I recall) we're stuck in the position of either grandfathering them in on good faith or tagging them as no verified permission and force them to go through the formal system just like we do new files. VernoWhitney ( talk) 17:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this is also likely to become policy on Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Grandfathered_old_files Bulwersator ( talk) 11:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Got an email from her office verifying her DOB, an long-standing issue on her article. Can I forward it and can the ticket be cited as the ref? Thanks. – Connormah ( talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Private emails are not citable as reliable sources, since they are not formally published. It would be sufficient for them to simply put it on her or her campaign's website. On a side note, emails forwarded to OTRS, rather than sent directly, are potentially suspicious since they can be faked. Someguy1221 ( talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's from a gov.nu.ca e-mail, an official Government of Nunavut e-mail. I'll see if I can get it added. – Connormah ( talk) 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(I handled the email) When you forwarded it it didn't have any email address for the person you received it from :) just a name - took me a couple of seconds to get the context ;) But as Someguy1221 notes; we can't take content sourced to emails. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 21:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I added it in good faith and asked them if they could update the official bio with the info. The erroneous 1973 date seems to have spread and I think the record needs to be set straight. Thanks. – Connormah ( talk) 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

DOBs are a common issue, and a recurring theme in OTRS tickets. I know we have policies and I agree with them, but it is frustrating that there's little we can do even when we know (or at least have good reason to believe) the article is wrong, because there are no sources for the accurate date. What can we do when a usually reliable source contradicts the subject (I've seen subjects attach scans of passports, driving licenses, and birth certificates to prove their DOB when complaining to OTRS)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I usually just remove the DOB entirely. *shrug* No other option really. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This one was frustrating - we had another date (I think 1973) and it was picked up by a newspaper, and boom, someone cited it and it remained in the article. I was always uneasy about that date and saw a few other sources stating a much older age than the stated date would've given. There were also discrepancies - she has children that are grown and also have children, so I highly doubted she was only 39. I thought I'd send an email to her office asking, and I guess I just lucked out this time. We'll see if they can update her official bio, because that may be needed to stop the 1973 date from floating around... – Connormah ( talk) 22:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Another dupe with different licences:

• File:Mouawad Records.jpg (CC)
• File:Mouawad-guinness-world-records.jpg (GNU)

What's the correct licence? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Same problem with this ticket as with the last one you brought up. Someguy1221 ( talk) 17:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Shouldn't all four images get {{ OTRS received}} instead of {{ PermissionOTRS}}, then? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should give Sphilbrick some time to sort this out. Reading the customer emails from both tickets, it is clear there is some missing context, some other ticket they both relate to. The appropriate permissions, or at least something to clarify what happened, is likely in that ticket. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, the Mouwad collection. (Which isn't a comment on the contents of the collection, but on the shere magnitude of the requests.) If I may be permitted a brief tangential rant, the OTRS process was severly backlogged, and could still use some additional eyes (hint, hint). One of the challenhges of a backlog is that when someone doesn;'t get a prompt response, they send a followup, which adds to the complication, when the requests are identical. In this case, there are dozens of items being covered, and followup emails had differenting lists, some overlapping others, and sometimes usign a different name for the same image, which added to the challenge. I actually created an Excel spreadsheet somewhere to keep track of the itsm, I'll have to see if I still have it.

2012040910007965 is one the main strings; however, looking at it now, I see I may accepted permission to use on Wikipedia, which is nto suffocently broad, nor is it specific about the license. I'll contact the uploader to see how we can arange for the formal permissions statement, and ideally, get one statement to cover all images.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Process started here: User_talk:Morning277#Mouwad_collection_images-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the uploader is currently blocked, so I put together a new permission statement and sent it to the copyright holder.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Keith Law- Publicity 10.JPG Bulwersator ( talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No. The OTRS ticket indicated the source of the image(s), namely http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithlawmusic/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithlawmusic/4149666511/in/photostream for this file but those Flickr albums indicate all rights are reserved and we have no record of a release under a free license from the copyright holder or any appointed representative. I would hold all images from this uploader. — madman 14:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this ticket was pursuant to permission that had been obtained on- or off-wiki and the statement of permission is probably fine, but that OTRS ticket is not an indication of such. — madman 14:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be worth checking with the person who handled the ticket. He hasn't indicated as such - but it's entirely possible he checked the Flickr source and verified the license (which was then subsequently changed by the Flickr page owner). It's unlikely in the circumstances - but worth checking. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 14:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so the uploader is the Flickr page owner, who also appears to be the subject of the article. However there are still questions over the images, see: User_talk:Velvettfogg#Deletions.2C_More_deletions.2C_OTRS.2C_and_COI_on_a_marginally_notable_article -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_August_21#File:Keith_Law-_Publicity_10.JPG - nominated for deletion Bulwersator ( talk) 09:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following what happened—I sent a note to the agent who handled it so they can weigh in.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:The TASC2 Building on the Simon Fraser University Campus.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 09:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep; 100% so. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 09:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank (file moved to Commons) Bulwersator ( talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

pure SPA uploaded picture, under free licence, the same as on website of band. Is it good enough to keep it or maybe file should be deleted? File:STQ-2005-350.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not unless there is evidence of permission (i.e. in OTRS) - which there doesn't seem to be. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 11:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an OTRS ticket linked on Talk:Thanhouser Company, placed there on 9 December 2006. It is totally unclear what content of the article (which looked like this at the time) it supposedly relates to. Can this be clarified? Given the sparse content in the article and the absence of reference citations, it's difficult to see what content might have required OTRS permission. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to that article it covers Gertrude Thanhouser and Edwin Thanhouser and lumps in images too. So that should be File:Edwint.jpg (which is already tagged) and I believe [1] as well although that was never restored. User talk:Nthanhou only mentions the deleted image and some text on Edwin's page, so that may very well be all, but it's a pretty broad release. VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I have clarified with {{ ConfirmationOTRS}} (the release allowed textual content from the Web site as well). However, note that the release was under the terms of the GFDL; it's dual-licensed per Wikipedia:Licensing update and not per the ticket. — madman 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so if understand correctly, this indicates that the OTRS permission relates to text content and images from thanhouser.org. Can that information be added to the annotation on Talk:Thanhouser Company? (That particular page refers to "this content", but it does not indicate which content the pronoun refers to.) -- Orlady ( talk) 20:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose if we subst:ed the template we could, but generally files would be tagged on their own page and the {{ ConfirmationOTRS}} on the article's talk page would only refer to the text content. — madman 00:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The current version of the template that you placed on the article talk page resolves the issue by identifying the source of the licensed content. Thanks! (The old one said only "The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system...") -- Orlady ( talk) 04:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. — madman 13:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

part of them is somehow missing ticket number, I assume that it is possible to search in OTRS queue

• File:Gyrotron.jpg
• File:4-1000A linear RF deck build by K5LAD.jpg
• File:Lonn Friend Rip Magazine.jpg
• File:Frescography Mediterranean1.jpg
• File:Tomb of Popes Leo II III IV.jpg
• File:Parrish-femaleheadstudy.jpg
• File:C-Dollar.jpg
• File:Irina Slutsky and Randi Jayne Zuckerberg DYK crop.png

Bulwersator ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Gyrotron.jpg N Can't locate a ticket. The ticket # provided is not valid.
• File:4-1000A linear RF deck build by K5LAD.jpg Y all fine.
• File:Lonn Friend Rip Magazine.jpg Not sure Ticket 2009042210012663 references; authorisation email address isn't verified but feels legit. Up to you for AGF decision or not.
• File:Frescography Mediterranean1.jpg Y Ticket: 2009071210029892

All I have time for for now. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 13:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Tomb of Popes Leo II III IV.jpg I sent a note to the OTRS agent.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• File:Parrish-femaleheadstudy.jpg Y Ticket number 2010042410024421 It is pretty clear that the copyright holder wanted to give permission, and did give permission. I prefer the formal statements, which remove questions about which license, and other issues.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• File:C-Dollar.jpg Y Ticket number 2011061010003231 I edited the template so that the ticket number is displayed. The license used is a Free Art License. This is the first one I've seen, so I don't know how it works.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• File:Irina Slutsky and Randi Jayne Zuckerberg DYK crop.png Y Ticket number 2012080310000386 This was handled by King of Hearts, so I invited him to respond.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can confirm that the copyright holder consented to publication under the CC-BY-SA. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hazlitt.jpg
• File:Karen Kwiatkowski.jpg
• File:Transamerica Pyramid Grant.jpg
• File:Payphone1.jpg
• File:Six Sea Nettles.jpg
• File:Tuning pegs.jpg

Bulwersator ( talk) 13:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hazlitt.jpg -- Yes, but it was improperly tagged. I've repaired that. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I could be wrong, but that ticket is for commons:File:Henry_hazlitt.jpg a different, but similar image. Have they both been released? Worm^TT( talk) 14:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The first email in that ticket references the en.wp image. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 14:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• File:Karen Kwiatkowski.jpg Ticket number 2007050310007733 I corrected the permissions template to point to the right number. I'm not sure what the other number is, although this dates to 2007.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• File:Transamerica Pyramid Grant.jpg VernoWhitney was involved, I left a note at his talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• File:Payphone1.jpg VernoWhitney was involved, I left a note at his talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• File:Six Sea Nettles.jpg VernoWhitney was involved, I left a note at his talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• File:Tuning pegs.jpg VernoWhitney was involved, I left a note at his talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• To all four of the immediately preceding images, I'll say yes, it's valid. The images were not specifically identified in the emails, but the release was broad, applying to everything uploaded by that particular editor from that particular copyright holder prior to February 14, 2005 and those images were all uploaded in 2004. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:NotarchusPunctatusSeaSlug.jpg Bulwersator ( talk) 17:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no ticket number mentioned by the user( User:Snek01) who added the {{ otrs}} and Snek01 does not show up in the List of accounts on otrs wiki. It appears simply misunderstood the perpose ofthe template and added in good faith as it says "email needs to be send to OTRS for an evidence". ( diff) MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 15:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

1. File:Seventeenth stellation of icosahedron facets.png
2. File:Stellation of octahedron facets.png
3. File:Second stellation of dodecahedron facets.png
4. File:Third stellation of dodecahedron facets.png
5. File:Zeroth stellation of octahedron facets.png
6. File:Zeroth stellation of icosahedron facets.png
7. File:Third stellation of icosahedron facets.png
8. File:Sixth stellation of icosahedron facets.png
9. File:Sixth stellation of icosahedron.png
10. File:Seventh stellation of icosahedron.png
11. File:Seventh stellation of icosahedron facets.png
12. File:Eighth stellation of icosahedron.png
13. File:Ninth stellation of icosahedron.png
14. File:Zeroth stellation of cuboctahedron facets.png
15. File:Second stellation of cuboctahedron trifacets.png
16. File:Third stellation of cuboctahedron trifacets.png
17. File:Zeroth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
18. File:Zeroth stellation of icosidodecahedron trifacets.png
19. File:Third compound stellation of icosahedron facets.png
20. File:Second compound stellation of icosahedron facets.png
21. File:Second stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
22. File:Second stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
23. File:Third stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
24. File:Third stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
25. File:Second compound stellation of icosidecahedron facets.png
26. File:Sixth stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
27. File:Seventh stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
28. File:Fourth stellation of icosahedron.png
29. File:Fifth stellation of icosahedron.png
30. File:Tenth stellation of icosahedron facets.png
31. File:Eleventh stellation of icosahedron.png
32. File:Twelfth stellation of icosahedron.png
33. File:Twelfth stellation of icosahedron facets.png
34. File:Thirteenth stellation of icosahedron facets.png
35. File:Thirteenth stellation of icosahedron.png
36. File:Fourteenth stellation of icosahedron.png
37. File:Fifteenth stellation of icosahedron.png
38. File:Tenth stellation of icosahedron.png
39. File:Ninth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
40. File:Tenth stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
41. File:Tenth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
42. File:Twelfth stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
43. File:Thirteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
44. File:Sixteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
45. File:Seventeenth stellation of icosidodecahedron facets.png
46. File:Nineteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
47. File:Zeroth stellation of cuboctahedron square facets.png
48. File:Second stellation of cuboctahedron square facets.png
49. File:Third stellation of cuboctahedron square facets.png
50. File:Zeroth stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
51. File:Second stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
52. File:Third stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
53. File:Second compound stellation of icosidecahedron pentfacets.png
54. File:Second compound stellation of icosidecahedron.png
55. File:Tenth stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
56. File:Twelfth stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
57. File:Sixth stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
58. File:Sixth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
59. File:Seventh stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
60. File:Seventh stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
61. File:Thirteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
62. File:Sixteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
63. File:Sixteenth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png
64. File:Seventeenth stellation of icosidodecahedron pentfacets.png
65. File:Seventeenth stellation of icosidodecahedron.png

The OTRS email linked to this image includes an email sent to the creator of the program used to generate the image, and asking for confirmation that there were no restrictions. That was confirmed. The permission appears valid and applies to all the stellation images.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

1. File:Mises institute.jpg
2. File:Ferocactus cylindraceus.jpeg
3. File:Thomas Woods.jpg
4. File:Squarial2.jpg
5. File:Ams site.jpg
6. File:FranticTimes-AlbumCover.jpg

Bulwersator ( talk) 23:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I wondered if I could use File: Vampiro At Nitro.jpg as the infobox picture for the article Vampiro. -- Jayemd ( talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The image File:John Soares.jpg is tagged with an OTRS ticket number, apparently establishing that this photo has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. But the image description page also has a non-free use rationale. Is the OTRS ticket valid? If so, the rationale should be removed. — Bkell ( talk) 22:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket is valid. I have updated the permissions and licensing information, placed a thoroughly repetitive {{ Information}} template, and flagged for transfer to Commons. Thanks, — madman 01:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:IABSM-IB01.jpg, from 1 April 2007, says that an e-mail was forwarded to permissions-en as evidence that this image has been released under the GFDL. Can anyone find the ticket number for this? — Bkell ( talk) 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The ticket number is 2007033110019654. Unfortunately there has been no explicit release under a free license. Thanks, — madman 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The following images have an OTRS tag with ticket number 2012071310004801:

• File:Turkish samovar 1-1.jpg
• File:Turkish samovar 1-2.jpg
• File:Turkish samovar 1-3.jpg
• File:Turkish samovar 2-1.jpg
• File:Turkish samovar 2-2.jpg
• File:Turkish samovar 2-3.jpg
• File:Turkish samovar 3-1.jpg
• File:Turkish samovar 3-2.jpg

The file File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg is missing an OTRS tag, even though it is pretty clear that it is part of the same group of photos. So, is the OTRS ticket valid for the eight photos on which the tag appears? If so, does the ticket also apply to File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg? — Bkell ( talk) 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg is explicitly mentioned along with all the images above. Thanks, — madman 01:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The {{ PermissionOTRS}} tag was added by the uploader with the ticket number 2012052110009803. I'm not seeing any indication that the user is an OTRS volunteer, so I was wondering if this could be verified here. — ξ ^xplicit 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement of permission associated with that ticket does not cover that file. The uploader could be indicating that he wants to cover his new uploads too. But even if he were, the file would not be in the public domain and certainly not for that reason. It would be under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. — madman 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard/Archive_2#ticket:2012040410009347 for background.

In short, a large number of items were accepted, and the permission statement was not quite right. The copyright owner finally responded with a clear statement, it is attached to the ticket number in the heading.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This file has OTRS permission confirmed but no licence tag - which licence does 2011120510015361 give permission for? January ( talk) 16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This ticket was unfortunately closed incorrectly. There was no explicit release under a free license. Thanks, — madman 03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 16#File:OtisReddingStatue.jpg where the uploader claims a ticket was submitted but for 2 months the image still only shows an OTRS Pending template? Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 18:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Checking. I seem to remember seeing this one. — madman 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The ticket number would appear to be 2012070710006286. The agent who handled the ticket indicated permission from the sculptors would be required; I'm not sure this is correct as this is a three-dimensional work and thus photographs and the way they're taken may generate sufficient originality to be considered a new work. — madman 23:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Derivative works require permission from both the artist and the photographer even when the photograph shows originality which obtains a copyright of its own. Unless the OTRS ticket was acceptable we have the neither for this image. ww2censor ( talk) 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course that's true. I was thinking of when PD-art and the like apply. In that case, no, there's no OTRS confirmation of permission for this file at this time. — madman 04:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, do I presume that the ticket was started by the uploader who appears to be the photographer and nothing from the artist of the sculpture? If that is the case there is no permission for the derivative work and it should be deleted. ww2censor ( talk) 04:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your presumption is correct. — madman 05:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I (the photographer) forwarded to OTRS email permission from the sculptor to use the derivative work (in early July). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see what the problem was. (Sorry, I just had to review it again.) The sculptor's statement of permission wasn't an explicit release under a free license. The agent handling the ticket sent a reply to the sculptor asking under what free license he or she wished to release the work, and to date we have not received any reply (I have verified this by e-mail domain). — madman 02:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When I communicated with OTRS in July, I said that they would need to explain to the sculptor what was needed, because I couldn't. Back in July, I got a reply from the sculptor within a few hours (forwarded to OTRS). Perhaps OTRS needs to try again. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps the sculptor was not prepared to freely licence his work. We shall see when an OTRS volunteer tries again. You could simply explain to the sculptor to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, which I already told you about back in July. ww2censor ( talk) 03:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know how to explain it very well. I told OTRS to explain it to them and tell them what they need. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I can't go much further into detail on this ticket without disclosing the contents of non-public e-mails. The ticket was opened with your e-mail dated 7 July 2012 21:07. An agent replied to the sculptor (explaining the situation very well and providing a CONSENT template) and copied you in an e-mail dated 24 July 2012 16:37. We received a reply from you (not a forwarded e-mail) at 16:52, the agent replied to you at 17:29, and to date there has been no further communication either from you or from the sculptor. Please refer to these e-mails. Thanks, — madman 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, it is out of my hands and in the hands of the OTRS. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The agent e-mailed the sculptor, so it's in his or her hands; the ticket is currently closed. If you wish to follow up with him or her, please do so; unfortunately, we simply don't have enough manpower to follow up continually on the hundreds of thousands of tickets in which we have not received sufficient information to confirm permission for the given file(s). Thanks, — madman 03:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:CONSENT and I don't know how to explain it to the sculptor to make it clear that they are not giving up the copyright to the statue itself. Is the sculptor to give the GPL release for my photo or their statue? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The derivative work (your photograph). Cheers, — madman 05:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And if they state in an email that a GPL license for the photo is OK, is that sufficient? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is, though the GPL shouldn't be used as the only license for your work if you can avoid it. The GPL is intended for computer programs, not for media files. The GFDL or (optimally) CC-BY-SA 3.0 would be preferred. Cheers, — madman 15:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what these things mean. When I upload something, I just take the default (the one that also says "recommended"). Is it the same as saying that the photograph is in the public domain? Can't someone that knows what they are talking about contact the sculptor and explain what is needed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this how a message to the sculptor should be worded:

In July I wrote to you to get permission to use a photo I took of your statue of Otis Redding on Wikipedia, and you gave it (thank you). However, under US copyright law, my photo of your statue is a "derivative work", so I need your permission to release it to the public domain. Can I have your permission to release it under the Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC-BY-SA ? (This gives other people the right to use, share, and modify the picture of the statue.)

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think using the term "public domain" might confuse things a little; that basically means forfeiting all intellectual property rights. I'd say you asked for permission to publish your photograph under a free license in July but didn't specify which free license, and we need to know that information. The terms of CC-BY-SA are at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/; are they acceptable to him? Thanks, — madman 03:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How about:

In July I wrote to you to get permission to use a photo I took of your statue of Otis Redding on Wikipedia, and you gave it (thank you). However, under US copyright law, my photo of your statue is a "derivative work", so I need your permission to release it under a free license. Can I have your permission to release it under the Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? (This gives other people the right to use, share, and modify the picture of the statue.)

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks great to me! Cheers, — madman 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, message sent. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I got a reply to that message giving permission. Where do I send it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Please send it to permissions-en at wikimedia.org. I'll look for it tomorrow if no one else has handled it. Thanks! — madman 03:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the image for now in resolving an FFD discussion, due to its failing WP:NFCC#8. If we receive the promised permission for release under a free license, this image may be restored by any administrator. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I sent the email permission to OTRS a day or two ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This and other files by the uploader have both {{ PermissionOTRS}} and {{ OTRS pending}} at the same time. What is the purpose of this? Does it mean that the files have permission from someone but that permission from someone else also is needed? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 09:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the OTRS person dealing with that ticket, just likely forgot to remove the {{ OTRS pending}} template. -- Clarkcj12 ( talk) 17:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the file Gene_Paul_at_Atlantic_Records.jpg was deleted from the Gene Paul wikipedia article despite Gene Paul emailing proof of copyright to Wikipedia as instructed. Can you please advise on why this was deleted? The discussion page said "Gene Paul holds the copyright for this picture and is emailing verification to Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org on 8/28/12." Please let me know what needs to be done to assure Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that this is not a copyright violation. Thanks. Lovelounge ( talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You should be asking this on Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, as the deletion was a commons action. But I can check the ticket if you know what the ticket number was. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have several questions regarding clearing a CSD F11 condition on an image for a BLP, and I want to understand some things regarding licensing, so I can show some understanding of expectations to the BLP subject, and right now I'm very confused! Is this the place to get answers? I see there is also a WP:Media Copyright Questions board. (Which if either board do I use? Is this board supported by OTRS volunteers? I have several questions.) Thank you.

This board is intended for questions regarding a permission you have submitted, or questions by editors about a situation where a permission has been submitted. It is not the best place to ask what license applies to a particular image. That is better for the WP:Media Copyright Questions board. Some editors watch both, but based upon the information you supplied, I think WP:Media Copyright Questions makes more sense.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If your question is about the OTRS status of File:Christian Freeling.jpg, the question belongs here, but the answer is that I do not see an email in the system relating to that image. However, I see that the image was uploaded in Jan. The board can be backlogged, but not by that much. I searched all tickets created around that date, but there are quite a few, and it is possible I missed it. If you did send it in, I can ask for some information to track it down.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I already know the status. I did send a permission Email 1-31-2012, but I do understand why it was rejected (lack of specificity). (Ticket 2012013110002889.) My questions aren't regarding what license applies (I know that CC-BY-SA 3.0 applies). What I want is a better understanding regarding a specific implication of a CC-BY-SA 3.0 release by the copyright holder, in order to reasonably communicate expectations to him, but the online documentation is just confusing me. (I also have some how-do-I-best-do-this type questions.) Am I at the right place? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see the request. (I'll take back my suggestion that you go to MCQ, either will work, but let's handle it here.)

Here is a link to the human readable terms of the license:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

That page also has a link to the legal terms.

I often use this link when someone asks me what exactly does it mean to license something as CC-BY-SA 3.0. I think this may be exactly what you want; if not, ask away, and I'll answer if I can, or find someone who can answer.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to anticipate the how-do-I-best-do-this question, you might want to know what to do next. If they were telling me they were concerned about what is covered by the license, I might send them the link above first, and tell them that if they find that acceptable, you will forward to them the form needed. If they are simply asking how to provide permission, I would start one of the two steps below:

1. I send the person this link and tell the person they should fill out the form in the black box, and either send it to OTRS, or send it back to me so I can forward it to OTRS, or
2. I fill out the form for them, filling it out as best I can, ask them to read it to make sure it is OK, make any corrections needed, such as updating the date, and send it back to me.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The links to the human-readable CA-BY-SA 3.0, and to the legal code, will be helpful, thank you. Thanks for offering to handle my questions. I do have specific questions, if okay, I'd prefer to do them one at a time ...

Q1. So I can understand, does this image (it's just a simple photo of the BLP subject) belong on WP? Or belong on Commons? Or belong on both? I'm confused about home destination for the photo. (There are even two separate Email addresses for permissions WP, and permissions Commons, adding to confusion.) If destined for one location but not the other, please explain why, so I can understand this. Thank u. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 14:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Q2. I read about "dual" licensing with GNU Free Documentation license. (Sometimes the doc said duel is automatic with CC-BY-SA; sometimes not. It's confusing!) My question: Is GNU for text only? (If so, then I can forget about GNU since doesn't apply.)

Q3. I keep reading about CA-BY-SA 3.0 "Unported" (and presumably, "Ported"). Is that relevant to the copyright holder at all? (If so I want to understand the difference and significance, if any. Is a release permission default "Unported"? Or? What does it mean?)

Q4. I would like to skip the form mentioned (I don't prefer the form) and just ask the copyright holder to provide four things, are these four adequate?: 1) attach the image, 2) name himself as the copyright holder, 3) specify he releases the image under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license, and 4) specify how likes attribution to be made.

Q5. If the four are adequate, then: 1) Should copyright holder send to me, or directly to OTRS? 2) As above re desgination, which of the multi permission Email addresses s/b used?, and 3) Should the old ticket number I mentioned be included, or not?

Okay, I have only one more question, but I'd prefer to deal with it last after understanding answers to the above. Thank you! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 14:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I can answer some, but not all. Let me start.

You said:

Q1. So I can understand, does this image (it's just a simple photo of the BLP subject) belong on WP? Or belong on Commons? Or belong on both? I'm confused about home destination for the photo. (There are even two separate Email addresses for permissions WP, and permissions Commons, adding to confusion.) If destined for one location but not the other, please explain why, so I can understand this. Thank u.

This one has a simple answer - you don't have to worry about it. Now for the more complicated answer, but if you don't like complicated, then refer back to the simple answer, it doesn't matter. Every language, such as English, has their own encyclopedia, and can host images to be used on that specific encyclopedia (To be more complete, I'm not literally sure whether this is true of every SINGLE language, but that doesn't matter). Many images are useful for more than one language. It is likely that there will be an article about the head of the UN in many languages. It wouldn't be very efficient to have a copy of the image in hundreds of places. Commons was created to be a common repository of images that can be used anywhere. So you might wonder, why do we need anything other than Commons? The answer, which doesn't apply to this image, is that some material, such as logos, is used under fair use laws which are not the same around the world. As a consequence, there are some images on Wikipedia that can be used on the English Wikipedia, but not on some other versions. We want to ensure that all images on Commons can be used by anyone anywhere, so if an image has some restrictions, we keep it only on the relevant language locations. If you upload an image to Wikipedia, and it is eligible to be on Commons (which it will be if it is licensed CC-BY-SA. it will eventually be moved by someone to Commons, but that happens behinds the scenes. It won't change the image in the article. There's a few more technical details but they aren't really important. Bottom line in the case of your image, it doesn't matter whether you upload it to Wikipedia or Commons (but don't do both). I slightly prefer the Commons upload process, but YMMV).

You said:

Q4. I would like to skip the form mentioned (I don't prefer the form) and just ask the copyright holder to provide four things, are these four adequate?: 1) attach the image, 2) name himself as the copyright holder, 3) specify he releases the image under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license, and 4) specify how likes attribution to be made.

In this specific case I think it is OK, but I can't guarantee that I will be the agent handling this. I'll bring up two downside to writing your own:

1. It will slow down the process. Agents are overworked an underpaid. When I am working on the OTRS backlog, the first thing I look for is whether the standard form exists. In some cases, there are some challenges, but I'll guess that over 80% of permission requests using the standard form are processed in a single shot, the first time they are read. If I don't see the standard form, I know it will be more challenging to process. I have to ensure that a number of conditions are met, almost every one of which is spelled out in the form. If it is a user designed permission, I have to check to make sure a number of issues are addressed. That takes time, and it is not uncommon for me to pass over such a ticket and move on to an easier one. I will come back and revisit the non-standard ones eventually, but on occasion, the backlog reaches days, weeks, or even months. (It is quite low at the moment in English Wikipedia, but backlogged at Commons. The oldest English Wikipedia ticket is 25 days old, the oldest Commons ticket is 160 days old). So using non-standard language might delay handling.
2. The second reason is that if you don't cover everything in the standard form, an agent may request more information, which will start the process over again. A common problem in user defined permissions is some statement like, "you have my permission to use this in Wikipedia" This is wholly unsatisfactory, and we have to send an email explaining the problem and asking them to resolve it, during which time the image might be deleted. In your proposal, the person will state that the image is released under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license. I would find that acceptable in this case, but another agent might be concerned that the person didn't know what that meant, and ask for clarification that they really know what they were agreeing to. This may sound like overkill, but I spent part of my morning reading an exchange between the former legal counsel of Wikimedia and another party, in which Mike asked for something to be done, and it was done. The recipient thought the instruction were clear, but Mike claims he did not mean that 20 years contributions should be deleted. Needless to say it is a mess, and what seems clear to one person, may not seem clear to another.

Another common situation is a licensee, knowing the noncommercial nature of Wikipedia, assuming that a license will also have a non-commercial clause. If they send us the standard form, where is says " I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product", well, they might miss it but the burden is on them. If they simply say "released under CA-BY-SA 3.0 license" we are probably on solid legal ground (but I am not permitted to issue legal advice), however, it will be quite sticky if they misunderstood, in view of the clause " I cannot withdraw this agreement". We'd prefer that people use the form, so they have at least had the words in front of them. In the case of this specific image, I don't think that will be a problem, but if it was, say, a screen shot of the new iphone, we might press for more specific assurances. So using a non-standard response might work, but it might not. I'm not the biggest fan of the current wording. I'd like to address the dual license issue (but I need to do some homework) and the "ported" issue (likewise). Are there any other aspects of it that troubled you?

I'll respond to the other questions, but I have to do some research for some, and I'm at work, so must handle that first. -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is very confusing (Q4)! I want to skip the form for four reasons: 1) I hate forms generally (even the best ones are in some way dysfunctional), 2) it may be confusing for the copyright holder, who is proficient in English but it isn't his first language, to deal with, 3) I'm not in a position to pre-fill the form for him myself, nor do I think I should try; but, I certainly can tell him to specify what satisfies the permission rejection which is all based on CSD F11: to specifify what license he agrees to release the image under, 4) the form introduces additional language beyond that simple specification (which, happens to be germane to my unasked Q6, making Q6 a real can of worms if I want to understand the answer, and I would or do, since it would involve a basic understanding of expectation I'm essentially suggesting the copyright holder to signon to).

Here is the entire content of the OTRS rejection Email I received on 2-28-2012:

If we are provided with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed. Thank you for your understanding! Please see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> for more information. Yours sincerely, Sarah Stierch

The reason given for rejection is consistent with the notice I recently received re CSD F11. (It is about getting from the copyright holder a specification on the license he agrees to release the image under.) In her mail she suggests the form can be used but is not necessary. (That is why I felt free to elect to skip it, and for reasons above.) That raises a question if the additional language in the form is consistent with the language in the legal code for CA-BY-SA 3.0, and, now I'm compelled to read both and compare, and not being an attorney, it is giving me a headache even thinking about doing same. It seems the additional language in the form, as you mentioned, is designed to assure: "You are agreeing to CA-BY-SA 3.0, but do you really know what that means?" Well, if the additional language in the form doesn't legally match the meaning in the code, then that is all messy and incorrect and misleading and confusing. So I assume the add'l language in the form is *guaranteed* to match the meaning in the code. [Can you assure that?!]) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to be clear, but apparently I failed. You are free to let the copyright holder write whatever they wish. I'm simply trying to inform you of the realities of that choice - it is likely to slow down the process, and it might fail. Your call.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You were clear, but weren't I also? I don't understand why my plan to ask the copyright holder to provide the four things mentioned above could "fail", when the four I listed satisfies the requirements communicated to me in Sarah's Email. (And the CSD F11 notice.) (The fact you're saying it might fail, just seems to add more confusion. How can explicitly satisfying the requests I've received fail?)

Were you going to give answers to my Qs, I tried to be clear and specific. I came here with good faith questions. You assured me this is the place to be. My only interest was in answers, to better understand. I asked 5 Qs. I wanted the 6th to be unnecessary. (Because, it is a can of worms, I think. Because the documentation on the WP, seems confusing and even contradictory, on my unasked Q6.) Why did this dialogue thread fail now?

You said you were going to reasearch some of my Qs. Then didn't. You put me in a "corner" re something I should not be put in a corner for. (I presume the reason for all this, is because these technical matters are best left to attorneys, and only attorneys understand them, and neither you nor I are attorney. That is why I wanted to avoid my Q6 and keep things simple. But then you complicated, by telling me the simple "may fail". That is confusing.) My questions were logical and reasonable so far as I know, so I do not blame myself for the failure of this thread. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 13:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In case you're not understanding Sphilbrick (because to a bystander, you seem to be taking his advice as an order), (1) using the form allows an agent to almost instantly verify that all necessary information is present, and (2) reduces the likeliness of human error where your correspondent either fails to supply all the information or does supply it all but adds something contradictory or unclear - such as "for Wikipedia". These kinds of human errors are the top reason why the permission process does not succeed. Using the form makes smooth processing more likely. The form is not mandatory. Failing to use the form does not guarantee that the process will slow down or fail. Using the form does not guarantee that the process will succeed. If you want to bypass the form, knowing this, you are certainly free to do so. It is your option and your decision.

Q1. Images that are freely licensed almost always belong on Commons for the reasons Sphilbrick already explained - putting them on Commons makes them available to all of our projects.

Q2. We generally recommend dual licensing under CC-By-SA and GFDL, but dual licensing is not required when individuals outside of Wikipedia donate content. GNU is not for text only. There are many files licensed under GNU licenses. If you want to suggest a GNU license or another allowed license, you can read about them here: Commons:Commons:Licensing. If you choose to suggest an alternate license to the copyright holder, you will need to read over that page and determine for yourself which one to recommend.

Q3. Unported licenses are not bound to a single jurisdiction but intended to apply internationally. If you want to know more on the distinction between ported and unported licenses, see [2] and [3]. Our work is international in scope. The CC-By-SA and GFDL licenses we recommend are international in scope as well.

Q5. (1) Having the copyright holder send directly to OTRS is preferable. (2) Send it to the Commons address if you upload the image on Commons. (3) This is a matter of your choice, but certainly not required. I would not bother with it myself, since doing so will put it into the inbox of the agent who handled it before and, if she is busy, can delay handling. (If she's not, it can actually speed handling, but I would myself go for the general queue.) The choice is yours.

If you see errors in the consent form, you are welcome to point them out, but that form has been in use with minor modifications for many years and it seems to serve us well. Nobody here can assure you that the language on the form conforms to the license because we can't; neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the authors of material on Wikimedia sites provide legal advice. You are encouraged to consult an attorney licensed to practice in the relevant jurisdictions if you want assurances of the legality of anything you find or are told here. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Okay, I'll take a stab at answering your questions.

A1. You can upload to either Wikipedia or Commons. If it's on Wikipedia you can use your local Watchlist to keep track of the file; if it's on Commons you'd have to log in over there to check on it/modify it/etc. On the other hand, Commons is preferred because then editor's from other language Wikipedias and WMF projects then have access to it. There are some differences between what copyright situations are accepted at each location, but nothing that concerns a photo of a person.

A2. Dual-licensing is required for your text contributions, but not for images. For images you can use any licenses you prefer so long as you include at least one free license. CC-BY-SA-3.0 is a free license, so you don't really have to worry more about this part, but should you be curious and/or masochisitic, we have guidelines for what constitutes a free license at Wikipedia:File copyright tags and a somewhat outdated (so possibly not entirely accurate) and more extensive list of acceptable licenses at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses.

A3. CC licenses are intended to be usable worldwide -- that's the unported version. There are some different versions which have been ported to different legal jurisdictions to match the text of the various local statutes and make interactions between the license and the law clearer, but the license operates the same way regardless.

A4. Yes, you can skip the form so long as those elements are clearly and explicitly stated. It would actually be easier on the volunteers to specify the location of the already-uploaded image rather than attaching a new one, so they/we don't have to go searching for it and compare the versions to make sure they're the same.

Now since copyright is held by the photographer and not the subject of a photo, I would recommend a statement regarding how he is the copyright holder, although this is not strictly or uniformly enforced by all of the volunteers handling email permissions so this could be omitted unless asked for.

A5. Either forwarded or directly emailed works, and technically either address would work since they can be moved back and forth between the email addresses as needed. As Sphilbrick mentioned above, the backlog for here on Wikipedia is shorter and the image is already located here, so that would likely be more quickly processed. The address is permissions-en@wikimedia.org. At this point I'd say skip the old ticket number, since that could get it automatically routed to the agent who processed the previous email who may or may not be active just now. Starting fresh will leave it in the queue for whoever is available to grab and process it.

Hopefully that clears some things up for you. If not, I'm open for providing further clarification. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you User:Moonriddengirl. Thank you User:VernoWhitney. I have (more than) sufficient answers now. (But am still confused about GNU. But nevermind!) I wrote the copyright holder, asking him to provide specific language in his Email re permission. I am sure everything will be fine. Your answers have bolserted my confidence re WP knowledge-holders; thank you. (I'm sure mine is a simple case. I'm sorry for the extra work caused.) Ok. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. My un-asked Q6, was about language in the form, which seems it could constitute essentially a waiver to Personality rights. (But, I have not examined the CC-BY-SA 3.0 code to see if that is that case [nor would I trust my interpretation anyway -- thus the "can of worms"].) I'm sure the author will provide unambiguous language re his release under the 3.0 license. Thanks again for your responses. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Would an OTRS volunteer please take a look at the permissions for the files (album covers) used at Karl Ferris and confirm that they are appropriate? I was wondering who actually gave the permissions for those files. If the copyrights are owned by the Hendrix estate or his record companies, I am very surprised that appropriate permissions have been granted. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, blast from the past. I handled that exchange. The permission came from Ferris himself, who asserts copyright/ownership of the covers. IIRC I did some due diligence at the time, and didn't find anything disagreeing with that (I have two of the covers in question in my collection at home, and on them they assert © to Ferris). It does occur to me in retrospect that as cover photographer he maybe doesn't have in-totem copyright on the full cover. I am unsure of how we would confirm that... -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 13:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can an OTRS volunteer check out the tickets for the File:Ghez9.jpg, File:Lucevela.jpg, File:PollardRG1963.2.jpg, and File:Silamarigonzales.jpg? All with confirmed permission, but no licensing. — ξ ^xplicit 22:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ghez9 and Pollard are only explicit enough to be Wikipedia only. They probably need new emails sent to try and get usable free licenses.

Lucevela and Silamarigonzales are relying on being works of the Puerto Rico government which I recall there being some issues with so I'll need to track down some previous discussions on that matter. We had some templates set up with OTRS numbers for one agency/organization which had to be deleted after some consultation with legal (as I recall) but I think some are still good, so I'll look into this further. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the OTRS ticket used for those two PR images doesn't apply, being only about works of art (such as File:Kenneth McClintock PR.jpg). Since I don't read Spanish, I'm not the best choice for tracking down which images may or may not be official works of the government (which I think would make them PD), but Lucevela in particular is sourced to http://www.fortaleza.gobierno.pr/ which explicitly claims "Derechos Reservados ® Fortaleza de Puerto Rico 2012" (per Google Translate: "Copyright ® Fortress Puerto Rico 2012") so unless someone who can do better than Google Translate wants to go through and try to determine a more precise source for that image I think it needs to be changed to non-free.

The other one comes from the official website of the Senate of Puerto Rico which sports no copyright claim, so that's better looking, but PR's status with regards to the federal government escapes me sometimes, so I think it still warrants some deeper looking into the copyright status of works in general of the PR government. VernoWhitney ( talk) 21:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you received any permission statement for this file? The uploader claims that permission was sent to OTRS but it was still deleted. See User talk:Stefan2#Question about deletion. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I see an email in the system, but it is long and confusing. Will read it carefully, and see if I can sort it out.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks OK. I restored it, added the permission, and returned it to the article. Sorry, OTRS is horribly backlogged, with a number of tickets 40 days or more old. I've knocked off a bunch, but some are very complicated (such as this one).-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The uploader of the image File:RaphaelXavier.jpg has notified me that they sent an email confirming the permission of this image. I know there has been a backlog for quite some time, but I was wondering if someone could look into this. Thanks. — ξ ^xplicit 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's Ticket:2012101010015629, but I haven't dug in to make sure it all checks out yet and won't have time for a few hours. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good so I've restored it. Thanks for the bump. VernoWhitney ( talk) 13:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Wpcplogo.jpg is tagged as a non-free file, including a rationale. But there is also an OTRS tag on the file description page, claiming ticket 2011121910019394. Is this OTRS ticket valid? If so, has the image been released under a free license? If so, which? — Bkell ( talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is intended to be a non-free logo. A copy was sent to photo submissions, which is handled in the OTRS system, so it has an OTRS template to link to the email exchange. I did not see a permission statement in the chain, but I will send a note to the two OTRS agents who worked on this, in case there is something I am missing.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

After chatting with both OTRS agents, it is agreed that it should be viewed as non-free. I've removed the OTRS template, which is more confusing than helpful.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the investigation. — Bkell ( talk) 16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Logomaunakeatech.jpg has a tag indicating that it has been released under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. The description says, "Mauna Kea grants license, as per email FWDed to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' June 27, 2011, 2:51pm EDT," but there is no OTRS ticket number given. Does this permission check out? — Bkell ( talk) 17:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I can find, no it doesn't. The one ticket I can find is ticket:2011062710011736. There were a request for more information from the OTRS agent regarding File:Esophagus intestinal metaplasia.png, File:Cellvizio, the worlds smallest microscope.jpg and File:Physicians using Cellvizio in the OR.jpg which is related images from the same uploader with same permission statement, but there's been no reply. KTC ( talk) 19:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged the two existing images WP:CSD#F11. KTC ( talk) 19:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Tijuana Projection 2001 e SMALL.JPG is tagged as a non-free file, including a rationale. But there is also an OTRS tag on the file description page, claiming ticket 2011120110020469. Is this OTRS ticket valid? If so, has the image been released under a free license? If so, which? — Bkell ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all of the other images in the Krzysztof Wodiczko article have the same status, claiming the same OTRS ticket:

• File:Personal Instrument 2 SMALL.JPG
• File:Homeless Vehicle New York 2 SMALL.JPG
• File:GP 1598 - OUT OF HERE 2 SMALL.JPG
• File:Hiroshima Projection 1999 D SMALL.JPG

— Bkell ( talk) 18:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket is regarding these images but non-free fair use is what was intended with no release under a free license, so the existence of both are strictly accurate. I offer no comment on whether the existence of the OTRS tag is helpful or not for images under fair use. KTC ( talk) 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please confirm whether you received an email from me including permission from Professor Dick Schoech for the reuse of material used within the HUSITA article (formerly Human Services Information Technology Applications)?

If the email was received, did it contain sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license? If not please let me know what additional information is required.

If the confirmation is acceptable can someone please replace the WP:OTRS template still attached to the HUSITA article?

Thanks.

NeilBallantyne ( talk) 07:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A response has been sent back explaining why that wasn't sufficient for permission. For other volunteers, it's ticket:2012110110002747. Legoktm ( talk) 07:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Legoktm I gather that a message forwarded by me to you from the rights holder is insufficient and that you require an email to be sent directly from Professor Schoech. I have asked that he do so and you should have the permission shortly. NeilBallantyne ( talk) 08:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Professor Dick Schoech has now sent an email directly to OTRS (according to your instructions) giving wikipedia permission to reuse any content from the HUSITA website. I hope this will now allow OTRS to remove the unconfirmed permission notice from the article. I have several colleagues who want to add material to the article but are hesitant to do so because of the notice. Thanks NeilBallantyne ( talk) 18:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Received and a reply was sent back. We need a specific statement of permission (see WP:CONSENT). Sorry for not mentioning this in the earlier email and for all the back and forth . Legoktm ( talk) 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's okay...we're getting there. I did recall seeing the Declaration of Consent template but then couldn't find it when I looked again. I suspect the whole permissions advice aspect of the wikimedia site might benefit from a tidy up, making the helpful Declaration of Consent more obvious. Thanks for your speedy response to Dick. NeilBallantyne ( talk) 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done! If you do have suggestions on how the process can be improved, feel free to start a discussion at WT:CONSENT. Legoktm ( talk) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

While editing an article about Moni Aizik I uploaded this file: File:Moni Aizik training.jpg. It comes from here Commando Krav Maga site. Moni Aizik gave me the permission to use any of his photos for Wikipedia edits and he also sent your team a declaration of consent. Why has it been removed then? If the license was not proper, under which license should I tag it? Romayan ( talk) 05:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that the picture is used in a magazine article here: [4] I'm not convinced this editor or the subject have the rights to it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• It was removed in this edit by Johnny duluxe consider asking that user on their talk page why it was removed. There is an email in the permissions queue about the image( Ticket # 012090410004093). The permission email was not specific enough. An OTRS member sent back an email asking for more specific permission on September 10 and has yet to receive a response. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 03:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

MorganKevinJ, what needs to be specified? Just let me know, and you will receive an expected answer. Thank you! Romayan ( talk) 15:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I just looked up on the ticket again (it's ticket:2012090410004093 btw), and we need a WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Legoktm ( talk) 04:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! You will receive it soon. Romayan ( talk) 11:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This declaration was sent to permissions' e-mail address in September. Is there something missing in it? Romayan ( talk) 15:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Chen from Wikimedia Commons has confirmed that he received the declaration so I just put the picture back unless you have any questions. Romayan ( talk) 12:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 4#File:Rakaposhi 3.jpg. Some of the images are sourced to Dr. Volker Thewalt. One of them has OTRS permission referring to ticket:2012051710001462. Maybe the ticket also applies to the other images by Dr. Volker Thewalt? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The ticket only refers to "File:Rakaposhi 2.jpg", which was moved to the commons as File:Rakaposhi 5.jpg. Per the grandfathering policy, I can ask if the permission extends to the other images sourced to them. Legoktm ( talk) 11:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there an update on this? The PUF is still open. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the file " File:Gene Paul, Mary Ford & Les Paul in the mid-1960s.jpg" was deleted from the Gene Paul Wikipedia article despite Gene Paul emailing proof of copyright to Wikipedia as instructed. Can you please advise on why this was deleted? The discussion page said "Gene Paul holds the copyright for this picture and is emailing verification to Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org on 8/28/12." Please let me know what needs to be done to assure Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that this is not a copyright violation. Thanks. Lovelounge ( talk) 16:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved from talk page Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The file File:Deaf School at The Garage, London - January 2011.jpg was deleted on December 11 for lacking evidence of permission. However, the uploader claims that they sent an email to verify permission on December 9 at 13:32 GMT. Can someone look into this? — ξ ^xplicit 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The ticket is ticket:2012120910006496. It is still outstanding. As I don't access to the image, I'll leave it to someone who does and more experience to handle the ticket and comment on this. -- KTC ( talk) 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify; this needs an OTRS agent who is also an admin (and who can thus see the deleted image and its EXIF metadata) here or on Commons, as applicable. Not all OTRS agents are admins; and this is a recurring issue for those of us to whom that applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no Exif data, it has been Photoshopped. There are videos of the band on Youtube, but the image is quite high quality so doesn't look to have been cropped from them. Also I can't find any similar images on Google Image search. OTRS Agents call on this one I think; if you want me to undelete it please let me know. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 13:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We could request that they upload the photo, to see the EXIF. If they used photo shop to legitimately improve it, then that image can be uploaded over it, with a notation that it has been photoshopped. Isn't that best practice any way?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Similar to the case directly above, the uploader claims that the email containing the permission for File:Eugene A Tan.jpg was sent prior to the file's deletion. They used the email address duchess@duchesspr.com. — ξ ^xplicit 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ticket:2012121810011356. -- KTC ( talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've replied. It's also been reuploaded to Commons at File:Atty. Eugene Alvarez Tan.jpg so it's no longer directly an enwiki issue. VernoWhitney ( talk) 22:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, could anybody please tell me what permisisons have been logged in ticket 2012092510011581 and if its okey for me to use it on my userpage? Hybirdd ( talk) 17:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done The permission is confirmation of the {{ cc-by-sa-3.0}} license, so yes, you can use it in a user page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 10:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to this issue regarding a part of the text in the article Olm, I asked the copyright holder to provide an OTRS grant, which he did yesterday (I was CC-ed the e-mail). I'm not sure now where to put the {{ OTRS-pending}} template now. Can someone help? Thanks, — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done KTC ( talk) 10:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a claim here that "Daffodil International Professional Training Institute(DIPTI) web team email to at "permissions@wikimedia.org" that there is no problem with copyright. Please check the mail as soon as possible. --Wikiwebsbd (talk) 1:08 pm, 22 November 2012, Thursday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC+0)

I'm duff at searching for OTRS tickets so I'm not sure I searched correctly. This originated with a discussion at WP:ANI#Any admins with OTRS access (permissions). Dougweller ( talk) 15:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an old email at Ticket:2012050210004541 and a recent one at Ticket:2012081210002411. In both cases there was a request for clarification/usable permission, but no further replies. VernoWhitney ( talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak a word of Russian, while the folks at the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia (who hold the copyright on an image which I wish to include as an illustration for a Wikipedia article) don't seem to speak that much English.

We've been using Google Translate to communicate by email - with some success, I might add - but I'm afraid it looks at this point like they're going to be mailing a hard copy of their declaration of consent (or something like it) to my home in Texas.

Eek!

Is there any way I can provide them with a link to an online version of "Declaration of Consent" which is translated into Russian, to hopefully prevent their going to all that trouble in the first place? I think my biggest concern at this point is about wasting their time - they've already been extremely helpful; and I don't want to wind up sending them on a wild goose chase only to wind up with a hard copy of a declaration of consent in my hands which might (or might not!) be specifically what Wikipedia requires for image licensing.

Any feedback - comments, critiques, whatever - would be more than welcome since I've never done anything quite like this before.

Thanks! ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།། xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{ say it}  { contribs}} 01:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe commons:Template:Email templates/Consent/ru is what you're looking for. They're generally a better place to look for internationalization in general than here at enwiki just due to our different focuses. VernoWhitney ( talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! :^) :^) ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།། xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{ say it}  { contribs}} 02:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalizing Mount Sinai School District again, User:FreplySpang says at top of talk that school admin had requested a block filed in OTRS. ⁓ Hello 71 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a block was requested in 2007, which as expired. I'm not sure I understand your question, or even if you have one.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Verify that a recurring block was requested (as claimed on talk) and if so that the admin is still the admin. ⁓ Hello 71 21:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A block was requested and the ticket was handled by User:FreplySpang (desysopped for inactivity). Xe stated that xe would leave a note that the block should be reviewed and re-imposed when it expires. However it's important to remember that this ticket was handled over 6 years ago. Legoktm ( talk) 03:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a OTRS ticket number on this, but based on the use rationalle, I have reason to suspect that the editor claiming the licence is not being honest. In addition Tineye reveals that this image was used on a seperate artist's page. Thank you Hasteur ( talk) 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I was unable to locate a ticket referencing the author's name or the file name. I've tagged it on commons. — Darkwind ( talk) 01:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This file has OTRS permission, but a user thought that the user might be unfree and started a discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 21#File:A.R.S. Lions logo.jpg. Is there something wrong with the OTRS ticket? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look finished, so I'm not sure why it didn't just get an {{ OTRS received}} tag, but maybe the agent who handled it knows something I don't. I've asked them to comment here. VernoWhitney ( talk) 21:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to reconstruct exactly what happened, but I changed the template to the received template, and followed up with an email to the appropriate individual identifying what is missing. It isn't appropriate to go into detail about what needs to happen, but I don't anticipate a problem, except it may take a couple days to sort out-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Willows in Sunlight by WIlliam Newport Goodell.jpg was tagged with {{ OTRS received}} quite a few months ago, but there doesn't seem to be any development beyond that. It's also a non-free file, making the case a little odd. Can someone look into this? — ξ ^xplicit 01:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the relevant ticket, it appears that the copyright holder was not willing to release it under a CC-BY-SA license (there were objections to the "SA" part), and the fair-use rationale was an alternative to fully releasing the image under a compatible license. I don't think any further developments were (or are) expected to happen. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 18:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The Template:OTRS received does not have any field like reason=processing as seen in the corresponding template of Commons. Could someone please create such template? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added an optional |reason = parameter that will replace the text This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published.. Basic, but it'll do the job. — Theopolisme ( talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please confirm whether the OTRS ticket information is correct at File:Agron at GLAAD.jpg. An apparently identical image appears at Zimbio attributed to "Araya Diaz/Getty Images North America". Thanks. –  Wdchk ( talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The uploader used the same tag for File:Celebrities Anonymous Poster.jpg. It was subsequently removed by User:Legoktm as invalid. –  Wdchk ( talk) 03:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That OTRS ticket does not apply to File:Agron at GLAAD.jpg so I have removed the OTRS template. The image appears to be a copyvio as you have noted and I have tagged it for deletion as such.-- ukexpat ( talk) 21:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This issue came up during a FA-nomination [ [5]], the image is used as infobox image. The image was originally uploaded to Wikipedia and later moved to Commons, unfortunately the original uploader User:Sdsouza seems to be inactive since 2007/2008. The image summary states, that a permission message was sent to permissions@wikimedia.org, but information about the exact ticket number is missing. According to the summary the permission was only granted for "representation in Wikipedia articles" (which would be an invalid limitation for a Wikipedia-license imo).

• Can the status of this permission be verified, especially if the permission was OK and if it is really limited for Wikipedia only?
• What ticket number has it, if any?
• If the permission is limited to "Wikipedia only", the image can't be used as free image, can it?

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2006091310004622 contains an attachment that grants use of the image on the relevant English Wikipedia page. It does not contain a release in accordance with CC-by-sa, nor does it mention any other applicable or acceptable license. It does not fulfill the requirements to be included in the Wikimedia repository. I was unable to find any other ticket pertaining to this image. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case shouldn't it be tagged for deletion from Commons?-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion commenced at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sapper APWatt.jpg.-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 deleted on commons per insufficient permission MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 19:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick check and fixing the situation. GermanJoe ( talk) 19:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Our instructions for copyright holders of text on the English Wikipedia marked as a copyright violation ( WP:IOWN) advise people to send permissions emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is that the most appropriate address? It seems to be the one for Commons images. Hut 8.5 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. I think that most OTRS volunteers who have access to the permissions-en queue also have access to permissions-commons.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just had an email discussion with the author of an article I deleted as a copyright violation who wanted to get the page restored by releasing the text under a free licence. She followed the instructions I linked to above and was sent a response on the assumption that she was trying to upload a file to Commons, written by a Brazilian editor who isn't very active here and who didn't think his role involved getting pages restored on local projects. This caused some confusion. Hut 8.5 21:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In theory it shouldn't matter but in practice some agents tend to work in some but not other queues. Because Commons is almost always images, (probably 999 out of 1000) that may have led to some confusion.

permissions-en at wikimedia.org (change " at " to "@") would be a safer option, which is where I see most text based permissions. Even then, 98 out of 100 permissions are images, and many times, someone refers to a web page containing an image, so sometimes I have to mentally switch gears and realize they aren't talking about an image on some page, but the text itself.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm currently trying to port an article from the Italian WP over to this one. Several images in that article are apparently not able of being used here due to copyright issues. The images are:

• Vela Molecular Ridge
• VMR A
• VMR B
• VMR C
• VMR D
• IRAS 09002−4732
• Vela R2

The original uploader has informed me that there is an OTRS ticket concerning those images that should be valid here too. He also directed me to EDP policy which apparently is what permits it.wp to host those files. I opened a ticket at the help desk and was informed this was the place to ask so here I am. Any help will be much appreciated. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the ticket, permission is granted for use on Wikipedia (it doesn't specify a language, so should be OK) with the relevant permission text - for non-commercial/educational use. However, there is no free license release. --[[user:-- Errant ^{( chat!)} 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)ErrantX|Errant]] ^{( chat!)} 12:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So I can use them here, right? What should I do in order for the images to be "linkable" in the article? Should I download and re-upload them to the english Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) or is there a way to use them directly from the italian wiki? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 13:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

They can't go on commons as they are not under a free license. So you'd have to upload them here directly; also, use {{ OTRS permission}} to note the ticket number. On English Wikipedia you'd need to justify them under the " fair use" guidelines, and also apply the {{ Non-free with permission}} template. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 14:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've run into trouble. Following your advice, I downloaded the Vela Molecular Ridge file and when I attempt to upload it I select the option This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. (since it is not a free work) The issue is that this option asks me to enter the name of the article where the image will be used and it has to be an existing article. Since I'm currently working on porting the article at my own talk page I don't see a way around this unless I either:

a- lie in the upload form and put in an article I will not use the image and correct this after the article is accepted, or

b- wait for the article to be accepted (without any of those images) and then upload them.

Is there any other choice besides these? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 14:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wait till you move the article to live space. If you do the former you might run into trouble with bots tagging the images. -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will do that. Do you mind if I contact you after (if) I get the article approved if I run into trouble with the copyrighting and such? Cheers. Gaba p ( talk) 17:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, my talk page is always open! :) -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ErrantX, hopefully I'll won't have to trouble you any more. Cheers! Gaba p ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Would a volunteer please confirm the validity of the license for File:Omey Island Map.jpg? Confirm that Bango Art=Sean Corcoran.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 03:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed, ticket is in order.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 22:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The uploader added {{ PermissionOTRS}}, but the uploader doesn't have any OTRS flag on Commons and isn't listed at m:OTRS/Personnel, so the uploader doesn't seem to be an OTRS member. It says that the image has been cropped from File:Pride of Performance Award by President of Pakistan.jpg, but this is obviously not the case. Does the OTRS ticket provide any information about the image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The image is in the e-mail as "4. customer (email-external)". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the link to the uncropped version of the image, so it looks to be in order now. VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting information on ticket 2013020510008188. File was listed as having been sent to the uploader individually, however very similar image appears at [6] with minimal photo manipulation to get from image on champmag to uploaded image. I have reason to suspect that this is not an officially licenced image and therefore am requesting details of the permission grant to determine if the grant is appropriate. Hasteur ( talk) 20:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File in question is File:Burd & Keyz sitting on couch, blue hint.jpg Hasteur ( talk) 20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I processed the permission, which was put together correctly, but I now have some concerns. Will inquire.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I received an email from the uploader. I provided a response, indicating how certain questions could be resolved. I sent that on 1 March. Have not yet heard back. If we do not hear in another day or two, I suggest we arrange to delete it. If the uploader can provide satisfactory answers, we can restore.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

At 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and Nik Stauskas, I would like to include a picture of a derivative of the Flag of Canada that can be seen in this tweet. I am in communication with the owner of the flag owner by email. I have been informed that a friend of his designed the flag, a third party company constructed the flag, and he is a part owner of the flag along with its designer. What permissions would be needed for a picture (taken by him) of this flag to appear in WP or is there a fair use option?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the flag does not meet the threshold of originality no additional permission is needed MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 04:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand. What license would an image of this flag use? Are you saying the photographer holds the only relevant copyright?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Only the photographer would be the copyright holder. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 06:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The photographer is usually the copyright holder, but we should be careful not to assume this is always the case. If the photographer is working on a contract for hire, it is common for the contract to specify that the copyright holder will be the subject or some other entity. -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In 2006-7, User:Anlace published multiple photographs attributed to "C. Michael Hogan", including File:Annadelviewofsonomamtn.jpg. I was considering transwiki-ing that image to Commons, but I want to double-check that Anlace was entitled to release it. Some of the images had permission filed under OTRS: e.g., File:Roundbarnsocounty.jpg under this ticket, or File:Sedimentpondsfoundtaingrovelake.jpg under this ticket.

Does User:Anlace have global permission to publish photographs from "C. Michael Hogan"? If so, which OTRS ticket can I refer to? — hike395 ( talk) 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This ticket 2007032610020751 covers:

• File:BennettValleylookingsecmhogan.jpg
• File:Roundbarnsocounty.jpg

This ticket 2007030610001835 covers:

• File:Sedimentpondsfoundtaingrovelake.jpg

Another ticket 2007040310004425 covers:

• File:Americanocreekupperreachcmhogan.jpg

This ticket 2007032110001968 covers:

• File:Sedimentpondsfoundtaingrovelake.jpg
• File:Tchaacrmacal.jpg
• File:Schaamacal2.jpg
• File:Schaamaya.jpg

(This one is slightly confusing because it refer to three images, yet there are four listed. However, one is covered by another ticket)

This ticket 2007022310025941 covers:

• File:Rubostipaanjajavycmichaelhogan.jpg

I do not see any general permission.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Has OTRS permission, but there are four different versions in the history, and some were uploaded after the OTRS permission tag was added. Does the OTRS permission apply to all of them or only some of them? From the file information page, it is not clear whether all photos were taken by the same photographer or not, so different photos might need OTRS permission from different people. One of the four photos is currently up for deletion as replaceable fair use at File:Trevor Sheldon portrait photo.jpg. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the OTRS permission covers the 2009 image only. I think the newer photographs should have been uploaded separately, with their own separate permission, not as an update, which I think is acceptable for cropping or retouching, but not for an entirely new photo.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Njarecki-pic.tiff has an OTRS tag referencing ticket 2012092910006428. But the file description page does not have a licensing tag indicating what kind of permission has been granted. What license is specified by the OTRS ticket? — Bkell ( talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The license in the permission is clear, but was not added to the image. I have done so.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe User:Rafaelcarmen sent a mail giving permission to use "the article The Organization Workshop (OW™) - Seriti Institute on the www.seriti.org.za website" under a CC license. The relevant Wikipedia content is the now-deleted-and-recreated draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop and the duplicate draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop (OW). For more details see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop. Huon ( talk) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I just sent an email regarding this situation. One challenge arising from the decision to AfC in talk space is that it is hard to find articles, especially deleted one. This presumably was done deliberately, but this isn't the first time I've searched for some material, only to end up locating it in the bowels of AfC.

There's also a technical problem, that the subpage desired to be licensed cannot be accessed without a login. That might not be a requirement for licensing, but it is an impediment.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

While that's irrelevant to the OTRS issue, AfC drafts must be in talk space so IP editors can create them. Huon ( talk) 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand why it is done. I'm just whining, cause someone sends an OTRS about something and I look and tell them I can't find it, and they send me an AFC link, and I go D'oh, and address their issue. I guess I wish there were a search option for OTRS agents that could include Talk pages.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to submit an OTRS thinger for my self published Image File:Dazzler mounted on M-240B in Iraq.jpg? I was just wondering because I may not always be here due to RL if someone asks me about it on my talk page. Thanks, — - dain omite   22:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. If it's not been published elsehwere, and is your own image, there isn't an issue :) -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you very much. — - dain omite   22:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Dr PC Bagchi at work.jpg has an OTRS tag, ticket #2012082110008451. Two very similar images, File:P.C.Bagchi in Indo-China 1922.jpg and File:Satyendra Nath Bose and P.C.Bagchi in Paris 1924.jpg, are currently listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 7 with the concern being that, while these images claim to be from a photoalbum, they look like halftoning (the nominator says they look like they're "from a book," but that's what she means). Could someone check that ticket and see if it sheds any light on the provenance of these photos? Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does not provide a lot of information on the providence. (It gives frustratingly little on the origin of the first, I may have to look into that.) The information provided would be congruent with it being from a photo album (although it does not say it is), but I can't say more than that. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

These articles have {{ PermissionOTRS}} errors because no id or ticket is specified. Please confirm and enter the correct id or ticket template parameter, or remove the template, or revert to previous {{ confirmation}} template use. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Fixed-odds betting
  • Special:Permalink/45790358

 Done ticket found and tag updated accordingly MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 04:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:The Five Discs
  • Special:Permalink/82019725

 Done ticket found and tag updated accordingly MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 04:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone with OTRS access go through Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days and tag for deletion where appropriate? —  Train2104 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FNN#Contacting user to confirm permission: a few images got {{ PermissionOTRS}} without ticket numbers in 2008. Would it be possible to dig up those ticket numbers? Also, does the permission apply to the other images in the discussion too?

Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID currently contains 10 files, so there are also other files to fix. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Has permission been received for File:AMT ALP-45DP.jpg, or is it just a con job? See User talk:Mtlfiredude for previous copyright infringements. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 19:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A text search of the permissions queue on both "File:AMT ALP-45DP.jpg" and "James Pabbs" returns no tickets. This does not always mean no email was sent since depending on the wording of the email it might not show up in the text search. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 20:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I am posting to request the reinstatement of the above Wikipedia entry. See conversation below:

You just deleted the entry "Relative market share," although valid copyright permission has been sent to Wikipedia.

See Market penetration for an example:

OTRS icon The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Farris, Paul W.; Neil T. Bendle; Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein

(2010). Marketing Metrics: The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN  0137058292.. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2012021110008071. Permission applies only to such content from this book as was present in the article at 18:41, 2 January 2012. See item #55 in the OTRS records This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

karenmscheller 00:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey ( talk • contribs)

I would suggest you ask about this at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard so that an OTRS member can confirm the permission and restore the article. INeverCry 01:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! karenmscheller 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey ( talk • contribs)

 Done Mike V • Talk 07:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

OTRS tag doesn't seem to have been added by an OTRS member. Is the permission valid? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not valid yet. The OTRS reviewer asked for a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, and that has not yet been provided.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note I've fixed the templates and added an {{ OTRS pending}} to the image. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The file description indicates that a number of messages have been sent to OTRS about the purchase of this image but there doesn't seem to be any agreement about a free license. Have you actually received anything useful on that score? Please see also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 16. De728631 ( talk) 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ticket:2013041310006312 if anyone's interested. Reading the email, nothing about a free license is indicated. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 07:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In the following Query I note a number of image which claim to have an OTRS permission, Surely the sources could be added in from the OTRS submission? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll check as soon as I can see the query on Toolserver - it appears to be down at the moment (again).-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked all those that have OTRS tickets, results as follows:

File:RMIT MusicLogo.jpg - Y

File:MXOOTT.jpeg - Y

File:AndreasMoeCollectingSunlightArtwork.jpg - Y

File:Kenneth Arredondo.jpg - Y

File:SelimDjem.jpg - Y

File:Kole Imports Office, KI and American Flag Waving, Carson CA, December 2012.jpg - Y

File:Donny Goines photo.jpg - Y

File:Frank Cannella Photo Feb2013.JPG - Y

File:Joseph S. Pulver, Sr.jpg - Y

File:ThePsychedelic-thumbnail1-425x322.jpg - Y

File:Portrait photograph of Harry Edward Welch, Jr.jpg - Y

File:Erica Ferencik.jpg - Y

-- ukexpat ( talk) 00:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying to upload a map from a third party source and have been directed to send post my documentation here. This was from the talk page on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions:

Does this count as fair use?

I would like to upload a map from the Episcopal Church of the Sudans website, showing their diocesan boundaries.

http://sudan.anglican.org/images/sudanmaplarge.jpg

They also have a separate map for the dioceses in South Sudan, though its in PDF format

http://sudan.anglican.org/files/sudanmap.pdf

Can either of these be added to the Episcopal Church of the Sudan wiki pages under fair use?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not as they would fail NFCC#1 in that free versions could be produced using the same data the maps are based on. NtheP ( talk) 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the answer I gave at Wikipedia:Help desk#Does this count as fair use?. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from the church giving me permission to add the map to the page. I should certainly be able to now, right?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe you need to forward the email to OTRS. The specific wording of the email also matters. The email must give permission which is compatible with GFDL and/or cc-by-sa, which means that it must explicitly allow commercial reuse beyond Wikipedia. If it is just permission to use it on Wikipedia alone, that is not enough. See WP:IOWN and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. -- Jayron 32 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And here is the e-mail I received:

Jonathan,

> Dear Episcopal Church of Sudan > > I would like to upload this map onto the Episcopal Church of Sudan > wikipedia page. > > http://sudan.anglican.org/images/sudanmaplarge.jpg > > However, I am unsure if that would be permitted right now, under > wikipedias rules governing such content > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCCP#Policy > > I would certainly be permitted though, if you would be kind enough to > give us permission to upload the file to the page to illustrate the > locations of the dioceses.

You are welcome to use this map. Be aware that it is not the best possible representation of the Sudanese dioceses - it is a task that I keep setting myself and which gets superseded by other tasks! The drawn boundaries represent the best information that I could access in 2009. I do have better data now - and the relatively newly published Gizi map provides a better base image on which to construct a new map - but I am afraid that the ink is still in the pen.

With prayers and blessings

Chris Wright Webkeeper for the Anglican Province of Sudan Based in Bradford, England

So, per Wiki policies, am I allowed to upload the map?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 19:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not specific enough - see Jayron32's reply above.-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This image needs the author or copyright holder's name, and maybe more information about the sourcing. — innotata 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the file info page with the source of the image per the OTRS ticket.-- ukexpat ( talk) 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone check this? Does the OTRS ticket really contain permission from Apple Computer (for the background image) or Nintendō (for Super Mario Brothers 2)? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The permission pertains only to OpenEmu. -- B ( talk) 14:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts on created dated OTRS categories for {{ OTRS pending}} and {{ OTRS received}} like Commons has? I gave a cursory glance at some of the images with these templates and there are plenty of very old ones where enough time has elapsed that we're not going to get anything. I think it would be potentially a worthwhile endeavor, in some cases, to follow up rather than just engaging in mass deletion, but that followup would be far more efficient if we had dated categories. We could get a bot to retroactively populate the categories based on the last edit date for current images and auto-date the templates on a day-forward basis. -- B ( talk) 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't you just sort them by the date of the latest edit instead? Using something like [[Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}]], perhaps. Just remember to add {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} as sort key to all categories in the templates. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that was possible. And looking at {{ OTRS pending}}, it looks like it already auto-adds the image to Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days if it goes over 30 days. Given the backlog, maybe we could just add 60 and 90 day categories and that would work. And Category:Items with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS for over 30 days exists for {{ OTRS received}}. -- B ( talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but automatic category update doesn't work very well. The categories are cached and not always updated when a file becomes 30 days old. Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission contains lots of files which should appear in Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission for over 30 days instead. The category will be updated if someone edits the {{ OTRS pending}} template, but if no one edits that template, the files may remain in the other category for several months. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added a separate category for Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission by date that is populated with the timestamp as you described. There's some utility to having an alphabetical category so I left that one alone. I did add 60-day and 90-day categories ... only a couple of items are in there, but obviously the 30-day one has been populated somehow, so I'm guessing/assuming that eventually things will show up in the new ones. -- B ( talk) 19:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, and as you can see, all files sort under "2" as a file last edited during the 21st century has a timestamp beginning with 2 (for example 20230217221925 for this page). As the template recently was edited, I believe that all of the categories will be updated soon. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the ticket confirm the permission for this file? And if it does, is there any information regarding the author, date, etc? ALH ( talk) 08:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The information in the ticket asserts ownership of the copyright, but does not explicitly identify the author, nor does it mention dates.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for receiving the emails you got from "tommee3d@yahoo.com" for the photos on the page of Funk Trek. You did say though that the permission was not sufficient because the photos were not proven to be under free use. Now, the question I have is, that if I reuploaded the pictures and went through the proper procedure to make them free use (since they are already approved of by the author), would a new email have to be sent to you? I do not know what your reasons were for flagging it, but I want to do everything to reverse that without the pictures being taken down; this is the farthest I've gotten before. So what I'm asking is for your guidance in reuploading since I'm sort of new to this.

If the problem was the inconsistency with emails, I can assure you that the email you find for Tom Murnan on Facebook will not match because he lists his email on there @facebook.com, which does not have an inbox like others. I know for certain he logs in with tommee3d@yahoo.com and if you want me to provide further proof, I'll go search for it.

Just let me know what's proper uploading for free use in this situation and if I have to do more email work.

Thanks,

Nirvanafanatic619 ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You do not have to reupload the images. Just send a new e-mail with the revised permissions and, if the permissions are appropriate, the images will be undeleted and the correct tags added.-- ukexpat ( talk) 18:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The USHMM website is copyrighted, [7] with clearly visible tag at the bottom of each and every content page stating in capital letters: Copyright © United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC. Would you please confirm that the OTRS ticket has been filed, and most importantly, explain how much material it could cover under our own guidelines? The same OTRS ticket no. 2007071910012533 is mentioned as rationale in an exceptionally long series of articles, including: Père Jacques, ‎ Nazi book burnings, ‎ United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Auschwitz concentration camp, ‎ Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany, Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, Jewish community of Amsterdam, ‎‎ Category:Hungarian military personnel of World War II, Gardelegen (war crime), Chełmno extermination camp, 11th Armoured Division (United Kingdom), Bergen-Belsen displaced persons camp, ‎ Trawniki, ‎ Tarnów, ‎ Mühldorf subcamp, ‎ Aktion Erntefest, History of the Jews in Kalisz, ‎ Hadamar Euthanasia Centre, ‎Mechelen transit camp, List of subcamps of Natzweiler-Struthof, ‎Kaunas, ‎ Kovno Ghetto, ‎ Kaufering, ‎ Halle concentration camp, Hainichen concentration camp, Hainewalde concentration camp, HeHalutz, Jung Borochovistim, Parczew partisans, and a lot more. See: Special:Contributions/USHMMwestheim. — What troubles me most is that all text, copy-pasted en masse can at times be also inaccurate... and often is, especially when the subject gets controversial, but the aura surrounding the grand OTRS ticket is such that the material added (with so little effort) is somehow indisputable, or better than ours. I run into this while working on a couple of different articles from the above list. Facts are not always accurate. Many paragraphs have no inline citations at all giving the impression of original research. Some paragraphs take days to fix. How much can I change and/or remove if necessary without having to deface the article I work on with an avalanche of nasty templates and flags. This sort of thing leaves me in a total quandary. Thanks in advance for your help, Poeticbent talk 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the ticket in question; yes, permission was granted for all the content added by USHMMwestheim to be reused, in whole or in part, on Wikipedia--in fact, it was originally created especially for this purpose. You, however, are always welcome to be bold and update any inaccuracies in the content (just don't forget these! ) Theopolisme ( talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Theopolisme, for such a quick reply. The specific problems I've had, came about during the latest re-write of the Chełmno extermination camp which I expanded greatly. The most difficult part was that I was forced to fix endless repetitions of almost the same material in every section, added with no inline citations whatsoever. I found out almost by accident what the source of the mechanically copy-pasted text was. The pertinent info was already in the article elsewhere, only doubled, tripled and quadrupled with no references listed... and, with no way of knowing what came from where exactly. This is what happens when one does not read the article in question, but reduces ones own participation to automatic paste-up jobs from some internet source simply because it's possible. Thanks again, Poeticbent talk 23:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — Needless to say, I ended up mentioning possible copyvios in my edit summaries, because I run into those webpages by accident, while the actual wiki text wasn’t supported by anything. Poeticbent talk 00:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The last question. Please explain this out. Is it OK to release text under GFDL into the public domain (via Wikipedia), and still keep the copyright claim on the USHMM webpage as valid? Isn't it a contradiction in terms? Poeticbent talk 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A permission grant received by the Wikimedia foundation is irrevocable, so it supersedes the website's statement for our purposes. However, the GFDL should not be confused with the public domain; it still has a number of restrictions attached to it. L Faraone 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict)::Yes, this is fine, mainly because by releasing the text under GFDL they are not releasing it into the public domain and they retain the copyright on the text. By releasing it under GFDL they just gave a license allowing it's reuse under the terms of that license. This is the same as when you add text to wikipedia, you keep the copyright but you allow people to use the text in accordance with the license (except in this case it's now CC-BY-SA as well as GFDL). So they are corrected in saying they have copyright on it. While it would be nice if the notice said it was released under GFDL they don't have to and we have no requirement for them to as we have permission in OTRS. Dpmuk ( talk) 15:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_May_14#All_uploads_from_Imparo Admin with OTRS may wish to go through and delete after checking.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

PUF listings normally last 7 days. Although I agree the OTRS ticket is not sufficient I don't think it's an obvious enough copyright infringement to warrant speedy (as we may actually have permission) and so we should probably wait the 7 days out to see if we do get permission in that time. Dpmuk ( talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I just thought I would add a note here as to what is going on at PUF. Should we add a 7 day delay note there?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Following my upload of the Janie Schaffer portrait photo, a permission warning box was added. I contacted the copyright owner of the image, Jane Hilton, who emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org to grant permission for the free use of the photograph of Janie Schaffer. Despite this the permission warning box remains and I'm unsure as to why this could be? Thanks for your help Vivj2012 ( talk) 10:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that Ms. Hilton did not satisfy the Wikipedia:CONSENT policy, since she only gave permission for the image to be used on Wikipedia--unfortunately, we cannot use content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos". Because Wikipedia content is designed to for reuse, the media needs to be released under a free license (i.e., Creative Commons) in order for it to be included in Wikimedia projects. Hope this makes sense! We're currently awaiting a reply from her--if she can release the image under a free license, the warning box will be removed. Theopolisme ( talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll contact Jane Hilton to ensure that she replies to you as I know there's a specific deadline by which you need evidence. With regards to emailing Wikipedia and granting use of an image under a free license, is there a template email that copyright holders can send? Or are there specific points that should be included in the email? Thanks again for your help Vivj2012 ( talk) 10:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, actually, there is a template. It's on this page. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 16:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I've spoken to Jane Hilton who said that she's responded to the request. Can you confirm whether this has been received? Thanks Vivj2012 ( talk) 10:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a reply that ticket as of yet, nor any other permissions-related mails from her. L Faraone 13:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

what does the owner have to to prevent deletion? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The photograph of James Ramsbotham , 2nd Viscount Soulbury,was uploaded with prior permission of the Ramsbotham family. The image displayed is an exact replica of the original held by the Ramsbotham family . User talk : The Honourable Herwald Ramsbotham (heir apparant to the Title Viscount Soulbury). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.26.55 ( talk) 04:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It was uploaded with permission, but the permission was insufficient. See WP:CONSENT for the typical consent form. Neither that form nor any acceptable replacement was ever returned to OTRS. It is not enough that Wikipedia has permission to republish a photograph - everyone must have permission to republish the photograph, at any time, for any reason, without asking permission, and without paying royalties. This is so that others can copy Wikipedia articles wholesale without running into legal trouble (ideally). Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

When creating St. Clair Square, I noticed that a previous version was deleted in 2008 via OTRS ticket 2008050710001159. Can someone give me any more details as to why the previous version of the article was deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 21:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Its creator, User:Pika62220, requested for all of the articles that he created to be deleted (under WP:G7). Theopolisme ( talk) 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Was anything else of note lost? Or even not of note? That seems like a pretty dubious action IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

G7 deletion requires that "the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author." That's possible, of course, for recently created and/or very backwaterish articles that haven't been added to (except trivially) by other editors. For other cases, of course, the request should have been refused. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case only the author itself editted the page (10 revisions) and the article was less then 2 months old so I guess the deletion was OK. Trijnstel _talk 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting information regarding File:GordonDougan.png as the file was uploaded a while ago and OTRS was claimed for sending permission. File was originally emailed to the user so there may be questions regarding the user's ability to go be available for Commons. Image was discovered when working the AfC backlog. Hasteur ( talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Text searches on the author's name, subject's name and the file-name return no tickets. The oldest open ticket in permissions-en is five days old and the oldest open ticket in permissions-commons is a day old. I will post a note on the user's talk page on commons. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 05:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Has a permission ever been forwarded for this file as claimed in the information template? This was uploaded in 2011 but has recently been tagged for missing evidence. De728631 ( talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No messages match either the author's name or subject's name. L Faraone 03:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is tagged as lacking evidence of permission. However, it also says "Ticket: 2013063010004172". This number looks like an OTRS ticket number. Does it contain any permission for the image? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The ticket contained insufficient permission. I've updated the section with the appropriate template. L Faraone 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Does the OTRS cover both the photo and the artwork? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears to cover only the photo.-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The OTRS permission was added by the uploader, is it valid? January ( talk) 11:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not sufficient to confirm permission. I've updated the template accordingly and responded to the requestor. L Faraone 14:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps this Q is pretty dumb (sorry if so): If I own a book, can I scan its cover and put the scanned image on COMMONS as free-use? (I suppose that's a "definite no" or "definite maybe", but I thought I'd ask.) Thank u! Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 18:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The proper place to ask is WP:MCQ, but briefly no, you cannot upload it to Commons as the cover is almost certainly copyright. You may be able to upload it to here to English Wikipedia pursuant to the non-free content criteria, but that's a little more complex.-- ukexpat ( talk) 18:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers/info! Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 19:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this. The following images ( File:ErnaLowSki.jpg, File:ErnaLowBrochure.jpg, File:ErnaLowSki2.jpg, and File:MarkFraryAimingHigh.jpg) were all tagged as no permission a while back. The uploader then tagged them all as "OTRS pending." They've all stayed pending for well over a month now. Have any emails actually been received in regards to these images? ALH ( talk) 00:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant ticket number is 2013061710002127. It was closed as insufficient permission on 06/30/2013 and there is no response with sufficient permission to this date. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 03:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So should these be nominated for deletion then? None of them (with the possible exception of ErnaLowSki.jpg) are really needed. ALH ( talk) 03:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should be. Should be process deletion, not speedy (in case the uploader happens to be watching and decides to contact us - they usually do after we delete it though). :-) Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

E-mails sent to "permissions|" today have been returned. I'm aware there have been issues with lost attachments. I'm getting e-mails from the address ok. SonofSetanta ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The software upgrade to OTRS didn't finish until earlier today, it could be that during that time emails sent bounced. Just resend the emails and see what happens. NtheP ( talk) 14:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Have just done so and all seems ok now. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Garrettwasnothere has uploaded several images. He claimed that he has sent the permissions to the OTRS, but since he has previously uploaded unfree images, I seriously doubted that claim. Can someone check them? Thanks.— Chris! _{c/ t} 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All images can be sourced to agencies like Getty or AP and as commercial agencies do not grant permission, OTRS tickets are unlikely to appear. I've checked recently and saw no tickets in the OTRS queues and as I expect to see none I have deleted the images for being copyvios. NtheP ( talk) 13:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

341SPI7 has apparently sent an email regarding several of his uploads that show the so-called Heli-FX system. Does the permission explicitely include File:EndoAnchor.jpg? I'm asking because the user either forgot to tag the file with "OTRS pending" or could not confirm the license for it. I've now marked the file as OTRS pending for the time being but will delete it if there's no proof. De728631 ( talk) 22:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have located a valid permissions grant for those items in VRTS ticket #  2013081210008083. L Faraone 00:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's good, thank you. I'm going to move them to Commons. De728631 ( talk) 17:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What about File:Heli-FX System Updated.jpg? This is a new one and has probably not been included in the first batch of permissions. De728631 ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor52 ( talk · contribs) uploaded File:Nicholas Johnson.jpg for use in the Nicholas Johnson article, but it was deleted as a copyvio because the source page had no permission statement. Editor52, who is Johnson himself, has since edited the source page by adding an explicit cc-by-sa release, so I've undeleted the image. However, this is a Blogspot site: it can be changed in moments by Johnson should he change his mind, and we'll lose evidence of permission. Since we don't have anything comparable to Commons' Flickrreview process, would OTRS be able to get involved here? I'm thinking of an email (either from me or from someone else) saying "As of [date], this image was marked as being freely licensed at the source page". I would hope that an OTRS template for such a statement would prevent {{ db-npd}} tagging and other copyright problems. Nyttend ( talk) 00:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe webcite has been used for this sort of thing before as it perseveres a permanent record of the page as it is now. You could then link to it on the file page. Of course that may not work and with doubts now existing over webcite's survival it may not be the best idea anyway. But it's an option. Dpmuk ( talk) 04:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also of note is the fact that the image is credited to Andrea Chapman Day. So was this a work for hire and Nicholas Johnson own the copyright, or does the photographer still hold the copyright? An OTRS confirmation would be the most preferable and likely survive better than a blog webpage. ww2censor ( talk) 08:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither; he's stated elsewhere that she gave him the rights to the image. Nyttend ( talk) 11:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Can some one verify the OTRS ticket on this newly uploaded file please. LGA  _talk ^edits 09:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm working on this file. It is a duplicate of File:Samuel West at the London Film Festival screening of Hyde Park on Hudson, October 2012.jpg. WENN the photographer have released the image, but the metadata needs to be removed. I mentioned it to the subject and asked him to remove the metadata and upload a new version at the same location. He uploaded it at a different location. This should be resolved today. Thanks, Cindy( talk) 23:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Khartuwa-Village of Nepal.jpg was tagged with "OTRS pending" in January 2013, but that was never changed to "ticket received". Can you confirm that a valid permission has been sent? Otherwise please delete. De728631 ( talk) 12:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• No relevant tickets found and oldest unprocessed ticket in permissions-en is 67 days old. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The same problem appears at File:Max Lilja in Zurich spring 2012.jpg, File:Rajesh Payal Rai.jpg and File:Richard Durrant with Gary Hearn Concert Guitar.jpg. De728631 ( talk) 12:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ticket 2012121810000199 applies to File:Richard Durrant with Gary Hearn Concert Guitar.jpg. No relevant tickets found for the other two. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I've now deleted all of them (Ticket 2012121810000199 was insufficient). De728631 ( talk) 13:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the uploader, the copyright holder, one Mr Crawfurd Hill, has now sent a permissions email for this one. Can you confirm this claim? De728631 ( talk) 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to locate any communications that would be relevant to this ticket after a thorough search. L Faraone 17:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

An OTRS permission tag was added by Superboy44 ( talk · contribs) but according to Commons:Special:ListUsers/Superboy44, this user isn't an OTRS member. Is the tag valid? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Negative, captain. The last email in the thread of ticket:2013082910012877 was that we were unable to determine the license status because we had no proof the person who emailed was the copyright holder. So permission has not yet been granted.

I have updated the tag accordingly. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 23:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This ticket about "copyright concerns" has been referenced at Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Can you tell me if it was about the images shown in the article or about copyrighted text passages? And what was the result? Please respond at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Thank you. De728631 ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• There was unauthorized use of text used from the liner notes of both the recording and book. Nothing pertaining to images. Best regards, Cindy( talk) 15:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks a lot. De728631 ( talk) 16:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The permission for use of File:Chinmoy Guha.jpg, File:Chinmoy Guha with Derrida.jpg, File:Chinmoy Guha with Le Clézio, the 2008 Nobel laureate in literature.jpg and File:Chinmoy Guha with Romain Rolland's biographer Bernard Duchatelet.jpg has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system and it is available as ticket 2013090910016515 for users with an OTRS account. Can the permission be confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suvapar82 ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Clarkcj12 has confirmed the ticket and added the permission on all four of these images. NtheP ( talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any information about this file? The uploader claims that permission was sent to OTRS but that the file was deleted anyway. See User talk:Stefan2#Help again with photo. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a ticket for this image, 2013082710002828. Looks like there is a problem with the attachment the licence statement is in. Should be rectified fairly soon and I think we should be able to restore the image NtheP ( talk) 15:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ticket resolved and image restored. NtheP ( talk) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A user as uploaded multiple images to this article, they where tagged as non-free, but now have an OTRS pending ticket, can someone review the ticket? Werieth ( talk) 10:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ticket 2011022110004806 relates only to File:Farewell chapel foto-tomaz gregoric 03 .jpg. A new ticket(s) will have to be raised for all the other images. NtheP ( talk) 13:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an "OTRS-member" user right as on Commons? That way, we could copy Commons:Special:AbuseFilter/69 here to avoid future problems like this. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, believe that would be wonderfly helpful. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 18:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Same here, a useful addition. NtheP ( talk) 21:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 September 13#ticket:2011022110004806. A few images in the article have a different ticket number. Could you check whether those tickets are valid for those images? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The other two tickets are fine. NtheP ( talk) 18:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

According to tickets: #2011101710007029, #2011091510017435 and #2011102010007675, respectively from File:UN corp dovelogo.jpeg, File:Dove logo.jpg and File:Logo Knorr.jpeg, Unilever Russia released them under a CC license. I like to know if the permission covers only these images or if it can be exanded to our fair-use images File:Dove dove.svg and File:Knorr.svg to stop labelling them as fair-use, or this should be taken to WP:NFR? Tbhotch. ^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ticket 2010112310034194 was received for the GFDL/CC-BY-SA book cover File:Whiteness.jpg. I note that this book cover includes a film still in which copyright separate from the book design may persist. Could a volunteer please confirm whether the OTRS ticket includes evidence of permission from the film studio as well as the book publisher, or provides evidence that the film still is now in the public domain? — Psychonaut ( talk) 09:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The ticket is not from the studio, so is only about the book cover only. Is the still from The Philadelphia Story (my filmography isn't that good)? If so there seem to be a lot of stills from that film on Commons as US-PDnonotice so the same might apply here? NtheP ( talk) 11:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the film itself is still under copyright. The media on Commons is from the trailer, which is now in the public domain as it had been originally published without a copyright notice in the United States. However, the still used on the book cover is not from the trailer. It's possible that the still is from another PD trailer, or from a publicity photo which is in the public domain for similar reasons, though I don't think we can simply assume this. — Psychonaut ( talk) 12:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There is some issues with two (or more likely just one) editors over the following files

• File:American Airlines 727 at Gate 10 Washington National Airport by artist Mark Y. Chenevert, March, 1976.jpg
• File:MarcYChenevertBraniffBoeing747BraniffPlaceDrawingFebruary2012.jpg
• File:MarcYChenevertPiedmontBoeing727ManhattanPacemakerAug2011.jpg
• File:Marc Y. Chenevert Drawing Boeing 727 Color.jpg

and also this interesting comment insertion at Marc Y. Chenevert .

Can someone check to see if the relevant information has been supplied ? LGA  _talk ^edits 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The three drawings are all covered by ticket 2013091410006758. The photo of Chenevert I have asked who the photographer is to obtain a release. NtheP ( talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Can you also ask them to provide non-watermarked versions ? LGA  _talk ^edits 20:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. NtheP ( talk) 22:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you check whether {{ move to Commons}} is correct here? I suspect that it should be {{ FoP-USonly}} instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Only ownership of the rights to the image is given. There is no assertion of rights to the building copyright. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 15:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ticket 2010112110021988 was received for the CC-BY-SA book cover File:Film Talk Cover.gif. I note that this book cover is provided at very high resolution and includes several film stills in which copyright separate from the book design may persist. Could a volunteer please confirm whether the OTRS ticket includes evidence of permission from the film studios as well as the book publisher, or provides evidence that the film stills are now in the public domain? Psychonaut ( talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013‎

I have sent an email to the author asking them to clarify the copyright status of the film stills. MorganKevinJ ^(talk) 02:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It would seem we got 3 files at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 26 held up from being closed due to OTRS issues. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone could check for an OTRS ticket for this image obtained from this photo at http://www.pooppeepuke.com/. It has been marked as pending since February. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No ticket found - image deleted. NtheP ( talk) 19:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone check the ORTS que for anything on these images please (or for that matter on anything else uploaded by Politicsofculture). LGA  _talk ^edits 09:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Any one ? LGA  _talk ^edits 08:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Permission for both files was received on 9/29, and the file pages have been updated. Please note that the en.wiki Permissions email queue currently has a backlog of 30-35 days, so don't be surprised if it takes a month to process an editor's permission email. — Darkwind ( talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi was wondering if the permissions e-mail sent about a week ago for File:Mediator Mike Gaston.jpg has been looked at or if there are still issues with dealing with this as I have herd nothing about this.

Rachend ( talk) 11:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done – image restored and noted with ticket number. Please note that there is currently a 30-35 day backlog for en.wiki permission emails which is why this hadn't yet been addressed. — Darkwind ( talk) 07:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you very much I didn't realize there was such a backlog.

Rachend ( talk) 11:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The OTRS-pending template on File:Emad Rahim.jpg is over 3 months old. Please update or remove the template and if appropriate, nominate for deletion. Yes, I realize there are over 300 files which have been waiting over 60 days, and yes, if there are files that have been waiting longer than this one they should probably be dealt with first, but 90 days is kind of stale.

Note: This image was mentioned on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/News and notes earlier this week: "A different Wiki-PR employee added a picture [of Emad Rahim] on 12 July, which is not included on the current article but has nevertheless not been deleted." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A ticket was received from Mr. Rahim attempting to freely license the image, but there has been nothing received from the photographer (who would hold the copyright). A volunteer had replied to Mr. Rahim to request the photographer's release, but there has been no response. I've tagged the file for DI. — Darkwind ( talk) 03:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I came across comments on Commons:User talk:Jcb about images someone claiming to be Frank Sanello uploaded. They say they submitted an OTRS, and asked why the images were deleted anyhow. The reply from the administrator in question implies they deleted the images not due to a failure to establish that the uploader was also the photographer -- but rather because, at some point in the process the uploader used foul language.

Of course it is unpleasant for OTRS volunteers to have those they are trying to help use foul language. But has it generally been the process here that those who have used foul language get their requests denied?

Surely, many of those writing to OTRS are already extremely frustrated, have had trouble navigating the WMF rules to even find the OTRS address; may have had WMF volunteers address abusive comments to them.

Isn't there a process for asking a second OTRS volunteer to take over the correspondence on a ticket when the first OTRS volunteer feels their attempts at civil communication have broken down?

I am going to request other OTRS volunteers (1) review this ticket; (2) if the main reason the outside correspondent's images weren't restored was the first volunteer's emotional reaction to foul language, could some other OTRS volunteer contact the outside correspondent, and tell them they had taken over responsibility for the ticket? Geo Swan ( talk) 14:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's actually the other way round. The permission was not in order, so I did not restore the files. Frank Sanello couldn't handle that and became a bit uncivil. <edit>The ticket does not contain a valid permission</edit>. Jcb ( talk) 16:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to disclose the contents of a ticket here. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Frank Sanello had the same behaviour publicly on-wiki, see here and here. Jcb ( talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• The man wrote that he (1) has terminal kidney failure; (2) that it is affecting his cognition. Under those circumstances don't you think a little more patience was in order? Geo Swan ( talk) 23:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jcb, in the interests of open-ness and transparency, if the asnwer to Mr Sanello question as to why the images weren't restored, was that he wanted to release them under a non-free license, then I suggest this should have been included in your reply. Your public reply looks like your decision was motivated purely by an emotional reaction to bad language.

Is what you mean by the phrase "The permission was not in order" is that he wanted to release the images under a non-free license? If it is not what you meant could you clarify in what way it "was not in order"?

So, clarification -- you were satisfied that you were corresponding with Mr Sanello?

Mr Sanello has an unfortunate block log. I don't believe that should invalidate his release of images under a free license.

Being considered notable in wikipedia terms -- having a wikipedia article -- is neither a reward nor a punishment. His images should not be deleted as a punishment. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in that ticket or in ticket 2013072110003214 which appears to me to be appropriate photo permissions. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion might be moot. See ticket:2013102110015581. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. :( Gamaliel ( talk) 22:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The following pages have all been indefinitely semi-protected since 2007, citing an OTRS ticket as the reason for the protection:

• Liza Fernández Rodríguez per otrs:2007052810011771
• Showbiz India per otrs:2007070210003824 and otrs:2007070610017099
• Australian International School, Malaysia per otrs:2007040310001642 and otrs:2007101510007586
• Hazel Mae per otrs:2007101210013959
• Buster Pearson per otrs:2007100710021423

Can someone look over these and see if the protection reasons are still relevant/necessary, and if not, unprotect the pages? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 22:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Finding the rationales no longer applicable, I've unprotected all the pages. L Faraone 07:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is unfree, but tagged with {{ OTRS pending}}. Other images in the same article by the same uploader cite ticket:2013012410009223. Does the ticket apply to this image too? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No there are eight files covered by that ticket, this isn't one of them. NtheP ( talk) 21:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Unilever_brands that could use clarification from an OTRS member about potentially derivative files of the images listed in: ticket:2011101710007029, ticket:2011091510017435 and ticket:2011102010007675. Please and thank you for your assistance. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems legit. I left a note...but if another agent or two can verify that couldn't hurt anything. Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• It says: "The license agreement has been forwarded to OTRS. Ticket: 2013063010004172". Does the mentioned ticket give permission for this file? It is tagged as {{ OTRS pending}}. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The copyright holder appears to have not completed the permissions process. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• File:ConorMccreedywithSecretAngelPainting2013.jpg also mentions a ticket number with {{ OTRS pending}}. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• This one is complete. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• File:Solset Logo.jpg also mentions a ticket number with {{ OTRS pending}}. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• This one appears to be incomplete. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• File:Karin Muller 2009.jpg also mentions a ticket number with {{ OTRS pending}}. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• This one appears to be incomplete. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you add {{ Permission OTRS}} and {{ OTRS received}} wherever applicable? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Claimed to have permission but doesn't have any {{ PermissionOTRS}} tag. Could someone check this file? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The ticket for the Richard Rhodes file includes (valid) dual CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL permissions for files named 01-RhodesworksDesign-Stone-Wave-AntiqueGranitePavers-TacomaArtMuseum.jpg, 02-RhodesworksDesign-Stone-GoldenGraniteQuarrySkin-Residential-Sculpture.jpg, 03-RhodesworksDesign-Stone-Sculpture-Cottesloe-Bondi-SculpturebytheSea.jpg and 04-RhodesworksDesign-Bronze-Sculpture-Sentinels-SculpturebytheSea.jpg only. I can't tell by the filename if that file was one of the included works or not, and he didn't include a copy of the pictures. — Darkwind ( talk) 01:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Also, could you check File:Portait of author Mark Roeder.jpg? The file information page mentions a ticket number. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Permission is valid, tag updated. — Darkwind ( talk) 01:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the Commons:OTRS/backlog is only 7 days, if permission had been sent I assume that it should have been processed, can someone confirm in case it may have been missed and if not please delete. LGA  _talk ^edits 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons backlog is currently at 11 days, while permissions-en is closer to 30 days. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, so the first image is all good. Properly licensed and tagged, and everything. The second one is not; we need a statement of permission from the copyright holder, and we don't have that yet. We'll see if that comes in during the next week or so. It should be given at least that long, as I've just alerted the person that sent in the email to OTRS about the problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to confirm the permission to the use of this file: ticket 2013092010000573. File:Harry_Giese_1913-2000_Darwin_Australia_in_the_1970s.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCGiese ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Permission for this image was confirmed over the weekend. NtheP ( talk) 15:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello am writing to follow up on a copyright permission which was given some time ago by myself for [ [8]]. It has been listed as a possibly unfree file by Stefan2 Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_21#OTRS_pending_since_September.

As the author/creator of the work I gave permission for use of the work back in June and sent an email inaccordance with wiki process. However it seems it wasn't processed?

Can you please advise on my next step to clear this situation up. MrMoog ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@ MrMoog: According to Ticket:2013060610005529, you should have received an email dated 06/29/2013 07:43 from our permissions email address. Permission for this image was insufficient, as no license was given.

I have updated the file description page accordingly. If you would like any additional help, feel free to reply to our email or contact me on my talk page. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 07:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)