Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 22 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Main VRT-related pages

• Commons:Volunteer Response Team
• Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Commons:Email templates
• {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

In November, Jcb inserted ticket #2010092510008875 in User:EmilEikS/Template:Southerly Clubs (diff). That user template is transcluded in over 1000 images, many of which do not require permission as they are PD-Old etcetera. Jcb tells me here that the ticket covers 35 entries from four months ago, for example a photo by Bruno Gasperini that is on the web marked with a copyright sign. Lumping permissions together like this is terribly confusing. But how can the ticket be applied to photos uploaded this year (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Kearns.jpg)? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The situation about the Michael Kearns image is not clear yet, I have been mailing with them about it this afternoon. Jcb (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, you are stating that "permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system." Which is not true for the Kearns image. And you are stating this for over one thousand images. Obvious, the OTRS verification is a joke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For most images the verification just clearly applies. In some cases it doesn't and we need additional permission. If you notify us about such a case, we will check it with them, like we successfully did in this very case. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You included the "verification" in over a thousand images. I find that preposterous. For example, what was the evidence for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Björn Axén.jpg? Or for the images in Category:Queen Margaret of Scandinavia statue at Roskilde? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So must I make more DRs to get answers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked those five images and they are OK. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Did the estate of the sculptor give permission? Did the photographer of File:Björn Axén.jpg give permission? Who is the photographer - Swedish law requires that he be credited. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did not get an answer here, I made a DR - Commons:Deletion requests/Queen Margaret of Scandinavia statue at Roskilde. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the OTRS-permission for File:Sneha Actress.JPG as it was added by the uploader himself. --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a centralised OTRS tag like {{IndiaFM}}...as per the above discussion with same image ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the hint. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the ticket, the permission seems perfect. wikitanvir (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the results of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sneha Actress.JPG, my question is not whether the permission statement looks perfect but whether they have the right to make such a statement in the first place... Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS information's is not accessible to non members and posting the information in an open board is against the policy......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand... all I'm hoping is that OTRS took a close look at it before signing off on it. Tabercil (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This file is marked with the OTRS pending tag. Be sure that the E-mail includes a permission from "Religious news service photo" (for the top left picture) in addition to the permission from "The Jewish Star". If the permission is for the text only, the pictures will need be erased from the file. Teofilo (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The email has been received (today) and a clarification is requested for the release. The release statement is for the full image of the front page. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also occured to me that the text might have more than one copyright owners, as some news agencies are credited. Teofilo (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the release is coming from the legal representative of the publishers (Star Media Group Inc ... (my research) ... going up the hierarchy this represents Torstar Corp) and, personally, I'd really want to AGF that they know what they are doing. --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the updated OTRS discussion at 2011013110012727 I propose the image is put up for deletion in a week (9 Feb 2011) on the assumption that a full free-release will remain unlikely and, if used, the image will have to be hosted as fair-use. This gives a few days for the publisher to clarify their intention with a revised release statement. --Fæ (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the "no permission" tag (with the file can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added and the uploader was notified: (2 February 2011)). Teofilo (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You state that according to your research, going up the hierarchy, Star Media Group represents Torstar Corp. This is simply not the case, and I am unsure as to why you would think that Star Media Group has anything to do with Torstar Corp. Torstar owns the Toronto Star (daily newspaper). Star Media Group is an independent publisher with no connection whatsoever to Torstar. The company that owned The Jewish Star was the Jewish Star Newspaper Ltd. That's where the image of the front page came from. As is the case with any newspaper, the text on an image of the front page "might have more than one copyright owner", as you note, but in all cases the material is printed with permission and the copyright owner of the newspaper is the newspaper publisher, not the source of the material. Why is this issue any different from any other front page of a newspaper which appears in Wikipedia? Bernie44 2 February 2011

This may be an issue with the Wikipedia articles about these companies, the issue of a sufficient free release statement (from Star Media Group Inc) still remains to be resolved. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:OTRS ticket release statement verified and ticket added to the image. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that if there are 4 copyright owners or more, we need 4 OTRS tickets or more. Usually photo agencies like Getty Images don't give their licensees the permission to sublicense the work. I'd be surprised if it was different for news agencies. See the "non-sublicensable" wording in this Getty image license legal code for example. That might be a case for seeking advice from the Wikimedia lawyer. Things "printed with permission" are not the same as things whose copyrighted is transfered. Under US law, but I guess Canadian law is hardly different, the copyright owner is the "first owner" of the content. If the first owner is "Religious News Service", it remains the copyright owner. On this page religion news service provides subscriptions allowing reprints, but this is only for the subscribers to enjoy. If Wikimedia wants to reuse a picture from Religion News Service, it must pay for its own subscription. Or ask for a favour to have a free subscription for this single picture.

At the bottom of the JTA website you can read "Reproduction of any material without written authorization is strictly prohibited" and the terms of service" say "For reproduction rights, please contact Deborah Brown at JTA by fax: [...] or by E-mail: [...] ". So we need an OTRS permission E-mail from Deborah Brown for the JTA contents. Teofilo (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an existing policy or guideline for that interpretation? As the OTRS volunteer, I do not offer legal advice and challenging the publisher who has provided a correctly stated free release of an image from their own publication seems to step over that boundary. If the legal release is challenged, this would be an issue for the publisher who made the claim of copyright rather than Wikimedia Commons who are acting in good faith.

PS, in the context of the image being reduced-size and of paper printed 30 years ago including poor newspaper quality small black and white reproductions of the photos in question (representing only a small fraction of the total image), there is no chance of any argument related to potential loss of income. Fæ (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikimedia Foundation should look for ways of empowering the OTRS volunteers. Hiring a lawyer, or someone who studied law at the university and has a professional experience in the publishing industry to help the volunteers find answers to their questions, and giving this lawyer a "veto power" to veto some tickets is the solution I am thinking. This way it would not be the volunteer alone who is challenging the E-mail, but someone whose job would be to make such challenges when necessary. At present I think there is a discrepancy between small uploaders whose uploads can easily be challenged by reviewers with a Deletion Request, and institutional uploaders who receive a sort of immunity by hiding behind an OTRS ticket. Teofilo (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had the feeling that this upload is OK (but this is not my current feeling, so I won't) I would cut each picture, and try to insert the picture into the relevant Wikipedia articles. There is a potential for argument is the picture is shown on the Jimmy Carter article. Anyway "there is little potential for argument" is not what commons:Precautionary principle tells us. Teofilo (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Precautionary principle applies to images where there is "significant doubt", consequently I do not believe it applies to this image as we already have a verified release statement from the publisher (corresponding with the single copyright statement at the top of the newspaper image) and there seems no reason to assume bad faith or to go further than the definitions given in Commons:General disclaimer. If you feel you can make a case for significant doubt even with such a legal release, then please feel free to raise a deletion discussion to test it out. --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jewish Star Calgary19800822 front page.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the process that led to my OTRS ticket validation for this image based on a credible release statement (for which I asked for clarification on scope) for which there is now a problematic deletion discussion. I would appreciate an independent opinion/peer review on ticket #2011013110012727 and possibly feedback by email if you are not comfortable leaving an OTRS note on the ticket itself. Thanks Fæ (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Feedback received. --Fæ (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there examples where newspaper front pages have been given valid OTRS tickets? The immediate examples of papers still in copyright would appear to be deletion candidates using the same rationale (see Category:Newspapers). --Fæ (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any merit to the {{OTRS pending}} tag on File:Vince mcmahon.jpg, despite the lack of licensing tag, source and author? Either add the missing information or delete and block the uploader, please. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog but it ain't that long!  Doing it thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Same as the last one: is there any merit to the {{OTRS pending}} tag on File:Pauli rantasalmi.jpg, despite the lack of licensing tag, source and author? Again, either add the missing information or delete and block the uploader, please. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS pending seems to be on the picture since it was uploaded by the user. The user only uploaded this one picture. The picture is available on several webpages. The uploader was informed about the upcoming deletion on 5. Feb, we will give him one week to provide the permission and after that time the picture will be deleted. I removed the OTRS pending template from the picture. --Neozoon (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

after I did a google translate of the spanish text in the author field: "desconocido, la han subido en Google" -> "unknown, have risen by Google"

I decided to delete the picture. Will restore it if permission comes in. --Neozoon (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

More of the same really. MehdiBRS claims that details of the permission for File:Ess.jpg has been sent to OTRS, yet is unable to state what that permission is or who the author is (the immediate – but secondary – source is here). They also claim that finding File:Caf.jpg on Google has made them author and copyright holder of the logotype of the Confederation of African Football and that they have sent in evidence of this. Is there any merit to those claims (I'll eat my hat...) or is the uploader just abusing {{OTRS pending}} to delay deletion? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These two files are copyright protected Logos (see http://egypt.worldcupblog.org/files/2010/06/Caf-logo-2009-300x275.jpg). I deleted the logos. No OTRS ticket could be found for this files. The Logos have not been used in any articles, if the permission still comes in (which is not expected) I will undelete the Logos. --Neozoon (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

XSkArx (talk · contribs) has uploaded the fair use images File:Resident evil apocalipsis.jpg and File:Resident evil extinction cover.jpg claiming that OTRS emails have been sent for both. Can someone please confirm this? Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission has been send, for the files [1] and [2]. No License provided and no permission expected since big Studios never publish their DVD covers under free license. I deleted the pictures and left message on the uploader page (uploader did only upload this two DVD-Covers)

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I received a confirmation of copyright and forwarded it to otrs permission but didn't get a reply in 5 days. The files are File:Egypt january 28 wounds.jpg and File:Egypt january 28 wounds scan.jpg .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission has been provided and picture have been labeled. OTRS:2011020710000211 --Neozoon (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Does the OTRS ticket 2010112110021817 cover a permission from the sculptor or is it a repetition of the photographers permission that we already considered invalid in the deletion request? --Martin H. (talk)

I don't speak dutch, but can read it a little. Combined with the reply in the ticket (by somebody who does) I can state that it seems to be a permission given by the sculptor's heirs. --Guandalug 11:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, then this is resolved. --Martin H. (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doublechecked the ticket, the dutch language permissions form the artists are perfect. Groetjes -- Neozoon (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I have sent permission for File:CFFH No102.jpg on 2011-02-06, just after uploading it, however it is still stuck with OTRS pending. Is there a problem ? Thank you. SV1XV (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sv1xv, please have look at our FAQ ("I sent in an email up to 14 days ago and still haven't got a reply"). Cheers, —Pill (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The permission has been received and archived as ticket #2011020610008519 --Sreejith K (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. SV1XV (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is ticket:2010092710010841 valid for this file? -- Common Good (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, unfortunately. —Pill (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures File:SonOfFarbatron.jpg and File:Farbatron.jpg were involved in personal attack in a Wikipedia article. The owner of said equipment has not given his permission for these photographs to be distributed. Please remove, thank you. Bujin Karyu (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help us with the link of the discussion --Sreejith K (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the edited page is located here. Please see under "Images". Bujin Karyu (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial conflicts are not really a rationale for deletion. Descriptions, if inappropriate, can easily be changed/corrected. As the pictured items are neither works of art nor a question of national security, the owner has no say about copyright, if he did not prevent these images taken. The first image seems to need permission anyway, and will go if none is provided. How about the second image: is the ownership of the photography itself challenged? --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedAdmrboltz (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that ticket ticket:2010082410009752 is used as permission for some photos from the site http://vitalykuzmin.net/ (example: [3]). Can someone check whether the permission applies to all images from this site or to just some of them? I'd like to know whether I can upload some more photos from that site. Thanks a lot. Offliner (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The license is limited to a selected number of images. Unfortunately the grantor did not release all images from the website. Have a good evening. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I know to exactly which images does the permission apply to? Offliner (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is limited to the images currently uploaded to Commons from the website. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Offliner (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OTRS volunteers

I would like to reuse 2 pictures according the URL below; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forsterite_orange_-_Ochtendung,_Eifel,_Germany.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forsterite_on_Sanidine_-_Ochtendung,_Eifel,_Germany.jpg

in my textbook about Dental ceramic, which plan to publish in Thai language and distribute in my country (Thailand). Please give me a permission.

Yours sincerely, Boonlert Kukiattrakoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.74.129 (talk • contribs) 12:55 2011-02-15 (UTC)

Please refer to this page: Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Asav (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does ticket #2011020510005363, used on File:Cat with charm collar - Irene Niepel.jpg and on File:Queen and royal fox - Irene Niepel.jpg, also apply to File:4buchtitel byatt.JPG? (Byatt is the writer; cover artist seems to be Niepel.) Lupo 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS email came from Niepel and covers only the first two images. Since the third one is a book cover, I would assume that the copyright is with the publisher and not with the author or cover artist. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have two OTRS emails for the file File:Leonora Christina Launch.jpg. One with TT # 2011020410001234 says that the copyright owner is releasing the image under CC-BY-SA-3.0 license but on the second with TT # 2011020310010477, she says she cannot relase the right as Non-Commercial. How to go about this image? --Sreejith K (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is confusion about the intent of the copyright holder or whether this person corresponding is the right employee to discuss the copyright release of images from the website then one cannot consider the tickets valid evidence to support a free release. If the image is particularly valuable it may be worth writing back to pubrel@austal.com to confirm the situation and validate the point of contact. --Fæ (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the OTRS contact as well as pubrel to confirm their willingness to donate the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reply I got. Thanks but no we do not want to release the rights, so no we do not grant permission for use.. So I have nominated the image for copyright violation. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CC Mariners 2005 PSC.jpg is supposedly verified by OTRS, but the authorship information in the file description page is contradicted by the EXIF data. Does the ticket offer any explanation for this discrepancy? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS email came from "Corey Davis" who is the official photographer for CC Mariners. There is no explanation of the discrepancy in the email. May be he used "Mark Nolan's" camera (with the copyright tag saved in the settings), but that's just my guess. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using someone else's camera wouldn't add a long caption uniquely describing the image (and the Getty Images credit is part of the same field). These captions are obviously added manually after the photo is taken. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my mistake. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio Dixon.JPG is supposedly verified by OTRS, but the authorship information in the file description page is contradicted by the EXIF data. Does the ticket offer any explanation for this discrepancy? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket does not explain this discrepancy. The email came from Derek Boyko who confirmed that he is releasing it under CC-BY-SA 3.0. I don't know whether we should assume that "Brian Garfinkel" (given in EXIF) is the author and "Derek Boyko" is the copyright owner. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 12#New Paltz railroad station photos.

The Elting Memorial Library just emailed me (which I've forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) explicit permission to put the four photos involved in ticket #2010123010016233 under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. The following are the images and the JPG derivatives of those images:

Originals

• File:New Paltz station original.tif
• File:New Paltz station postcard.tif
• File:New Paltz station renovation.tif
• File:La Stazione addition.tif

Derivatives

• File:New Paltz station original.jpg
• File:New Paltz station postcard.jpg
• File:New Paltz station renovation.jpg
• File:La Stazione addition.jpg

Could someone please close the ticket and update the licenses on these images? Thank you.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Template:OTRS ticket --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!
  --Gyrobo (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the OTRS page, and FAQ here, but can't seem to find any form of multilingual message that I could add to an image, or users talk page, requesting that they send a message to OTRS showing that they are have the right to release an image that they have uploaded here. Is there such a standard message? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am intending to digitise a collection of photographic slides and upload any that may be useful for Commons. Is there a standard form of email that the photographer can send to OTRS to verify that they are happy to release all their images with a particular license (or perhaps authorize me to apply licenses as I see fit), rather than having to send in a verification for each image of theirs that I upload? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you receive any permission regarding this file? Another user claimed he contacted the uploader which stated he sent a permission to OTRS. --Denniss (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:WaltR uploaded 2 images File:Freilassinger Huette.jpg, File:StaufenhausDE2004.jpg marked with Mail in OTRS (already in first version!) and I do not see any further OTRS action. Can you please check. Looks like a copyvio or at least missing permission to me. But as upload happened 2007, maybe logging was not that elaborated than nowadays. thx --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serial copyright violator EagLau (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is now claiming to be an OTRS official, "verifying" their own uploads. Please check their uploads. Also, I think it's time for a block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 images are covered by that ticket, Image:Awe_bodega_water.jpg, File:AWE bodega night.jpg, and File:AWE vineyards.jpg. Those 3 have been renamed, but I can confirm that these new images are not mentioned anywhere in the ticket, and due to language differences, most likely is a completely different user, and these uploads are fraudulent. That said, I'm not sure we have adequately tried to communicate with this user. I will issue a final warning before blocking, and try to clean up the last uploads. -Andrew c (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued the warning, but I need to step out. With the information that these OTRS tickets are not valid for these images, I was wondering if someone else could clean them up, and tag/delete them accordingly? Thanks! -Andrew c (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]