Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:32, 21 July 2019

Lua error in Module:Autotranslate at line 77: No fallback page found for autotranslate (base=OTRS Noticeboard/header, lang=en).

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 2 days.

Translate this header

File:Mugshot Sofie van den enk.png, ticket ticket:2011112010040412

Permission is highly doubtful. It is a scan, not a photo, it has a very low resolution, and the uploader has a history of trying to submit pictures of the subject with no regards for copyright. Tekstman (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tekstman: my money is on "screenshot from analog television". - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tekstman: There is no license version number in that ticket. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tekstman: The email explains it is a picture of a picture he took himself. @Jeff G.: Is that a problem, no license version? It is our standard Dutch template. Ciell (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciell and Drdreetje: That could be a problem if it was challenged in court. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all our licence pages, but we do state a version number everywhere, though I might not know of another page. @Drdreetje: Can you recall what page you referred the copyright holder to? Just so I can update the text. Ciell (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciell: "a picture of a picture he took himself" does this mean "a picture he took himself of another picture that he didn't take himself", "a picture that was taken of a picture he took himself" or "a picture he took himself of a picture he took himself"? Is there an uncropped version? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last one, "a picture he took himself of a picture he took himself", sorry to be unclear. There's no original file in this 7 year old email conversation, so I'm not sure if there's any sense in a follow-up. Ciell (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciell: sorry to go on about it, but is that your interpretation or is that literally what the ticket says? It wouldn't be the first time someone claims "I TOOK THIS PICTURE!!!" because they, in fact, took a picture.. of someone elses picture. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS agent asked about the poor quality, to which the author replies: "Het is een uitsnede van een foto die ik zelf heb gemaakt." You could interpreted that both ways, now I think of it: "It is a crop of a picture I made/took myself." Ciell (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciell: exactly, that's what I mean.. They may have meant "I created this crop, so the copyright is mine, right?" It happens. I can't say if that's the case here, but it happens. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: "That could be a problem if it was challenged in court."

Actually, it wouldn't be. A judge would be much more likely to interpret the lack of a version as "the re-user can pick any version they like" rather than "the author can go extort the re-users for violating their copyright". (this is part of Dutch law: if something is not clearly specified in a contract, it will be interpreted the way that is most beneficial for the signee) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that picture can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdreetje (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 February 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Drdreetje: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted, uploader blocked. --Krd 04:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Voltmetro

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=Voltmetro&wpSearchPeriodStart=&wpSearchPeriodEnd=&wpSearchTitle=&wpSearchImpact=0&wpSearchAction=any&wpSearchActionTaken=&wpSearchFilter=69

Please review this and replace permission if the ticket is correct. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: I'm not over the moon about this one. The OTRS agent told the e-mailer to add the Permission ticket. The agent appears not to be an agent any more. The whole ticket is based on a copy and paste e-mail from the copyright holder (not nice...) I think I will e-mail the copyright holder direct to confirm. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz and Ronhjones: I've also spotted it and created {{Davecskatingphoto.com}} for further uploads. I agree that the permission is quite weak... and thank you Ronhjones for following this up with the copyright holder. --AntonierCH ^(d) 19:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it to 4 e-mail addresses, one bounced (I expected that), no one has replied to date. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz and AntonierCH: Answered on 2019-2-19. There are some files without the permissions template yet? --Ruthven (msg) 22:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg

According to last edit, OTRS is received for File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg. Can someone add appropriate template. --Smooth O (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish: , who added the edit in question [1]. --B (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see on his talk page, Huji (talk · contribs) is the OTRS agent. Huji, what is the ticket number? I tried searching, but couldn't find it (presumably because of the non-Latin characters). --B (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B: It is 2018122910002094 (PS: adorable username!) Huji (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: Whatever ticket:2018122910002094 is, it is not in a permissions queue and I don't have access to it. Are you certain this is the right ticket number? If it is, someone else (with info access I guess?) will need to take a look. --B (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I'm in the same boat. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late answer. Anything else needed from me? — Racconish ^💬 09:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish: Please specify the queue containing ticket:2018122910002094 and tag File:ارج‌نامهٔ حسن عاطفی.jpg more appropriately, or explain how you reached your conclusion in this edit. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G., I added {{subst:OP}} and would rather defer to an OTRS agent to add the date of the OTRS mail. — Racconish ^💬 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is all the deatils I can provide. ticket:2018122910002094 was originally sent to permissions-commons@ and then forwarded to info-fa@ because of it being in Persian. The original email has a link to the picture on Commons, and the sender of the email states (in Persian) that he or she is releasing this photo under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. The sender's address and name indicate that it is not a person, but a legal entity (it appears to be the "official" email address for an entity (not a person), though the email address is from a publicly available email server).

I am sending this back to permissions-commons assuming that it will make some of you able to access it. Let me know if that worked. Also let me know if you have questions.

My question for you is: what are the procedures for handing these permissions emails? Just because someone sends an email in which they claim to be the copyright holder of a photo, do we accept their claim? Or are there additional checks we do? Huji (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: (Please remember to be careful about what you post publicly from OTRS tickets. I don't know that you want to say the claimants name here unless it has been published already on Wikipedia/Commons.) The first thing I usually do with a free email address is Google the email address and see if it is associated with the person or entity that is the apparent copyright holder. If it is, then at least you know that you're not talking with some random person who just made up an email address. In this case, I'm not sure who the copyright holder is, so I did a Google Image Search for this image and found it previously published at [2]. I can't tell from looking at it in Google Translate what, if anything, they say about the source/copyright of this image, but maybe you can tell from reading it in Farsi? If you are not completely convinced that the person you are speaking with is the copyright holder, then you can ask them to clarify. Ask HOW they became the copyright holder - are they the photographer of the image? --B (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B: I modified the text so it is less speicific, and asked an Oversighter to hide the in-between revisions. Even though what I shared was not really "private" information, it is best to be less specific on wiki. Huji (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I looked at the website you found. The website doesn't specify copyright status, but that is quite common among website in Persian. In those cases, we (at Wikipedia) assume the content is copyrighted. The sender of the email seems to be the admin of that website (based on name and email address), but should I ask them to somehow verify that? I will certainly ask them about who the photographer is as well. Huji (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I don't know that verification that they are the owner of the website is necessarily the issue. The issue is asking where the photo came from originally. Did they take the photo? (I will sometimes say, "did you, personally, hold the camera in your hand and click the button?" That spells out exactly what we mean.) Did someone provide them with the photo? Is it an old family photo that has been passed down? If they, personally, held the camera in their hand and took the photo, then their license is valid. If someone provided them with the photo, then we probably need permission from that person. If the photo is an old family photo from a long time ago, then we need more information about where it came from. --B (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish: If I move the ticket back to info-fa, could you please handle it? Please just kindly ask the above questions from B; basically: "Who's the photographer and where was it first published? Can they provide us the original photo?" If you agree, I move the ticket back and we can continue using notes in the ticket itself. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 13:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthven, I am not an OTRS agent. The only thing I can help with here is providing this background information. — Racconish ^💬 14:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish: ...and what do you expect to apply?! Just kiddin' :)

@Mardetanha, Huji, Mhhossein, and 4nn1l2: Can some of you answer to the ticket accordingly? Thanks! Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photosubmissions-de queue: even long backlog

There are some tickets in photosubmissions-de waiting very long. There is one, apparently moved from info-de, waiting 352 days today, with no answer, even automathic one. Can a german speaker agent attend to these tickets? Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today, we still have the same problem. Is there no active agent in -de? Many de-queue have got the same problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photosubmission tickets by nature are very time consuming and should be avoided if at all possible. If you are in contact with anybody who is waiting, please arrange uploading, setup of file description, categorization and use of the files, and provide a permission ticket if required. Thank you. --Krd 04:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krd: I'm not in contact with anybody and I don't read german. But some other OTRS agent yes, and perhaps can help. Both permissions-de and photosub-de are 300+ backlog. Been one of the biggest lenguages (with more readers and users I mean), I wonder why we can't find agents to solved this problem. "Do it yourself" don't work in this case I think. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)~~

File:Lexikon-wirth-kleve.JPG Ticket 2016020610005781

c:File:Lexikon-wirth-kleve.JPG Ticket 2016020610005781
Könnte bitte jemand Befugter in dem Ticket nachsehen, ob da der Buchdesigner Uwe Göbel genannt ist, der imho der Schöpfer des Buchumschlags ist. Sein Name steht derzeit nicht in den Bildattributen, sollte aber, auch wenn er aus irgendwelchen Gründen via OTRS- Ticket auf das Urheberrecht verzichtet hat. Siehe dazu auch diese Anfrage in der de:WP. --Goesseln (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann zwar das Ticket nicht einsehen, aber dieser Herr Göbel hat tatsächlich den Umschlag gestaltet (PDF S. 5). Ob der auch Schöpfungshöhe aufweist könnte man allerdings diskutieren. Im besten Fall gibt es eine dokumentierte Überlassung des Nutzungsrechts in dem OTRS-Ticket. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich pinge mal User:DaB. an, der das Ticket bearbeitet hat und eine Aussage machen kann. --Emha (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Freigabe ist tatsächlich nur für das Foto. Bei der Schöpfungshöhe des Covers sowie des Logos würde ich aber mal ein großes Fragezeichen setzen (2016 waren wir mit Logos sogar noch großzügiger). --DaB. (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vlada.mk using images from there

Hello, website vlada.mk, which is official website for Government of Macedonia use this license "The content of this website can be published with citation of source and without special permission.", but I would like to know it is clear enough for uploading images on Commons or not? --Ehrlich91 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ehrlich91: This question would be better answered on the Copyright Village Pump. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you for your assistance --Ehrlich91 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need help from an OTRS agent in COM:UDR#File:Fani affected areas from sky.jpg concerning this template and the underlying ticket validity. I had already pinged the OTRS agent who has added the ticket to the template, but no response from them. Ankry (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: What's the issue? --QEDK (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: The question is: how to verify whether this template (with ticket:2017091610169018) is valid to a photo made in May 2019 if the template is added to the photo by a non-OTRS-member user? We should not allow adding this template to arbitrary photos. My basic doubt is that the license established in September 2017 cannot legally cover photos that did not exist at that time. But as I do not know what the ticket is about (a license or something else?) I cannot take a decission in UDR. Ankry (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: The remit is simple, as long as the picture was published in the following channels:

Extended content

It is eligible under CC-BY-4.0 International. From my examination, that is what the license release stipulates and given the unconditional nature of the release, applies retroactively and into the future (until revoked), as long as the picture is from the above mentioned channels. --QEDK (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: thanks, undeleted. I think that we could avoid this problem if the above-mentioned sources are listed some way in the template. Ankry (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sayeh-news.com

سلام من تهیه کننده وطراح این پوستر هستم File:پوستر فیلم دگال.jpg متشکر میشم اگر مجوز انتشار رو به این پوستر بدید نام فیلم دگال هست برای جشنواره صد و دیگر جشنواره های داخلی و خارجی پوستر و تیزر اثر انتشار پیدا کرده مصاحبه من در روزنامه سایه درباره این فیلم به چاپ رسیده لینک مصاحبه خدمت شما:

http://www.sayeh-news.com/fa/Online/News/117166/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%AF-%D9%87%D8%B1-%DA%86%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A2%D9%86-%D8%B3%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%AF ضمن اینکه صفحه ای میخوام برای اینجانب ایجاد بشه با رزومه و کارهای هنریم ممنون میشم این مجوز هم به بنده داده بشه متشکرم ندا کیایی Nedkiaei (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reproduction for a book

Donald Pleasance. Allan Warren — User:Allan warren's archive

I'm a french searcher and I'm writing a book on John Carpenter. Is to possible to reproduce the portrait of Donald Pleasance ? steffdeparis75@yahoo.fr

@90.35.143.230: Thank you for your question. Please refer to COM:OTRS/fr for more information, and inform the copyright holder (the designer or the publisher, with relevant papers) to send a permission email by an official email address to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org (French) or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (English), thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@90.35.143.230: Please also leave your signature as ~~~~ for identification, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing to the French researcher...

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 08:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ayen Ho

Hi,All!

I have uploaded some photos in Category:Ayen Ho, that are emailed to me by copyright-holder (the artist in the photo herself). After that, the copyright-holder has sent permission email(s) from her work-related email address shown here, to permissions-zh-hans@wikimedia.org. However, the templates in file-pages are not replaced with OTRS received yet. Will anyone please take a look? David290 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Ayen Ho is an indie musician, belongs to no record label, so she is the sole copy-right holder of the named photos. David290 (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Can you please check your bot logs? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 07:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Those files are marked as OTRS received after this section, anyway. David290 (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David290: I have looked at the tickets and replied the sender, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarded permission?

I happened to look at this image and the associated ticket:2019060310003703, which was handled by Krd. I can't see anything wrong with the permission, but was surprised by it. My question is this: do we or do we not accept forwarded statements of permission – or do we evaluate on a case-by-case basis? I've been using one of the standard "no forwarded permissions" responses to answer such tickets – is that wrong? I'm posting this here because it's specifically image permissions that I'd like clarification on, and from Commons users. Also, do we/should we accept permission from people who claim, without one shred of evidence, to be an "authorised representative" of the actual copyright holder (as can be done using this template)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: As for as I know, the permission should be given by the sole copyright-holder, that is, the photographer himself/herself if not working for others, or the employer of such (when it's a paid work). The "authorized representative" in the template is used when an entity (company/enterprise/organization/government, etc.) holds the copyright, and wanna release. David290 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Gruener Panda

Hi, In 2016 and 2017, User:Gruener Panda uploaded several images of coins copied from the website coininvest.com. The website is "all rights reserved". On Commons, some of those files have OTRS tags and others do not. I could not discern any obvious general logic to explain why some files have a tag and others don't. On the files that have OTRS tags, the ticket numbers seem different for each file, so I assume that each ticket is specific to one file. But for the files that do not have a tag, is there some ticket somewhere that might be a sort of blanket free license from coininvest.com for those images? If not, I suppose the files without a tag must be deleted. It can be seen in the logs that some files have already been deleted. N.B.: Many files uploaded by this user must be deleted anyway because the coin designs are not free in the first place, but that's another problem. At least, files that show public domain coin designs, if any, could be kept if there is a valid ticket for the images. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Asclepias. Very sorry about delay. I've been looking at this matter a little closer. Files with ticket are:

All these permissions have been sent in 2016 to permissions-de by the same person from what looks like an official coininvest email account. I think these have been the first files sent.

Also I found:

File:Krugerrand_comparison.png tagged with ticket:2016111810009596, deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Krugerrand
and File:1000g_Umicore_Andorra_Coinbar_1.png tagged with ticket:2017080110019352, already in a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1000g Umicore Andorra Coinbar 1.png

About the files:

I see no permission, individual or general. The other files were deleted by each government CR claims. Hope this helps. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ganímedes. The files without permission will probably have to be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most all, I think. Permission is not enough in some cases as many coins after 1950. Perhaps a mass DR could work. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped an image with an OTRS tag

~~I cropped an image with an OTRS tag.~~ My memory played me false. I found an image with an OTRS tag on en.wiki, and I used one of our image transfer tools to transfer the image to the commons.

Dyolf77 deleted the cropped image, File:Denyse Tontz at ABC Disney International Upfronts.jpg, as a copyright violation.

~~I went looking for the image I cropped it from, and it too seems to have been deleted.~~ Because I used an image transfer tool to transfer what looked an image with a proper OTRS tag from en.wiki.

I [left a note on User_talk:Dyolf77, where I asked whether an OTRS ticket should not over-ride the claims of wire services.

Shouldn't concerned contributors show sufficient respect to OTRS tags that they don't summarily speedy delete those images as copyright violations?

If a concerned contributor has a concern over the copyright status of an image with an OTRS tag shouldn't they show respect to the OTRS team to at least initiate a full discussion over its copyright status?

Could someone here, who has the right permission, look at the deleted images and report back with the actual OTRS ticket number?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geo Swan, the OTRS ticket:2019052110008981 was closed with the conclusion of that: "the file is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons". Regards. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 13:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging AntiCompositeNumber who nominated the file for the SD. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geo Swan. I nominated the file for speedy deletion under COM:L because the license provided was the Getty Images Rights-Managed license. The Getty RM license is "limited to the specific use, medium, period of time, print run, placement, size of content, and territory selected" which renders it nonfree and not suitable for Commons. In my experience, tickets with licenses from commercial image companies almost never result in a free license. If the photographer contacts OTRS with a release under a free license, the file can of course be restored. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing: Please do not copy images with {{OTRS pending}} or {{OTRS received}} to Commons. Their copyright status has not been checked, and copying them to Commons before they have been tagged with {{OTRS permission}} makes the process more difficult. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an OTRS tag. You guys seem to be implying the tag I saw was merely an {{OTRS pending}} or {{OTRS received}}. OK I am going to call on the support of Captain Sully, who recently testified offering his long experience as a flight safety expert, about the confusing messages the jets that recently crashed give pilots.
Short summary just as in flight safety, when the design choices in our templates confuses people, it is the templates that are to blame, not good faith contributors. In particular, if the most important message people should learn from {{OTRS pending}} or {{OTRS received}} is that those images are not ready to be re-used, then that should be the first thing those templates should say, and it should be in bold.
Human factors experts have a long history of criticizing the design decisions in the "fly-by-wire" computer systems of first Airbus, and more recently Boeing airliners. For those who don't know, the fly-by-wire control computers in those airliners can over-ride the pilots. When the computers over-ride the pilots they bombard the pilot with loud, and, unfortunately usually unfamiliar warnings. Usually the poor pilot is soon bombarded with a cascade of half a dozen or a dozen loud and unfamiliar warnings. When the planes crash, after the computer control system has over-ridden the pilot, the manufacturers make an extreme effort to blame the pilot. They'd argue it was the pilot's fault that he or she wasn't aware of all the possible warnings they might receive, it was the pilot's fault that multiple loud and overlapping warnings distracted them when they had mere seconds to make the right decisions. Human factors experts defend those pilots, and criticize the manufacturers for poor design decisions.
I'm with the human factors experts on this one. I've seen the same thing with how our image information pages mislead our good faith readers, who want to re-use our images, with the proper attribution, yet fail, because our pages are designed to give the uploader much more prominence than the copyright holder.
Every few months I do a google image search, of "Geo Swan", to see how many of the several thousand of my own images I uploaded to the commons are in use by third party readers. It makes me happy to see my images used. It makes me sad to see how many good faith commons readers have misunderstood our general image information pages, and incorrectly attribute authorship to me of images I merely uploaded. Images I uploaded being incorrectly credited to me are much more common than the re-use of images I took myself.
That is fucked up. I have tried to draw this to the community's attention, on multiple occasions. And I am afraid each time a common response is (paraphrasing) "All those third party re-users who credited you, the uploader, not the copyright holder, are morons. Don't ask us to take the stupidity of morons into account in our design decisions."
I'd tell those people, and I will state here, the ~~commons~~ WMF projects should not be some kind of test of who is really paying attention, as we are all volunteers, doing this work in our spare time. So can we try to make sure our templates don't contain hidden tricks?
These images I took myself... [3], [4]
These images were incorrectly attributed to me, by good faith third parties, who misunderstood our general image information pages, which place more emphasis on the uploader, than the actual copyright holder... [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]... Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: Sorry, the tag was on English Wikipedia. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, the templates were on en.wiki. The OTRS team has authority across WMF projects, correct? Geo Swan (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  We don't have authority over anyone; the templates are subject to normal editing processes. If you have specific suggestions for how to reword the templates, feel free to discuss it on the template talk pages. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Game of Thrones Time-lapse Episode 4.webm

This charming video commissioned by Tourism Ireland [12] seems to be licensed here only by its producer [13]. See the credits here and the applicable rules here. Pinging Krd. — Racconish ^💬 19:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter van Geersdaele.jpg

This file was uploaded 11 months ago, and the OTRS should have been filled out (by the family member who emailed me the photo) at the same time. Could someone please check to see if there is a reason it has not yet been added to the file? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: I couldn't find "Geersdaele" or "Kaznica" in our database. Are there any other unique strings we could check for? You can email me private ones like email addresses. I always advise having the copyright holder copy a commons user upon permission submission (if they are different). — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeff G., I've just emailed you. Good suggestion about being cc'd; I'll do that in the future. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Thanks, but none of that helped. Please send the chain. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff G.. If you could please reply to my email so I have your email address, I'll forward the chain. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique:

Sent. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff G.. Forwarded it to you. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Thanks, you've got mail. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

License for File:Trebevic Track 1983 DDR.jpg

Can anyone check what license should be add for this File:Trebevic Track 1983 DDR.jpg, because current license is not suitable because photo is published in 1984, and license states that photograph is published before 1966. File have some OTRS ticket. --Smooth O (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @DarwIn: could help us about Ticket:2017062610023223. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note in the ticket, but yet no one answer. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no answer, I explain my point of view here. The rationale for PD was: "According to Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Copyright and Related Rights Law Article 8 (Unprotected Creations): Copyright protection shall not extend to: a) ideas, concepts, procedures, work methods, mathematical operations, principles or discoveries, b) c) d) e) official texts in the domain of legislation, administration and judiciary (laws, regulations, decisions, reports, minutes, judgments and alike), political speeches and speeches made at court hearings, daily news or miscellaneous information having the character of mere items of press information, folk leterary and artistic creations.[...]. Since this work was created to monitor the administration of the 1984 winter Olympic games, it falls under the domain of administration and is considered an unprotected creation."

I'm not sure PD apply here, at least as the way he's mentioning. But I can be wrong, so more comments are appreciated. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganímedes:

Commented. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this Template:PD-YugoslaviaGov should be used instead, but anyhow, i don't think that this photo fall into this scope of PD. --Smooth O (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @Ruthven: can help us here. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smooth O, and the email at OTRS isn't precise on that point. We should change the license, using {{PD-YugoslaviaGov}}, because the photo was published in an administrative report of the preparation of the 1984 winter Olympic games published by an entity of the Yugoslavian Government, and replacing PermissionOTRS with {{OTRS info}}. --Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral look needed

I think we need uninvolved input here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have a point, but I'd appreciate if you could elaborate precisely and at one place. --Krd 09:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sustainable Development Goals.png

I've uploaded File:Sustainable Development Goals.png with licensing rational entirely based on the jpg version of the same file which has an attached OTRS permission. Since the copyrightable content is the same that ticket should apply but it would be great if someone can confirm that ticket and update the OTRS template on the png version. /Lokal _Profil 08:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ruthven and Josve05a: thank you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ufff It's a delicate matter. @Tiven2240: We should ask for an explicit and more "precise" permission. I do not expect problems in that sense (we have a permission), but maybe a simple confirmation of a public domain license would be helpful. @Rachmat04 and Steven Crossin: Can you help us in this? --Ruthven (msg) 08:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted this ping. Let me take a look. Steven Crossin (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the ticket and the policies here on UN media, it's not clear to me that the images uploaded are actually in the public domain at all. Separate project, but is uploaded as a non-free image. I'd like the take of other OTRS here, perhaps in the ticket or noticeboard, since I'm not at present seeing anything overriding the usage policy for UN media. Steven Crossin (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File: Johnathan Brownlee Photo by John Strange, Selig Polyscope

Being new to Wikimedia, I didn’t realize that adding {{OTRS pending}} would have kept this file from being deleted. The owner of the file has granted permission through the Interactive Release Generator, but the file has been deleted. I have opened ticket:2019071910007473. May I re-upload the image and place the pending notice while this is under review, and are there any other actions I should take at this time? Many thanks for direction on my first experience with Wikimedia. MBAWilbins (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MBAWilbins: Can you please explain where the owner of the file has granted permission?. You don't need to reupload the image we can undelete it once we get the permission from the copyright holder of the image. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket has been answered. When the verification process ends, the file might be restored directly by Commons' sysops. --Ruthven (msg) 08:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File attached to OTRS mail was not found

Hi, recently I've uploaded an image File:Yellow Billed Babbler captured at Shimoga.jpg. Author had sent an OTRS form via mail, but sadly he received a mail that states the file attached was not found. Can someone re-check the mail sent by Shaik Humer Sadikh.--IM3847 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell us the ticket name? We've got near 200 tickets and it's quite hard to find one in particular without the number. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganímedes: I've made the task easy. He had placed CC4.0 on his Instagram post and I've updated the source in the file. Should I send the images for OTRS review, even if they post under CC4.0?.--IM3847 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847 and Ganímedes: I approve of Ticket:2019071910004896, but due to a fatfinger error I got it stuck in the info-cs queue. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram images on commons

Hi, Can we upload the the images of Instagram with CC4.0 tag to Commons. If the original author added Licensed to use under CC4.0 to the post, should they send the OTRS form via mail again?--IM3847 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: "CC4.0" is not specific enough, whereas "CCBY4.0" and "CCBYSA4.0" are specific enough. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: . They have added Licensed for use under CC BY-SA 4.0. So, can the images be uploaded without sending the OTRS form via mail? You can check the source of File:Yellow Billed Babbler captured at Shimoga.jpg for an example.--IM3847 (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: Yes, but please ensure that the files are tagged {{LicenseReview}}. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Sure, thank you.--IM3847 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IM3847: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 289: / Line 289: @@
 ::ufff It's a delicate matter. {{re|Tiven2240}} We should ask for an explicit and more "precise" permission. I do not expect problems in that sense (we have a permission), but maybe a simple confirmation of a public domain license would be helpful. {{ping|Rachmat04|Steven Crossin}} Can you help us in this? --<span style="font-family:Times; color:#219">'''[[User:Ruthven|Ruthven]]'''</span> <span style="color:#0070EE"><small>([[User talk:Ruthven|<span style="color:#101090">msg</span>]])</small></span> 08:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 :::Just spotted this ping. Let me take a look. [[User:Steven Crossin|Steven Crossin]] ([[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
+:::Reading through the ticket and the policies here on UN media, it's not clear to me that the images uploaded are actually in the public domain at all. Separate project, but [[en:File:Sustainable Development Goals chart.svg]] is uploaded as a non-free image. I'd like the take of other OTRS here, perhaps in the ticket or noticeboard, since I'm not at present seeing anything overriding the usage policy for UN media. [[User:Steven Crossin|Steven Crossin]] ([[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 == File: Johnathan Brownlee Photo by John Strange, Selig Polyscope ==