Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requesting copyright permission/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Typo? Or maybe I just don't understand...

Just before the table of contents the text reads: "...especially if it's explained that the license terms mean it is wider appreciated and that we do not want to use all their material...". What does "it is wider appreciated" mean? Omphaloscope » talk 00:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Free Images

Images can be divided between free and non-free ones. Recently, there has been a push to eliminate the non-free ones that, apparently, can be recreated. However, until now I have seen many places with suggestions about how to request free images, but not a project to coordinate efforts. Because of this I am giving the first push to WikiProject Free Images, aimed at centralizing discussion about free images. Currently, it is situated at my userspace, User:ReyBrujo/WikiProject Free Images, but with enough positive feedback and help, it will be moved into the Wikipedia namespace.

The WikiProject aim is broad: first and foremost, educate users about the benefits of free images, but also to teach the differences between free licenses when applied to images. Aside this, the WikiProject will focus in replacing the current fair use images with free ones of good quality, by contacting the media, agencies, publishers or other copyright holders as necessary. It would keep a list of requested images to different organizations, with the different steps that had been taken and the different replies. It will also have an index of all the images that had been donated by these organizations, so that they are able to review their contributions. Also, the members of the WikiProject would review the usage of these images in Wikipedia, verifying that attributions are applied at all times when requested by the copyright holder.

This WikiProject was given as a thought during the Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos discussion, and since apparently there has not been a similar one, I decided to try it out. With some luck and effort, it should be possible to replace many of the current fair use images with free ones of similar quality.

Please drop by and give some thoughts in there. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

When permission is confirmed

Where's the discussion on this? I uploaded an image a year ago. Its copyright owner released it under the GFDL when I asked (through email), perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy at the time. I didn't keep the email, and now, more than a year later, it's going to be deleted because I have to forward private communications to a bunch of strangers? This is absurd. Tuf-Kat 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Where does it say that old images were to be deleted? We all know that for a long time, Wikipedia just relied on an uploader's say-so regarding permissions. We also know that spurious permission claims are sometimes made. The procedure here with forwarding the permission to the Wikimedia Foundation is to have (a) some sanity check to weed out insufficient permissions, and more importantly (b) to give the WMF a means to archive such permissions. That enhances traceability, and makes it possible to re-verify an image even if the original requester of the permission has long left Wikipedia or didn't keep the original e-mails. The procedure has been in place for at least since September 2005. But again, this is not about deleting images, it's about traceability. Lupo 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the impression I got (regarding Image:KingSunnyAde.png) was that it was required for avoiding deletion. Maybe I misinterpreted User:Conscious on my talk page. I think it's reasonable to ask people to begin forwarding permission to the foundation, I was just upset that that it seemed that image was going to be deleted (because it's irreplaceable, unless I could re-get permission, which I suppose is probably possible). Tuf-Kat 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Guardian article

Thought that A picture paints a thousand invoices would be of interest here. I didn't know that for a long time, Wikipedia just relied on an uploader's say-so regarding permissions, so have been pressing for the procedure to be followed on old images by someone with a pretty dodgy understanding of copyright. How tough should I be? ... dave souza, talk 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I wrote a "how to" of sorts, based on my experience in trying to navigate the permissions requirements of obtaining a photo for uploading. The link to the guide is *here*. I know there are other ways to go about it (or other licenses to use) and people may have differing opinions on the best way to go about it, but this provides specific steps and wording that is easier to follow. I think it could be useful for a lot of editors, especially those not familiar with licensing requirements. Any thoughts? R. Baley 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When will I receive a reply?

Hi. An IP address disputed an image. I sent you mail on 30 August for it and three other images. When are you going to reply? -Susanlesch 13:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTRS is all handled by volunteers, and there is a large backlog. It might take a while but you will get a response. Garion96 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Here are the mails for which I hope to receive a reply. Sorry to bother you all. I did not realize this process takes two or three weeks to get a reply and someone else told me that perhaps I should assume these did not get to you. No idea. -Susanlesch 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:35:07 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for two photos [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:48:12 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:53:36 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:26:18 -0700
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

May I ask how long is "a while"? -Susanlesch 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello, Garion96. Yes, that is correct. Thanks to your note, I sent a follow up email to cancel all four sets of proofs. Will my mail be deleted or is that kept on file in perpetuity? I did ask for a reply when the volunteers have a moment to answer. Thanks again for your help and best wishes. -Susanlesch 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Cancelling Re: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]
 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:40:16 -0500
 From: name deleted <email address deleted>
 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org
 CC: name deleted <email address deleted>
 References: <deleted>
  • Why are you here actually? To work on the encyclopedia I assume? And still because it is not fast enough to your liking you decide to delete? Regarding your mails, I am not sure but I think all mails are kept in the archives. Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, Garion96. Yes, I am a Wikipedia contributor. Nice to "meet" you. Regarding "not fast enough," I had no idea this could take two or three weeks or more (this discussion started for me about on 28 August in a section above this one, maybe you didn't see that or my first questions weren't clear enough). If you take suggestions, maybe add a bit of information on expectations to the instructions, so that users who are lost like I was will know beforehand that they might need to wait quite a while? And how long quite a while would be? Or maybe you all could add an automated "ack" mail so people who are waiting in line will know that the Communications Committee received their email? -Susanlesch 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Automatic reply might be handy. Might be worth a mention on Meta:OTRS. I did read the discussion and the one above. Perhaps I am misunderstanding here. Am I correct in assuming, after reading the posts, that you uploaded images, you have permission of the copyright holder to upload those images under a free content license. You send that permission to OTRS. You think that takes too long. You decide to delete the images? Garion96 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is what happened to me. Just ran plumb out of energy. Sorry I don't have a meta account. Thank you again for taking an interest. -Susanlesch 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Susan, I recommend uploading at Commons. The responses I get from there are always fast. (I just got acknowledgement on one about 10 minutes after I sent the e-mail to OTRS.) Videmus Omnia Talk 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but images uploaded at Commons may be used at any Wikimedia project, including Wikipedia. I upload all my images there. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, but free content belongs on the Commons anyway - see Wikimedia Commons#Policies and usage. It's still used in exactly the same way as content on the English Wikipedia. I guess this depends on the license of your photos - what license did the copyright holder give for the photos? (If the license was insufficiently clear, or was not proper for Wikimedia, that might also explain the lack of a response from OTRS - they sometimes don't answer if the license is invalid.) Videmus Omnia Talk 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Videmus Omnia, I will not be replying to you again on this topic. To quote an ancient New Zealand folk song, because you are asking that tells me this is not your affair. Thank you if you would please stop asking me questions. -Susanlesch 04:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was honestly trying to help, but OK, be that way. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Susan, I am an OTRS volunteer who handles a lot of requests for permissions. We do have large backlogs in this area, however, since we have fewer people working on it. I searched the system and only found the last e-mail you mention - the one with the subject Cancelling Re: Proof for a photo [confidential email to the Wikimedia Communications Committee]. So either the other messages were never sent to us, or did not arrive correctly. Either way, the e-mail is largely useless as you have not given us the license you wish to release your images under. If you can give a clear statement telling us that you are the copyright holder of the image, and what license you release it under - the GFDL, or certain Creative Commons licenses, are considered free - I will gladly undelete the images for you, close the ticket, and send you a response that the permission has been cleared. Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Riana, thank you for your reply. I hope that some suggestion above proves to be useful. No, thank you, though, I am not able to work on this any more. If you or anyone needs to reach me about this please use my talk page (thank you for doing that). -Susanlesch 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When to forward to the commons beforehand?

I gotten a few images released by their copyright holders for use on various wiki articles. Should I sent the permission acceptance to the commons at all or first? All I been doing so far is just sending to the normal permissio at wiki one. --Kolrobie 07:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What about other kinds of permission?

I'm concerned about photos of minors. Even the person who took a photo does not necessarily have the right to release it to public domain in situations where they ought to have permission from people in the photographs. Where can I look to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding photos of underage individuals who are not public figures? Wryspy (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there aren't issues with child nudity. The problem arises with pornography where the models appear to be young. Check this (even though it is an essay):

A photo used to illustrate Creampie (sexual act) was deleted by Jimbo with the summary, "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements." This refers to the enforcement guidelines for the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, which require the "publisher" of sexually explicit material, Wikipedia in this case, to obtain and maintain records proving that the model is of legal age.

Wikipedia is in no situation of keeping such records, and therefore these images are usually deleted. Note that Wikipedia is not a free storage service, so unless the image has a chance to be used in an article, it may be deleted.
I am speaking what "I think", but I cannot assure you what I said is the real truth. I am not sure Wikipedia has guidelines for underage pictures. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Permission to use a company's trademark/logo on the company's page

Is the process the same as for any copyrighted image? Try as I might I've not been able to find a logo-specific guideline. Harrison789 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please create a shortcut to

such that the (otherwise unwieldy) url can be sent as a link in email? WP:COPYCONS would do I think. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done, but I made it WP:CONSENT. And you know, you could have done this yourself. :) howcheng {chat} 04:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks etc

Just curious, why is "I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc." commented out? I was just coming to add something similar and found this in HTML comments. howcheng {chat} 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the language is too strict, perhaps something like "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws"? howcheng {chat} 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I get permission from myself

I'm currently trying to add an article about myself and, of course, used me biography from my website. I've been told that this is a copyright infringement and my article was deleted. Ok, so how to I get permission form myself and how to I tell Wikipedia this?

Mak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastscapian (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you shouldn't try to create articles about yourself (see WP:AUTO), but if you insist, then you need to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and state that you agree to release the contents of your web page under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This should be done from an email address that has the same domain as your web site. If you don't have one, then it can be whatever email address is on your domain's WHOIS record. If that's still not possible, there needs to be some way on your web site to contact you so that we can verify that you are who you say you are. howcheng {chat} 21:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image licenses?

From Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for images
Any free license must allow all of the following, for both the image itself as well as any modified versions based on it:

  1. Modification
  2. Redistribution
  3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.

The only restrictions allowable are proper attribution of the creator and the requirement that derivative works are similarly licensed.

Is it just me, or are the bolded phrases in conflict with each other? If you can require that derivate works are similarly licensed, then all derivates would share the same (free) license. Wouldn't a commerical purpose require a commercially-friendly license, or am I just overthinking that? It just sounds unintuitive, but that's probably because I need sleep. ^^;; --Godfoster 08:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A commercial entity can use a given copyleft work in its profit-making ventures, but it cannot create a derivative work and place it under a conflicting license. Even so, as the wording of the article makes clear, the latter restriction is voluntary. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 08:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting revision of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Forwarding permission to the Wikimedia Communications committee: required?

I'd really like to get clarification on whether or not forwarding permission to the Wikimedia Communications committee is required or just preferable. If a user claims to have received verbal or written permission, is that sufficient or do we now require that proof of permission be put on file here at Wikipedia? Any applicable quotes from Jimbo or other authorities would be appreciated but just some input from anyone who's familiar with our copyright policies would help a lot. I am trying to determine what should be done when a user uploads a file, claims to have permission, and refuses to forward proof of permission. TomTheHand 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Six months later, question unanswered so I will try again (thanks for the clues, TomTheHand). Who is the Wikipedia Communications committee and what "proof of permission" do they want? And why now? Thanks for any more clues. -Susanlesch 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That section of the article is gone. I also don't know how to go about getting answers. :( Aaron Lawrence 09:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Aaron Lawrence, I don't remember why that link is broken. A couple days after sifting through a bunch more places I found an email address in the obvious place and wrote to whoever answers that mail. No reply yet but maybe they have a backlog. -Susanlesch 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I deal with the permissions folks almost daily. I normally get a fast response from the Commons permissions folks, not so much with the English Wikipedia (so much so that I do all my uploads on Commons now). You'll also get a faster response if you have an explicit license statement as opposed to some vague permission. See Wikipedia:Requesting free content for some form letters and such that I use to get specific license permissions. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The very question I have, but I do not see an answer: when I upload an image (not necessarily to the Commons), do I need to forward the permission to use to the Communications Committee? J. Johnson (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations

I disagree with this sentence: Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. Please answer my question at Commons ([1]). Thanks User:Nillerdk (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Guy says I have permission to use his images

He told me I can use any picture he has on his website and blog. I'm new at this so what is the next step for getting through this process? Showtime2009 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Josef Tal

The following is the transcript of a recent correspondence I had with two Wikipedia's administrators concerning a copyright issue. I hope you can provide a practical solution:


Dear Elcobbola, Please refer to the following correspondence:

No OTRS ticket

There is no OTRS ticket for File:Josef Tal & His Loudspeakers.jpg. ([2]) If it's copyright status can't be verified, it will be deleted. Plrk (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Plrk, Please instruct me how to provide the requested permission. (BTW - isn't it enough that I officially declare this?)
Anyway - I have it in writing and I can fax it to you anytime. I suppose this must settle the issue.
Kind regards, Etan Tal (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Etan Tal
Hello! Please read Commons:OTRS and contact an OTRS volunteer for more information. Declaring someting doesn't mean much - on the internet, anyone can declare anything. Plrk (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly the reason I would like to support my declaration with a document. I did ask an OTRS volunteer but no reply yet Etan Tal (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Since there is still no feedback, Elcobbola, pls help solving the matter. Thanks - Etan Tal (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Etan Tal, if you have obtained a written declaration releasing this image under a free license from Meir Ronnen, you need only forward it to permissions-commons (at) wikimedia.org. Эlcobbola talk 08:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Following User:elcobbola's advice I wish I had a fax number to forward this written declaration.

How often are permissions granted?

I'm just curious, does anyone know about how often do authors agree to release their works under a GFDL-compatible license? I know requesting a work to be released under a free license is a very simple task. However, it seems most editors simply resort to using the work under fair use instead of requesting it to be released under a free license, which makes me believe that this has a low success rate. Does anyone have an idea about how often are such permissions granted? --Ixfd64 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On what basis would you quantify success rate as "low"? It seems to me that you need to also ask how often permissions are requested.
In various contexts (not just Wikipedia) I've made perhaps a dozen requests for images, and results have varied from no response (perhaps I had an obsolete/unused e-mail address?) to enthusiastic support (including even helping me find obscure images). The "middle" response, and the one I find most frustrating, seems to be from organizations or agencies where someone is willing to say, but rather informally, "sure, use it", but are disinclined to engage in the back and forth that seems necessary (?) to arrange acceptable documentation. That certainly is an inducement to resort to other arrangements, and I suspect reflects more on the editors, or even the process, than the authors (or their agents). It could be an interesting issue to look into. J. Johnson (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I too am quite curious as to the success rate? Has there been some informal comparison as to determine the current "success" rate?Smallman12q (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Absurdly complex to figure out what to do

Sorry guys but I struggled for an hour or more trying to figure out what is involved in getting permission. Reading various articles and policies.

The guy who took the photo is just down the hall from me and did it casually, so a. there is no URL - the photo is not ON a website prior to uploading to WP. b. he is not a member of WP and would probably not bother to be. c. he has no particular interest in reading licenses

He said it is OK to use it on WP, so I used this option on the upload page. Is it intended to trick people? If the policy is not acceptable, then don't offer it as an option! "HAHA YOU USED THE WRONG LICENSE - DELETED!".

There should be a ONE PARAGRAPH summary of THE WHOLE PROCESS including what to tell the person. I know WP is "serious about copyright" but the current procedure is too complex and confusing to understand, and goes massively against the spirit of open contribution. It feels like a stultifying beuracracy, which is going to heavily discourage participation.

My only reaction is to delete the image and give up.

Never knew "beuracracy" for aggravating circumstances (buttercracy witha whiff of french cuisine?), but there sure is a bit-bot of that, if you don't mind it be said: too complex, confusing, against the spirit of open contribution, stultifying bureaucracy, heavily discourages participation, only reaction is to delete and give up, "Ha-ha you used the wrong spirit too bad for us all." Been looking into it for a week on-and-off now (at about 1hr minimum per session), just to pass a pic i had put myself into french wiki Terra preta article at beginning of year, from there to the english article. I know for a fact that the owner is only too happy to promote the topic at hand with his photos - or it sure would have been deleted by now, since he could plainly see the pic when he visited the page to give his opinion on the then ongoing work on article. And now I can't even find the page where I left a message to ask for help (why isn't it in my "modified pages" list?). Ptah. *** *** ***. Thanks anyway. Basicdesign (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Bravo, while I'm not giving up I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. I obtained written permission and submitted it only to be told it wasn't good enough. If I have to ask the contributor to call in their legal counsel to interpret the suggested copyright requests they're not going to be so generous as it's too much trouble. Also to tell somebody that their contribution may be changed or used for profit by the unscrupulous and to ask them to give up any right to object to this is absurd.--Bajutsu (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You may wish to explain your confusion to whichever member of the Communication Committee responded to your e-mail. He or she may be able to clarify. Alternatively, we do have a specific board for asking questions about media copyright issues at WP:MCQ. Sorry for the complications; I do very little with images myself, or I would offer to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. There's all these articles talking about how contributors are leaving Wikipedia in DROVES, often due to over-zealous administrators, and even the Wikipedia Foundation is answering to it, yet the obtuse and Nazi-esque permission freaks continue to hoard over their domain like those losers in high school who couldn't get dates yet felt some strange power over the audio visual equipment.
I just love that I emailed my local city hall to ask for a photo our mayor and permission to upload to the city's article on Wikipedia, and they did just that, and I stated it in the photo description, and now I'm told that it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The photo has been deleted. That makes sense. Beautiful. I so feel the warmth that makes me want to contribute money to the foundation. Greg Salter (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What's with the runaround?

As an established Wikipedian, isn't my word that I obtained the copyright owner's release of an image under a free license good enough? If I were to lie about that, I could just as easily forge a permission email. I don't like to reveal my real identity by forwarding an email, but I also don't like to give a false identity to the people I request permission from. I propose that this page be changed to state that it is acceptable to simply provide a tag stating what permission was obtained and from whom it was obtained, along with contact information for that person. No forwarded email should be necessary. If someone uploads a copyrighted image, falsely claiming that they received permission, then Wikipedia can simply delete it upon receiving a complaint by the copyright owner. In such cases, Wikipedia will also know to scrutinize other uploads by that user and possibly impose a ban if malicious and repeated infractions are found. This change would be more in accordance with WP:AGF. Tisane (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did what was asked and the image was still deleted

Can someone PLEASE tell me what went wrong?

I am an editor since 2006, and have successfully uploaded photos before, for which I have received OTRS permissions.

I never heard anything back, and now the image has been deleted on the grounds of no OTRS request being received. Emails were sent to: Wikimedia OTRS <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>

Honestly I'm getting really fed up with this whole OTRS procedure. This is the second time I received NO RESPONSE at all, while in the past it worked fine (albeit slow). It's kind of strange for the aforementioned three emails to just get lost in cyberspace, isn't it? --Eddyspeeder (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't informed of a pending removal on my talk page. It just got deleted without a word. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly stupid/simple question

I am in contact with someone that I'm working to get their images up to Wikipedia/commons as free licenses. I'm 99% sure they don't have a problem with that, but I'm trying to figure out the way to do this to make the least amount of work on their end.

They have provided me via email a RAR file of several images of at least 2-3 I'd like to use. Note: I have not uploaded these yet.

What I'm trying to figure out is the ORTS part. I can link them to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries but I am trying to figure out if they need to send it, or if I have them fill that out, send it back to me, and I forward that off to the ORTS part, along with the past email chain (including said pictures); the instructions between this past and the Declaration page seem to be somewhat conflicting.

Additionally, at what point should I upload said images (here or commons, depending), so that the ORTS tracking can be added? If they are allowing use of the entire archive of about 20 images, should I upload them all even though I anticipate using 2 or 3 only? --MASEM (t) 17:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright permission for text

All of the above 'Talk' seems to be about images. What happens for permissions to use text? Is the written permission still forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation? I couldn't see any instructions. Sionk (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Web page that explicitly gives CC-BY permission?

What about a web page that explicitly gives permission to use its images (namely several figures that the authors created) under CC-BY3.0? Is it necessary to go through the e-mail permission request? The site in question is http://keccak.noekeon.org and it explicitly gives permission to use its figures under that license in the Figures section on the right.--agr (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No permission is needed. When you upload the images, just make sure to link/document that article that clearly shows the CC-BY-3.0 allowance for the figures. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.--agr (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Stupidly Complicated

Why do you make things so bloody complicated? Why doesn't Wikimedia move its servers outside the USA to a country with more sensible copyright laws? I would never agree to your crazy example permission requests. Why can't you just have a simple policy that would allow an image to be used ONLY on Wikimedia projects rather than all the other shite wording in the letter which seems to imply that people could then use the image on other websites, alter the image and distribute it via non-free means. Wikimedia needs to sort itself out. If you can't find an image then just use any from the Internet and to hell with copyright law. Let them sue Wikimedia and wait for the reaction from its users, worldwide media and other Internet users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.129.24 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

hear, hear! Zarnivop (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

These instructions are apparently wrong

I followed them exactly for File:Space Engineers 1.jpg through File:Space Engineers 13.jpg and they were promptly deleted. I added {{OTRS pending}} to the talk page for each image as Step 3 indicates, but the user who posted the copyvio notification on my talk page has said this isn't sufficient. If that's the case, these instructions should be fixed so as not to mislead other users. —Entropy (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that whoever did that was reverted and the OTRS template was subsequently filled, so both the images were successfully uploaded. I assume there's nothing to worry about these instructions. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Help

should a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License still be used, or should you go with 4.0 since it's more up to date?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwstanly (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Text contributions need to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 licence, this is because Wikipedia has not yet moved to v4.0 of the licence. There was discussion about moving to the v4.0 licence last October and November, which can be found at m:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0 but as yet, no change has been made. If/when that happens, the guidance about which licence to choose will, of course, be updated. Images can be released under v4.0 as they're separately attributed, and that is currently the licence of choice for the Commons media repository. Nick (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wajaale

Wajaale somalia Zuldaanthek (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Copyright Handlers, I like request copyright permission to be used on Wikapedia Max Halloway MMA Page.

Photo Credit : Max Halloway

Original Link & Contact : https://twitter.com/BlessedMMA

Changes :Improved Quality to fit the picture n Wikipedia to prevent stretch.

The Twitter Photo Setting was also set as Public

🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A kind heart expressing my gratitude

Came across a photo in wiki and i can assume by reading wiki, i will get a copyright free nice! photo. Thank you guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.146.165 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The text should be splitted

This explanation is utterly bad. We need quick and cheap way to get permission from an owner. I propose to rewrite this article. Took me at least 10 minutes just to figure out everything. I propose to split the article into two sections: on Why and Guideline to how to get permission. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

202.36.63.73 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done It's unclear of what change(s) you want. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled (2018)

This process is long, bureocratic, stifles collaboration and bothers companies that would otherwise be willing to donate the material. What's wrong with uploading with having user's upload images, assuming that they have the rights to publish, and responding to DMCA takedown requests if necessary? --TZubiri (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is a really unhelpful article. I just wanted a simple way for someone to consent for me to upload a photo of their step-father. After five minutes of reading all this impenetrable stuff, I gave up. Just provide a simple pro-forma letter for someone to send and an address to send it. By trying to allow for every possibility, you risk satisfying no-one. JMcC (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm gonna second all of this. The fact that the image is either non-free to use or can be copied, modified, and sold with no in-between is unbelievably ridiculous. I received permission from the owner of a photograph to use an image but only on Wikipedia and with no explicit claim that it can be sold. Is there really nothing I can do with it now? LaunchOctopus (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is long and bureaucratic, and it got worst when on 5th of January 2019, user B changed the process by asking the copyright-holder to send the authorization email by himself, instead of allowing the user who is doing the process to forward the authorization. However, in the comment he said: The original email from the copyright holder is preferred. Well, now (November 2021) I have seen my first forwarded authorization process denied because forwarded permissions statements are not permitted. I would like to have a clarification about this. Preferred doesn't mean it is compulsory. Where this change of the process have been discussed? --Robertgarrigos (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robertgarrigos: I'm guessing this is to match the policy on Commons, which requires the copyright holder to forward confirmation to VRT. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requesting_copyright_permission/Archive_1&oldid=1168801910"