Commons talk:Email templates

(Attribution)

The template could be improved by more pointing out what rights the copyright holder has: to be attributed. Right now it only mentions what rights he gives up -- a negative viewpoint, IMO. / Fred Chess 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion. Compare with previous revision to see differences.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [ choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right use the image in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I acknowledge that I always retain copyright of my image, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the image will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that the free license for only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in violation of another law such as trademarks restrictions, libel, or geographically specific restrictions.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Fred Chess 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 Oppose Keep the old one. Only bad changes. A 'negative viewpoint' and a strong statement of 'what rights he gives up' is exactly what is intended with this template. This template is not for convincing people to sign it! This can be done in the request previous to refering to this template, but the template itself should be crystal clear about the negative consequences.

1. You removed "publish modified versions, as far as copyright is concerned." This hides the fact that modification is permitted. Instead you are going redundant "and to charge money for it if necessary." Commercial is clear enough.
2. "I acknowledge that I always retain copyright of my image, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen." That's irrelevant. Please only the consequences for the rights owner. Of course he 'acknowledges' of things which do not change for him. "Modifications others make to the image will not be attributed to me." This is not guaranteed by the license, and it is outside of the subject of copyright. The whole new paragraph is bad.
3. "I acknowledge that the free license for only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in violation of another law such as trademarks restrictions, libel, or geographical specific restrictions." This has actually inverted the paragraph's sense, one could now think the right is reserved to exclude the other rights by copyright and sue people for copyright violation if they violate one of the other laws. Exactly that is not the case with the license and the intention of the original paragraph was to make this clear. It is a clarification that this is an agreement for copyright and only for copyright, not an acknowledgement. --Rtc 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• oppose ACK Rtc. The template should AVOID legal troubles by beeing absolutely clear for the copyright owner. It is only fair that he knows what is happen when he gives his picture free (umfassende Aufklärung). --129.13.251.76 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User 129.13.251.76 (IP at Karlsruhe University) --Historiograf 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez, you guys are picky. I think Fred's version is fine too. They're both accurate. pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks p-elise :-) (sorry I have given up on your name).

Feel free to brush up the language. I'm not usually careful about that.

Fred Chess 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not understand. Your changes were contrary to the purpose of the template. You added camouflage without any value at all. --Rtc 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rtc --Historiograf 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Name?

Has it occured to anyone that some people might not mind having their work distributed freely, but don't necessarely want their real name distributed along with it? --Chlämens 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is a very good question. Particularly for images of people used to illustrate medical articles. Concealing the identity of the copyright holder helps to conceal the identity of the "patient". Please see Commons talk:Patient images. --Una Smith (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We also have a system for handling such situations: the copyright holder needs to submit a statement via OTRS and simply ask that his/ her name be withheld. The source for the file must then be marked with the template {{private correspondence}}. OTRS will retain the copyright holder's name in confidence but will still be able to license the file for reuse under the copyright holder's terms with no difficulty. Of course, such terms cannot include attribution, which is impossible without knowing the author's name, but the "share alike" option as well as the CCzero public domain license are both valid alternatives to this. KDS4444 (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Inconsisticy

In this template the words work and image were used inconsitently for the same purpose. I have changed all occurences of image into work. Bryan 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, seems that you have overlooked at least one occurrence in the template. Will change that too. --91.59.212.75 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

geographically-specific restrictions

I suggest to remove the reference to "geographically-specific restrictions" - it is totally obscure. What is this supposed to mean? All laws are specific to some jurisdiction, which is traditionally bound to a geographic location. I would suggest to refer to "personality rights" instead.

I guess that this was intended to refer to special rules against abuse of official insignia, or "forbidden symbols" (like nazi emblems in germany, when used out of context). Those are however criminal offenses to be prosecuted by an attorney, it's not up to the creator of the work to press charges. So such a reference is out of place here. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me you are totally right. I endorse removing it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this. Go ahead and remove it. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, done. have y look if you like. -- Duesentrieb^(?!)

Bad page to link to

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ].

That's a terrible page to link to. What, is someone going to choose to put their holiday snaps under {{PD-USGov-NASA}}? We just need a link to a simple list of acceptable licenses for user-generated content, either here at Commons or maybe at the Definition of Free Cultural Works.--Pharos 07:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just link to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses.--Pharos 07:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we should create a seperate page that briefly explains some common licenses. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PD OTRS

Is that possible? Gridge 10:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Its possible - the appropriate license tag would be {{PD-author}}, with the usual OTRS tag added.--Nilfanion 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia example requests misleading

As a newbie, I sent out a request to an author using the text suggested in Wikipedia: example requests for permission and received the reply "I give full permission to use xxx on Wikipedia free of charge."

Then (on this article page) I found out that this was not enough and that I should have got the author to fill in a specifically and unambiguously worded grant form.

Does the WP documentation need changing? Esowteric (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Have added the following to the lede of Wikipedia: example requests for permission:

"Due to the large number of ambiguous answers to enquiries concerning a permission of reuse for an image, text or similar (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos") it is advisable to attach to your enquiry email a standard declaration of consent. See Wikipedia declaration of consent or Commons email templates." Esowteric (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Adaptations

Where does this come from: Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me ? The cc-by-sa-3.0 (see 4b [1] )seems to be pretty clear about this. Adaptations have to be marked as such and original license including author attribution information must be pertained. Nillerdk (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forget my question. I have read the sentence as "modified versions of my work will not be attributed to me", because someone translated it that way into Danish (Commons:E-mail-skabeloner). In my rush I forgot to check the original. I will correct the Danish translation immediatly. Nillerdk (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Email templates

In order to get many more language versions of Email templates I suggest to move this translations from commons to translatewiki. --Robby (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose. The wording of this template is very important to Commons. We need to retain the ability to make adjustments and clarifications when needed. This should not be handed off to a third party. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rephrase

• "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide..." <- change to:
• "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide..."

--Bensin (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this rephrasing. Anyone have any idea why it has not been implemented after four years? Anyone mind if I implement it? KDS4444 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Six days later and so far no one has voiced any objections to this minor change to the template (which I still like and think is a good move). Am now going to implement it and mention this talk page discussion in my edit summary. KDS4444 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

proposed version when someone signs an email on behalf of an organisation

i'm not a lawyer, but many parts of Template:Email templates/Consent/en sound absurd when it's a person signing on behalf of an organisation, e.g. "will not be claimed to have been made by me". If Joe Bloggs signs on behalf of Universal Wheat Studios, it doesn't matter that changes are not claimed to be made by Joe Bloggs, what matters is whether they are not attributed to Universal Wheat Studios. Also, rather critically, "I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement" surely would be much better as "I acknowledge that my organisation cannot withdraw this agreement", wouldn't it? Otherwise, the organisation could say, "OK, Joe Bloggs cannot withdraw from what he signed on our behalf, but he has been sacked for disloyalty, and he was only authorised to sign things for the duration of his employment, so now i'm the Director and i withdraw our organisation's agreement."

Another example: "copyright of my work". Someone can sign things on behalf of an organisation, but that doesn't make the organisation's work into his/her own work.

I've suggested a modified version at w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_rights#Logo_replacement, for a particular case.

IMHO we should have two different versions: for a human as copyright holder and for a human signing on behalf of an organisation ("legal person").

A copyright lawyer should check this... Boud (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, the radio-button idea I mention below would solve this problem (there are several places where the wording of the template doesn't necessarily line up grammatically with the options being chosen by the copyright holder or his or her representative). Having multiple templates would be one option, but a radio-button-generated document would obviate this and allow us to stick to one template. It would also allow us to get rid of all the "choose one" and "sender's authority" bits, resulting in an easier-to-read and -to-understand final document. Still, someone would have to generate the code to produce that document... KDS4444 (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Public domain version

How about creating a version for releasing the work to public domain... "I hereby declare the above specified works to be public domain and irrevocably relinquish all claims to any rights... yadda yadda, lawerspeak, lawyerspeak, ....blah, blah, blah, more lawerspeak." In my experience many casual amateur photographers truly DGAF about all the legalistic waffle that gets thrown at them here. Dodger67 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd think so, yet when posed with the idea that their amateur photo could someday be used in an uncredited million-dollar marketing campaign, and that there is no "cost" to retaining as many rights as possible, most photographers seem to prefer not to go the public domain route. Flickr, for example, is filled with thousands and thousands of sometimes crappy photos with their copyrights all carefully reserved, "'cause you never know." It's stupid logic, I agree, but it is very common. The template currently has a footnote about choosing options other than CC-BY-SA-4.0, but it would be better if the public domain option were more readily available (as opposed to having CC-BY-SA-4.0 placed in front of you and then being told you can choose another license if you know how to do that and know what the consequences would be).KDS4444 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

I'm about to send off an e-mail to request for some images relating to the Indonesian military. Must I include this when I e-mail it to the guy in particular? Thanks. Ominae (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Release of personality rights

Billy talks with his doctor about his embarrassing health issues, private diseases, and criminal addiction to illegal substances

Suppose that some model agreed to release their en:personality rights so that their image and face in a photograph could be used in health educational materials and advertisements. Some people might not, for example, want a picture of them used in an advertisement for treating embarrassing health conditions. Some other people who are informed of the risks might agree to be models for such a photograph. Indeed, there is an industry around licensing stock photography for medicine.

Does Wikipedia have any process for releasing personality rights associated with photos uploaded to Commons? If personality rights are not released, then in cases of advertising or medical promotion which could imply that the models in the photo endorse a certain practice, then it would be correct to say that all models must be individually contacted before using the photos, right?

Can readers here please comment that they have not seen a personality rights release on Wikipedia if in fact they have not seen one? I think that no such thing exists here, but wanted to get comments before I explore options for developing one. See also this same question on English Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would not be up to WP nor WC to release personality rights (the model does that) nor release property rights. However, WMF could (if is so decided) hold on file a copy of the model and property release forms, so that in the event that the model or property owner dies or otherwise can not be contacted, a bona-fide copy of the form is available for the end user to down load and place on their own file. I have seen not releases at all, neither here nor on WP. What I did here and here was to leave contact details on whom to contact. The best place to host these forms maybe is on Wikidata. A link to it could be placed on the relevant 'permission box' on the template which can show whether or not the image has any release. I shouldn't think too many people will go to the trouble of obtaining a sign release, so I don't think this will significantly increase the WMF's workload, needed in checking and placing forms into the depository. First though, we need to get a consensus and also decide upon whether we allow models and property owners to insist on restrictions. I see a problem here. It is one thing for a few nouveau models and property owners to waive all rights but sensible ones will insist on including clauses. My view is: we now need releases to give would be commercial users more confidence. Those in the industry may well remember Texas teenager Chang suing Virgin Mobile for a Creative Commons photo of her that they used without her permission. They maybe many other similar cases settled out of court for all I know. Should we decide that a release depository is a good thing to have, then I would suggest we contact some of the insurance firms that offer cover to publishers, for just such violations. It would I think, be in their interest to give their views. So, I am all for WC becoming less amateurish in style.--P.g.champion (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is not for Wikimedia to release personality rights. And Wikimedia should not get involved into this. There are too many potential legal issues. Anyway, a personality rights release is probably only valid on case by case basis, and it depends heavily on the local law. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P.g.champion Yann Thanks for the feedback. Of course only models can release personality rights. If these rights were released, then this would be presented in the same way that copyright holders release rights with a CC license.

Thanks for sharing the Chang case. That is exactly the same issue.

It is my intent to get a personality rights release form used in industry and adapt it for Wikimedia Commons. It will release every personality right to the extent that personality rights are released in the stock photography industry. I will post all the releases publicly in a Wikimedia project, probably by scanning them and uploading them to Commons and tying them to the photographs. Champion, what you describe is either exactly how I would do this or very close.

I also see a problem in consent and personal rights, and for long term best practices I think models should be informed of all the risks associated with releasing personality rights, but at Wikimania 2015 I think I will find a few bold people to agree to be the first models in the world to do this and I will be one too. I am not prepared to deal with violations or responsibility for problems, and do not see how any harm can come to me for organizing or managing this project, but I do want to be transparent about this and would act in accord with community wishes.

My motivation for this is to provide a path through which nonprofit medicine can have model photographs to use in health education. This kind of photography is typically low quality and high price, and I want to make a free repository available to meet the needs of organizations which cannot meet expensive corporate standards. I would take input for either of you or anyone else.

Anyone can be involved in this or stay out of this as they like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Stock photos for health organizations for more information about the project which this idea supports. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Work vs. Media

This sentence from the template is terribly confusing: [the media work] OR [the work depicted in the media] OR [both the work depicted and the media]. I've read it over several times and still am unsure what it means. Can we get some clarification on this? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just completed a formatting overhaul of the template (all those capital letters and bold font face read like shouted words, and only added visual strain to what is for most readers an already confusing document) and came up with wording to explain the differences between the things I mentioned above (which, if I did incorrectly, someone please feel free to correct). What would be really great is if we had a page where a person could click on some radio buttons and fill in a few blanks and then the whole statement would subsequently be generated with the right wording. I don't know of other pages on Commons that do things like this, but I suspect it is only a matter of writing the correct markup for it and making sure it works. Anyone have any thoughts on that? KDS4444 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wording still creates unnecessary pain for all involved

In reply to a question I had at w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#What if a the subject of an article agrees to use their picture?, I learned that the wording of this template is not enough, but still requires OTRS agents in many common cases to ask for the following two bits of information:

1. If the owner is the same as the subject of the photo: Explicit clarification of how the copyright was transferred.
2. Copyright year.

I believe that it is a waste of not only the OTRS volunteers' time, but especially of the time of the subject, who, if they are someone who deserves a Wikipedia article, certainly have better things to do than answer repeated questions just so that we can have their picture for free. It shows lack of respect if we get back and ask them something that we knew we would have to ask all along. I therefore strongly suggest to add these two questions to the form. SebastianHelm (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

SebastianHelm: this sounds like it might be a good idea (I realize you made it months ago, but I am just noticing it now myself). Can you give an example of exactly how you think we should implement this? We would need to make sure that it didn't make the template unnecessarily complicated (it's kinda complicated as it is) and that the wording remained suitable for those cases where a person was not uploading an image of themselves. Also: my own experience as an OTRS volunteer with most such photos is that the person uploading them is not the copyright holder, and doesn't understand that it is the photographer's permission (as copyright holder) that we really need, even though they themselves are the subject of the photo ("It's a photo of me, why do you need that photographer's permission to use it?"). It's an easy thing to misunderstand, and not an easy one to explain. I say, give it a shot and let's see what you come up with! Sound good? KDS4444 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm and KDS4444: I find the template already too complicated, which is why I have created a step-by-step tool that can create release eMails (or release texts if no eMail client is installed) and allows for more options. It uses the same text as our current release template (including a currently missing am in the first sentence) and is IMO much more convenient to use, so should we direct users to it? (If yes, I'll move it to toollabs.)    FDMS  4    12:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

OH my God, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I started trying to figure out how to do (and failed miserably) about three days ago! This is EXACTLY what we need! We need people to see a FORM, to fill out that form, and have it generate all the correct wording for them, and then they can just send it in! Please make this available post haste, I will support it 100% YES YES YES!!! (I'm kind of excited!) KDS4444 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe swap steps 3 and 1, and get it on toollabs:, please. What about i18n? –Be..anyone 💩 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Move finished about two hours ago. The idea behind putting step 1 at the beginning was filtering out non-copyright holders (I don't know the copyright holder option). i18n might be difficult because the different language versions mostly don't appear to be translations of the English one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDMS4 (talk • contribs)

Okay, filtering was also my idea, whatever works better without getting a no too late (as on the stupid upload wizard). Lots of white space, though (Chrome 125%+100% tested). –Be..anyone 💩 23:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to using something responsive instead of the current static 2160px as the div height …    FDMS  4    00:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer, I know shit of PHP (or unrelated Lua), but looking at the ctrl-U source no static style height at all could work, if answering in any order really works (that's what I tested without actually filling out any field, let alone click on submit). –Be..anyone 💩 00:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

overflow:hidden does the trick. However, since this disables scrolling altogether, it's only set for screens/windows >=800px height (otherwise some fields and buttons would be unreachable). Ideally, the divs would have the same height as the screen/window and scrollbars themselves if necessary; problem is that I'm not aware of a (reasonable) way to implement the first part. There's no "submit" to be afraid of, the final step just offers you to "transfer" (mailto link) the generated release text to your eMail client (and a c&p alternative).    FDMS  4    01:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Unnecessary whitespace removed in v0.9.6.    FDMS  4    15:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

WFM, can't "scroll down" anymore. –Be..anyone 💩 17:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Two years later, I realize that the form still doesn't contain fields for these two questions. Are they still relevant? If so, are there any objections to me adding them now? SebastianHelm (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed instruction for editors

I just removed this statement, which was in its own section:

If you are an editor wishing to obtain permission to use copyrighted material on a Wikimedia Foundation site, it is critical that you contact the specific copyright holder of the work you wish to use. He or she is the only individual who can legally release a work under a specific suitable license.

I removed it because it is ambiguous in lots of ways:

1. What kinds of editors - wiki or external publication?
2. Is this permission to upload to Wiki Commons or to use from Wiki Commons?
3. Contacting copyright holders is not routinely done and if we offer guidance on that, it should not be mixed here with this complex enough policy

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Company mail

https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ should say (right there at the start) you will need an email address that can be associated with the work, like a company mail address. Right now it says this only after completing the last step. It needs to be stated at the start so users can go to another computer or log in with a different account if they need to do that to use company mail. If this is done, the second sentence of the nutshell I just added could also be removed. Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Derivative works

I am currently involved in a discussion regarding a derivative work and have read the current template regarding licences. The template appears to me to be an attempt to shoehorn two different scenarios into one document. The form is fine if the only copyright concerned is a photograph. My reading of the template tells me that if we are photographing a sculpture then we are asking the sculptor to release their copyright on the sculpture which is more than they would be prepared to do. All that we need to ask him to do is to waive his copyright in respect of the one specified photograph, which he might well be prepared to do.

The solution, as I see it, is to create two templates, one for original works and one for derived works. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes or additions

• NOTICE - This discussion moved to Commons_talk:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator#Proposal_to_modify_the_release_generator ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I sent this proposal to the email list, and AntiCompositeNumber said to leave feedback here, so I'm feeding back. If a license submission is missing the attachment or the person submitting the form doesn’t tell us what image they're licensing, or if they don't complete certain parts of the form, can our coders create a form that will prevent the submission from saving until the submitter fixes the errors? It will save thousands upon thousand of hours of unnecessary labor by OTRS agents. As for spam - can’t we add a CAPTCHA to help filter all the junk mail?

Following example showing checked boxes by hypothetical uploader is similar to one of the current forms that uploaders use for licensing CC-BY-SA 4.0 (international). My red text which shows the proposed changes/additions. The highlighted text is my explanation of how it should work.

---

I hereby affirm that I, [name], am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the ☑attached ▢ uploaded media work: coded to check that a name was included and that one of the 2 choices was marked - if not, code triggers an error message with the reason it cannot be saved and what to fix.

(content attached to this email) <— if “attached" is checked but there is no attachment (over a certain size to avoid confusion with sig card attachments) code prevents upload and sends an error message with what needs to be fixed.

If uploaded, provide name of file on Commons: (File:Name of your image.jpg) <— coded to make sure one of the 2 choices (attached or uploaded) is marked and if uploaded was checked. If file name not provided and uploaded is checked, an error message pops up with what needs fixing.

☑ I am not the person in the image
▢ I am the person in the image. Note to submitter: If you are the person in the image, the photographer must submit this form directly from their email account. If this image is a selfie or self portrait using your camera’s timer, be sure to check the box that says you are the actual photographer. If it was a “ work for hire” arranged by your school, government or company, please submit verifiable evidence showing an acknowledgement that the photographer released all claims of copyright. (If a school, government or company, this form must be filled out and submitted by an authorized person)
☑ I am the actual photographer of the image Note to uploader: you will need to check this box if the image was a selfie or taken using the self-timer on your camera.

• I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
• I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
• I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
• I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
• I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

---

Thank you in advance for your consideration of the proposed changes. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Support as an OTRS agent, it soon becomes frustrating to be replying to emails over and over again, "what is the url?", "what article is it for?", etc., when a better-designed template as suggested by User:Atsme would be much more efficient and probably reduce the unnecessary back-and-forth by half.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

JGHowes - thank you for your feedback. I was advised a while back to move this discussion to the generator TP. Perhaps we should add a moved template? I just now added a notice of the move below the header. Will you please respond there? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright holder willing to contribute image?

I've been making attempts to come up with a better image of Mr. Heard for the Gerald Heard article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Heard ). To my knowledge (and this has been conformed by credible sources), a gentleman named John Roger Barrie is the literary executor of the Heard estate. Mr. Barrie has created maintains a multi-page, illustrated website about Gerald Heard.

In response to an email I recently wrote to Mr. Barrie, he emailed me saying that he had opened some dialogue with Wikipedia about providing a photograph to which he holds a copyright. He did not say with whom at Wikipedia he is in contact. Can anyone tell me more about this from your knowledge at Wikimedia Commons?Joel Russ (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joel Russ: We have communication from that person in Ticket:2022091410012001, which resulted in File:Gerald Heard, ca. 1955, cropped from original.jpg and your section en:User talk:Nthep#Better Heard Image, but nothing further.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff. Joel 162.210.167.144 17:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Interactive Release Generator for non-English languages?

The page stresses that peope should use the 'Interactive Release Generator' but that tool does not seem translated to non-English languages. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)