File talk:8th Fighter Group - Cyclone's Flying Circus - Ie Shima.jpg

Permission verification

So this was tagged as to not having evidence of permission. Supposedly sending an email is sufficient. While I appreciate that permission to use a work is necessary, but I'm unclear how an email proves permission is granted. How does Wikipedia/Wikimedia determine that the email is authentic from the person/entity that holds the Copyright? Thayne Harbaugh (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thayneh. The email requested in typically the one shown in WP:CONSENT. Basically, Wikipedia OTRS will check the information in email and make a decision one way or the other. I am not an OTRS volunteer so I am not privy to how this is exactly done, but you can probably get some information at c:COM:OTRSN or WP:OTRSN. Typically the person who takes the photo is the copyright holder of the image. In some cases, however, the person taking photo may have done so as part of their official duties (e.g., a government employee or a member of the armed forces, etc.) and the image is then considered to be in the public domain. In other cases, it may have been a "work for hire" and the photographer agreed to officially transfer copyright ownership to another party. For what it's worth, I don't think the Davis Family owns the copyright any the photos you've uploaded; they may possess the original photos or copies of the photos, but that's not the same as copyright ownership. It is possible, however, that these qualify as public domain if they are official military photos, but I think more information about the photo itself is needed to make that determination. You can probably get more help regarding this by asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If by chance, this photo is deleted, you shouldn't uploaded it again. Deleted photos are not really gone forever; they are only hidden from view and can easily be "undeleted" once there licensing has been sorted out per WP:REFUND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Marchjuly. Your response aligns with my understanding of photos taken by government agents as part of their duty. It's unclear how many of these photos (and additional ones I intend to upload) fit that description versus being taken by a "buddy" that simply took a photo. Regardless I'm interacting with members of the Davis family to get the required email sent. I'll read through the supplied links. Thayne Harbaugh (talk)

One thing that does occur to me is that the original photos may be c:Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force, but the scans are a new work and therefore need a license. -- Thayne Harbaugh (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply scanning the photos is probably considered a mechanical reproduction and is not something eligible for copyright. So, if the original photos are in the public domain, then I'm pretty sure anyone who scans them cannot claim a new copyright over the scans. Lots of people try to do this, but lots of people eventually find out they are wrong per Copyfraud. However, if the photos were used in such a way (for example, a montage, a slideshow or a documentary) in which some creativity was involved, then this would probably be considered a derivative work and this work could be copyrighted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear to me, Marchjuly, why this was deleted back in 2016. Per our discussion it seems like it should be acceptable. Not only that, but the provider of the photo and manager of the Davis Family Archive sent an email approving CC-BY-SA-4.0 for this and four other photos. Only this and one other photo were deleted and the other three (, , ) are present to this day. Did I miss something? -- Thayneh

@Thayneh:. The file was deleted (see here) in on December 23, 2016 by Explicit because it lacked proper permission. Assuming you've reuploaded the exact same file as Explicit deleted, it would've been better for you to discuss things with him first before re-uploading the file. Otherwise, there's a good chance that it will end up being simply deleted for the same reason by either Explicit or some other administrator.

Whether the file is within the public domain is probably something you should ask about at WP:MCQ because its hard to tell without knowing more about the actual photo itself. You haven't provided a link to anywhere online to help facilitate any evaluation of its copyright status, so bascially all that is known is that the photo comes from someone's personal archive/collection Whether that is deemed sufficient enough to declare it as PD might depend on who you ask.

You also mentioned something about the copyright holder sending in an email. If the copyright holder emailed a declaration of consent to Wikimedia OTRS, then they should've received an automatic response containing an OTRS ticket number. Either you or they can use that number to request an update at WP:OTRSN. There are only so many OTRS volunteers checking all the emails that come in so there tends to be a backlog, but usually the process goes like this: (1) copyright holder emails OTRS, (2) copyright holder adds template {{OTRS pending}} to file's page, (3) copyright holder receives auto-reply containing an OTRS ticket number stating their email has been received, (4) OTRS volunteer reviews email and adds {{OTRS permission}} if there are no problems or adds {{OTRS received}} if there are problems. Sometimes the same OTRS volunteer handles everything from start to finish, so they might combine some steps if the email received is beyond a doubt sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. At the same, they may simply delete the file outright if they feel email is clearly not from the original copyright holder or they might email the copyright holder seeking further clarification. I'm not sure if any of that happened here since I am not an administrator or OTRS volunteer and can only see what is posted in the deletion log. If you're sure that the copyright holder emailed OTRS, see if they still have the OTRS ticket number for the file(s); if not, they might have to simply repeat the process again. Sometimes uploaders mistakenly assume that the copyright holder needs to send an email to them, but that's not correct. Wikipedia needs to have something on file which clearly shows that the copyright holder has agreed to release their work under a license accepted by Wikipedia. One last thing, if you sort out the OTRS thing and its found that everything checks out, you should probably have the file(s) moved to Wikimedia Commons to make it easier for all Wikipedia Projects to use them. Files uploaded to Wikipedia are "local files" which can be used on English Wikipedia pages, but cannot be directly used on other language Wikipedia pages or other project pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)