Hi SWIMGOOSE! Thanks for reaching out. Sure, I'd be happy to take a look - can you reply with a link to where the issue is happening, or explain what happened, so I can look it up? I don't see other contributions from your account so far. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtime thanks DreamyShade
Hi - Please forgive delay in replying... some of which is due to possibly different time zones - I live in England - and some are explained in more detail below. I hope it will provide enough for your assessment, for which I'm grateful. Here's the link to my Wiki page:
I've read through an online discussion mooting various reasons to summarily remove my photograph, the over-riding one claiming I'd breached copyright, which rests in perpetuity with the photogrpapher, not the owner/user.
In fact: I took the photograph, therefore I do own the copyright, as I've claimed all along.
In fact: the person whom I've depended on to update the content of my Wikipedia site [whom you may know as Liz Patrick] recently suffered a series stroke with late onset dementia. Not only was she aware of my copyright ownership of my photograph, she was in train to finish updating the credits on my site, detailing the publication of my latest published book entitled Another Alphabet [both paperback and kindle versions, available on my Amazon author's page: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beth-Porter/e/B001K88N1Y/]
In fact: when the photograph was taken I had the support of a friend to take a session of promotional photos to publicise some television acting roles due to broadcast at that time. In conversation I revealed my longer term plans to transition from performing to producing and directing. My friend said he'd help, and showed me how to set up the camera timer, how to adjust the lighting, and which button to push so that I could take the photograph myself. He encouraged me to take several photographs for comparison and showed me the process of developing the negatives and choosing the best shots. He had an adjoining darkroom within his studio.
In fact: There can be no doubt about the legal copyright of my Wikipedia photograph. I own it. I took the photograph. To claim otherwise is to brand me a liar, which I reject and resent. I believe my photograph was removed under false pretences and it should be restored with immediate effect.
In fact: My own computer system has suffered a complete and total system crash over the past week or so. I had to buy a completely new system including a new eMail address. It also made it impossible to contact you directly once I'd become aware of your removal of my photograph. Here is my new eMail address - goosewrites@mail.uk - I hope any ref to my pre-crash eMail won't make it difficult to find me within your system.
Thanks for the explanation! Based on this background info, I found the deletion discussion on Commons. For images where one owns the copyright for a picture and would like to release it under a Creative Commons license, the OTRS (VRT) process is the best venue for proving to other volunteers that you have ownership. That discussion says "There was apparently an OTRS ticket, ticket:2019022110006086, which was insufficient". Were you able to receive information from OTRS about why your evidence was insufficient? If you have any further information to offer them, I'd suggest following up with OTRS (now called VRT). You can send them a new email; I imagine they will be able to look up your old inquiry and correlate it.
It is unfortunately not always possible to prove ownership of an image in a way that Wikimedia Commons volunteers can accept, especially for older images related to public figures. This is not meant as as insult, and it's definitely not personal to you! Wikimedia Commons volunteers have decided to build a system that is extremely cautious about copyright to avoid legal problems, because releasing an image under a Creative Commons license on Wikimedia Commons is a big deal.
For example, I've uploaded photos I've taken of various buildings and landmarks. They're ordinary digital photos, not remarkable or professional-quality, and usually not published on other websites, so people rarely doubt that I "own" the copyright and can release them on Commons. I've seen some of them republished in commercial books without asking me. Other people can make money off of my original creative work. But this is appropriate and expected, because I gave permission for that kind of use by uploading the images to Commons. I'm happy to see my photos in children's books about landfills, or in academic books about old music venues.
In your case, Commons volunteers need a certain level of "proof" from you because they want to avoid making a big mistake by allowing the release of a photo on those terms without sufficient permission. If you weren't the copyright owner, such as if you were accidentally mistaken about the situation with this photo, the actual copyright owner could create a big legal hassle for Wikimedia Commons and anyone who reused the image in other works. Wikimedia Commons has a lot of rules, and they can definitely be frustrating, but risk mitigation is a big motivator behind a number of the rules.
OTRS/VRT is the system for providing this kind of proof. Sadly, for older photos of people that appear to be professional photos, they need a relatively high level of proof, and sometimes it is hard or impossible to dig up the kind of proof they're asking for, so it may not be possible to solve this problem.
Hi - thanks for your reply. I've followed the instructions that confirm my copyright ownership for my photograph. To answer your question about whether I was informed, not directly. As I explained, trying to work around my system crash, it took me a while to realise the photo had been removed, and only by 1st creating a Wiki account and then clicking on anything that seemed relevant was I able to access a group discussion about the removal of my photo. I believe my explanation should be sufficient for my photograph to be re-instated. This is not a question of being cautious... I've been very explicit about the relevant circumstances of my copyright ownership. Once again... I AM THE THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. What more proof is required? SWIMGOOSE (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to defer to the OTRS/VRT volunteer team about what kind of evidence they need. I'd suggest emailing them again using the instructions here and asking for more information about what they need. For example, they may need scans of documentation to validate your explanation, or proof of identity for you. The OTRS/VRT email system is non-public and separate from these public discussions on Wikipedia and Commons, and the email system is generally the authority for validating evidence of ownership. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dreamyshade While I note the OTRS/VRT team is busy I've not heard back for a month. I've provided an accurate and extensive explanation of the issue whereby my photo was summarily removed upon an inaccurate assumption of copyright ownership. I've explained the complex circumstances both about my computer crash and my fragile health. I hope you'll admit that scans of documents destroyed in the crash are impossible to obtain. My image, and others, appears within the photos section of my Amazon book promotion page, and within a collage of the promo page for my new website www.goslingpublishing.com This is VERY serious for me. I've recently turned 80; my heart condition can be fatal. I NEED my legitimate photo to be reinstated asap. I'm sure neither you nor the OTRS/VRT team don't want me to die in the interim. PLEASE, as my designated mentor, can't you intervene? TIA and sent with best wishes to stay safe. SWIMGOOSE (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For further proof of the public display of my photo I've finally located the Contributor Section of Lockdown Tales, a collection of essays about UK lockdown as experienced by women. As you can verify none of the contributors's photographs are credited with the photographer. I explained my copyright to the Editor, Susan Croft, before publication, and was told it wouldn't be a problem. [1] This is the photograph as it appears in my original essay. SWIMGOOSE (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
