Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.
Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 20 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
VRT Noticeboard
VRT Noticeboard
Main VRT-related pages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

Ticket:2008012810015433 (Italian)

[edit]

The ticket is mentioned at n:it:File:Francesco cirillo.jpg and it was once moved to Commons as File:Francesco cirillo.jpg with the permission lost. The file was then deleted without a clear notice if the permission was checked or not. Perhaps an Italian speaking user can check the permission and make a comment at the file if it is acceptable or not? --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73 For today standards, the VRT permission was insufficient. We need the photograph's permission usually in these cases. Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Thank you. Todays standard are probably higher than back then. But hard to tell if we would have accepted it back then now its som many years ago (2008?). --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Now we would have asked a direct email, and from the photographer, not from who claims to hold the copyright. This was a forwarded email. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Yes we would today. But usually we do not challenge tickets if they were accepted years ago. Per {{Grandfathered old file}} we accept old things even if they do not meet the requirements we have today :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Yes, but you're probing for an undeletion today on yesterday's criteria :) So I answer you by today standard.
Actually, I don't know. If it's a selfie, the permission should be valid, given that Cirillo also gave an interview to Wikinews. If it's not, we don't have a permission from the photographer. Ruthven (msg) 20:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Hmmm. Yeah because the file is in use in Italian Wikinews and per n:it:Discussione:Francesco Cirillo: i programmatori agili, una nuova filosofia dello sviluppo software it seems the permission was accepted and the reason the file was deleted on Commons in the first place is because someone messed up the permission during transfer. If anything its probably more a bystander selfie than an actual selfie. So guess it can't go to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 I reckon that the permission wasn't valid in 2008 either. No license and no author are mentioned. The assumption was that Cirillo was the copyright holder and was giving permission to publish under a free license just because he accepted to be interviewed. Ruthven (msg) 08:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Thank you. In that case I'm sure it was not enough to be accepted on Commons back then. --MGA73 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the conclusion? Have all issues been addressed? --Krd 09:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Würzburg, St. Bruno (24).jpg

[edit]

Ticketnr. habe ich gerade nicht, kann trotzdem jemand nach diesen Dateien schauen wo das Problem liegt? Meiner Erinnerung nach wurde die Genehmigung vom Fotografen gesendet. Ungefähr 10 Dateien mit aufsteigender Ordnungsnr.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:W%C3%BCrzburg,_St._Bruno_(24).jpg --Subbass1 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

transfer of verification

[edit]

Dear team, as pointed out by Achim55, please transfer the verification ticket:2024111410003941 of de:User:CCC-LMU to the Commons project here as well. Many thanks and have a good start to the week! Alex CCC-LMU (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Krd 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gegenfrage: Wofür gibt es {{Verified account}}? --Achim55 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Für ganz seltene umstrittene Konfliktfälle. Nicht zur routinemäßigen Dekoration und nicht als Freigabeersatz. Krd 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Und woher kommt die Weisheit? Von Use of the names of organizations is allowed on Commons only if you verify your account, proving that you are or represent the respective organization. wohl nicht. Ich bin ja trotz meines Alters noch lernfähig. --Achim55 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Village pump/Proposals#username verification at Commons Krd 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015112710013066

[edit]

This ticket refers to a lot of memorial images taken from an apparently minor 2015 Facebook gallery of inspirational posters with photographs and quotations.

Taking one of those posters, File:Malcolm-muggeridge.jpg, it shows https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/english-journalist-author-and-television-personality-news-photo/3432143, a 1959 Stringer photo by Derek Berwin, via Getty Images. The photo has been subsequently cropped down from the Facebook poster to illustrate en:Malcolm Muggeridge, crediting the Facebook page for the portrait.

What does the ticket say? Is it just the owner of the Facebook account confirming they've released the posters you can see on their Facebook page under a CC-licence? Belbury (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury, this is in Ukranian so I can't help unfortuntely. Pinging @Ahonc. Regards, Aafi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This permission is from Ukrainian Institute of National Memory for files about Holodomor from their site and facebook galleries. @Antanana: got that permission. She may have more info.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2015020310012351

[edit]

ticket:2015020310012351

This ticket from 2015 if I understood correctly covers the images in Files provided by the Museo del Bicentenario. Most of the images are either old official photographs, pictures of objects from the museum, etc. However, there are other that I think should not be covered by it, for example File:Museo del Bicentenario - "¡Basta!" por Carlos Terribili.jpg is a painting from 2011 or File:Museo del Bicentenario - Revista PBT.jpg, File:Museo del Bicentenario - "Asunción del Presidente Arturo Illia".jpg that are caricatures published in magazines, etc. Does the ticket have a permission from the real artists or their heirs? Because museums usually own objects, but rarely their copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that the ticket provides permission for the images, not the underlying works. However, I do not speak Spanish. This ticket was previously discussed in Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#Spanish ticket check. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a VRT ticket

[edit]

Hi! I recently instructed a third party to forward an email chain to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 18 December - ticket:2024121710009651; they received a reply, requesting further information about which specific media files on Commons they were authorizing; now, should I be uploading all of the files with the Template:permission pending template?

I believe the email I sent was referencing both a) a large number of files and b) potential for new files to be uploaded; would each of these need to be approved independently by the copyright holder or is there a template we would be able to create for this? (such as Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission or Template:PD-NCGov-legislator photo)

Thanks - and sorry that I'm asking so many questions! Staraction (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-WVGov-legislature photos}} has been created. I would suggest not uploading any files until the copyright holder can verify that the information in the template is correct. When you upload the files, please include the custom license template and {{Licensereview}} so they can be checked by a license reviewer. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2012011710005331

[edit]

ticket:2012011710005331 added to the file below by non VRT volunteer:

As far as I can see the situation is not clear. see:

The point is that the ticket already added to 573 files. If it's ok, maybe it's worth to create License template as User:MGA73 suggested. -- Geagea (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that the ticket is okay for old files but perhaps not for new files. So I made Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-Medija centar Beograd. Let me know what you think. But someone should really check the ticket because it was long ago since I read it (Google Translate).
I suggested to stop using the permission because those that was involved in it earlier think that it may not be as good as we would require today. But I'm open to let it have no end-date. --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dungodung, your opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, I might have said this in an earlier thread of similar nature a few years back. This type of permission wouldn't be accepted nowadays, since it's a blanket confirmation for the whole website, and it's not certain that the person that gave the permission really knew what they were doing. I would honestly void this and perhaps it makes sense to approach MC again to ascertain whether this practice of using their images can continue, in which case we could create something more formal (maybe even include WMRS, CC @Gorana Gomirac (VMRS)). Filip (§) 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Album covers by YG Entertainment (ticket:2013102510001373)

[edit]
  1. Is it okay to upload high-resolution versions of these album covers? (e.g. replace File:2NE1 2nd Mini Album Cover.jpg with this one from Apple Music)
  2. Please check which artists have been approved in the OTRS ticket, and whether it's acceptable to upload other albums by the same artists that have not been uploaded yet. Is uploading allowed only for these six artists—2NE1, Big Bang, Winner, Se7en, Blackpink, and Jennie—or are there additional approved artists? (Winner and Blackpink did not debut in 2013.) Are all albums released under the name of YG Entertainment authorized for upload regardless of the release date? (If that's the case, what happens in the case of albums released in collaboration with another company, rather than just YG Entertainment?)--Namoroka (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.. I found files for discussion at enwiki in 2022 and it seems that every album covers published by YG Entertainment after October 25, 2013 is allowed. However, this still seems like an incredibly wild claim. Many users are unaware of this fact and are still uploading files on local wiki under fair use.--Namoroka (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Namoroka, I would say that the ticket is invalid or at least clarification is needed from YG Entertainment. We recieved permission release in 2013 but it was not verified/finalised. Krd, Xia and MdsShakil, do you have any comments to add? Looking at search results it is used on 61 files. I checked a few and they seem to be added by non-VRT users. Ratekreel (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also check previous talks: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2022#ticket:2013102510001373, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#File:E (Big Bang album).jpg, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#Ticket:2013102510001373, en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Special:ListFiles/Ygent ebiz--Namoroka (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an inquiry to YG Entertainment for clear confirmation.--Namoroka (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week since I sent a request to YG Entertainment, but I have yet to receive a response. (Perhaps, unlike in 2013, they are no longer interested in Wikipedia.) On en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Teemeah (now Xia) inquired whether the request could be applied to other projects besides the local Hungarian Wikipedia, but Teemeah was unable to get a response due to a full mailbox. At that time, Teemeah was already aware of the ambiguity about the email. In my opinion, unless specific usage requirements are stated in the current VTRS ticket, the ticket should not be considered valid. The English Wikipedia community also raised doubts about the validity of the ticket. As long as YG Entertainment does not clearly specify, this issue will likely persist on and on. The phrase "YG Entertainment allows the use of YG Entertainment album covers ..." may seem clear, but it is actually very ambiguous. It's unclear whether this applies to albums of music groups that did not exist in 2013, albums released by subsidiaries of YG Entertainment, or albums co-produced by YG Entertainment and other companies.--Namoroka (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commemorative Plaques

[edit]

A deletion notice has been placed on File:June Hancock Leeds Civic Trust plaque.jpg, on the assumption that text is copyright. If so, it would apply to over 200 plaques put up by Leeds Civic Trust, and many other organisations putting up plaques on historic buildings or for a notable person. I emailed the trust and their Communication Officer replied: "We really appreciate all the pictures of our plaques on Wikimedia Commons and indeed make use of them (with the appropriate credit!) for social media posts and the like where we lack our own images. The plaques are owned by us, but they exist to promote public education on Leeds’ history and heritage. The text is not copyrighted, and we would be devastated if your fantastic collection of images were removed. There is absolutely no reason from us for you to remove the images. There is no copyright issue here – they are photographs of an artefact in a public place."

Is there some appropriate policy already? The average contributor such as myself is not aware of the vast amount of rules and case law which apply. I think plaques are a special case. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question the the VRT? --Krd 15:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chemical Engineer: there really isn't a question for VRT here, but I'm picking this up as an admin. There is a copyright here whether they want it or not; if their intent is to allow these to be used freely, they should either indicate a specific licence on their own website or they should contact VRT (per the usual means laid out at COM:VRT) to indicate that they are granting a licence. I would recommend that, depending on whether they are interested in being credited on all uses or not, they use either {{Cc-zero}} (if there is no need to credit them) or {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} (if they wish to be credited). - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have sent an email to permissions-commons, so I hope this can be sorted out directly. Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago, I processed similar files including File:Texas Historical Marker trail route.jpg, File:Adobe Walls Texas Historical Marker.jpg and many more. The representative of the Texas government made an explicit release for those markers (specifically the textual content). whym (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Tharapperhaiti.jpg

[edit]

I hereby affirm that I, james prospere, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

File:Tharapper.jpg 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. Chvgyyy (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor (Chvgyyy) has made a statement on my talk page - User talk:Timtrent#Tharapper.jpg that:
I sent an email over three months ago and, while I understand that responses can take time, I have not received any reply yet. I appreciate the work done by volunteers and I fully recognize their efforts. However, I believe that some consideration could have been given before everything was deleted. It would have been helpful to have been informed or given more time before this action was taken.
It may be that they sent to an incorrect destination, or that the ticket system somehow did not acknowledge their email. I am not privy to the way this works. I have suggested that they resubmit. Perhaps a VRT member night offer them any additional guidance they need, please? 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A LOT and That's the ticket number ticket:2025012710009517. Chvgyyy (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chvgyyy If that is a recent ticket, please just wait. They will reply. If it is three months old then something has gone wrong, and no-one will object to your asking for a followup. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a recent ticket number Chvgyyy (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chvgyyy Nothing more required. They will discuss things with you privately. I think this thread may be closed. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 00:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 05:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Frederik de Klerk with Nelson Mandela - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 1992.jpg / ticket:2008032810015671

[edit]

There's a higher resolution by the WEF on their Flickrstream, https://www.flickr.com/photos/15237218@N00/963931930, but it's (now) licensed under CC BY SA NC. Is it OK to overwrite ours with the higher-resolution version? JayCubby (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2024082610006823 (german)

[edit]

Could please someone look into this? Krd refuses to undelete, although the permission is clear (just a bit crypted by a antispam software). Thanks. --Subbass1 (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, he refuses to read the history in one(!) email ("no time", as he quite often tells) - instead he asks incorrect questions. --Subbass1 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1: Some support agents know you very well, and some don't. When one of us sees as message, they don't necessarily know the whole history of that specific client. Before this escalates further, allow me some time to look into the ticket. I can probably have a look tomorrow. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my first description was perfectly clear, and of course I expect that a VRT member can and is willing to read in the ticket history - if he don't understand. I fail to understand such a behaviour and I for myself have no time for such pingpong (which here can take (and did) a few months/half a year...) --Subbass1 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1 Sorry, nope. Please revise your own email history within that ticket. On August On August 26 we received an email from an organ builder with a permission for two images; the links to the files were crippled. Later on that day you specified that the images in question were
That was accepted, and the permission was readily noted within the file descripions, as you can see there.
Now, on January 29 you sent a complaint about two completely different images which had been deleted, viz
When my colleague asked you about the permission for those two files, you referred to the history of the email and and claimed that the release for the latter files was clear from the correspondence. I'm sorry, that's not the case, and it's up to you to resolve the contradiction. –No offense, best regards, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Auf deutsch: nein, als meine Anfrage von Januar nahm ich eine gespeicherte Mail, in der unten als Zitat die Genehmigung der Domspatzendateien einwandfrei ersichtlich ist (08/26/2024 09:10) Die sind also in der Ticketkommunikation enthalten, was ihr wie seht, ist mir egal. Nur danach bin ich auf die Schnelle durcheinadergekommen. Meine erste Mail war völlig korrekt und ausreichend. --Subbass1 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2011070410000468

[edit]

Hello, I respectfully request to see the contents of the permission email referenced in this ticket, so as to verify the actual copyright holder. 2600:1003:B106:639C:0:53:1726:5701 17:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket content is not public, that's the whole point of the system. Yann (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia has stated that, "This work has been released into the public domain by its copyright holder, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum." I have been in communication with the JFK Library and they dispute being the copyright holder. Wikimedia should disclose why they believe they have permission to use the image and from whom. 2600:1003:B106:639C:0:53:1726:5701 21:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Library can email info-commons@wikimedia.org quoting the ticket number and one of the volunteers will deal with their enquiry. Nthep (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2013050510006004

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to view the ticket containing the permission to use this file. I am the photographer and I do not recall allowing my image to be used. Thank you. 2600:6C65:797F:C85B:D9D6:995F:69F9:2FDD 23:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contact: info-commons@wikimedia.org --Krd 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024092410007726

[edit]

Hello,

In September 2024, according to the licensing instructions, permission was sent from the author for the publication of the file [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9A%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%92.%D0%93.1975.jpg], and on 10 December a letter was received from Wikipedia from Wikimedia Permissions on behalf of Anastasia Lvova with a clarification question and confirmation of receipt of the original letter. Would like to know if a ticket has been issued and when will the file be restored?

Thank you.

Varvaratarapova (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A VRT volunteer asked about the authorship of the photo, but was not answered. Nemoralis (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2011031510004978

[edit]

This is a selfie? The uploader, the author, the copyright holder, and the image subject all being one person? Seriously? --2003:C0:8F41:5F00:847D:3EF2:D9F:400C 19:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=993022535"