Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2025

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ticket:2024121410006623

Could any of you have a look at the ticket. Ratekreel (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for confirmation

Please can you confirm whether File:Bernard Boucheix dit Baron de Reyvialles 22 avril 2023 Studio HARCOURT.jpg and File:Bernard Boucheix dit Baron de Reyvialles 22 avril 2023 Studio HARCOURT.jpg are adequately licensed under Ticket:2020112910005534? Pending deletion request. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say No. Krd 09:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ticket possibly containing valueable information about long-term abuse

Ticket in question is ticket:2024121310004403, which is used on File:Darnytsia.jpg. I strongly suspect the uploader, Zaav Haadad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), to be from the banned undisclosed-paid-editing company Wikibusines [sic], also known as Bodiadub. For evidence, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub#03_January_2025, or wait until the editor is blocked.

The ticket may contain valuable information, which could help finding further Bodiadub sockpuppets. I would therefore like to ask you to send such information privately to enwiki functionaries. Thanks.

– Janhrach (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Ticket in permissions-uk queue. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment 2 Even I don't understand the language, I've seen that the ticket includes only that file, and the permission comes from an darnytsia.ua email. I don't see any other thing related to Wikibusines, Bodiadub, Zaav Haadad or similar, but I can be wrong. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. This is interesting... Janhrach (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal affecting VRT work

Please have a look at the proposal Require VRT permission from nude models. To keep the discussion centralized please discuss this there. GPSLeo (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024051610003798: wrongly removed image

As explicitly stated in [1], Alt-right_anime_style.png was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by its creator under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. It was deleted wrongly. Kaotao (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please encourage the permission sender to reply to our followup questions. --Krd 08:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Melissa Ingaruca Moreno

According to this discussion, Melissa Ingaruca Moreno (User:Melissa Ingaruca) has contacted the VRT to confirm her identity; could a VRT member confirm this? Gestumblindi (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's plausible that the request comes from them. Krd 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's plausible, too. And the VRT team did receive the message from Melissa Ingaruca confirming her identity? I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but it would probably help to put to rest remaining doubts. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The VRT has received something which is not a waterproof confirmation of identity, but as the VRT are not notaries, this isn't even possible. What has been received is plausible enough for a keep decision. Krd 12:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think we'll need a "waterproof confirmation of identity". I'll relay your comment to the DR discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

PS: It's not about a "keep decision" in this case, because Melissa Ingaruca wants her images deleted, and the confirmation of identity is to make sure that the request comes really from her, so the opposite. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, my confusion. But in any case it can be taken as granted that the request is authentic. Krd 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Tharapperhaiti.jpg

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tharapperhaiti.jpg

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)

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)

Thanks A LOT and That's the ticket number ticket:2025012710009517. Chvgyyy (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

It’s a recent ticket number Chvgyyy (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Commemorative Plaques

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)

What is the question the the VRT? --Krd 15:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2011070410000468

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)

Ticket content is not public, that's the whole point of the system. Yann (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2013050510006004

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)

Contact: info-commons@wikimedia.org --Krd 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024092410007726

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)

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

It was answered within the ticked. If someone claims that a picture is a selfie, we usually can't do anything to disprove it. Only in exceptional cases can we prove that it cannot be the person themself who took the photo. Mussklprozz (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2011031510004978

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)

The question was dealt with within the ticket. If someone claims that a picture is a selfie, we usually can't do anything to disprove it. Only in exceptional cases can we prove that it cannot be the person themself who took the photo.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024082610006823 (german)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

Wir hatten am 2024-08-26 diesem Tag genau zwei Posteingänge zu der genannten Ticketnummer: Um 11:10 CEST die E-Mail des Orgelbauers und um 17:43 CEST die Mail von Dir, in der Du präzisiertest, dass es sich um die o.g. Orgeln in Ravensburg und Würzburg handle. Weitere E-Mails von Dir liegen uns an dem genannten Datum nicht vor, insbesondere keine zur Regensburger Domspatzenorgel. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Nein, in meiner Mail von Januar war als Zitat die Genehmigung zu dem Domspatzendateien enthalten, die also auch unter dieser Ticketnummer bahandelt wurden, das ist eben diese Mail vom Orgelbauer (9 oder 11 hat wohl was mit Zeitzonen zu tun). Einfach den Linktext (verstümmelt durch Antispamsoftware) lesen. --Subbass1 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Dann stimmt die Spezifikation nicht, die Du dann am Nachmittag meinem Kollegen geschickt hast. Wenn man die beiden verkrüppelten Links gelten lässt, dann decken sie die Würzburger und die Regensburger Orgel ab, aber nicht die Ravensburger. Ich kann die Wiederherstellung der Bilder von der Regensburger Orgel beantragen, muss dann aber die Freigabe für die Ravensburger Orgel zurückziehen. Hast Du für Letztere eine Freigabe vorliegen, oder kannst Du eine besorgen? Mussklprozz (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Ich könnte vielleicht, aber will einfach nicht mehr. Macht das selbst (die Email-Adrease habt ihr ja) oder lasst es und löscht was ihr wollt. Um mit krd zu reden: keine Zeit. EOD Subbass1 (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

I think it isn't. --Krd 18:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this hold true as a general rule--if there is a higher-resolution version of an image with a VRT perm, do we leave the lo-res but ticketed one? JayCubby (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Perhaps it isn't even true in this case. At best please ask WEF if this photo can be release in high resolution. --Krd 19:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Golden pager gift from Netanyahu to Trump

I uploaded the image en:File:Golden pager gift from Netanyahu to Trump.jpg to the English Wikipedia under fair use. However, I think that since the image was released by the Israeli Government Press Office see credit at the article by CNN there may be a different way to upload the image. What would be the process to about doing that? --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that would make the object itself any less copyrighted, plus I would not imagine that the Israeli Government Press Office issued a free license here, they just gave permission to CNN. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Please obtain permission from the copyright holder of the photo and from the copyright holder of the depicted object. --Krd 11:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Ticket:2010042410018615

Does this ticket cover any other photos of the Harry Potter film shoot that Dee Jarvis posted on Flickr (plus higher-resolution versions of photos we currently host here)? If it does not cover these, could we contact Jarvis again to request relicensing these Flickr uploads, preferably under the same license (CC BY-SA)? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Regarding contacting Jarvis, I don't think we should ask something in 15 years old ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to contact the photographer on Flickr to request relicensing his photos there. For clarification, which photos does this ticket cover specifically? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

https://w.wiki/D3xh Nemoralis (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have seen those earlier. Were those the only photos on the website, or were they the only photos that he chose to relicense? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission letter only contains these photos. Nemoralis (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have just sent Jarvis an email requesting that he change the licenses for those images. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Donderbui boven Vlissingen.jpg

Hi, Could someone please check the ticket: ticket:2012091010007221. There is a permission, but no license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yann, the license is CC BY-SA 3.0 NL ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}}) Nemoralis (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Chandra Arya portrait.png

I’ve been in touch with the copyright holder via email to obtain the necessary permissions and assist with uploading the file to Commons. It’s been almost a month, and they’ve mentioned they haven’t heard back from the VRT team since the initial response. With the 30-day window nearly up, the file is going to be deleted. I’m just seeking clarification on whether something was overlooked or if the photo didn’t meet site requirements. If it is backlog related, I understand. PascalHD (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

They didn't respond to the last email from VRT (6th February 2025) Nemoralis (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

We need help with a deletion request.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sega Mega Drive games, Can you clarify by sending information to the rights holders of these images? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission was given by w:Super Fighter Team in 2009. I don't think we can ask something in 16 years old ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

So there's no way of knowing what "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose" means in view of the questions we need to consider in the linked deletion requests thread? How would you recommend we proceed? Maybe we should just honor it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've closed that particular one as keep. Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Würzburg, St. Bruno (24).jpg

(Offensichtlich wurde die Anfrage hier komplett ignoriert, daher nochmals)

Ticketnr./Konversation mit ihm finde ich nicht mehr, kann trotzdem jemand nach diesen Dateien schauen, wo das Problem liegt (und mir bitte Namen des Fotografs mitteilen)? Meiner Erinnerung nach wurde die (wie immer von mir vorbereitete) 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) 05:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I could not find a ticket containing this file name. Nemoralis (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Strange - could you please look into the file description and tell me the photograper's name? I don't remember but I'm sure I wrote it down there... --Subbass1 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyone?? --Subbass1 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not an administrator so I can't help you with that, sorry. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Subbass1: photographer name is Daniel Zeller. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thx, now I remember. I'll write him again hoping he sends the text this time (always prepared completely by me). --Subbass1 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Subbass1 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Subbass1 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiAfrica/Artgate

Hi, We have a number of recent paintings with {{WikiAfrica/Artgate}}. I wonder if this foundation really has the right to give a free license for these works. Usually, only the artist and their heirs have this right. If this is the case, it should specifically mentioned in the permission. Yann (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission letter states that Fondazione Cariplo is the "sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the works". Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: Thanks for your answer. I personally think this is not sufficient. Many GLAMs wrongly claim to be the copyright owner of the works they host. We at least need to know how they acquired the copyright. Yann (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: FYI, I posted about this on VPC. Yann (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Kurt Klühspies

Didym and me are in contact with Kurt Klühspies who offered to provide a better-quality portrait for which he asserts to own the rights and wishes to release it under CC-BY-SA. He sent it to me via e-mail and I have uploaded it as File:Kurt kluehspies portrait.jpg with "permission pending". I asked him to send e-mail permission to permissions-de@wikimedia.org , which should follow shortly, and also to provide more information (date, photographer). This is to inform the team where to look when the e-mail from Mr. Klühspies arrives... A ping as well to Perrak who is also familiar with the case. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I may sound weired, but the VRT receives really a lot of tickets, and is unable to handle such special requests. Please make sure that the permission sender includes the link to the uploaded file in their e-mail. Krd 20:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'll send him another mail (he sent the photo to me with a generic file name "IMG something")... It's not easy to communicate such things to people who are not familiar with Commons and our procedures at all, which is something you are certainly very much aware of, I guess you have a lot of difficult explaining to do in your correspondences... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's very easy, just ask them to put you in CC when sending the permission, so that you can help providing the link to the uploaded file. Krd 07:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: Die Mail müsste soeben bei permissions-de eingetroffen sein. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2014103110012802

It is necessary to know whose permission is given for the images of Poshtova Ploscha Metro Station. The question is raised due to the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poshtova Ploscha Metro Station Kiev 2011 02.JPG. If the permission is given by architect(s) and covers only the object of architecture, then the image of the permanent glass artwork at the station might be not covered. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission is given by family member of architect, ru:Масленков, Игорь Леонидович. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

If the artwork is the only issue, we can cover it with a solid color or a strong Gaussian blur. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

OP closed the DR as keep due to permission received so looks like this can be marked as resolved. Abzeronow (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Confirmation Regarding Licensing and Commercial Use of a Public Domain File (ticket #2008012110017088.)

Dear Volunteer Response Team,

This is Jintaek from South Korea.

I am reaching out to seek clarification regarding the licensing and usage of the following file listed on Wikimedia Commons:

- File URL:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op.18-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg

According to the page, the file is marked as being in the public domain, both for the music and the recording. Additionally, the following statement is mentioned:

"The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2008012110017088."

I am planning to use a 1-minute segment of this recording as background music for a video project.

The video will be used for the following purposes:

- Displayed in offline public spaces in South Korea

- Shared on various social media platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, WeChat, Xiaohongshu, and Weibo

Before proceeding, I would like to confirm the following details to ensure compliance with the licensing terms:

1. Commercial Use

- Can this file be used commercially without requiring additional permissions or paying fees?

2. Copyright and Permissions

- Does the licensing explicitly cover all intended uses mentioned above, including sharing on social media platforms and use in public spaces?

- Can you provide any further details about the archived correspondence (ticket #2008012110017088) or confirm that this file is entirely free of copyright restrictions?

3. Attribution Requirements

- Is attribution mandatory for this file in all contexts, even if it is in the public domain? If so, how should the attribution be provided if it is not possible to display credits directly in the video?

4. Geographical Scope and Duration

- Are there any geographical or time-based restrictions on the use of this file?

Your assistance in clarifying these points would be greatly appreciated, as it will help me ensure compliance with Wikimedia Commons’ guidelines.

Thank you for your time and support.

I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Jintaek

P.S.

If additional clarification is needed or if I need to take any specific steps to verify this file's licensing, please let me know.

I deeply appreciate the effort of the Volunteer Response Team in maintaining such a valuable resource. Jintaek Lim (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jintaek Lim, the answer to your questions should be contained in the file description. However the link you gave leads into the void. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind clarification. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the file should include a description of the source. So, as long as the source is properly attributed, there shouldn't be any issues with using it, correct? I appreciate your help, and here is the link again: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op._18_-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg?uselang=ko Jintaek Lim (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jintaek Lim, as file description clearly says: "Musopen grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.". You can also read w:Public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Problem with newest Safari version

We have recently received several emails from German Mac users that the texts appear in a small font (about 10 pt), and unfortunately the font cannot be enlarged any more.

The problem seems to be connected with the latest update of the Safari browser. I advised the users to try Firefox instead, and there in deed the problem does not occur.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I tested on Safari Version 18.3 (20620.2.4.11.5) and can not confirm this. The default font size decreased recently but not due to a Safari update but due to the new default skin. But zooming in on the tab worked for me. GPSLeo (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2011082910012791

I suppose this ticket applies for all works by Albert Klijn. A notification on Category:Albert Klijn would be very helpful. I uploaded File:Albert Klijn - Poster Regata.jpg, which needs a notification too (or, if the ticket gives no permission, has to be deleted). Fransvannes (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission is only for File:De Dageraad der Menschheid.png Nemoralis (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2020112910005534

Hello,

I need more information about an image on commons for a validation - there is an delete thread of this image.

Thank you. Triomint69 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What information do you need? Nemoralis (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way: Special:PermanentLink/1002559387#An accurate quotation from the email in the VRT system? - (ticket:2020112910005534) Nemoralis (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024121610007888

File:Dr. David Walt.jpg is another cross-wiki upload by Ng Huy Hoàng (see #Ticket #2024100410007511) that's been marked with {{Permission received}} since December 2024. Can this ticket be verified and this file kept? Can the local English Wikipedia now be deleted per en:WP:F8? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The ticket mentions this file but permission has not been granted (closed as nonsuccessful). I think it can be deleted. Nemoralis (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ticket #2024100410007511

File:1978 Baatar performing in Georgia.jpg, File:Baatar ballet.jpg and File:Noroviin Baatar.jpg were just cross-wiki moved to Commons along with lots of other files by user Ng Huy Hoàng. Ng Huy Hoàng is a new account created on February 26, 2025, who doesn't appear to be a VRT member. It looks like Ng Huy Hoàng is mainly moving files tagged with {{Permission ticket}} so perhaps the moves are fine; however, the three files referenced above are tagged with {{Permission received}}, not "Permssion ticket" and have been tagged as such per since December 19, 2024.

These three files were uploaded locally to English Wikipedia on October 4, 2024, and tagged for speedy deletion per en:WP:F11 on the same day. Someone seems to have emailed VRT about them sometime after that, but this email had problems according to en:Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket #2024100410007511 and en:Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket #2024100410007511. So, it seems unwise, at least to me, to move these three files to Commons if VRT is still unable to verify copyright holder consent.

Normally, English Wikipedia files tagged with {{No permission since}} are deleted five days after being uploaded if copyright holder consent can't be verified; when {{Permission pending}} or "Permission received" has subsequently been added to the such a file's file page, the inital five days is extended to thirty days for things to be resolved. These three files have been tagged for several months now and the issues with the ticket still don't seem to have been resolved. Perhaps discussions are still ongoing? Are they allowed to continue on as long as needed? At some point does VRT decide things just aren't going to be resolved to its satisfaction and the files are deleted? Should all further discussion about these files now take place on Commons since they've been moved here? Can the English Wikipedia files now be deleted per en:WP:F8? Apologies for all the questions, but these files, as posted above, have been in limbo for quite some period of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion can probably be closed now since the three files in question have been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Help getting official Permission for a picture.

Hi everyone. And especially (User:Nemoralis)

I am currently working on a Wikipedia article and I got permission from Marisa Scheinfeld the Founder and Project director for the Borscht Belt Historical Marker Project. This is a non profit. She is also a legal representative for Steingart Associates which owns this image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Concord_News,_Kiamesha_Lake,_NY,_1964.jpg

They have given Wikipedia permission to use this image and we have been trying hard to get Wikimedia commons to approve this image.

Her email is: info@borschtbelthistoricalmarkerproject.org

She gave the bellow written permission to: photosubmission@wikimedia.org, but she attached the image and not the file link. She has since sent the file link, but has not heard anything back as of yet, so now the image appeaers to be in wikipedia limbo.

Can you please help us in anyway, and if you need any additional information, I and or Marissa would be happy to provide you with more info. Thank you.

Marissa's Message to photosubmission@wikimedia.org:

I hereby affirm that I represent Steingart Associates , the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email 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.

Thanks everyone. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the ticket number. Krd 07:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how the ticket system 100% works as I am still new at this, but I think the number is ticket:2025022810004474 Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2025030310009175

Please check the correspondence on this image. Who did it come from? There are several things weird about this:

It claims that the "author" is Philip C. Reiner, which is clearly not the case. He is the image subject, and this is not a selfie.
"Source" says "He sent it to me for this article". "He" obviously is meant to mean Philip C. Reiner, and "me" is the uploader. So, quite clearly, the uploader is not the photographer/copyright holder either.
The exif data say that a photographer by the name of Juliane Eirich is the author and copyright holder. Do you actually have her consent for a CC 4.0 license?

Note that we are talking German copyright (Urheberrecht) here: non-transferable. Thanks, --87.150.7.252 12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The ticket is valid. --Krd 13:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick reply. Not quite resolved though: Why doesn't the name of the photographer appear as "author"? This is at least misleading. --87.150.7.252 14:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Because they waived their right to be mentioned as photographer. Krd 16:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File tagged with a "FDCO" template

I have not noticed this before. Can a VRT Agent tell me generally about this ticket, please. Thank you.

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2013061310007371 [2] -- Ooligan (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The permission is given by FCO Flickr account, they stated that photos are licensed under "© Crown Copyright under the Open Government Licence". Nemoralis (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ticket #2025031310019805

Hi Krd. Do you know whether ticket #2025031310019805 was also intended to apply to en:File:Pete Jonas performing at outside lands.png? The local file was originally uploaded by Haruka Senju to English Wikipedia a few days ago but was tagged as needing permission per en:WP:F11; the same uploader then reuploaded the file to Commons twice as File:Pete Jonas Outside Lands.png and File:Pete Jonas at Outside Lands 2021.png under "cc-zero" licensing and a claim of "own work", which were deleted as copyvios. Since you've tagged File:Suki Waterhouse and band.png and File:Pete and marc.png with {{Permission received}}, I'm wondering whether the same can be done for the local file uploaded to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The permission letter only mentions these two photos. Nemoralis (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:20250316103299789

Hi, Message on file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20250316_145251_Carine_De_Brab.jpg Error: This file's Volunteer Response Team Software (VRTS) ticket ID seems to be invalid. Lafloche (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not invalid, correct as edited. --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Asaf Simchoni 1st Battalion Commander Yiftakh.jpg

(ticket #2020051110005981) It appears compressed (squished) a bit. Is it safe to upload a version stretched by 50px as a new file? JayCubby (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby, yes. -- Geagea (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2018100810007819

Blackandwhite.07 (talk · contribs) has uploaded six images that all reference VTRS ticket #2018100810007819. As far as I can tell, this was used on a single image uploaded in 2018. Would someone mind verifying if this is valid for the new images? This user may also be related to Knightman007 (talk · contribs) who is blocked for adding false OTRS tickets to images, and also uploaded an image referencing this ticket. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This permission is only for File:Sai Pallavi at Mca-pre-release-event.jpg. No other photos. Pinging @Magog the Ogre as admin who blocked Knightman007. Nemoralis (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding images from social media

Finnobrien127 (talk · contribs) has engaged in adding copyright images from sociial media and tag them as VRT permission requested to avoid suspicion. Request to verify the following.

Thank you Agent 007 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No tickets found. Nemoralis (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Agent 007 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2012011710005331

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)

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)

@Dungodung, your opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Stavropol Hero of Labor Medal Image

Dear VRT team,

I have uploaded the image "Медаль «Герой труда Ставрополья».png" to Wikimedia Commons ([link to the image: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C_%C2%AB%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F%C2%BB.png. The image was originally uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia and is currently used on the Portuguese Wikipedia.

On the image page in the Russian Wikipedia, it is stated that the copyright holder is the government of Stavropol Krai. However, according to Article 1259 of the Russian Civil Code, official symbols and medals issued by the government are considered public domain.

I would like to know if any additional steps are required to confirm this status, or if the image can be kept on Commons based on Russian copyright law.

Looking forward to your guidance. Apollo 13013 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be moved to Commons since it is in the public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It is already in the public domain, it just needs the permission ticket. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Permission from whom? :) Public domain means "no one holds the exclusive rights". Nemoralis (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

But the tag says OTR to replace it with a permission ticket. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The tag was added by you. It usually means copyright holder sent the permission email to VRT. Then one of the VRT members comes and replaces it with another template that says it is in the queue and waiting to be processed. Example: Special:Diff/1012932309 Nemoralis (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The image was uploaded to Russian Wikipedia under the public domain, but the uploader stated that the copyright holder is the government of Stavropol Krai. That is the problem. Does an email need to be sent to the government of Stavropol Krai? Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

If image is in the public domain, there is no copyright holder. Nemoralis (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I know what to do now. It's just that there was a small translation error... Thank you. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 01:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Julian Jacob.jpg

TicketNumber=2025032710007766 Bonjour, J'ai téléchargé sur commons aujourd'hui le document Julian Jacob.jpg. J'ai téléchargé ce document à la demande de Julian Jacob lui-même afin d'illustrer l'infobox de la page wikipedia qui le concerne (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jacob). Un robot propose la suppression du document. Julian Jacob et moi demandons à ce que document soit dans le domaine public et qu'il ne soit pas supprimé de Commons. Comment pouvons-nous mieux référencer la photo ? merci de votre aide. Heraldwolf (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 01:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Загрузка фото

Добрый день! Я загрузила фото Алексей Сюмак, 2018, на которое отправляла запрос VRT ticket:2025012010006023 Дата получения письма с разрешением: 24 января 2025 Julia Borodina <eliara.foto@gmail.com> Возможно, запрос был сформирован неправильно, но фото было удалено через неделю. Как мне грамотно его перезагрузить в систему?

NeannaSi (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The photo will be restored when permission is verified. Nemoralis (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Нужно повторно делать запрос? Уже 2 месяца прошло с того момента, как ее удалили. Мне кажется, я неправильно оформила запрос.

NeannaSi (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to send the request again. Krd 01:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 01:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Files with no machine-readable license

According to PetScan currently we have 14 files with granted VRT permissions in Category:Files with no machine-readable license category waiting for deletion:

I though that one of the tasks of the VRT members is to verify that the license in the file matches the license in the permission. I did not checked the history of all the files below, but most never had a license. Can someone with the access to VRT database add license templates to all those files before they are deleted? Jarekt (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Done except Albert Cohen files. There are no licenses mentioned in the VRT ticket. cc @Mussklprozz from previous VRT noticeboard discussion Nemoralis (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Nemoralis, thank you for quick response. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Files from the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense

I recently encountered files like File:Skoda Octavia II of Lithuanian military police.jpg and File:804th Infantry Company 8th Territorial Unit NDVF volunteer-soldiers.jpg, which are from the Facebook accounts of Lithuanian Military Police and 804th Infantry Company (arguably subordinate units of the MoD). There are also files from the MoD Facebook account like File:Bayraktar TB2 "Vanagas" 01.jpg.

As the description of {{Ministry of Defense - Lithuania}} appears to only include files from the MoD's website at www.kam.lt, can any VRT agent help to check if the permission actually extends to (a) the MoD Facebook account; (b) subordinate unit Facebook accounts, and (c) other official images that are posted on other official social media accounts (which is for completeness)?

Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

They said they agree to release their photos from their website under the GFDL. But it's not clear if this also applies to images from their Facebook page, the pages of subordinate units, or other official social media accounts. I suggest you contact the MoD directly to get that sorted out. Nemoralis (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible PD-Russia-1996 license applicable, instead of "no permission since?"

Can someone take a look at this talk page to see if this PD tag would apply to this: File talk:Грачёвы надгробие.jpg. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Note- I did receive a response on the file talk page. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding VRT permission to a crop of an image that already has it

Hi. File:LASTKINGSRECORDS.jpg has VRT permission. Whereas, File:LASTKINGSRECORDS (cropped).jpg doesn't even though it's a simple crop of the original. Would it be OK to transfer over the VRT permission in a case like this or is that a no-no? Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Nemoralis (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

What is the first date where this VRT permission tag was added to FCDO Flickr photos?

Ticket Number = 2013061310007371

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office's (FCDO) Flickr account at https://www.flickr.com/photos/10246637@N04/

Does this VRT permission tag apply to all past photographs posted on the FCDO Flickr account before this VRT permission email was received and approved?

Of course, only the photos that comply with this: "Note: This permission only extends to content provided by the FCDO and does not include third-party content."

Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

FCDO's statement:
The images that we hold the copyright for are covered by © Crown Copyright under the Open Government Licence
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

Any images which are credited to third parties do not belong to us and you will need to contact them about use. Nemoralis (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis,

Thanks for the response, however, you did answer my two questions above. Again, they are:

1. "What is the first date where this VRT permission tag was added to FCDO Flickr photos?"

2. "Does this VRT permission tag apply to all past photographs posted on the FCDO Flickr account before this VRT permission email was received and approved?"

(Please, note that Question #2 does not include "Any images which are credited to third parties") --

Ooligan (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not FCDO who emailed us, but a user who contacted FCDO via Flickr and attached a PDF of that conversation in the email. FCDO simply responded that their images are covered by Crown Copyright, {{FCDO}}. I can't give you a date, but I can say that this applies to all photos. Nemoralis (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis, Thank you for comfirming that the VRT Permission ticket related to the FCDO Flickr account, "that this applies to all photos"- which would include all photos uploaded to the FCDO Flickr account before this VRT ticket was processed and the VRT permission tag was created to attach to uploaded FCDO files to Commons.

*(I am assuming that the green-colored text above is a quotation from the "PDF of that conversation.)

When you wrote, "I can't give you a date," does that indicate that no date exists on the VRT ticket PDF document or would disclosing the date due to non-dislosure agreements? Again, thanks. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, green text is a a quote. The date is 14/06/2013 according to PDF. You can also find out the date by looking at the first 8 digits (2013061310007371) of the ticket number. Nemoralis (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your helping me to better understand this VRT ticket and the ticket dating detail as well @Nemoralis, with best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Pictures taken by the family of the author

Hello, about the ticket:2025040710004116 and the ticket:2025040710004116 concerning the files File:Pierre Bordaberry TCC 01.jpg and File:Pierre Bordaberry.jpg :

The author sent an email to your team to explained that it was somebody from his family who's underage who took the picture so he doesn't want to mentioned it.

Then on the French Discord, they told me that the field "famille du sujet" could fit also. Is it OK for you also ? Could you please confirm that it is the right way ? Thanks in advance.

Mikaelak44 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mikaelak44: This is an awfully public forum to say what someone doesn't want mentioned. Isn't that exactly what VRT's confidentiality is for? - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I modified the message... Mikaelak44 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. @Mussklprozz, what do you think? Nemoralis (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis, @Mikaelak44: I also don't think that there is a problem. I even contacted a lawyer who is familiar with French legislation and asked him if it is okay that a parent gives permission for an image taken by an underage child. It is. And of course the name of the child does not need to be revealed. Hence I accepted the permission. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks !

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Mikaelak44 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Mikaelak44 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2010010610013927

The uploader has freely admitted that these are press photos of the band Floh de Cologne, and that he has no idea who the photographer and copyright holder was. The band had the usage rights, but certainly not the copyright and the right to relicense. Please check the VRT communication on this. This should also affect this image which does not have a VRT ticket as of yet. --87.150.12.82 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This ticket is a conversation with Vridolin Enxing, same person in the discussion you mentioned. He did not name the photographer, but said he (Vridolin) is copyright holder and that the photos were acquired by the group at the time. Nemoralis (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2018091010004196 and ticket:2016041710010483

Hello, is it possible to see the correspondence received by the Wikimedia Foundation for the two images in these tickets 2018091010004196 and 2016041710010483 granting permission to use them freely by the public? We would like more confirmation that they are free and clear to use for any purpose. Thank you very much. Sie2025 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

What detail exactly do you want to see? Nemoralis (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't need specific details in the correspondence. I was just wondering if the email correspondence is provided upon request. It would be useful for our records related to our use of the images. Thank you again. Sie2025 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sie2025, what images? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Full email correspondence is not provided upon request (due to non-disclosure agreements), but confirmation of said correspondence or answers to questions about it can be provided. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If I can have confirmation the following images can be freely used in our media project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cuadro_por_espa%C3%B1a_y_por_el_rey,_Galvez_en_America.jpg and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Ferrer-Dalmau#/media/File:La_Marcha_de_Galvez.jpg . Thanks. Sie2025 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Although I don't understand why you want to clarify this again, I confirm that yes, there is indeed such a permission. Nemoralis (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Emille Joson's Photo LICENSE

Hi! I already received an email regarding the license approval of Emille Joson, with number approval: 2025041810005541! Thank you. Iwannarightelle (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It is still processing. Nemoralis (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

But it's officially approved? Thanks Iwannarightelle (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, it is still processing and not yet approved. Nemoralis (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2022090110011866

Hi, could you please have a look into this conflicting info: This image got a VRT ticket, this image which must have been two thirds identical was deleted. How does that go together? --2003:C0:8F14:C400:751F:9006:2926:2943 16:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

"which must have been two thirds identical": I have no idea of what makes you think that but, no, the content is entirely different, other than having the magazine name in the same font (but differently laid out). - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

VRT ticket number - 2014020510008962

File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-105.jpg.

Is this file's VRT permission tag based on permission from the owner of the building- the Court of the European Parliament in Strasbourg or the photographer?

Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a bit complicated. The permission is based on permission from the photographer, who has received permission to take photographs of the European Parliament during the plenary session ({{WIKI loves parliaments/European Parliament 2014}}). This permission was granted by a beamter in the European Parliament, confirming that the photographers have the right to capture both interior and exterior images of the building.

However, according to later information, this permission does not apply to purely architectural photographs. In the ticket:2014031910013357, the Photo Service of the Parliament said that
"The European Parliament is not the holder of the copyright of the Louise Weis building. However, the Parliament has an agreement with the architects. The Parliament has in fact the right to use the pictures of the building in a NEWS context and, when the building is the main subject of the image, the name of the Architect must be mentioned. Under any other type of use, in particular a commercial use, the prior authorization of the architect is needed."

There are some comments in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg.

Hope this helps. Nemoralis (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about possible attribution requirement, ticket #2015010810007538

Hello,

does ticket #2015010810007538 specify some kind of actual attribution requirement? I'd like to use File:Coocazoo.jpg where this number is mentioned, but the attribution option of the CC template is not set. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses require attribution, yes. By the way, the license in the file description was incorrect, I fixed it as noted in the ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe what Grand-Duc is asking is who should be attributed. The blocked account Hama GmbH & Co KG or someone else? - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I may have expressed myself in a bad way. I thought that it was general knowledge among the VRT crowd that our CC templates, like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, offer an optional value "attribution". Hence I wanted to know whether there were some wishes specified in the ticked on how to do this attribution. As it stands now, the Powerpoint slide stating imagery sources that my son had to have for a school homework reads "Knapsack: Coocazoo.jpg, Wikimedia Commons, CC-by-SA 3.0 DE © Hama GmbH & Co KG". Will leave it as such unless we get other information (and yes, there's no hyperlink, but that's due to place constraints). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no specific attribution requirement. Nemoralis (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Judge Susan Crawford Headshot.jpg

What is the exact issue with the copyright licensing for File:Judge Susan Crawford Headshot.jpg. It is incredibly frustrating because I do not have VRT account so I can't see the discussion. Any missing/additional information, I can reach out to the campaign to provide, so they can remedy the problem. VietPride10 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

An email has been sent around a week ago asking for further clarification as to why the emailer is a authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder as a legal representative, and as to ask how they became the legal copyright holder (rather than the photographer which is usually the case). That's all the info which can be publicly shared from the ticket. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you VietPride10 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Peerage ltw portrait.jpg

File:Peerage ltw portrait.jpg has been uploaded as "own work" by a new user but is clearly a derivative of File:Lord John Taylor.jpg, which has a VRT ticket (ticket:2017022610010486) naming a different photgrapher. Should that ticket be applied to the new upload? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason for that. More it should be tagged as no-permission as the attribution is not done as required. Krd 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I already corrected the attribution. The licence on the original allows for derivatives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Can the derivative work be cc-0, i.e. no attribution required, when the original required attribution? I'm not sure, but I'd say No. If the suspect original really is the original, it should be linked in the Source field, and everything may be fine. If not, then still no-permission. Krd 06:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I missed that. Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Species distribution maps from IUCN data

A while back, User:Chermundy made a lot of these distribution maps, e.g. File:Desert Musk Shrew area.png. The current data (and I believe the past data as well) is licensed for non-commerical use only [3], but was released to Wikipedia for species maps (ticket #2010061810022172). Does that release cover the current data? Or, to put it another way, can I download the data off the website right now and make new maps for wikipedia, or do I need to contact the IUCN for a new permission for that. I would ask Chermundy directly but they do not seem to have responded to talk page messages for over a decade.

Category:IUCN distribution maps has some more recent maps, so I would assume I am free to use the data, but I wanted to double-check. Rusalkii (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I recommend checking with IUCN. Nemoralis (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Request made by me

I emailed the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction and received a response that their mugshots are public domain. How do I send this to VRT to make it a ticket? Lettlre (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You can tell them to email us, or simply have them publicly state on their website that those mugshots are in the public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you already uploaded File:RyanPalmetersuspectimage.jpg. I think adding {{PD-Florida}} is enough. Nemoralis (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

No this is North Carolina, not Florida. I will try to get them to email you. Lettlre (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be enough to create a template like this and add it. Nemoralis (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? Lettlre (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You could create a PD template for North Carolina. Use {{PD-Florida}} as example. Nemoralis (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

How can I argue with a bot?

Something strange is happening with a bot named User:AntiCompositeBot. How can I argue with a bot? See the message on my talk page User talk:Hanay#Copyright status: File:התצפיתנית לירי אלבג שנחטפה על ידי החמאס ושוחררה מהשבי עם יצחק הרצוג (2).jpg. As I wrote on the pictures talk page: "There is a VRT permission. I don't understand why the template was added: "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." I removed the template. I volunteer at VRT"

I need your help. Thanks Hanay (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Because there is no license on file description page. Nemoralis (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2017041210010641

Engelbert Strauss allegedly is the author and copyright holder of these images. He was born in 1908, which makes him an amazing photographer at age 109.

Now, really: Who is the photographer and copyright holder, and has he or she really consented to a CC 4.0 license? Or do you only have a company representative's word for that, someone who may not even know the difference between usage rights and licensing rights? --2003:C0:8F3F:3200:1136:79DB:B11D:17FE 18:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The permission is given by Engelbert Strauss' representative. I think Engelbert is a company here, not a person. See w:Engelbert Strauss Nemoralis (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That may be so, but a company cannot have the copyright by German law, only a natural person can. The company representative is certainly NOT the copyright holder unless he or she is the photographer. --2003:C0:8F4C:1F00:113B:E0D2:6F2F:4C7F 10:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

By what law? The photographer may have transferred the copyright to the company by working under a contract. Nemoralis (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

German copyright is not transferable except by death and inheritance. The photographer may have transferred usage rights to the company, but he or she cannot transfer the copyright. --2003:C0:8F0D:B700:8551:EAD7:4181:1BE3 06:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen this theory exposed several times here, but I think it can't stand the test of real economy. In some cases, copyrights are a big part if not the majority of a company assets. So if a company could not own copyrights, some companies would be worthless. Also if an employee leaves a company in disagreement, what the company would do if it doesn't own the copyright of works produced by the employee? Yann (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This theory is quoted nearly each day here on Commons, though it is entire nonsense. Of course usage rights can be transferred like in every other country. Krd 12:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been asked "By what law", I gave you the law, and now you are questioning the facticity of this law? This is the basics of German Urheberrecht, not some "theory" I made up.

If you think it doesn't work with real economy, feel free to discuss that with the lawmakers. That discussion is beside the point here. I am sure there are enough legal ways for a company to ensure they have all the usage rights they need of their employees' or ex-employees' work. What they do not have is the right to relicense a copyright holder's work any way they want.

In this case, up to now, we do not even have the faintest idea who the photographer / copyright holder is. I actually consider it unlikely that it even is an employee. This kind of promo photo would normally be taken by some professional photographer who lives off of selling his/her pictures, and his/her business would most certainly be worthless if he/she were to give away their pictures under a CC license. I strongly assume that the photographer knows nothing about this relicensing of his/her work. Which, since its upload, has spread all over the internet; the picture can be found in all kinds of places, referring to Wikimedia Commons and the CC license. --2003:C0:8F0D:B700:A9C2:2B4C:17A5:F6D9 20:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is valid, release from a company who owns copyright. --Krd 12:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Email in April to file

Back in April I asked Ted Sobel, the owner of this file, if he could release the file on cc-by-sa-4.0, via instagram. On April 8 or 9, he answered he had sent an email to the VRT. I was wondering if one of the volunteers may please see the old tickets and match it to the file. Here is his website, much appreciated! Yovt (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I just asked something on the ticket, could you please ask him to answer my question? Ticket ID is ticket:2025041010000686 Nemoralis (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Yovt, the permission is added now. Nemoralis (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Pagina: "Marco Pelliccioli" - Copyright“: Marco Pelliccioli, Città alta, Bergamo.jpg

Buongiorno, vedo che avete rimosso una fotografia di mia proprietà sulla mia pagina. Ho regolarmente inviato l'email come indicato dando tutte le informazioni di riferimento. Ecco la copia. La foto è di mia proprietà. Potete ripristinarla? Grazie

Subject: Copyright“: Marco Pelliccioli, Città alta, Bergamo.jpg” Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:43:20 +0200 From: Marco Pelliccioli <pelli.marco@tiscali.it> To: <permissions-it@wikimedia.org> Con la presente dichiaro di essere l'autore e/o il solo possessore dei diritti d'autore esclusivi dell'opera: “Marco Pelliccioli, Città alta, Bergamo.jpg” Acconsento alla pubblicazione dell'opera con la licenza libera: “CC0” Riconosco di concedere a chiunque il diritto di usare l'opera anche per scopi commerciali e di poterla modificare secondo le proprie necessità a condizione di rispettare i termini della licenza e tutte le altre leggi applicabili. Sono cosciente che la licenza libera riguarda solamente il copyright e mi riservo il diritto di intraprendere un'azione legale contro chiunque utilizzi l'opera in modo diffamatorio o in violazione delle leggi sulla persona, sui marchi, ecc. Riconosco che non posso ritirare questo accordo e che l'opera potrebbe essere permanentemente conservata in uno dei progetti Wikimedia.

30 aprile 2025, Marco Pelliccioli Marco Pelliccioli (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is ticket:2025043010008248 and waiting to be processed. Nemoralis (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Buongiorno, posso avere un aggiornamento su questo ticket? Ho caricato una fotografia di mia proprietà, inviato l'email ma l'avete rimossa. Potete ripristinarla per favore? Marco Pelliccioli (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no update. The ticket will be processed as soon as possible. Krd 14:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:7th International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering

Hello! I have a very interesting question. The images of this category is captured by my friend, Sadman Sarar, using the camera of one of my University juniors, Nahid. Therefore the metadata of these files include Nahid's name. After uploading these images, whom should I request to send verification email to the VRT? Please ping me when you reply. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017, whoever took the pictures. Nemoralis (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 17:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Correctly crediting an image from wikipedia

Hi there,

I would like to confirm that this is the correct way to credit this artist: © Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cuadro_por_espa%C3%B1a_y_por_el_rey,_Galvez_en_America.jpg

The artist is Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau and the site page is File:Cuadro por españa y por el rey, Galvez en America.jpg

Thank you, Rosie Rfeerick96 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rfeerick96: correct attribution would be, at a minimum, Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. You are very welcome to include the URL you've given above, but that is not required.

For the future, questions like this are better asked at Commons:Help desk. This doesn't specifically require a member of the VRT to answer it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pope Leo XIV 7.png

Hello, a permission OTRS seems to be send for this file. Is this possible to do it ? The file is used a lot on the wiki. So if we can have the "answer" it would be good. Thanks a lot Olivier LPB (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is still processing. Nemoralis (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Album cover photo

Would someone with VRT capabilities kindly take a look at File:Gaiea Sanskrit 5.jpg ? This photo was first uploaded in January, and as I understood at the time, permission was given by the photographer, but the photo was still deleted after a month. I uploaded the photo again on 8 April, and again I was told by the photographer that permission was given, and this is also visible below the photo, with [TicketNumber=2025040810012221 Ticket] Then someone nominated the file for speedy deletion, because of: recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus. In accordance with instructions I read, I changed this to a normal deletion nomination in case the file is not being approved on time. But again, if no one takes a look at the file and approves it, it may be deleted again, without any clear explanation. Is anything wrong with it? By the way, this photo is on many websites now as it is also the album cover of Gaiea's 31st album. Ouranos85 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There are 3 tickets for this file (2025011610010491, 2025011610010526 and 2025040810012221). They never answered the questions asked in the tickets. Nemoralis (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Aha, that probably explains it. I cannot see the tickets (no VRT login), is there an open question now, and what can I ask the photographer to do? Ouranos85 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The emailer should have received replies to their emails, they should respond to the questions asked in those replies. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand there is confusion now, caused by (in addition to a language problem) two persons running a studio, where one has received a confirmation request, and the other person has approved it. However, both agree that the confirmation is valid. Will try to get you confirmation from the other person as well. Hope this will resolve the situation. Ouranos85 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

e-signature releases

I'm exploring more streamlined ways for people to release their photos, in the vein of the interactive release generator. Through WikiPortraits, we've been meeting individuals and organizations who would like to release their work, and we're interested in minimizing effort in the release process to make it more scalable.

Many people and organizations (including WMF) use e-signature services like Docusign. I'm not sure if there is any precedent here – would VRT agents accept releases submitted through an e-signature service? The form would remain the same as the standard release template (with links to the uploaded files on Commons), and would be sent to the copyright owner's official email address for review. Once filled out and signed by the owner, I would send the signed document over to VRT. The service would verify that the signer accessed the form from their official email address. I know the expectation is that releases are sent to VRT from an official email address, but given that e-signature services can effectively verify when a form has accessed and signed via a particular email address, I’m hoping this approach would be acceptable to VRT (especially as these services are now widely recognized as legally valid).

For the record, we likely would use an open source alternative to DocuSign that follows various e-signature standards (UETA, ESIGN, eISAD).

Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Why should it be more easy to use difficult signing process and a peson in the middle instead of just letting the copyright holder speak to the VRT directly? Krd 06:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me that the biggest advantage is it makes it easier for a Wikimedian to drive the process, instead of having to hope that the third party properly drafts an email, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 08:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You contact the copyright holder by e-mail. They forward their response to the VRT and put/keep you in CC. I cannot imagine anything more simple. Krd 08:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

What Jmabel said. Sure, forwarding an email isn't difficult, but a Docusign-esque form with pre-populated filenames makes the process a bit more seamless. On my end (as a Wikimedian), I can better guide and monitor each release. On the releaser's end, they get a clear action item in their inbox: open, fill out, sign, and submit. No going back-and-forth between instructions, no figuring out the filenames, no copy-pasting, no remembering to CC, etc. Docusign is familiar to many and it minimizes the chance of errors and drop-off. I've had people that, after I describe the release generator and emailing process to them, ask why we don't just use Docusign (or similar). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Reuse query for File:Ferrachu. Ball gag.jpg

Hello VRT team,

I see a VRT ticket (ticket:2025031410012597) removed File:Ferrachu. Ball gag.jpg from the Gag (BDSM) article, and I also see the file was later speedy-deleted. Can you confirm whether that same ticket led to the file’s deletion, and whether I can still rely on the original CC BY 2.0 grant for reuse?

I am not requesting access to any private ticket contents or personal data—just a high-level confirmation of whether I can still rely on the CC BY 2.0 grant for reuse.

Thank you for any guidance you can provide.

Bobterse (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand this was a courtesy deletion after a personality right request in the ticket. The original source http://flickr.com/photo/49405355@N04/6236889671 is also removed. There was no discussion about copyright in the ticket, so perhaps is can be assumed that the license originally given at the source was valid. --Krd 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2012101110013816 - MDOT

Hello. I uploaded a couple files that I was unsure of the copyright status on. I posted a help request on the village pump copyright section. To summarize: I uploaded files produced by the Michigan Department of Transportation thinking that they were in the public domain because they were a state government agency. Learned that it is simply not the case, oops. I then went to the wikipedia page for Interstate 696 and they had another image taken by the department with a ticket number. I basically need to know if it for just the single image of Oak Park or if is a blanket request for that applies to all things produced by the department. If it is just for the one image then I can probably get another permission request for the PDF (I emailed them but it is Friday so may not get a response until Monday).

(I am only linking this file because the other 6 files are the 6 pages of the PDF but extracted as images of File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards.pdf. If a free license is given then the other 6 images would automatically be covered as well.)

Thank you. Jake01756 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The permission is only for File:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg Nemoralis (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I got a email from MDOT granting that the file I uploaded is in the public domain. But it was just a simple “They are in the public domain”. Is this enough for the permissions or do we need the full VRT release? Jake01756 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Has this file been publicly noted as being in the public domain? If so, yes, it is enough. Nemoralis (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: I know VRT don't normally accept forwarded emails, but given that this is an assertion of PD, not a license, is this perhaps a case where Jake could forward that, then someone from VRT could reply to both Jake and the sender at MDOT to confirm its validity? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Am I able to do the email forwarding thing? The files have now been deleted from the project as it has been a little slow (they can easily be undeleted so not a huge deal). Jake01756 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Krd, what do you think about this email forwarding thing? I think we can allow this. Nemoralis (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I will never understand why a copyright holder can send an e-mail to somebody but not directly to the VRT. What exactly is the problem with sending it directly to us, while keeping the requestor in CC? Krd 06:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

No. It has not been publicly noted. They have agreed to release it into the public domain and are working on using the VRT generator.

They are only releasing the main PDF file. The other images I uploaded were extracted from it so once it is public domain those will be covered under the same ticket as well. Jake01756 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This was the statement they gave me:

"All documents prepared by the Consultant under the Contract, including tracings, drawings, estimates, specifications, field notes, investigative studies, and other relevant documents, are the property of MDOT." Jake01756 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Marking this section as resolved. @Jake01756, please ask them to email VRT (or publicly disclose that these files are released under PD). Thanks.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Titan Sports Issue Oct. 8th, 2001.jpg

Is the ticket valid for File:Titan Sports Issue Oct. 8th, 2001.jpg? Uploaded to en-wiki by a user with a lot of copyvios, ticket was added on en-wiki and brought over to Commons (with no categories) by [User:Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3]], not sure that was a valid OTRS member. Unusual to have a CC license for a full page of a newspaper. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Same user uploaded similar page en:File:Titan Sports Sample Page.jpg as non-free. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the ticket is valid. Nemoralis (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2010090310009352

I'd be really curious to know how a VRT ticket and "This file is lacking author information" go together. (It's about this image.) --2003:C0:8F30:AA00:61F4:5A07:241D:674E 14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It is very old ticket, added now. Nemoralis (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)