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: 21 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]
@MGA73:  ? Krd 18:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: I think the status is that Italian Wikinews accept the ticket but Commons does not. So the file can stay locally but not be moved here. --MGA73 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2025 (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]

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]

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

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]
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)[reply]
Checkmark 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

[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]

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.
Checkmark 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)

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Golden pager gift from Netanyahu to Trump

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

We need help with a deletion request.

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=995701040"