Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diala77

Would you consider adding the OTRS template to the other files, too? If not, what would be the best solution? --Leyo 10:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Leyo, no, the ticket permission is unrelated to any other versions and is limited to File:Green Party of Switzerland logo (with background).png. The other files appear to be derivatives of this same file with changes in text (tell me if I'm missing anything), it should be perfectly okay. Maybe user {{Other versions}}? But for a matter of fact, the permission ticket would stay on only one file which for which the release was sent in the ticket. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Photographs of identifiable people

Hello, I am looking at two photographs which have been through VRT:

Both were on the same ticket, #2019030510009647.

The first one is a picture of people in what looks like a private place. The second one may also be a private place. Has consent from the subjects been received? If not, should they be deleted? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The VRT generally processes copyright permissions only, not personality rights consents. It is up to the uploader to ensure than consent was given. Krd 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
These are posed photos. They certainly involved a good deal of communication between the photographer and subjects. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2013031510006025

File:JA13XJ Airbus A.359 JAL Japan Airlines At Tokyo Haneda International Airport.jpg states that it is freely licensed per ticket #2013031510006025 however the linked source (Flickr) states all rights reserved. Please could someone with access to the ticket verify whether the release does apply to this image. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Thryduulf: The release applies to images at this source and this source (inaccessible) and puts them under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The image is freely licensed then, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete this photo, as I lost any means of contacting the photographer after we arranged everything. Thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oleh325: This is not the right place to seek deletions. Maybe ask at COM:AN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I looked at VRT archives but couldn't find any email and have thus changed the permissions template on the file to {{No permission}}. If you can try arranging permissions in the next seven days, good, otherwise the file will be deleted, procedurally. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Hastie

Does the permission given for File:Andrew Hastie MP Age Care Community Visit.jpg apply to the 2 other files uploaded by the same user?

Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic-waveform, no. The ticket releases only one file. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2023120410006742

This ticket should involve conversation releasing the copyright for a speech by a Phillipino official Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo "To the 6.5 million Build, Build, Build Team". At the moment there is an ongoing deletion discussion concerning this work in English Wikisource. There is a suspicion that the work has been released under Phillipino law only and not under the US law. The VRT volunteer dealing with this communication was repeatedly asked a few questions crucial for the decision about keeping or deleting the work, but for some reason does not answer them without any explanation. May I ask somebody else to have a look at the ticket and provide the needed answers, please?

The questions are:

  1. Who (what legal entity) provided permission?
  2. How do they have standing to do so?
  3. What specific permission did they provide?

Thanks very much for help. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The permission to publish this text appears to be authentic. The last post in the ticket refers to the public discussion on Wikisource and suggests the client to comment there in order to maintain the text. So I do not think the discussion should continue here. This does not concern a file hosted on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek, I will try to briefly answer your questions,
  1. It would remain unanswered because it involves non-public information and no VRT agent would be disclosing that information publicly.
  2. The permissions come from a legitimate copyrights holder and the claim is supported (as I can see in the ticket).
  3. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nico Sauer 2017 Performance Ethnological Museum Dahlem.jpg

Hello, can an VRT administrator can close the DR in a way or in another, please? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Some three years ago, this was handled by @Emha. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Permission can be considered authentic. Further discussion on the Deletion request, strange behaviour of uploader. Ellywa (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Art Basel, German page

Please change the logo photo of the German Art Basel site and possibly corresponding pages. The picture shows white figures of Manfred Kielnhofer in front of a facade inscription "Art Basel". Kielnhofer was not invited to Art Basel. He places his figures, which can be classified as plagiarism, around art events to give the impression that he is a participant. That's not the case. In addition, his figures have been banned from most public locations after he posted a Star of David made of syringes on social media, outing himself as an anti-Semitic Corona conspiracy theorist. This is also documented in detail on the German page about Manfred Kielnhofer: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Kielnhofer 89.144.197.179 07:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct location for asking, but I decided to replace the image on the Wikidata item with the neutral logo of BAsel Art only. I do not judge the art in any way. I suppose that was your request, as such image was seen in the infobox, while the logo is more appropriate, I agree with that. Ellywa (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Numéro de ticket manquant malgré autorisation transmise

Bonjour,
pourriez-vous m'indiquer le problème que vous rencontrez avec File:Lampe à huile romaine à ailerons latéraux.jpg ?
Merci de votre travail et Cordialement. 6PO (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem. Permission is added. Please be a bit more patient next time. Ellywa (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Miss Intercontinental logo.jpg logo has the license in accordance to the copyright holder of the said image, the organization of Miss Intercontinental have emailed and I have receipts about their approval to use the logo on Wikipedia article. I also got the emailed by Wikipedia Commons and got the respond and both emails also of the official account of the organization. Rc ramz (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rc ramz: The latest email message should reveal the current situation regarding this file and ticket:2024010410007144; evidently, that situation has not yet been resolved.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
How?? I have 2 of this ticket;
Re: [Ticket#2023123110004694] release of content attached to this email?? & that so do I need to wait?? Thanks Rc ramz (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Rc ramz: The messages are unclear. We need an explicit permission from the creator/copyrights holder that they release the file under a free license that allows re-use including commercial. Releases that state the file would be used on Wikipedia article are not sufficient. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ten million thanks to the VRT

A bunch of questions were raised about images I uploaded via flickr, many of them from the US Department of Defence, which you can see here [1]. I put my hand up and say I wasn't even aware there was a difference between Public Domain and Creative Commons but, boy, I've learnt my lesson there, and in a couple of other areas too. My apologies for all the hard work that has meant for you by way of checking things and emails and whatnot. You have my gratitude. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a very good attitude of learning. Please keep the pace up. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

bonjour, File:Umberto Tozzi 2012.png Merci de retirer cette photo de wikipedia. Elle n'est pas libre de droit. FanMusik (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Umberto Tozzi 2012.png.
@FanMusik: making an accusation in multiple places does not make it more true. If you have evidence that this is a copyright violation, please present it in the deletion request discussion. Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2014122310000729

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bakov.jpg relates to a file I added permission to. Unfortunately I no longer have access to VRT so I can not re-check it. Jarekt (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I posted a response on the DR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Checking for permissions of Category:Portrait paintings by Natalia Pavlusenko

Please check file permissions. Who gave the permissions: the photographer or the author of the paintings? These images are the works of modern Ukrainian artist Natalia Pavlusenko, who is engaged in the historical reconstruction of images of people from the 16th and 17th centuries. These portraits were painted in 2021, each one is on her website and there is a copyright notice. Link to the artist's website:

In addition, until recently, the artist sold merch with these portraits on her website:

Seva Seva (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Seva Seva: I confirm the permissions release is perfectly fine, and these three files are released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unadapted License. I have cross-verified everything. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Unadapted should mean Unported. I just used Google Translate. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Did I understand correctly that permission is granted by the artist Natalia Pavlusenko, not the user who uploaded the photo? I am asking because there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine (see COM:FOP Ukraine), so any work of art that has been photographed needs permission. Seva Seva (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Seva Seva: I can't share the names publicly, but I can confirm that the permission is perfectly fine. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Seva Seva: since I don't have access to VRT, I'm allowed to conjecture: this all makes sense if that is Natalia Pavlusenko's account. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sorry, I don't really understand how the VRT system works. I have never used it myself. If I understood The Aafī's words "perfectly fine" correctly, it meant that permission was obtained from the artist himself. Do VRT permissions work differently? The "Structured data" says that these images are "original creation by uploader". This is strange, because the user also uploaded other works in this way, such as : File:Art object by Glib Viches. Sun Gates.1989.jpg or File:Art object by Glib Viches. Presenсe. 1992.jpg. But they were maded by another artist - en:Glib Viches. So, the uploader and the artist cannot be the same person. Also, "Structured data" says Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, not 3.0. Could you explain to me - VRT confirms only what is in "Structured data" or not? Seva Seva (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The Aafī is saying that the confidential correspondence in which the VRT agent engaged, and which they (The Aafi) can see, but you and I cannot, convinces them that the permission came from the legitimate holder of the copyright. Since that would almost certainly be Natalia Pavlusenko and the uploads credit the account name as author, I can only reasonably assume this is her account or that of someone representing her to whom she is willing to have her work credited. Since you and I are not privy to that correspondence, anything beyond that is conjecture. I would say that at this point, The Aafi has written here without any qualification to their endorsement of the validity of the license. @TheAafi: one question, though. Under the license, which requires attribution, are they really OK with attribution to "Commons user Paintgol", or should the license template add "author=Natalia Pavlusenko"? -Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, I do not see any such requirements but it believe its worth a question. The ticket is not in English (and the original release didn't come in English either). I suppose @Andriy.v can make a follow up here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: "I can't share the names publicly", but Ahonc below did it. So who is right? Andriy.v (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
She is author of the pictures, it is not secret.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ahonc and @Andriy.v: I tend to be more precautious. We are in agreement to not share "non-public information" and I consider everything on VRT non-public even if the names associated are public. Ahonc is right, the name is already public. I won't disagree with them either. I will close this thread is resolved. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Permission is granted by the Natalia Pavlusenko. --Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Дякую, Ahonc! I have no more questions. I think this discussion can be closed... --Seva Seva (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2009111010047484

I was skimming through old DR's and came across Commons:Deletion requests/File:Norbert sternmut.jpg, and this 14 year old ticket in permissions-de queue affects it. Google translate has been unhelpful. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Kept. --Krd 09:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Retirer photo

Bonjour je souhaite que l’on supprime immédiatement cette page et ma photo pour des enjeux personnels importants . SVP merci de me répondre rapidement christine 209.121.189.13 11:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Translated as "Hello, I would like this page and my photo to be immediately deleted for important personal reasons. Please, thank you for responding quickly Christine"
  • What files are you referring to?
Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oleg Palchyk

Can someone please check to see if Ticket:2023122010003929 is valid, so I (or someone else) can close that DR. Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I believe that permissions are fine and comply with the file's metadata, and per what is here. However, according to @Ahonc, the permissions are insufficient, and VRT hasn't received a response back since 31 December 2023. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
He gave link to image on Commons and did not answer when I ask link to original source.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PA DefayEurochamp Leroy 694.jpg

The uploader of the file being discussed above has cited ticket:2012122010006901 for other photos by the same creator. Can a VRT agent check if this ticket is valid for specific photos only (e.g., File:Marlon Lipke.jpg) or is it blanket permission? —holly {chat} 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Holly Cheng: the ticket is very specific to one single image, and that's at File:Marlon Lipke.jpg ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
ticket:2012122010006947 likewise is specific to File:Asp logo 2bleus.png. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Rheinmetall HX. Модель 44М

ТТХ автомобіля. Інструкція з експлуатації 2A02:2378:11F1:370C:0:0:0:1 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rheinmetall HX. Model 44M

TTX of the car.

Operating Instructions
translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
IP: Привіт і ласкаво просимо. Яке це має відношення до Commons:Volunteer Response Team або до Commons загалом?
Hi, and welcome. What does this have to do with Commons:Volunteer Response Team, or with Commons in general?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Fabrizio Romano

Hello. I am writing about ticket:2024012510000398. I am in communication with Fabrizio Romano to help him get the photo back up. Fabrizio Romano asserts that he is the sole owner of the photograph, even though he is also the subject of the photograph. The subject and photographer/owner are both him- what I understood is that he used the delayed photograph thing. How are you going to deny that? He sent me the screenshot of the email he received from Valería Domínguez. Fabrizio is a busy man, so I'm writing this to get the permission accepted. Please respond ASAP. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Please ping. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: I see that this in reference to Ticket:2024012510000398, but what (deleted) filename is this in reference to?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Thanks! Using that information and the two linked DRs, you or any Admin should be able to examine the metadata of the deleted file for timer usage with an external tool, as Commons still doesn't show metadata about timer usage. Note: my favorite such tool, Jeffrey's Exif Viewer, "is unavailable at the moment", but Windows Explorer's "Properties / Details" or Jimpl (scrolled down to the "Full metadata") can substitute.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. thanks. I believe it is not needed here. I have been feeling unwell but a cursory look on the ticket shows that Fabrizio has had some agreement with Globe Soccer about this very image, and they failed to produce the agreement when asked. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Are you sure we're talking about the same image? The image that was deleted is the one on his Twitter profile. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie, yes of course. Reiterating once again that the permissions are inadequate and won't be accepted until the photographer releases it, or until Fabrizio shares the agreement they claimed to have had with Globe Soccer. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: And what makes you think that the image was owned by GlobeSoccer? Are you just making an assumption? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
No and why should I make assumptions? This is what the permissions-sender (Fabrizio) has claimed in the ticket mentioned by you (ticket:2024012510000398). You are free to ask any other VRT agent for re-assessment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: In case, you would want to add anything to this thread. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't accept permission for File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg because we never received permission from the photographer, and the subject of the file didn't show us the contract to prove that full copyrights were transferred to him. So, the subject requested the deletion of the file. Instead, he requested to upload a new self-photo, but I didn't have access to VRT today (I'm on holidays with slow connection) and I didn't see the request until now. He didn't attach the file to upload it myself either, so... --Ganímedes (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi: I understand now! It was a misunderstanding. Fabrizio Romano does not seem to have much experience in this, and when he spoke about GlobeSoccer, he was referring to another image he wanted to upload. He got two different tickets tangled up when they should be kept separate. I can send you screenshots of our conversation if you'd like proof. Essentially, the image that he was talking about originally (the one on his Twitter profile/that was uploaded on Commons) is NOT GlobeSoccer's. How do we proceed from now on? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the GlobeSoccer image he mentioned. This is not the image that was originally uploaded and that he is giving permission for. He mentioned the GlobeSoccer image to me before, but I didn't think he'd get the two things mixed up. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
GlobeSoccer, Facebook, Instagram, whatever; it doesn't matter. VRT needs permission directly from the photographer. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Yeah, understood. But the image he's trying to recover-- he's the photographer too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Unless Fabrizio is not telling me everything -- the image he is trying to recover is the one that was originally uploaded, and that image, he owns the photo, as I understand he took it himself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I've already explained this; please read upper. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Should I ask him to send a new, more precise ticket? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie, Whoever is the copyrights holder/photographer, tell them to send us a precise release. If it involves agreements, share them as well. Since it is confidential, it remains confidential. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Is that not what was done in the first place? He must have sent something different than what I showed him through the VRT template. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me summarize to clarify: Fabrizio Romano sent ticket:2024012510000398 with permission for file File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg. As he's not the photographer and he didn't show us the contract stipulating that 100% of the copyrights were transferred from the photographer to Fabrizio, that permission was rejected. Instead, he told me to upload a new, selfy photo. I've asked him to send the file by email as an attachment to upload it myself on his behalf, but apparently, he doesn't know how to do it because I still haven't received it. I strongly don't recommend to send a new email and create a new ticket so we can continue the process. Paul Vaurie: you can follow the thread by sending an email to permissions-commons[@]wikimedia.org and adding "Re: [Ticket#2024012510000398]" in the subject line of the email. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: You could have avoided much of this by asking Fabrizio to carbon copy you on correspondence with VRT in the first place. He still can.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2012010710010595

Hello, regarding ticket:2012010710010595, I see it is used for File:BMI Airbus A320-232 by Osipov Dmitry.jpg and File:Vityaz-Aero Mil Mi-8T RA-24744 Nikolaevka.jpg. Does the ticket grant permission for all work by Osipov Dmitry on airliners.net, or only specific images? I ask because he has a photo of the recently crashed Russian Il-76 available there, which could be beneficial to the various Wikipedia projects covering the incident, if it is in fact covered by the permission given in the ticket. – Recoil16 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Only those photos. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. – Recoil16 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – Recoil16 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Request undeletion of concert poster

See

where the undeletion board referred me to here.

The general situation is that user:Fabebk is a poster designer who has already verified themselves as copyright holder with two VRT tickets, and now has a third file up for deletion.

What advice does anyone have for clearly communicating that posters attributed to this user come with their open copyright license, and that they designed the things? Bluerasberry (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: The file was uploaded by some other user and attributed to Fabian Garcia. No source to validate the permission was included. For each such instance, a VRT permission-release is necessary. I don't see any problem with the uploads that directly come from User:Fabebk, and are tagged as {{Own}}. However, the file in in reference above, needs a VRT permissions release from Fabian Garcia, and once received, it will be undeleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If we already know that user:Fabebk is Fabian Garcia, couldn't they just weigh in on-wiki rather than go through VRT? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if User:Fabebk is Fabian Garcia and haven't really read each and every line of the VRT conversations. I shared my analysis pertaining to a specific file which was attributed to Fabian Garcia. Nor do I feel it necessary of having their identity confirmed. There are two cases: #1: Files uploaded by others and attributed to Fabian, a VRT release/or any such proof of release from Fabian is necessary. #2: Files uploaded by User:Fabebk as entirely own, VRT release is too much to ask.
The file in question was uploaded not by User:Fabebk but by someone else. As such, it does need a permission release. I'd perhaps dig the tickets to check with if Fabebk = Fabian Garcia, maybe tomorrow later in the night. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Fabebk states on their user page that they've verified their identity with ticket:2023091010005532 and ticket:2023113010007391. It would seem to me that part of the point of doing that is that they can then weigh in on-wiki from that account, rather than having to go through VRT each time. - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sending an email to VRT doesn't mean that the user has verified their identity. I skimmed over both the tickets and nowhere I see any claim that the email sender claims to be same as User:Fabebk on the Wikimedia Commons. This is the reason, I said we should treat the files in two different ways, already explained above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
An easy alternative I could offer is receiving an email at VRT stating "I am same as User:Fabebk on the Wikimedia Commons". ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: I just want to make sure: you are saying that the claim of verified identity at meta:User:Fabebk is false? - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, and likely, because I do not see any claim on the tickets in which Fabian has mentioned that they are exactly the same person as User:Fabebk here. Perhaps, either they misunderstand what VRT identity verification means? Sending an email to VRT doesn't mean that one has verified identity. User:Fabebk could be Fabian Garcia and User:Fabebk could have sent permissions to the VRT, but the point I am making is that I don't see in both of the tickets an explicit statement from Fabian Garcia mentioning "they are same as User:Fabebk on Wikimedia Commons". Telling the VRT that "Just information for the future. All images I upload to Wikimedia comments are all my work." and merely mentioning Fabebk in the ticket doesn't amount to a full identity verification. Both tickets fail in this. Moreover, I would really want the verification come as guided on {{Verified account}}. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: can you have a look at ticket:2024013110012801, more specifically response #4 in the thread, and see if this is sufficient for you? I have now internally in VRT linked all the permission tickets we have received from this contact. Ciell (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell, this looks perfectly fine. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Your assistance has been helpful. ticket:2023121210001722 also appears to be fine. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi great, happy to be of help. To be clear: does this mean you will undelete the image and tag the vrt-permission received? Ciell (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell, I believe no. This should be undeleted perhaps only when the ticket:2023121210001722 receives an answer to the question at #6. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: taking a different angle here - does the artist/creator of the poster have a personal website? Ciell (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell: and yet another angle: does what you've seen in the various tickets add up to being able to call this a verified account, or is there something specific we still need? - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: What the other tickets have helped is that Fabebk = Fabian Garcia. However, concerning File:Chinchilla Café presents 2023-08-17.png, VRT has sent a question to the email sender on 18/12/2023, and there appears no response, so far. The file should be undeleted once that question receives an answer. I'm uncertain if I'm being too strict but the question I see is a legitimate one. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree: the confirmation of this is already in the opening statement of the 20231218 email, and this is not their first time contacting us. I don't think you need to be this strict, but if you would really like the confirmation one more time, please followup in the ticket and kindly remind them of this pending question. Ciell (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell: Too many tickets create confusions. I just had a look at ticket:2024013110012801 and I find it adequate. The 02/02/2024 response is perfectly okay and answers the issues raised on ticket:2023121210001722. I have undeleted the file and updated the permissions. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the undeletion Aafi!
I can agree that it's sometimes confusing - linking together multiple tickets from the same contact in VRT can help create a better overview of the case.
Just fyi: merging emails sometimes also helps, but a) once merged, tickets are very hard (impossible) to unmerge, and b) though from the same contact they are about different images. I only merge when a second email comes in on exactly the same topic, for instance when a contact follows up with the requested permission statement in a new thread. So in cases like this one, I rather link all tickets together which creates the small list of ticket numbers you see next to the email body now. Ciell (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I personally see no need to verify this account. We in general only do this with celebrities, well known photographers, etc. We don't do this to simply verify an image, there are other ways to do that. In case of request for verification the information in VRT is not enough: earlier today I left some additional information about this on the template talkpage. Ciell (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Qantas Boeing 707 and Boeing 747-200 at Longreach's Qantas Founders Outback Museum.jpg

Hi, Can someone check the ticket please? There is a claim that it is not valid: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qantas Boeing 707 and Boeing 747-200 at Longreach's Qantas Founders Outback Museum.jpg. If the ticket is valid, this IP should be blocked for making nonsense DRs. This is not the first. Yann (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Ticket seems fine. ─ Aafī (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Telegraph to Mary's parents from Prime Minister Trudeau - June 11 1975.tif

I have serious doubts about File:Telegraph to Mary's parents from Prime Minister Trudeau - June 11 1975.tif I see that a letter written (or typed) by Pierre Trudeau is marked as VRT approved. I was hoping someone with the ability to see the ticket could verify for me who gave permissions, and confirm that the Government of Canada/PMO office, whom the copyright holder would be - granted those VRT permissions. Thank you. PascalHD (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @PascalHD: Thanks for reporting. I will just proceed and boldly CSD it exactly for what File:Telegraph sent by Prime Minister Trudeau to the parents of Mary Steinhauser - June 11 1975.jpg was deleted for. The ticket is insufficient. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Great, thanks for taking appropriate action. PascalHD (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I will add that the letter becomes Public Domain January 1st, 2026. It can be undeleted at that time. PascalHD (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monedes St Climent.jpg

Apparently, ticket:2023120310005496 was received for File:Monedes St Climent.jpg, but the uploader removed the notice. No VRT agent went and updated the file description page, so can someone check on this? Thanks. —holly {chat} 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

not in English so I'd ping @Ganímedes for an update. ─ Aafī (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely that permission will be achieved, so deletion of the file seems reasonable. --Krd 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no internet for several days. Impossible to verify authorship. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Stefan Kaminski

File:2022 Michaelsen Swantje c Stefan Kaminski.jpg was deleted at 2023-12-27T06:59:01 by Krd (IA/B/A/CU) with rationale (No ticket permission since 26 November 2023).

Uploader confirmed to me to have requested a permission from Stefan Kaminski, but Kamniski either did not reply or Kaminiski's reply was not a sufficient free permission. Similar fotos by Stefan Kaminiski have VRT permission. I think it unlikely that Kaminsiki gave permission for the other files but not for the latest one:

for example:

there are also images without VRT ticket:

examples

C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned cases are different from the ticket point of view. I see no obvious mistake. --Krd 04:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2017060910013007

For Commons:Deletion requests/File:1960.Lößnitz-Stadt mit der St.Johannis Kirche.40x30.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:1960.Lößnitz-Stadt mit der St.Johannis Kirche.40x30.jpg, uploader cites the above ticket, but it was never applied to the files. Thanks. —holly {chat} 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ticket doesn't apply to anything else than processed at that time. --Krd 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible/easy to use a VRT permission email when uploading 10,000 images from an organisation?

Hi all

I'm helping a UN agency upload around 10,000 images to Commons, really useful statistical graphics for each country in 6 languages (hence the large number). I'm currently exploring how to do the licensing for this project and my question is; is there a way that is easy and convenient for VRT for the agency to send a VRT permission email? I'm assuming you have some kind of automated tools to do permissions so is it possible to send a spreadsheet with the file names or something? I could do the upload and then provide a list of filenames in a spreadsheet in the email upload?

I know that it may be easier to have a licensing permission on the website, however currently this is probably not possible. I'm just looking to find alternatives that make it possible to upload the content in a way that is smooth and easy for VRT.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings: The responsible individual at the agency can ask for a template indicating their permission when they email VRT, preferably with a carbon copy to you to keep you in the loop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G., can you explain more about what you mean and point me towards some documentation? To expand on my explanation it would be me uploading the content using Pattypan on my account and then someone at the agency sending an email to confirm the license. I know that a user from the organisation can get a special template created for their account, however if I'm the one uploading the images I think that would mean they would have to add the template manually to 10,000 pages, which simply isn't realistic. John Cummings (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Please do things in this order:
  1. You upload a sample image using {{subst:PP}} and contact the responsible individual at the agency per above.
  2. They negotiate with a VRT Agent to get the permission template created (which hopefully categorizes the images).
  3. You use the permission template when uploading those images.
This way, there is no need to add the template manually to 10,000 pages (or use VFC). I helped users do this successfully when I was a VRT Agent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G., just to double check I understand, in the permission email they can nominate me as the person who is the uploader and permitted to use the template? Also is it possible to send a follow up email to remove this permission at a later date (not retroactively, just so they have some control over it in future). John Cummings (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Yes to both.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G., is there any documentation on requesting the VRT permission to upload is removed? John Cummings (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Probably not formally, but the answer is just "Send an email to the same address, retracting the permission going forward." - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jmabel, once I've gone through the process I will draft some documentation for this process. John Cummings (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024020210006478

I sent an e-mail with the photographer authorize by the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0,ON 02/08/2024. I'm waiting an answer if everything is ok or if I need to produce something else. Regards, Vera Moraes Moraesv (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Moraesv: I've addressed the ticket. Elli (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024011910006135

The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation has given its consent in principle to the use of its materials on Flickr under a CC BY 4.0 license (not updated since January 2023), while all its materials have been transferred to photo.senatinform.ru (copyright rules). MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Permissions-ru has a 25 days backlog. I don't know if we have actives agents in that language. I may proceed in English if that helps. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kulka Frigyes szoborportréja.jpg

The photo nominated in this DR has ticket:2013011010004405 attached to it. Can a VRT agent please weigh in? Thanks. —holly {chat} 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Holly Cheng: The ticket is too old, from 2013, and was handled and approved by Hungarikusz Firkász who appears to have CSDed it recently for copyvio. Since, it is Hungarian, I'm uncertain if I can offer any more insights. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: what is "CSD"? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, ah, sorry, it should mean COM:CSD'ed? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I've consistently seen "speedied", "CSDed" is a new one to me. I will add it to Commons:Glossary (it was definitely not there). - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't sure. This term is very common on en-wiki. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Joan Armatrading's song Love and Affection 1976, apparently used on Tracey Chapman's Debut Album in the 1980s. Any evidence?.

My email for a response, if any to the above note is: relfe@att.net. Or, if someone else's research reveals that there has been a professional relationship between Joan Armatrading's earlier composition of, "Love and Affection", and Tracey Chapman's use of it later on her so called Debut Album. That's it. Love this program which I have continued to support financially, and welcome any response as this is my forst use of the possibility of contacting you: Roger I. Relfe, ChFC, British, USA Citizen July 2012 and heavily involved in the music industry(backstage at Live Aid One July 1985) while serving for 19yrs in the Royal Air Force, and retiring to USA with my wife in 1989. Britscript (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check the ticket

The association I've been working with to add their logo to Commons have some troubles, as the VRT agent can't identify the organization's email as the one and valid one. Can someone check the case, and maybe advise how to proceed? Here's the ticket number: 2024012210011266. --Oleh325 (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please proceed as outlined in the ticket: "please provide any evidence that the e-mail address you are sending from is related to the organisation that holds the logo." --Krd 12:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024020610002876

Ticket for the EMERCOM of Russia template - all child resources are now marked CC BY 4.0 on http://mchs.gov.ru. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:MSC

Hi. A clarification for this license is required. The ticket is #2009020710020785. Please see the discussion at Template talk:MSC#License clarification. Could a VRT member scrutinise the ticket and provide commentary on the ticket's correspondence? Thanks -- DaxServer (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ireas handled the ticket in 2009 and I don't see them around. This ticket needs an agent who knows the Deutsch language. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
By "The Deutsch language" do you mean German (Deutsch/Duits) or Dutch (Nederlandisch/Nederlands)? This is a place where code-switching is very confusing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I mean (de/German). ─ Aafī (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The ticket is valid for images uploead 2015 and earlier. If it is used for newer images, a deeper check is required. --Krd 12:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

File:01-cadadia-240209 2037.wav

Hi, This file has a ticket, but no license. Please check. Yann (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Updated the relevant template and commented in the DR. This may be closed as a speedy-keep. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Checking claim of ORTS ticket of Korean wikisource article

I'm not certain that requesting this in here because it's not in commons, but there isn't any other place to request. Please let me know if this cannot be processed in here.

In the one article of the Korean wikisource, there is a claim in the talk page that the 'OTRS' ticket has been sent. I tried contacting the user who made the claim, but she didn't know about the details of the ticket. Is there any possibility that the ticket number can still be found? Or, any confirmation that the ticket has NOT been sent?

Thank you for your help in advance. Aspere (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please assume that the permission was not sent or was not successfully confirmed. --Krd 12:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024022210002498

The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs has authorized the use of material from its website under a CC BY 4.0 license. This template: {{Mvd.ru}}. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ticket of today. --Krd 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation on old tickets

I've just nominated File:Arthur Asa Berger1.jpg for deletion, which was claimed by Esmatly as "own work" but the EXIF info points to a professional photographer as the actual author. I started looking into their old uploads to see if there were similar false claims, and I noticed a number of them that have tickets attached, but they seem very suspicious to me, so I wanted to confirm that everything was kosher.

Thanks for looking into these. —holly {chat} 23:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

bump. —holly {chat} 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Holly Cheng: I cannot view the ticket ending with 8229, but assuming that there's an apparent lie in the ticket for File:Seyed Zia Hashemi.JPG and VRT back in 2013 was not perhaps this much strict. All of the permissions come from same person and they claim sole creator/copyrights holder. However, on some files the uploader says it is part of their archive. Given an apparent lie in one of these tickets, I lean towards deletion of all of these files. VRT agents back in 2013 simply updated permissions after receiving an email without asking if the sender was "creator or how they became the copyrights holder" to release the permissions. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I will drop another comment in the DR. ─ Aafī (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

A VRT ticket was submitted in 2022 in relation to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adrienne Rich and Susan Sherman.jpg and the file was kept. Another upload by the same user showing one of the same subjects (File:Susan Sherman.png) has been nominated for deletion with part of the rationale questioning the claim of own work. Can someone please check the ticket on the previous work to see if there is anything that would suggest the uploader also has a right to licence File:Susan Sherman.png? The deletion discussion for the second file is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Susan Sherman.png. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Susan Sherman and Chile President Salvador Allende.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Susan Sherman and Margaret Randall. Havana, 1968.jpg that would also benefit from a comment if there is anything useful to the discussion in the ticket. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Permission is specific for the first image. It doesn't apply to other images. --Krd 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Professioneller Fotograf mit VRT-Tickets

Es gibt auf Commons mehrere wichtige Fotos eines professionellen Fotografen, für die auch ein gültiges VRT-Ticket vorliegt. Letztes Jahr wurde ein weiteres Foto hochgeladen und gelöscht, da per VRT zwar eine Freigabe angekündigt war, aber nicht zeitnah erfolgte. Nun weiß ich aus nichtöffentlicher Kommunikation, dass die hochladende Person zwar den Fotografen kontaktiert hat, dieser ab für dieses Foto nicht oder nicht ausreichend geantwortet hat. Angesichts der sonstigen Aufträge des Fotografen und angesichts der sonstigen Fotos des Fotografen, die es auf Commons gibt, erscheint es mir sehr unwahrscheinlich, das der Fotograf dieses Foto anders behandelt sehen möchte als die anderen für die eine Freigabe vorliegt. Ich könnte mir also vorstellen, dass bei den früheren Freigaben dem Fotografen nicht in der nötigen Deutlichkeit gesagt wurde, zu was er zustimmt, oder dass eine unklare Freigabe akzeptiert wurde. Öffentlich benennen möchte ich nicht, um was es geht, da ich dies aus nichtöffentlicher Kommunikation erfahren habe. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: I'm sorry, I read German fairly well, but I'm not sure I can follow that. You seem to be saying:
  • We have several important photos on Commons from professional photographer . These have a valid VRT ticket (or tickets).
  • Last year, another photo Y from this same photographer was uploaded. The photographer sent a communication to VRT.
  • (I'm a little lost on exactly what you mean by "eine Freigabe angekündigt war". Are you saying that the communication was a valid release? Or what? I'm confused both by whether "Freigabe" here means a valid release, or is more general, and by what you mean here by "angekündigt"; the use of passive voice is particularly confusing to me. By "angekündigt" do you just mean the photographer sending the email, or do you mean something more public-facing?)
  • Photo Y was deleted because the release was not timely.
    • (remark: if it was just untimely (unzeitgemäß), but correct, it should have been possible to undelete photo Y once the release was received.)
  • You (C.Suthorn) now know from non-public communication that the uploader contacted the photographer, but he (the photographer, I presume) did not respond or did not respond sufficiently for this photo.
  • You state (and I agree) that it is unlikely that the photographer would have different intentions for this photo than for others.
  • (Ich könnte mir also vorstellen is a little tricky for me because vorstellen has several meanings, but I assume this can be taken as "Therefore I could imagine". Even that is a little ambiguous in English; are you saying you think this is probably the case, or that you consider it within the realm of possibility, or somewhere between?)
  • You (C.Suthorn) could imagine (see my note above) that in previous releases the photographer was not told clearly enough what he was agreeing to, or that an unclear release was accepted.
    • I'm not sure why it wouldn't be just as likely that this time the photographer dropped the ball, and the other times he completed the process. Plus you seem to be saying that the response wasn't just untimely, but that a sufficient response never came.
If you could help clarify any of what I'm not following here, it would be appreciated. Or you can just ignore me, because I'm not on the VRT, but I'm guessing that at least some of this would be as confusing to others as it is to me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I did communicate with the uploader (at least I did communicate with the person, who said them was the uploader and I am sure that is true). But, i did not communicate with them via wiki accounts or wiki mail, but by different mail addresses. As I am not a VRT member and as I was not involved with the ticket, I can only guess, if the uploader sent a mail to VRT, than VRT asked for a mail by the photographer and the photographer either did not reply, or did not reply to VRT or did reply, but not with a good enough (free enough) permission. The uploader has by now abondened to try to get this image through VRT and instead uploaded a different image and marked it as {own}. I have reason to believe, that this new image was taken by a colleague of the uploader and not by the uploader themselves. But at the moment I hope to meet the depicted person myself soon and then clear up the situation (the situation of the new upload. I have no idea about the older uploads that have been given a VRT ticket. If i get the chance to meet the depicted person and the uploader I will ask about the photographer of the other images, but i am not sure, if i will get any useful information). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Which file or ticket is that? Krd 04:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Status check on ticket:2024020110006149

Just wanted to status check on the above ticket. I asked my friend to upload the files included via VRT after a Instagram convo on Feb 1st, but apparently they haven't been uploaded yet (or at least under the file name I'm familiar with). I believe they are titled J2B-0216.jpg, J2B-0073.jpg and J2B-0023.jpg. S5A-0043Talk 07:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the question? Krd 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: I believe the question boils down to "What is the status of that ticket?". I think it is fair to assume that Agent and Customer have not yet come to an agreement.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
^ This. S5A-0043Talk 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The permission sender did not answer our question which file the permission is about. Please ask them to reply or to send the permission again. --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024022810010272 Ferron_2023.png

Hi, I am the uploader of the file Ferron_2023.png which was deleted. The copyright holder emailed the correct permission form on January 28 and I believe it was only waiting on a review. I haven't received any further notification about this file, so I was surprised to see it deleted. I'd like to figure out what I did wrong. I believe the rights holder sent the correct permission email. Was their permission email incorrect? If so, what can I do to correct it to reinstate this image. Thanks. Justinkrivers (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ask for verification after less than a day. If will be processed as soon as possible, but not earlier than possible. --Krd 06:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024030110007726

An official notification has been received from the Department of Informatization and Communications of the Krasnodar Krai about the transfer of the region’s websites to the CC BY 4.0 license dated February 26, 2024. This template {{Krasnodar.ru}}. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket from yesterday. Please do not ask earlier than three week after the permission was sent. --Krd 15:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024030510011624

Copyright holder received Confirmation of receipt mail with ticket id. I added on the photos {{Permission received|id=2024030510011624}} to help VRT agents. Is that ok thing to do? I wanted to help. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pane.Vino.Wiki: Yes, and thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gizem Bayram, turkish belly dancer, 2022.png

The above DR mentions Ticket:2024010810010301. Can an agent see if this is applicable? Thanks. —holly {chat} 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. Deleted. --Krd 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Permission of Frans Koppelaar

Does Commons:Permission of Frans Koppelaar seriously serve any purpose? ─ Aafī (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Krd 13:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly my thought. I created a DR. ─ Aafī (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foto Susanne Glass.jpg

This DR states that Ticket:2024012210011113 was received for the photo, but there's been no action for over a month on the file. Can someone please check? —holly {chat} 19:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the report @Holly Cheng. I see some correspondence in the ticket. However, it doesn't appear clear that the permissions-sender releases the file under CC BY-SA 4.0 (I just went through to&fro messages). I have sent a follow-up to seek a confirmation. I'll post an update in the DR once received. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Urgent permission to publish legitimate photos

Dear Editors!

The professional director of the Hungarian National Dance Ensemble, Mrs Zsuzsa Zs. Vincze's Wikipedia page has been updated on the occasion of her receiving Hungary's highest state award in a few days. Of course, we have also replaced her photo with a more recent one. The picture "Zs. Vincze Zsuzsa.jpg" can also be found on our website: https://mnte.hu/hu/magunkrol/vezetok/zs-vincze-zsuzsa

Another photo, "Táncrapszódia lumidance 11.jpg" - which has also been removed - was also taken by a professional photojournalist on behalf of the Hungarian National Dance Ensemble. Of course, we signed a contract and paid for it. Therefore, the Hungarian National Dance Ensemble owns the rights to these photos, and we respectfully request that the removed images be reinstated.

If you still need any information about the rights of use of the photos, please let us know as soon as possible, so that we do not have to be embarrassed to have a page without photos on the day of the prize-giving ceremony on 14 March!

Thank you very much in advance for your help. Yours sincerely

User talk:Daka495 Csilla Cseke communication manager Hungarian National Dance Ensemble H-1087 Budapest, Kerepesi road 29/b +36 30 211 3130 www.mnte.hu Daka495 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket from the same day, nothing urgent. --Krd 04:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Germany: Photos made by dead grandfather

Hey,

what kind of permission do you need when I want to upload photos made by dead grandpa? Residence is Germany. His wife and two children are still alive.

Best. Theonlytruth (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Theonlytruth: We would need permission from an heir of his copyrights, probably part of his intellectual property, probably part of the residuum of his estate if not mentioned specifically, sent via VRT. Copyrights in analog photos are generally inherited with negatives.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Files with VRT pending notices

There are quite a lot of files with a manually written notice "VRT assessment pending", some of which were uploaded quite a long time ago, see here. Could they be addressed somehow, please? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think VRT permission is required please nominate them for deletion. Krd 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Corina Yoris.jpg

The file's original description said that the original photographer had authorized its release under a Creative Common license. I thought that the VRT could help with its undeletion. I'm not too familiar with the process myself, but from what I gather said evidence should be sent to permissions-commonswikimedia.org? Pinging original uploader, @Periodismodepaz: , in case he's able to provide more information. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @NoonIcarus, no. This was uploaded as own work, and was deleted for being a copyright violation as it appeared elsewhere such as here. The file was uploaded by User:Diegovzla112 and not by whom you mention. We would need a permissions release from the original photographer/copyrights owner that releases the file under a compatible license such as CC BY-SA. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
However, I want to make a note: Periodismodepaz also appears to have uploaded some photos of the same subject. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi: Ah, my mistake. I meant the file File:Corina Yoris-Villasana.jpg. I don't remember the license used, but it was stated in the description that the uploader had asked for permission to the author, although not through the VRT process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: It was claimed that the image was sent directly by the photographers but no proof of the licensing was provided. The image appears here. For its undeletion, we would require a permission from the photographer/copyrights holder. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi: Correct. Would it be enough for the uploader to provide said proof permissions-commonswikimedia.org for the undeletion?--NoonIcarus (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if we receive an adequate permission from photographer/copyrights holder on permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, the file will be undeleted. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2023120810006959

Some files from this ticket errorously have been deleted, others remain online (in the permission mail all have been included!). Please correct and undelete. Thx, --Subbass1 (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The permission in incomplete for the images that show interior architecture. Krd 08:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Whats's the problem here? --Subbass1 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
As said, no permission for interior view, no FOP. Krd 09:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
There's no "pernission for interior view" necessary --Subbass1 (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. Krd 10:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
? de:Lambertikirche (Aurich) --Subbass1 (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Permission sender did not elaborate why the redesign of the church is not protected. Additional opinions welcome. --Krd 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Cause there's no reason to do so, as easily can be seen in the article. --Subbass1 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Then COM:UNDEL please. Krd 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Unclear if VRT request was processed for File:Lumbosacral Plexus MR Tractography.png

On March 8th I had the copyright owner of File:Lumbosacral Plexus MR Tractography.png send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to release the copyright using the release template generator tool. However the file was never undeleted and now I am wondering if this request was processed at all. I do not know the ticket number or agent. Can you confirm if this request was processed? Snake playing a saxaphone (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please assume that it was processed. Please encourage the permission sender to reply to followup questions or to send the permission again. Krd 07:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024031610006388

I'd appreciate some help with Ticket:2024031610006388, specifically with the NASA files' license. And to explain to both customer and copyright holder the issue with what is and what is not derivated work. Thanks a lot. Ganímedes (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently solved successfully. --Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Create tickets for certain general permissions for objects in Italia and add this to suiting images

Hello, Friniate have given me recently twice in two days the information that for certain images displaying modern Italian objects exists a general permission. In my opinion this belongs as information into the file description itself, so, please, be so kind, create tickets, and embed this into the images. See

The Deletion requests could afterwards speedy decided. — Speravir – 00:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot a ping @Ruthven. You are apparently member of the VRT and Italian native speaker, so should be the best for this task. — Speravir – 01:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Speravir Hello, there must be a WLM permission, but the link leads to a generic page. A direct link to the specific permission is needed in order for me to review it. Best Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
[2] for the Casinò of Campione, [3] for the monument to General Pasi (but on this monument it exists also [4] which has more restrictive provisions, see the DR for the details). Friniate (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, both. What I originally intended to add, but forgot above: I actually also could live with a template containing an external link to a permission, but I think having it in a local database is more robust. Such a general permission should then be made known, the according category should be a good place. — Speravir – 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ruthven, couldn’t the PDF documents copied into an internal resource which would be linked from the ticket? This is my original idea. If not we can close here and linking to the external source is then second best choice. — Speravir – 00:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Speravir Another solution would have been to pass them through VRTS. But it's also true that it would have required a supplementary workforce.
Having an external DB for the permissions is fine, given that 1) it is kept online 2) the PDF files are linked to the relative monuments (in the files or categories, it doesn't matter). But, as it is an external database, it's WMI responsibility to provide requirements 1 and 2 above (and any other requirement that would come from the Commons' community). @Dario Crespi (WMIT): who organized the competition recently. Ruthven (msg) 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Ruthven, if you think this had to be discussed elsewhere, feel free to close my request here. There just should be a solution. — Speravir – 00:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This is not an issue specific to VRTS, and it has been discussed elsewhere. I just invite the organizers of WLM to open a discussion at the Village Pump, in order to decide which modifications to the competition and the files uploading process will comply with the community requirements. (I already stated my opinion, and possible solutions, many times). Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 08:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 08:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(Copyright status of) page x missing from Dictionary of the Vilamovan language

Hi, I was redirected to post my inquiry here, which concerns ticket number ticket:2014061910007868. As the title describes, page x (i.e. after ix, before xi) is missing from the file series Dictionary of the Vilamovan language. The category, created almost a decade ago, has a label indicating that the rights holder has given written permission to license the work here. The missing page is also available online from the Polish national library, which labels the file as being in the public domain (in Poland, evidently). However, as a presumably posthumous (author died 1919) work published in 1930-1936 (page x would appear to be part of Vol. 1, so from 1930), I'm not confident on what the status would be for our purposes (i.e. according to the US situation, where it doesn't seem to have ever been published) and I'm also not confident that the written permission applies to the whole work or only the files so far uploaded (thus inadvertently excluding the missing page). Basically I'd like to know, what are the chances of adding the missing page (or having it added by a trusted volunteer) without inadvertently violating copyright? Helrasincke (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Heinrich Anders died in 1941 and Adam Kleczkowski in 1949. So, the works by Kleczkowski are copyrighted in US 95 years since publication (till 1.1.2026 in this case) per URAA. Kleczkowski seems to be the author of the preface. If the ticket contains a permission valid for the preface, you can upload the missing page (or the whole book) and ask a VRT agent to mark it appropriately. The rest seems to be PD already, Both: in Poland and in US. Ankry (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 02.jpg

This file nominated for deletion has ticket:2009012510001013 attached to it. Can a VRT agent please weigh in? Thanks. —holly {chat} 22:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay: the ticket says that "all materials released under the Next Left Notes masthead, also known as NLN, are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) unless otherwise indicated." Nothing else. The DR was closed, but the center of the dispute was another, INMO, so this ticket is not useful I think. They can't release an image if they're not the copyright holders. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Foto André Rochais

[Ticket#: 2024032910003642

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Andr%C3%A9_Rochais.jpg

Se ha enviado una autorización para utilizar esta imagen. Han enviado un mensaje diciendo que se tiene que ls persona que ha hecho la foto ha utilizar un modelo. Dónde está ese modelo?

Qué se puede hacer para que se publique la foto? Muchas gracias por su ayuda. Aho1000 (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

[5] --Ganímedes (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You may want to double check the ticket related to File:CST Logo Seal.png. The image is the logo or seal of Claremont School of Theology. It would be highly unusual for any organization, including a college, to release its logo or seal under a CC license, allowing others to freely remix a core part of their corporate branding. The ticket is https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024040810009415. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2008112410016439

Can you check this ticket please? It's about this image. My concerns:

  • "Stern-Wywiol Gruppe" is a company and, as such, cannot be the copyright holder by German law. Only a natural person can.
  • According to the metadata, the photographer is a person by the name of Henning Angerer. He would be the copyright holder.
  • Mr Angerer apparently works for a photo agency by the name of hochzwei, not for the Stern-Wywiol Gruppe. Which means the Stern-Wywiol Gruppe can only have bought the usage rights, certainly not the right to relicense beyond their usage rights.

So, the question would be: Who was the VRT correspondent? Was it really Mr Angerer who would be the only one entitled to decide on the license? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 15:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a 16 year old ticket (November 2008) and I don't really worry about such old stuff. What I am able to see is that the permissions were given by Stern-Wywiol Gruppe. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Øivind Wilhelmsen.jpg has permission but no licence

The file File:Øivind Wilhelmsen.jpg has a {{PermissionTicket}} but when it was added there was no licence template on the file, so it's not entirely clear what licence it was actually released under. I expect it's the CC BY-SA 4.0 that's on older versions of the file, but I think it would be best if a VRT member confirmed that with ticket:2023051010003283 and added it somewhat officially. --bjh21 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bjh21 Thanks for reporting. You're right about it being under CC BY-SA 4.0. I have updated it. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Valtra_N113_HT5_Forest.jpg

This image has the following text underneath:

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 #2015102610015282.

I would like to upload some good images to Wikipedia. Some I took myself and hold copyright that I can release. For other pictures, however, I would need to get the copyright holder to send the confirmation.

When copyright holder approves the publication:

1. Where do I or copyright holder sends that email?

2. Where do I send or upload the image? Benevolent Bureocrat (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


Clarification:
Basically, if I'd like to upload an image in the same way as the example I provided – how do I do that? :) Benevolent Bureocrat (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Benevolent Bureocrat: Please take a look at COM:VRT which has readily available guidance for you. Don't forget seeing the section: COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Checking

Since User:Alina Poliakova was blocked for long-term abuse, revise please permission for File:Hryhoriy Malenko.jpg -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For convenience: A DR about this file was closed as invalid by @Андрей Романенко in July 2023. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the photo of the notable person with the name of the uploader in EXIF. I even don't understand why it needs VRT ticket at all. The user is banned, okay, but there is no policy to delete all the previous contribution. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment @Андрей Романенко. I rather find it a messy thing to ask for permissions where EXIF doesn't suggest otherwise. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
But metadata can be edited, and I suppose you can do nothing about that but trust. But with this abuser (Bodiadub, Wikibusiness) we have a pattern, that's why I asked for a closer look. These files also contained free license and name in EXIF:
and this one was accepted again:
Will try to bring more later Anntinomy (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Files that happen to have EXIF mentioning author and license (!), some with permissions and brought by the same abuser

--Anntinomy (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It is my belief the names of the uploaders are bogus. We know the real names of the Wikibusines spammers, and it is not equal to the claimed authors of those images. A simple Google search will suffice. MER-C 12:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@MER-C, thanks for the comment. I'll take a look at these files and tickets once I am on the system. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi any progress on that? -- Anntinomy (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2019042410005211

Hi. I would like to know what works of the author this ticket enables to be on Wikisource. The ticket is not mentioned on all the author’s works, so I don’t know the scope covered by it. Thanks, Lepticed7 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Lepticed7, I can't read this language but the following pages appear to be linked in the ticket: [6], [7], [8]. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. They say that, "Я согласен опубликовать это произведение на условиях свободной лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024021410004402

I am the uploader of the photo and have done this in close coordination with the copyright holder. The copyright holder contacted you by email on 14 February 2024 and released the photo (Contact person on your part was Alfred Neumann). Now the photo has been deleted and I am not sure why the process failed. Is there some information missing that you need? Link to file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Anne-Barb_Hertkorn_01.12.2008.jpg Thank you. DunkleTannen (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@DunkleTannen: The file would be undeleted if the permissions are found adequate. No need to worry. ─ Aafī (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm still not sure that I understand the process. So the photo was deleted after 30 days. Did the deletion happen automatically because the ticket had not yet been finally processed by the VRT team (which is fine), or was the permission sent by the copyright holder deemed insufficient? DunkleTannen (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It could be either. No VRT agent attended the ticket, or no adequate permissions were received in the given timeframe to finally process the ticket. However, as I said previously, whenever the adequate permissions are sent to VRT and an agent confirms them, the file would be undeleted. Lately, I haven't had enough time to go through the ticket myself so I'd leaving it for other agents. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2016101010012581

Could you check this ticket? Seems strange to me that the same ticket is used two times for different topics by different users. The SPARQL query generated by {{PermissionTicket}} returns a Falconara soccer club logo and files related to water by Associazione d'Irrigazione Ovest Sesia. --ZandDev (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Ticket in Italian. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@ZandDev Weird: the permission is aboutfiles coming from Associazione d'Irrigazione Ovest Sesia, namely:
--Ruthven (msg) 08:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Marcocatalani: File:Stemma cdFalconara.jpg is not authorized with this ticket. / Il file File:Stemma cdFalconara.jpg non è stato autorizzato con quel ticket. -- ZandDev (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2011112710000489

Can someone please check this ticket? The file claims that the copyright holder is Felix Loewy (which, by German copyright law, would imply that this is a selfie), the exif data have Max Leitner as a copyright holder. Was it really Mr Leitner who gave the permission?

Not sure what this image is good for anyway, I don't see that we have an article on this person anywhere. --2003:C0:8F4D:6800:89A:EAC7:978F:195D 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP, it would be wise to drop the link/name of the file. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, yes. Here it is. --2003:C0:8F4D:6800:89A:EAC7:978F:195D 21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
An article on this person has apparently been attempted twice and was deleted twice because of copyvio and lack of encyclopedic relevance. --2003:C0:8F4D:6800:89A:EAC7:978F:195D 21:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Permission is fine. Notability or not it's a different business. VRT only verified that copyrights are respected, nothing else. May you can open a deletion request. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Notability is a different business, that's certainly true. I don't really care if pictures of non-notable people are left lying around here, so I won't bother with a deletion request.
However, I do care about copyright, and I would like to understand the copyright thing. How can copyright be respected when the copyright holder is not even named as "author"? Whose permission did VRT receive, Felix Loewy's or Max Leitner's?
Or is it maybe just from some person from his agency who is most certainly NOT the copyright holder and not eligible to relicense? --2003:C0:8F17:ED00:7144:31FC:83D9:316 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Permission is fine, notability is of of scope of this page. --Krd 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you Please help me? Foto PiotrKrzyżowski.jpg

I need a help with this file: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foto_PiotrKrzy%C5%BCowski.jpg#mw-jump-to-license An e-mail from the photographer with permission to use has been sent, but I don't know what to do now to prevent the photos from being deleted. 31.0.25.254 07:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have the ticket number? --Ganímedes (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course:
https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024032810012438
TicketNumber=2024032810012438 78.30.98.32 20:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The ticket it's in Permissions-Pl. We're waiting permission from the photographer (copyright holder) like this. --Ganímedes (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2023042410007246

So the image subject is Jan R. Krause, and the author and copyright holder is Jan R. Krause. Seriously? Does the VRT correspondence really claim that this is a selfie? --2003:C0:8F17:ED00:7144:31FC:83D9:316 11:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Permission in German. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I could have taken a photo like that of myself. For example, I took File:Joe Mabel self portrait 2020-01-12.jpg. If that is the claim, I would not find it implausible. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Reinhard Kraasch, I'd really apprecite your help with this ticket since you have processed this. I have left a note for you in the ticket. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
His company has assured that they are the owners of the full rights of use. Copyright cannot be assigned under German law, so this is sufficient as permission. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean, "Copyright cannot be assigned under German law"? Copyright, or Urheberrecht, rather, under German law always remains with the photographer. A company may have a usage license, but only a natural person can have the Urheberrecht.
In other words:
  • The claim that this image is "Own work" by Jan R. Krause is extremely improbable.
  • It is extremely improbable that the photographer gave the image to the company under a Creative Commons license.
  • A company is certainly not entitled to relicense an image with a license that permits more than the one they bought.
--2003:C0:8F4F:7F00:DC27:B776:101C:8364 10:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I have again checked the issue, it seems indeed that the permission declaration is somehow incomplete. I will ask the issuer again. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 11:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024030510011624

Full month ago i added on the photos i uploaded {{Permission received|id=2024030510011624}} to help VRT agents. Now the pictures are deleted! Please, please, can someone check the ticket and restore my photos? We have proper permission, pictures should not be deleted!! --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please ask the permissino sender to reply to questions. --Krd 05:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd, he said he has just responded. Is there anything else needed? --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 05:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024032510008305

I would like to check in on the progress of ticket:2024032510008305, concerning File:Fredy Clue and Ida Björs Designing Bäckadräkten 2022.jpg, File:Fredy Clue at Skeppet GBG 2022 Sep 4.jpg, File:Fredy Clue Lecturing 2022 Sep 4.jpg, and File:Fredy Clue Bäckadräkten.jpg. I understand the copyright holder for all four photos to be Fredy Clue / Fredy Samuel Lundh, who is pictured in each one. My understanding is that Fredy became copyright holder for each one through verbal agreement with the photographers. When I got these photos from Fredy and uploaded them to Wikimedia, Fredy told me that they sent an email to VRTS to release the copyright for all four photos. There was a little bit of back-and-forth via email circa March 25–26, I believe, for clarification. The bot of @Krd: added permission tags to all four photos at that time. I believe Fredy sent their most recent email on April 2, but I don't think they've heard back yet and I see this ticket isn't yet resolved. I appreciate any update that can be provided. Thanks! Dugan Murphy (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Without seeing the ticket itself, I can tell you we don't accept "verbal agreement". Nor has the photographer transferred full copyrights by contract or law, nor do we need permission directly from the photographer or his heirs. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Thank you for the clarification! If we don't accept verbal agreements and don't need permission directly from the photographer, is the only way to keep them up to show written agreement from the photographer to Fredy Clue? Why wouldn't the photographer be able to release copyright by emailing VRTS directly? Thank you in advance for the further clarification. I can't find this information in the policies. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
We need permission directly from the photographer. The photographers were aware of this, but they sent permissions "to use" only, without any specific license. I'm talking with them now. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Great. Thank you for helping resolve this ticket! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:EduardMarmet

Input from VRT folk at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EduardMarmet would be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pigsonthewing, as noted elsewhere and in the DR, I am spending my considerable time on this thing. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Liliya Podkopayeva ticket # 2024042210009273

Hello, I am writing to request the restoration of the file "Liliya_Podkopayeva.jpg", which was recently deleted from Wikimedia Commons. I have since sent a permissions statement via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, providing authorization for the use of this file from the copyright holder. Despite its removal, I am keen to ensure that the file is reinstated and made available for public access in accordance with the provided permissions. I kindly request the assistance of the Wikimedia Commons community in reviewing my request and restoring the file "Liliya_Podkopayeva.jpg" to its previous state. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to a positive resolution. Naruighich (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Once the permissions are verified, the file would be un-deleted by a VRT agent or at the request of a VRT agent. This is not a place to seek undeletions. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

A Flickr account user would like to authorise me to transfer their images here to the Commons; what's the best way to do that?

Hi there, My name is User:CeltBrowne and recently I've been in communication with a Flickr user with a very large gallery of photographs (roughly 1,000 photographs) that are relevant to a topic I work on, and can absolutely be used directly on Wikipedia. The Flickr user has very generously agreed to allow all their images to be placed under a Creative Commons license.

There's just one hitch though: They are no longer a "pro user" on Flickr and thus no longer have access to the "batch edit" function. This means they cannot change the licensing of their images en masse. As they have so many, it's completely impractical to do it individually. Therefore I can't use the Upload Wizard to transfer them directly from Flickr.

However, we have exchanged e-mail addresses and I believe I can get them to contact VRT with any information VRT may need from them.

What is the best way to proceed?

I asked this same question on the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons discord, and one user suggested that VRT use Template:Verified account to either verify User:CeltBrowne as authorised to transfer the images from Flickr to here on the Commons, or create a dedicated secondary account specifically for this purpose. Then I could download the images manually from Flickr, and manually upload them.

Do you at VRT agree? Or is there a better way to go about this? CeltBrowne (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CeltBrowne. They can email us at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and explicitly send us a release for those files. Any VRT agent can make a template to be placed on the files that come from this Flickr user if they agree to release all of the files under CC-BA-SA or any other compatible license. Subsequent uploads won't then be in need of a VRT release again and again. {{Verified account}} is a bad idea in this case and should be discarded. ─ Aafī (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
So just to be pinpoint accurate: If I have the Flickr user send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating something along the lines of "I authorise all the files on this Flickr account to released under CC-BY-SA", VRT will then create a template that I can insert each time I manually upload content from that Flickr account which confirms everything is fine. Is that correct?
And just to be very clear on this particular point: Can the e-mail state any image hosted on that Flickr account rather than linking to specific urls? CeltBrowne (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@CeltBrowne: Yes, but the email should request a template (preferably with the name of a template that one of you confirms does not yet exist) and carbon copy you to keep you in the loop, and also specify the version number of CC-BY-SA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
the email should request a template
Does the e-mail need to include the sentence
"Please create a Custom VRTS permission template on Wikimedia Commons affirming my release of these works" ? CeltBrowne (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@CeltBrowne: It should, or something to that effect (per the conversation above). Are you quoting something?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
In this conversation? Just a specific part of what of you said
To the account holder? I'm basing most of what I'm sending them on Commons:Email templates CeltBrowne (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@CeltBrowne: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
If the initial email is in some way imperfect, that's no big deal, it just means there will need to be a few emails back and forth. Do have the sender cc you so you can stay in the loop. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
You could, if you are feeling generous, gift them a month's worth of Flickr Pro; cost in USD is $9.49, plus tax. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Die Flickr Stiftung arbeitet ja nun mit WM zusammen (flickr-import) und es gibt einen wiki-user namen von einem der beteiligten flickr-leute. Der name fällt mir nur nicht ein. Aber der könnte vielleicht bei Flickr dafür sorgen, dass das "Pro"-Feature "Ändere eine große Zahl meiner Bilder zu einer freieren Lizenz" auch für nicht-pro-user generell zur Verfügung steht. Dann könnten beispielsweise auch die Erben eines verstorbenen Flickr-Users dessen Fotos ohne Aufwand der Allgemeinheit schenken. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
After a long delay caused by an e-mail of mine going into the photographers' spam e-mail folder, the photographer has now contacted VRT. Now, we should just need to create the template to get this over the line. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024030510010063

The photographer's ticket is Ticket:2024030510010063. If any member of the Volunteer Response Team can read the Ticket and create a Custom VRTS permission template for it, I'd be very grateful. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Krd. FYI. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Kimmel meets Hallo Hessen.jpg, ticket:2016041910009151

The file has a permission ticket attached, I assume from the person who posted the image on Instagram. However, this seems to be a screencap from a copyrighted TV show, so the "permission" is questionable. I'm asking for someone to review this ticket to see if the show did indeed allow this file to be uploaded, or just the person who posted. If they do, I think an actual source should be put in place (Instagram is obviously not the original source). Spinixster (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Permission is in German. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This surely looks invalid, I don't think a random German can give permission for an USA ABC show screenshot, it even has ABC channel logo. Tehonk (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the ticket is invalid, so I have reopened it. --Krd 07:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2015082610020217

Can you check the validity of the permission for this file? File:Jonathan Kis-Lev and Agam Rodberg on Israeli telenovela "Love is Around the Corner".png I don't think appearing for a few seconds on a TV show gives you right to give permission for that TV show. Tehonk (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It is in the ticket, but I think the whole ticket is invalid. Additional opinions? --Krd 04:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Ticket now reopened. --Krd 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ticket Number 2024040510007119 (5 April)

Hello, may I inquire into progress with the following ticket, which covers permissions for five images uploaded over two weeks ago: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024040510007119

I understand there is a 12-day wait at present, which is now exceeded, and wouldn't wish the ticket to go unanswered after 30 days and see the images deleted. Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Who says the ticket unanswered? Krd 12:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, as I am not the publisher and owner of those images and did not supply the relevant permission, I was unaware that the email had been replied to.
All I can see from each of the file's history is that permission is still "pending" - and the "The email is in a queue awaiting processing" message is still there, which I assume means that none has been approved for use on Commons.
Am I correct? If so, what is the problem? Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The problem is the usual one: The permission sender did not reply to our followup questions. Please encourage them to do. Krd 16:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you: I've just done so Billsmith60 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Correspondence with Duane Marsteller

Hi! I have been in touch with Duane Marsteller regarding File:Boulder dedicated to Jonathan Baldwin Turner's speech at the 1851 Granville Convention.jpg. To make a very long story short, due to confusion (and a large part of it my fault) he emailed earlier today about the photo. However, it was already confirmed on the website as released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Please do not respond to the email; he has made it abundantly clear that he would rather not be contacted further. I don't know if it is possible to archive without replying, but if it is, would it be possible to do that? HouseBlaster (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Photo of Jean Dubé

Can you please look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo jean.jpg? The image was uploaded by Jean Dubé, the person depicted in the image, using account Piano6. Apparently the anonymous person that took the photo in 2007 gifted the image/copyright to Dubé (in 2008?), who then uploaded it in 2017 with CC BY-SA 4.0, and is also showing the image on their website at jeandubepiano.org/photos. Betterkeks (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is this a case for this board? Has permission been sent by e-mail? --Krd 05:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: It is explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo jean.jpg. I added this here because (1) the person that uploaded the image in 2017 didn’t take it but says it was given to him (in 2008?), (2) the image is also shown on the uploader’s website without the license under which it was uploaded here and without complying with that license, (3) until recently the image was credited erroneously to a different photographer on that website, and (4) no permission has been emailed as far as I know. Now that you’re looking at it I can walk away, thanks. Betterkeks (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
As no permission has been sent, there is nothing we can do. --Krd 15:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024041710009701 on File:Petra Hoffmann Zschocher.jpg

Could a German-speaker please confirm whether the ticket (referenced in the file description) covers the file (and add the appropriate template, if it does)? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it doesn't. Krd 15:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ticket Numbers ticket:2024032710000087 and ticket:2024040310000227

Bonjour,

J'ai importé environ 70 photos provenant du même photographe le 27 mars et le 3 avril, et je crains que leur validité expire. Le photographe m'a dit qu'il avait envoyé la déclaration de consentement. Vous pouvez me faire signe si je peux aider d'une manière ou d'une autre. Merci pour votre travail. Alacoolwiki (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"I imported around 70 photos from the same photographer on 27 March and 3 April, and I'm afraid their validity will expire. The photographer has told me that he has sent the declaration of consent. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Thank you for your work."

Hello, I've just seen that the files for ticket number 2024032710000087 have been deleted. I didn't get any information. Could you please tell me what's going on and what I can do to restore them? Alacoolwiki (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The mentioned tickets say no more than that the copyright holder will sent permission soon. Did they send anything? --Krd 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
He did so, but perhaps only for one of the two tickets concerned. Could you please check 2024040310000227? Alacoolwiki (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered: The mentioned tickets say no more than that the copyright holder will sent permission soon. Did they send anything? --Krd 15:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The copyright holder told me that he had sent an authorization, but I'm asking him to do it again for all the files. Alacoolwiki (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Krd, The author of the files has sent a declaration of consent. Could you please restore the deleted files? These are the files in the ticket:2024032710000087

(The files in ticket:2024040310000227 remain online) Alacoolwiki (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alacoolwiki: I just undelete some files. The right procedure is that some VRT volunteer asks for undeletion on COM:UDR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Yann & @Krd. Have a good day. Alacoolwiki (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Is OTRS/VRT broken for Korean and about to break for English?

Is the Commons:Volunteer Response Team (formerly Commons:OTRS) system falling apart? Nearly two months ago I secured permission for some files and had the copyright owner send a properly formatted @ to VRT. They got no reply, not even an acknowledgment that a "ticket" was open, and after a month the files were deleted (see conversation with the deleting admin: User_talk:Krd#Regarding_File:Neil_Doljanchi_2024_622.jpg, including a list of deleted files). The admin suggested that the backlog may be related to the language (Korean), although if it results in the deletion of files before the case is reviewed that the system is pretty much broken. Anyway, I sent an @ of my own to VRT on April 7, in English, although with a fwd of the email from the copyright owner (and anyway, these days everyone uses machine translation, so understanding a Korean email is not hard...). VRT page says "The current backlog for tickets in English is approximately 12 days." Well, it's two weeks since and I also have gotten nothing - neither human nor even an automatic acknowledgement that my email was received. Also, how can I even know what is the ticket number if any for my case? (Maybe a number was on one of the deleted files - if so, can an admin tell me what it is). Can anyone help me to get this resolved (preferably getting the files undeleted and approved)?

And as a side note, why there is no automatic email confirmation that a ticket was opened? This is hardly professional (from the system design perspective; please do not read my message here as a complain about volunteers - I am one as well so I know well we are overworked and doing often thankless tasks). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did you send it to, when exactly, with what exact subject? Krd 03:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Apr 7, 2024 . Although I might have made a "mistake" - I did so as a fwd of the Korean email (the one that the copyright holder sent to VRT a month earlier), so the heading is Korean, and if our Korean VTR team is inactive, and nobody else bothered to check the contents, well... anyway, the heading of my email is "FW: 저작물 라이선스 배포 동의" which FYI translates to "Permission to distribute copyright work", a heading chosen by the copyright owner for their email. I can copy the content of my and their email here if it helps. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
To the English queue please send with English subject, not least to not get the email mistakenly considered to be spam. Krd 04:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd I will keep that in mind for the future. For now, given that I reported the subject/heading, can any VRT volunteer - assuming we have any active - review the case and the emails? That includes figuring out why the Korean email was ignored. The first Korean email (from the copyright holder) was sent to permissions-ko@wikimedia.org , not global (English) email. If emails sent to specified email for Korean VRT branch are effectively ignored, we need to fix that (perhaps by teaching some people to use machine translation tools or such). How many images with valid permission have been deleted because nobody is reading emails? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no recent ticket with such subject. Please sent it again. Krd 15:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I will do so but the fact that there i s no ticket seems like a clear failure of the system. Do you have access to either of the emails? Can anyone with access to them reply here and explain why they have been ignored - particularly the Korean one? PS. Email sent, this time the subject is "Forwarding permission email that seems to have been ignored twice because of Korean characters in the subject". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The e-mails are in the Korean queue because you replied to and existing e-mail instead of writing a new one. Ticket is still open, Krd 04:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
What is the number of the ticket? Who can fix the problem of the Korean queue being no longer functional? And who can review my case, since I know many Koreans will have as many problems with English text as some random English speaker with Korean? In other words, how can I contact a VRT volunteer, assuming any still exist, and ask them to review my case? This is getting ridiculous (particularly since AFAIK the case is pretty clear cut - a regular, correctly formatted permission for several files). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@Piotrus: The ticket number should be in the subject line of the email message.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. What email message? Neither the original permission holder, nor me, ever got any reply. Which is something I mentioned already. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
ticket:2024022710002569. Nobody. A Korean speaker. Your tone and attitude. --Krd 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the ticket number. Not sure what you mean in the rest of your message. I am reporting a failure of our system, and the polite and constructive way would be to apologize and see how the system can be improved, rather than brushing me off. Right now my experience here, from the customer service perspective (as in, I am a customer here, asking for a representative of the company - or NGO - to provide a stated service), is pretty bad. Again, I know you are a volunteer (just like me) and nobody is paying you to help me - and let me be clear, I appreciate your help. But if you cannot help me, I want to know who can, because as a fellow volunteer I spent my time arranging for permission, uploading files, categorizing them, and now my effort seems wasted, and from where I stand, my fellow volunteers here don't seem to care and are giving me a run around and vague responses. So if you think my tone and attitude is not ideal - put yourself in my shoes, look in the mirror, etc. Again, thank you for the ticket number (for which I've been asking for several days), and I hope you or someone else can either review the emails and tell me what, if anything, is wrong the permission I arranged, or tell me who can do so. If, as you seem to imply, we need a Korean speaker, then where can I find a list of Korean volunteers who are supposed to active in the VRT system, so that I could ping them here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see m:Volunteer Response Team/Users for the list of all VRTS users, and m:Volunteer Response Team/Personnel/List for a more detailed but possibly incomplete list. Krd 08:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd Thank you. I'll ping users I've identified as Korean-speaking: @이강철 @이강철 (WMKR). Sadly, no Korean speaker has been identified by a second list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm on the VRT list, but I'm not a permission checker. I was listed as a different OTRS area.--이강철 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@이강철 Thank you. I am not sure I understand what the problem is. Any idea who can help? A "permission checker" who speaks Korean, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd @이강철 The case was reviewed and the files were undeleted, but the template needs changing to prevent mistaken bot deletion in the next 30 days - can one of you, or somebody else who knows how to do fix it, help by replacing the pending template with case closed/permission received? Files are in Category:Neil Konieczny-Moon Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Which template needs to be changed in which way? Krd 05:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Krd It has been changed now (thank you User:Polimerek). Issue resolved, thank you to everyone who helped. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Toby Mott and Adam Ant.jpg

Hi, can someone check if Ticket:2012111310007971 mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chaosandvoid covers File:Toby Mott and Adam Ant.jpg as well? This photo was transwikied and it's unclear whether Chaosandvoid would own the copyright based on the uploader's other files being deleted. Jeff G and I no longer have access to tickets, so requesting assistance here. Thank you. czar 16:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't. --Krd 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

VRT ticket form

I was wondering if there is standard VRT form which an editor could send to an artist/architect which after the author filled it out could be returned to the VRT. It would also be good that in case of a nomination for no permission, a link to such a form would be added in the notice. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem solved. Found it here. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Christophe Szpajdel images

I uploaded two pictures of this person to Commons on April 20, 2024, after receiving written permission from the photographer, Kevin Esienlord (he also sent me the uncompressed images). On April 23, 2024, he wrote to me that he had sent in the permission using the Interactive Release Generator and emailed it in. Could I get an update on this please? Thanks in advance.

Bricks&Wood (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bricks&Wood: Did he get a ticket number in response? If not, the address is permissions-commons and the domain is wikimedia.org.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bricks&Wood: I tried search with several strings: Kevin Esienlord, file names and urls, but unfortunately I couldn't find any result. Could you please ask him to share the ticket number that he received in the automated response, or otherwise just write a new email. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I will reach out to him again. Bricks&Wood (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi Friendly ping: the automatic response is broken; a while ago I send email to VRT/OTRS and never got any automatic response; neither did another person I know. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Piotrus, may I know which queue was targetted and any specific string that I can use to search in the archive? Regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi Sure. See #Is OTRS/VRT broken for Korean and about to break for English? just above, where it took me several days to get the OTRS number, partially due to the assumption that I should've gotten it by email (no, I never did, and yes, I know how to check junk/spam folders). As far as I know the original permission sender did not get any reply either, although I cannot vouch for their ability to check their email. But I can confirm that when I sent the email to the global permissions I got zip in return. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The most likely case is that the original permission sender never sent it, because we don't have any e-mail from them before the date they sent it "again". Krd 05:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Krd What do you mean by "it"? I have the email in question, with metadata that informs me when it was sent and to whom. (On 27th Feb to permissions-ko@wikimedia.org). Are you saying that no email was received by VRT on that date? And certainly I can confirm that I never received any email reply to my initial email from 7th April sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; I had to ask VRT volunteers one by one until after over several weeks I found someone who finally agreed to review the case by looking at the email queue and explaining to me what additional information was required (thank you Polimerek...). PS. Krd, please use echo feature when replying to me, TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get an update on this? The photographer assured me that he sent out the email correctly this time.--Bricks&Wood (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bricks&Wood: The bot updated the file page with the relevant ticket number on 4 May, three days after I responded it here. You shouldn't worry now. Once processed successfully, permissions will be updated on the file pages. ─ Aafī (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024051110005714

I would like to ask that whoever handles this ticket please look closely: Does the request really come from the copyright holder or only from the uploader (= image subject)?
On her German WP talk page, she has expressed the opinion that the photo studio who took this picture does not claim the Urheberrecht on their website which is quite obviously untrue. She also has a history of reuploading images that have been deleted (this one, and also this one). She also claims that the photo studio transfered all rights to her; however, the German Urheberrecht is non-transferable.
She has now announced that she has appointed a lawyer.
I would not have pointed this out here had not her whole behavior all along been somewhat brazen. --2003:C0:8F26:B900:1DA0:7539:7E33:3A2B 07:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted. --Krd 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2021080510012496

Could you check this ticket? I have some doubts that the uploader/claimed owner does not own all the images. The ticket is for uploads by Crankoline (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and credited to Roc Nation Sports, a sports agency that represents former basketball player and current media personality Jalen Rose.

  • I know for certain that File:Jalen Rose at the University of Michigan.jpg was incorrectly licensed. I was able to locate the image source and update the description.
  • I have strong doubts that File:Jalen Rose with the Indiana Pacers.jpg actually belongs to the stated owner. For one thing, the photo was taken at the 2000 NBA Finals, 13 years before Roc Nation was established, so even if the agency owned the rights to the image, we know they didn’t create it.
  • I’m less concerned about the other photos, since they look like contemporary publicity shots, but it would be nice if we had more source info.

I’ve reached out to King of Hearts, the ticket reviewer, but not received a response yet. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030: The permission looks valid to me, but of course is cannot be completely ruled out that it is forged. If you are sure about the mentioned two examples, I'd suggest to delete all uploaded of the user that cannot be otherwise confirmed to be freely licensed. Krd 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

When the reason for requesting courtesy deletion isn't vanity...

An anonymous IP recently requested the deletion of an image I uploaded, and I gave them advice on how to request courtesy deletion, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:CFC Media Lab's Pearl Chen, Patrick Naval, Aylwin Lo, Jacqueline Nuwame, Ana Serrano,_Leonardo_Dell'Anno and Andrea Mallozzi at the Bata shoe museum (6210871503).jpg

I made a specific comment with advice as to whether they could keep the reason for their deletion request confidential. I said I didn't recommend it, because "the decision as to whether to keep or delete lies with the people participating here, not with the committee member."

I'd like to hear if there are committee members who disagree, who think they are authorized to agree to a courtesy deletion for confidential reasons.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the exact question is, but an image published without consent and in violation of personality rights per law of many countries must be deleted on request of the affected person at least. The VRT can assist with such requests. Krd 10:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me?
Requesting the deletion of an image that is not properly licensed is not a request for courtesy deletion, by definition.
Courtesy deletion has always been used to refer to requests to delete images that ARE properly licensed.
If you are referring specifically to File:CFC Media Lab's Pearl Chen, Patrick Naval, Aylwin Lo, Jacqueline Nuwame, Ana Serrano,_Leonardo_Dell'Anno and Andrea Mallozzi at the Bata shoe museum (6210871503).jpg, you should comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CFC Media Lab's Pearl Chen, Patrick Naval, Aylwin Lo, Jacqueline Nuwame, Ana Serrano,_Leonardo_Dell'Anno and Andrea Mallozzi at the Bata shoe museum (6210871503).jpg. Geo Swan (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Krd, could you please clarify your comment?
One interpretation of your comment is that,
  1. if the person who initiated the deletion discussion that started this had written to VRT, to complain an image of them was present here, without their consent...
  2. and you had answered it...
  3. once you confirmed the email had come from one of the seven people in the image...
  4. you would have summarily deleted the image?
I would have thought that the best practice, in a case like that, would have been for you to initiate the DR on their behalf. If they had weighed in in that discussion I would have thought your role would include confirming that you had confirmed they were one of the seven people in that image.
Our nominator may honestly think, in 2024, that the use of this image required additional consent, from them. I think it would be an enormous mistake for you to take this notion at face value.
The 2011 CFC event where this image was taken was invitation only. The image in question was taken by an official photographer. I think by turning to face the photographer the seven people in this image all tacitly agreed to be photographed. When the official photographer requested they turn to face him, for a photograph, any of them could have said, "Oh, give me a few seconds to get out of your shot. I don't want to be photographed, I, um, am having a bad hair day." By not getting out of the shot, by agreeing to pose for the photograph, they gave their consent, in 2011.
I would have thought that the decision as to whether to keep or delete the image would lie in a DR, not with the VRT member.
Krd, do you routinely delete images, after getting a claim of no-consent, without initiating a DR to see whether other people think the no-consent claim is nonsense? Geo Swan (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I said that the VRT can assist the requestor with issuing the request, assuming that this was your question. Please let's not duplicate the contect discussion here, this should take plase in the DR. Krd 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sierra Entertainment files

Some time ago, Guywelch2000 (talk · contribs) got permission to upload many scans of Sierra Entertainment games and magazines under a free license. A few of them were deleted because they were not correctly tagged:

However, I think it's very likely that permission was sent for those files. Could someone please double check into this? Ixfd64 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing found, please advise the ticket link. Krd 05:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Emblem of the Peninsula Field Naturalists Club.png

This image was uploaded with the incorrect copyright, which should have been standard open license, CC BY-SA 4.0. The Peninsula Field Naturalists Club (the owner) has sent through the email template providing consent as per 'Supplied by author' template attached to image. Due to the copyright owner sending the email, we do not have access to the VRTS ticket number. We are requesting undeletion and copyright change to CC BY-SA 4.0 when the Volunteer Response Team has had time to process the owner's email. Thank you. JEastaugh (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Please email to permissions-commons(a)wikimedia.org adding "Re:[Ticket#: 2024050710000638]" in the subject line of the email so you can follow the thread. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
PS: The copyright holder never answer the question of the VRT agent. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ticket Number ticket:2024050110006474

Bonjour, la photographe Nathalie Querouil a donné son autorisation pour que la photo de Kenza Chapelle soit publiée sur wikipédia. Elle avait envoyé un mail à l'équipe VRT Khalil Moustahlaf (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Permission sender needs to answer to followup questions. --Krd 09:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
J'ai demandé à la photographe la photo, elle m'a donné son autorisation. Je l'ai téléversé sur wikimédia, vue qu'elle n'a pas de compte d'utilisateur sur wikipédia.
Ensuite, la photographe a envoyé un mail à permissions-frwikimedia.org dans lequel elle accepte l'utilisation de la photo sur wikipédia.
Vous pouvez vérifiez au sein de vos email avec l'équipe VRT.
Merci. Bonne journée Khalil Moustahlaf (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ticket number 2016111910006337

Can the ticket below be used as "permission" for this same Jaan Poska statue in other properly licensed photographs?

Ticket=[18] on this file here:File:Jaan Poska monument Kadriorus, skulptor Elo Liiv, 2016.jpg Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ooligan: I can see the following files mentioned in the ticket.
The ticket isn't too detailed for me to offer any other advice. But fwiw, it shouldn't apply anywhere else. I'd really want to hear for from Kruusamägi as the agent who handled this ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
So, "it shouldn't apply anywhere else" means that other photos containing this same Jaan Poska statue would not be covered by this VRTS ticket (pending any additional information from Kruusamagi). Thanks for looking at the ticket. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi, Could you please respond to my question above? Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This ticket does not deal with any other images whatsoever. Just the ones mentioned there. (haven't I already answered that somewhere? I think I did) Kruusamägi (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2013102510001373

A FFD was filed on Wikipedia in December 2022 discussing whether this OTRS ticket releases YG Entertainment album covers after October 25, 2013 under the CC-BY-2.0 license, in addition to covers released on October 25, 2013 and before. The discussion was closed as keep as is, as it was unclear if covers released after the sending of this ticket were also released under the CC-BY-2.0 license. Could someone from VRT please check the contents of this exchange and see if post-2013 covers are included in this ticket? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say this ticket is completely invalid, as it doesn't mention at all which files it applies to, and all followup e-mails could ne be delivered. --Krd 04:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
According to this comment on the FFD by @Xia (who obtained the permission from YG), this ticket resulted from someone from YG uploading some cover art from the agency under a CC license. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
not again, ah. seriously, how many times are we going to pull this out of the cupboard. YG's marketing team released those images. Yes, chances are that person doesn't work there anymore after more than 10 years of the initial ticket. Feel free to email YG for a clarification if you want to at another email address... Xia (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Licensing VRT verification for multiple images at once

Hello,

I've recently hired a few photographers to take photos on my behalf for use on Wikimedia and Wikipedia: That they would be uploaded and released with eligible licenses (CC-BY and/or CC-BY-SA) was an explicit part of discussions prior to payment and the shoots.

However, there are hundreds, if not thousands of photos that will be uploaded, and asking the photographers to clear a VRT release for each and every image isn't reasonable. I was told that a license template (such as this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Charles_University_permission) can be created to be applied to multiple images for this sort of situation, but even if I can figure out how to create those templates myself (which I may or may not be able to do), I still require assistance from a VRT member to sign off on the licensing information for it to be verified, correct?

Can a VRT member let me know what they need from me (in terms of copies of emails and messages to act as proof of licensing information) or the photographers (if the VRT needs to communicate with them directly?) so I can create the template?

Thank you!

MajoraZ (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't it reasonable? I think it's best to let the photographers provide their permission with the list of uploaded file the permission applies to. That's daily business for everybody. Krd 11:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waf-logo.png

Can someone check if ticket:2024012910009677 can also apply to File:Waf-logo.png? It is currently being used on File:Alpagutpatentlilogo.jpg. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Matrix fwiw, the ticket only releases the file where it has been mentioned. The other file imo should perfectly be fine and seen as a derivative or so of what already was released under a free license? The only difference I see is that of the change in the script of the text. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

VRTS tag

Hi

Per fr:wiki by @JohnNewton8: , could you do the same here? Because she have upload a photo here. So could you do it and add the tag as verified to the photo? Panam2014 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Panam2014: this edit was not written by a VRT Agent, but mentions Ticket:2024032110006761. We have similar {{Verified account}} here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: per his french talk page JohnNewton8 is a VRT agent. I am not able to add the template. Panam2014 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Panam2014: I cannot access the ticket as it appears to be in a different queue. @Jeff G., JohnNewton8 is of course a VRT agent afaics and I believe they can help us here. As for placing the Verified tag, I don't see any need of doing so. Nesrine Slaoui has a total of six edits, out of which two uploads were zapped as copyright violations. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
My two cents: There is no need to let this go through VRT. If the uploader says it is an auto-potrait, then the process is unnecessary. The permissions become very clear at the same moment. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Per m:Special:CentralAuth/JohnNewton8, he is not now. Per this log, he never was. OTOH, you are not a French Wikipedia Admin, so you may not place that tag there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: probably a mistake. see here. @Aafi: no need to a tag in the photo but a tag is needed in her user page to avoid a risk a people will ask for proof that she is NS. Panam2014 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Jeff G.: agents who have access to the global permissions queues can be located through logs on Meta, not those who have access to specific language queues or other queues of "local nature". They're still a VRT agent having access to a specific view. Such logs could only be found on our internal wiki. I'm certain that this ticket is is info-fr queue to which John has access. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Panam2014 "May" is a very weird assumption given the activeness of this user. If they're uploading their own work, no body would be asking them who they are unless there is a doubt. Their username is not blocked either for any kind of impersonation. If in any case permissions are sought on any file, these should be clarified on an individual cases unless there is something like a "bulk" or a plenty of images that are on the way to be uploaded and might need the permission. I'd have perhaps agreed to place the Verified account tag if the wiki username was different from the real name, where people would surely have doubted the uploader's identity. This is not the case here. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi: But French users asked her to prove her identity to avoid any theft, which she accepted. The same objection could have been made on Wikimedia Commons. But the simplest thing would be to take the ticket validated by John here without asking her to send the verification elements a second time. Because in itself it is easy to take the name of a famous person and publish their photos here. Panam2014 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi: I also think that since she has provided some proof via VRT, it is legitimate to add that tag on her user page on Commons. And I think the opposite of what you said: since her user name is one of a real person, a verification of her identity is necessary. Panam2014 made this request after asking me, and I declined it since I am not a VRT agent now. Yann (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yann, hmm. I really don't have an idea what is in the ticket. It is in a different queue to which I don't have access. My opposing to tagging the account as verified is based on very low activity of the user. @JohnNewton8: can tell us what is in the ticket. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I confirm that:

  • I am a vRT agent, a sysop and an OS on fr-WP
  • Through the above mentionned ticket (on info-fr file), user:Nesrine Slaoui confirmed her identity

Regards JohnNewton8 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ganímedes, JohnNewton8, Yann, and Aafi: could you conclude the request? An admin could also made a soft redirect. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a note on her user page. Yann (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I've got not enough permission to see the ticket. Sorry. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason for account verification without cause at Commons. --Krd 11:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Commons Volunteers. Thank you for your time. A month ago I have uploaded several pictures of Sara Ballent (a dead relevant scientist), specifying owner and authors. The owner sent the permission email (I have receive the email too). However, it seems that the permissions were no enough. Could you please help me in understanding the reason? I have spent a lot of time in this small project (dealing with non wikimedians is a real hard work). Regards, Fernando. FMA (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a ticket number? --Ganímedes (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2022110510005531

Can someone please check this ticket? On the file page the uploader claims to have bought the copyright and usage rights from the photo studio Photoatelier ISO25 ("Von Viveka04 erworbenes Copyright plus Nutzungsrechte durch ISO25. Vertrag zugesandt"). This obviously cannot be true because the copyright (or Urheberrecht, rather) is non-transferable by German law. If the ticket was issued on the same claim, you may want to reconsider. --2003:C0:8F26:B900:9DD2:C6D4:9052:5C73 22:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it (recent post, it was discussing a book cover, but I'm not sure where it was) while you can't actually transfer copyright in Germany, you can sell an unlimited license, even an exclusive one, which has pretty much the same effect. I presume that could be an exclusive and unlimited license, which would have exactly the same effect as transferring copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
You can sell your images with any license you like, but that would be for the copyright holder to decide. So, we are going in circles: We need the consent of the copyright holder.
However that may be, the claim that the user has "bought" the copyright definitely is false. They may have made the claim in good faith, but that does not alter the fact that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of copyright here, and I would not trust the uploader with any other claims they may have made concerning the license. --2003:C0:8F4D:A00:CD24:EA5A:255F:3F46 09:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I obviously have no way to assess the legal expertise of someone posting anonymously from an IP address, but I do not believe a CC license requires the explicit consent of a copyright holder, as long as there is a clear chain of consent. If there is a document from the copyright holder granting party B an unlimited license, including full rights to relicense, then as I see it party B is perfectly capable of granting a valid CC license. Yes, we might need VRT to validate that said document exists although, honestly, if party B is an established GLAM, government, NGO, etc., I presume that in the absence of contrary evidence, we'd take their word exactly as we usually do for similar claims of copyright transfer or work-for-hire by similar organizations in countries that allow that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that reasoning. I usually require further evidence/documentation of such facts, but the end result of that logic I second. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Apparently you make your reasoning depend on your assessment of my legal expertise. In other words, you are making this an ad personam argument. I cannot see that my IP address says anything more or less about my legal expertise than a registered nickname would.
Anyway, I am not asking that you believe in me or my legal expertise. I am simply asking that you get your information about German Urheberrecht from wherever you like. Ask your German colleagues, or take it from Wikipedia, or the source of your choice.
I felt it was my responsibility to give you the information and this warning so you could act upon it, and that's that. If you decide that this information is untrustworthy simply because it comes from an IP user, and you are instead going to trust an uploader who has made a claim that is definitely false ("Von Viveka04 erworbenes Copyright") and you prefer to just wait and see if the copyright holder will sue Wikimedia Commons, well, that's your business. I am not going to be the one who is going to get into trouble. So now do what you will. --2003:C0:8F1E:700:E952:4631:E674:7C12 12:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ticket is valid. The claim that copyright cannot be transferred is entire nonsense. --Krd 12:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

2024051410005487

Can someone check ticket:2024051410005487? Someone just replaced bunch of PD-old templates with {{PermissionTicket|id=2024051410005487}}, which makes very little sense to me. Not sure why we need VRT ticket for PD files but we definitely need licenses. Jarekt (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Who replaced things where? Krd 07:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: Evidently, Mussklprozz replaced with or added that template some 3542 times per this search.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G., @Krd, we received permission for the whole Category:Media contributed by the Musée Saint-Raymond of Toulouse from the museum. I was not aware that the permission tag would replace any licence tags. Mussklprozz (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Mussklprozz it is usually task of VRT volunteer to add {{PermissionTicket|id=2024051410005487}} to the files, not other people. That is to prevent users adding bogus {{PermissionTicket}}s the their files. You also removed bunch of license tags from the files, like here. Use pet scan to find the rest. --Jarekt (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jarekt I am a VRT volunteer. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The problem was obviously that someone placed the licence tag into the permissions field, where it does not belong. Thanks for providing the petscan. I restored the licence tag into the files listed therein. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mussklprozz: Why does it not belong there?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Seconding Jeff's question. I have about 60,000 uploads, virtually all of them with the license in the permissions field. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Because it should be in the License section of the file description. One type of fact in one place. To make automatic processing of file descriptions feasible. – Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Having a separate licensing section is certainly appropriate, and some of our upload tools do that automatically, but is there anywhere you can find it as a standard or even a guideline that they shouldn't be in the Permissions section? Again, this has been my general practice for approximately two decades, and this is literally the first time I've been told I'm doing it wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, @Jmabel, no personal blame intended. I also don't know of any official Wikipedia guideline that recommends this. As you wrote yourself, it is just appropriate. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Mussklprozz thank you for fixing them. --Jarekt (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2013032610004579

ticket #2013032610004579 I was wondering if this ticket has the permission from the architect or the photographer Other photographs of the museums interior do not have a VRT ticket, therefore my doubt. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no museum photographs in this ticket. Which image do you refer to? Krd 08:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The ticket seems to be valid for several files, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -003.jpg, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -014.jpg, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -008.jpg among others. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
That's completely invalid. Krd 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: what is "completely invalid"? The ticket? Paradise Chronicle's last statement? Something else? Jmabel ! talk 14:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, fwiw, the ticket does not mention any of the files mentioned by @Paradise Chronicle. It does impact some images but those are not what PC has stated above. I am producing the list of images this ticket impacts:
With that, I don't think there is anything else that is missed. This ticket is not valid for anything else. ─ Aafī (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. The ticket is invalid for the use of museum interior, see: Commons:Deletion requests/User:Raboe001/Permission MBM. Krd 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

File:International Philosophy Olympiad official Logo, made by Sacha Pierluigi (France).png

the same file was uploaded as File:International Philosophy Olympiad Logo, made by Sacha Pierluigi (France).png. but the file is deleted. is it possible to transfer the VRT ticket? --eien20 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Uploader requested deletion of that file because it is incorrect. Krd 14:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thanks. I'll request to get them to send a new vrt ticket . --eien20 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --eien20 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Draft instructions for giving permissions to accounts to upload content from an organisation

Hi all

I've been working to help organisations (mainly in the UN) share their content on Commons for many years and one thing I've always found difficult is what happens when an organisation wants to share a lot of files at once, it becomes difficult for them to upload the files, or for me to do it for them. Recently I found out there is a was to for an organisation to give permission to an account to upload content from their organisation, however I can't find any instructions at all on how to do it, so I've started to draft some. User:John_Cummings/VRT_organization_permission

Please can you tell me if there are any issues with what I've drafted so far, what is missing etc. I'm not a VRT volunteer so I don't understand exactly how your internal systems work, but hopefully by simply using the standard VRT permission ID template this should make it simple to integrate. I know that it will make it easier for organisations to contribute content on a large scale and hopefully this will mean a larger number of organisations make mass donations to Commons.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As already pointed out at different venues, such generalisations don't work. Cases are different. Please negotiate with the VRT for individual solutions. Krd 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Krd, thanks, a couple of questions:
  1. Has anyone tried to write instructions before on this process? Are they still available somewhere?
  2. What specifically can't be documented/generalised? What specifically doesn't 'work' in terms of providing an overview or guidance for this process?
  3. What in your experience are the parts of the process that need to be created individually for different organisations?
  4. As you've helped people do this before, how did they find out about this as a possibility? I've never seen anything written down about it, I found out by accident after 10+ years of doing Commons uploads.
  5. Are there many Commons people who help organisations give permission for an account? I'd like to know their experiences as well.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I don‘t like this kind of interrogation. What exact problem do you intend to resolve? Krd 19:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Krd this is absolutely not supposed to be an interogation :) I'm just trying to understand why you think providing instructions for such a useful process won't work and what may be possible to document. You seem to be the only person who knows how this works, that's why I've asked you the questions. I guess the problems I'm trying to resolve is that while being able to approve an account for uploads is an extremely useful feature, currently there doesn't seem to be any way to find out this is possible beyond word of mouth and no clear way to learn how to do it. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that you want to know the process in detail only for the reason not to follow it. All solutions have been well outlined to you at different places: A. put the files under a free license at the source, or B. contact the VRT, briefly explain your intention, and follow their suggestion for the best solution for the individual case. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I've dealt with verified accounts before, but primarily in the case of individuals. For these situations involving individuals, a complex licensing statement is not needed; a mere online proof of identity will suffice (e.g. an email from an address listed on the person's official website confirming the name of their Wikimedia account). This is because once the identity is confirmed, releasing entirely self-created works is no different from any other Commoner who needs no verification because their works have no other online presence. I've dealt with organizations as well but the process has always been adhoc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much King of Hearts, very helpful to explain that invdividuals can do this as well. Do you know if the process for individuals documented anywhere? Also could you describe your process when you've done this for organisations? I'd like to include it in the documentation :) John Cummings (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Verified accounts are to ensure that the person really is the person they are claiming. Regarding permissions this is only half of the story, because it doesn't at all say that the person is the copyright holder of the files in question, so is no replacement for explicit permission. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Krd I think there is some kind of missunderstanding, I'm not suggesting anything is changed relating to explicit permission for uploading files, I'm just trying to document the process to make it easier for people to follow, or at the very least know it exists in the first place. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by verifying an account. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered. Contact the VRT about your issue, and you will get help, in nearly all cases in form of very simple and easy to answer questions. It is impossible to create a helpful documentation that covers all possible scenarios, as copyright issues are different for each case and each source country. Most likely you are misleading users even more, and create additional work for the VRT. Please stop it. Krd 11:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The use-case for which John's suggested process is a solution is a fairly common one; I've used a very similar process, more than once, without issue. The questions he asked are not an "interrogation", and if you are not willing to answer them, then it is reasonable for anyone reading to dismiss your objections as unfounded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

SOHO imagery follow-up

Hi all. An email was sent to VRT from an @esa.int address on 02/27/2024 at 14:33 UT with a response from VRT coming in at 14:36 UT the same day opening ticket:2024022710008671. The contents of the @esa.int email pertains to the discussion at Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA#Revisiting SOHO warning: redux wherein the removal of the line in {{PD-USGov-NASA}} referencing the w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is being discussed. Can a VRT agent weigh in to this discussion with the information given in the email?

Additionally, do the contents of this email have implications for all of the applicable SOHO imagery that may have been wrongfully deleted in the past? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW. there was an earlier interaction with ESA now 14 years ago. This interaction is logged under 2010012510051743. Please remember however that things can change in 14 years (notably since ESA itself applied a policy of using Creative Commons). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
If I remember correctly there was exception for commercial use made back (on their own website), that the community didn't like and I asked about it and I basically got the same information back as was stated on the website and a confirmation that there was no explicit license like Creative Commons that applied. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I remember reading about this past communication in your comment to this discussion. I provided a direct quote from the recent email that VRT was copied on in the discussion that prompted the email to VRT which gives specific licenses. In hindsight, I probably should have inquired about this past correspondence in my request. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket #2024052610000558

File:2020 Camaro 2SS.jpg

Ticket:2024052610000558

This image is clearly a copyrighted promotional image, yet the uploader claims it as their "own work" and does not indicate its original source (e.g. General Motors). Does the VRTS ticket indicate that GM (or whomever the actual copyright holder is) gave permission for this image to be uploaded to Commons? --Sable232 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

From the ticket it is plausible that the original photographer gave permission. If you have any different evidence, please provide it. Krd 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024052310010338

File:Anthony Gavard portrait.jpg ticket:2024052310010338 Hello, I'm the uploader and claims it as my own work. But a moderator said that since I'm in the photography, the holder of the rights is the photographer. But there is no photographer. This image was taken with my own phone, and since I'm in it, of course I asked someone to take it, but that doesn't make him the photographer - or elsewhere a tripod can be owner of rights. I answered the moderator last week, but have no feed back yet. Can someone tell me how it's going ? Thank you for your time ! Totolezero (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's going good, you just got response. --Krd 06:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Michael Gudinski Credit Brian Purnell of Mushroom Creative House.jpg

Uploader says they sent an email for this file (and File:Michael Gudinski Credit Brian Purnell of Mushroom Creative House - cropped.jpg) but I see no VRT tags or related activity in these files' history. Could a VRT agent please check if any exists? DMacks (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: I tried searching with all possible strings, username, author name, source link, file links, names, but couldn't find anything. Where was the permission sent? If the file pages haven't been updated for the two years then it was unlikely received. It needs to be sent again. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Permission received files

Would a VRT member mind taking a look at the following files? They were tagged with {{Permission received}} about a month ago by Krdbot. If their licensing issues haven't been resolved by now, then perhaps they never will.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The file will be deleted after 30 days, which is still some days to go. Krd 05:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that Krd. I'm aware of that's how things work. I'm just curious though as to whether there's been any attempt made by the uploader or whoever emailed VRT at trying to resolve whatever problems there were with the email. I'm assuming a VRT member did reply to the original CCONSENT email to let that person know there was a problem, but I'm not sure that's how things work. Is another email sent out as the 30-day deadline draws near as a reminder that the file in question is going to be deleted if things aren't resolved asap? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
No. @Marchjuly. Ideally, as stated elsewhere, if there is no response for 30 days after a VRT agent responds to the ticket, the file gets deleted. VRT folks are very few and it is very difficult to follow up and remind people that they haven't gotten back to us. Once an agent responds, the ticket is by-default marked as closed. If it doesn't receive a response/valid permission within 30 days, it won't be marked as open by us. It just remains there as it is in the archives. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Haraszti_Péter_portré.jpg

Dear All, Would a VRT member mind taking a look at the following file? https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024060310011677 It was tagged with source info missing by Krdbot. The phot link is: File:Haraszti_Péter_portré.jpg I added the source and the author too. I even asked the author to upload the file to his own website. Please check it for me! Thank you. Kisscsi (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ticket has just been answered. --Krd 08:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Christophe Szpajdel images

Last April 20, I uploaded two pictures of Christophe Szpajdel, after receiving the original high-resolution files and permission from the photographer and copyright owner (Kevin Eisenlord). The pictures were: File:Christophe Szpajdel 2016-1.tif and File:Christophe Szpajdel 2016-2.tif.

On April 23, Eisenlord filled out the permission request form via the release generator. By May 1, the permissions had not been added to the files, so I posted on this noticeboard asking for feedback. It was suggested that Eisenlord re-send the permission form a second time, which he did on May 4. On May 9, I asked for an update at which time I was told that the permission email had been received properly and the tickets only needed to be updated on the images' pages once the volunteer team got around to it. However, I was notified that the two images were deleted earlier today, with the note "No ticket permission since 4 May 2024". Can someone please look into what happened? Thanks! Bricks&Wood (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If possible please provide the ticket numbers. Krd 15:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I no longer have access to the ticket numbers because the pages were deleted... Pinging @User:Aafi who had access to the tickets during the April/May discussion linked above. Bricks&Wood (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Please encourage th permission sender to reply to our question the got on the same day they sent the permission, 4 May. Krd 17:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, tickets are ticket:2024050410002311 and ticket:2024050410002329, respectively. But I assume Krd is correct about there being an unanswered question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel @Krd The sender cannot find that email. Can you please send it to him again? Bricks&Wood (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bricks&Wood: I'm not on the VRT. I determined the ticket numbers by looking at the deleted pages (I'm an admin). - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 05:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't mark this as done yet because the files have not been un-deleted nor the permissions added. I plan to follow up with you guys here every couple days until that's completed. Bricks&Wood (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The ticket has been closed as unsuccessful because the sender does not provide permission. Please negotiate with them if required. --Krd 05:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand Police mug shots

There seem to have been conflicting views over whether mug shots taken by the NZ Police are public domain. (At any rate, the response I received from the NZ Police indicated that their mug shots are not freely licensed.) I raised this question here but did not get a response. Can the Admins please explain ticket:2024030110007726 ticket:2024022610012756 vs. ticket:2024021210003685? Thanks, Muzilon (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to the tickets but reading your posts and the deletion requests linked, I'm not sure what's going on. While the police does not claim copyright (as per Squirrel) they also say their mug shots are not freely licensed. What does that mean? If there is no clear indication the police is releasing mug shots under a free license or into the public domain, since COM:NEW ZEALAND does not state they already are, then the files should be delted and remain deleted. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
See the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brenton_Tarrant.png. A contributor uploaded a NZ Police mugshot whose copyright status was questioned (by me). The uploader responded that he'd received some sort of copyright clearance from the NZ Police, which he forwarded to VRT. This "clearance" was apparently accepted by an Admin on 19-Feb-2024 - which would have set a precedent for NZ mugshots on Commons. (In the meantime I received a contrary email from the NZ Police saying their mug shots are not freely licensed.) Then on 24-Feb-2024 a different Admin deleted the mugshot with a note about "copyright violation". There have been previous cases where uploaders have asserted that NZ police mugshots are "public domain". So, perhaps Commons needs to add a definitive statement to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand. Muzilon (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Tagging User:The Squirrel Conspiracy and User:Krd, who seem to be the two Admins involved with these tickets. Muzilon (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
ticket:2024030110007726 does not appear to be relevant to this case. ticket:2024022610012756 is the second ticket in this case. It specifies that the response that we received in ticket:2024021210003685 was an error, and pointed us towards the NZ PD's copyright page, which contradicted the first ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. (I have corrected the pertinent ticket number in my OP.) It seems curious that the NZ Police apparently contradicted themselves on this issue. Muzilon (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Bongo Cat Redraw.png

This VRT-confirmed file is User:GiraffeWorld's COM:DERIV close redrawing of a meme image by named Twitter user Strayrogue. Under COM:DERIV, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse.

Can somebody with VRT access confirm for me whether ticket:2019100310000707 includes confirmation that that Strayrogue licenced their work to GiraffeWorld for reuse in this particular way? Or is it just GiraffeWorld confirming that they personally drew the uploaded image? Belbury (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury: It is not confirmed in the ticket the uploader is the same person as the creator of the twitter image. They appeared just using it to create this image. It was thought the image just consists of simple geomatric shapes. Ellywa (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Thanks. So there's no suggestion that it was created with the permission of the Twitter user, just that the uploader and/or VRT reviewer felt that the original drawing of a cat was simple geometry so we didn't need to seek permission from the artist or credit them in the author field?
I'm puzzled that the image isn't actually flagged as {{PD-geometry}} - or that we haven't just used the original Twitter image! I'll take it to a deletion discussion over the "no original authorship" claim, if there's no permission here. Belbury (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ticket #2009063010002351

Requesting check on ticket #2009063010002351 — Does the ticket owner claim to be from Gibson Ridge Radar? A Commons patroller added it + the ticket immediately after removing a US-GOV copyright template. Basically, who claimed the ticket? The person on Twitter who posted the public-domain info, or “Gibson Ridge Radar” as stated by the patroller who added the ticket. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ticket is from 2009, last entry from 2012, and I won't say if or if not it was valid in 2009, but in any case not sufficient per today's standards. I think it shouldn't be used for new files which are not mentioned in it. --Krd 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: This opens a bit of a can of worms as to what licensing would be correct for this file, which is a screenshot/recording of public domain data rendered using a non-free software program. I tagged the file with the ticket because it pertains specifically to screenshots from that software program, but if the ticket is insufficient the file (and potentially several others) may need deleted depending on what its actual copyright status is. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(See also this for additional background on the issue.) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you see any license mentioned in the ticket, or any claim who is a copyright holder of what for which reason, and/or why permission from the sender is required at all? I don't. Krd 10:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm a little confused; Are you saying that permission isn't needed for screenshots of public domain radar data rendered using non-free software programs? I would be fine with that, I just didn't think that was the case. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure and I haven't read all discussions, but I think if a ticket is applied, it should be clear from the ticket who is the copyright holder for which reason, because otherwise they cannot give any permission.
At first impression I'd think that if nothing copyrighted is reproduced, then no permission is needed. Krd 10:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussions to read related to radar images:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/05#File:Evolution of the Minden–Harlen tornado.gif (Request for clarification from EN Wiki) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg. The deletion request was about a radar screenshot from RadarOmega, a radar application just like Gibson Ridge Radar. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:IrfanView Logo2.svg

Could someone on the VRT team please review this DR and the reference to a permission and comment about where we are. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: ✓ Done, Reviewed, permissions updated and DR closed. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This is an old ticket from 2015 releasing the website content under CC BY-SA 4.0 and I feel it would be better to create a template if any such other examples exists. The ticket was nicely approved by @Natuur12 back then. ─ Aafī (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment@Aafi: There are a range of templates based on cc-by-sa-4.0 visible via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3ACc-by-sa-4.0&namespace=10. The easiest way looks to be to build something with $1 usage and just put in some text about the website; or put a VRT ticket ref on top and the standard template below.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Review of Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Victoria_Niro

Hi. There is a VRT reference on one of the files mentioned in the deletion request. Could we please have a confirmation of the VRT on File:Victoria Niro.jpg and a comment on the DR. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Answered in the DR. --Krd 15:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Kirawi3.JPG

Die VRT-Freigabe geht möglicherweise an der Sache vorbei: Das abfotografierte dreidimensionale und bemalte Werk könnte seinerseits urheberrechtlich geschützt sein. Dann hätten wir nach wie vor ein Copoyright-Problem. GerritR (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Stimmt. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirawi3.JPG --Krd 05:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

How to report abusive comments?

Two commentators have created delete requests for my recent video media which are both factually incorrect and abusive. How do I report these? Ctfac (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ctfac: Hi, This board is about COM:VRT requests only. You can answer in the deletion request, like you already did. I suggest that you read COM:SCOPE. Wikimedia Commons is a project hosting educational content, not for testing, and not a social media. Yann (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

File:לירן כוג'הינוף - עותק.jpg

Please undelete File:לירן כוג'הינוף - עותק.jpg. There is VRT permission ticket:2024061310002855 for this file. Thanks Hanay (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 07:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Anne Karine Dybdal.jpg

Hi, Could someone please review the file (listed as a screenshot) and the report on the VRT listed in the source. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: For me it shows, "This ticket does not exist, or you don't have permissions to access it in its current state". I guess the ticket is in a specific language queue. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nsaa:  ? Krd 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The [https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=12798541 VRT ticket looks fine: "Med dette bekrefter jeg herved at jeg har alle rettigheter til de vedlagte bilde. Jeg lisensierer dem herved under lisensen «Creative Commons Attribution 3.0»." (Norwegian). B.r. Nsaa (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Before I send this text to the copyright owner, I would like the VRT to agree with this text (or modify it)ː

    "I hereby affirm that I am (NAME) the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media works and my father’s sculpture works depicted in these media and uploaded by me to my <nowiki>https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey</nowiki> (need password) and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that works. I agree to give the rights to a volunteer editor Wavepainter to use and upload the above-mentioned content to Wikimedia Commons and publish it under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Heirs International (CC-BY-SA 4.0 heirs International). I acknowledge that by doing so..."

Thank you, ~~~~ Wavepainter (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The copyright owner use to be the photographer. The URL is the one of the file uploaded in Wikimedia Commons, not in external sites. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but maybe I didn't explain it very well. The sculptor's son owns the copyright to both the photos and the sculptures depicted in them. We are not discussing or questioning that. He uploaded all these photos himself to his own https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey... He doesn't have time to upload all these files to Wiki Commons and he gives me the right to open his site (with password), take files from there and upload them to Wiki Commons with a licence CC-BY-SA 4.0 heirs International.
How should he write this authorisation? ~~~~ Wavepainter (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
How many files are we talking about, to be uploaded i which time scale? Krd 04:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I got the first meil from him, "Exhibition 2017. Part One." There will likely be more parts 2, 3, etc.  The link in this meil leads to 182 photos. It is quite clear that you have to pick and choose significantly less. He doesn't want to do it himself and so he is happy to give me permission. Thank you. ~~~~ Wavepainter (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Wavepainter You might have him spell out that he is authorizing you to make a selection of what should be uploaded.
@VRT: It seems to me that this should be straightforward. As far as I can see, it's just like an institution letting someone upload on their behalf. But of course its up to the VRT, not me as a admin, to say so. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. And that's exactly where I started: I proposed for discussion the text of a letter that I would send to him and he would send to VRT on his behalf. That is, someone (from VRT?) should say that the copyright owner should send exactly this text. That is, I ask to approve\modify the text in advance.
"I hereby affirm that I am (NAME) the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media works and my father’s sculpture works depicted in these media and uploaded by me to my https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey... (need password) and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that works. I agree to give the rights to a volunteer editor Wavepainter to use and upload the above-mentioned content to Wikimedia Commons and publish it under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Heirs International (CC-BY-SA 4.0 heirs International). I acknowledge that by doing so..."
~~~~ Wavepainter (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no such general letter. At best please upload the files and let the copyright holder contact VRT afterwards to provide permission. Krd 18:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: really? Then how do we let anyone upload on behalf of an institution that owns copyrights? - Jmabel ! talk 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
There are always several possibilities, but we are not talking about anybody here, but about the case requested, and I think, based of 13 years experience, I have outlined the variant that fits best for all sides. Why not give it a try? Krd 06:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
How could we verify files that are not uploaded in Wikimedia Commons but in a site with a pass we don't have? That's what I don't get it. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Wavepainter: that is exactly why I think what needs to happen here is for the heir (the son) to designate Wavepainter as operating on his behalf. If the heir/son were to be uploading the images themselves, presumably all you'd need to do is verify their identity, exactly what is needed here. If they then say someone is acting on their behalf, what more could be needed? - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Chances are high that whatever will be recommended here, the VRT cannot accept it because relevant aspects have not been considered. This is not a what-if game. This is also not about what one needs to say. Commons needs permission from the copyright holder. You are free to choose your way to establish that. The easiest way for everybody involved is to let the copyright holder contact the VRT. If you don't trust the VRT, why involve them at all? Krd 07:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: Everyone here understands that the copyright holder needs to contact VRT to grant the permission. My question is why they cannot do that by designating an account as acting on their behalf with their permission. That's not a matter of "trusting VRT": it is a matter of trying to understand policy.
Do I understand that your are saying that the way you think this should be done is for Wavepainter to do these uploads, either all at once or in batches, mark them with {{PP}}, and have the son/heir send email after that to COM:VRT confirming a grant of the license in question? (If that's the case then, Wavepainter, make sure in advance that you know you are using a license that is acceptable to them.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, for me is absolutely fine if I upload my chosen images and mark them with {{PP}}, after that the copyright owner (son/heir) sends email to COM:VRT confirming a grant of the license in question (CC-BY-SA 4.0 heirs International). Is there any general letter to COM:VRT or in this case the text I suggested (see above) is also okay? Wavepainter (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered. The text to be used is the standard text. If anything different arises when seeing the images or knowing the situation, this will negotiated with the permission sender. Krd 15:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Wolfen-lofi-01.jpg and File:Wolfen-wolfen-lofi-02.jpg

A few days ago (26 may 2024), I uploaded two images to Commons, they were File:Wolfen-lofi-01.jpg and File:Wolfen-wolfen-lofi-02.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeanne_Angerie). Unfortunately, both files were deleted because this media lacked authorization information.

The problem is that the designer had told me by email that she agreed with sharing the files and that she had written by giving the information. I have on the advice of my mentor @HenriDavel (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:HenriDavel#Question_de_Jeanne_Angerie_(7_juin_2024_%C3%A0_19:59)) and tried to contact the Jyp user (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Jyp#Commons)But I didn’t get any answers. Idon't know if my question can be accept in this page.

What can I do to have the files restored, please? Jeanne Angerie (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the ticket number the permission sender got, or please ask them to send the permisison again per COM:VRT. Krd 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Japonbu.jpg

Hi, I'm pretty new to this. The YouTuber in question told me that he sent the email. Can someone update me on the issue? Hollowjp (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ticket received 4 hours ago. Krd 04:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Elitsa Vasileva, 2019.jpg

I want to know the whole conversation. In their site they use lower resolution, however anyone can find the high resolution version on [www-old.cev.eu]. So does the permission apply both? Elenktra (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Ticket in permissions-it queue. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elenktra The permission applies to the files at https://www.legavolley.it/ Ruthven (msg) 09:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

general question: general permission

Where can I send some sort of "general permission" (preferred as private mail)?From time to time I upload fotos from another (non-wiki) user and it would be much easier this way. I already do that this way for those pictures: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_by_Wolfgang_Reich

Is a text (german) "Ich bestätige, dass User subbass1 bis auf Weiteres alle Bilder von mir unter der Lizenz CC BY SA 4 veröffentlichen darf. (Name/Unterschrift)" sufficient? Thanks, --Subbass1 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Subbass1 The process is the same: ask to write to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The permission should look like: "I, XXX, give the permission to User:YYYY to upload photographs that I shot with license CC BY SA 4.0. The photos are taken with the <model> of camera." If the photographer's name/pseudo appears in the metadata, it's better. Cheers Ruthven (msg) 09:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, will do...
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2022080610000987

Ticket permissions have been added to File:Metawin Opas-iamkajorn visiting Prada Shine Pop-Up Store at Siam Paragon.jpg by the IP user (diff). Could someone please check the status of this ticket? Syunsyunminmin (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Invalid. --Krd 14:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Help

I have sent severals permission email for my image uploads before my username has been changed (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lahsim_Niasoh&diff=prev&oldid=889314587). Then I just manually renamed my new username to my files authorship (those files were also captured by myself). Before my username was Yubrajhn and new username is Lahsim Niasoh. So please review those files, I didn't give authorship to another person. Two username is mine and I am the author + those files were uploaded by me. Again I am very sorry for my behavior. Please take a step so that my new username manually changes to files authorship don't affect to get the files copyright Permission. Thank you so much. My English is weak so please pardon me again. Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lahsim Niasoh: ✓ Done. Thanks for the note. signed, Aafi (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

demande de permission

Bonjour,

je suis numismate en Belgique, président du Cercle Numismatique Liégeois. Je rédige gratuitement, et bénévolement des articles pour notre Bulletin, pour des magazines numismatiques et notamment pour le Bulletin de Cgb.Fr. Je vous adresse ce mail pour vous demander la permission d'utiliser une des vos images, bien sur en notant clairement votre référence. Pis je les utiliser quand elle appartiennent au domaine public

Bien cordialement

Dr Sferrazza Agostino Agostino sferrazza (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Out of scope of this board. --Krd 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
True, but not a reason not to be helpful.
@Agostino sferrazza: Commons just hosts images; we don't own them. If the image is indeed in the public domain, feel free simply to use it. If the file page in question indicates a license, then you can conform to the terms of that license and use it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Merci Agostino sferrazza (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The portrait uploaded by the author has been removed

The portrait of a sculptor Nina Niss-Goldman by Alexander Ibragimov (File:Portrait of the Sculptor Nina Niss-Goldman by Alexander Ibragimov (1988).jpg) with the motivation "No permission since 23 June 2024" has been removed. Please, note that this portrait was uploaded many years ago by the author Alexander Ibragimov himself. This portrait can still be found on the author's web page https://www.instagram.com/p/COPk1WHByiF/. Thank you for your kind attention.~~~~ == Wavepainter (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

COM:VRT --Krd 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Heri Hermansyah

The copyright owner of these photos have already sent their license several weeks ago. Requesting license verification for the images Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 22:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket number? Krd 05:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea. They've just sent their email with the subject: Release permit for photos of Professor Heri Hermansyah, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 23:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Please ask them to provide the ticket number they got in response, or to send the permission again. Krd 18:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Krd, I think this may be Ticket:2024070110007899, of which you appear to be the owner. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Then, as nearly always, the permission sender please should answer our followup questions. --Krd 12:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2012081410006029

Can someone look up ticket:2012081410006029 and tell us what it says. According to Commons:Village_pump#German_currency_files_without_machine-readable_license it should have a letter from some German agency about PD status of Deutsche Mark bank notes. Jarekt (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The ticket contains an e-mail from the German Federal Bank stating:
  • They cannot answer if DM notes are PDGov ("Amtliches Werk"). This has to be decided by court if required, but they are not aware of any precedent. They do not object the use of the images if they are unmodified and used in good faith.
  • They don't have any business in Euro, GDR currency or Reichmark and refer to the department of finance, or the KFW regarding GDR.
In my opinion the ticket confirms nothing helpful. Krd 05:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024053110011063

I attempted to create a template for portraits of members of the Kentucky legislature using this ticket. Could someone summarize the contents of the email, to check that I'm correct in doing this? Thanks! -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The ticket is for specific files only. The template currently is invalid. Krd 14:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
What types of files does the ticket pertain to? Is is restricted by publication date, type of photo, or something else? I have seen this ticket used for several different files. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

--Ganímedes (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2015043010004725

Goodness, what did he tell you in the VRT communication: that File:Peter_Kranke.jpg is a selfie? Who is the photographer = copyright holder? We are talking German copyright here (Urheberrecht) which is non-transferable. The image subject can only be the copyright holder if they themselves took the photo. --2003:C0:8F48:2600:203F:8108:71FA:4477 11:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, FYI: The uploader has been infinitely banned on the German WP for sockpuppetry and undeclared paid editing. --2003:C0:8F48:2600:203F:8108:71FA:4477 12:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket from 2015, incomplete per today's standards. Krd 14:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, File:Peter_Kranke.jpg could easily be self-taken with a self-timer. I've taken pictures of myself that way that look no more like obvious selfies, e.g. File:Joe Mabel self portrait 2020-01-12.jpg; I could probably provide an even better example, but not from a picture currently on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024052210003759

I miss the final processing here. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

? --Subbass1 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Ticket in permissions-de queue. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
As there is another thread about this I'll close this. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2017021510019766

Could you give us some insight into who the ticket names as author of File:Knabenchor ULF in den 1950ern.jpg? The image is marked own work, but is from January 1950. It is possible, but still seems unlikely. If the ticket says something else, I'd be happy to correct the file page. Felix QW (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Permission from 2017 in German. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the ticket is invalid. Additional opinions welcome. Krd 07:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to reopen the ticket. Krd 06:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024071610001911

Hanay (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024071510006104

Does the ticket apply for File:Amandapasanen2020.jpg, too (same photographer & uploader as in File:81A7937.jpg)? Or should the file be {{Npd}}’d for now? --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The ticket does not apply to the mentioned file. Krd 08:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024052210003759

19 files were deleleted without any reason, if course there was a permission mail (german). And there was a "nonsense" request (sorry to say so), which was answered (without further reply, iirc). Please undelete as soon as possible. --Subbass1 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Subbass1: There is always a reason. Did you follow the emailed instructions?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, *I see* no reason. Perhaps some german should jump in here for clearing. (Strange that my files are processed nearly always by the same person (krd)). PS There also were files which weren't affected by the (answered, nonsense, imho) request. I really see it as a bad style then to delete them altogether, sorry. --Subbass1 (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Krd is an admin. He starts almost all tickets in several languages. He's *by far* one of the most active VRT agents, if not the most. So, it's not strange that he processes nearly always your files ... I've checked with the help of Google and I'm not sure to understand the problem. I saw Krd made some questions and request to do something but I'm not sure to fully understand the problem. Can you please clarify a little bit (here or in the ticket, but in English so I can try to follow, please). --Ganímedes (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but no, sorry, I'm not willing to argue the whole story in english. I'll wait for help by german admins. PS If you look up here, you'll see me asking for the very same ticket days/weeks before. At that time the files were online yet. No (helpful) answer there... --Subbass1 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: Kannst du kurz mitteilen, wo es hier hängt? Anscheinend fehlt da noch was zur Bestätigung der Genehmigung. Wenn dem so ist, sollte sich Subbass1 am besten erneut mit demjenigen in Verbindung setzen, der die Mail ans VRT geschickt hat. --Rosenzweig τ 07:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Es wartet auf einen VRT-Mitarbeiter, der es im Rahmen der Situation bearbeiten möchte. Krd 08:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's high time to finally get this issue resolved. krd knows since May 23 that everything of the interior in Ebrach is centuries old. You can also easily read about it on Wikipedia. Besides that the deletion of pictures of the organ consoles was inappropriate also. --Subbass1 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Subbass1,
I have accepted the permission and restored the deleted images. I have some doubts about 1, 2, 3 & 4 because the organ is relatively new (1979) and because the painting on the ceiling also looks fresh to me. This imho does not mean all the photographs are problematic, and whoever thinks the release under CC BY-SA is conflicting with other forms of copyrights, they are free to nominate the contested images for DR. The permission from the photographer is not under discussion, that one is valid. Ciell (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks but there are some files missing yet, e.g. File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(05)_(cropped).jpg, File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(10)_(cropped).jpg
..probably more.
Please restore ALL of them. --Subbass1 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Subbass1,
gern gemacht. :)
I restored all 15 images that were linked in the permission that was send to VRT: in case there are any additional crops made, I can restore them as well but don't have an easy list to work from for this. You can also request undeletion at COM:UNDEL, admins working on undeletion more often might have some additional tricks that can help. Because all the originals now have been restored and VRT permissions have been added, they should be easy to accept. Ciell (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but I got it - please be so kind and undelete - besides the ones I told:
File:Ebrach, Kloster, ehem. Abteikirche (05) (cropped) (cropped).jpg
File:Ebrach, Kloster, ehem. Abteikirche (05) (cropped 2).jpg
File:Ebrach, Kloster, ehem. Abteikirche (01) (cropped).jpg
Then it's done. Thx --Subbass1 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Subbass1 alle sind jetzt wieder zurück // all are back now. Ciell (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. ✓ Done
Perfect. Ciell (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2010061710041251

2010061710041251 Studio Hartcourt released images under a "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported" license. Does their license cover all Studio Hartcourt images, or just the ones they uploaded? There is a movement to delete all the pre 1929 to 1991 images because they are under an active copyright. RAN (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

First, let me be mindful this is an older ticket from 2010. I think nowadays we would have not accepted it as such, it's a bit vague, but as to your question I think it's safe to say that the images uploaded under the specific account are okay, and the release does not cover any future uploads beyond the ones made by User:Studio Harcourt. I'd appreciate if a French speaker could confirm my review. Ciell (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I see that another ticket is related to Studio Harcourt: ticket:2020112910005534. Could you please tell us what it covers? (and I'm a French speaker so I can help you if needed) Ayack (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @Ayack. Only covers a specific file. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024062510006276

Was sent already a month ago - a "general permission" that allows me to upload his photos generally. But it doesn't work yet, I can't insert his name in the license description to generate the permission (text) as I regulary do with photos by Wolfgang Reich. Please advise. --Subbass1 (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Resolved via mail. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Subbass1 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024071610010081

Hanay (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Better venue: vrtwiki:Undeletion requests --Krd 08:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding 10,000 images from an organisation to Commons, what is the best way to do the permissions?

Hi all

I'm exploring helping an organisation upload about 10,000 graphics to Commons, with hopefully many more in future. I will probably use PattyPan to do it because this is the tool I know how to use. There is no simple way for the organisation to openly license the graphics on their website because of how it is structured. I can see a couple of options for how to do the permissions for Commons

  1. I could upload all the images with the {{VRT pending}} template and then send an email with a spreadsheet with the names of all the images. Is there a simple way for a VRT volunteer to mass approve this upload? Also would me uploading 1000s of images with VRT pending get flagged, deleted, blocked etc? I would prefer this option but I don't know if it is possible for VRT to mass approve the images before the timer runs out and the images are deleted.
  2. I think there is a way of getting my account 'blessed' with the correct permission to just upload the images. There don't appear to be any instructions for doing this however.

Is there another way? Is number 1 possible?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not an expert to this topic, but afaik there were several huge donations in the archive history. One example is Category:Images by Christian Bassow. So if there is no satisfying answer in the next days, you may ask the uploader (Raymond) on this discussion page how to process this :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
It might be outdated but still have useful bits: Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Release of big collections.
@John Cummings My advise would be: sort out the written permission first (and make sure you've got everything covered!), and after that get in touch with the local language VRT team to see what works best for you both. I often work with a custom build template, where the WiR can include all the details and the pending template, and I will add the confirmation template when the procedure from the VRT end is completed. In that way, all changes can be addressed with a single edit - also the reason why I page protect the template after I add the permission btw. Ciell (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
If ticket permission is required (i.e. the images cannot be tagged with a CC license at the source), please contact the VRT directly for the best procedure. There may be questions that don't need to be answered in public. Krd 17:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Revision of files in Category:Hof_(Saale)_photographs_taken_on_2024-06-15

Hi!

As the grace period for the files in the named cat is almost over, I would be happy if the permission could be displayed. A permission for the depicted logo was probably not realized after all, but the permissions for the images themselves should be already there.

Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(PS: The oldest files version should probably be deleted then --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC))
Hi @PantheraLeo1359531, please follow up on your email thread with VRT where the question of the logo was addressed. Ciell (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I only have the beginning part of this thread, but the ticket number 2024061710004211 was given there... --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes @PantheraLeo1359531. Please answer that email. :) Ciell (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

2021100310004931

Please look up ticket:2021100310004931, I think it might be related to deleted template:parliament.bg. Jarekt (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ciell and Krd: , Can you guys look into this, as I no longer have access to the tickets? 1800 files use template:parliament.bg that are now sporting {{No license since}} template. I have seen somewhere that ticket:2021100310004931 supports template:parliament.bg, and I hate doing mass undeletions, since we do not have tools in place to restore the images in Wikidata and articles. --Jarekt (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The ticket supports nothing but just refers to: https://www.parliament.bg/bg/terms-of-use Krd 05:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jarekt Krd is correct. The statement on the website has been raised in 2021 here but without any concrete outcome. Ciell (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Shane Lowry 8107.jpg

Is the permission stated here an actual VRT-ticket or is this something that should be deleted? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The ticket:2008020410021415 is in Dutch. @Ciell can you add the {{PermissionTicket}} if confirmed? Thanks! Ruthven (msg) 13:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. Ciell (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks both of you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

GeoJSON under OGL3.0

Hello team I have identified a couple of datasets (GeoJSON in particular) that are currently under a Open Government Licence 3.0. These are from NatureScot and Scottish Government (SIMD datazones). Am I (as an editor) permitted to bulk upload these GeoJSON files using OpenRefine? Or would I need to contact the copyright holders first? I am then hoping to connect the data to the relevant Wikidata items for each datazone. Many thanks in advance for the assistance and advice. Drkirstyross (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The question is not really in scope of this page. Are the datasets really under OGL-3.0, and is that publicly documented? If yes, then you likely can use it. If it's different, then it depends on the situation. Please see: Commons:Village pump/Copyright Krd 10:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024071010008817

Thanks Pollywood King (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply was sent within 24 hours. Permission sender needs to react. --Krd 10:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024072310009721

I was instructed by notification to come here to ask for help in order to confirm received ticket. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket from yesterday. What is your request? --Krd 04:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Berhard Fragner VRT ticket scope

Hi, ticket:2021051710013432 is listed under the file File:GlobeAir DreamTeam.jpg. Does it also include the following files by the same uploader? All can be found on their corporate site prior to being uploaded here.

  1. File:FragnerAudiIngolstadt.jpg
  2. File:Bernhard Fragner, 2020.jpg
  3. File:GlobeAir Fleet on apron airport Linz.jpg

Thanks, Consigned (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Krd 17:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2011040810014308

Does this ticket genuinely release all of the content in the screenshot at File:RawStoryScreenshot2011.jpg under a CC-BY licence, including the main story image of Gov Scott Walker (which is an AP press photo) and the prominent banner adverts for Smiley Central and 1-800-PACK-RAT? Belbury (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It has not been explicitly said. I'd say the ticket should be reopened, and the file should be deleted if no additional information can be obtained. Krd 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Ticket reopened. --Krd 04:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:National Bibliothek Lettlands 1.jpg

Hello. Is the VRTS permission here coming from the heir of the architect (who died in 2017), or from photographer only? See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:National Library of Latvia. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Permission is from the heir of the architect. Krd 16:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Krd thanks for response. This thread can now be closed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024071910001307

Just checking in about the status of this ticket. I reached out to the candidate herself for the photo release. First I proposed she upload File:Ann Johnson Stewart.jpg herself, but at her request I uploaded it. I confirmed this was her copyright, but added the photographer info from the photo's metadata to be thorough. It's my first time uploading something on someone else's behalf, so I hope I followed the steps correctly! Sorry if I'm being impatient. Thesavagenorwegian (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject. We need permission right from the photographer, Lisa Miller. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I have now messaged Lisa Miller. Sorry for the confusion. Thesavagenorwegian (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
She's responded! You'll have permission shortly. Thesavagenorwegian (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024072910010341

I am inquiring about this ticket because the file uploader claims they took photos from this event (dated from 2022), although the extended image details trace to Instagram, which is typically copyright content. The uploader has not yet provided any solid details to validate their claims, and as I am unable to review the ticket myself, I am inquiring about the validity of the uploader's claims of fair use. I did put this file up for deletion so it could be discussed; see the comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christopher McDonald portrait.jpg. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: Having seen people using Snapchat/Instagram in real life for just "filters" and later-on saving the image locally, makes me say that there is not any issue here. The ticket was closed as successful by @Krd after a thorough questioning. I can't seem to find the image elsewhere using TinEye and Google Lens. It is safe to assume there is no copyright violation. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

2024071110011258

Good day. Ticket:2024071110011258) My was deleted Not understand about VRT-agent. I send email with file copyright permission to "Wikimedia Permissions <permissions-uk@wikimedia.org> (Wikimedia)" first at 11.07.2024 and 13.08.2024 (again because file was deleted) Please, check this, and help to restore file. I did everything according to the rules, uploaded the file and sent confirmation of copyright. Uszn19 (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ticket is still open, please be patient. If able please resend permission in English, this may speed up processing. --Krd 13:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
sorry, but this is impossible :( for future, can you send me to mail english version for copyright permission, and in future i will send ua/eng version? Because this is not last situation.
Thanks you. Uszn19 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Please see: COM:CONSENT --Krd 15:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Good day, problem still not solved? You not find my letter about permission?
What a problem for now? Uszn19 (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 00:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Jakabffy 1956 album, photo 01.jpg

Hi,

Did you receive the email from the copyright holder for this file and others from the same series? Thank you. Adam Harangozó (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is impossible to know for sure. A search didn't find anything. Please encourage them to send again. --Krd 09:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Photos of Dilaver Najafov

Dear volunteers,

I have contacted with photographer Dilaver Najafov and he agreed to upload his photos under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. He have sent the required OTRS mail, where he mentioned the links of his account pages from where he agreed to upload his photos, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and got ticket number 2024082610003915. As his permission template will be ready, could you please share it with me so I can upload his photos into Commons under license above.

Many thanks, Interfase (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Interfase, looks like file isn’t yet uploaded to commons. You should upload them first (as the author agreed to give permission). Then provide the files url/name to them, so that they can choose to send permission by specifying the files name/url. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 06:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot of files on his account pages (facebook/instagram etc.). If I upload one of them, can the permission cover all the photos from these pages? Interfase (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Negative. Patiently upload all of the files author have agreed to give permissions. Then ask them to send permission by specifying all of the files name or url. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 06:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
But author already mentioned url links of his official account pages where his photos are uploaded in the mail. I have uploaded one photo from his facebook page here: File:Hasrat Jafarov at the 2024 Summer Olympics.jpg Interfase (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that it is possible to have one unique ticket number for all his photos from the pages he mentioned in his mail and agreed to upload into Commons. Interfase (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I have sent the email [Ticket#: 2024082610003915] with the links to the categories with some of his photos from his facebook page (mentioned in his permission mail). Please check is it OK? Interfase (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Vollpension photos

Hello, folks. First time here, first time doing email permissions. I uploaded six photographs (File:Vollpension Schleifmuehlgasse 2.jpg, File:Vollpension Johannesgasse 1.png, File:Vollpension Schleifmuehlgasse 3.jpg, File:Vollpension Schleifmuehlgasse 4.png, File:Vollpension Schleifmuehlgasse 5.png, File:Vollpension Schleifmuehlgasse.jpg). The permission was sent by the copyright holder before I uploaded them (seemed logical to me at the time) and so no URL was included in the email. I included the PP template. I hope this will be alright. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Should work out, but will be more difficult. If you were cc'd on the email, it would probably be helpful to reply to "all" on the thread with the URLs. (I'm not on the VRT, but this is what I've seen in the past.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Please provide the ticket number. Krd 09:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I replied to all with the URLs. Good idea, Jmabel! Krd, the ticket number I see for the first two files (somehow the only two reviewed so far) is #2024082210008427. Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the question or request? --Krd 13:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

VRT file nominated for deletion

Hello, I've nominated a file that was passed through VRT for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Simon Ekpa portrait, 2023.jpg. I have no idea what the VRT email said, but thought it worth dropping a notification here in case there was something surprising in the email. Best, CMD (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I thnik there is nothing in the ticket that interferes with the deletion rationale. Krd 06:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:9mm Headshot - 2024172151539 2024-06-20 Alpen Flair - Sven - 1D X MK II - 0283 - AK8I8124.jpg

This has a VRT ticket, but I suspect it does not cover the underlying work from which this derives. Can someone check? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The file doesn't have a permission ticket and should be deleted. Krd 06:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2009010310014238

Can someone confirm whether the Ticket:2009010310014238 was issued by the Serbian Progressive Party/Srpska napredna stranka? It is currently used at File:Влада Милоша Вучевића.jpg. Vacant0 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the email came from the official website. Though the license on the file was slightly wrong (GFDL applies, and since per Commons:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria it was first published under GFDL on Wikimedia it should be dual GFDL 1.2/CC-BY-SA 3.0) which I have corrected. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Vacant0 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can this be double checked: File:Okładka książki Niesamowite przygody dziesięciu skarpetek.jpg

Concerns have been raised at pl:Wikiprojekt:Czy wiesz/propozycje/2024-08/Niesamowite przygody dziesięciu skarpetek (czterech prawych i sześciu lewych). The book illustrator is pl:Daniel de Latour, notable artist, but the file was uploaded with the claim "Own work / Author Rysiek lolowsky" yet it was accepted? (The book is notable, I was improving it article on pl wiki at pl:Niesamowite przygody dziesięciu skarpetek (czterech prawych i sześciu lewych)). I'd nom the file for deletion as obvious copyvio with false ownership/author claim, except supposeldy someone reviewed the private correspondence and concluded it is ok? Can more details be shared here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

PS. Ping uploader @Ryziek and editor who spotted the issue at pl wiki @Sidevar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Update: on pl wiki an ip claiming to be the uploader confirmed this is a copyvio (that they are not the illustrator but claimed 'own work' because they took a photo of the cover). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Ticket was perhaps accepted too quickly. Now reopened. --Krd 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sugababes images

I have concerns about File:Sugababes performing at O2 Arena 2023.jpg and File:Sugababes in August 2022.jpg. Despite a ticket being received (and accepted) by the VRT for these images, I have reason to believe that the uploader is not who they say they are and/or do not have appropriate permissions. Ben Birchall is not the photographer of the latter image, as evidenced by [19] and [20]. A previously uploaded and since deleted Girls Aloud image by this user was also sourced from a fan's Twitter account. Breaktheicees (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've answered in the DR. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Unaffiliated Presidential Candidate Brittany Jones.jpg

Is there a ticket associated with the file? --Geohakkeri (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Source site, which certainly appears to be the photographer, says "I release the copyright of the following images and release them into the Public Domain". Why would we need a ticket? - Jmabel ! talk 02:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Geohakkeri & @Jmabel: in ticket:2024070110006407, they say CC BY-SA 4.0. My belief has always been that where explicit permissions are clear, a permission release is not necessary. Regards, Aafi (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Aafi: See my question on the file talk page. The Twitter source page indeed looked good to me until I saw that it was sort of disregarded in Special:Diff/891544873. But maybe that was just a simple mistake by Krd? --Geohakkeri (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The file was uploaded on 17:56, 11 May 2024‎, and the X URL says “2:50 p. m. · 11 may. 2024”. Be careful with the Flickrwashing. Besides, it says Public Domain. Version? And ticket:2024070110006407 says CC BY SA 4.0. Very confusing. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Twitter account had already posted the same photo earlier: https://x.com/GeorgeMicro1/status/1769031711478686156 --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: I assume you are using "Flickrwashing" very loosely, since Flickr is in no way involved. Are you saying you have some reason to doubt that the Twitter/X account in question belongs to the person who took the photo? Can you give any evidence for why we should doubt that? - Jmabel ! talk 21:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm just saying that we must verify all the dates, sources, and licenses. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 02:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2009063010002351

Can someone check what/how Ticket:2009063010002351 plays into File:Radar image of the 2011 Joplin tornado May 22, 2011 2248Z.png? Several discussions on radar images have occurred, which has lead to {{PD-NEXRAD}} becoming a thing. Per the ticket, it says attribution is required for a NEXRAD radar screenshot. Just wanting to check if that ticket is actually for that specific radar screenshot, since this seems to be the sole exception to PD-NEXRAD. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, WeatherWriter . Three permissions were merged under this one, and include:
Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 02:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"Supercell image licensing" ticket:2024091210003725

Hi -- the email thread following the above ticket number concludes with the photographer saying "I do not wish to give up my rights to this photo. Please do not use it." (timestamp Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:18:59 -0500)

Can someone please confirm those words in their email? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the background of the question, why do you need that to be confirmed? Krd 02:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@ChessEric: would like it confirmed in the context of a deletion request --Rlandmann (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I have deleted the file. Thank you! --Krd 03:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"Re: Form submission from: Contact" ticket:2024091210003681

The email thread following the above ticket number has the representative of the rights holder (the director of a county Emergency Management Agency) declining to release the image under a free license: "I would prefer we retain the image rights the way they are." (Timestamp: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:49:55 +0000)

@ChessEric: would like those words confirmed in the context of a deletion request please. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. --Krd 03:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

File:সিরিয়ার দেবশিশু ০১.jpg & File:CUET Canteen 3 graffiti 01.jpg

Hello! An email regarding the permission from the original author of the subject (graffiti) of these two files File:CUET Canteen 3 graffiti 01.jpg & File:সিরিয়ার দেবশিশু ০১.jpg were submitted to the VRTS. [21] However, it was declined stating "the message was not sufficient". What can I do further to establish the permission from the original author? — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 18:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

PS. I have reached up the original author of the files via this link: [22]. I think there should be a way to release the files under proper licence from them. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Mentioning @Tanbiruzzaman. :) — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 19:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Meghmollar2017, ভাই এরকম কোনো মেইলের উত্তর দেয়া হয়নি যেখানে প্রত্যাখ্যানমূলক বা "the message was not sufficient" এরকম কোনো বার্তা ছিল। ফলোআপ প্রশ্ন ছিল অনুমতির বিবৃতি সংরক্ষণে রাখার জন্য। –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 19:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
যদিও, পরের উত্তরে পাওয়ার পরে, ফাইলগুলোর পাতায় অনুমতি যোগ করে দেওয়া হয়েছে। –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 19:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tanbiruzzaman, I see. Gracious! :) — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 19:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 19:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

File:EW51-36 w Stacji Muzeum.png

Hello, I have a question regarding the photo mentioned in the title. I was surprised to find out that the photo was deleted on 29 June 2024 due to "no permission". I don't frequent Commons that much (sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place), so as an author of that photo I don't exactly understand what "no permission" is... I didn't receive a notification about the file, same with any e-mail, could someone elaborate on what exactly was wrong? @Aafi? Kuracyja (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It was tagged as no-permission by Cybularny on 21 June. I'm unsure why you didn't receive a notification. I'd be glad to restore it for another week to assist permissions. Regards, Aafi (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to see what "no permission" means here. This was claimed as "own work", and had been on Commons for several years. I will restore, and start a proper DR where this can be discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 06:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I don't disagree with you either. Regards, Aafi (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Copyrighted Photo Usage on Wikipedia"

Hi VRT -- permissions-commons was CCed on an email to me with the above subject line by a photographer. (Timestamp: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:10:37 -0500)

In it, they specifically referred to an image on English Wikipedia, which JJMC89 (talk · contribs) took down, but the bigger context was an image that's hosted here on Commons: File:A tornado south of Hinckley, Illinois on February 27, 2024.jpg

I'd originally reached out to this photographer to verify the Uploader's belief that this was a Public Domain image (ticket:2024091610007894), but they replied in a new thread and so will have a new ticket number.

Could someone please add that ticket number to the Deletion Request that's been open for a few days? (And/or action the request)? The wording in the email is pretty strong. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've mentioned the ticket in the DR. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2022021810008182

Hello, is this ticket applicable on these files as well?

If so, can any VRT agent update the licenses on the files? Jonteemil (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jonteemil, This is not how it works. Just ask the copyright holder to send permission via email by mentioning these files name or links. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 00:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tanbiruzzaman: But if the files above are derivative works of the files within the scope of the ticket, that don't add anything that on its own is copyrightable, then the ticket should be applicable on the files above as well, no?Jonteemil (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Afaics, the ticket was approved by all files mentioned in it: File:08 Tessa Stammberger.jpg, File:23 Aliaksandra Tarasava.jpg, File:06 Finja Schaake.jpg, File:TKH-Team 2021-2022.jpg and File:TK Hannover Luchse.jpg, but I'm unsure why the last image was left without the permission tag. The permissions were approved by RacoonyRE who doesn't seem to be active now. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Krd, could you take a look at the ticket, since it is in German and give an opinion if my idea of restoring this specific file per ticket is okay? Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The ticket doesn't affect any of the files mentioned here. --Krd 17:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Krd, I was specifically asking about File:TK_Hannover_Luchse.jpg, which seems to be there, the last one - (»08_Tessa_Stammberger.jpg«, »23_Aliaksandra_Tarasava.jpg«, »06_Finja_Schaake.jpg«, »TKH-Team_2021-2022.jpg«, »TK_Hannover_Luchse.jpg«). File:Logo TK Hannover Luchse.jpg is a duplicate of the same. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
File:TK Hannover Luchse.jpg is now restored as requested. Is the duplicate also needed? Regarding the team poster we need additional permission for the photo of the players. Krd 06:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

ticket:232013061210002467

Hello, is this ticket applicable on these files as well?

If so, can any VRT agent update the licenses on the files, because they are obviously too complex for PD-textlogo. Jonteemil (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That is an invalid ticket number. Where have you got it from? Krd 05:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I must've miswritten the ticket number above. See ticket:2015010810005718 on for example File:Energy Bern Logo.png. Jonteemil (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this permission can be transferred to other logos, even if they are very similar. If possible please obtain separate permission for them. Krd 06:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Amelia Behren-Furniss in standard diving gear.png

Could a VRT member take a look at File:Amelia Behren-Furniss in standard diving gear.png? This file was one of several files referred to in the discussion at en:WP:HD#Photos of living people because the uploader was claiming it as "own work" and had licensed it as "cc-by-sa-4.0". The uploader has changed the file's license to {{PD-1923}} (which seems OK), but they also added {{Permission pending}} (which seems odd). It's not clear why VRT would need to be emailed if the image is within the public domain, unless the uploader is trying to claim copyright ownership over their scan/photo of the photo. Such a thing, however, would also be odd per COM:2D copying. Anyway, perhaps the VRT member who checks the email can figure out what's going on and cleanup the file's licensing as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

VRT cannot check anything before there is a ticket. --Krd 08:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet photography ticket:2015042310003016

EN I'm looking for some more info about an image of Augusto Pinochet, chilean dictator. The page mentions that there's a ticket (#2015042310003016) confirming permission from the copyright holder (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile). Can I have access to this ticket or see what are the details on the permissions?

ES Estoy buscando más información sobre una imagen de Augusto Pinochet, dictador chileno. La página menciona que hay un ticket (#2015042310003016) que confirma el permiso del titular de los derechos de autor (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile). ¿Puedo tener acceso a este ticket o ver cuáles son los detalles de estos permisos? Cparra92 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the links to the affected files. --Krd 02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! here is the link to the file
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Augusto_Pinochet_foto_oficial.jpg Cparra92 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The ticket appears valid to me. We cannot disclose the details. Do you have any specific question? Krd 15:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'd like to know if i can use this image for an international film production (commercial use), and if there is any details about that on the ticket. I just want to make sure! Thank you Cparra92 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
There is some approval by the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile. If you need to have at yourself, please try to contact the Ministerio directly. Krd 11:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Collaborative work - one permission mail for various files to be uploaded?

Hello,

I was given the advice to check with you for my question, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&action=edit&section=53

The situation is: As to File:Gr-Georgia-Damasioti-geschnitten.ogg, Osenji made the recording (of someone else's voice, but that is not the question), sent me the file and I cut and uploaded it. If a double permission is not possible (I tried to give it in the description of the file), I suppose that the person who recorded must send the permission form to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and the uploader gives the license, right? It might be possible to give permission for various files already uploaded (and named of course), but what about future files? Can they be included, e. g. "I allow xxx to upload all future audio files containing the pronounciation of Greek names.."? I have to see clearly before involving too many people. Imagine a list with names to be pronounced as part of a project which will run for a long time. If people abroad will have to send a mail for each of those mini-files they will probably lose interest. Thank you in advance and all the best! Reisen8 (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Krd 08:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Les inconnus

Bonjour, je souhaiterai créer des t-shirts en utilisant les images des inconnus (le trio d'humoristes célèbres) Qui detient leur droit d'image svp ? Cordialement Siscolasol (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Siscolasol: Voyez avec http://www.lesinconnus.fr/ Yann (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Invalid question, out of scope of this page. If a Commons image is affected, please provide the link. --Krd 09:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of image

Hello. From reading the information on your site, it appears that I may use the image #2012051610007039 (man with 2 sons) for free. Is that correct? Please advise if I am misunderstanding the information. Thank you! Nolan Lewallen (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nolan Lewallen, please do not share email addresses/phone numbers this way. Could you please share a link to the image you are asking about? The ticket number that you have supplied talks about Commons:Bible Illustrations. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Here is a link to the image.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gospel_of_Luke_Chapter_24-14_(Bible_Illustrations_by_Sweet_Media).jpg Nolan Lewallen (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nolan Lewallen, File:Gospel of Luke Chapter 24-14 (Bible Illustrations by Sweet Media).jpg is free to use but there are certain guidelines/limitations when you use files like this. This is released under CC BY-SA 3.0, and you have to follow the license terms when using the file. The terms as suggested are: "Attribute: You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.", "ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original", and "No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." Please make sure you follow these guidelines when using this file (whether commercially or non-commercially). Failing to follow these guidelines would be an infringement. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will certainly comply, but what is "appropriate credit" in the case of this particular image, and how do I obtain a "link to the license"? Nolan Lewallen (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nolan Lewallen, appropriate credit is there on the file page. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Aafi. 108.161.10.150 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024092410003588

Dear Volunteers, I'm writing to address a recent issue involving a photo that was mistakenly removed from Wikimedia Commons out of concern for its license: File:Virginio Simonelli shot by Marco Melfi.jpg. It is a photo of Italian singer-songwriter Virginio Simonelli shot by the Italian photographer Marco Melfi, and also uploaded on Wikimedia by Marco himself.

I've been updating Virginio's Wikipedia for many years, as a fan. One day, I complimented Marco Melfi on a photoshoot he did of Virginio and I mentioned that his Wikipedia page has a very old picture, the one that appears now on the page. Marco saw that very low quality photo, and disliked it so much that he offered to upload one of his photos as replacement. He considered it a homage, and he did so immediately. After that, I happily used his beautiful photo on Virginio's Wiki page. Despite Marco flagging the file as 'his own work', it still got tagged as missing permission by Gbawden, back on September 25th. I hadn't noticed that, but Marco immediately contacted me for help, because when user Gbawden did that, Marco received an automatic mail from Wikimedia that asked him to confirm his identity by sending a mail to the OTRS/VRT-volunteers. I told him he should send the email and then wait for your reply. Now on the file page I've seen that there is a warning, about the e-mail not having sufficient info to get the photo's license verified. I would like to know what was the problem in Marco's e-mail, so I can explain to him in Italian what he should write in a new one. Marco only speaks job-related intermediate English and does not understand the full Wikipedia system, and that is why I imagine he wrote an email not having enough info, so I'm trying to help him figure it out. It's a shame to lose such a beautiful photo. Thanks for the cooperation! Ravenlions (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

VRT users cannot reveal the contents of correspondence pertaining to VRT. @Krd, are their any Italian speakers with access to the commons-permissions queue? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I've responded to the concerns on my talk page. No duplicate response needed here. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2018070910003952.

File:Faye bezemer-1531129229.jpeg is covered under this ticket but as has been pointed out at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faye bezemer-1531129229.jpeg this is a DW of another photo, which is not covered under FOP. Does the ticket mention that the original photo was taken by the uploader? Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ellywa: . Krd 09:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I requested clarification in the ticket . When a response will be received, I will make a note on the DR. Ellywa (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Copy VRTS permissions tag from parent image to extracted image

File:Fredy Clue Lecturing 2022 Sep 4.jpg has a VRTS permissions tag. Somebody created an extracted version of this image here: File:Fredy Clue Lecturing 2022 Sep 4 (cropped).jpg. That extracted version is missing a permissions tag, which was brought up in a GAN review for a Wikipedia article that uses it. Could somebody add the proper permissions tag to the extracted image? Thank you in advance for your help! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

While technically only a VRT member can add that tag, clearly File:Fredy Clue Lecturing 2022 Sep 4 (cropped).jpg is a derivative work of a correctly (and identically) free-licensed image, so its licensing should not be in question. - Jmabel ! talk 08:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024082310011902

Hi, Could someone please check what is in this ticket, mentioned in COM:UDR#File:Murad Saeed.jpg? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The ticket appears valid for some files, but File:Murad Saeed.jpg is not mentioned in the permission. Krd 13:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
#20 right there mentions the file. Regards, Aafi (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Krd, I think I have to disagree. They were explicitly allowed to upload files created by PTI. As I noted on UDR, the file was first used by Murad Saeed on his Facebook profile and then by third parties such as on twitter by a person (for which reason it was deleted). Unless there is evidence that the file is a copyvio and not created by PTI (which is lacking here), I think we can keep the file. Ratekreel (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Aha. Krd 14:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, Aafi (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024101710007381

A VRT volunteer has sent an email (which has been shared with me) saying "Your permission has been added to the file page. Please check that the file description contains the correct author attribution you desire.", but not including the link to the uploaded file, nor the page title. The file was supplied by email. It cannot be found by searching Commons for the subject's name, nor the ticket number. Where is it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears the ticket has been incorrectly processed. Can you please upload the file in order to get this sorted more quickly? --Krd 13:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't have it. Was it not attached to the original email in the ticket? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Ticket reopened. --Krd 14:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Verifikation account

Bitte meinen account auch international verifizieren Dchawksvib (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024101410006903 --Achim55 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Warum? Krd 18:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 21:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Клюев В.Г.1975.jpg

Hello Krd,

Could you please check why the photo of Victor Kluev was deleted? The photo was provided by Viktor Klyuev's daughter, who is also a photographer (Took the picture), and gave her permission to publish it in a corresponding letter in September, all in accordance with the guidelines (File:Клюев В.Г.1975.jpg). I would like to ask you to restore this image, if it's possible?

Thank you!

Regards,

Varvaratarapova (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ticket is still open, please be patient. --Krd 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your reply!
Could you tell me how much more time it might take to make a decision? As far as I understand, the file itself has been deleted from the system since more than a month has passed...
Regards, Varvaratarapova (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024080210006431 vs. ticket:2021031510008053

Can someon with access to both tickets (info-commons and permissions) verify what is the conclusion of their content and provide information in this DR? Ankry (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

-) seems the permissions were granted in hurry - and no evidence/contract was sought how the permission sender owned the copyright. We don't find any message from photographer in the earlier email (for verification), yet Nouveau uses the term "we" in their email - Conclusion is that the person granting permissions was not allowed to do so because they themselves state they don't own the copyright and it stays with the photographer. If they themselves falsify their own previous statement, then we don't have any reason to keep the file. @Ankry, I'm traveling and won't be able to comment on the DR as well. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted per the comment in ticket:2024080210006431 of the original permission sender. --Krd 14:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Michal Červenka.jpg and similar

I find it quite odd that @Janbery is updating permissions on his own. The related ticket ticket:2024090210007955 comes as a forward from Janbery himself. Although I have no doubt on the permissions being okay, I believe tickets like this should be left to uninvolved editors. Kinda similar to the the idea of not license-reviewing own uploads. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aafi, thank you for raising this issue! Looking at the ticket now, it feels like I was in the wrong. It seemed easier to me to just to forward the email to vrt than ask the person to email us directly – I just wanted to save everyone a bit of time. I will make sure to ask people to send the permission to vrt directly, and forward the email only if they fail to do so – and leave approving the ticket on someone else (as I know that we should be careful of forwarded permissions). Thank you for heads up, -- janbery (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Please don't process tickets regarding permissions you arranged yourself. --Krd 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2023072610009404

This ticket is attached to File:Berchtesgaden (DE), Dokumentation Obersalzberg, Berghof -- 2024 -- 0025.jpg, could a VRT volunteer check if the Dokumentation Obersalzberg gave permission for this photo to be published under a free license? ReneeWrites (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The ticket doesn't apply to the file. --Krd 15:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Robot Alley + Plastorm.jpg

This image is a derivative of the work Robot Alley. I had the artist of the original work submit a release, but it was deemed not sufficient. The reason it was not deemed sufficient was because the photographer did not sign the release. I am the photographer and original uploader. The VRTS ticket was just for the original work. Ticket# 2024102110011965. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dmartin969: Please ask the artist to respond to the queries in the ticket. A VRT agent sent a response on 22 October and since then nothing has been heard back. Regards, Aafi (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
The only query on the ticket was who the photographer was. I am the photographer. Artist sent their release already. No release is needed for the image itself, the release submitted was for the work the photo is derivatvie of. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@Dmartin969: I understand that we don't need the permission for the image itself (given you are the photographer) but we definitely need a permission for the underlying art. Given how the release from the artist came, a response was asking who the creator was and how the permissions sender became full copyright holder. I do not believe that a release like I hereby affirm that I, ABC, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the following media: File:Robot_Alley_+_Plastorm.jpg is sufficient. So the VRT needs to know if they are the creator or how they became the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted. I have redacted the name in respect of our policies. Regards, Aafi (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why that is not a sufficient release. It came directly from the release generator. Dmartin969 (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Email correspondence is for a reason. COM:RELGEN may not always have each & everything. A simple response on the ticket is required from the artist. They'd have a response from VRT in their mailbox. I have also left a note on the ticket with a link to this discussion. Once a response is received, permissions would be updated. A response on the lines about they are the artist of the underlying art, and not the image itself, and that the photographer for the image is the uploader themselves. This is what makes them sole owner of the copyright. Let me know if this makes sense. Regards, Aafi (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I will also highlight that the tool be fixed. It exists to make releases easier, and creator and/or sole owner makes it tedious. Regards, Aafi (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I've sent them an email asking them to reply. It feels like VRT is being needlessly obtuse about this. Dmartin969 (talk) Dmartin969 (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry. For circumstances like this in future, I'd suggest using COM:ET which you can tweak according to your need. Regards, Aafi (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Aafi, the permission reads:

    I hereby affirm that I, <redacted>, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the following media:
    * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robot_Alley_+_Plastorm.jpg
    I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

    and I think the permission is sufficient because it comes from the official email of the creator of the Robot Alley and can be accepted. See also my note on the ticket. Ratekreel (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Ticket approved. --Krd 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024&oldid=958983293"