Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

Translate this header

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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

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

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 7 days (graph) update

Start a new discussion

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

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

Is it okay to upload high-resolution versions of these album covers? (e.g. replace File:2NE1 2nd Mini Album Cover.jpg with this one from Apple Music)
Please check which artists have been approved in the OTRS ticket, and whether it's acceptable to upload other albums by the same artists that have not been uploaded yet. Is uploading allowed only for these six artists—2NE1, Big Bang, Winner, Se7en, Blackpink, and Jennie—or are there additional approved artists? (Winner and Blackpink did not debut in 2013.) Are all albums released under the name of YG Entertainment authorized for upload regardless of the release date? (If that's the case, what happens in the case of albums released in collaboration with another company, rather than just YG Entertainment?)--Namoroka (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. I found files for discussion at enwiki in 2022 and it seems that every album covers published by YG Entertainment after October 25, 2013 is allowed. However, this still seems like an incredibly wild claim. Many users are unaware of this fact and are still uploading files on local wiki under fair use.--Namoroka (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namoroka, I would say that the ticket is invalid or at least clarification is needed from YG Entertainment. We recieved permission release in 2013 but it was not verified/finalised. Krd, Xia and MdsShakil, do you have any comments to add? Looking at search results it is used on 61 files. ~~I checked a few and they seem to be added by non-VRT users.~~ Ratekreel (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check previous talks: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2022#ticket:2013102510001373, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#File:E (Big Bang album).jpg, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#Ticket:2013102510001373, en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Special:ListFiles/Ygent ebiz--Namoroka (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an inquiry to YG Entertainment for clear confirmation.--Namoroka (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since I sent a request to YG Entertainment, but I have yet to receive a response. (Perhaps, unlike in 2013, they are no longer interested in Wikipedia.) On en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Teemeah (now Xia) inquired whether the request could be applied to other projects besides the local Hungarian Wikipedia, but Teemeah was unable to get a response due to a full mailbox. At that time, Teemeah was already aware of the ambiguity about the email. In my opinion, unless specific usage requirements are stated in the current VTRS ticket, the ticket should not be considered valid. The English Wikipedia community also raised doubts about the validity of the ticket. As long as YG Entertainment does not clearly specify, this issue will likely persist on and on. The phrase "YG Entertainment allows the use of YG Entertainment album covers ..." may seem clear, but it is actually very ambiguous. It's unclear whether this applies to albums of music groups that did not exist in 2013, albums released by subsidiaries of YG Entertainment, or albums co-produced by YG Entertainment and other companies.--Namoroka (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has YG Entertainment responded yet? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackpink and Jennie examples you mention is due to simplicity, not because they have been relicensed by YG Entertainment. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But the current VTRS ticket is still unclear. If we cannot received any clarification from YG, I think we should not use these album covers (for 2NE1, Big Bang & Seven).--Namoroka (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding this here: w:WP:FFD/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg, an additional discussion on the English Wikipedia in November–December 2022. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2012101110013816 - MDOT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was the statement they gave me:

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

e-signature releases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Species distribution maps from IUCN data

A while back, User:Chermundy made a lot of these distribution maps, e.g. File:Desert Musk Shrew area.png. The current data (and I believe the past data as well) is licensed for non-commerical use only [1], but was released to Wikipedia for species maps (ticket #2010061810022172). Does that release cover the current data? Or, to put it another way, can I download the data off the website right now and make new maps for wikipedia, or do I need to contact the IUCN for a new permission for that. I would ask Chermundy directly but they do not seem to have responded to talk page messages for over a decade.

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

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

ticket:2017041210010641

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request made by me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ticket #2022090110011866

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

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

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

VRT ticket number - 2014020510008962

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about possible attribution requirement, ticket #2015010810007538

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Susan Crawford Headshot.jpg

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

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

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

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

How can I argue with a bot?

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

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

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

Album cover photo

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

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

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

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

File:Peerage ltw portrait.jpg

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025