Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members, or VRT agents with one another. 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: 3 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

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

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

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

Deletion of pictures of Jacques Aeschlimann, Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure[edit]

Hello, I added pictures to the Wikipedia pages of Jacques Aeschlimann, Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure that were deleted. How could this deletion be canceled ? The pictures of Jacques Aeschlimann, Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure were sent to me by the owners of the rights on the pictures. Thank you for your help. Best regards Vialdrou (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket regarding these files is ticket:2023072010005839. Could someone check please? Yann (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Mussklprozz for help. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of Willy Aeschlimann and Jean-Philippe Faure, the authorship is unclear, sender of the ticket is not the rights holder. In the case of Jacques Aeschlimann, we can possibly get a heirs' licence. Sorry, following the client's last answer, I had expected further message from her, leaving both sides in mutual waiting. I will write her again now, trying to clarify at least the authorship of the Jacques Aeschlimann photos. Mussklprozz (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jean-Philippe Faure wrote me that he has sent you or will send you very soon the information that he took the picture and accepts that it is put freely on Wikimedia commons.
The heir of Willy Aeschlimann and Jacques Aeschlimann, Caroline Aeschlimann, wrote me that she will send very soon more informations concerning who took the pictures of them (mostly different members of their family) and the identity of their heirs. Their heirs all accepted that the pictures were put on Wikimedia commons. Transmission of their acceptance can be organized. That's something to check with her. Vialdrou (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci @Vialdrou, I am looking forward to the further communication with them. As soon as authorships, heritage and permissions are claryfied, the images can be restored. – J'attends avec intérêt la suite de la communication avec eux. Dès que les droits d'auteur, le patrimoine et les autorisations seront clarifiés, les images pourront être restaurées. Amitiés, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour @Mussklprozz,
Caroline Aeschlimann m'a informé que les discussions continuaient sur certaines photos mais que d'autres avaient d'ores et déjà été validées. Est-ce correct ?
Merci pour votre travail.
Amitiés, Vialdrou (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi any progress on that? -- Anntinomy (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket number 2016111910006337[edit]

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

Ticket=[1] on this file here:File:Jaan Poska monument Kadriorus, skulptor Elo Liiv, 2016.jpg Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@Kruusamägi, Could you please respond to my question above? Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Lepticed7, I can't read this language but the following pages appear to be linked in the ticket: [2], [3], [4]. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. 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)Reply[reply]

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?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Hi @CeltBrowne. They can email us at 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)Reply[reply]
So just to be pinpoint accurate: If I have the Flickr user send an e-mail to 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)Reply[reply]
@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. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@CeltBrowne: It should, or something to that effect (per the conversation above). Are you quoting something?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@CeltBrowne: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 ( - (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Professioneller Fotograf mit VRT-Tickets[edit]

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 ( - (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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 ( - (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which file or ticket is that? Krd 04:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation on old tickets[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

bump. holly {chat} 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
I will drop another comment in the DR. ─ Aafī (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Status check on ticket:2024020110006149[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

What exactly is the question? Krd 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^ This. S5A-0043Talk 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Check of VRT ticket #ticket:2022092210011371 in relation to a related upload[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Permission is specific for the first image. It doesn't apply to other images. --Krd 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I don‘t like this kind of interrogation. What exact problem do you intend to resolve? Krd 19:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

SOHO imagery follow-up[edit]

Hi all. An email was sent to VRT from an 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 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)Reply[reply]

ticket:2024022810010272 Ferron_2023.png[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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)Reply[reply]