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: 4 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.

Is VRT ticket #2014070110000717 still valid for these three files?[edit]

These deletion requests here:

1. File:President Yoon Suk Yeol and first Lady Kim Keon Hee depart to Madrid, Spain for Nato Summit at Seoul Air Base (3).jpg.

2. File:President_Yoon_Suk_Yeol_and_first_Lady_Kim_Keon_Hee_depart_to_Madrid,_Spain_for_Nato_Summit_at_Seoul_Air_Base_(2).jpg

3. File:President Yoon Suk Yeol and first Lady Kim Keon Hee depart to Madrid, Spain for Nato Summit at Seoul Air Base (1).jpg

All state that the "Reason for the nomination: CC-BY-NC-SA license on Flickr, the VRT ticket is just a verification for those images marked with CC-BY-SA"

These three Flickr links all have the exact same the license history below:




"License History

Note: There is no license history before July 17, 2008"

Date January 16, 2023 at 10:46:41 PM PST
Old License Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 2.0)
New License Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

This file uploaded on 00:51, 1 July 2022, which is before the license changed on January 16, 2023.

So, is this VRT ticket #2014070110000717 still valid?

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jarekt, Please, see the link below, where the @JarektBot added the same VRT ticket number to the three files above.
Can you answer my question above?
Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooligan, See my response at Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Yoon Suk Yeol and first Lady Kim Keon Hee depart to Madrid, Spain for Nato Summit at Seoul Air Base (3).jpg. VRT ticket #2014070110000717 is valid as a storage of background info and confidential communication for files using CC-BY-SA on flickr but should not be used for files using CC-BY-NC-SA on flickr. --Jarekt (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jarekt. On July 19th You wrote,
"RodRabelo7, Than you for your help here. I have never seen License history on flickr. I have verified that the license of those files was correct (CC-BY-SA) at the time of the upload..."
However, I had written on July 15th (see above) about information from these three files linked Flickr pages.
---Under the heading, "License History"
---that the "Old License" was "Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 2.0)"
---and that the "New License" is "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)"
I further wrote,
"This file uploaded on 00:51, 1 July 2022, which is before the license changed on January 16, 2023."
In your second response you wrote,
"Ooligan the irrevocable license rule only applies to files uploaded by the copyright holders and the File:President Yoon Suk Yeol and first Lady Kim Keon Hee depart to Madrid, Spain for Nato Summit at Seoul Air Base (3).jpg was not. I also do not see any evidence that it was CC-BY-SA at the time of the upload. So let me clarify my position: Delete for this and all the files using license unless the files have Flickrreview (or similar template) verifying that they were marked CC-BY-SA on flicker at some point. If someone wants to contact and ask them to change the license we might be able to save them." (brackets removed, emphasis added)
I thought I was writing clearly enough, but another commenter clarified the Flickr license history information. I want to note here on this page that you kept these 3 files. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooligan I am sorry for dropping off from the discussion. The files are fine since they were uploded under valid license. I closed deletion request and added additional info to the files. --Jarekt (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

file check[edit]

I wish you all good health. please, I ask you to check the file and confirm the license. Sincerely File:Skuld. Скульд.jpg RagdayKolovrat (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last ticket entry from yesterday. The reason to hurry is…? --Krd 13:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
which ticket? I didn't understand the question at all RagdayKolovrat (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Совсем не понял ответа на поставленный вопрос RagdayKolovrat (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(using Google translate): @RagdayKolovrat: Почему это срочно? Это совсем недавно. Есть отставание. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Суть сказаного? Набор фраз RagdayKolovrat (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I'm the one who doesn't understand. (Теперь я тот, кто не понимает.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
exactly. just check please, otherwise we don’t understand what we will agree on RagdayKolovrat (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who will confirm the file for a license? RagdayKolovrat (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is to be checked here? --Krd 15:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checking authorisation for 2015122310000978[edit]

Hello All, I requested the deletion of files representing a magazine uploaded by @NicholasReedy: , but at the end, I saw that one file had an OTSR ticket attached to it. Does it include all the page of the magazine uploaded or only the one with the OTSR ticket?

The deletion request:


The page with the OTSR:

Merci par avance pour votre aide. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket is incomplete, files now deleted. --Krd 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Hi, VRT will receive (or may have alresdy received today) an email from the address, with an attachment in French. Just to be sure that VRT knows what it is about and it doesn't get lost, it relates to the files in the category Category:Tapis rouge des arts littéraires. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asclepias, thanks for the info, I tried looking for Category:Tapis rouge des arts littéraires on the VRT and it didn't get me any lists. If the permissions-release mentions link to this category, it would make the work of VRT agents easy. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, It may refer to the user account who uploaded the files: User:FrederiqueDube. (N.B.: I know there might be a few things to clarify. It's a bit complex. I opened a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#"Photobooth" portraits about the fine points of how to analyze the copyright situation. For now the idea was to obtain for the VRT archives at least this communication from the source of the photos. Before a follow-up, it could be good to wait a few days to know the opinions at VP/C, as that may affect how the matter can be managed.) -- Asclepias (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A DR has been filed that appears to assert that Ticket:2022052110004218 was processed incorrectly. It would probably be helpful if any VRT agents familiar with this case could chime in to provide clarity and/or evaluate if the challenge to the ticket's closure is persuasive.

Pinging Krd, who added the permission confirmation to the Commons page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think the ticket is processed correctly, but I admit that there may be different opinions based of different perspective. Having this reviewed by another VRT member is welcome to me. Krd 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lee Sang-ho.jpg and ticket #2014070110000717.[edit]

This file came up while I was doing my daily check of Flickr files that need license reviews. The Flickr source is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 at, but there is a license template with a VRT template on the file that give it a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. The VRT Template links to I'm told that this ticket has red flags and is a cluster but I want to try to see if I can resolve the contradictions on this file before I file a deletion request or request a F4 speedy. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow: The ticket relates as far as I can understand to a single image on Flickr which has been relicensed to CCBYSA by on request: This photo is available on Commons as File:NMK Network Fellowship Program 14 (14518090226).jpg. There may have been intentions to ask for more free licensing to in 2014/2015, as template {{}} seems to be some general format. This template has been made by User:Russavia, now banned. In one of the emails of the tickets, reference is made to this discussion. Imho it would be the safe route to delete the template and all images where it is used per COM:PRP (after checking the flickr source), except the mentioned image, and to mention the ticket only on that image. Perhaps User:-revi can comment before final decision on this, because they were involved in the template and speak Korean. The VRT agent at the time cannot be contacted any more, it seems. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ellywa. For now, I'll just start a DR on this one image. I'll wait for -revi to comment before I take any action on the template itself. Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Currently not at home and will need until weekend to thoroughly read stuff. Ping me over the usertalk page if I haven't commented by Monday.) — regards, Revi 05:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of the respective files:

Permission has been sent to permissions-pl[at] at August 7th, 8.43PM GMT+2 (from author) and August 8th, 10.11AM GMT+2 (forwarded from mine). Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide the ticket number the permission sender received. Krd 04:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of us (neither me nor the author) received any response. We don't know the ticket number (if even there's any...). Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wojsław Brożyna Please email me the email addresses that the permissions came from, and I can look them up that way. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wojsław Brożyna Thanks for your response. @Krd The ticket number is ticket:2023080710010669. There is a note that (using Google Translate) I'm not sure was proper, and the ticket was marked closed without response. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what I should do?... Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ticket is in Polish and still being processed. Please be patient (or consider to let the copyright holder send it again in English). --Krd 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for information, I will ask the original author for such possibility. So we are waiting now. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The permission was sent twice, the ticket is still not approved. Please confirm it and undelete the photos:

Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket is in Polish and still being processed. Please be patient (or consider to let the copyright holder send it again in English). --Krd 15:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for information, I will ask the original author for such possibility. So we are waiting now. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The remainder of Category:Photographs by Stevan Kragujević not yet uploaded to Commons[edit]

Hello VRT, Serbian Wikipedia over at sr:Kategorija:Stevan Kragujević contains many files not yet transferred over to Commons. Some of them locally uploaded there have OTRS tags, but not all, despite all having the claim to have been uploaded "with the approval of [Stevan's] daughter Tanja Kragujević" ("po odobrenju kćerke Tanje Kragujević"), just like the rest of files VRT verified on Commons. Are all OTRS tagged files ready to be moved to Commons? What about the rest? There are many non-tagged files, so I worry we could be left without these if not resolved on time. I asked on the linked Serbian Wikipedia category's talk page but haven't received a relevant answer to my question. –Vipz (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is another such case as I am afraid I have seen on Commons lots of times now. Sorry to say this, but doesn't the VRT team ever check what they are approving of? This is quite clearly not a selfie, which it would need to be if the image subject were identical with the photographer/ copyright holder, as the file information claims. One short question to the uploader has revealed the obvious to be true: This image was given to him by the image subject, and he has in fact no idea who the photographer was. (Not that the image quality would make this a desirable object to steal or use inappropriately, but that's a different matter.) --2003:C0:8F07:A600:5B3:48EB:7E0D:4848 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It would be useful for you to link the image when reporting something like this. Most people do not have access to the VRT system. I would certainly hope that as a person who does not see fit to log in when raising a complaint, you do not have access to it yourself, so you are presumably aware of that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I had assumed that the people I am addressing on this page are entitled to access the VRT correspondence and would see which image this is about by the ticket number. Was I wrong in making that assumption?
I was in fact not aware of this. I copy-pasted the ticket # and followed the link to the VRT noticeboard from the image, and I never tried the reverse way. (If I had wanted to look up the image again, I would probably have gone via the German WP article anyway.)
Also, I find your expression "as a person who does not see fit to log in" somewhat unkind. I had been under the impression that copyright is meant to be taken seriously here. So is pointing out a possible copyvio in spite of a VRT ticket something that requires an account? --2003:C0:8F46:4900:6C4A:1E52:3252:D466 08:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I myself will apologize for sounding a bit annoyed in my initial post. I was, quite frankly, after seeing this kind of thing for the umpteenth time. I had pointed this out repeatedly before (in a more friendly tone) and had usually received very dismissive replies. --2003:C0:8F46:4900:6C4A:1E52:3252:D466 09:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image deleted. --Krd 15:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this usual?[edit]

An organisation I'm working with (let's call them "Acme") has sent one of the standard emails to VTRS, asserting their ownership of rights in some images and releasing them under a suitable licence. The images, taken recently and depicting the organisation's premises, are uploaded as being photographed by "Acme Staff member".

A VTRS volunteer responds, asking them who took the photographs and how did the organisation come to own the copyright.

Surely if his information is required, it should be included in the standard email templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is usual, and no it shouldn't. There are reasons, but they shouldn't be discussed publicly. --Krd 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not buying "shouldn't be discussed publicly"; we need more transparency in how VRTS operates, not less. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are mistaken. Intransparency is the only reason for the VRT to exist, and if you remove it, you'd better remove the VRT. If your question is how a permission owner shall act to satisfy the VRT, you'd also better ask how to achieve releasing the file without the VRT at all. It's easy, put the file elsewhere at a trusted place, i.e. at the own website, under a free license, and handle it at Commons with license review. Krd 09:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is information out there that can help understand what VRT is expecting here though. For instance, a procedure description we created for Dutch permissions from GLAM also speaks about clarity on the copyright holder. And the status of copyright holder depends on the legal relationship between the creator/employee/volunteer and the GLAM - same is for the organization you are working with at the moment. Sometimes the relationship is very obvious, in other cases not so much and that is why this part cannot be standardized and needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
I hope the link helps a bit Andy - I know you raised questions about transparency of VRT procedures in the past, and I hope my answer will not lead to a repetition of that situation but does provide some additional insight. Ciell (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is a statement from the rights holder that they are the rights holder not sufficient? If they are are going to lie about that, they could as easily lie in response to the question in my OP. Thank you for the link but I can see nothing pertinent there. As to my previous concerns about (what was) OTRS' transparency, there is no chance of a "repetition of that situation", as that situation is not yet resolved and I still await the answers to my original questions; which were most recently put to members of the board in Singapore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: "Why is a statement from the rights holder that they are the rights holder not sufficient?" That begs the question. If VRT knows the person is legitimately the rights holder, then such a statement (combined with granting a license) presumably is sufficient. But we've all seen it over and over on more "open" matters as well: someone may misunderstand what rights they hold, or may misrepresent themselves. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I refer you to my second sentence; which you appear to have overlooked in your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a lot of things you can't lie about, or which it is very difficult to lie about, and that can be used to validate a claimed identity or claimed possession of rights. But up to a point you are right: if someone is willing and able to present plausible, forged legal documents (ID, transfer of rights) they'll probably get away with a false claim. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were no "legal documents" in this case; all that was required, apparently, was a statement to the effect "the images were taken by an Acme staff member, at work". Given that the images were already sourced to "Acme staff member", with an statement, in the original email to VTRS, that Acme is the copyright holder, the redundancy should be obvious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Generally speaking, there are two ways for someone to lie about being authorized to issue a copyright release: 1) they lie about who they are; 2) they lie that the person they claim to be (whether true or not) is the copyright holder. Usually, the more "official-looking" the person or entity that the sender claims to be or represent, the more likely the former is to happen and the less likely the latter is to happen, and vice versa. If someone claiming to be from Coca-Cola sends us a permission email, I would take great care to ensure that they are actually an authorized representative of Coca-Cola, but once that passes muster I wouldn't worry for one second that Coca-Cola is not in fact the copyright holder as claimed. If Joe Shmoe claims to be the author of a professional-looking photo, I will assume that they are telling the truth about being Joe Shmoe since there is no advantage to be gained by lying there, but I may request additional evidence to show that they took the photo. -- King of ♥ 21:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary. VRTS exists to ensure confidentiality in communication between Wikimedia volunteers and the subjects of articles or media; or rights-owners of media; there is no need for the "intransparency" of VRTS policies or procedures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you may have noticed, most people don't have any understanding in copyright, but state what they think to be true. The VRT permissions team tries to as far as possible figure out what really is the case, and obtain permission from the real copyright holder. To achieve that, questions are sometimes required. Perhaps smetimes these question may seems surplus, but they aren't, and they are always easy to answer at no cost. --Krd 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to be orthogonal to the issue of "intransparency". Nor does it address the matter of "Surely if his information is required, it should be included in the standard email templates?". The cost of requiring extra emails is burden on image donors, for many of whom this is neither a hobby nor core business, and may thus loose us goodwill. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: To your point about transparency, I always advocate for avoiding VRT whenever possible, because it useful for everyone to be able to verify the provenance of an image if there's no private information involved. I only recommend people go through it if we need to verify an email address, talk to someone without a Commons account, or otherwise discuss confidential matters. Honestly, the practice of drive-by tagging of previously unpublished uploads which are claimed to be "own work" with {{No permission since}}, simply because the tagger does not believe it is own work, and pointing them to VRT is quite lazy. In a vast majority of cases the uploader does not respond and the image is deleted. When the uploader does in fact email VRT, what happens a lot of the time is the agent will do a reverse image search, find no results, and accept the permission because the claim of own work looks reasonable enough. Great, we just made them go through hoops for nothing - instead of an "own work" claim from a random username, we now have an "own work" claim from a random email address. In cases where we want additional evidence to be comfortable assuming good faith, we sometimes ask them to email us the original file with EXIF. But again, that is something they could have done on-wiki. -- King of ♥ 09:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VRT hiccup regarding ticket #2023091410010181[edit]

I have been trying to correct an error by the VRT that Alfred Neumann emailed about at Sep 17, 4:09 AM Central Time U.S., which I believe was 9:09 AM UTC, regarding ticket #2023091410010181. There have been no responses to emails to correct the problem. The only result of the effort to donate copyrighted material seems to be to tag File:20230304 Carla Vernón and Antonio Vernón at Pizzeria Lola 02.jpg for deletion in 30 days without explanation as to how to correct that status. The donated file, which is a different file, has not been confirmed or denied to my knowledge. Can someone respond to our emails? a User:Krd seems to be involved. To be clear, there are now two issues: 1. Please address the donation of the file attached to the original email; 2. Please state what is necessary to address the potential deletion of File:20230304 Carla Vernón and Antonio Vernón at Pizzeria Lola 02.jpg in 30 days.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: I have removed the VRT received tag. Per Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie, it can be a bit uncertain who the copyright holder is when you ask someone else to take your photo with your phone, but in this particular case, it seems that you and your sister chose where to sit and asked the server to take a picture from a particular angle, making you the creative author of the work. Therefore "own work" is fine. -- King of ♥ 23:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:King of Hearts that is half of the issue. Thank you. However, there is the issue of the actual w:WP:DCM. The purpose was to authorize a professional main image for my sister. Was the correspondences sufficient to properly donate the copyrighted image of my sister's professional portrait.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:King of Hearts, It seems I have prompted an email explanation (under the signature of Alfred Neumann) that there is an expectation that in order to do a w:WP:DCM, you must upload a file to commons. I personally, am quite comfortable uploading files to commons. However, a non-Wikimedian might find it intimidating. The photographer has emailed the photo as an attachment twice. Currently there are three of us working to produce a photo for my sister. I am working with one of her support staff and with the photographer. He has emailed a file called HonestCompany_CarlaVernón_BoneSeamless_093_FINAL.jpg twice now in emails that I was copied on. Ordinarily, I would just upload the file myself. However, in this case as I am a w:WP:COI editor for my sister's biography, I am seeking either permission to upload said file or an explanation why it is preferable that I try to talk an outsider through the process.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:20230208 Honest Company headshot of Carla Vernón.jpg is now uploaded. How can we get this processed/authorized by VRT?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TonyTheTiger: I tagged it {{subst:PP}} for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    -TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quicker/smarter permissions procedure for Lieder project[edit]

I'm running a wikiproject called Lieder (on commons, wikidata and cawiki). There is a project of recording lieder songs from a live concert (December 2023), organized by the ESMUC (the Catalan music college) and the Schubertíada de Vilabertran. They organize an international academy (Lied the future) whose students will be signing, on registering, to allow uploading their concert participation to commons, as part of the Lieder project. I would like to be able to upload those recordings without having to ask the interpreters to send another authorization email, as they will have already authorized the recording AND uploading. Could someone advise me on the best way to prove those authorizations? Thanks. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robertgarrigos: If you send a copy of what the "students will be signing, on registering" via VRT, that should speed the permissions along.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming you mean Lieder in a narrow sense (and the mention of Schubert suggests that you are), this should all be fine. Of course, some works by some more modern composers that could arguably be called Lieder (Ralph Vaughan Williams, for example, or Schoenberg, many of whose works are still copyrighted in the U.S.) would still be in copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, we are taking care of uploading only not copyrighted composer. Thanks. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Jeff G., I will do that. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robertgarrigos: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the file description, there is a permission (ticket:2008032610013793), but there is no proper license tag. Is any specific license mentioned in the ticket? --Rosenzweig τ 18:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig The ticket is inconclusive. It includes a forwarded text that doesn't appear helpful to me. The ticket doesn't either mention any license. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ticket is intended to confirm the this stamp falls under pd-germangov and provides a link as reference which is now dead. I think the file should be reevaluated per todays standard assuming that no ticket exists. Krd 15:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was in contact with the photographer who clicked this image, the VRT process is in-process. To be honest, I'm not much experienced with this process but the VRT volunteer asked the photographer about the permission from the artist who created the mascot. Is this even necessary when the photographer is already willing to share this image under a creative commons license why the artist's permission is needed?, not to mention this was created by a private company. Rejoy2003(talk) 10:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, it is because of our guidelines around derivative works - and in that sense this image needs two permissions. The first from the person who photographed it (which we appear to have) and the second from the person, whose art/work is depicted in the image, the person who created the mascot. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reginald Gray[edit]

Hi there, I have been reviewing the files uploaded by Reginald Gray, who died in 2013, but was also commons editor and uploader of his paintings and drawings. A few of them have a VRT ticket such as File:Reginald Gray self-portrait.jpeg but most of the ones I reviewed don't have one. Is there a ticket that counts for all of his artwork? His artwork can be found in subcategories from Category:Reginald Gray. I tagged one for no permission und another one I nominated for deletion. But now I am unsure if that is the correct procedure so if there is some other solution for them I'd be glad to read of it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Paradise Chronicle: given that his identity is not at issue, anything he uploaded of his own work should be fine. VRT was necessary to establish who he was, but there is no need for that on each individual image. Are there images that were uploaded by someone else? If not, these should all be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel Thanks for the reply. I have undone my edits that enabled a deletion. I have not checked all the files, but the ones I reviewed and had no VRT ticket were uploaded by him. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well I checked again and the only file I found of Reginald Gray with a VRT ticket was this one. For me it's ok, I won't tag the files anymore or request deletion, but to prevent someone else nominating the files for deletion I suggest to add a some sort of a VRT notice to the other files. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps you can make a note on the talk pages of the images with a link to this discussion, stating that the identity of the uploader was confirmed. Ellywa (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As soon as it is archived, I'll add a link to the files to this discussion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone please check ticket:2022091410001094 with regards to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Verity Lambert by Lorrie Graham (The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 Apr 1986) (cropped).jpg? Thanks. holly {chat} 23:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can confirm the statement on the DR by the VRTagent. The uncropped version was deleted on the same basis. Ellywa (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's another such case like the one above. Why on earth would anyone believe this to be a selfie? --2003:C0:8F19:9100:2568:EC01:7D27:89AA 20:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could easily take an equivalent picture of myself, using a shutter delay. I see no particular reason to doubt if that is what someone claimed to have done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So is that what the VRT correspondence says? "This is a selfie, I used shutter delay"?
Here's your reason for doubt, if you actually need one in such an obvious case. --2003:C0:8F19:9100:2568:EC01:7D27:89AA 21:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's another one, also with a nice VRT ticket (ticket:2012071210006356). An upload by the same user, allegedly also a selfie. Of a different person. Does he seriously claim to have taken selfies of two different people?
(Not to mention the fact that this is obviously a professional promo photo and not a selfie.) --2003:C0:8F46:4900:6C4A:1E52:3252:D466 08:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, it's been 17 days since the email was sent for File:Anri, 2023.jpg and I was wondering if I could get an update for the processing. reppoptalk 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reppop We've asked for the original photograph to the author, in order to verify its source. Waiting for an answer. Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

utilisation du symbole[edit]

Bonjour, puis-je utiliser le symbole de la journée internationale de l'homme pour le graver sur un trophée? merci de votre réponse 2A01:CB04:A3F:1800:F0C:D61B:BB92:F03B 22:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can't provide legal advice. If you have a question about a specific image hosted here on Commons, please link to it and we might know the answer. Do be aware, though: copyright restrictions may not be the only limitations on using the symbol of an organization. Very often trademark law is more important there. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the source field, the uploader wrote that the author asked to upload the photo under CC BY-SA 4.0 but in the licensing section the uploader inserted the CC0 public domain dedication. In the permission field, a VRT member added a permission ticket #2023092610004647, which as usual tells the reusers "you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page". That is confusing. So, which is it? -- Asclepias (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asclepias, Unfortunately, I cannot read the ticket language. Maybe @Mussklprozz can tell us better? ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias @TheAafi Sorry, I missed to correct the license tag after having received the photographer's permission. He released per cc-by-sa-4.0. I have corrected the license tag now. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]