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, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

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 30 days.

Получение лицензии на изображение[edit]

Добрый день. Отправила запрос на получение лицензии на два изображения на Викискладе. В графе права вместо получения лицензии появился блок со ссылкой на VRTS-аккаунт. Я перехожу по ссылке, у меня нет пароля и логина, и зарегистрироваться на ресурсе VRTS нет возможности, так как там нет полей для регистрации, только поля для логина и пароля. Подскажите, что мне надо сделать, чтобы изображения были лицензированы и получили отметку с разрешением на размещение в Википедии. Elena89 345, 08:45 30.05.2022 (UTС)

  • На первый взгляд, это изображение вы взяли с музейного сайта. Давайте обсудим всю процедуру. 1) Вы обратились в музей? 2) Вы получили разрешение от музея? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being careful about templates[edit]

Hey! I'm not 100% sure if this is the correct location to ask my question, but I'm not finding anywhere more fit. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm from the English Wikipedia, and I noticed that a couple users have started using {{subst:PP}} on it in relation to VRT tickets. Now, while on commons, this seems to be just fine, this is actually incorrect on the english wikipedia, as we use PP for the protection banner, with the correct template being OP. Anyone who does end up using the subst ends up just producing {{#invoke:Protection banner|main}} on the page (and being put in an error tracking category). I'm not entirely sure what solutions are available here, as I'm unfamiliar with how the VRT system works, but I think a solution might be required here, as users may be very confused when the substitution does nothing. Any comments? (Please ping me if replying as I'm not often on commons) Aidan9382 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think we should change the name of the template:PP on Commons to avoid such an error. Do you envisage some solution? Commons is an international project, and we cannot avoid such problems in general. In fact, often used templates could be internationalized perhaps, through Wikidata, but this would require a major effort. By the way, OP seems outdated, as we switched from OTRS to now VRT. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This ticket was used to provide permission for book cover art: 1 and 2. These books were published by two different companies, and the ticket looks like it was filed by the book author alone. Joofjoof (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdann52: . --Ganímedes (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like Mdann52 has not edited in a few years - can someone else check the ticket? Joofjoof (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joofjoof This permission was comes from Hemant Mehta. —MdsShakil (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I found that ticket in the file description of File:Mrtva priroda, Jovan Bjelić.jpg, which has been nominated for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mrtva priroda, Jovan Bjelić.jpg). Does the ticket only cover the photo of this painting or also the painting (by Jovan Bijelić) itself? --Rosenzweig τ 19:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Dungodung as Agent.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's actually both, since this was produced by a Wikipedian in Residence, so the museum provided them with this photo of the painting (the release is for the photo, but I believe the museum has the rights for the painting itself). Filip (§) 21:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the permission for the depicted paintings in the ticket? --Krd 04:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates to use on image pages - offline authors and VRT numbers[edit]

  • Dear colleagues, please help me with the templates. To upload many images from some offline author, an editor needs to send the VRT message to confirm author's written license. Well, this is already done and the ticket is registered. Then an editor uploads the images from that author. What template this editor may use to mark these uploaded images with one and the same VRT number? Or maybe the editor needs to wait until the numerous uploaded images will be checked by some VRT member?
  • Looks like some controversy: on the one hand, an editor must provide VRT-numbered license for each uploaded image. On the other hand, an editor has no technology to provide this. What must be done then?
  • If no license if registered, an editor uses {{Permission pending}}. But what is the correct way with a license already registered at VRTS?
  • Thank you. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It depends on the case and the number of images affected, please provide details. --Krd 04:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright holder can send one ticket including all the files. --Ganímedes (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Then the ticket is registered. Then an editor uploads the images from the author. Looks like some controversy. On the one hand, an editor must provide VRT-numbered license for each uploaded image. On the other hand, an editor has no technology to provide this. If no license if registered, an editor uses {{Permission pending}}. But what is the correct way with a license already registered at VRTS? What must be done then? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think understand. Someone uploads the files. The copyright holder sends the permission, adding all the URL of the files in one ticket. The VRT agent verify the permission and add the VRT tag to the files. It's not possible to add a VRT tag to a file not included in the ticket, i.e. send permission for a full website without no specific files names. That's not longer acceptable. We can't tag neither a file uploaded time ago the ticket it's approved. I'm not sure if this helps you. Please let me know. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr Copyright-Holder sends the permission and makes the ticket for all his images. Then Mr Other-User gets the images from Copyright-Holder, describes and classifies them, and uploads them to Commons. The permission covers all these images. Then Mr Other-User calls for Mr VRT-Agent to verify the permission for each uploaded file. OK, I see the way now. Is there a template to call for Mr VRT-Agent's attention to the files? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr Other-User uploads all the files to Commons. Mr Copyright-Holder (Commons user or not) sends the permission for all his images, adding the URL of all the uploaded files in the same template. He will receive an automatic answer with a ticket number, like this: "Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. [BLABLABLA] If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: NUMBER_HERE]". When authorship of the photos it's verify, VRT agent tag with VRT permission all files. If there is some problem and takes some extra time, VRT agent add {{Permission received|id=NUMBER_HERE}} to the files. If files are deleted, the VRT agent will request undeletion when need it. If Mr Other-User wants to be in touch and to know all what VRT agent and Mr Copyright-Holder discuss, he can send an email to the same email address, adding "Re: [Ticket#: NUMBER_HERE]" in the subject line of the email. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the permission from Mr Copyright-Holder is already received by VRT team, and the ticket issued. Now the images must be uploaded to Commons. What Mr Other-User must do after uploading those images? How must he call to VRT agents? Must he add the {{Permission pending}} template, or some other one, if the permission was already processed before uploading the files? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PereslavlFoto: If Mr Other-User was able to convince Mr Copyright-Holder and the VRT team to carbon copy them on the email messages to keep them in the loop, then Mr Other-User will be able to reply with the URLs of the new images, and the VRT team will have enough information to tag the new images as having permission.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently incompatibly licensed images, but change license to compatible on death?[edit]

Hi, I was wondering: if someone has images (on Flickr for example) and they currently prefer to use a specific license that isn't compatible with Commons, but when they eventually pass away, they're fine with using something like CC BY-SA or even public domain when they pass away. Is this somehow achievable? (obviously they can't update their Flickr to reflect the license change) What would be the best way to approach such a situation? Would it be enough if they emailed de VRT to say they give permission once they pass away (and then later verify their death using either obituary or official document)? thibaultmol (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who are "they"? --Ganímedes (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just any Flickr user. Nobody in particular. Just something I'm wondering thibaultmol (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. The VRT are no notaries and cannot verify if such will is valid. If somebody wants to release files after their death, they should arrange it accordingly that the heirs will issue the release. --Krd 11:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flickr themselves appernatly also has a way of marking accounts in Memoriam
If for example the profile page of a Flickr user has a line at the bottom that says that if the account is in Memoriam mode, all images change to a different license. And upon that photographers death, the Memoriam procedure for that user has been completed on Flickr. Would that be enough to then upload the images under that license, to Commons? thibaultmol (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case this is out of scope if this page as the VRT has no business in that. Krd 12:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somebody has to do the uploads, and that is not the role of the VRT. The author should arrange with somebody to handle the uploads to Commons after their passing away. Their heirs should be informed, informally or through their will, and at that point VRT can be used to confirm the new licence. I don't know whether Flickr and similar sites have procedures to automatically change licences when the user's page is transformed into an in memoriam one, or allow heirs to change licences, but that isn't about Commons; once a heir is involved, it should be easy to confirm everything needed regardless of the other site's procedures. –LPfi (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Commons user could state at their user page what they want to be done after their passing away. Then anybody who reads the obituary or notices the in memoriam page could take action. For that to work, the identity of the user, or the correspondence between the user here and the one at Flickr would need to have been confirmed. –LPfi (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only with permission to release the files with a free license are the copyright holders: the photographer or his heirs via VRT. And to do that, they must prove they're the heirs of the copyrights. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That should be easy to do for the immediate heirs, by sending a copy of the documents on distribution of the estate. –LPfi (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Given that they can establish the relation between the names in the documents and their identity. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Regarding "A Commons user could state at their user page...", I think the public law will be of different opinion. After the death only the heir will be the copyright holder, and it will likely be irrelevant what the prior copyright holder had put on any user page. Again, there is no business for the VRT, besides that the heir can release the images after becoming copyright holder though the normal process. --Krd 11:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that might be a problem. If the statement is repeated in their will, then there shouldn't be any legal problems (unless the clause is contested). Still, the heirs (or somebody else involved) would need to tell the VRT that the images now are licenced as stated. –LPfi (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2021111710001166 - missing files[edit]

It seems there were quite a few deleted, at least s"File:Gussenstadt, Michaelskirche (26).jpg" to ... (33).jpg - perhaps a few more. I somehow missed that (I guess the permission came too late). Please look into this and restore. There is a general permission for all files by this author. Thanks, --Subbass1 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket appears to be handled by Mussklprozz. I can see images with this ticket, such as File:Gerstetten, Michaelskirche (01).jpg. And File:Gussenstadt, Michaelskirche (26).jpg still exist. But File:Gussenstadt, Michaelskirche (33).jpg has been deleted. Perhaps Mussklprozz can look into this. Ellywa (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Subbass1, the Gussenstadt images still exist up to #30, but #31 to #33 have been deleted. Is it possible that these images were uploaded or assigned after the releases were entered on November 26? Unfortunately, we do not have the means in support to monitor whether something is happening in a category or with an artist. At that time, I asked you then to send us a hint under the ticket number whenever new images would arrive. - Of course, it is also possible that I made a mistake and overlooked images. In this case I beg your pardon.
@Ellywa Can the files File:Gussenstadt, Michaelskirche (31).jpg to File:Gussenstadt, Michaelskirche (33).jpg please be restored? Or do I need to write an extra entry on the undeletion request page?
@Subbass1 Can you find out with acceptable effort if and which other images are affected?
Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mussklprozz: , thanks for your fast response. These are undeleted now:
I thinks this was all, per uploads of Subbass1 during that period of time. Ellywa (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks, yes I think it's complete now. Another author, I confused that. Will take care of the missing permission mail. --Subbass1 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ellywa @Subbass1: Thanks to both of you. Yes, it is another author. I put "permission received" tags into the files to prevent speedy deletion. I am looking forward to the new permission mail. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Campus Ahlem (c) Ulf Ostländer.jpg[edit]

Hi, There is a ticket number here, but no license. Can someone check the ticket please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: I added {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Email message template for multiple files[edit]

- Same author sending the email

- media works only

- CC-BY-SA 4.0 only

Would it be possible to send one email for multiple files using a modified email template :

"I hereby affirm that I AUTHOR, the CREATOR of the exclusive copyright of the media works as shown here :





, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of these works.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.



Arflhn (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arflhn: Yes, but that doesn't scale unless you include instructions on finding the files as uploaded to Commons (if they already have been).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watermark on your photos[edit]

I've gone through your disclaimer and I've taken in all your requirements that your photos can be used under the specified requirements. I have a question rearding your photos. Is it still possible to use them and they have watermarks of Bollywood Hungama? 12:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Please give an example. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone check if this ticket (example: File:Zabranjeno pusenje-1.jpg) valid also for File:Zabranjeno-pusenje-2021.jpg. --Smooth O (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smooth O: Yes, I marked it as such.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]