Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
VRT Noticeboard
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: 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
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

ticket:2022072810010392 (Japanese)

[edit]

It turned out the permission statement in ticket:2022072810010392 was incomplete - it didn't mention a license name. I asked for it about a week ago, after more than one year we (mistakenly) said it was all set, and have not received a response. Does the file need to be speedy-deleted soon? Is after 30 days too early considering the situation? whym (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whym: I can only find a link to File:葵ローズ インスタグラム画像 2021-10-12.jpg. The other link is broken? Are we discussing this file? Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given "I grant anyone the right to use the work and modify it to their needs, even in commercial products or otherwise, provided that I comply with the terms of the license and any other applicable law" (in the ticket) - the file doesn't meet speedy deletion. This is a clear cut permission that makes the file compatible with our requirements. However, I am leaning towards a change in the permissions template. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the file. I considered {{Copyrighted free use}}, but I'm not really sure. The permission was granted conditionally, like "anyone can use this work as long as they satisfy conditions given in the license below", which might look superficially good, until you learn that the conditions are unspecified because "below" is blank. If they respond and clarify on that, things will be fine, until then the file's status seems shaky. As far as I know, I am the only non-dormant VRT agent for permissions-ja for 1-2 years or longer. If anyone else is hesitant to comment here because of the language, please don't be. whym (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which files are affected by this? --Krd 12:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:葵ローズ インスタグラム画像 2021-10-12.jpg whym (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has been long enough in unclear copyright status at this point. I tagged it with "no permission" again. whym (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know a general principle on how to act on a case like this, because I'll probably work on potentially overturning a similar, previously accepted ticket a long time ago. Here, I waited for a few weeks for the ticket owner to respond (to see what they think about the suspicion), privately. I waited another few weeks for the copyright holder to respond, privately. Now we are waiting for a few days for the copyright holder to respond, publicly. Am I being too cautious, or is it about right? Can I immediately revert it back to the "Permission received" (not confirmed) status, and start a 30-day deadline for deletion, as soon as I have suspicion on the copyright status? whym (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be nice to first raise the issue with the VRT user in private, if they are still VRT user. Waiting one weak should definitely be enough. Krd 09:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ticket:2008012810015433 (Italian)

[edit]

The ticket is mentioned at n:it:File:Francesco cirillo.jpg and it was once moved to Commons as File:Francesco cirillo.jpg with the permission lost. The file was then deleted without a clear notice if the permission was checked or not. Perhaps an Italian speaking user can check the permission and make a comment at the file if it is acceptable or not? --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73 For today standards, the VRT permission was insufficient. We need the photograph's permission usually in these cases. Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Thank you. Todays standard are probably higher than back then. But hard to tell if we would have accepted it back then now its som many years ago (2008?). --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Now we would have asked a direct email, and from the photographer, not from who claims to hold the copyright. This was a forwarded email. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Yes we would today. But usually we do not challenge tickets if they were accepted years ago. Per {{Grandfathered old file}} we accept old things even if they do not meet the requirements we have today :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Yes, but you're probing for an undeletion today on yesterday's criteria :) So I answer you by today standard.
Actually, I don't know. If it's a selfie, the permission should be valid, given that Cirillo also gave an interview to Wikinews. If it's not, we don't have a permission from the photographer. Ruthven (msg) 20:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Hmmm. Yeah because the file is in use in Italian Wikinews and per n:it:Discussione:Francesco Cirillo: i programmatori agili, una nuova filosofia dello sviluppo software it seems the permission was accepted and the reason the file was deleted on Commons in the first place is because someone messed up the permission during transfer. If anything its probably more a bystander selfie than an actual selfie. So guess it can't go to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 I reckon that the permission wasn't valid in 2008 either. No license and no author are mentioned. The assumption was that Cirillo was the copyright holder and was giving permission to publish under a free license just because he accepted to be interviewed. Ruthven (msg) 08:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven Thank you. In that case I'm sure it was not enough to be accepted on Commons back then. --MGA73 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the conclusion? Have all issues been addressed? --Krd 09:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Würzburg, St. Bruno (24).jpg

[edit]

Ticketnr. habe ich gerade nicht, kann trotzdem jemand nach diesen Dateien schauen wo das Problem liegt? Meiner Erinnerung nach wurde die Genehmigung vom Fotografen gesendet. Ungefähr 10 Dateien mit aufsteigender Ordnungsnr.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:W%C3%BCrzburg,_St._Bruno_(24).jpg --Subbass1 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

transfer of verification

[edit]

Dear team, as pointed out by Achim55, please transfer the verification ticket:2024111410003941 of de:User:CCC-LMU to the Commons project here as well. Many thanks and have a good start to the week! Alex CCC-LMU (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Krd 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gegenfrage: Wofür gibt es {{Verified account}}? --Achim55 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Für ganz seltene umstrittene Konfliktfälle. Nicht zur routinemäßigen Dekoration und nicht als Freigabeersatz. Krd 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Und woher kommt die Weisheit? Von Use of the names of organizations is allowed on Commons only if you verify your account, proving that you are or represent the respective organization. wohl nicht. Ich bin ja trotz meines Alters noch lernfähig. --Achim55 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Village pump/Proposals#username verification at Commons Krd 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015112710013066

[edit]

This ticket refers to a lot of memorial images taken from an apparently minor 2015 Facebook gallery of inspirational posters with photographs and quotations.

Taking one of those posters, File:Malcolm-muggeridge.jpg, it shows https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/english-journalist-author-and-television-personality-news-photo/3432143, a 1959 Stringer photo by Derek Berwin, via Getty Images. The photo has been subsequently cropped down from the Facebook poster to illustrate en:Malcolm Muggeridge, crediting the Facebook page for the portrait.

What does the ticket say? Is it just the owner of the Facebook account confirming they've released the posters you can see on their Facebook page under a CC-licence? Belbury (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury, this is in Ukranian so I can't help unfortuntely. Pinging @Ahonc. Regards, Aafi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This permission is from Ukrainian Institute of National Memory for files about Holodomor from their site and facebook galleries. @Antanana: got that permission. She may have more info.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2015020310012351

[edit]

ticket:2015020310012351

This ticket from 2015 if I understood correctly covers the images in Files provided by the Museo del Bicentenario. Most of the images are either old official photographs, pictures of objects from the museum, etc. However, there are other that I think should not be covered by it, for example File:Museo del Bicentenario - "¡Basta!" por Carlos Terribili.jpg is a painting from 2011 or File:Museo del Bicentenario - Revista PBT.jpg, File:Museo del Bicentenario - "Asunción del Presidente Arturo Illia".jpg that are caricatures published in magazines, etc. Does the ticket have a permission from the real artists or their heirs? Because museums usually own objects, but rarely their copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that the ticket provides permission for the images, not the underlying works. However, I do not speak Spanish. This ticket was previously discussed in Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#Spanish ticket check. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a VRT ticket

[edit]

Hi! I recently instructed a third party to forward an email chain to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 18 December - ticket:2024121710009651; they received a reply, requesting further information about which specific media files on Commons they were authorizing; now, should I be uploading all of the files with the Template:permission pending template?

I believe the email I sent was referencing both a) a large number of files and b) potential for new files to be uploaded; would each of these need to be approved independently by the copyright holder or is there a template we would be able to create for this? (such as Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission or Template:PD-NCGov-legislator photo)

Thanks - and sorry that I'm asking so many questions! Staraction (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-WVGov-legislature photos}} has been created. I would suggest not uploading any files until the copyright holder can verify that the information in the template is correct. When you upload the files, please include the custom license template and {{Licensereview}} so they can be checked by a license reviewer. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2012011710005331

[edit]

ticket:2012011710005331 added to the file below by non VRT volunteer:

As far as I can see the situation is not clear. see:

The point is that the ticket already added to 573 files. If it's ok, maybe it's worth to create License template as User:MGA73 suggested. -- Geagea (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that the ticket is okay for old files but perhaps not for new files. So I made Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-Medija centar Beograd. Let me know what you think. But someone should really check the ticket because it was long ago since I read it (Google Translate).
I suggested to stop using the permission because those that was involved in it earlier think that it may not be as good as we would require today. But I'm open to let it have no end-date. --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dungodung, your opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, I might have said this in an earlier thread of similar nature a few years back. This type of permission wouldn't be accepted nowadays, since it's a blanket confirmation for the whole website, and it's not certain that the person that gave the permission really knew what they were doing. I would honestly void this and perhaps it makes sense to approach MC again to ascertain whether this practice of using their images can continue, in which case we could create something more formal (maybe even include WMRS, CC @Gorana Gomirac (VMRS)). Filip (§) 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
  1. 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)
  2. 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]

Melissa Ingaruca Moreno

[edit]

According to this discussion, Melissa Ingaruca Moreno (User:Melissa Ingaruca) has contacted the VRT to confirm her identity; could a VRT member confirm this? Gestumblindi (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's plausible that the request comes from them. Krd 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's plausible, too. And the VRT team did receive the message from Melissa Ingaruca confirming her identity? I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but it would probably help to put to rest remaining doubts. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The VRT has received something which is not a waterproof confirmation of identity, but as the VRT are not notaries, this isn't even possible. What has been received is plausible enough for a keep decision. Krd 12:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't think we'll need a "waterproof confirmation of identity". I'll relay your comment to the DR discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It's not about a "keep decision" in this case, because Melissa Ingaruca wants her images deleted, and the confirmation of identity is to make sure that the request comes really from her, so the opposite. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my confusion. But in any case it can be taken as granted that the request is authentic. Krd 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal affecting VRT work

[edit]

Please have a look at the proposal Require VRT permission from nude models. To keep the discussion centralized please discuss this there. GPSLeo (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024051610003798: wrongly removed image

[edit]

As explicitly stated in [1], Alt-right_anime_style.png was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by its creator under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. It was deleted wrongly. Kaotao (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please encourage the permission sender to reply to our followup questions. --Krd 08:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Commemorative Plaques

[edit]

A deletion notice has been placed on File:June Hancock Leeds Civic Trust plaque.jpg, on the assumption that text is copyright. If so, it would apply to over 200 plaques put up by Leeds Civic Trust, and many other organisations putting up plaques on historic buildings or for a notable person. I emailed the trust and their Communication Officer replied: "We really appreciate all the pictures of our plaques on Wikimedia Commons and indeed make use of them (with the appropriate credit!) for social media posts and the like where we lack our own images. The plaques are owned by us, but they exist to promote public education on Leeds’ history and heritage. The text is not copyrighted, and we would be devastated if your fantastic collection of images were removed. There is absolutely no reason from us for you to remove the images. There is no copyright issue here – they are photographs of an artefact in a public place."

Is there some appropriate policy already? The average contributor such as myself is not aware of the vast amount of rules and case law which apply. I think plaques are a special case. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question the the VRT? --Krd 15:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chemical Engineer: there really isn't a question for VRT here, but I'm picking this up as an admin. There is a copyright here whether they want it or not; if their intent is to allow these to be used freely, they should either indicate a specific licence on their own website or they should contact VRT (per the usual means laid out at COM:VRT) to indicate that they are granting a licence. I would recommend that, depending on whether they are interested in being credited on all uses or not, they use either {{Cc-zero}} (if there is no need to credit them) or {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} (if they wish to be credited). - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have sent an email to permissions-commons, so I hope this can be sorted out directly. Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=985678420"