Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ticket:2007090610014151

Hi! As far as I understand, this ticket allows Commons to use audio files produced by the cellist John Michel. Most of these files are the music of classical composers died long ago. However, in some cases Mr. Michel is playing works of contemporary composers who are quite alive:

So I wonder if composers Maria Newman and Jason Marsh also have given their permission for using their works. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andrei Romanenko, no permission in this ticket from any of the composers, permission only came from the performer, regrettably. I saw also music from Samuel Barber (who died 1981) in Category:John Michel. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2022122010005116

Hello, I've been entrusted with the photo File:Kao, Min-lin.jpg to upload, but it was deleted so soon. The owner had mail to VRT and get the ticket number as title. Just want to know the request is passed, rejected or still waited for someone to check. Thank you.-- Reke (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Reke: , this is in queue and has not received any agent's attention so far. Best, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

wrong ticket

i believe the bot marked the file with wrong ticket. i emailed you, and maked someone emailed you, and we recieved a response. but, i believe bot put ticket on wrong file.

please look:

ticket:2022121710005104

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kadıköy'de mahsa amini afişi-1.jpg#File:Kadıköy'de mahsa amini afişi-1.jpg ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Modern primat: That ticket is only about File:Emek Partisi Propaganda Afişi-Yoksullara ücretsiz olsun-Şubat 2022-A propaganda poster in Turkey.jpg and File:Emek Partisi Propaganda Afişi-Asgari ücret-Kasım 2021-A propaganda poster in Turkey.jpg, it is in the Turkish language permissions queue, and it has not yet been processed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thank you so much for that information. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Modern primat: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

VRT release of File:Lumen Sapientiae.webm

File:Lumen Sapientiae.webm is a cinematography produced under NDEC WERT's project ISOTR. 17 crew members worked for this video and NDEC WERT's mother organization, Notre Dame English Club is the copyright holder of this video file. The names of the 17 people has been mentioned at the credit part of this file at the very last of the video.

Is I can understand, we need to get declaration from the authors of the intellectual work saying that they are transferring the copyright to Notre Dame English Club and then Notre Dame English Club will be able to release the file through VRT process. Getting a single copyright transfer document signed from 17 people is complex. Is it okay if one from 17 people sends the declaration to vrt on behalf of the whole team keeping everyone in CC? Mrb Rafi (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it is explicit that the Notre Dame English Club is the exclusive copyright holder of the work, a permission release from them should be enough. @Jeff G., do you have any ideas on this? ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks that permission has been accepted for this file per ticket:2023010510009964. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Scott Schwab official photo.jpg

Hello, I had uploaded a file under the name of File:Scott Schwab official photo.jpg about one-to-two months ago and it was deleted on December 12, 2022, because no permission was sent in. However, on December 13, 2022, I received an email from the KS Secretary of State's office saying they had sent in the permission. Is someone able to look into this, please? If I need to, I can re-upload the image. Thanks, Corky 17:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A full-text search of "Scott Schwab" on the entire VRTS database reveals no results. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Hmmm... interesting! Thanks for checking! That searches for file name, etc., too? I could give you a name or email from that person, not sure if that would help. Corky 18:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the email address of the sender would be very helpful. (And if it is not publicly known, you can email it to me to protect their privacy.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Email has been sent! Corky 18:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I have found the ticket: Ticket:2022121310011981. However, that is a different photo with him wearing a red tie, so you should re-upload this photo (of him wearing a red tie) if you have a copy. Be sure to include {{subst:PP}} on the file description. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Awesome, glad you found it! I've reached out to the POC to retrieve the red tie copy and will let you know once I've re-uploaded it. Thanks, Corky 18:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: It's been uploaded and marked with {{subst:PP}}. Thanks! Corky 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Accepted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

File:林海音.tif

This image is a derivative work of several photos of unspecified origin and copyright status based solely on the description page. Please check if ticket:2017112310007121 (presumably written in Chinese) contains any info regarding permissions of those photos as opposed to just the derivative work itself. Wcam (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wcam, The ticket doesn't mention any info about things beyond the derivative work. Pinging @Taiwania Justo who passed the ticket back then. They might have some ideas. They don't have access to VRT currently ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not VRT member right now due to long absent, so I cannot remember this case unless I can read this letter. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 10:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging some agents with knowledge of the language @Mailer diablo, OhanaUnited, Mys 721tx, Jimmy Xu, Wong128hk, and Stang: , can you please look into this issue? Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
From what I can see, the ticket does not mention any photos within the compilation. It only granted permission to the derivative work itself. Mys_721tx (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I will nominate the image for deletion. Ellywa (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2011101310013458

Can you please confirm that this ticket gives permission to host the work of Joseph-Francis Sumégné despite FOP restrictions, as claimed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Joseph-Francis Sumégné, La Nouvelle Liberté ? TIA Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gbawden: This is so huge and I'm not feeling well; so not ready to look for this minute detail but I'm pinging @Nihonjoe, who happened to work on this ticket. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait a while. I did find a clue. The permission states that the works by doual'art and its staff many of which are uploaded at Commons by User:Iopensa are "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported).. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much what The Aafi wrote. That's what the permission states in the ticket. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Gbawden as OP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks to all of you Gbawden (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Team,

from which year can digitize books and audio video in india

see this link https://egangotri.org/2022/11/24/know-indian-copyright-laws-series-ii-making-digital-copies-of-copyright-protected-works-is-perfectly-legit/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator&withJS=MediaWiki:Relgen.js Gnuanwar (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gnuanwar: Any picture, film and audio published before 1942 is in the public domain in India and in USA. Yann (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023011410002908

Attention is needed from German-speaking agents. Yahya (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Michael Schmidt Porträt 2022.jpg

Could someone please handle that? The uploader provided File:Copy Invoice Dreyer.png and it looks credible to me. Cheers, Achim55 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Achim55, shouldn't this file be deleted and shared via VRT? Dear @AlexanderEkstase, please communicate through COM:RELGEN and don't share such personal details openly. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, of course I'd have deleted it after the request is done. --Achim55 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Krd, anything about the invoice because you deleted File:Michael Schmidt Porträt 2022.jpg ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
As the invoice is now public, I don't see how this is a VRT issue. If it was one, I'd have questions, as the rights transfer looks a bit ambiguous to me. --Krd 17:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons talk:Help desk#Can we make it easier to designate someone else to add images for another person?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Commons talk:Help desk#Can we make it easier to designate someone else to add images for another person?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a question asked about whether VRT is capable of handing permission verification via regular mail in addition to email. So, perhaps a VRT member could clarify this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems an interesting discussion. Thanks @Marchjuly for bringing it to our attention. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
No clue why this is a question. VRT handles e-mail only. If something is on signed paper anyway, it can be provided by e-mail by anybody. The only problem is such cases is that if the permission is incomplete, there is no easy way to ask back to the copyright holder, so such releases should be complete, precise and unambiguous. --Krd 16:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

i dont know how to use wiki that well but i found this noticeboard. i requested this image of mine for speedydeletion and removed the false attribution of "creative commons" as this is an erroneous licence that should not exist. my multiple requests for speedy edits have been closed and the page has been locked so i cant edit it, and the admin or whoever incorrectly readded the false attribution to my photo! i am hoping for some sort of prompt assistance to immediately remove the protected status on the page, escalate the photo in question for speedy deletion, and please take this high definition commercially sensitive photo off of wikipedia with due haste! i am being met with walls the entire way and the admin who has been assisting me so far has been far from helpful, between them denying my legal right to my own work and adding false attributions despite me explicitly explaining multiple times that this is a mistake! this whole situation is bordering on outright IP theft of commercially sensitive media i was not aware was available on this website so i humbly request some actual help or assistance promptly please!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Already at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg and Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Please escalate my deletion to speedydeletion/copyright violation. --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2021031710013151

Could you, please, verify if this ticket contains CC-BY-SA 3.0 PL license permission from Casjens, S. R., Gilcrease, E. B., Winn-Stapley, D. A., Schicklmaier, P., Schmieger, H., Pedulla, M. L. (or from The American Society for Microbiology) for this image as declared in the image description page? @Superjurek and Jarekt: FYI. Ankry (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I see no evidence that this article, being the source of the image is under a free license. It is "Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology". Ankry (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: Good afternoon, I'm afraid that as You've recently proved this picture and in general most of those picture from my master's thesis are not under free license it is unavoidable way to trial. These days when I uploaded my master's thesis file and pictures cut from this, I was convinced that having used only a single image with translated descriptions and surely having added to such image coordinates to the original source I respected copywrights by right to quote similarly as with my text in which I reported subsequent informations and simultaneously added citations to proper articles and many times doing it by paraphrasing. I will report these pictures for deletion today. Thanks for You responsibility, observantness and Your goodwill. Best regards Superjurek (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: I've already requested most of images from this category. Leftover, that are made by myself, I haven't requested because any copyvio didn't occure in this case. Superjurek (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ankry (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not delete Daragreenyates.png

moved from Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team
I have been working with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RodRabelo7 to clear a headshot. Dara has emailed indicating she is the owner of the photo. I was told by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RodRabelo7 that I should ask here for that file NOT to be deleted.

Thanks! Scubachristopher (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
END moved from Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scubachristopher: I moved your comment here (which is a more appropriate place than a discussion about the VRT page itself). Basically, if a good permission is sent, it should all work out; the worst likely case is a temporary deletion, that will be restored when the process completes. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:Daragreenyates.png - Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Scubachristopher: That file page says it is your own work. Did you take that photo or not? - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
It's my wife's headshot. She paid for the photo. She owns it. She's sent an email to document her ownership.
Thanks for the help! Scubachristopher (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Scubachristopher: Then you should correct {{Own work}} to the name of the photographer. Also: when you say "She owns it," may I presume you mean that the copyright was formally signed over to her? Because if not, then the picture is merely licensed to her, and we'd need the photographer to grant the free license (just trying to save you time and frustration). - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The ticket in discussion is ticket:2023013110020106. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Scubachristopher: Even if the file is deleted, it would be restored if we receive adequate permission from the exclusive copyright holder. So just don't worry. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of files from User:민혁123

Help me.

For some reason, the bot is deleting quickly for each image file that you upload. I thought it must be because I'm a beginner, so I kept posting it, and Eugene Zelenko warned me about copyright infringement. All of the files uploaded are files that have been allowed to be used freely by the copyright holder, and images posted under free licenses on the copyright holder's fan cafe. Please check everything and reveal that it is not a copyright infringement.

It's unfair. The free Lee Ji-mi used in the article is an Instagram image of the copyright holder, In-nyeong, and has been given permission to use it freely by the copyright holder.

File:대한민국의 온라인 콘텐츠 창작자, 교수, 여성 방송인.jpg
Ticket:2023011210006971]

It is a free license for this article to be the source of the image, and I have been given permission to use the image freely by In-nyeong, the main character of the article. It has been approved by free license. Please check and keep it approved.

I made a mistake when uploading the file because I didn't know about the copyright issue. However, for some reason, the bot was deleted so quickly that I didn't have a chance to explain it. The files I uploaded before were also photos posted on Instagram, a free license. I was approved by E-nyeong, the copyright holder, and got a ticket number. The copyright status of the file meets the conditions specified in the license policy and has a clear source.Please restore.


Ticket:2023011910009911
Ticket:2023011910009901
Ticket:2023011910009885
Ticket:2023011910009876
Ticket:2023011910009858
Ticket:2023011910009849
Ticket:2023011910009812
Ticket:2023011910009778
Ticket:2023011910009769
The 4 files that I uploaded this time were also uploaded with free license photos at the Inyeong fan cafe.
File:E-nyeong (이녕)의 LOL 티모 모자.gif https://cafe.naver.com/ddv1004/2978 (트위치TV스트리머 이녕 롤 LOL 이녕 짤모음 (The 5th picture.)) copyright holder 러블리202
File:E-nyeong (이녕), Demon Slayer.png https://cafe.naver.com/ddv1004/16372 (귀멸의칼날 키부츠지 무잔 여성화버전 코스튬 (The 12th picture.)) copyright holder 러블리202
File:E-nyeong (이녕), LOL Cosplay of Ahri.png https://cafe.naver.com/ddv1004/18298 (게임 여신 이녕의 아리 코스프레 짤 모음(트위치 룰렛 벌칙)(The 1th picture.)) copyright holder 러블리202
File:E-nyeong (South Korean YouTuber).jpg https://cafe.naver.com/ddv1004/21380 (여고생 스트리머 원이녕입니다. 교복녕이!!(The 1th picture.) copyright holder 러블리202
It's not a copyright violation. The copyright status of the file meets the conditions specified in the license policy and has a clear source.Please restore it.
Check it out.
Thank you.

민혁123 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@민혁123: , the tickets you are referring to are still waiting processing on the VRT system. There is a backlog, so please be patient. There is no need to upload more versions of these files. The files will be undeleted if it appears the permission is in accordance with our rules. User:-revi, as you are a VRT agent able to communicate in Korean, do you have an opportunity to look into this? Ellywa (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
We have tried to prove that the above file is not a copyright infringement, but nothing is resolved. This is not fair.
Please withdraw and restore the copyright infringement warning. please.. 민혁123 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a backlog. That means you must be patient and wait for your turn. Sooner or later a volunteer will take a look and proceed. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@민혁123: More specifically, the backlog for permissions-ko is currently 24 days.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
We'll wait. Please take good care of it. Thank you.민혁123 (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

File:007 Rákos tál 1937-40.jpg

Hi! Does this ticket for File:007 Rákos tál 1937-40.jpg give any indication if the file had been previously published? If it was not, it is eligible for relicensing to {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}. Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ticket is in Hungarian. --Krd 05:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster: The photo was already published in 2006 here on the gallery.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Esther Graf, Sängerin, Songwriterin und Model.jpg

Please verify the ticket number which is given in the description. -- M-B (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@M-B, I confirm that the VRT has received an email with this ticket number. However, I cannot find any permissions so far. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Owamni by Raphael Tisch.jpg: CC-BY 2.0 or 4.0

Hi there. Which license is provided by ticket:2022121410013397 for File:Owamni by Raphael Tisch.jpg: CC-BY 2.0 or 4.0? Both appear on the file page. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.. Best, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Foto

Este trabajo es gratuito y puede ser utilizado por cualquier persona para cualquier propósito. Si desea utilizar este trabajo , no necesita solicitar un permiso por separado, pero debe cumplir con los términos de la licencia enumerados en esta página.

¿Cuáles son? No aparecen. ¿Puedo usar la imagen libremente? 95.17.237.101 13:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know this language. But Google translate's help, which image are you discussing? ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It's Spanish. Si la licencia es CCBYSA 4.0, el texto de la licencia dice: "Eres libre:
  • de compartir
  • de remezclar
Bajo las siguientes condiciones:
  • atribución
  • compartir igual"
Y cada término está convenientemente explicado. Si es otra licencia, indícalo. Gracias. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Images Ticket:2022120610010726

Hello, So in September 2022 I nominated File:Jeremy Reingold Rugby Player in Players Tunnel Newlands Rugby Stadium with wife ( Carina Marx ).jpg and File:Jeremy Reingold Former World 200m Swimming Individual Medley Record Holder.jpg (DR here) on the basis that: The first image looks like a photograph retaken with a phone (top left looks weird) Second image looks like a still from a video

In December Krd added a VRT ticket[1] however I'm still not convinced this image is this users and apparently neither is @Ellywa: whom told to me come here,

So I was wondering if someone could relook at the ticket in case something may of been missed ?, I have since wondered if Jeremy held some sort of event somewhere which would explain the photograph-on-photograph image and the video still but I'm baffled as to why a better video still wasn't uploaded or why the video itself wasn't uploaded, I'm still convinced these are copyvios, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

looking even more in detail I note the file page includes a camera location which does not correspond with the landscape of the photo as can be seen from street view. Ellywa (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Davey2010, @Ellywa: Taking a look at the ticket, I feel it is best to seek original file from the copyrights claimant, a file that has full EXIF details, since they claim to be the original photographer. ─ The Aafī (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Davey2010, @Ellywa: Follow up email seeking higher resolution of the file has been sent. @Krd, I hope you don't mind me doing this but I applied common sense. The permissions on the file-page should be once again changed to under-process. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks The Aafī. I changed the vrt template on the file page. So now we must wait for an answer. Ellywa (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @TheAafi for relooking at this and helping us, Thank you @Ellywa for pointing me here and for adding the ticket num in title, I greatly appreciate both of your help here, Thanks again, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 16:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I'm glad that I have been helpful. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI I've nominated the file for deletion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

ticket #2016092010010486

Hello, could you please verify if the permission for the ticket #2016092010010486 (https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016092010010486) was given by the National Gallery in Prague (Narodni galerie v Praze)? Thank you! BR 195.250.133.238 09:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ankry is the best person to help on this. I don't know the language of this ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems so. Why are you asking? Ankry (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi! We would like to use that image in a scientific publication. 195.250.133.238 08:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
And also I would like to save some costs for the reprorights. 195.250.133.238 08:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes it is. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello mates, the Royal Society wants File:Sir Everard Home 1756–1832.jpg to be deleted because it infringes their copyright. The source page of the file is also not clear. If I were an admin, I'd have deleted it (provided that it was not into PD). I'm bringing it here to seek opinions from you. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a painting published in 1829, whose creator died in 1845. The only possible claim to copyright they have is that they are claiming copyright in the photo/scan of the painting. But the relevant Wikimedia Commons policy is COM:COREL; the Wikimedia Foundation takes the view that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain. This has a fairly firm basis in the law of the United States, the country where Wikimedia Commons is hosted and where the Wikimedia Foundation is domiciled; the {{PD-art}} tag exists for this very reason.
As such, I believe that we should  Keep this file, both in my capacity as a VRT agent and in my capacity as a Commons editor. If the Royal Society believes that they hold a valid copyright on the image, they are free to send a futile DMCA to the Wikimedia Foundation or to throw a weak court challenge the WMF's way, but asking Commons to delete this file―a faithful reproduction of a copyrighted work―represents an attempt by the Royal Society to restrict our rights and freedoms to access the content of the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Red-tailed hawk: I was confused in between two things. This clarifies a lot. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Lizenzstatus für Kieferer Krippen / permission state for nativity scenes from Kiefersfelden

Fünf Bilder aus der Kategorie Kieferer Krippen stehen seit etwa 2023-02-10 im Status {{Permission received}}:

Der Bearbeiter hat den Förderverein Kieferer Krippen mit folgender Aufforderung kontaktiert (Ticket 2023020910007304):

  • „bitte geben Sie an wer die Fotografen sind, die diese Fotos aufgenommen haben, und aufgrund welcher Umstände Ihr Verein Rechteinhaber an den Foto wurde…“

Wer die Fotos gemacht hat, geht aus der Vorlage {{Artwork}} hervor. Was die Rechte an den Krippen anbelangt, hat der Förderverein nicht behauptet, selbst Rechteinhaber zu sein, sondern bei den Rechteinhabern nachgefragt zu haben („…unter der Lizenz cc-by-sa-4.0 freigegeben sind. Die Rechteinhaber an den Krippen haben dem zugestimmt.”)

Die Künstler Albrecht und Constantin Hahn sowie Siegfried Leitner, die die Krippen (abgesehen von Grundmaterial, das keine Schöpfungshöhe erreicht) angefertigt haben, waren bis zu Ihrem Tod (2022 bzw. 2019) Mitglieder des Vereins. Ich sehe daher keinen Grund zu bezweifeln, dass der Vereinsvorstand bei den Erben nachgefragt und eine positive Antwort bekommen hat. Dass der Verein das gewissenhaft handhabt, sieht man zum Beispiel daran, dass für eines der Fotos (einer anderen Krippe) eine Erlaubnis nicht zu bekommen war; dieses Foto wurde dann auch nicht hochgeladen.

Wenn die Aussage des Vereinsvorstandes, dass die Rechteinhaber einer freien Lizenz zugestimmt haben, bezweifelt wird, ist natürlich nichts zu machen, denn die Rechteinhaber werden keine notariell beglaubigte Erklärung schicken. In diesem Fall müssen die fünf Bilder zunächst gelöscht werden, mit dem Vermerk, dass sie nach 70 Jahren (2092 bzw. 2089) wieder freizugeben sind. –– Renardo la vulpo (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Die Freigabe aller fünf Bilder wurde heute bestätigt, danke.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ Renardo la vulpo (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Uploads by AlonsoTav

Hi there, I'm not a member of the VRT team and cannot view tickets, but I've noticed something odd. I've noticed that user AlonsoTav has a number of files they've managed to secure tickets for:

However, as evidenced by their talk page, User talk:AlonsoTav, this user does not seem particularly sophisticated in their understanding of the Commons. They've had several files removed for Copyright violations and they upload from websites simply at random, rather than from websites that might use creative commons licenses.

It is possible that they've managed to secure permission for these images from "All Elite Wrestling", the company which employs all the people featured in these images. I myself have managed to do this for other images by contacting their social media/digital team. So it is possible, although I'm not sure It's probable in the case of AlonsoTav, who in addition to their copyright violations seems to primarily be a Spanish speaker rather than an English speaker.

Would someone be able to give me an idea of what exactly they stated/told you in these tickets? CeltBrowne (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne, The ticket came from one person telling they represent All Elite Wrestling (copyright holder) and also the photographer from there. The email address also appears legitimate. That's everything I can tell. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. That does seem legitimate, as I said myself have been able to contact All Elite Wrestling and secure permission for other files. Thank you for taking the time. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.ogg

Hi to all,

I have uploaded this video but it do not work and it's size is 1.5 GB. Yesterday, I have rebuild another identical version starting from the original MP4, but in WebM, and it's size is only 320 MB.

Is it possible upload a new file, with the name File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.webm and reuse the same VRTS ticket (2023011810005096) without send another ticket 'cause the file is the same and the only modification is the codec?

I ask it 'cause is difficult contact Francesca Volpini which have give me the singles video that I have mixed.

Thank you in advance, Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 11:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Galessandroni: If the source remains same for the modified file, it is alright to use the same VRTS ticket number. No need to send another permission. Please let me know if you have any doubt. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
This is so because File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.ogg is already released under CC BY SA 4.0. You just need to follow guidelines of this, and you are allowed to "to copy, distribute and transmit the work, to adapt the work" keeping in view that you "give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use" and "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.". I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi Thank you. It's true. I know but my request it's a bit different.
Now that I have re-codec the file, and the first one is only a weight for our servers is it possible delete the first file? It is impossible to use it and it is the same to this one. If the answer is no, can I insert (in the ogg file) a simple link to the webm file?
Thanks, Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 12:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Galessandroni: I just removed the VRT tag because it appeared unnecessary and instead inserted a manual text indicating that from where this file has come from. I don't think the file in ogg format is worthy to be deleted. However if you want to get it deleted given its redundant nature and that it won't be ever used, I'll drop a comment on the ticket that the file has been replaced by a webm version and will insert the ticket over there. The COM:DUPE mentions, Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates, but instead possibly redundant. You will need to explain why the webm version is much better than the ogg format and list the file for deletion via COM:DR. There's nothing much where VRT can offer you advises, but I hope this much is helpful. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@The Aafi you have completely answered all my questions and you have helped me to understand several details. Thank you very much for your courtesy. Eventually yes: the file in ogg format is unusable. This is the main reason 'cause I ask for its deletion, to avoid an user finding that file and cannot see the content. But this is another story, outside VRT section. Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 13:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Salve, Giacomo, forse sarebbe utile inserire un {{Superseded}} (or/and {{Other versions}}) nella pagina di descrizione della versione ogg. Saluti, –– Renardo la vulpo (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Help with private Flickr images

An Instagram friend uploaded some nice pics and I requested that he share them on Wikipedia. He doesn't want to have to deal with signing up etcetera, so instead he uploaded them to Flickr (cc-by-sa-2.0). One is publicly accessible, but for the other three photos he gave me private links as he doesn't want to have four photos of the Ford P100 in a row in his curated stream. Therefore Flickrreviewer cannot find the image; I can share the private urls with whoever wants to review the license of the photos. See 1992 Ford P100 TD, rear right.jpg for instance. I asked at the Village Pump and someone suggested bringing it here. Thank you, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Have the photos been already uploaded? Please link. However the easiest way to overcome these issues would have been that: You upload all the images on their behalf, selecting this is not my own work, and then asking your Instagram friend to send a permissions release to VRT. It doesn't require any signing up. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Thank you. Shall I PM you the private links for verification? These are the photos:
1992 Ford P100 TD, rear right.jpg
1992 Ford P100 TD, front right side.jpg
1992 Ford P100 TD, right side profile.jpg
Based on previous experiences, I told Freggs it would be easier to just put them on Flickr since they are already active there. My last attempt at uploading someone else's photos ended with the photos being deleted as the (Romanian-speaking) photographer was unable to comprehend what was required of them. In general, it is hard to have to email someone over and over after they have been kind enough to donate a photo; I have noticed that most people (including my own mother) are reluctant to even write the initial mail. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 14:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers, Could you please ask your friend to use COM:RELGEN, it is pretty much easy to be used and does not require any signing up or login. It generates a release in a very simple manner. What they have to fill is the names of these files and click proceed. At the VRT, I'm subject to an agreement related to non-public information whilst PM'ing or someone else is not. That's not an advisable route. COM:RELGEN is the best way to sort out this issue in a confidential and trusted manner. A note on the images that you linked, even if the copyright holder sends a release today using our RELGEN, these files would be restored if the permission is found adequate. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand, they have already been published under CC-BY-SA-2.0. Could I just contact a Flickr reviewer and have them look? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 15:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers, an email can be send to [email protected] if using RELGEN seems difficult. I mean this is just to ensure the private-thing that you've mentioned in your earlier messages. Best, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers, just mention the ticket number here once you send over the links so that I can take a look. I feel private stuff should be kept private and perhaps this is why I was suggesting using RELGEN, but the email seems for easier than it, as apparent from your response above. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, will do. They are not really worried about the pics being kept private; as you can see photo #1 is public. They just have a self-imposed rule of no repeats in their Flickr stream. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: ticket number: 2023030210014031 Thank you again, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done. @Mr.choppers: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Isn't it amazing that after so many years, new situations/problems can still crop up? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers, situations bring up solutions as well. One of the three files is publicly visible now and the other two should be very soon. This issue is completely resolved. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Progress confirmation

Please let me know the progress of the next two

二ノ瀬仁奈.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:二ノ瀬仁奈.jpg

二ノ瀬仁奈20230218.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:二ノ瀬仁奈20230218.jpg

～～～～ 我羅夢 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@我羅夢, the ticket is awaiting an agent's attention. The release is in Japanese language which I cannot read. Please be patient until an interested VRT agent picks that up. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about "extracted" or cropped images from VRT ticketed images.

File:Eva-Maria Liimets.jpg - Do extracted or cropped image files not need to have the VRT ticket as long as the VRT ticket is on the original file. Is that correct? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct. --Krd 04:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry... due to language problem I do not understand. Is mentioning of the ticket required on the cropped version? Ellywa (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ellywa, it is not necessary. However, it is necessary to mention from where the cropped version has been extracted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for verifying that and for your prompt response. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thanks! Completely clear to me now. 10:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellywa (talk • contribs)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it mandatory for the original uploader of an image to contact the VRT?

MOVED from Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team because this was a question about a particular case, not about policy in general. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Keffals catgirl.jpg was deleted on November 20, 2022, even though as indicated here, the original uploader, Keffals, licensed it under a compatible free license. The reason given was that the file had no VRT ticket, which seems kind of goofy to me, since the uploader still licensed it under a free license and was okay with it being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Is it required that these image go to VRT, and if so, why? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

END MOVED Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  • @Knightoftheswords281: I think the problem is that you did it two ways at once (through VRT and through permission on Twitter) and after User: Red-tailed hawk noted that the VRT ticket wasn't fully resolved (I don't have access to those, so I don't know anything further), User:Krd deleted. @Krd: unless you have reason to believe that the twitter screenshot is a forgery, this looks like an erroneous deletion. Are you willing jut to restore it, or should this go through an undeletion review? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Jmabel and @Knightoftheswords281: Thanks for bringing the issue here. I am not able open the link mentioned above. Could you please link the VRT ticket number here? ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Okay. I got it. ticket:2022110110016188. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Pinging concerned agents: @Elli, @Red-tailed hawk and @Ganímedes. All I can see is that the permissions received were not adequate. Telling that you are permitted to use the photo on Commons and Wikipedia article is not sufficient. The evidence needs to be adequate and well established that the file was indeed published by its author under a free license. Wo don't generally seek permissions of "uploaders" but of "copyright holders" whether that is the photographer or the subject itself. We don't have any good reason to undelete this file as of now. Twitter post has been deleted as indicated and I cannot honestly trust a thing which can be easily faked but at the same time I believe Elli because she is a well established and trusted user and she says she has seen the tweet herself. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah. Will confirm publicly for the record that I did see the Tweet myself. Didn't think to save it in the Internet Archive unfortunately. Elli (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    My issue was that the ticket does not contain a release under a valid free license. I also cannot testify to seeing the alleged tweet while it was live. Whether other evidence is acceptable is up to a license reviewer, a capacity I was not acting in at the time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    A detailed response was sent to from where the permissions came but unfortunately there is no response since 3/11/2022 and that makes Krd's deletion pretty much reasonable as well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted it, on the basis that Elli is someone I would easily grant LR permissions to if they were to request it at COM:RFR. Therefore it has been validly LicenseReviewed IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks King of Hearts. Happy to mark this as resolved. I personally do not have any concerns with undeletion because I trust Elli the way you trust her. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    I guess I'm questioning myself. Who is the photographer for this image? How are we so sure that the subject is allowed to license the image under CC BY SA 4.0? ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    @TheAafi: There isn't really a photographer here. This was taken from a pre-positioned camera during a livestream. While copyright law in this situation isn't exactly clear, if it is protected by copyright at all, Keffals would be the one to hold it. Elli (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks @Elli. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Elli: I want to know how you get this info, since the file uploaded has no EXIF and I see no evidence in the ticket. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Ganímedes: this is her typical streaming setup; for example see this video where the camera has almost the exact same perspective on her. It would make no sense for this photo to have been taken by someone else. Elli (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    So, actually we've got no evidence more than "it should be". What disturbs me in this case is that we us to request the original, unmodified file in most cases, but in this one, we need nothing, even an appropiate release form to agree. I don't think this is fair for the rest of customers. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    It would be completely absurd for the photo to have been produced some other way. Someone would have had to have taken the photo from the same perspective her webcam is usually at (requiring moving all that equipment), and why?
    This is obviously taken from her webcam. We do not need to disregard common sense here. Elli (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    What it's regard common sense it's treat people in different ways avoiding our own systems. If a permission it's needed, it is. If the file has not EXIF, an original, unmodified file is requested. That's common sense. Not to do it because it "is obvious" it's not. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    In this case the VRT permission seems invalid (I don't have access to it). Unless that correspondence puts the permission in doubt, we should treat the file as if there were no VRT correspondence. We default to believing the uploader, unless there is significant doubt. Shouldn't the Twitter feed uploader be trusted in the the same way as a local uploader? For self-portraits, there often is significant doubt, as they (excluding smartphone selfies) seldom is taken by the subject, but I think Elli has made it evident that there should be no serious doubt. The photo might have been taken by somebody else, like some photo I uploaded might have been taken by some family member of mine. That is not the significant doubt of our standard. –LPfi (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course we treat different people different ways.

  • When an experienced contributor claims to be heir to their parent's work and uses an "heirs" license, we virtually never ask for further proof. When a brand new user does the same, we typically ask them to go through the VRT process.
  • When someone with license reviewer status reviews a license, we trust them. When some rando claims to have seen a license, we don't.

I could go on. In this case, someone who has the track record to easily get LR status, but who has not formally applied, says she saw the license. No, we haven't gone through the complete legalistic formality of the LR status here, but it is clear we are dealing with a trusted person asserting something in good faith. The purpose of setting up OTRS/VRT was to make sure that trusted people reviewed things like this, not to set up a Supreme Court. There is no reasonable doubt in this case. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope I can shed some light onto this photo of Sorrenti. It is a catgirl costume she wore on Halloween on stream, meaning she owns the copyright to the photo. She posted the tweet with the photo the same day, DM'd me on Twitter the next (she seems to prefer that over emailing) to ask if the photo, which was pinned on her profile, could be used on Commons. I responded that all she needs to do is reply to the tweet with "image licensed under CC-BY-4.0", which she did! I uploaded it, added a link to the permission tweet, and sent her a link to her Wikipedia page. There *was* the tweet that provided the license of her photo, but someone spooked her, telling her that it was a conflict of interest that I reached out to ask for a photo, and she deleted it: oh they took the photo down and said you broke the rules. so i got anxious and deleted all my tweets related to wanting to get the photo up cause i thought i got you in trouble. if there’s an email i’ll do that. The original link is here (snowflake) to the deleted license. Red, you might recall me asking back then about this kerfuffle. Thanks Knightoftheswords281 for bringing this up again. SWinxy (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
In the future:
  1. Copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject, unless all copyrights have been transferred by law or contract. In that case, be sure we will request a copy to verify its status.
  2. If you upload a photo without EXIF, be ready to be asked the CR to send the original, unmodified file it via VRT
Yes, @Jmabel, you're right, i'm sorry. It should say CRH (copyright holder). If the file uploaded has not EXIF, we always request that the copyright holder email us the original, unmodified file for verification. Better now? --Ganímedes (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  1. Permission should come from the copyright holder, signed by a person, not an aka or alias.
  2. If the license it's added to a Twitter, Facebook, or similar account, we will probably request CR follows the VRT process, just because the threats can be deleted and no evidence remains of the free license, and to avoid license laundering. Yes, this is not the Supreme Court, but the Foundation has faced a couple of trials for Copyrights. We work under the principle of precaution.
  3. Yes, we do a lot of questions; sorry. Be ready to answer them. As fast you do, as short the process, and more successful it will be. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Your position on requiring VRT for photos posted to social media are wrong. We have a license reviewer check if the license is valid (and ideally save the page at archive.org or similar). It's not necessary to do VRT unless we suspect license laundering, but that's not always applicable! When a photo is obviously self-taken we have no need to require VRT and do not require it.
As for a picture like this, given that it's likely a screenshot from a livestream, there would not be much EXIF data to start with. Elli (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  1. The ticket includes no permission, just a "you can use my photo to my wikipage", which is not valid in any case.
  2. Photo can be a screenshot or similar, but it should be a device involved (cellphone, camera, etc). There is no evidence of a device used in this case or the file uploaded is not the original.
  3. Source was deleted, and it's not available even in archive.org, so no way to verify it now.
  4. I do believe you've seen the tweet and verified the permission as you claimed, of course. However, you've made no comment in the ticket or anywhere till now. We can't guess.
  5. At least, you should admit this case has not been properly handled. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I commented on the ticket.
    Of course the handling here was not ideal. This was a weird situation and should not have gone through VRT in the first place. The permission given on VRT would indeed not be sufficient, but that's not the main factor here; it's the previously-publicly-posted permission. Elli (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Elli, That's the same thing I feel, it is pretty much irrelevant to drag VRT into issues where permission is already stated in public. But if there are doubts, then asking a VRT verification is always helpful. A similar thing happened with File:Aaqib Anjum Aafi.jpg, which was once DR'ed and kept per common sense, because this image was captured by the uploader and they themselves uploaded it, even though it lacking EXIF. I was weirdly asked to send permissions for this image where I explained the issue in detail, and the issue was also brought up into my recent failed RfA. Why on earth would you ask someone to send permissions for an image in which they have been photographed by someone and that someone has himself uploaded that image. I feel trust also plays a part in such cases as KoH noted above, that Elli is someone I would easily grant LR permissions to if they were to request it at COM:RFR but seeking of permissions in this case makes sense to me due to two reasons:
    1. The file was not uploaded by the copyright holder
    2. The file permission source had been deleted (and I feel once again it is weird to mistrust established users that that uploaded an image under a fake-screenshot release, no way). I would always give benefit of doubt to established users. Unfortunately, the file was uploaded by @SWinxy, whom no one would consider an established user here given their 292 edits on this project.
    That's to say, this all has made this a mess and I don't feel there is any relevance of the VRT ticket here. VRT is not used in every second case. However the only question here has been, who is the photographer and if it is the subject herself (as Elli says), there's no need of VRT (I'd trust an established editor) and if it is otherwise, we need a proof and permission from the photographer. In the former case, I suggest seeking clarification from the subject that how did the image in discussion came into "existence", even if we trust Elli. That's the best and convenient solution to this problem in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    From what has been discussed here, it's pretty clear that there is no other photographer. That isn't something we need Keffals to confirm at this point, so I don't see there as still being a problem.
    If they had replied to the VRT ticket again, this also would've been clarified, but given that they didn't do so within the past few months, kinda doubt they will now, unless SWinxy has a way to contact them personally. But that's not necessary. Elli (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe in this case it's all clear to you, but it was not clear to me from the beginning. Yes, you did comments in the ticket explaining that you've seen that Twitter, but after this threat and not before or when you've accepted the permission. I do believe the best solution here it's to request the copyright holder to follow VRT procedures: to send the permission template and the original, unmodified file for verification, as we do in other cases when there are doubts, no matter how useless you think it is. PS: a photo from a "pre-positioned camera during a livestream" also should have EXIF. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Your comment that "However, you've made no comment in the ticket or anywhere till now." is just wrong. I explained the exact situation in the ticket on 11/04/22. Long before this thread was opened.
And no, screenshots don't usually have EXIF. At least not data that would be useful. Nor would having a file with EXIF actually assuage your expressed doubts here.
There is no "solution" necessary here because there is no problem! You're making this all about the process but ignoring that we do know that the photo was taken by her, was shared by her, and permission was given by her. Yes, the process we got to recognizing all of this was not ideal but you cannot seriously deny any of these things.
If you're super insistent on getting this deleted because you honestly think that there's a chance that this photo was taken by someone else, whatever, I'm not going to fight you more on this. But please consider whether that's actually productive or if you're just following some idea you have of "the rules" without considering whether it actually makes sense to follow them in this case. Elli (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't super insist "on getting this deleted because [I] honestly think that there's a chance that this photo was taken by someone else", I super insist because there is no valid permission, there was no way to verify the Twitter (it was verified on March, but the permission was added on November), there is no original file, the uploader is not the copyright holder and you've ignored all procedures just because "this is an exceptional case", and all exceptions I see here it's the poor way to manage the case. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I haven't "ignored all procedures". I wasn't the one who brought this back up again even!
If you don't trust me, that's fine I guess, but other users here (including admins/LRs) do, so the permission issue is resolved. The uploader not being the copyright holder has no relevance at all to this. They never claimed to be and that has nothing to do with whether there is valid permission.
Your only valid contention here is that there's no original file (which does not matter unless you think the photo was taken by someone other than Keffals, which makes no sense) and that I didn't follow the proper procedures initially (which is not the same as "ignoring all procedures"). Whether the proper procedures with regards to tagging permission were followed initially does not change whether we have valid permission now. Your behavior here towards me is quite frustrating when I have made every effort to explain the situation and you have repeatedly misrepresented me, my actions, and this situation as a whole. Elli (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll email you to avoid public revelation of private information. However, I already told you that I do believe you've seen the Twitter, but the email itself and the whole situation are a mess that could be avoided. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the email. I'm sorry for how I expressed my frustrations here and am glad we could resolve this. Elli (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

File:HenryRollins Singing.jpg

How confident about the permission on ticket:2010010710002848 for File:HenryRollins Singing.jpg would you say you are? Specifically, is there indication that Flickr uploader beezlebubba is actually the photographer? I ask because there's an open deletion request for other photos of Rollins from this Flickr user, who appears to be engaging in some level of Flickrwashing. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

(The photos at that deletion request were all marked CC-BY on Flickr and uploaded to Commons much later than this one, which was passed through the VRT system.) Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bobamnertiopsis: Thanks for bringing the issue here. The ticket does not contain any permissions. It just mentions the flickr urls of the two files and their respective urls on Commons. The other file is File:HenryRollins Performing 1993.jpg. This is an obvious flickr-washing case in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I must say, this is a ticket dating back to 2010, when things were not much complicate as they are now. I'd assume good faith on the VRT agent who passed it back then but I wouldn't pass it in such a condition. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks The Aafī! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Szyk

Please see [[2]]. File:Arthur Szyk (1894-1951). Visual History of Nations, The United States of America (1945), New York.jpg, at least, seems to lack a VRT ticket, though it may exist and not have been placed on the file page. I suspect someone may want to look through all of User:Allison.c.chang's uploads (there are about 50, and they are all Arthur Szyk's work) for similar issues. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel, I'll answer there. Ruthven (msg) 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023032010011928 Logo of the Peruvian organization A Mi No Me La Hacen

Colleagues, thanks a lot for your help and quick support on the subject. I just want to attract your attention to the same file in English Wikipedia [3] as it was originally uploaded to English Wikipedia. Now the licensing information is different for the two copies of the same file. I would suggest to delete the copy from English Wikipedia as all the legal and licensing problems are solved. --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@LexKurochkin, the request belongs to English Wikipedia. A request for deletion should be made there under F8 criteria. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Please, keep it here for several days for reference. I'll try to communicate to English Wikipedia admins. Thank you. --LexKurochkin (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@LexKurochkin, no need to open this once again. Requests belonging to other projects should be made there. Anyways, this file has been deleted from English Wikipedia. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --LexKurochkin (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

2023-02-01 Handball, Bundesliga Frauen, Thüringer HC - HSG Bensheim-Auerbach 1DX 2981 by Stepro.jpg

@Stepro: , colleagues,

the subject

I thoroughly studied the image due to discussion in QIC, and, as I do sometimes for portraits to understand how realistic they are, tried to find other images of the same person using Google. Among the top search results I have found this one [4] under proprietary license and with different rights holder. I don't know how and what really happened with this photo, but I see potential author rights and license terms violation for an image made with support of the Community-Budget of Wikimedia Deutschland. Regards, --LexKurochkin (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all: I don't understand what the VRT could have to do with this. VRT would not be responsible at all in the event of a license violation by a third party.
To answer your question: This is all perfectly fine and legal. I upload most of my sports photos to newspapers and agencies, as well as Wikimedia Commons. Depending on the user's wishes, they can be used for a fee without license information, or free of charge under a free license.
I also make everything completely transparent, on my Commons user page there is a link to my website, there you will find the relevant information in the "Info" section (also available in English), Imago is also mentioned. Stepro (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I see. I am not a lawyer, and thus possibly my understanding of the CC BY-SA 4.0 is not perfect. My intention was to protect you and Wikimedia projects. Sorry, if there is no real problem and I just created a mess without sufficient reason. --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The file on Commons has full EXIF and there is no reason to doubt this. This noticeboard is not the venue to discuss the files that have nothing to do with VRT-permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I was not in any doubt of the Stepro's authorship. Only about the license issue. I am really sorry if it looked that way. --LexKurochkin (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Attaf

Hi

Did you have received the email for the file ? Panam2014 (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, an email has been received, ticket:2023032310007642. Ellywa (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Graphs from scientific publications

Hello,

I created a summarizing illustration about organic pollutant distributions in soils: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PAHs_in_german_forest_soils.png This is based on several maps published in https://doi.org/10.1021/es4019833

=> So it is a derivate of published work.

- I am an co-author of this scientific publication. // - the copyright of the published maps certainly belong to the scientific journal/publisher // - BUT: I only used material for the comprehensive graphic which is publicly available BEFORE the paywall (in the freely and publicly available supplement accessible on the website) //

How to properly tag the copyright in this case?

I already inserted "Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society" and inserted a link to the website, but still got a removal tag.

A solution for this might be relevant for similar issues to come in the future.

Thank you! Paleogeologist (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The file was tagged with the warning template by a bot, without any human checking the actual information in the description. However also a human reviewer would have marked this file, as there is no information on any licence, just on copyright owners.
Any file on Commons should be available for future use in other contexts, which requires a licence to modify, redistribute etc., such as {{Cc-by-sa 4.0}}, which is our standard licence for files (for most texts we use the 3.0 version).
The copyright on maps cover just the expression, not the information contained, so you may or may not be allowed to publish and license those maps, depending on the relation between your summarising maps and the ones you don't own the copyright to. If you take care not to use the copyrightable expression, there should be no problem. Whether they are behind a paywall is irrelevant. You could also use free base maps, such as those in Category:SVG blank maps of Germany, and fill in the information.
As this is professional work, you should send email according to the VRT process, to have trusted volunteers verify your identity and any issues with the licensing. (As this is their noticeboard, you perhaps already did, but you didn't include a notice on that, nor the ticket number that would allow the volunteers to check the correspondence.)
–LPfi (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification, this all makes sense! I´ve now sent an inquire to the VRT, the ticket number is #2023032710005799. Paleogeologist (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Photographs deleted for no ticket permission

Earlier I uploaded a series of photos a friend took named after 同治戊辰進士 沈牧卿.jpg, 沈定一墓碑 01.jpg ..., 沈定一手植罗汉松 01.jpg ..., 衙前农协旧址-衙前农村小学校旧址（浙江省省级文物保护单位）杭州市萧山区文物保护单位责任公示牌.jpg, 衙前农村小学校 2017-10-05 01.jpg ..., 衙前农村小学简介牌.jpg, with the permission of him. I asked him to send an email to the VRT team to prove that he had given me permission to upload these images to Commons, and he did. However, even though the VRT team did receive the email, the request was never processed. Today these images were deleted for the reason of no ticket permission.
I would like to know what to do now. 源義信 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ticket number is Ticket:2023022210011337. 源義信 (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Ticket is received. Please be patient untill a member of the VRT team has answered. Perhaps you can ask a member of the team who can communicate in your language. Ellywa (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

源義信 Team members can be found here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Response_Team/Users If the permission is valid the photos can be undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Dfvjkg

This user uploaded four files recently (among them the umpteenth version of File:Joginder Singh Ugrahan.jpg) and immediately added ticket:2021020210001531 to all of them. Is that by any chance a legit permission, or is it bogus? --Rosenzweig τ 08:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, the ticket releases permissions of two different files. File:Balbir Singh Rajewal 2.jpg and File:Balbir Singh Rajewal.jpg. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Have images removed

I uploaded the following files:
File:Maxime Bernier Headshot 001.png
File:Maxime Bernier Headshot 002.png
File:Maxime Bernier Headshot 003.png
File:Maxime Bernier Radio Interview.jpg
File:Maxime Bernier Studio Portrait.jpg

I reached out to the media team of a political party, and I was told that these images were free of restrictions and they were capable of granting permissions for use. So I went ahead and uploaded them here, while they sent an email to VRT. However, later I am told that their photographers are 'unreachable'. So appropriate permissions are unlikely to be given at this time so the images should be deleted. Thank you. PascalHD (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 04:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

VRT info needed for DR

A deletion request has been started for an image that was tagged as being approved by VRT: Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Sims 4 Fishnet Tights (7).jpg. Could someone with VRT access please weigh in? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

IagoQnsi, posted a comment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

OTRS had not been responding to permission and photos were deleted for no permission...

Hello, during cleaning my mailbox I found an old OTRS permission from 2018, which haven't received respond from Polish OTRS team; thus, the photographs were deleted ([5], [6], [7], [8]; @JuTa). I still have permission email in my box, so I can provide it to responding OTRS team. What should I do? These photos should be restored and permission assigned to them. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wojsław Brożyna, Could you please link the ticket number? I am not an admin and cannot retrieve the ticket number from these files. I tried searching for File:XV Rodowy Wiec Słowian 1132164277.jpg on the VRT dashboard however it found no results. Could you please tell me the ticket number, and if these are more than one, please tell the numbers of all. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi since I am not an OTRS volunteer, I have not to know ticket number for unresponded permission. I can just tell you that I sent e-mails with forwarded permission (one for all linked photos) to permissions-pl[at]wikimedia.org in 21th August 2018 (11:00 AM UTC 2), 21th September 2018 (8:44 PM UTC 2) and 7th October 2018 (12:51 PM UTC 2). If I didn't get any response, maybe ticket wasn't even open? Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi They're all ticket:2018110410002829. I get a "This ticket does not exist, or you don't have permissions to access it in its current state." error, even though I seem to have access to the permissions-pl queue. If you don't have access either, maybe ping Krd? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, hold on a sec, something weird is happening. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, these might (also?) be ticket:2018082110003418. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757, I can't access the first ticket however I can open the other one. I will likely go through it tomorrow. Thanks for the ticket number anyway. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
@AafiOnMobile@Mdaniels5757 The two tickets are linked, and one has been reopened recently. The best thing would be to ping a Polish speaking agent, having access to both info-pl and permissions queues. Ruthven (msg) 14:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven, Thanks for the heads up. In that I case, anyone from the VRT whom about I know that they are a Polish speaking agent, is none other than @Polimerek. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

DEMANDE D'UTILISATION DES IMAGES DE WIKIPEDIA

BONJOUR JESPERE QUE VOUS ALLEZ BIEN , J'AIMERAI VOUS DEMANDER CONCERNANT L'UTILISATION DES IMAGES QUE NOUS TROUVONS SUR WIKIPEDIA EST CE QU'ON PEUT LES UTILISER DANS NOS VIDEOS YOUTUBE DANS LE CADRE D'UN COMMENTAIRE OU CRITIQUE BIOGRAPHIQUE? MERCI D'AVANCE DE VOTRE REPONSE. SACKO HAWA MADY (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@SACKO HAWA MADY:
Hello and welcome to Wikimedia Commons.
Images on Wikimedia projects are identified as being subject to any of several licenses. Therefore it is advisable to check the image information page for the source and/or licensing information. Clicking on the image will lead you to the image information page. Most images are usually free to use as long as you give the proper credits and follow the terms of the license indicated on the image description page, though some images on Wikimedia projects other than Commons are held merely under a claim of fair use.
For more information please see <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content> and <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia>.
If the licensing conditions of one image do not suit you, it may be possible to contact the author of that image for alternate conditions. See in the description page if the author's name is present.
Please note: Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the authors of articles on Wikimedia sites, nor I provide legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Viralzone

Hi, In Category:Images from ViralZone, some files have a VRT ticket, some don't. But the ticket is listed along 2 different licenses: {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} (e.g. File:Epsilon15likevirus EM.jpg) and {{Cc-by-4.0}} (e.g. File:Coccolithovirus virion.jpg). So it is either one or the other, or both. Please fix this. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yann, the ticket mentions {{Cc-by-4.0}}. I will update the files in a while. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
However, the ticket should apply to images listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ernsts only. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Mussklprozz who may tell us what made them add the VRT ticket to File:Epsilon15likevirus EM.jpg when it is not directly covered by the ticket i.e. not separately mentioned in the ticket and not even listed in the DR linked in the ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi Uhum, IMO it is contained in this list and the representant of the rights holder explicitely gave permission for the whole list. Did I misinterpret something? Mussklprozz (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mussklprozz: no links? ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I am able to find only one of the two files from above in the list. I also tried ctrl f to locate the file in the list but failed. The permission covers the images in the list only and File:Epsilon15likevirus EM.jpg is not on the list. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi You are right, that specific one is not contained in the list since it was not named in the delete request. But this seems to be more of a coincidence. I think we can implicity assume that the release also refers to this file. I can ask the client if he also explicitly releases this file. Possibly he will grab his head. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mussklprozz, yes, assumption exists but we need a clarification for the sake of transparency. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I wrote to the client and set the permission back to Permission received. Mussklprozz (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mussklprozz, thanks, in that case, this thread is ready to be archived. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2022020410000214

I'm confused. The exif data explicitly refers to the photographer's website for a copyright statement. The photographer's website explicitly prohibits any use of her pictures without prior consent. How does all that go together with a CC 3.0 license and a VRT ticket? --2003:C0:8F15:4E00:2139:8BC1:726A:45DE 11:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP, the copyrights holder has explicitly released the image (File:Selfportrait Alina Gross 2018.jpg) under CC by SA 3.0-de in the ticket, and this makes the image free to be used under appropriate terms. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2022122810002015

The above ticket supposedly applies to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shonin llc. Could a team member please verify that the images listed in the DR are covered by the ticket and that everything is good? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Howcheng, afaics, I can see the permission has been accepted for all the files viz. File:Koun Yamoto Signature with Stamp.png, File:Koun Yamamoto SeaBream1.jpg, File:Koun Yamamoto SeaBream2.jpg, File:Koun Yamamoto SeaBream3.jpg, File:Koun Yamamoto SeaBream4.jpg, File:Koun Yamamoto Landscape1.jpg, File:Koun Yamamoto Carp1.jpg and File:Koun Yamamoto Aiu1.jpg. The ticket mentions File:Koun Yamamoto.jpg, however, the permission was not accepted for this one. ─ The Aafī (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Droit de partage d'image d'une institution

Bonjour @Yann, Bonjour à tous.

Je suis Aboubacar Keita, userːaboubacarkhoraa - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Aboubacarkhoraa

Nous sommes entrain de travailler sur des partenariats institutionnels depuis quelques années avec les institutions de l'Etat en république de Guinée. Donc, vous pouvez voir des images réaliser dans cette mission == https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tapis_Rouge_wikimédia_Guinée

Nous avons communiqué avec la direction de communication de la présidence de la république de Guinée et je souhaite les écrire officiellement pour demander l'autorisation des image de la présidence. Pour ce faire ː

▶ J'ai fait une copie de la lettre que je souhaite les envoyer.

▶ j'ai adapté et rédiger une proposition de réponse qu'il pourrons éventuellement adapter.

J'ai besoin de votre avis pour cela. Contrairement au 82 images de la catégorie du CNT, nous avons besoin de document supplémentaire pour la présidence.

Merci beaucoup


◎

Bonjour,

Je suis contributeur sur la version francophone de Wikipédia (http://fr.wikipedia.org) et nous sommes à la recherche d'images libres pour Wikimédia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Accueil). À l'heure actuelle, nous avons des images de mauvaise qualité et pour la majorité nous n'avons même pas d'images libres pour les articles suivants :

  • ̈Présidence de la république et ses cadres
  • ̈Membres des Gouvernements Mohamed Béavogui et du Docteur Bernard Goumou
  • ̈Diplomates guinéens

Ma question est la suivante : serait-il possible que vous nous transférez des images originales des personnalités avec une autorisation manuscrite, afin de les passer en CC-BY-SA. Ceci permettrait leur utilisation sur Wikipédia. Bien entendu, vous serez mentionné comme l'auteur original, avec un lien vers votre page officiel, en vertu de la licence choisie.

Votre contribution serait grandement appréciée et permettrait d'enrichir Wikipédia en faisant profiter les lecteurs du monde entier de belles illustrations. Cordialement.

Lien vers la page d'utilisateur ː http://fr.wikiscan.org/utilisateur/Aboubacarkhoraa


◎

Je représente la direction de la communication et de l'information de la présidence de Guinée (DCI), je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif des œuvres de cette direction. J'accepte la publication des œuvres de la DCI sous la licence Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International transféré à Monsieur Aboubacar Keita - UserːAboubacarkhoraa.

Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser ses œuvres pour l'illustration d'articles, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence choisie.

Je suis conscient de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.

Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.

Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimédia.

Mr--------

Directeur de la communication et de l'information de la Présidence de Guinée

La Direction de la Communication et de l'information de la Présidence de Guinée


Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg

Doubts have been raised about File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg, ticket:2023032610004845 (in a DR about another upload by HridoyKundu). It seems to be derived from a crop of a video, as explained by HeminKurdistan. Can you check whether the ticket is valid? –LPfi (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I answered here HridoyKundu (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but I assume there is additional info in that ticket. There was some reason why the ticket was accepted, and that reason may remove the doubts. –LPfi (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi: I'd not have accepted the permission given what is in the ticket. Sometimes VRT agents use common-sense to take care of some permissions and in that case we might differ in our reasoning. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zelechin

Would someone mind please looking into ticket:2010101810011729? P199 closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zelechin without checking the ticket I mentioned in the deletion request or checking with a member of VRT. The ticket number was buried in the edit history of a related category. I cannot check the ticket myself, but I think it may be relevant for the files which were deleted. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @IronGargoyle: Thanks for bringing the issue here. Things were not complicate back in 2010 as they are now. The email appears legit but the ticket was not inserted correctly in any of the images. Jcb accepted the permission, and I'd assume good-faith on whatever is in the ticket. Per the ticket the files uploaded by are released under free license GDFL. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The ticket makes a mention of Category:Sarah Jackson and does not list any individual files. The ticket should apply to all art of Jackson that she inherited to her family and heirs. Once you undelete the files, please ping me and I will add the ticket. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I assumed that it was not a valid ticket considering that no file description mentioned it, but I should have checked with the VRT team first. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@P199, It happens because we are humans. There is no need to be sorry. The images should be undeleted and the permissions need to be updated. Jcb back in 2010 thought that removal of the NoUploads notice, and reference to the VRT ticket, should suffice, but did not individually add any ticket information on files. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Toby Fox foam shower.png

Hello, the image File:Toby Fox foam shower.png has been marked as having received permission through VRT. However, the listed author doesn't appear to be the actual copyright owner of the image (who is Toby Fox), and the image has been repeatedly deleted for lack of permission from the actual copyright owner (File:Toby Fox Foam.png, File:Foamshower.jpg, File:Toby Fox Foam Shower.jpg, File:FssAZEEXwA0B-rz.jpg, etc) and discussed on Wikipedia (w:en:talk:Toby Fox#Foam bath picture).

My question is the permission from FangamerSupport or the actual copyright owner (presumed to be Toby Fox as he sent the original through his email list)? Cakelot1 (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1: The permission did indeed come from Toby Fox. The permission however does not discuss any other files ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks Cakelot1 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Studio Harcourt

Can we make public the text of the VRT by User:Studio Harcourt to see what the terms of the agreement include? I want to cut and paste the technical info into Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt. It appears that France bought the archive in 1991 and released them under CC, but it also appears that User:Studio Harcourt has released newer images under terms of the VRT. I want to make those terms public to avoid the ad hoc deletion of images in the category. RAN (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ); There isn't any helpful text that I can provide from the ticket. Everything is in French, a language that I do not know. I hope any French speaking VRT agent can help with this. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The info in French is fine, I can post it in French and use Google translate. --RAN (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Where does it say that the French state released the photo archives of Studio Harcourt under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, as you claim at the top of that category? The article linked from there, [9], says "en 1991, Jack Lang a fait acheter par l'État l'essentiel du fonds, cinq millions de négatifs maintenant conservés et diffusés par la Réunion des musées nationaux." Jack Lang being the minister of culture or similar at the time, it seems the French state did buy 5 million negatives from the studio, which are now in French museums. I didn't see anything about a CC license there though. --Rosenzweig τ 07:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The statement is based on the license they were uploaded with. Have you found the museum website to confirm or refute? --RAN (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Generally unless there is evidence that French Museums or the French government are releasing Studio Harcourt photographs under a Creative Commons license, we should assume that the French government considers them to be "all rights reserved". Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • We should avoid assumptions and rely on reading the VRT to see what it has to say. Flipping a coin to decide between two licenses, serves no one. The VRT, from Studio Harcourt, was accepted and neither of us know what it contains. It may cover images from their inception to today, or post 1991 images to today, or only pre 1991 images. Google translate will solve the French to English translation. We just have to wait for someone to take the time to post the message. WEE should give more people VRT rights and viewing deleted image rights. --RAN (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@TheAafi: You can release the French text, we are capable of using Google Translate ourselves, we don't need a human to translate. --RAN (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023041710005574

please someone provide me an update about this image weather its permission is confirmed or not File:Shankar Lalwani at Shalby Hospital, Indore.jpg. 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@LifetimeWiki, This is an incomprehensible request and I have requested the customer to clearly state what the want. This is a blank email with just attachments. Best. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Hello, well I ask the copyright holder to send the permission request again & state clearly, he told me whether he can use a different mail id for it or not. Please reply. 𝕃𝐖 (talk)
@LifetimeWiki, They should reply on the same email thread or if they are sending a new email, they should be including the ticket number on subject bar. Best. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Slight rush job for English Wikipedia FA

Hi all, I think the copyright holder on two images File:Jane Severance, 2017.jpg and File:Jane Severance, 2015.jpg, might have just sent in permission. One of these images would be useful for illustrating the current English Wikipedia Featured Article which lacks an image. If by any chance this has been received and is acceptable, could you let me know? Thanks, and so sorry for the hurry. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: ✓ Done. Please let me know if you have any other requests. If there are no further requests, I will mark the section as resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Garyhbrown

Could a VRT member look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Garyhbrown and apply the tickets to the files listed in the DR? I just undeleted all of them. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Of all the ticket numbers listed there, plus any others with that me.com email address, I have yet to find one that confirms the user's identity, or any instance of that me.com email address online:
Ticket:2022113010011904: Already ✓ Done
Ticket:2022112410002641: ✓ Done with Ticket:2022112410002641 instead
Ticket:2022121110000156: No files specified
Ticket:2022120910013825: Only refers to File:Johnson's Baby Powder Poster.jpg
Ticket:2022121210018896: Merged to Ticket:2022120910013825
  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, I emailed him to see if there's another way to prove his identity. I suggested using a UCSB.edu email address, as he once was a professor emeritus there (he doesn't appear to be any longer as I don't see him listed on [10]), but if there's any other suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyrights etc.

Hello, is there a Dutch speaking volunteer in the team whom I could talk to? Thank you. Kathelijne (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Kathelijne: @Ciell might be of any help. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @TheAafi, thank you for addressing this question.
However, could you next time point the user in the direction of the Dutch VRT queue instead of to me personally, since they had not been in contact with our team before? Thanks! Ciell (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ciell, this is surely a helpful suggestion. I wasn't remembering that we have a separate Dutch queue. That's what made me mention you. Glad to be made remember of this. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure! Thank you for actively responding here to these kinds of requests. Ciell (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Krd: , @Ciell: can the File:Lucien Deschodt.jpg be uploaded now? The necessary information ("Creative Commons-Atribution-Share Alike 4.0 International") has been submitted to the Dutch VRT (ticket:2023041310004322) together with the file. Your assistance would be highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Kathelijne (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kathelijne: I have added the ticket information on the file. Dutch friends would be having conversations with you and they will verify the permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Kathelijne, Ik zie dat je in contact bent met mijn collega Jeff dus ik laat een reactie in eerste instantie even aan hem: hij zal de bevestiging die nu dankzij TheAafi op de bestandspagina staat omzetten naar een bevestiging als alles akkoord is. Hartelijk dank voor deze uitzonderlijke foto: wat een prachtig tijdsbeeld. Ciell (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ciell: ondertussen was ik zo vrij en voegde de foto toe aan de biografie. Zou het te voorbarig zijn nu reeds een Sjabloon:Infobox politicus toe te voegen? Ik zie dat je ook actief bent o de nl.wikipedia. Dank Kathelijne (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Kathelijne! Ja, ben ik inderdaad, alleen had ik nu een weekje 'vrij' en ben ik momenteel ook best druk met internationaal commissiewerk. :)
Wat betreft het artikel, maak het gerust verder af; voeg de infobox toe, en breid ook bijvoorbeeld de informatie nog wat verder uit op basis van (gepubliceerde) bronnen. O.a. de pagina in Odis kun je opvoeren als referentie voor zaken in de lopende tekst: [11]. Blijf er vooral aan werken! Mocht er onverhoopt toch iets zijn waardoor de foto niet kan blijven, dan kijken we vanaf daar wel weer verder, toch? Ciell (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Ciell (talk · contribs) internationaal commissiewerk, dat klinkt zeer ernstig. Ik voegde het sjabloon ondertussen toe, waarschijnlijk niet echt correct, maar we zien wel. Vriendelijk dank. Kathelijne (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciell (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Dag Ciell, TheAafi voegde een sjabloon toe. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user (TheAafi) who added this template to the page, or someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT agent, this file will be deleted Bestaat er een Nederlandstalige versie van de inhoud? Ook begrijp ik de inhoud niet zo goed. Betekent the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published dat deze file reeds eerder werd gepubliceerd? Dank voor enige verduidelijking. Kathelijne (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ithell Colquhoun

Can someone check whose permission was granted for the two images of Ithell Colquhoun's paintings on commons, File:Head by Ithell Colquhoun.jpg and File:Songs of Songs by Ithell Colquhoun.jpg, please? The ticket is ticket:2013090810009427. Both file descriptions say that Spjholland, who uploaded the images, owns "all reproduction rights", but the copyright of Colquhoun's artworks is shared between the Noise Abatement Society, the Samaritans and Spire Healthcare – do we really have permission from all three? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: This is a bit complex ticket. I am not able to find permission from all of three that you have mention. However I am free to share a text thread from the ticket that could help what is in the ticket. As noted previously I bought the two painting concerned about ten years ago. I contacted the auctioneer and gallery concerned who said that there was no artists’ right payable on the paintings (the 4% of purchase price that goes to artists or their estate in certain circumstances) and therefore that copyright and reproduction rights were held by the current owner of the paintings, ie me. Unlike, say, the Society for Performing Rights there is no central organisation that administers these matters. According to the gallery owner, in a situation where an artist has been dead for over thirty years, and where no interest or claim has ever been lodged against a painting sold on the open market via auction, or privately through a gallery, it would be almost impossible for the estate of the artist (which as far as I know was settled after her death) to now make a claim for the reproduction rights on those pieces. I have to admit that I am rapidly losing enthusiasm over posting these images. I wanted to include my paintings because the current illustration Wikipedia have for Ithell Colquhoun is a very poor piece, and not representative of her work as a whole. And while I understand the necessity of establishing copyright I have given you an undertaking that I am the legal owner of the works and the rights, which I believe gives you complete indemnification in the extremely unlikely event that anyone were to try and claim otherwise – which, according to the gallery that sold me the picture, would have no legal merit anyway. Would you like me to email you receipts for the works ? The permissions were accepted by Darkwind in September 2013. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Thank you. This is even more complex than I thought it would be, which is impressive given the baseline complexity of the Colquhoun copyright situation! I think what has happened here is that the gallery communicated badly, or spjholland misunderstood what they were told, and this ticket is not valid, but I suspect that I'm going to have to do some more research before nominating for deletion... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
True. Please let me know if you need any more help from the VRT. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Bilder Artikel Nicole Guiraud

Hallo wie ist der Status der Bilder zu dem Artikel https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Armin_Pangerl/Nicole_Guiraud  ?? wir würden ihn gerne in den ANR verschieben. Vielen Dank für ihre Antwort: [Ticket#: 2023042710012949] --Armin Pangerl (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Das Ticket ist unter ticket:2023042710004458 offen und ein interessierter VRT-Agent wird sich sicher darum kümmern. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Acrofan images

According to {{Acrofan.com}}, all images from Acrofan, so long as they meet certain conditions, can be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and comes with the VRT ticket Ticket:2012112610002772. Would the images found here be valid? I'm not sure, as the images have a "copyright all rights reserved" notice on them. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Pbrks: afaics, the ticket releases "Photo Archive of ACROFAN" under CC BY-SA 3.0. There is some correspondence in Korean language in another related ticket, 2015080510004702. I am not able to comprehend what it reads even using Google Translate. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ГК1520

It appears Ticket:2022121510001621 applies to the files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ГК1520. Could a VRT agent please process this DR? Thanks. —holly {chat} 17:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Howcheng. The ticket was closed as unsuccessful in December 2022. No clarifications thereafter. The ticket links three images only (the links are processed by Krdbot) and I see all the three images (from the DR) deleted. Given this, I hope you can discern a good close concerning the remaining files. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2021092410009524

Question about the above ticket: is the author the same as the uploader? Another one of this uploader's photos is being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:5-20-4 copy.jpg. Thanks. —holly {chat} 22:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Howcheng The permission appears to come from the same person as the uploader. ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
of course, claiming it to be their own work. ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The ticket mentions File:Marc Anthony Richardson in New York State.jpg ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
VRT permission updated. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023022210011337

Hello, I'm writing to ask how to confirm the permission?

This ticket is about several photographs taken by a friend of mine, and uploaded by myself. I asked him to send the e-mail with his own e-mail address and he did. The files were once deleted and they have just been undeleted. However, it indicates that "the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file".

I'm wondering how to confirm it. These photos were taken in 2017 and 2019, and the photographer is a not a famous person. So how should I advise him to prove that he was the photographer of these photos? 源義信 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done 源義信 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:有村昆.jpg

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sai10ukazuki (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This image is licensed as public domain by a non-VRT permissions agents by Ticket:2023041410014561, is this license valid? Syunsyunminmin (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Syunsyunminmin: I am not able to access this very ticket. Ruthven, can you help? ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, volunteers. Ticket:2023041410014561 is in the info-ja queue, which I am a member of. I doubt the license and have requested its validation to the ticket owner.
@Sai10ukazuki: Please explain your base of the response here. aokomoriuta (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Syunsyunminmin, the ticket is in process and I have updated the file page with a relevant template. As @青子守歌 notes, the license has appeared doubtful to them and they are enquiring about the same. Thanks for the update @青子守歌. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Declaration of Acceptance received. Please confirm.--Sai10ukazuki (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
What does "{{PD-because|CC BY-NC-ND-4.0（Ticket:2023041410014561）}}" you added mean? Have you read Commons:Licensing? Syunsyunminmin (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Sai10ukazuki: I have read the emails you have sent and received. However, I can't confirm that these emails are sufficient proof of the copyright holder's licensing. Why don't you ask the permissions(-ja) members? If you can't, you may not know enough about copyright law to handle file permissions. aokomoriuta (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Waiting for a new email reply from the rightful owner. Change queue to permission-ja after receiving new mail.--Sai10ukazuki (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Sai10ukazuki: This is just a bit of advice, but please keep in mind that if you're new to the Commons and copyright, you don't need to take this into your own hands; you can leave it to more experienced professional volunteers. If I understand correctly, your latest email is not yet sufficient from the point of view of COM:L and COM:CONSENT. aokomoriuta (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this problem has not been fixed yet and seems to be neglected, I added {{Npd}} to the file for our safety.
@Sai10ukazuki: You're responsible for handling this (including asking others to help) as soon as possible because you're a member of the VRT Volunteers, not an ordinary user.-aokomoriuta (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@aokomoriuta May I substitute aokomoriuta as the person in charge? Sai10ukazuki (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
OK. I'm taking this.--aokomoriuta (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:有村昆.jpg. A CC BY-NC-ND license neither releases a work into the public domain nor is suitable for Commons (see COM:L). Unless we have evidence of a valid and suitable free license, the file needs to be deleted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2022052110004218

Dear @Jeff G. the person in the picture himself asked me to delete this picture of Rza Talibov (I am author) from the commons segment, the image is not used, that is, it is not associated with any article and category, then it is not used and there is a reason for its removal. Please delete image. Elshad Imanverified Verified 00:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) Such requests should be made on Administrator's Noticeboard. You also need to be clear about which image you want to be deleted. You need to include the name of the file. VRT correspondence is all about permission. You can make a reference to it while asking for deletion but not here but on COM:AN or if that doesn't solve your problem perhaps file a DR and get community consensus. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rza Talıbov (şəxsi foto).jpg and unfortunately VRT cannot help you with that. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@Elshad Iman: I also cannot help with that DR. Why did you ping me?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

VRT Process for a Government Agency

First off, I'm not 100% with this process so please correct anything I might misinterpret. I am hoping to get permission from a North Carolina government agency, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, for allowing the use of aerial stills from this archive. I did send and receive an email where an employee stated these images are available for public reuse, but I was wondering who I could request an official email waiver from. I know that someone needs to give a binding response which settles any copyright concerns but who could I send this request to in an organization with many different branches. I understand if this type of request can't be done, but, if it can be done, any pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and have a great day!

P.S. A fellow editor pointed out that these stills might be "public records" per Chapter 132 of state law. Though, I don't think it could serve as a bypass of the VRT process without further debate on Commons due to the vagueness of the statute. DiscoA340 (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DiscoA340. Thanks for the question. Have you been through this directory of NCDOT? I suppose a permission release coming from the any of the responsible person from there should suffice. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi Hello, thanks for responding to my comment. Looking at the list, I think the "Public Records Manager" would be my best bet for requesting permission. If you don't mind me asking, is adding a link to Commons:Email templates in my email sufficient for a permission request or do I need say/link anything else in the email? Thanks for your help and have great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@DiscoA340, this is a matter of ease than that of sufficiency. The permission-releasing authority could use COM:RELGEN or any of the email templates. That's to say, having a link to this in your request to them would be convenient. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi Thank you for the advice. Have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Could someone "import" user verification from de.wikipedia?

User:Medica mondiale has been verified as being associated with en:Medica mondiale/de:Medica mondiale at de:User:Medica mondiale via ticket:2015041710008621. Could someone maybe add {{Verified account}} to their account here? Thanks, El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? --Krd 03:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Because that's what that template is for. I'd do it myself, but I'm not a VRT member. I can't double check the ticket, nor should I put my user name in the agent field of the template. Background is that I was about to start a DR for File:Projektkarte © medica mondiale.jpg with a rationale along the lines of "user name matches organization but that could just be anyone unrelated to the organization. need VRT permission for the file". After finding the user verification at de, that wasn't much of a concern any more, but it would be great if the next person with the same suspicion could find that info straight here on Commons. El Grafo (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 04:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2016011310013135 und weitere Bilder derselben Künstlerin

Liebe VRT-Zuständige, bitte guckt Euch doch diese Bilder bzw. die dazugehörige Korrespondenz mal an. Ich kann es mir beim besten Willen nicht vorstellen, dass diese Künstlerin (Birgit Schweiger) ihre Bilder unter Creative-Commons-Lizenz quasi verschenkt. Stammt die Korrespondenz wirklich von ihr selber? --2003:C0:8F26:A800:4CA1:E785:D1AE:1C5 22:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Tomb of King Kongmin view for the bottom.jpg

Hello. ticket:2023050810012527 Is this license valid? ManFromNord (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ManFromNord. The ticket is valid however it has not been processed because of some missing links. Per what is in the ticket, media from: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and other pictures of more North Korea trips on other pages on http://ellsworth.ca are released under CC BY SA 4.0. Please allow us sometime to do the work. Thanks ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Update on approval for images

Hi there, several images have been removed that I used on the Wiki page - A Love Supreme (Fanzine). I asked why and now I've been diverted to chase up a VRT ticket? The email granting my permission to use the images on wiki was sent weeks ago.

List of files

AdrianThompson1973 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Adrian Thompson

@AdrianThompson1973 VRT has not received what was asked for. Please ask the copyrights holder to explicitly tell us who is copyright holder in each case and why? FYI, ticket:2023032710010041 contains the insufficient correspondence. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Gilbert Blaize Rego: all photos in the article the creator already granted permission: [Ticket#2023050510002212

moved from talk page - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Dear WikiCommons editors, The creator of all the photos used in the article filled out VRT and also through emails with Michael Daniels, on May May 15 and 18th, both acknowledged and confirmed receipts of approval. But it got deleted by KRD, a few days ago. Kindly restore all photos. Thank you

Setwikirec0 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
END moved from talk page - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and @Setwikirec0: The tickets awaits a response from a VRT agent. If the responses are found satisfactory, the images viz File:GilbertBlaizeRego.jpg, File:GilbertRegoPastoralgrp.png and File:RevBishopGilbertBlaizeRego.jpg will be surely restored. Thank. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The Aafi, Your response is much appreciated! Also, the file:GilbertRegoFieldworkgrp.png. Thank you and have a great day! Setwikirec0 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Setwikirec0. I have responded in the ticket and File:GilbertRegoFieldworkgrp.png is not mentioned there. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Aafi, yes, we received your email to Fr. Fernandes. Of the 4 photo files, but only 3 files were used. We will have to get another ticket for that and respond to it tomorrow. Thx Setwikirec0 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Peter Sohn.jpg

User:Boungawa just uploaded this with the remark VRT accepted. Is this legit? This seems to be the exact same file that was deleted last year, then restored, then deleted again after User:Mussklprozz nominated it for deletion, then speedy deletion per Ticket:2022112810016691. --Rosenzweig τ 21:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Rosenzweig: This is seriously a bad remark since VRT has not accepted the permissions for this file so far. I have been through the old ticket from November 2022 and it does not provide us any legitimate proof about how the upload is the legitimate copyright holder. There is just a theory and although in certain cases we believe theories, it does not appear to have any relevancy here. The new ticket repeats the same permission and is under investigation. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

When should the {{NOINDEX}} tag be applied...

When should the {{NOINDEX}} tag be applied? In File talk:Rebecca Wang BAFTA 2013 (8463766343) (cropped).jpg User:Josve05a justified placing a {{NOINDEX}} tag based on his interpretation of OTRS ticket:2023061210005132, as "a courtesy action". They asserted

If the community would like to undo/remove this, it should be discussed on a noticeboard. The reason is found within the ticket for those with access.

For "a noticeboard", I am going to assume he meant this noticeboard.

I expressed my concern that an undiscussed application of a {{NOINDEX}} tag was tantamount to an undocumented speedy deletion.

I requested he try to draft a summary of that ticket, that did not breach anyone's privacy. This kind of summary is routine in the US Justice system, when a prosecutor thinks some evidence must be withheld from the suspect's defense attorney, because they don't have a high enough security clearance. Prosecutors aren't allowed to tell suspects "we are going to use secret evidence to convict you, and there is nothing you can do about it." On the contrary, they are expected to provide an unclassified summary of the secret evidence. Sometimes it is the judge who drafts the unclassified summary.

Yes, everyone understands that we want to show respect and consideration to third parties. However, I suggest that it is possible to show respect and consideration to third parties without granting every single request for courtesy deletion. Some requests for speedy deletion are trivial. Commons contributors also merit respect and consideration for their hard work.

When a photographer who has already releaed an image under a free license makes a request for courtesy deletion, don't we always ask them to offer the reason for their request? Don't we always expect that explanation to be made in public, in a deletion discussion?

Similarly, when an individual has a concern over a properly licensed image of themselves don't we always expect that explanation to be made in public, in a deletion discussion?

Forgive me, but it seems as if Josve05a thinks that the decision as to whether to grant, or turn down, requests for courtesy deletion should be made solely by member(s) of the VRT, without any input from the wider community. Geo Swan (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel Josve05a is right in adding the {{Personality rights}} to this image and I would call this a general practice. However, given what is in the ticket, I do not, on my personal level, agree with the the NoIndex tag because it doesn't serve the courtesy given the availability of this image elsewhere, for instance on Flickr. Josve05a, could you please put up a more light on what got you to reach this point?
To @Geo Swan, we do consider courtesy deletion requests sometimes from the subject's of images and that's subject to a reason, and VRT does consider such requests with the wider community depending on the gravity of the situation, but it differs. This ticket has a reason that might have made Josve05a add the tag, if not courtesy delete it. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that we should be applying {{NOINDEX}} templates to images merely because they depict a living person, and I see no basis for doing so in policy. The {{Personality rights}} template is more than sufficient, and is in line with common practice, but I really do not see any basis to de-index the image. The file was already kept at DR, so the community finds that it is fine to host on Commons; we did not extend courtesy deletion then, and we should not slap a deindexing tag on it now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
1 to RTH. What purpose does it even serve? ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  1. I see Josve05a's application of {{NOINDEX}} and {{Personality Rights}} as two separate issues. I voiced my concerns over {{Personality Rights}} in Commons:Village_pump#To_which_files_should_the_Personality_Rights_tag_be_applied... I will link to the comments on {{Personality Rights}} there, and leave my followup comments there.
  2. User talk:TheAafi, I think you are saying that, sometimes, members of the VRT agree that a third party's request for courtesy deletion is too sensitive to allow the rest of the community to weigh in - which is what I think policy requires.

    Hmmm. You mean like if a third party said they faced death threats if the image wasn't immediately deleted? Forgive me, but that strikes me as so extraordinary I question whether any VRT member should decide that the wider community had no role to play, on their sole authority... I suggest that, in the truly extraordinary situation where a third party offers a credible claim they face death threats, they should get at least two other VRT members, who aren't their pals, to independently agree with them, prior to cutting out the rest of the community. And even then, a summary should be left for the rest of the community - which Josve05a didn't do here.

  3. I asked Josve05a if a summary, that preserved the key elements of privacy, couldn't be offered. User:TheAafi, User:Red-tailed hawk, did either of you consider trying to offer a privacy preserving summary of the ticket? So, do you think it is possible? Would you consider drafting it? Geo Swan (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    With respect to the third part, I can't really give a privacy-preserving summary of the ticket because of how the relevant privacy policies are structured. However, I can say that I do not believe that the proper response is to deindex the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  4. It seems to me that neither Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion and Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion explicitly authorize either ordinary administrators, or administrators who are VRT members, to speedy delete images because they feel sympathy to third parties who made a request for courtesy deletion. Should I be looking to some other policy or procedure to find that authorization? Geo Swan (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Geo Swan:
    Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is the relevant guideline for these sorts of photographs more broadly, and it requires that photographs on Commons be legal in all of the following: (a) the country in which the photo was taken; (b) the country from which the photo was uploaded; (c) the United States (where Commons images are stored). In this specific case, the photograph was taken at the BAFTAS (in the U.K.), and Commons:Country specific consent requirements#United Kingdom notes that Photography at public events is likely acceptable without subject consent in that country. Photographs of people in public places and/or at public events are perfectly fine to use without subject consent in the United States, as well. Part (b), while policy, is not a valid deletion reason (its entire purpose is to protect uploaders from themselves).
    The only relevant speedy deletion reason involving courtesy is COM:G7, which applies to photos where the uploader requests deletion within 7 days of uploading the file.
    COM:Courtesy is merely a proposal, so it does not carry weight of a policy or guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
In light of discussion here, I've removed the NOINDEX tags from each page. I don't see community consensus to implement them, and multiple VRT agents who have had the ability to review the ticket (including me) disagree with placement of the tag. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I will write a case-summary on the VRT wiki this weekend why I still feel it was the right thing to do. But, for now I've had a few glasses of wine (it's midsummer week in Sweden), so I'll delay until I'm available. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Clarification please, User:Josve05a, when you say you will write an explanation on the VRT wiki, are you referring to a fora other than this noticeboard?
All people who contribute to WMF projects know there might be the occasional instance when a decision has to be acted on where the wider community doesn't get to play a role in the decision making.
I think Commons:OFFICE spells out conditions where unexplained actions may be taken. It seems to me that OFFICE says those actions taken, for which no explanation will be offered, are taken by WMF officials, not regular Commons administrators. It also seems to me that unexplained actions should be extremely rare, only taken in really exceptional circumstances.
Are you aware of any other official Commons policy, procedure or guideline that authorizes administrators to take actions for which they aren't accountable to the wider community?
Even if, for the sake of argument, there is a policy, procedure or guideline that lays out some limited conditions where administrators were authorized to take actions for which they aren't accountable to the wider community, are you sure that policy applies to you, when you address an OTRS ticket?
I ask because, honestly, the impression you have left with me is that you think you can routinely act unaccountably -- unaccountably, and on your sole judgment -- when addressing OTRS tickets. Geo Swan (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: I'm not on the VRT, but keep in mind that their role is specifically to handle confidential correspondence. Inevitably, there are things that they cannot explain without breaching confidentiality. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: VRT-wiki refers to the private wiki of the VRT. Anyone in the VRT has access to that wiki including non-admin volunteers like me. As @Jmabel has said, VRT is subject to a confidential agreement, and we need to abide by that. This is perhaps why @Josve05a has said that they would be writing at VRT-wiki and not on a public noticeboard like this. However, as far as the application of NoIndex tag is concerned, this is subject to a public discussion, and perhaps there should be a question that should it be courtesy-applied in any case? You have already noticed two VRT agents: me and @Red-tailed hawk disagreeing with that but the wider community must have a say in that. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Jmabel, User:TheAafi, I understand that the VRT's whole existence is based on their promise to maintain the confidentiality of their correspondents.
  • But I also know that members can get tunnel vision, and think this authorizes them to take actions that are counter-policy. That is what I am afraid has happened here. User:Josve05a's comment, at File talk:Rebecca Wang BAFTA 2013 (8463766343) (cropped).jpg, was that, as a non-VRT member, I didn't have the standing to ask questions about the actions he had taken.
  • On January 7, 2009, I started an en.wiki article about Jeffrey Norwitz - or at least I thought I had. But when I went back a few days later, to flesh it out, I couldn't find it!
  • Norwitz noticed its creation, took the steps to initiate an OTRS ticket, and requested its deletion. And the (newly minted) team member had deleted it for him. That is why I couldn't find it.
  • He told me that Norwitz hadn't complained that the article was inaccurate or insulting, he just didn't want to be covered by the Wikipedia. And that en.wiki administrator had (mistakenly) thought that project's deletion policy authorized him to satisfy requests for courtesy deletion, when he thought an article was on a topic of marginal notability.
  • The reason why that interpretation is so wrong is that it opens an additional, unwritten, path to speedy deletion. In addition to all the named criteria for speedy deletion it added an unwritten speedy deletion criteria... Articles are ALSO subject to speedy deletion when the living person requests deletion, and an administrator agrees to do so, on their sole judgment.
  • Everyone agrees that we need to show courtesy and consideration to third parties, not just VRT members, but also ordinary contributors, when third parties make comments in our fora. But, I think it can be a mistake to carry that too far. In particular, I think there are times when a VRT member has to say something like:
Thank you for identifying yourself, so I know you have standing on the issue you voiced here. Thank you for sharing your story. It's moving.
I cannot, however, fulfill your request to delete the image or article you requested be deleted.
Our policies state it should only be deleted following a discussion within our whole community.
  • I can initiate the deletion discussion for you.
  • I can initiate that discussion for you, only giving those details you authorize me to share.
  • If you want to respond to questions or comments project contributors made in the deletion fora, and you create an ID to do so, I will inform everyone that I have confirmed that your responses are really from you.
  • If you want to respond to questions or comments project contributors made, indirectly, you can email your responses to me, and I will post them, on your behalf.
In my experience the most common reason individuals want a properly licensed image of themselves to be deleted, is vanity. I believe the courtesy we extend to third parties should not extend to stealthily deleting individuals' images, so they are freed from the embarrassment of openly stating they want them deleted due to vanity. I've uploaded 77,777 images, but, like just about every other volunteer here, most of what I do is curation, not uploading. Uploads are worthless, if they aren't properly curated, if they aren't properly named, properly described, and properly categorized.
And, I think this means that when we are showing courtesy and consideration to third parties, we need to remember to show consideration to the many project contributors who played a role in the curation of that image. For every contributor who improved the naming, description or categorization of an image there were multiple other contributors who looked at it, and tacitly endorsed its then current name, description, categorization. All that volunteer effort should not be squandered, thrown away, over a trivial request for courtesy deletion.
The English language Wikipedia has a long tradition of not using unflattering images. The simplest solution for anyone concerned that commons only image of them is unflattering is to go the barber shop or beauty salon, get a hair cut, and go take some selfies wearing your favourite shirt. Then upload your favourite from those. Or go to a professional photographer, or ask a friend who is a camera nut, to take some flattering photos. Get them to sign over the IP rights, and upload those.
Now maybe I am missing something. Maybe there are some powerful non-vanity related justifications for requesting courtesy deletion, that also have a compelling reason why the individual should not be expected to state them, in public. Maybe this is a sign of a failure of imagination on my part. I can't imagine a single one. Even "I'm in the witness protection program, and these photos put me at risk..." could be stated in a DR, couldn't it? Geo Swan (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
When you have made your case, and received the feedback of your peers, I hope someone from that discussion will return here, and (1) summarize key portions of that discussion, that can offered in a non-confidential fora; (2) tell the wider community the VRT communities conclusion over your specific justification, in this case; and (3) inform the wider community of your thinking as to whether there will ever be circumstances where VRT members should feel authorized to apply {{NOINDEX}} tags to images.
Do you think you could be the one to do that? Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
When you contacted me, I did not understand that you disagreed with the action, and I simply thought you were curious, so I simply summarized in as few words as possible of what I had done without going in to details due to the confidential nature of VRT.
But for your information ([18]):
I received the ticket through VRT [...]. [...] However, [...] the image in question was taken in a public place in the United Kingdom, where individuals generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. [...] the image does not fall under any specific deletion policy based on privacy grounds. [...] do not provide a legal basis for us to delete the image from our platform.[...] address [...].

To my knowledge, there is currently no specific community guideline or policy that outlines when or how to use the NOINDEX template. However,[...] and the availability of [...] to request search engine de-indexing, I believed this action struck a balance between [...] and maintaining the integrity of our platform as a comprehensive source of knowledge.
(Currently 33 files use this template.)

Upon later reflection, I understand that my determination may have been subject to interpretation and further discussion. While I could have reversed my own actions, I felt it was essential to involve other VRT members in reviewing the ticket prior to doing so in order to and considering alternative perspectives, in case someone disagreed with the action. This is why I wrote that it should be "discussed on a noticeboard", as it provides a forum for collective deliberation and decision-making within the community.

I apologize for any confusion or uncertainty caused by my initial action. As a dedicated volunteer of Wikimedia, I am committed to upholding the values of transparency, fairness, and respect for privacy.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023062710007246

Hello, I have an enquiry about this ticket. I don't know who reviewed it so I don't know to who I should adress my question. I marked five files (1, 2, 3, 4, 5,) with Template:Npd. Those file had a source, an author and a date indicated by the uploader... however, the file is not on the source URL, which doesn't show any permission for CC-BY-SA 4.0 (thus {{Npd}}) and the author's name is not on the page either. Furthermore, the date registered for the creation of the files are in the future for three of them. So here's my question: does the ticket really provide permission for those files? And if so, does it allow us to correct the authors identities and creation dates? The legends and source were so random that I reckon those were uploaded to boost the source URL for algorithm... Regards. Gyrostat (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gyrostat, though there has been an initial response from the VRT to the one who has sent us permissions about the files: File:Meliscanpx.jpg, File:Zekiokurpx.jpg, File:Taha-baltaphone.jpg, File:Phone_call.jpg and File:Elektronik_sigara.jpg; we haven't received any response yet. If the permissions are found adequate and reasonable, the permissions would be updated on the file pages, and if otherwise, all of these files will be deleted from the 30 days after the first response from VRT to the permissions-sender. To your another question, if the permissions are found adequate and if the permissions-sender is willing to have their name/nick on the file pages, that could be changed, however I am afraid of doing it on own because it violates VRT's respect to confidentiality. I hope this answers your doubts. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

License request help

See this question and response, where I inquire about the release of media files published by Just Stop Oil. I am putting together a request email to send to JSO, where I outline the three options for their response: deny the request, release select files, release all files. If they want to release select files, I am pointing them towards the VRT Release Generator. If they want to release all files in the folder (and sub-folders), would it be sufficient for them to amend the current statement in the folder to explicitly mention the CC-BY-SA license and that it applies to all of their files in the sub-folders as well? Let me know if this is the wrong place to be posting. Thanks. Wracking (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2021011310008373

There may be a misunderstanding about the licensing here, can someone please check? The copyright holder explicitly limits the use of this image in the metadata: "For use on Wikipedia only". I don't see how that goes together with a CC 4.0 license. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F3D:9500:B9:4BB6:2D3C:BF2B 14:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

VRT permissions for this file are adequate and this file is freely released by its author.─ The Aafī (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2015101310020979

The VRT ticket system does not cease to surprise me. This image of a scientist has a VRT ticket even though it is quite clearly not tagged correctly. It says that Berthold Seitz is the "Rechteinhaber". For that to be the case, this would need to be a selfie. He may have the usage rights, but since we are talking about Germany, only the photographer and no one else can have the Urheberrecht.

Obviously I have no idea what the ticket correspondence says; maybe the uploader has actually sent you the permission by the photographer. But they should at least be given proper credit.

Considering that the uploader has quite a history of copyvios, and considering that the uploader is a confirmed sockpuppet of an account that has been infinitely blocked on the German as well as the English WP, you may want to take a closer look. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F1F:C000:D8CE:B808:476B:7357 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I presume this is about File:Berthold Seitz.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel and IP, this is a eight year old ticket when things were not so delicate and complex. Due to the ticket being in German, I would abstain from making any comments, @Wdwd: perhaps might have something to add. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
No reason to assume the ticket is invalid. --Krd 18:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Giovanni Panzeca [email protected]

Ho bisogno di inserire in una mia pubblicazione sul Castello di Caccamo (PA) la foto della Madonna Greca del Ruzzolone (Alcamo). Come posso fare?

Datemi cortese riscontro Giovanni Panzeca 2A0E:41D:8DD9:0:3554:3ED2:A5E7:DD28 14:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sarebbe molto utile se indicassi esattamente di quale foto stai parlando. Con quasi 100 milioni di file qui, una descrizione non è poi così utile per trovare un'immagine particolare. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting general permission from National Museum of African American History and Culture and Getty for use of the Johnson Publishing Company Archive

The/A archive of copyrighted material from Johnson Publishing Company has been bought and put into a trust for digitization and will be made available to researches and the public (seemingly out of good will).

The publishing company published noteworthy magazines such as Jet and Ebony.

"The archive contains around 5,000 magazines, 200 boxes of business records, 10,000 audio and visual recordings, and 4.5 million prints and negatives."

I'm personally interested in getting permission for an image already uploaded under fair-use on enwiki, which they are likely to own the rights to.

But would it not make more sense to approach them as an institution(Wikipedia) and ask if we can upload images from the collection and under what conditions?

Relevant links explaining status:

Media contact:

Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra, Wikipedia is a community of volunteers like you and me, and not an institution which can request the permissions for the said archive. I advise you to seek assistance from a local Wikimedia affiliate, and most likely Wikimedia DC might be able to offer you such institutional help. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
alright, thank you. Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:PermissionTicket/2022030810000831

what's this about? Template:PermissionTicket/2022030810000831 was created by User:Fortunewriter. RZuo (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The ticket was not resolved successfully, and it's been 16 months since more information was requested. So the template can be nominated for deletion as unused. Nthep (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2021050510006991

Is there any further difficulty about the permissions on this ticket or will the uploaded images simply be processed when the backlog is cleared? Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, oftentimes, there is a backlog that VRT volunteers need some more time in responding. However not each volunteer agent is interested in every second thing. If there are any doubts, please wait for a message on the ticket itself. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
That's all very well and I appreciate the work of the volunteers, but obtaining a new grant of permission was done because the VTRS volunteer felt it was necessary, and it's been almost two weeks since then. Some acknowledgement and word that it is sufficient would allow us to consider the matter resolved, allow the undeletion and proper tagging of the previously-uploaded images, and allow us to upload any further images under the permission with confidence. Would it help if I listed the images in a new email?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Wehwalt: could you please provide the list of all the affected (new) images here. I'll make a note on the ticket. Best, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. But I have an article at Featured Article Candidates that would be the better for these images and I wish this would get resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There may be some confusion on this because it looks like the original discussion that took place with the volunteer took place on [Ticket#2015012110018886] but the permission was sent to Ticket:2021050510006991. What is the best way to resolve this?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, I have sent a follow-up response and once clarified, I will hopefully get all the images restored. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Could you instantly help me with restoring these files please? ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: ✓ Done. One of the file names above was wrong, it is actually File:1826 five pounds obverse.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow Thank you for the promt action. @Wehwalt, Given the previous correspondence and the clarification to my doubts on the ticket, I have decided to approve the permissions for these images and have updated with the relevant template. Please reach out to me if there is anything missing. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks good. My thanks to everyone who helped move this forward. It's an important grant of permission for WikiProject Numismatics, which has struggled for years for the lack of adequate images. Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Permissions by ModernTacitus

Also,

Check ticket:2023062610004429

Thank you. ModernTacitus (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2008100510024557 ticket:ORTS 2008061710030884 ticket:2008061710030893

The admin User:Jameslwoodward asked here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Florent Abel to delate the files : File:STAPS (Tarbes).JPG (ticket ORTS 2008100510024557), File:Narbonnemediatheque.jpg (ticket ORTS 2008061710030884.), File:Maison des Arts Martiaux (Tarbes, 65).JPG (ticket ORTS 2008061710030893). Can you remind him the authorization sent by architects archived in ORTS system ? Florent Abel (talk) Thanks. 08:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Florent Abel @Jameslwoodward: ticket:2008100510024557 is a quick fail. It does not contain any explicit permissions which are required for files to be kept on Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately, the same format is followed in ticket:2008061710030884 and ticket:2008061710030893. I am sorry to say that VRT won't be able to help in this case and the mentions of these tickets by User:Bapti on these file pages (see edit history) is entirely mistaken. The tickets miss the basic license information. My personal opinion on these files is same as that of @Jameslwoodward i.e. do not keep the files which are not permitted under FoP, unless the architects send us a direct permission release. We do not accept forwarded permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks. Florent Abel (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2018050210004995

Can someone check this ticket please? The file says this image was taken by "Maik71" who presumably is the image subject Maik Möller. As we are talking about German copyright law, this would mean it has to be a selfie. I don't see how this image can be a selfie.

As the user has uploaded a number of other pictures admittedly taken by other photographers, with no permission by them, I assume there might be a misunderstanding about the legal situation. He might believe that buying the usage rights will also grant him copyright. --2003:C0:8F16:F700:89BC:F2F9:AFDB:DB00 12:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Which exact file do you refer to? Krd 18:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2014070110000717

Does this ticket cover any file on the flickr stream?

File:Vietnam and South Korea in 23 June, 2023.jpg is NC on flickr. Does the ticket make it cc-by-sa?

Would appreciate it if an agent could comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vietnam and South Korea in 23 June, 2023.jpg Gbawden (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gbawden: I have posted my observations. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help @TheAafi Gbawden (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023061210012106

Can someone please confirm which files this applies/applied to? Something seems to be wrong with the system or my access (I get a "No TicketID is given! Please contact the administrator." error). Cc. The Squirrel Conspiracy, who brought this to my attention on Discord. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 Same here. @Krd or any other admin might help us. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Which file is it used at? Krd 16:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Krd It was used at, at least, Special:Undelete/File:Adom promo pic.jpg, and linked to at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martytanaki. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The ticket does not exist. The only option is to encourage the sender to send it again.--Krd 06:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

ticket #2016120610019033

I've created a vectorized version of File:VBL Logo Home of Respect.png at File:VBL Logo Home of Respect.svg, should I add the permission license of the original to the SVG version as well? ReneeWrites (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: It is not required. Mentioning of the source is enough. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Brechtspaziergang 06.jpg

I deleted this file per Gnom's deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brechtspaziergang 06.jpg, as there was also no VRT permission ticket in the file description. Pimpinellus has now forwarded to me an e-mail in which Bertolt Brecht's heir agrees to release that poem under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, and according to Pimpinellus, he's already sent such an e-mail to VRT. As I'm not a VRT member, I'm asking here if you can find that e-mail and, if the license is really in order (I'm still somewhat surprised as I believed the Suhrkamp publishing house having exclusive rights), I suppose the file can be restored with the appropriate ticket. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: The ticket number is 2023073010004688 but it contains forwarded permissions, and we have received this forward some thirty minutes ago. I would leave its review to my fellow VRT agents. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
If the forwarded permissions are approved, the file could be undeleted upon a successful request from a VRT agent, or otherwise a VRT agent would continue the correspondence seeking clarifications/further information etc. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you; per Pimpinellus, he thought he forwarded the permission months ago, but has sent it now again in case he actually didn't or it didn't reach the VRT. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:FuruMSapital20230128_3.jpg and File:Ffffff20230131.jpg

Do these files need permission? [19][20][21][22] I see no obvious need for using VRT process here. Shizhao provided no additional explanation with these edits, and as an agent I cannot act without knowing what to verify. I believe in general VRT agents can 1) accept permission, 2) reject permission, or 3) consider permission unnecessary. I chose 3 here and got reverted. Am I missing something? (File:Ffffff20230131.jpg needs renaming, by the way, but I think that can be sorted out later.)

ticket:2023070210003188 is a related ticket, which I closed for the reasoning above. --whym (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel I need to agree with @Whym in this case. I tried looking for possible available copies of these files and it appears the files were not published elsewhere before these were published here. There is no reason to doubt the uploader. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I have removed reverted @Shizhao's edits and put an edit summary reading that if they have questions, they should consult at VRTN or simply put the files through a regular DR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, @Shizhao has reverted my edits as well without stating why. It is unfortunate to see so happen when I had explicitly mentioned in the edit summary.@Red-tailed hawk, would you please take a look here as you are an admin and a VRT agent both? Best. ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
These two files lack EXIF data, there is reason to believe that they may not have been taken by themselves shizhao (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Shizhao, Lack of EXIF data is not a very good reason to doubt any file. Given what @King of Hearts states on Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Archive_9#iPhone_strips_EXIF_from_HEIC_when_converting_to_JPEG; we should try to assume good faith and not tag files with no-permission if we do not have any good reason except that the files miss EXIF. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the advice given by King of Hearts in their edit summary here—rather than repeatedly going back-and-forth on speedy tagging, it's best for the tagger to nominate the file for DR. This way, one centralized discussion can be had at the appropriate place, where editors can properly weigh in on if a file should or should not be deleted. A file lacking EXIF and being small in size can be a reason for significant doubt as to the file's freedom, but it isn't always the end of the analysis. As KoH noted at the aforementioned DR talk page, the lack of EXIF is less of a tell when the image appears reasonably likely to have been taken with a mobile phone.
If the file is possbily the dude's own photo, we should try to do a bit more digging before tagging it for deletion. In particular, we can also look at the users' other uploads to see if they have a lot of photos shot from the same/similar angle and with similar quality; this sort of evidence could be used to better discern whether a users' mobile phone was likely the origin of the file.
And, as it turns out, this user did upload some of the same sorts of photos as File:FuruMSapital20230128 3.jpg (admins: see File:FuruMSapital20230128.jpg and File:FuruMSapital20230128 2.jpg), though they were deleted by Krd as nobody contested the speedy tag within 7 days of the tag's placement. For this reason, I don't really have significant doubts that File:FuruMSapital20230128 3.jpg is legitimately own work of uploader. I can't say the same for File:Ffffff20230131.jpg, because the camera quality appears very different, it's a different event, and they only uploaded the one picture of it.
In any case, a DR is probably better suited to handle this specific instance of files uploaded with low quality and low exif rather than discussion on VRTN, as this doesn't appear to involve any VRT tickets that only VRT agents can see. If we're discssing the much broader case of no EXIF Low quality, it's probably better to have it take place at COM:VPC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Gotta say, File:FuruMSapital20230128.jpg and File:FuruMSapital20230128 2.jpg look a lot more like something taken by an amateur with a mobile phone than anything else. I think File:FuruMSapital20230128.jpg and File:FuruMSapital20230128 2.jpg were probably wrongly deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel, It is unfortunate, a deleting admin should always check whether addition of such a template was warranted or not. I mean this generally happens with CSD's where a lot of admins move them to regular DRs but I do not see this culture with files tagged with "no-permission" or so. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Are only photos with CC-BY-SA licenses from this source allowed on Commons?

See here: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2014070110000717

I just want to verify this VRT ticket permission(s), because a there is a related Deletion request (DR) here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Korea-Vietnam Summit 01 (53000098508).jpg

  • Also, seperately- as I pressed the "add topic" button, a red warning tag appeared with this:
"Warning
You are trying to add a VRTS permission tag to this page. In general, such tags should only be added by VRT members. You should not add these tags unless explicitly instructed to do so by a VRT member. You may press "Save page" again if you like to save this edit. If you do so, your edit will be tagged for review. In case you aren't sure if your edit is okay, it's best to ask for help, on the VRT Noticeboard."

I am only sending a VRT link to help with my question. I checked again that this is only a link and I am not adding a "VRT permission tag." Maybe this tag could be adjusted to not flag the use of of a VRT link on talk pages? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ooligan, Given the request from @Gbawden some time ago (see this archived thread), I posted my observations on a related DR on 24 July 2023. Please see if that helps, and if you any further questions. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ticket: 2020091610019281

All files in Category:Go Ahead Eagles logo are covered by ticket:2020091610019281. At the bottom of the Go Ahead Eagles website it however says: © Copyright Go Ahead Eagles - Officiële website van Go Ahead Eagles. It's very uncommon for top level football clubs to just release their logos for anyone to use it freely so I just want to verify that the ticket is correct. Jonteemil (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jonteemil: The ticket only releases the following images:
Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
That is clear but the question I had is if the ticket seems legit. I mean, anyone can say that they are a representative of the club and release the files, or is that perhaps impossible? Jonteemil (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jonteemil, the ticket is legit. You are true on the other thing that anyone can claim to be a representative of anything and it is pretty much possible that they might spam the VRT, but, we generally seek emails from verified organisational email addresses (or those mentioned on the organisation's contact page on their website) to ascertain the credibility. In this case, I can clearly see the email coming from an address ending with @ga-eagles.nl. I hope this answers your question. Let me know if you have any other queries. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2023073110005854

is referenced in File:NajatBadri.jpg, but it says I don't have permission to view it. Is anybody able to view this ticket, or is this a typo?

CC: Mussklprozz

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. There does not seem to be a typo in the ticket number given that it was added by Krdbot. However, it might be in a different queue to which we don't have access but @Mussklprozz has. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk @TheAafi It is from the french language permission queue. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2008081610004893

Ticket:2008081610004893 is legit for File:Caramell-supergott.jpg? Jonteemil (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Ellywa (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023080610000387

Hi, please pay attention to this file! photo taken by me a few years ago with a regular smartphone for my personal use. so I didn't violate any copyrights. Futurolog21 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Permission sender got a reply the same day, which is still unanswered. Krd 07:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2012042310010184

We've got Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giants of Serbian Literature Stamps. It hinges on ticket:2012042310010184 mentioned in the discussed images. Could someone with access 1) confirm that the ticket justifies uploading those files on Commons, and 2) clarify what does that email concern: those particular postal stamps, all Serbian stamps, etc.? Thanks a lot. Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Materialscientist: This ticket dates back to 2012 when things were not so complicate with the VRT. There are forwarded permissions that release "Great Serbian Literature stamps as well as the individual stamp of Pekić". The ticket is not in English but Google Translate (the actual permission sender's wordings from the forward) suggests the translation as, "Greats of Serbian Literature" stamps that contain the Borislav Pekić stamp" are released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. This means not all postal stamps or all Serbian stamps are released freely but only a limited set of stamps that belong to this group. Please let me know if this is helpful. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, very helpful, thanks a lot! Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2023082810004592

Regarding this ticket, I just need there to be a custom template created or this ticket. I can then use this template to import the images to the Wikimedia Commons.

As there seems to be some confusion in the e-mail, I'd like to clear up that after they give permission for their website that I can then import it using the template made from this electronic letter exchange. This could be something like "{{ChinaZeug.de Münzen}}" that I can tag the uploads with.

This template should combine "{{AccreditationTicket}}" with a Creative Commons license, making it easier for me to tag them in the uploads. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically this:

{{AccreditationTicket |id= 2023082810004592}} {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} {{In category|Images of coins from ChinaZeug.de}}

I'll create the category and do the uploads myself, you can see their e-mail address on this page (Archive) to see that it's in fact them. I simply cannot create the template as I'm not a VRTS volunteer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I have answered within the ticket. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Mussklprozz, I'll reply here because it's more open. The reason I prefer a custom template is because it's a time saving measure. I would have to manually tag every individual upload with the same category (which would be automatically done with the template) and if I accidentally forget it someone patrolling new uploads will think "there is no free license on this website" and they'll tag it for deletion wasting patroller and admin time. A simple template saves more time for everyone involved.
I've already made the outline above and I'll make the categories and do the uploads. All coin images are confined to a specific domain of the website "ChinaZeug.de/muenzen" and are easily found that way. The only job of the VRTS involved is simply to verify that the content matches the ticket.
Also note that all coin images on the website have the same distinctive background. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Donald Trung, a ticket is open to any VRT member, thus pretty open to those whom it concerns. – Anyway, if you go and uplaod the picures, i get them from your contribution list and can group them into a category in one fell swoop. Mussklprozz (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Mussklprozz, I'll manually add them to the category myself and I'll tag the category with the permission ticket then, doing the VRT thing for every individual upload just seems like too much work. Especially when easier options exist. Mostly because the list of images to upload is quite long and I'm not planning on doing everything in a single go. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, I think there are several misunderstandings: 1) Permission badges apply to images, not to categories. Each image needs a badge itself. Tagging the whole category alone is not sufficient. 2) Only VRT agents may issue permission badges. Are you a VRT agent? 3) Adding the category and the permission tag to all images is done within minutes by me (or any other VRT agent), since we have a batch tool that supports such tasks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mussklprozz (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 August 2023‎ (UTC)
@Mussklprozz, I suppose they are confused with a customised template that could be added on all of the relevant files by their uploader (however created only by a VRT agent) - perhaps for images that are so many - and the permission for them being stored in just one ticket - or that there keep relevant files coming and coming that adding permissions tag becomes a tedious job. For instance, a recent case with @Wehwalt, and the template was made by Ruthven, which can be seen at {{CC-HA}}. Templates also "auto-categorise" files on which they are included. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Interestingly, this was also related to coins. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @TheAafi, I have myself created several such customized templates for institutional websites (museums and archives) in Spain and Germany. @Donald wrote in the ticket that he would like to have one for the images in question. However I am reluctant to create one under the given circumstances here, given a private website, a private user and a collection which can be uploaded all at once. The template would have to be created, tested, approved by the rights holder – altogehter more work for the VRT agent in charge than issuing the permission badge using the batch tool. Furthermore, there is a certain risk with customized template: imo we have no efficient control that it is only used by the person who is entitled to use it. With institutional users, that risk is still there, but mitigated by the fact that there are professionals who have an eye on their categories. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Right. There is some difference. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I asked them to simply put a CC notice on their website. So I'm marking this section as "Resolved". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

User:AlbertHog license agreement sent, but not processed. Files deleted…

Couple of files I uploaded on Aug19 were marked as missing license. The email with author's permission (in Russian) was sent by himself on 22 Aug (to the Rus team). Now I find out my files have already been deleted…Can you please restore them? Hoping for your quick reaction. Full list:

Best regards, AlbertHog (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

For anyone reviewing this case, the ticket number is 2023081110007441 and is in the Russian queue. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi This page doesn’t work for me: I can't log in with my WP account. Could you help me understand what's wrong here? AlbertHog (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@AlbertHog, VRT cannot be accessed by everyone. It is private and confidential and only volunteers with access to it can login there. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@The Aafi The email from author has finally been processed. Can someone please point them (the permissions-ru team) to this thread so they could find out file names and register the license? Because they are asking my pal (@the author) to send them another message containing file names when files will have been uploaded to Wiki. I want to avoid this stage because then it's going to be already the 4th time of me uploading these files to Commons and it would take another 12 days of waiting. Not speaking of freaking out the poor guy who just took those cool photos. Thx. AlbertHog (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@AlbertHog I have added a note in the system. Do not reupload the files, they will be restored if the permission is accepted. You must still respond with the consent form given. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Yep, sure he will. Thanks. AlbertHog (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2018052510002355

Hi, File:Willi Gohl Conducting the 640 massed uni choir at the United Nations.jpg came up for deletion review along with several other images and the uploader has provided indications that they were uploaded with permission. (See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 154745016@N06) This ticket number from 2018 is the only one I see connected with any of the files. Is it possible to determine what's happened here and if any of the other images in question have been vetted per the information provided by the uploader? —Tcr25 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tcr25, The permissions were never explicitly given, and there is no clear correspondence after the VRT agent's response in September 2018. New activity on the ticket dates few days ago but nothing is clear. Explicit permissions have always been missing in this case. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. The uploader has posted copies of emails to the DR thread that seem explicit, but I'm guessing were never submitted properly. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
There are no specific files listed thought except these two links:
There is some more correspondence in ticket:2018052410012711, however permissions aren't adequate. There is a lot of strangeness. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
That inaccessible link is the same photo (it pops up in the Wayback Machine and was used in an International Choral Bulletin article about Gohl's death). One of the other photos being questioned, File:Auckland University Festival Choir at the UN.jpg, is in the same Flickr folder as the first link. Thanks for looking into this. In the DR review, I've encouraged the uploader to look carefully at COM:VRT/CONSENT to make sure he can get the proper sort of release for the images. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ticket#20230700510007115

Perumalism (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Perumalism Fixed link: ticket:2023070510007115 (there was an extra zero). We responded with a question on July 5, but there was no reply. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Permission for File:Anne_Rothäuser.jpg

Hi folks!

First of all thank you for your work!

Some days ago, I uploaded 3 files by the Postillon, of which 2 got the permission ticket #2023091510004266 (see File:Plakat P24 Anne Thiess 140721.jpg and File:Thieß Neubert.png, but not File:Anne Rothäuser.jpg. The permission of all 3 files should be included with the corresponding email by The Postillon, but might File:Anne Rothäuser.jpg be forgotten. If valid, could you please add the permission ticket to the file in question?

Thank you :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Krd as Agent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Please encourage the copyright holder to send the permission again. --Krd 19:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Checking authorisation for 2015122310000978

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: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xodus_Media_Kit.JPG

The OTSR: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2015122310000978

The page with the OTSR: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xodus_Media_Kit.JPG

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

Ticket is incomplete, files now deleted. --Krd 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2015041410005433

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)

  • 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)
@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)
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)
Image deleted. --Krd 15:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Chess olympiad 2008 stamp.jpg

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)

@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)
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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Moga mascot during the launch.jpg

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)

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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Reginald Gray

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)

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)

ticket:2022091410001094

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)

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)
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)

ticket:2023080710010669

List of the respective files:

Permission has been sent to permissions-pl[at]wikimedia.org 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)

Please provide the ticket number the permission sender received. Krd 04:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@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)
So what I should do?... Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

VRT hiccup regarding ticket #2023091410010181

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)

@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)
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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

utilisation du symbole

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)

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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Jacques Maire en 2023.jpg

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)

@Asclepias, Unfortunately, I cannot read the ticket language. Maybe @Mussklprozz can tell us better? ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@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)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

file check

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)

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

VRT question

Hello. What is the VRT status on File:Nicole_McKee.jpg? Cheers. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The permission sender is still figuring things out. --Krd 17:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023100410007807

Здравствуйте! Получил разрешение от Ассоциации юристов России. Прошу агентам дать дополнительное подтверждение, поскольку я уже загрузил один медиафайл:

MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Permission sender got feedback 2 days after sending the permisison, but did not respond. --Krd 08:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Licensing clarification for ticket:2008052110018178

Possibly due to an error made when it was imported from en.wikipedia, File:Ferenc Krausz.jpg lists two separate licenses (CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0). I am hoping that insight into the cited permission ticket (ticket:2008052110018178) can provide clarity on the intended license. BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@BegbertBiggs: Thanks for reporting. I have fixed it. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Sondra Radvanovsky (1d).jpg

In response to a request from Gerda Arendt following her discussion with the author of the picture, Sondra Radvanovsky, I have uploaded the above cropped image, which I extracted from File:Sondra Radvanovsky selfie.jpg. This cropped version is to be used to replace the above larger original version, on her article Sondra Radvanovsky. Please would you kindly check that the permissions for this extract are OK? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Storye book, it is okay though it is not necessary to put permission-tickets on these extracted images. Specifying that the image is adapted from so and so CC BY-SA image is enough and sufficient. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)thx
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Murano/Venetian Beads

Hello! Will somebody be willing to visit Museo del Vetro on Murano island and take photos of beads to make a new category and illustrate the article about Murano/Venetian beads? Perhaps somebody lives nearby or is planing to visit Murano island soon. If so, please ask first of taking free photos in the museum is permitted. This would be nice, because I am writing an article about Murano/Venetian beads on pl.wp. and miss photos to illustrate it. For details, please contact me. Thanks in advance. Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hortensja Bukietowa: this is not the place to ask for images, please read the top of the page. My suggestion: take a look here, here or on Category:Murano Glass Museum and related categories. I hope you will find what you need. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ellywa: . Thanks for the information. I have already visited the pages which you proposed to me. Unfortunately there are no photos I need to illustrate the article. Because I am not so familiar with Commons. Is there a page where one can ask for contributing certain photos to the project? Are here maybe administrators from Italy who I could contact? Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Hortensja Bukietowa: You can try the Commons:Bar italiano. Or you can try to find the village pump at https://vec.wikipedia.org. Ellywa (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please check the email with permissions?

The permissions for File:Поліна_Дашкова.jpg has been sent by the photographer twice already, first time the letter didn't include the topic, the second was titled "Photo permissions for File:Поліна_Дашкова.jpg from photographer". I hope you will find them, thanks in advance! --Oleh325 (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

When was it send, what was the ticket number in the reply? Krd 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
11.09.2023 and 05.10.2023. --Oleh325 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey! So, have you fount the letters? --Oleh325 (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Krd: , ticket:2023091110008386. Ellywa (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Krd: hey, any updates? Thanks. --Oleh325 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The permission sender did not answer our followup questions. If possible please encourage them to reply or to send the permission again. --Krd 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Dangling files

Hi! How can we identify dangling {{Permission received}} files without existing categories? Example: Category:Permission received as of 1 August 2023. I am afraid there could be others as well. Bencemac (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I think Special:Diff/812936733 shall resolve this. --Krd 02:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 02:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023070710000252

Any updates on the ticket? 0x0a (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Whym might know more. Ellywa (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Whym: How is it? 0x0a (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
See File talk:AKARI NEO 20210219 222655.jpg. whym (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
OK. I see. Thanks. 0x0a (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 02:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Bowling pin images

Hello. I had uploaded multiple images of bowling pins to Commons, and they were deleted as their copyright status was unclear. Could a member of the VRT please verify that I can use these images, and possibly undelete them?? I got them all from this link: [23]

Thank you. Contributor 118,784 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Contributor 118,784: I don't see anything here to do with VRT. Is there some specific piece of confidential correspondence that needs to be followed up? - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I read that you guys could help. Am I incorrect?? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Contributor 118,784: I'm not a member of the team, but the role of the VRT is to handle confidential correspondence, primarily to verify people's identities and to receive permissions from people who don't choose to create Commons accounts, so that we can know that permissions legitimately come from the individual or organization that holds the relevant rights. I don't see where any such issue arises here. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Ahhh, that makes sense. Do you know where I can have my query answered? Contributor 118,784 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Contributor 118,784: There are several issues with your files. 1. You are not allowed to copy images from the Internet without permission from the copyright holder, or evidence of a free license. 2. You didn't mention a license, which is necessary for any file you upload. Yann (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Feel free to close this. :— Contributor 118,784 (talk • ctb) 21:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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:

1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/52176290159/

2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/52176042741/

3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/52175009767/in/photostream/


"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)

@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?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:President_Yoon_Suk_Yeol_and_first_Lady_Kim_Keon_Hee_depart_to_Madrid,_Spain_for_Nato_Summit_at_Seoul_Air_Base_(1).jpg&diff=712122705&oldid=677465007
Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
@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 Korea.net 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 https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/ 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)
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)

ticket:2013050810008506

Of the file File:WehGi.jpg. While the photograph might have a VRT ticket I don't believe it counts for the sculpture displayed in the image. The sculpture is a rather prominent one from Alberto Giacometti who died in 1966 and the photograph was taken in Italy that has a standard of life plus 70 years. No FoP in Italy also. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, image should be cropped to remove the copyrighted artwork, first verion should be deleted, and the image should be removed from WP pages for Giacometti. There are two versions, File:WehGi (cropped).jpg as well. A bit of work, I have no time now. Ellywa (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
File:WehGi (cropped)2.jpg and File:WehGi (cropped) (cropped).jpg, I have cropped them. But when I tried to also move the VRT ticket to the cropped file there appeared a warning that this should only be done by members of the VRT. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: I have now nominated the file for deletion, including other versions, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alberto Giacometti, and included the ticket to the cropped file. I replaced all occurences on the projects with the cropped file now. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No answer from the 2nd of October, 2023

On the 2nd of October, 2023 I uploaded three photos to commonsː https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Éljen_Magyarország_Kormányzója_!.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Éljen_Magyarország_Kormányzója_!_(2).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Éljen_Magyarország_Kormányzója_!_(3).jpg At the same time the permissions for the three photos were uploaded by the owner of the copyrights. Since then I did not get an answer. Could you help me what's up ? Elekes Andor (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ticket is still open, please be patient. Krd 04:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Dido3

On 17 September 2023, I nominated some files taken by Makis Theodorou and uploaded by Dido3 for deletion (deletion request) for lack of permission. The photographer later sent a permission email to VRT, but the involved files were recently deleted (due to the deletion, I don't know the ticket number). As the uploader is also asking for the reason, I'd like to ask what happened with the ticket, and what is the reason for deletion, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dido3 and Krd: Notifying stakeholders.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023091810006197. Permission was not fully clear. Answer to question asked by VRT volunteer is not yet received. Ellywa (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
How can access ticket content? Dido3 (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
You cannot access the ticket content, this is confidential. I will make a note to the ticket about this discussion, in order to kindly speed up a bit. Ellywa (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The files have now been undeleted and do contain the permission according to the ticket, for instance File:Greece Storm Daniel DJI 0188.jpg. thanks User:Krd. Ellywa (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Quicker/smarter permissions procedure for Lieder project

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)

@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. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
Of course, we are taking care of uploading only not copyrighted composer. Thanks. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Jeff G., I will do that. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Robertgarrigos: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Email sent to VRT with the text. I hope we can find a satisfactory solution for everyone. Robertgarrigos (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

DR needs ticket info

Commons:Deletion requests/File:War Memorial Korea 20150623 01 (18884521489).jpg could use some assistance. There is a VRT tag for ticket:2014070110000717 but the concern is about whether this is a DW of non-free content. Does the ticket relate purely to the photo uploaded, or the items being photographed, or the items in the photo in the photo? DMacks (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Very tricky indeed. this discussion might help. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Ownership rights", ticket:2023102410007985

The way the uploader of this image emphasizes "ownership rights" by the image subject makes me curious about the ticket. Is it based on this claim to "ownership rights" (which obviously do not include copyright), or has the copyright holder actually given their consent? --2003:C0:8F1E:8300:9996:9232:427A:C72 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The ticket mentioned is valid for that file. We are unable to publish details about the ticket. —MdsShakil (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MdsShakil (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No response

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eschau-Wibolsheim,_Chapelle_St-Sébastien_(1).jpg#mw-jump-to-license This picture soon will be deleted unfortunately. I can't reach the photographer (who also built the organ - a perfekt symbiose of "own work"..). I did send a reminder already. But I'm very sure that he is ok with it, as he was with other pictures time ago. Can we perhaps integrate it to the former ticket? Thanks, --Subbass1 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done, I guess I overlooked the already added permission. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2009111810076787

Hello, I have a couple of doubt regarding this ticket. It was opened in 2009 to add permission to some images of an Argentine football team taken from the internet when its articule was being promoted in eswiki. The author of these images is Carlos Cermele, a well known professional photographer, and I imagine the uploader contacted him, got the permission, etc. However, I have a couple of doubts of how this ticket was used afterwards:

Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Günther Frager: The author authorizes Cazadoroculto to upload any future works by them under the same terms. I guess this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Aafī Thanks for the info. It is a bit weird as the images are taken from the web (i.e. who knows under which license), but if that is on the ticket I guess it is fine. However, it doesn't explain my second question regarding its use on anonymous work, certainly not done by that photographer. Günther Frager (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Günther Frager, This seems to be a mistake. I have removed the ticket details from that file. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

general policy on movie posters

I uploaded a movie poster that was found on IMDB. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hovsepig#c-Trade-20231031212600-File_tagging_File:Motherland-2022-poster.jpg

I understand that we have to go through copyright rules. But when I was uploading this poster, I didn't see an obvious option for movie posters -- like if the poster is on IMDB, then is it by default fair use? Hovsepig (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Motherland-2022-poster.jpg.
@Hovespig: Commons does not accept images on a fair-use basis. This will certainly be deleted unless you can get a license from the copyright-holder.
Keep in mind, nowadays in virtually every country of the world, images are copyrighted by default. If it is at all recent, and is copyrightable, it is almost certain that it is copyrighted (though of course it may be licensed). The only exceptions are things like a few governments (most notably the U.S. federal government) that automatically put the work of their employees in the public domain, or things that are too simple to copyright.
If your intent is to use this in an article in one of the Wikipedias: some of the Wikipedias allow images to be uploaded on a fair-use basis, but that does not involve Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Лев Наумов с романом Пловец Снов.jpg

I deleted the file yesterday due to missing permission and for being re-uploaded content deleted per community consensus. But uploader claimed, that permission e-mail was sent already in 16th of July (or couple of days earlier) and the file is erroneously deleted. File history does not show a trace of such permission. Is there a way to search a permission? Taivo (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Uploader Copytron said, that the e-mail was sent in 14th of July, but did not give a ticket number. Taivo (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Taivo, I see Krd has updated the file-page and accepted the permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Received no auto-reply with ticket number

I did sent a request to [email protected] with the to:-line "Venus Berlin 2023 - Presse-akkreditierung" at Sun, 5 Nov 2023 01:13:12 0100 but received no notification, that the mail was received (got no ticket number). Do I need to resend the request? C.Suthorn (@[email protected] - p7.ee/p) (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. --Krd 08:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

productionsrhizome.org

Hi, VRT will receive (or may have alresdy received today) an email from the address productionsrhizome.org, 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)

@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)
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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2018110410002829

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)

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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Rza Talibov

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)

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)

File:Shotinformativoledzeppelin-conceptoradialshotinformativo-ivoox3566815.ogg and ticket #2015022310018951

File:Shotinformativoledzeppelin-conceptoradialshotinformativo-ivoox3566815.ogg is an audio file that includes several music clips by the UK band Led Zeppelin, and possibly by others. Does the assigned license require the consent of the record company, and does the VRT ticket confirm this consent? Ticket link. The same issue applies to File:Shotinformativofreddymercury-conceptoradialshotinformativo-ivoox3155421.ogg, and possibly to other files in Category:Shot Informativo programs donated by Concepto Radial, Tec de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de México. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The ticket is in Spanish and was closed as successful by @Superzerocool in March 2015. Maybe they can tell us more? ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the ticket, the person gave us permission to use the audio because "Concepto Radial" has the moral right to grant us permission to use the audio files. As I recall (it's been a long 7 years!), the music is not the main part of the audio, so I conclude that the files were okay, because the main subject was the interviews (or shoot informativo). If there is a new way to review this case, or if you simply want to delete it, please proceed. Superzerocool (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. On thinking more about this, my interpretation is that the music clips were included in the file as fair use, and that the inclusion of fair use components is compatible with the CC license. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting double-check on File:Víctor Cibrian, 2022.jpg

While going through user:LIMO 5's uploads zapping copyvios and nominating borderline cases for deletion, I spotted that this file has a VTRS tag. Bluntly, the uploader can't be trusted considering the amount of false claim of own work files that have (and will soon be) deleted, so I'd like someone to double-check the ticket on this file with that context in mind to make sure it actually holds up. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, this is a good one. Ticket is fine. Thanks for asking. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:P-Square.jpg and ticket number: 2023102710000762

Hello, I want to verify the status of this image: File:P-Square.jpg.

A template was added to the image demanding a valid permission, whereas the author have sent all the evidence. Do well to read the permission sent. Thanks. Delimane (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Delimane, VRT has not received sufficient response from the copyright claimant to help release this file under a free license. Once we receive a sufficient response, the file will be restored. Back to you on, the author have sent all the evidence; no, we have not received any such evidence, and the same has been communicated on the ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, if you can point out the needed ‘sufficient response’, I will send your directives to the copyright holder to act on it. Delimane (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Donkervoort headquarters.jpg

Hi Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard!

I am Ergys Dashi, which uploaded the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donkervoort_headquarters.jpg for Donkervoort Automobielen headquarters. Since Donkervoort Automobielen has granted its permission to use the file on Wikimedia Commons, I need from you to remove the message notice which says to provide a valid permission on the image file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donkervoort_headquarters.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Since the Donkervoort Automobielen company has provided its permission to use the image on Wikimedia Commons, is not necessary to provide another valid permission on the image file.

Thanks EDASHI (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@EDASHI there was an email sent back to the email address explaining why the licence statement could not be accepted. The email was sent on 14 November and needs to be responded to. Nthep (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of permission for a cropped version of an image whose permission has been confirmed by the VRT

The image File:JudithButler2013.jpg has evidence of permission confirmed by the VRT. The image File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg is a cropped version of it. Should the evidence statement of the original image be copied to the cropped image? Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no clear policy. I think it's not needed as the permission is clear. --Krd 15:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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 https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/39760227514, but there is a Korea.net license template with a VRT template on the file that give it a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. The VRT Template links to https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2014070110000717 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)

@Abzeronow: The ticket relates as far as I can understand to a single image on Flickr which has been relicensed to CCBYSA by Korea.net on request: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/14518090226/. 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 Korea.net in 2014/2015, as template {{Korea.net}} 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)
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)
(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)

File:P-Square.jpg and ticket: 2023102710000762

Hello, I want to verify the status of this image: File:P-Square.jpg with the ticket number 2023102710000762. What is the update of the license declaration? Delimane (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Delimane: What was on the screen when file:P-Square.jpg was shot? Evidently, we don't have sufficient permission for it yet from Meaches Photography under Ticket:2023102710000762, and permission is not evident on Instagram.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The Meaches Photography are the one who shot the photo. The P-Square duo gave credit to the photographer ‘Meaches Photography’ in a similar post with the same outfit here on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CkGuJ2ILrFk/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Meaches photography, who granted me permission to use it, said he is in talk with the VRTs team on the image licensing process. Delimane (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It isn't helpful to discuss the content here, please put relevant information into the ticket. --Krd 05:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Krd: I can't, you won't let me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

File:P-Square.jpg Ticket: 2023111510005895

Hello, what is the update of the licensing for this image:

File:P-Square.jpg

Ticket: 2023111510005895 Delimane (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly the same as last time you asked at multiple places at the same time. --Krd 14:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Coding problem

Regarding the page for Category:Chimney Rock (Montezuma County, Colorado), the Otheruses template is at the top of the page, but it is not displaying correctly. I could not fix it. It may be a problem with the template itself. Can you have a look? Jeffrey Beall (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC).

Although this question doesn't belong here, @Jeffrey Beall, I have fixed it for you with this edit. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to Jakob Hurt

Can someone check ticket:2020071910004071 with regards to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to Jakob Hurt? Thanks. —holly {chat} 18:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Ticket in Estonian. We have nobody who can read that. --Krd 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Google Translate? Not always the most reliable, but not bad these days. —holly {chat} 17:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone considered inviting User:Taivo into the VRT, with no expectation other than that he would deal with the handful of issues that require reading Estonian? He is certainly a very trusted admin. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Kruusamägi (talk · contribs) is a VRT agent from Estonia. Let him comment the ticket. Taivo (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, he's the one already involved in the DR. I will assume that the ticket is valid for the nominated files, then. —holly {chat} 01:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh yes please. @Taivo, please join us! ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —holly {chat} 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023021610013794

Hi, File:Voie romaine Pons-Guimps, entre Marignac et Sainte Lheurine.tif was uploaded on November 2022, but this is a derivative work of a non-free map. What's in the ticket? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The ticket (in French) seems not conclusive for this and 3 other images. @Reinhard Kraasch: can you please comment? Ellywa (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The ticket is still open for these files and the permission not accepted - my colleague User:Mussklprozz has asked the uploader "All four drawings are based on maps. These are often protected by copyright. So in each of the four cases, we need proof that either full usage rights have been granted to you under a free license for the underlying map, or that the map has been published under a free license." The uploader will probably not answer properly, so the files in question will be deleted. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So Commons:Deletion requests/File:Voie romaine Pons-Guimps, entre Marignac et Sainte Lheurine.tif. Yann (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Double-check permissions for files connected to Videke

Videke (talk · contribs) takes plenty of liberties with copyright, as evidenced by Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Awuku Studios and Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs#Demande de conseil vis-à-vis de Videke. I kindly request that all permissions for files connected to his articles be double checked. These are:

Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cryptic-waveform,
I don't take liberty on copyright
I have removed all sources linked to the website: awukustudios.com in my articles although I am not the author
I am not an editor of this website, the website is created in Guinea by a company belonging to Bouba, I was just called after all to do the design and I signed the design on the footer . That's all, but I don't know why I am taken as the owner of the website? but the website is still under maintenance, go check whois to see if I have anything to do with the content of the website or do some research and write to the site studio to see if I am the one in charge of their contents.
I'm not even part of their committee.
-----
For the files cited here, my name is not cited as author and it is other people who added the files, I have nothing to do with that, check it again
If you want verification on the authors, do some research on them and surely you will have answers after discussing with them, otherwise, I have nothing to do with the images because my name does not appear on the images .
Videke (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
"I don't take liberty on copyright" Your contributions here and on the French wikipedia say otherwise which is why I'm requesting to double-check the permissions. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I checked all the tickets and they are OK. Cheers Ruthven (msg) 13:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 13:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Korea President Park Smithsonian 20130507 02.jpg

I'm writing an article on the artwork seen in this picture. The licensing says it's free to use, but is it referring to only the photo or the photo and artwork? APK (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@APK: That might be problematic. I don't see any indication that the person or entity that licensed the photo got clearance from the artist, and it is certainly a derivative work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok thank you. I might crop it and use a fair use photo I’ll take this weekend. APK (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Jean-Loup Othenin-Girard

Jean-Loup Othenin-Girard (talk · contribs)

Hi, This user says that his identity has been verified via VRT. Could someone check please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yann Yes, Jean-Loup_Othenin-Girard confirmed his identity in ticket:2023112410004913. Best, Ruthven (msg) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Merci bien. Il faudrait valider l'autorisation pour toutes les images que je suis en train de restaurer, et ajouter un modèle "Compte vérifié" sur la page de l'utilisateur. Je ne suis plus membre VRT, donc je ne peux le faire moi-même. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Tous les fichiers ont été restaurés. Yann (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: could you please mark Jean-Loup's user page to make it clear that the account has a verified identity? The boilerplate that Yann used doesn't really clarify the matter, and neither he nor I have access to VRT. - Jmabel ! talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven and Jmabel: the appropriate tag for a VRT member to place would be {{Verified account|2023112410004913}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks. Ruthven (msg) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Outer Wilds poster (no credits).jpg

ticket:2015031010022012. Did the copyright holder license the current 500 × 688 version or the original 7,200 × 9,900? If the former, then the original should be deleted; otherwise it should be restored as Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Charcoal feather (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done (deleted) --Krd 08:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please check this file

For this file the permissions has been sent from the author, and later from the organization itself. Could anyone check the permissions from the organization email to confirm the file's status? Thanks a lot! --Oleh325 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The email from Ambasador Dytynstva was sent on 22nd of November, hope it'll help to find it quicker. --Oleh325 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Please encourage the permission sender to respond to our questions. --Krd 12:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DC Douglas and Russell Hodgkinson in Z Nation.png

Di (they-them) opened this DR for a photo that has ticket:2021122610000201 applied to it. Can a VRT agent please comment on the DR and let us know if the release for this image is valid? Thanks. —holly {chat} 19:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Without going into details, because the VRT mails are confidential, I can confirm correct permission has been received. From the youtube film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpR7BbXIT3w it appears the film Z Nation is produced by D.C. Douglas. Ellywa (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC).
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —holly {chat} 19:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1. FC Koeln Logo 1973–1992.svg

ticket:2023021010004546 was applied to File:1. FC Koeln Logo 1992–2000.svg. Does the wording of the ticket allow us to also apply it to File:1. FC Koeln Logo 1973–1992.svg, or should I get the uploader to initiate separate correspondence for this other image? Thanks. —holly {chat} 01:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The ticket actually is for File:Wappen 1 FC Koeln.png . I think we can ask back to the ticket sender if they also approve the SVG files. Krd 09:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Krd: OK, is a VRT agent going to do that? —holly {chat} 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I will do it as soon as possible. Krd 05:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 06:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Photos taken by self-timer

I am copyright holder for the subject of a draft article I am writing and I wish to use photographs taken by the subject (deceased) using his Rolleiflex-Automat self-timer and which the subject developed and printed himself. What further requirements are needed in order to do so, please? IonaFyne (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You do not need to contact VRT if the photo is previously unpublished. However, you should explain very clearly in the file description page that: 1) the subject took the photo using self-timer; and 2) you are the subject's heir (if that is how you became the copyright holder). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ticket|id=2023121010002672

Hello, the photographer sent the permission for the release of the photos to permission-Wikipedia on 11 December 2023. Can I add the permission for all affected photos by myself, i.e. the following line: {{PermissionTicket|id=2023121010002672}} Robert Lindermayr (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Robert Lindermayr, no. You cannot. The permissions are reviewed and updated on file-pages by trusted VRT agents only. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Robert Lindermayr (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Doubt about ownership

File:Mathieu segers-1653340732.jpeg looks like a photo taken of a television screen, I doubt the person who gave permission owns the image. Can some Dutch person verify the ticket? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Ellywa, as the template on the file hints. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Sjoerddebruin, agree, might very well be. I asked uploader if they can remember how they made the photo. If no answer in 2 weeks or so, the photo can be deleted imho, it appears indeed a screen image. Ticket:2022052310011242. Thanks, TheAafi for pinging me. Ellywa (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Answer received, I will nominate the image for deletion. Ellywa (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Permission verification

Hello

I would like to request request permissions verification for File:Blausen 0657 MultipolarNeuron.png. The permission correspondence is listed under ticket # 2013061010006654.

Thank you,

Stephanie Kuhns 174.16.116.152 18:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ––FormalDude (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this usual?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)

ticket:2023042810008658

Is there any update on ticket:2023042810008658? This was from April 2023. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Whpq: The ticket is filled with very strange responses and we haven't received a clear response on this since 29 April 2023. The file should be deleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi and Whpq: Which file?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
File:DrshivambjpIND.png -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2012071210005204

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)

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)
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)

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)

And yet another one, ticket:2018090110002802. Again, the uploader is the image subject. By Austrian Urheberrecht law, this would mean the picture must be a selfie. Seriously? What on earth did the uploader tell the support team in the VRT correspondence? --2003:C0:8F3D:2E00:4C53:A07B:9E8F:667C 20:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet another one, ticket:2023071910006206. A selfie? Really? --2003:C0:8F2E:E500:2DB9:A69C:7D24:E5B7 17:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The field "author" on the file page describes the author or the copyright holder or even the attribution chosen by the author or copyright holder. Even by Austian copyright law the creator can transfer the copyright to somebody and waive their right to be credited. I checked the mentioned tickets and they apppear valid to me. --Krd 19:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023091010000046

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)

@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)
I've asked the user (the brother of the author) about it and they said that the author sent photos for verification. reppoptalk 20:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Reppop - If the brother's email didn't contain "Ticket#2023091010000046" in the title (which seems fairly likely given the situation), it might be have been caught by the spam filter and lost. I would recommend re-sending the email to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org, with "Ticket#2023091010000046" in the title. whym (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I originally tagged the file for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of an Instagram post. It was undeleted today by Krd, citing Ticket:2023093010005745. I saw the image was added back to the article it was being used for on the English Wikipedia (w:en:Deeper (band)) and tagged the image again, as I didn't see the VRT ticket and assumed that the page had been disruptively recreated. However, the image was deleted again by Elcobbola, citing insufficient permission. I'd appreciate if a VRT agent could clarify what happened with this file, thanks! Also pinging Xm4729, the page creator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

A response was already sent through the VRT system, and notation of the issue provided. There is nothing to be accomplished on-site. Эlcobbola talk 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69, I second what @Elcobbola has said above. The question that has been asked here on what happened with this file has already been clarified in a response to the ticket. It is sufficient and if the issues raised are not sorted out, we cannot host such an image here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies; I mostly asked here for the benefit of Xm4729, who presumably has now received the VRTS notification. My only involvement with this image, as I said above, is finding it in use on the English Wikipedia and nominating it for deletion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Query regarding a deleted file

File:1910s_Kingsley_Griffith,_Liberal.jpg had been deleted from Commons in 2013, apparently as a copyvio, referring to OTRS ticket:2013100610005833. As we are still hosting this image on enwiki, could someone please check for me what the reasoning may have been? Felix QW (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It stays unclear in the ticket if the uploader is copyright holder at all; in any case they didn't intend to publish it for commercial use. I suggest to delete the file on enwiki. --Krd 08:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Krd: Thank you very much for the clarification! I was just wondering how it could still be in copyright, as a 1910s studio photograph whose phtotgrapher died in 1934. Felix QW (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
It hasn't been said anywhare that the photographer died in 1934. Is there any evidence for that? Krd 13:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ticket permission added by non-VRT member

Please check these edits: [24] and [25]. Thanks, Komarof (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ticket in Cyrilic text. Ellywa (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Ahonc, could you please check these? --Komarof (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up to image permission

I recently had a few photos deleted because verification was not adequately supplied in time for these four images:

A user says that VRT followed up with questions but he never responded, so I'm getting on that now. He has asked who the sender was; is there a specific person who sent the follow-up email so I can tell him that's who he has to look for? Alternatively, is there a specific email that everyone uses? Panini! (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Panini!: It is usually the same email address that received the permission, but please have him check any spam email box.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Lucian Freud Naked Portraits Museum für Moderne Kunst Frankfurt 2000 Rolf Lauter.jpg

I have been pulled into a dispute over permission on this file. @Nat: stated, "Nope. Permission is only for the photo and not the painting." Can someone please confirm? Is permission for the photo only or both the photo and the painting? @Gnom and Krd: FYI Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

At the time the permission was first confirmed, the painting was not explicitly covered, but it was later confirmed that also permission is granted to show this photo including the painting. Cross check by another VRT user welcome. Krd 08:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, we would need (1) a permission from the photographer, Mirko Krizanovic (or from someone representing him or from someone holding the necessary rights), and (2) a separate permission from the heirs of the painter, Lucian Freud (or from someone representing them or from someone holding the necessary rights), regarding the painting. This is especially relevant because an according "double" release would allow us to cut out the painting, straighten it, and include it in the Wikipedia article on Lucian Freud. My feeling is that the estate of Lucian Freud would not grant such a permission. Gnom (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The relevant stuff is in entry 18 of the ticket. As said, cross check welcome. Krd 09:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reading the entry 18 of ticket:2020021110009349 the permission for the painting is autentic imho. Ellywa (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I checked the attachment to entry 18 as well and see it also as an authentic permission. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Revoking my argument, see below. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for checking, although I remain very skeptical. I inserted the image into the article en:Lucian Freud. Are we really 100% that his heirs won't come running and screaming? I simply cannot imagine them releasing this photo... Gnom (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Krd @Gnom: Sorry, but: I checked once again, and found a hole. :-/
The said permission in entry #18 of the ticket comes from a lawyer in London. Earlier, in entry #14 of the ticket, the client had claimed that this lawyer was Lucian Freud's lawyer at the time. Yet I could not find any watertight proof that she really was. Nowhere in the ticket did I find a contract or a power of attorney for this lawyer with Lucian Freud. It is possible that I have overlooked it in the extensive correspondence. But if it is indeed missing, we will have to request proof from the lawyer and, if this is not provided, accept that the portrait on the wall should be pixelated.
Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If the lawyer in question is Diana Rawston (or an associate of hers), then we should indeed be fine. Gnom (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2020090210005026

Hello, I noticed that File:Image_of_an_Ovary_-_English.jpg is being requested to be deleted because this image was found at https://www.carlsonstockart.com/photo/reproductive-system-female-illustration/

The copyright is not CC BY-SA, but "© copyright by Dave Carlson". I noticed that this file has been reviewed by VRT, so does ticket:2020090210005026 support this?

Thank you. Witcater (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, assuming the permission is good, is the author credit at File:Image_of_an_Ovary_-_English.jpg the desired credit? - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2023112810012291

Hello there, hope all is well. The bot has tagged these images as "permission received" and from my understanding it is usually queued up for 3 days or so to be reviewed by a VRT member. I was wondering what the status is or if anything is required from the permission sender or if someone can confirm that an email was sent to the permission sender for additional question, so I may follow-up with them.

Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: If the email message was to the regular permissions-commons address, discussions probably continue. If it was sent anywhere else, please indicate that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thanks for responding, the email consent was sent by the permission sender to the permission-commons address. I have yet to check with the permission sender if they received an email reply after sending the consent. Is that something that you can confirm? As I'm not sure and have no way of knowing unless I email/follow-up the permission sender.
Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: Sorry, I have no way of confirming now, I no longer have authorization to see permission tickets. Please ask permission senders to carbon copy you in future.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries, appreciate the confirmation. Ruthven I was wondering if I could trouble you with checking the status please? :) I see from above discussions that you have authorization to see permission tickets (I could be wrong, but worth asking) Totally understand if you are busy though. Cheers. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Pseud 14 Please refer to Krd's reply at User talk:Krd#Status of images (permalink). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757 thank you for checking, I just needed to confirm that there was a indeed follow-up email so I can contact the permission sender with date/details, since I wasn't cc'd. I will let the sender know. Thank you Pseud 14 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: the permission sender has reached out and he got the email asking about permission for taking a picture of the stage in the first two pictures, saying it is “likely” copyrighted. Since this is indoors I don’t think freedom of panorama applies? Would you know how to approach or what is required? Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Pseud 14 and Mdaniels5757: It is my understanding that the Philippines doesn't even have FOP yet. Do you have permission from the authors of the projected images?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The permission sender who is the photographer provided me the email of the stage designer responsible for the scene installation, this is with regards to the first 2 images, so I am waiting for a response from the stage designer, if that is required. For the third image however, would the first email consent suffice? Since the email reply only pertained to the two images with the scene, here is the full email for context.
in the first two images the main subject appears to be the scene design and not any person. As the scene is likely copyright protected, do you have permission from the copyright owner to publish your photo under a free license? If yes, what is the exact agreement?
I am also unsure if scene copyright applies to the Philippines. I have very little knowledge of copyright rules and how it differs in various jurisdiction, hence my clarification as to how to go about it. Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Tanuki Routhwick (u-BluTheLion).png

I uploaded this user icon minutes ago on behalf of the original artist, who also sent VRT an e-mail last month after I told him about the process and gave him the steps. All we need is the ticket ID, and we're finally done after several months of waiting. (Once again, this becomes important in the commentary of my forthcoming Miraheze FTA, currently in preparation.) --Slgrandson (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slgrandson, I have updated the ticket-number on the file-page. VRT received this email some 16 days ago, and a follow up was sent, which remains un-responded. I have added a note on the ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you check ticket:2023112810008279?

The photographer said he sent the link to his original photo so you can check and confirm that he's the author. Please let me know if you received what he sent. --Oleh325 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Oleh325: The permission for File:UkraineQueensAssociation gallery 4.jpg was received, but evidently it was insufficient per special:diff/835960404 by TheAafi.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I know, the photographer got a reply, and then he replied to the VRT's request in an another email. Just curious if the response got through, because he had some troubles with his email before. --Oleh325 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Will tag @TheAafi here to resolve the issue faster :) --Oleh325 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Oleh325, I cannot help beyond my capacity. I have sent a response on the ticket. Once we get a suitable reply, permissions on the file page will be updated. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm just asking if you've received a reply to your response from the photographer? If not, I'll let him know to reply again. --Oleh325 (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Oleh325, No, the response was sent just today. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Huh okay, thx! Will let him know. --Oleh325 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Rachel Pickup.jpg

Hi, this file was given VRTS ticket:2022041010003312 on 13 April 2022‎, would it be possible to check if the ticket is valid? The user who uploaded the file is now blocked on all Wikimedia sites and their Commons talk page, User talk:Oli2000s, shows two other files they uploaded have been deleted as copyright violations. I investigated after seeing a query at en:Wikipedia:Help desk#how can I remove a photo?. TSventon (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Jarekt as Agent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Jeff G., I was already asked about it, but I seem to have lost my VRT privileges 3 days ago, so I can't help with this one. --Jarekt (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I'm sorry to hear that; I lost mine, as well. Krd didn't think I was active enough, despite helping out here frequently.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@TSventon, Although I can see the incidents of socking on en-wiki and the uploader being globally locked, the image is with EXIF and I can't find instances of it being published elsewhere before it was uploaded here in April 2022. The ticket was closed as successful by @Jarekt on 13 April 2022. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@The Aafī, I thought the history looked odd, but I don't have VRT experience. The photo looks professional and I believe it was formerly on rachelpickup.com, see fourth headshot at https://web.archive.org/web/20140202125247/http://www.rachelpickup.com/photos.html . The date in the Metadata is 2011. The editor who uploaded it claimed to be reaching 18 in 2023 on their Commons userpage. Their Commons talkpage notes two other images they uploaded were deleted as possible copyvios. They were blocked on en Wiki for poor English at en:User_talk:Oli2000s#UTRS_appeal_#69994, which seems odd for a professional photographer in the US or UK. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@TSventon: You are right. I trust what you are saying and can find a similar photo on the archive link, I tried downloading a few images but all these appeared to be lesser than 200kb. Did you try this? The file on Commons is 2,400 × 3,000 and 4.28 mb, a good indication apart from the metadata, that could have made @Jarekt approve the permissions. I would ask input from @King of Hearts whose analysis I trust. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Per en:User:Oli2000s (check history), the user has lived in Hungary all his life and was 17 when the photo of Rachel Pickup was taken. Therefore I find it very unlikely that he took this photo of a British actress. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
If the photo was taken in 2011 as stated in the meta data (and then uploaded in 2022) the user would have been six, which makes it even more unlikely. TSventon (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Given this, I believe the VRT-permissions approval from @Jarekt should simply be overruled and this image should be deleted. Common sense is a thing. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
When approving this ticket I was definitely not asking for person's age or country of residence. The image seems like raw image at full resolution with no photographer info in EXIF. If someone sent an email stating that they are the photographer and signed with their full name that is not inconsistent with the email address used or the username in the file, than unless I noticed any other red flags, I would approve the request. If we do have now more information about the uploader/photographer that puts in question validity of the claims made, I have no issues with reversing the permission. --Jarekt (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey, colleagues. I found a very similar photo[26] on IMDB, and the description says the photographer is Robert Kim. I searched the photographer's facebook page and found other photos[27] with the same background. From the above, I think we can conclude that the real author is Robert Kim. -- 0x0a (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Or that there was plagiarism on IMDB, not unprecedented. But that strongly suggests someone whom we might try to track down to see if we can get permission, assuming that really is the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I added a note on the ticket, and started a regular DR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I suspect COI but I'm not certain. File:RACHEL PICKUP MISS JULIE.jpg and File:19-10-03.Rachel_Pickup.0166.jpg, for example, come from User:Raypic, who has not edited outside this topic since 2015 on enwiki. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@ The Aafī Assuming the notability is OK, COI is not a problem for uploading Commons, though it can be an issue for how images are described, categorized, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Followup question sent to the permission sender. --Krd 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Piramida wieku Lodzkie.png

Would the VRT permission cover a future version of this chart? There is a request at COM:OWR to overwrite with the 2021 version of this from the author listed in the file, and I wanted to check before I made a decision on this. Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming this is OK (I don't have access to the tickets, but I also don't really see anything copyrightable here): Normally, shouldn't overwrite: should add a different version. Or should copy this one to something like File:Piramida wieku Lodzkie 2014.png and tag File:Piramida wieku Lodzkie.png with {{Current}}. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow, The ticket is in pl-permissions queue and was handled by @Ankry. However on a side note, VRT permission release are same as generic public releases. The license under which a file has been uploaded matters. Our licenses allow re-use and so are the derivative works legit. Overwriting files is not a thing which belongs to VRT. On what merits do you allow overwriting other files? @Jmabel makes a sensible observation and I agree with them. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll move it to the name Jmabel suggests, and I'll let them do a new version with the current file name. Abzeronow (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Polish copyright law does not allow to grant a license for future works. The licensed work must exist while the license is granted and a permission requires that the work it applies to must be precisely defined. So unless explicitly licenses elsewhere, a new file version requires a separate permission. Ankry (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ankry, I'll offer them the solution that Jmabel suggested. Abzeronow (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2014050910013283

Please check this ticket (this image): The uploader's name is T.mackowiak, the author's name is Jürgen Schön, nobody's name is Herbert Boswank. That, however, is the name of the photographer and copyright holder according to this website. --2003:C0:8F3B:CB00:1CE6:9527:6077:CCB3 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The ticket is in German. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the ticket is incomplete. Trying to follow up with the sender. Krd 19:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2022082710002347

Can someone check this ticket please? The uploader is the author of the book, but does that mean he himself is the photographer and copyright holder of the photo? And is his publisher o.k. with a CC license for the book cover? --91.34.41.45 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be about File:Meisterwerke Olms Inlaycard.jpg and File:Das Klassenorchester in gemischter Besetzung 1.jpg. The ticket is in German which I don't know. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, meant to add the links to the files. There are issues with both of these files, but in different ways: This one is the one with the photo I meant above. In this one, all the pictures are old and certainly public domain, but the book cover was obviously designed by a graphic designer who may also have a thing or two to say on copyright. Plus, there is the question of publisher's rights. --91.34.41.45 18:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the received permission statement is invalid? Krd 19:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2016032310006997

File:Charleroi-industrie-terril-paysage-Christophe-Vandercam.jpg , last update 4 avril 2016 à 19:58, https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016032310006997.

Basically, I would like to understand if it is possible to have proof of purchase by the city of Charleroi, as expressed " image faisant partie d'une commande passée par l'administration communale de Charleroi au photographe Christophe Vandercam. http://www.charleroi-bouwmeester.be/"

As I was able to understand directly with the photographer, the image was sold to the city and other privates. Suddenly the city made it available in wikimedia with CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed. The problem is that the Visual Right Group company is saying that the rights belong to another company (image stock/database provider) and is demanding payment for the rights.

Thank you Bangiomorpha (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: , can you please look into this question? Ellywa (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
We received back in 2016 a scanned written CC BY-SA 4.0 permission from Christophe Vandercam with his signature (link for VRT agents). Thibaut (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Checking for permissions for File:Dyanasofya02.jpg and File:Dato'_Sri_Ruddy_Awah.jpg.

The photographer of File:Dyanasofya02.jpg informed me that he has sent a release email on the 15th of November (he may not have mentioned the URL), while the photographer of File:Dato'_Sri_Ruddy_Awah.jpg sent a release email on the 17th of November and would like the full resolution version taken down and replaced with a lower quality version. For the latter, is it better to delete the file and upload the replacement as attached by the photographer? HejTuWou (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The question cannot be answered without further information. What is the ticket number? --Krd 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

It will need a Serbian language user to determine, but my impression with Google translate is that "No" is the answer. --Krd 12:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2023122710007663

Добрый вечер! Прошу обработать данное разрешение для дочерних сайтов Росавтодора для шаблона {{Rosavtodor.ru}}. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@MasterRus21thCentury Thanks for asking. The ticket awaits action from an agent who knows Russian language. I don't know it and cannot act. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: This appears to concern the 573 files in Category:Files from Rosavtodor.ru tagged with {{Rosavtodor.ru}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

The ticket regarding these files is ticket:2023072010005839. Could someone check please? Yann (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Mussklprozz for help. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
@Mussklprozz
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023&oldid=867346845"