Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.
Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 3 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

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

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

F-35C Deletion Request ticket:2016052110008897

[edit]

Hi, the file File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg has VRT ticket ticket:2016052110008897. I suspect the file is not free/PD so submitted a DR (COM:Deletion requests/File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg#File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg 2). Can a VRT member please check the ticket and validate whether appropriate permission from the photographer Andy Wolfe of Lockheed Martin was provided? Thanks, Consigned (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Consigned, I can't see anything such in this specific ticket. I can see this specific file is marked as PD on the source. The ticket includes a set of forwards including the emails that you been linked on the DR but I can't seem to find any permissions from the photographer. I guess it is been dealt with "courtesy" and "courtesy stuff on the website is also PD" per " all content - even those listed as 'Courtesy' are public domain and available for anyone to use." I don't think there is anything else that I can help with from the archives. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi: Thanks for checking, I figured as much. I'll continue with the DR. Consigned (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi and Consigned: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:An F-35 Lightning II completes a flyover of USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000). (29774535153).jpg/VRT ticket:2016101910017989 Elisfkc (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc, thanks. I'll take a look on this ticket in the morning. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Consigned, the ticket that @Elisfkc has mentioned is beneficial here. It supports keeping all of the F-35 files, per " All F-35 Lightning II photography and videography taken by contract photographers (Lockheed Martin, KBRwyle, etc.) in support of F-35 Lightning II flight test are official DoD imagery and in the public domain." as stated in the linked DR as well. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, which license tag should be applied to the files? The variants of {{PD-USGov}} do not apply since the files were not created by an employee of the US Government (contractors are excluded). Consigned (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the conclusion? Are there still open questions? --Krd 11:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2022072810010392 (Japanese)

[edit]

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

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

ticket:2023071810009312

[edit]

Requesting a double-check on this one, as it seems surprising: did Paramount really release a single frame of South Park, a frame which includes one of the show's main characters, under a CC licence?

It was uploaded as part of some light promotional editing of the Ron Perry enwiki article in 2023 (Perry being depicted in the image), so I'm wondering if the permission email came from Ron Perry rather than the copyright owner. Belbury (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Belbury: The ticket is about File:422 87476250 South Park 1810 - Ron Perry Clip QNN9VAS1.png. Permissions come from a Representative of Paramount, with a signed No Objection Letter from Paramount stating, This will confirm that Paramount Media Networks, a division of Viacom International Inc. ("VII" or “Licensor”) has no objection to Ron Perry’s use of his guest appearance photo on Comedy Central’s “South Park” S18, Episode 10 (the “Material”) in connection with Ron Perry’s Wikipedia’s page. VII’s waiver of objection to your use is given only insofar as VII is concerned. You shall be responsible for any and all further clearances and permissions that may be necessary - " is perhaps the reason that the representative sent a relase under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. But I can confirm the email didn't come from Ron Perry. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is the unquoted permission from the representative broad enough that we're free to ignore the strict "in connection with Ron Perry's Wikipedia's page" limitation from Paramount? Belbury (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury: I don't really have an explicit opinion on this but I feel "in connection with Ron Perry's Wikipedia's page" can be easily ignored here. Regards, Aafi (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2008012810015433 (Italian)

[edit]

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

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

EPFL / VRT ticket:2017040310008493

[edit]

Is there a permission statement in the email for the files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mediacom EPFL? The deleting admin didn't check [1]. FYI @Mediacom EPF and Krd: .
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to view this specific ticket: 2017040310008493. Regards, Aafi (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ping Thibaut120094 added the verified account several years ago. It means the uploader's identity is verified. I believe this fact should be considered whilst reviewing this DR. @Gbawden says that all files are attributed to EFPL and yet we have a VRTS-verified Mediacom EPFL account, which makes it apparent that the files are indeed coming from an EFPL representative. Regards, Aafi (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket is from 2017, in info-fr, and is an invalid permission for unspecified files, which has been wrongly turned into a useless user verification. Krd 13:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Could you clarify what’s wrong with this permission?

[…] Je confirme par la présente que l'EPFL est le titulaire unique et exclusif des œuvres qui sont publiées par le compte "Mediacom EPFL"; celles-ci sont des créations d'employés ou mandataires de l'EPFL dont les droits appartiennent à l'EPFL en tant qu'en employeur.
Je donne mon autorisation pour que ces œuvres soient publiées sous la licence CC BY-SA 4.0 (ou toute autre version de la licence CC BY-SA). Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. […]

And please refrain from using words such as “useless”, we’re all volunteers here trying to do our best.
Thanks. Thibaut (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answered by e-mail.
The "useless" is related to the fact that user verifications are of no use at Commons, and not at all meant offensive. If this sounded wrong, I apologize. Krd 14:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krd and thank you for your email, for some reason I thought {{Verified account}} was enough since their identity was confirmed (and the standard consent statement sent to permissions).
I'll write an email to them asking to send a proper permission for each file and from each photographer. Thibaut (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we fix this? e.g. I can request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests for all files uploaded by the account and deleted since including the ones listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mediacom EPFL and then a competent VRT participant can add the ticked to the files?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Thibaut120094 has been pinged, and I have provided additional information to them in private, can we just give them a minute to make a decision? Krd 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you might not want to undelete them yourself. If so, please state it clearly.
The deletion concerned the portraits of a series of fairly well known scientists and engineers and shouldn't be left uncorrected for long.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to restore them if we have sufficient permission. Currently I think we have not. Let's see what Thibaut120094 thinks. And I'd be happy if we could be patient and not escalate everything immediately. Krd 22:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered Thibaut's question here and I'd be interested in a response too.
As it's really up to French speaking VRT members to determine, I don't really see what you are trying to achieve here. Already you ignored the concerns raised in the DR and haven't really provided a satisfactory answer when contacted directly, I think the files should be restored and left for a VRT member to add permissions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kept per the ticket. --Krd 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally what happened? Did the VRT receive additional emails or was this just a different assessment of what already had been received?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Thibaut120094 and Krd:
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another VRT user concluded that the ticket is valid. --Krd 10:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 10:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Würzburg, St. Bruno (24).jpg

[edit]

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

transfer of verification

[edit]

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

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

ticket:2017062610009347

[edit]

Hi, FYI, this ticket (in French) is contested by Isabelle-ANDI. Please see her talk page, and her deletion requests. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: @Yann the client (of the ticket) has been contacted. Ruthven (msg) 14:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photos by David Clayton Ellsworth

[edit]

Please review the ticket number #2023050810012527 and add the {{PermissionTicket}} in the file description for the all files. Thanks.--Namoroka (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this cannot be done. FoP issues have been addressed in the ticket but have not been resolved. Krd 08:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uploader's self-CC-licensed image deleted

[edit]

I'm confused and inquiring re: ticket:2024121210012147. The file File:Mon Witt ALS.jpg was uploaded in 2022, by the copyright holder (according to their assertions at the also-now-deleted File talk:Mon Witt ALS (cropped).jpg) under a compatible Creative Commons license. Recently that uploader was repeatedly saying they now revoked their CC licensing of that image, and I assume it was their request that had the files deleted. Based on what was available on-wiki, and the uploader's own words, I don't understand why it wasn't kept (as it paralleled this recent chain of events).

Obviously, it's entirely possible the uploader was lying on-wiki about provenance and being the rights-holder, and perhaps the admins here received that proof appropriately. I just want to make sure it wasn't the other way around like the snail-photo runaround. Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket sender made plausible that the file is not under a free license. --Krd 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2015112710013066

[edit]

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

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

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

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

ticket:2024120810008401

[edit]

Hi. I'd appreciate if an extra par of eyes check Ticket:2024120810008401. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done in the ticket. --Krd 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2015020310012351

[edit]

ticket:2015020310012351

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

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

Help with a VRT ticket

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Clarification of License Ownership

[edit]

Does ticket:2024113010007335 support license ownership by the uploader of File:It's Coming (2023 film) poster.jpg (along with the other files it covers), consistent with {{Own}} and CC/self (as originally uploaded[2] and as it was still marked when User:Krd flagged it as having VRT permission)? Or instead as the file was originally tagged] (own by uploader), as VRT ? Or does it instead support that the uploader is merely an authorized third-party conduit, as they later asserted[3]? DMacks (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=974329501"