Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

	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

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

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

ticket:2012011710005331

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

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

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

It seems we agree that the ticket is okay for old files but perhaps not for new files. So I made Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-Medija centar Beograd. Let me know what you think. But someone should really check the ticket because it was long ago since I read it (Google Translate).

I suggested to stop using the permission because those that was involved in it earlier think that it may not be as good as we would require today. But I'm open to let it have no end-date. --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dungodung, your opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed, I might have said this in an earlier thread of similar nature a few years back. This type of permission wouldn't be accepted nowadays, since it's a blanket confirmation for the whole website, and it's not certain that the person that gave the permission really knew what they were doing. I would honestly void this and perhaps it makes sense to approach MC again to ascertain whether this practice of using their images can continue, in which case we could create something more formal (maybe even include WMRS, CC @Gorana Gomirac (VMRS)). Filip (§) 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is it okay to upload high-resolution versions of these album covers? (e.g. replace File:2NE1 2nd Mini Album Cover.jpg with this one from Apple Music)
Please check which artists have been approved in the OTRS ticket, and whether it's acceptable to upload other albums by the same artists that have not been uploaded yet. Is uploading allowed only for these six artists—2NE1, Big Bang, Winner, Se7en, Blackpink, and Jennie—or are there additional approved artists? (Winner and Blackpink did not debut in 2013.) Are all albums released under the name of YG Entertainment authorized for upload regardless of the release date? (If that's the case, what happens in the case of albums released in collaboration with another company, rather than just YG Entertainment?)--Namoroka (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. I found files for discussion at enwiki in 2022 and it seems that every album covers published by YG Entertainment after October 25, 2013 is allowed. However, this still seems like an incredibly wild claim. Many users are unaware of this fact and are still uploading files on local wiki under fair use.--Namoroka (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namoroka, I would say that the ticket is invalid or at least clarification is needed from YG Entertainment. We recieved permission release in 2013 but it was not verified/finalised. Krd, Xia and MdsShakil, do you have any comments to add? Looking at search results it is used on 61 files. ~~I checked a few and they seem to be added by non-VRT users.~~ Ratekreel (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check previous talks: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2022#ticket:2013102510001373, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#File:E (Big Bang album).jpg, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#Ticket:2013102510001373, en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Special:ListFiles/Ygent ebiz--Namoroka (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an inquiry to YG Entertainment for clear confirmation.--Namoroka (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since I sent a request to YG Entertainment, but I have yet to receive a response. (Perhaps, unlike in 2013, they are no longer interested in Wikipedia.) On en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Teemeah (now Xia) inquired whether the request could be applied to other projects besides the local Hungarian Wikipedia, but Teemeah was unable to get a response due to a full mailbox. At that time, Teemeah was already aware of the ambiguity about the email. In my opinion, unless specific usage requirements are stated in the current VTRS ticket, the ticket should not be considered valid. The English Wikipedia community also raised doubts about the validity of the ticket. As long as YG Entertainment does not clearly specify, this issue will likely persist on and on. The phrase "YG Entertainment allows the use of YG Entertainment album covers ..." may seem clear, but it is actually very ambiguous. It's unclear whether this applies to albums of music groups that did not exist in 2013, albums released by subsidiaries of YG Entertainment, or albums co-produced by YG Entertainment and other companies.--Namoroka (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has YG Entertainment responded yet? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackpink and Jennie examples you mention is due to simplicity, not because they have been relicensed by YG Entertainment. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But the current VTRS ticket is still unclear. If we cannot received any clarification from YG, I think we should not use these album covers (for 2NE1, Big Bang & Seven).--Namoroka (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding this here: w:WP:FFD/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg, an additional discussion on the English Wikipedia in November–December 2022. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2012101110013816 - MDOT

Hello. I uploaded a couple files that I was unsure of the copyright status on. I posted a help request on the village pump copyright section. To summarize: I uploaded files produced by the Michigan Department of Transportation thinking that they were in the public domain because they were a state government agency. Learned that it is simply not the case, oops. I then went to the wikipedia page for Interstate 696 and they had another image taken by the department with a ticket number. I basically need to know if it for just the single image of Oak Park or if is a blanket request for that applies to all things produced by the department. If it is just for the one image then I can probably get another permission request for the PDF (I emailed them but it is Friday so may not get a response until Monday).

(I am only linking this file because the other 6 files are the 6 pages of the PDF but extracted as images of File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards.pdf. If a free license is given then the other 6 images would automatically be covered as well.)

Thank you. Jake01756 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is only for File:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg Nemoralis (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got a email from MDOT granting that the file I uploaded is in the public domain. But it was just a simple “They are in the public domain”. Is this enough for the permissions or do we need the full VRT release? Jake01756 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this file been publicly noted as being in the public domain? If so, yes, it is enough. Nemoralis (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemoralis: I know VRT don't normally accept forwarded emails, but given that this is an assertion of PD, not a license, is this perhaps a case where Jake could forward that, then someone from VRT could reply to both Jake and the sender at MDOT to confirm its validity? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to do the email forwarding thing? The files have now been deleted from the project as it has been a little slow (they can easily be undeleted so not a huge deal). Jake01756 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has not been publicly noted. They have agreed to release it into the public domain and are working on using the VRT generator.

They are only releasing the main PDF file. The other images I uploaded were extracted from it so once it is public domain those will be covered under the same ticket as well. Jake01756 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the statement they gave me:

"All documents prepared by the Consultant under the Contract, including tracings, drawings, estimates, specifications, field notes, investigative studies, and other relevant documents, are the property of MDOT." Jake01756 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

e-signature releases

I'm exploring more streamlined ways for people to release their photos, in the vein of the interactive release generator. Through WikiPortraits, we've been meeting individuals and organizations who would like to release their work, and we're interested in minimizing effort in the release process to make it more scalable.

Many people and organizations (including WMF) use e-signature services like Docusign. I'm not sure if there is any precedent here – would VRT agents accept releases submitted through an e-signature service? The form would remain the same as the standard release template (with links to the uploaded files on Commons), and would be sent to the copyright owner's official email address for review. Once filled out and signed by the owner, I would send the signed document over to VRT. The service would verify that the signer accessed the form from their official email address. I know the expectation is that releases are sent to VRT from an official email address, but given that e-signature services can effectively verify when a form has accessed and signed via a particular email address, I’m hoping this approach would be acceptable to VRT (especially as these services are now widely recognized as legally valid).

For the record, we likely would use an open source alternative to DocuSign that follows various e-signature standards (UETA, ESIGN, eISAD).

Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be more easy to use difficult signing process and a peson in the middle instead of just letting the copyright holder speak to the VRT directly? Krd 06:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the biggest advantage is it makes it easier for a Wikimedian to drive the process, instead of having to hope that the third party properly drafts an email, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 08:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You contact the copyright holder by e-mail. They forward their response to the VRT and put/keep you in CC. I cannot imagine anything more simple. Krd 08:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Jmabel said. Sure, forwarding an email isn't difficult, but a Docusign-esque form with pre-populated filenames makes the process a bit more seamless. On my end (as a Wikimedian), I can better guide and monitor each release. On the releaser's end, they get a clear action item in their inbox: open, fill out, sign, and submit. No going back-and-forth between instructions, no figuring out the filenames, no copy-pasting, no remembering to CC, etc. Docusign is familiar to many and it minimizes the chance of errors and drop-off. I've had people that, after I describe the release generator and emailing process to them, ask why we don't just use Docusign (or similar). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help getting official Permission for a picture.

Hi everyone. And especially (User:Nemoralis)

I am currently working on a Wikipedia article and I got permission from Marisa Scheinfeld the Founder and Project director for the Borscht Belt Historical Marker Project. This is a non profit. She is also a legal representative for Steingart Associates which owns this image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Concord_News,_Kiamesha_Lake,_NY,_1964.jpg

They have given Wikipedia permission to use this image and we have been trying hard to get Wikimedia commons to approve this image.

Her email is: info@borschtbelthistoricalmarkerproject.org

She gave the bellow written permission to: photosubmission@wikimedia.org, but she attached the image and not the file link. She has since sent the file link, but has not heard anything back as of yet, so now the image appeaers to be in wikipedia limbo.

Can you please help us in anyway, and if you need any additional information, I and or Marissa would be happy to provide you with more info. Thank you.

Marissa's Message to photosubmission@wikimedia.org:

I hereby affirm that I represent Steingart Associates , the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Thanks everyone. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the ticket number. Krd 07:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the ticket system 100% works as I am still new at this, but I think the number is ticket:2025022810004474 Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Asaf Simchoni 1st Battalion Commander Yiftakh.jpg

(ticket #2020051110005981) It appears compressed (squished) a bit. Is it safe to upload a version stretched by 50px as a new file? JayCubby (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby, yes. -- Geagea (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2025030310009175

Please check the correspondence on this image. Who did it come from? There are several things weird about this:

It claims that the "author" is Philip C. Reiner, which is clearly not the case. He is the image subject, and this is not a selfie.
"Source" says "He sent it to me for this article". "He" obviously is meant to mean Philip C. Reiner, and "me" is the uploader. So, quite clearly, the uploader is not the photographer/copyright holder either.
The exif data say that a photographer by the name of Juliane Eirich is the author and copyright holder. Do you actually have her consent for a CC 4.0 license?

Note that we are talking German copyright (Urheberrecht) here: non-transferable. Thanks, --87.150.7.252 12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is valid. --Krd 13:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick reply. Not quite resolved though: Why doesn't the name of the photographer appear as "author"? This is at least misleading. --87.150.7.252 14:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they waived their right to be mentioned as photographer. Krd 16:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File tagged with a "FDCO" template

I have not noticed this before. Can a VRT Agent tell me generally about this ticket, please. Thank you.

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2013061310007371 [1] -- Ooligan (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is given by FCO Flickr account, they stated that photos are licensed under "© Crown Copyright under the Open Government Licence". Nemoralis (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ticket #2025031310019805

Hi Krd. Do you know whether ticket #2025031310019805 was also intended to apply to en:File:Pete Jonas performing at outside lands.png? The local file was originally uploaded by Haruka Senju to English Wikipedia a few days ago but was tagged as needing permission per en:WP:F11; the same uploader then reuploaded the file to Commons twice as File:Pete Jonas Outside Lands.png and File:Pete Jonas at Outside Lands 2021.png under "cc-zero" licensing and a claim of "own work", which were deleted as copyvios. Since you've tagged File:Suki Waterhouse and band.png and File:Pete and marc.png with {{Permission received}}, I'm wondering whether the same can be done for the local file uploaded to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The permission letter only mentions these two photos. Nemoralis (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:20250316103299789

Hi, Message on file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20250316_145251_Carine_De_Brab.jpg Error: This file's Volunteer Response Team Software (VRTS) ticket ID seems to be invalid. Lafloche (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not invalid, correct as edited. --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2018100810007819

Blackandwhite.07 (talk · contribs) has uploaded six images that all reference VTRS ticket #2018100810007819. As far as I can tell, this was used on a single image uploaded in 2018. Would someone mind verifying if this is valid for the new images? This user may also be related to Knightman007 (talk · contribs) who is blocked for adding false OTRS tickets to images, and also uploaded an image referencing this ticket. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This permission is only for File:Sai Pallavi at Mca-pre-release-event.jpg. No other photos. Pinging @Magog the Ogre as admin who blocked Knightman007. Nemoralis (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stavropol Hero of Labor Medal Image

Dear VRT team,

I have uploaded the image "Медаль «Герой труда Ставрополья».png" to Wikimedia Commons ([link to the image: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C_%C2%AB%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F%C2%BB.png. The image was originally uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia and is currently used on the Portuguese Wikipedia.

On the image page in the Russian Wikipedia, it is stated that the copyright holder is the government of Stavropol Krai. However, according to Article 1259 of the Russian Civil Code, official symbols and medals issued by the government are considered public domain.

I would like to know if any additional steps are required to confirm this status, or if the image can be kept on Commons based on Russian copyright law.

Looking forward to your guidance. Apollo 13013 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images from social media

Finnobrien127 (talk · contribs) has engaged in adding copyright images from sociial media and tag them as VRT permission requested to avoid suspicion. Request to verify the following.

Thank you Agent 007 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No tickets found. Nemoralis (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025