Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

ticket:2016032310006997[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

@Thibaut120094: , can you please look into this question? Ellywa (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

The question cannot be answered without further information. What is the ticket number? --Krd 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2014050910013283[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

The ticket is in German. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the ticket is incomplete. Trying to follow up with the sender. Krd 19:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Rachel Pickup.jpg[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Jarekt as Agent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Hey, colleagues. I found a very similar photo[1] on IMDB, and the description says the photographer is Robert Kim. I searched the photographer's facebook page and found other photos[2] 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I added a note on the ticket, and started a regular DR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@ 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)Reply[reply]
Followup question sent to the permission sender. --Krd 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ticket:2022082710002347[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Do you have any evidence that the received permission statement is invalid? Krd 19:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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)Reply[reply]

The ticket regarding these files is ticket:2023072010005839. Could someone check please? Yann (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Mussklprozz for help. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

ticket:2023122710007663[edit]

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

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

File:Piramida wieku Lodzkie.png[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ankry, I'll offer them the solution that Jmabel suggested. Abzeronow (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diala77[edit]

Would you consider adding the OTRS template to the other files, too? If not, what would be the best solution? --Leyo 10:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leyo, no, the ticket permission is unrelated to any other versions and is limited to File:Green Party of Switzerland logo (with background).png. The other files appear to be derivatives of this same file with changes in text (tell me if I'm missing anything), it should be perfectly okay. Maybe user {{Other versions}}? But for a matter of fact, the permission ticket would stay on only one file which for which the release was sent in the ticket. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Photographs of identifiable people[edit]

Hello, I am looking at two photographs which have been through VRT:

Both were on the same ticket, #2019030510009647.

The first one is a picture of people in what looks like a private place. The second one may also be a private place. Has consent from the subjects been received? If not, should they be deleted? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The VRT generally processes copyright permissions only, not personality rights consents. It is up to the uploader to ensure than consent was given. Krd 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are posed photos. They certainly involved a good deal of communication between the photographer and subjects. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2013031510006025[edit]

File:JA13XJ Airbus A.359 JAL Japan Airlines At Tokyo Haneda International Airport.jpg states that it is freely licensed per ticket #2013031510006025 however the linked source (Flickr) states all rights reserved. Please could someone with access to the ticket verify whether the release does apply to this image. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Thryduulf: The release applies to images at this source and this source (inaccessible) and puts them under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image is freely licensed then, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

Please delete this photo, as I lost any means of contacting the photographer after we arranged everything. Thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oleh325: This is not the right place to seek deletions. Maybe ask at COM:AN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at VRT archives but couldn't find any email and have thus changed the permissions template on the file to {{No permission}}. If you can try arranging permissions in the next seven days, good, otherwise the file will be deleted, procedurally. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Hastie[edit]

Does the permission given for File:Andrew Hastie MP Age Care Community Visit.jpg apply to the 2 other files uploaded by the same user?

Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cryptic-waveform, no. The ticket releases only one file. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

[edit]

File:Miss Intercontinental logo.jpg logo has the license in accordance to the copyright holder of the said image, the organization of Miss Intercontinental have emailed and I have receipts about their approval to use the logo on Wikipedia article. I also got the emailed by Wikipedia Commons and got the respond and both emails also of the official account of the organization. Rc ramz (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rc ramz: The latest email message should reveal the current situation regarding this file and ticket:2024010410007144; evidently, that situation has not yet been resolved.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How?? I have 2 of this ticket;
Re: [Ticket#2023123110004694] release of content attached to this email?? & that so do I need to wait?? Thanks Rc ramz (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rc ramz: The messages are unclear. We need an explicit permission from the creator/copyrights holder that they release the file under a free license that allows re-use including commercial. Releases that state the file would be used on Wikipedia article are not sufficient. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2023120410006742[edit]

This ticket should involve conversation releasing the copyright for a speech by a Phillipino official Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo "To the 6.5 million Build, Build, Build Team". At the moment there is an ongoing deletion discussion concerning this work in English Wikisource. There is a suspicion that the work has been released under Phillipino law only and not under the US law. The VRT volunteer dealing with this communication was repeatedly asked a few questions crucial for the decision about keeping or deleting the work, but for some reason does not answer them without any explanation. May I ask somebody else to have a look at the ticket and provide the needed answers, please?

The questions are:

  1. Who (what legal entity) provided permission?
  2. How do they have standing to do so?
  3. What specific permission did they provide?

Thanks very much for help. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The permission to publish this text appears to be authentic. The last post in the ticket refers to the public discussion on Wikisource and suggests the client to comment there in order to maintain the text. So I do not think the discussion should continue here. This does not concern a file hosted on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek, I will try to briefly answer your questions,
  1. It would remain unanswered because it involves non-public information and no VRT agent would be disclosing that information publicly.
  2. The permissions come from a legitimate copyrights holder and the claim is supported (as I can see in the ticket).
  3. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=838900688"