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.

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]

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

(Copyright status of) page x missing from Dictionary of the Vilamovan language[edit]

Hi, I was redirected to post my inquiry here, which concerns ticket number ticket:2014061910007868. As the title describes, page x (i.e. after ix, before xi) is missing from the file series Dictionary of the Vilamovan language. The category, created almost a decade ago, has a label indicating that the rights holder has given written permission to license the work here. The missing page is also available online from the Polish national library, which labels the file as being in the public domain (in Poland, evidently). However, as a presumably posthumous (author died 1919) work published in 1930-1936 (page x would appear to be part of Vol. 1, so from 1930), I'm not confident on what the status would be for our purposes (i.e. according to the US situation, where it doesn't seem to have ever been published) and I'm also not confident that the written permission applies to the whole work or only the files so far uploaded (thus inadvertently excluding the missing page). Basically I'd like to know, what are the chances of adding the missing page (or having it added by a trusted volunteer) without inadvertently violating copyright? Helrasincke (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Anders died in 1941 and Adam Kleczkowski in 1949. So, the works by Kleczkowski are copyrighted in US 95 years since publication (till 1.1.2026 in this case) per URAA. Kleczkowski seems to be the author of the preface. If the ticket contains a permission valid for the preface, you can upload the missing page (or the whole book) and ask a VRT agent to mark it appropriately. The rest seems to be PD already, Both: in Poland and in US. Ankry (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 02.jpg[edit]

This file nominated for deletion has ticket:2009012510001013 attached to it. Can a VRT agent please weigh in? Thanks. —holly {chat} 22:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay: the ticket says that "all materials released under the Next Left Notes masthead, also known as NLN, are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) unless otherwise indicated." Nothing else. The DR was closed, but the center of the dispute was another, INMO, so this ticket is not useful I think. They can't release an image if they're not the copyright holders. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking[edit]

Since User:Alina Poliakova was blocked for long-term abuse, revise please permission for File:Hryhoriy Malenko.jpg -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: A DR about this file was closed as invalid by @Андрей Романенко in July 2023. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the photo of the notable person with the name of the uploader in EXIF. I even don't understand why it needs VRT ticket at all. The user is banned, okay, but there is no policy to delete all the previous contribution. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment @Андрей Романенко. I rather find it a messy thing to ask for permissions where EXIF doesn't suggest otherwise. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But metadata can be edited, and I suppose you can do nothing about that but trust. But with this abuser (Bodiadub, Wikibusiness) we have a pattern, that's why I asked for a closer look. These files also contained free license and name in EXIF:
and this one was accepted again:
Will try to bring more later Anntinomy (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files that happen to have EXIF mentioning author and license (!), some with permissions and brought by the same abuser

--Anntinomy (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief the names of the uploaders are bogus. We know the real names of the Wikibusines spammers, and it is not equal to the claimed authors of those images. A simple Google search will suffice. MER-C 12:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C, thanks for the comment. I'll take a look at these files and tickets once I am on the system. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi any progress on that? -- Anntinomy (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket number 2016111910006337[edit]

Can the ticket below be used as "permission" for this same Jaan Poska statue in other properly licensed photographs?

Ticket=[1] on this file here:File:Jaan Poska monument Kadriorus, skulptor Elo Liiv, 2016.jpg Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: I can see the following files mentioned in the ticket.
The ticket isn't too detailed for me to offer any other advice. But fwiw, it shouldn't apply anywhere else. I'd really want to hear for from Kruusamägi as the agent who handled this ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, "it shouldn't apply anywhere else" means that other photos containing this same Jaan Poska statue would not be covered by this VRTS ticket (pending any additional information from Kruusamagi). Thanks for looking at the ticket. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kruusamägi, Could you please respond to my question above? Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ticket does not deal with any other images whatsoever. Just the ones mentioned there. (haven't I already answered that somewhere? I think I did) Kruusamägi (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2021080510012496[edit]

Could you check this ticket? I have some doubts that the uploader/claimed owner does not own all the images. The ticket is for uploads by Crankoline (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and credited to Roc Nation Sports, a sports agency that represents former basketball player and current media personality Jalen Rose.

  • I know for certain that File:Jalen Rose at the University of Michigan.jpg was incorrectly licensed. I was able to locate the image source and update the description.
  • I have strong doubts that File:Jalen Rose with the Indiana Pacers.jpg actually belongs to the stated owner. For one thing, the photo was taken at the 2000 NBA Finals, 13 years before Roc Nation was established, so even if the agency owned the rights to the image, we know they didn’t create it.
  • I’m less concerned about the other photos, since they look like contemporary publicity shots, but it would be nice if we had more source info.

I’ve reached out to King of Hearts, the ticket reviewer, but not received a response yet. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2019042410005211[edit]

Hi. I would like to know what works of the author this ticket enables to be on Wikisource. The ticket is not mentioned on all the author’s works, so I don’t know the scope covered by it. Thanks, Lepticed7 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lepticed7, I can't read this language but the following pages appear to be linked in the ticket: [2], [3], [4]. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. They say that, "Я согласен опубликовать это произведение на условиях свободной лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Flickr account user would like to authorise me to transfer their images here to the Commons; what's the best way to do that?[edit]

Hi there, My name is User:CeltBrowne and recently I've been in communication with a Flickr user with a very large gallery of photographs (roughly 1,000 photographs) that are relevant to a topic I work on, and can absolutely be used directly on Wikipedia. The Flickr user has very generously agreed to allow all their images to be placed under a Creative Commons license.

There's just one hitch though: They are no longer a "pro user" on Flickr and thus no longer have access to the "batch edit" function. This means they cannot change the licensing of their images en masse. As they have so many, it's completely impractical to do it individually. Therefore I can't use the Upload Wizard to transfer them directly from Flickr.

However, we have exchanged e-mail addresses and I believe I can get them to contact VRT with any information VRT may need from them.

What is the best way to proceed?

I asked this same question on the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons discord, and one user suggested that VRT use Template:Verified account to either verify User:CeltBrowne as authorised to transfer the images from Flickr to here on the Commons, or create a dedicated secondary account specifically for this purpose. Then I could download the images manually from Flickr, and manually upload them.

Do you at VRT agree? Or is there a better way to go about this? CeltBrowne (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CeltBrowne. They can email us at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and explicitly send us a release for those files. Any VRT agent can make a template to be placed on the files that come from this Flickr user if they agree to release all of the files under CC-BA-SA or any other compatible license. Subsequent uploads won't then be in need of a VRT release again and again. {{Verified account}} is a bad idea in this case and should be discarded. ─ Aafī (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be pinpoint accurate: If I have the Flickr user send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating something along the lines of "I authorise all the files on this Flickr account to released under CC-BY-SA", VRT will then create a template that I can insert each time I manually upload content from that Flickr account which confirms everything is fine. Is that correct?
And just to be very clear on this particular point: Can the e-mail state any image hosted on that Flickr account rather than linking to specific urls? CeltBrowne (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CeltBrowne: Yes, but the email should request a template (preferably with the name of a template that one of you confirms does not yet exist) and carbon copy you to keep you in the loop, and also specify the version number of CC-BY-SA.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the email should request a template
Does the e-mail need to include the sentence
"Please create a Custom VRTS permission template on Wikimedia Commons affirming my release of these works" ? CeltBrowne (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CeltBrowne: It should, or something to that effect (per the conversation above). Are you quoting something?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this conversation? Just a specific part of what of you said
To the account holder? I'm basing most of what I'm sending them on Commons:Email templates CeltBrowne (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CeltBrowne: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the initial email is in some way imperfect, that's no big deal, it just means there will need to be a few emails back and forth. Do have the sender cc you so you can stay in the loop. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could, if you are feeling generous, gift them a month's worth of Flickr Pro; cost in USD is $9.49, plus tax. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die Flickr Stiftung arbeitet ja nun mit WM zusammen (flickr-import) und es gibt einen wiki-user namen von einem der beteiligten flickr-leute. Der name fällt mir nur nicht ein. Aber der könnte vielleicht bei Flickr dafür sorgen, dass das "Pro"-Feature "Ändere eine große Zahl meiner Bilder zu einer freieren Lizenz" auch für nicht-pro-user generell zur Verfügung steht. Dann könnten beispielsweise auch die Erben eines verstorbenen Flickr-Users dessen Fotos ohne Aufwand der Allgemeinheit schenken. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a long delay caused by an e-mail of mine going into the photographers' spam e-mail folder, the photographer has now contacted VRT. Now, we should just need to create the template to get this over the line. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024030510010063[edit]

The photographer's ticket is Ticket:2024030510010063. If any member of the Volunteer Response Team can read the Ticket and create a Custom VRTS permission template for it, I'd be very grateful. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd. FYI. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Draft instructions for giving permissions to accounts to upload content from an organisation[edit]

Hi all

I've been working to help organisations (mainly in the UN) share their content on Commons for many years and one thing I've always found difficult is what happens when an organisation wants to share a lot of files at once, it becomes difficult for them to upload the files, or for me to do it for them. Recently I found out there is a was to for an organisation to give permission to an account to upload content from their organisation, however I can't find any instructions at all on how to do it, so I've started to draft some. User:John_Cummings/VRT_organization_permission

Please can you tell me if there are any issues with what I've drafted so far, what is missing etc. I'm not a VRT volunteer so I don't understand exactly how your internal systems work, but hopefully by simply using the standard VRT permission ID template this should make it simple to integrate. I know that it will make it easier for organisations to contribute content on a large scale and hopefully this will mean a larger number of organisations make mass donations to Commons.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out at different venues, such generalisations don't work. Cases are different. Please negotiate with the VRT for individual solutions. Krd 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd, thanks, a couple of questions:
  1. Has anyone tried to write instructions before on this process? Are they still available somewhere?
  2. What specifically can't be documented/generalised? What specifically doesn't 'work' in terms of providing an overview or guidance for this process?
  3. What in your experience are the parts of the process that need to be created individually for different organisations?
  4. As you've helped people do this before, how did they find out about this as a possibility? I've never seen anything written down about it, I found out by accident after 10+ years of doing Commons uploads.
  5. Are there many Commons people who help organisations give permission for an account? I'd like to know their experiences as well.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don‘t like this kind of interrogation. What exact problem do you intend to resolve? Krd 19:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd this is absolutely not supposed to be an interogation :) I'm just trying to understand why you think providing instructions for such a useful process won't work and what may be possible to document. You seem to be the only person who knows how this works, that's why I've asked you the questions. I guess the problems I'm trying to resolve is that while being able to approve an account for uploads is an extremely useful feature, currently there doesn't seem to be any way to find out this is possible beyond word of mouth and no clear way to learn how to do it. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you want to know the process in detail only for the reason not to follow it. All solutions have been well outlined to you at different places: A. put the files under a free license at the source, or B. contact the VRT, briefly explain your intention, and follow their suggestion for the best solution for the individual case. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with verified accounts before, but primarily in the case of individuals. For these situations involving individuals, a complex licensing statement is not needed; a mere online proof of identity will suffice (e.g. an email from an address listed on the person's official website confirming the name of their Wikimedia account). This is because once the identity is confirmed, releasing entirely self-created works is no different from any other Commoner who needs no verification because their works have no other online presence. I've dealt with organizations as well but the process has always been adhoc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much King of Hearts, very helpful to explain that invdividuals can do this as well. Do you know if the process for individuals documented anywhere? Also could you describe your process when you've done this for organisations? I'd like to include it in the documentation :) John Cummings (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verified accounts are to ensure that the person really is the person they are claiming. Regarding permissions this is only half of the story, because it doesn't at all say that the person is the copyright holder of the files in question, so is no replacement for explicit permission. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd I think there is some kind of missunderstanding, I'm not suggesting anything is changed relating to explicit permission for uploading files, I'm just trying to document the process to make it easier for people to follow, or at the very least know it exists in the first place. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by verifying an account. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered. Contact the VRT about your issue, and you will get help, in nearly all cases in form of very simple and easy to answer questions. It is impossible to create a helpful documentation that covers all possible scenarios, as copyright issues are different for each case and each source country. Most likely you are misleading users even more, and create additional work for the VRT. Please stop it. Krd 11:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use-case for which John's suggested process is a solution is a fairly common one; I've used a very similar process, more than once, without issue. The questions he asked are not an "interrogation", and if you are not willing to answer them, then it is reasonable for anyone reading to dismiss your objections as unfounded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO imagery follow-up[edit]

Hi all. An email was sent to VRT from an @esa.int address on 02/27/2024 at 14:33 UT with a response from VRT coming in at 14:36 UT the same day opening ticket:2024022710008671. The contents of the @esa.int email pertains to the discussion at Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA#Revisiting SOHO warning: redux wherein the removal of the line in {{PD-USGov-NASA}} referencing the w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is being discussed. Can a VRT agent weigh in to this discussion with the information given in the email?

Additionally, do the contents of this email have implications for all of the applicable SOHO imagery that may have been wrongfully deleted in the past? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. there was an earlier interaction with ESA now 14 years ago. This interaction is logged under 2010012510051743. Please remember however that things can change in 14 years (notably since ESA itself applied a policy of using Creative Commons). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly there was exception for commercial use made back (on their own website), that the community didn't like and I asked about it and I basically got the same information back as was stated on the website and a confirmation that there was no explicit license like Creative Commons that applied. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading about this past communication in your comment to this discussion. I provided a direct quote from the recent email that VRT was copied on in the discussion that prompted the email to VRT which gives specific licenses. In hindsight, I probably should have inquired about this past correspondence in my request. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kimmel meets Hallo Hessen.jpg, ticket:2016041910009151[edit]

The file has a permission ticket attached, I assume from the person who posted the image on Instagram. However, this seems to be a screencap from a copyrighted TV show, so the "permission" is questionable. I'm asking for someone to review this ticket to see if the show did indeed allow this file to be uploaded, or just the person who posted. If they do, I think an actual source should be put in place (Instagram is obviously not the original source). Spinixster (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Permission is in German. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This surely looks invalid, I don't think a random German can give permission for an USA ABC show screenshot, it even has ABC channel logo. Tehonk (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2015082610020217[edit]

Can you check the validity of the permission for this file? File:Jonathan Kis-Lev and Agam Rodberg on Israeli telenovela "Love is Around the Corner".png I don't think appearing for a few seconds on a TV show gives you right to give permission for that TV show. Tehonk (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the ticket, but I think the whole ticket is invalid. Additional opinions? --Krd 04:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Police mug shots[edit]

There seem to have been conflicting views over whether mug shots taken by the NZ Police are public domain. (At any rate, the response I received from the NZ Police indicated that their mug shots are not freely licensed.) I raised this question here but did not get a response. Can the Admins please explain ticket:2024030110007726 ticket:2024022610012756 vs. ticket:2024021210003685? Thanks, Muzilon (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the tickets but reading your posts and the deletion requests linked, I'm not sure what's going on. While the police does not claim copyright (as per Squirrel) they also say their mug shots are not freely licensed. What does that mean? If there is no clear indication the police is releasing mug shots under a free license or into the public domain, since COM:NEW ZEALAND does not state they already are, then the files should be delted and remain deleted. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brenton_Tarrant.png. A contributor uploaded a NZ Police mugshot whose copyright status was questioned (by me). The uploader responded that he'd received some sort of copyright clearance from the NZ Police, which he forwarded to VRT. This "clearance" was apparently accepted by an Admin on 19-Feb-2024 - which would have set a precedent for NZ mugshots on Commons. (In the meantime I received a contrary email from the NZ Police saying their mug shots are not freely licensed.) Then on 24-Feb-2024 a different Admin deleted the mugshot with a note about "copyright violation". There have been previous cases where uploaders have asserted that NZ police mugshots are "public domain". So, perhaps Commons needs to add a definitive statement to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand. Muzilon (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging User:The Squirrel Conspiracy and User:Krd, who seem to be the two Admins involved with these tickets. Muzilon (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2024030110007726 does not appear to be relevant to this case. ticket:2024022610012756 is the second ticket in this case. It specifies that the response that we received in ticket:2024021210003685 was an error, and pointed us towards the NZ PD's copyright page, which contradicted the first ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. (I have corrected the pertinent ticket number in my OP.) It seems curious that the NZ Police apparently contradicted themselves on this issue. Muzilon (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files with VRT pending notices[edit]

There are quite a lot of files with a manually written notice "VRT assessment pending", some of which were uploaded quite a long time ago, see here. Could they be addressed somehow, please? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think VRT permission is required please nominate them for deletion. Krd 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waf-logo.png[edit]

Can someone check if ticket:2024012910009677 can also apply to File:Waf-logo.png? It is currently being used on File:Alpagutpatentlilogo.jpg. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix fwiw, the ticket only releases the file where it has been mentioned. The other file imo should perfectly be fine and seen as a derivative or so of what already was released under a free license? The only difference I see is that of the change in the script of the text. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2011112710000489[edit]

Can someone please check this ticket? The file claims that the copyright holder is Felix Loewy (which, by German copyright law, would imply that this is a selfie), the exif data have Max Leitner as a copyright holder. Was it really Mr Leitner who gave the permission?

Not sure what this image is good for anyway, I don't see that we have an article on this person anywhere. --2003:C0:8F4D:6800:89A:EAC7:978F:195D 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, it would be wise to drop the link/name of the file. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, yes. Here it is. --2003:C0:8F4D:6800:89A:EAC7:978F:195D 21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article on this person has apparently been attempted twice and was deleted twice because of copyvio and lack of encyclopedic relevance. --2003:C0:8F4D:6800:89A:EAC7:978F:195D 21:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024031610006388[edit]

I'd appreciate some help with Ticket:2024031610006388, specifically with the NASA files' license. And to explain to both customer and copyright holder the issue with what is and what is not derivated work. Thanks a lot. Ganímedes (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2024021410004402[edit]

I am the uploader of the photo and have done this in close coordination with the copyright holder. The copyright holder contacted you by email on 14 February 2024 and released the photo (Contact person on your part was Alfred Neumann). Now the photo has been deleted and I am not sure why the process failed. Is there some information missing that you need? Link to file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Anne-Barb_Hertkorn_01.12.2008.jpg Thank you. DunkleTannen (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DunkleTannen: The file would be undeleted if the permissions are found adequate. No need to worry. ─ Aafī (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm still not sure that I understand the process. So the photo was deleted after 30 days. Did the deletion happen automatically because the ticket had not yet been finally processed by the VRT team (which is fine), or was the permission sent by the copyright holder deemed insufficient? DunkleTannen (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either. No VRT agent attended the ticket, or no adequate permissions were received in the given timeframe to finally process the ticket. However, as I said previously, whenever the adequate permissions are sent to VRT and an agent confirms them, the file would be undeleted. Lately, I haven't had enough time to go through the ticket myself so I'd leaving it for other agents. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2023120810006959[edit]

Some files from this ticket errorously have been deleted, others remain online (in the permission mail all have been included!). Please correct and undelete. Thx, --Subbass1 (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permission in incomplete for the images that show interior architecture. Krd 08:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats's the problem here? --Subbass1 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said, no permission for interior view, no FOP. Krd 09:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "pernission for interior view" necessary --Subbass1 (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Krd 10:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? de:Lambertikirche (Aurich) --Subbass1 (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permission sender did not elaborate why the redesign of the church is not protected. Additional opinions welcome. --Krd 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2016101010012581[edit]

Could you check this ticket? Seems strange to me that the same ticket is used two times for different topics by different users. The SPARQL query generated by {{PermissionTicket}} returns a Falconara soccer club logo and files related to water by Associazione d'Irrigazione Ovest Sesia. --ZandDev (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Ticket in Italian. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create tickets for certain general permissions for objects in Italia and add this to suiting images[edit]

Hello, Friniate have given me recently twice in two days the information that for certain images displaying modern Italian objects exists a general permission. In my opinion this belongs as information into the file description itself, so, please, be so kind, create tickets, and embed this into the images. See

The Deletion requests could afterwards speedy decided. — Speravir – 00:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot a ping @Ruthven. You are apparently member of the VRT and Italian native speaker, so should be the best for this task. — Speravir – 01:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Speravir Hello, there must be a WLM permission, but the link leads to a generic page. A direct link to the specific permission is needed in order for me to review it. Best Ruthven (msg) 12:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[14] for the Casinò of Campione, [15] for the monument to General Pasi (but on this monument it exists also [16] which has more restrictive provisions, see the DR for the details). Friniate (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both. What I originally intended to add, but forgot above: I actually also could live with a template containing an external link to a permission, but I think having it in a local database is more robust. Such a general permission should then be made known, the according category should be a good place. — Speravir – 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corina Yoris.jpg[edit]

The file's original description said that the original photographer had authorized its release under a Creative Common license. I thought that the VRT could help with its undeletion. I'm not too familiar with the process myself, but from what I gather said evidence should be sent to permissions-commonswikimedia.org? Pinging original uploader, @Periodismodepaz: , in case he's able to provide more information. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=863459472"