Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diala77

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)

@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)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Photographs of identifiable people

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)

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)
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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2013031510006025

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)

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)
The image is freely licensed then, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
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

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)

@Oleh325: This is not the right place to seek deletions. Maybe ask at COM:AN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Hastie

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)

@Cryptic-waveform, no. The ticket releases only one file. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2023120410006742

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)

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)
@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)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nico Sauer 2017 Performance Ethnological Museum Dahlem.jpg

Hello, can an VRT administrator can close the DR in a way or in another, please? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Some three years ago, this was handled by @Emha. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Permission can be considered authentic. Further discussion on the Deletion request, strange behaviour of uploader. Ellywa (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Art Basel, German page

Please change the logo photo of the German Art Basel site and possibly corresponding pages. The picture shows white figures of Manfred Kielnhofer in front of a facade inscription "Art Basel". Kielnhofer was not invited to Art Basel. He places his figures, which can be classified as plagiarism, around art events to give the impression that he is a participant. That's not the case. In addition, his figures have been banned from most public locations after he posted a Star of David made of syringes on social media, outing himself as an anti-Semitic Corona conspiracy theorist. This is also documented in detail on the German page about Manfred Kielnhofer: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Kielnhofer 89.144.197.179 07:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct location for asking, but I decided to replace the image on the Wikidata item with the neutral logo of BAsel Art only. I do not judge the art in any way. I suppose that was your request, as such image was seen in the infobox, while the logo is more appropriate, I agree with that. Ellywa (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Numéro de ticket manquant malgré autorisation transmise

Bonjour,
pourriez-vous m'indiquer le problème que vous rencontrez avec File:Lampe à huile romaine à ailerons latéraux.jpg ?
Merci de votre travail et Cordialement. 6PO (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no problem. Permission is added. Please be a bit more patient next time. Ellywa (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ellywa (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ten million thanks to the VRT

A bunch of questions were raised about images I uploaded via flickr, many of them from the US Department of Defence, which you can see here [1]. I put my hand up and say I wasn't even aware there was a difference between Public Domain and Creative Commons but, boy, I've learnt my lesson there, and in a couple of other areas too. My apologies for all the hard work that has meant for you by way of checking things and emails and whatnot. You have my gratitude. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a very good attitude of learning. Please keep the pace up. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

violation copyright photo

bonjour, File:Umberto Tozzi 2012.png Merci de retirer cette photo de wikipedia. Elle n'est pas libre de droit. FanMusik (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Umberto Tozzi 2012.png.
@FanMusik: making an accusation in multiple places does not make it more true. If you have evidence that this is a copyright violation, please present it in the deletion request discussion. Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2014122310000729

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bakov.jpg relates to a file I added permission to. Unfortunately I no longer have access to VRT so I can not re-check it. Jarekt (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I posted a response on the DR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Checking for permissions of Category:Portrait paintings by Natalia Pavlusenko

Please check file permissions. Who gave the permissions: the photographer or the author of the paintings? These images are the works of modern Ukrainian artist Natalia Pavlusenko, who is engaged in the historical reconstruction of images of people from the 16th and 17th centuries. These portraits were painted in 2021, each one is on her website and there is a copyright notice. Link to the artist's website:

In addition, until recently, the artist sold merch with these portraits on her website:

Seva Seva (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Seva Seva: I confirm the permissions release is perfectly fine, and these three files are released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unadapted License. I have cross-verified everything. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Unadapted should mean Unported. I just used Google Translate. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Did I understand correctly that permission is granted by the artist Natalia Pavlusenko, not the user who uploaded the photo? I am asking because there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine (see COM:FOP Ukraine), so any work of art that has been photographed needs permission. Seva Seva (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Seva Seva: I can't share the names publicly, but I can confirm that the permission is perfectly fine. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Seva Seva: since I don't have access to VRT, I'm allowed to conjecture: this all makes sense if that is Natalia Pavlusenko's account. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sorry, I don't really understand how the VRT system works. I have never used it myself. If I understood The Aafī's words "perfectly fine" correctly, it meant that permission was obtained from the artist himself. Do VRT permissions work differently? The "Structured data" says that these images are "original creation by uploader". This is strange, because the user also uploaded other works in this way, such as : File:Art object by Glib Viches. Sun Gates.1989.jpg or File:Art object by Glib Viches. Presenсe. 1992.jpg. But they were maded by another artist - en:Glib Viches. So, the uploader and the artist cannot be the same person. Also, "Structured data" says Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, not 3.0. Could you explain to me - VRT confirms only what is in "Structured data" or not? Seva Seva (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The Aafī is saying that the confidential correspondence in which the VRT agent engaged, and which they (The Aafi) can see, but you and I cannot, convinces them that the permission came from the legitimate holder of the copyright. Since that would almost certainly be Natalia Pavlusenko and the uploads credit the account name as author, I can only reasonably assume this is her account or that of someone representing her to whom she is willing to have her work credited. Since you and I are not privy to that correspondence, anything beyond that is conjecture. I would say that at this point, The Aafi has written here without any qualification to their endorsement of the validity of the license. @TheAafi: one question, though. Under the license, which requires attribution, are they really OK with attribution to "Commons user Paintgol", or should the license template add "author=Natalia Pavlusenko"? -Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, I do not see any such requirements but it believe its worth a question. The ticket is not in English (and the original release didn't come in English either). I suppose @Andriy.v can make a follow up here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: "I can't share the names publicly", but Ahonc below did it. So who is right? Andriy.v (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
She is author of the pictures, it is not secret.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ahonc and @Andriy.v: I tend to be more precautious. We are in agreement to not share "non-public information" and I consider everything on VRT non-public even if the names associated are public. Ahonc is right, the name is already public. I won't disagree with them either. I will close this thread is resolved. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Permission is granted by the Natalia Pavlusenko. --Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Дякую, Ahonc! I have no more questions. I think this discussion can be closed... --Seva Seva (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2009111010047484

I was skimming through old DR's and came across Commons:Deletion requests/File:Norbert sternmut.jpg, and this 14 year old ticket in permissions-de queue affects it. Google translate has been unhelpful. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Kept. --Krd 09:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Retirer photo

Bonjour je souhaite que l’on supprime immédiatement cette page et ma photo pour des enjeux personnels importants . SVP merci de me répondre rapidement christine 209.121.189.13 11:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Translated as "Hello, I would like this page and my photo to be immediately deleted for important personal reasons. Please, thank you for responding quickly Christine"
  • What files are you referring to?
Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oleg Palchyk

Can someone please check to see if Ticket:2023122010003929 is valid, so I (or someone else) can close that DR. Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I believe that permissions are fine and comply with the file's metadata, and per what is here. However, according to @Ahonc, the permissions are insufficient, and VRT hasn't received a response back since 31 December 2023. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
He gave link to image on Commons and did not answer when I ask link to original source.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PA DefayEurochamp Leroy 694.jpg

The uploader of the file being discussed above has cited ticket:2012122010006901 for other photos by the same creator. Can a VRT agent check if this ticket is valid for specific photos only (e.g., File:Marlon Lipke.jpg) or is it blanket permission? —holly {chat} 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Holly Cheng: the ticket is very specific to one single image, and that's at File:Marlon Lipke.jpg ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
ticket:2012122010006947 likewise is specific to File:Asp logo 2bleus.png. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Rheinmetall HX. Модель 44М

ТТХ автомобіля. Інструкція з експлуатації 2A02:2378:11F1:370C:0:0:0:1 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rheinmetall HX. Model 44M

TTX of the car.

Operating Instructions
translator: Google Translate via   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
IP: Привіт і ласкаво просимо. Яке це має відношення до Commons:Volunteer Response Team або до Commons загалом?
Hi, and welcome. What does this have to do with Commons:Volunteer Response Team, or with Commons in general?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Fabrizio Romano

Hello. I am writing about ticket:2024012510000398. I am in communication with Fabrizio Romano to help him get the photo back up. Fabrizio Romano asserts that he is the sole owner of the photograph, even though he is also the subject of the photograph. The subject and photographer/owner are both him- what I understood is that he used the delayed photograph thing. How are you going to deny that? He sent me the screenshot of the email he received from Valería Domínguez. Fabrizio is a busy man, so I'm writing this to get the permission accepted. Please respond ASAP. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Please ping. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: I see that this in reference to Ticket:2024012510000398, but what (deleted) filename is this in reference to?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Thanks! Using that information and the two linked DRs, you or any Admin should be able to examine the metadata of the deleted file for timer usage with an external tool, as Commons still doesn't show metadata about timer usage. Note: my favorite such tool, Jeffrey's Exif Viewer, "is unavailable at the moment", but Windows Explorer's "Properties / Details" or Jimpl (scrolled down to the "Full metadata") can substitute.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. thanks. I believe it is not needed here. I have been feeling unwell but a cursory look on the ticket shows that Fabrizio has had some agreement with Globe Soccer about this very image, and they failed to produce the agreement when asked. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Are you sure we're talking about the same image? The image that was deleted is the one on his Twitter profile. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie, yes of course. Reiterating once again that the permissions are inadequate and won't be accepted until the photographer releases it, or until Fabrizio shares the agreement they claimed to have had with Globe Soccer. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: And what makes you think that the image was owned by GlobeSoccer? Are you just making an assumption? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
No and why should I make assumptions? This is what the permissions-sender (Fabrizio) has claimed in the ticket mentioned by you (ticket:2024012510000398). You are free to ask any other VRT agent for re-assessment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: In case, you would want to add anything to this thread. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't accept permission for File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg because we never received permission from the photographer, and the subject of the file didn't show us the contract to prove that full copyrights were transferred to him. So, the subject requested the deletion of the file. Instead, he requested to upload a new self-photo, but I didn't have access to VRT today (I'm on holidays with slow connection) and I didn't see the request until now. He didn't attach the file to upload it myself either, so... --Ganímedes (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi: I understand now! It was a misunderstanding. Fabrizio Romano does not seem to have much experience in this, and when he spoke about GlobeSoccer, he was referring to another image he wanted to upload. He got two different tickets tangled up when they should be kept separate. I can send you screenshots of our conversation if you'd like proof. Essentially, the image that he was talking about originally (the one on his Twitter profile/that was uploaded on Commons) is NOT GlobeSoccer's. How do we proceed from now on? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the GlobeSoccer image he mentioned. This is not the image that was originally uploaded and that he is giving permission for. He mentioned the GlobeSoccer image to me before, but I didn't think he'd get the two things mixed up. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
GlobeSoccer, Facebook, Instagram, whatever; it doesn't matter. VRT needs permission directly from the photographer. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Yeah, understood. But the image he's trying to recover-- he's the photographer too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Unless Fabrizio is not telling me everything -- the image he is trying to recover is the one that was originally uploaded, and that image, he owns the photo, as I understand he took it himself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I've already explained this; please read upper. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Should I ask him to send a new, more precise ticket? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie, Whoever is the copyrights holder/photographer, tell them to send us a precise release. If it involves agreements, share them as well. Since it is confidential, it remains confidential. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: Is that not what was done in the first place? He must have sent something different than what I showed him through the VRT template. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me summarize to clarify: Fabrizio Romano sent ticket:2024012510000398 with permission for file File:Fabrizio Romano 2021.jpg. As he's not the photographer and he didn't show us the contract stipulating that 100% of the copyrights were transferred from the photographer to Fabrizio, that permission was rejected. Instead, he told me to upload a new, selfy photo. I've asked him to send the file by email as an attachment to upload it myself on his behalf, but apparently, he doesn't know how to do it because I still haven't received it. I strongly don't recommend to send a new email and create a new ticket so we can continue the process. Paul Vaurie: you can follow the thread by sending an email to permissions-commons[@]wikimedia.org and adding "Re: [Ticket#2024012510000398]" in the subject line of the email. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: You could have avoided much of this by asking Fabrizio to carbon copy you on correspondence with VRT in the first place. He still can.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2012010710010595

Hello, regarding ticket:2012010710010595, I see it is used for File:BMI Airbus A320-232 by Osipov Dmitry.jpg and File:Vityaz-Aero Mil Mi-8T RA-24744 Nikolaevka.jpg. Does the ticket grant permission for all work by Osipov Dmitry on airliners.net, or only specific images? I ask because he has a photo of the recently crashed Russian Il-76 available there, which could be beneficial to the various Wikipedia projects covering the incident, if it is in fact covered by the permission given in the ticket. – Recoil16 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Only those photos. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. – Recoil16 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – Recoil16 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Request undeletion of concert poster

See

where the undeletion board referred me to here.

The general situation is that user:Fabebk is a poster designer who has already verified themselves as copyright holder with two VRT tickets, and now has a third file up for deletion.

What advice does anyone have for clearly communicating that posters attributed to this user come with their open copyright license, and that they designed the things? Bluerasberry (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: The file was uploaded by some other user and attributed to Fabian Garcia. No source to validate the permission was included. For each such instance, a VRT permission-release is necessary. I don't see any problem with the uploads that directly come from User:Fabebk, and are tagged as {{Own}}. However, the file in in reference above, needs a VRT permissions release from Fabian Garcia, and once received, it will be undeleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If we already know that user:Fabebk is Fabian Garcia, couldn't they just weigh in on-wiki rather than go through VRT? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if User:Fabebk is Fabian Garcia and haven't really read each and every line of the VRT conversations. I shared my analysis pertaining to a specific file which was attributed to Fabian Garcia. Nor do I feel it necessary of having their identity confirmed. There are two cases: #1: Files uploaded by others and attributed to Fabian, a VRT release/or any such proof of release from Fabian is necessary. #2: Files uploaded by User:Fabebk as entirely own, VRT release is too much to ask.
The file in question was uploaded not by User:Fabebk but by someone else. As such, it does need a permission release. I'd perhaps dig the tickets to check with if Fabebk = Fabian Garcia, maybe tomorrow later in the night. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Fabebk states on their user page that they've verified their identity with ticket:2023091010005532 and ticket:2023113010007391. It would seem to me that part of the point of doing that is that they can then weigh in on-wiki from that account, rather than having to go through VRT each time. - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sending an email to VRT doesn't mean that the user has verified their identity. I skimmed over both the tickets and nowhere I see any claim that the email sender claims to be same as User:Fabebk on the Wikimedia Commons. This is the reason, I said we should treat the files in two different ways, already explained above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
An easy alternative I could offer is receiving an email at VRT stating "I am same as User:Fabebk on the Wikimedia Commons". ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: I just want to make sure: you are saying that the claim of verified identity at meta:User:Fabebk is false? - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, and likely, because I do not see any claim on the tickets in which Fabian has mentioned that they are exactly the same person as User:Fabebk here. Perhaps, either they misunderstand what VRT identity verification means? Sending an email to VRT doesn't mean that one has verified identity. User:Fabebk could be Fabian Garcia and User:Fabebk could have sent permissions to the VRT, but the point I am making is that I don't see in both of the tickets an explicit statement from Fabian Garcia mentioning "they are same as User:Fabebk on Wikimedia Commons". Telling the VRT that "Just information for the future. All images I upload to Wikimedia comments are all my work." and merely mentioning Fabebk in the ticket doesn't amount to a full identity verification. Both tickets fail in this. Moreover, I would really want the verification come as guided on {{Verified account}}. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: can you have a look at ticket:2024013110012801, more specifically response #4 in the thread, and see if this is sufficient for you? I have now internally in VRT linked all the permission tickets we have received from this contact. Ciell (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell, this looks perfectly fine. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Your assistance has been helpful. ticket:2023121210001722 also appears to be fine. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi great, happy to be of help. To be clear: does this mean you will undelete the image and tag the vrt-permission received? Ciell (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell, I believe no. This should be undeleted perhaps only when the ticket:2023121210001722 receives an answer to the question at #6. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: taking a different angle here - does the artist/creator of the poster have a personal website? Ciell (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell: and yet another angle: does what you've seen in the various tickets add up to being able to call this a verified account, or is there something specific we still need? - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: What the other tickets have helped is that Fabebk = Fabian Garcia. However, concerning File:Chinchilla Café presents 2023-08-17.png, VRT has sent a question to the email sender on 18/12/2023, and there appears no response, so far. The file should be undeleted once that question receives an answer. I'm uncertain if I'm being too strict but the question I see is a legitimate one. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree: the confirmation of this is already in the opening statement of the 20231218 email, and this is not their first time contacting us. I don't think you need to be this strict, but if you would really like the confirmation one more time, please followup in the ticket and kindly remind them of this pending question. Ciell (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell: Too many tickets create confusions. I just had a look at ticket:2024013110012801 and I find it adequate. The 02/02/2024 response is perfectly okay and answers the issues raised on ticket:2023121210001722. I have undeleted the file and updated the permissions. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the undeletion Aafi!
I can agree that it's sometimes confusing - linking together multiple tickets from the same contact in VRT can help create a better overview of the case.
Just fyi: merging emails sometimes also helps, but a) once merged, tickets are very hard (impossible) to unmerge, and b) though from the same contact they are about different images. I only merge when a second email comes in on exactly the same topic, for instance when a contact follows up with the requested permission statement in a new thread. So in cases like this one, I rather link all tickets together which creates the small list of ticket numbers you see next to the email body now. Ciell (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I personally see no need to verify this account. We in general only do this with celebrities, well known photographers, etc. We don't do this to simply verify an image, there are other ways to do that. In case of request for verification the information in VRT is not enough: earlier today I left some additional information about this on the template talkpage. Ciell (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Qantas Boeing 707 and Boeing 747-200 at Longreach's Qantas Founders Outback Museum.jpg

Hi, Can someone check the ticket please? There is a claim that it is not valid: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qantas Boeing 707 and Boeing 747-200 at Longreach's Qantas Founders Outback Museum.jpg. If the ticket is valid, this IP should be blocked for making nonsense DRs. This is not the first. Yann (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Ticket seems fine. ─ Aafī (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Telegraph to Mary's parents from Prime Minister Trudeau - June 11 1975.tif

I have serious doubts about File:Telegraph to Mary's parents from Prime Minister Trudeau - June 11 1975.tif I see that a letter written (or typed) by Pierre Trudeau is marked as VRT approved. I was hoping someone with the ability to see the ticket could verify for me who gave permissions, and confirm that the Government of Canada/PMO office, whom the copyright holder would be - granted those VRT permissions. Thank you. PascalHD (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @PascalHD: Thanks for reporting. I will just proceed and boldly CSD it exactly for what File:Telegraph sent by Prime Minister Trudeau to the parents of Mary Steinhauser - June 11 1975.jpg was deleted for. The ticket is insufficient. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Great, thanks for taking appropriate action. PascalHD (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I will add that the letter becomes Public Domain January 1st, 2026. It can be undeleted at that time. PascalHD (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monedes St Climent.jpg

Apparently, ticket:2023120310005496 was received for File:Monedes St Climent.jpg, but the uploader removed the notice. No VRT agent went and updated the file description page, so can someone check on this? Thanks. —holly {chat} 18:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

not in English so I'd ping @Ganímedes for an update. ─ Aafī (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely that permission will be achieved, so deletion of the file seems reasonable. --Krd 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no internet for several days. Impossible to verify authorship. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Stefan Kaminski

File:2022 Michaelsen Swantje c Stefan Kaminski.jpg was deleted at 2023-12-27T06:59:01 by Krd (IA/B/A/CU) with rationale (No ticket permission since 26 November 2023).

Uploader confirmed to me to have requested a permission from Stefan Kaminski, but Kamniski either did not reply or Kaminiski's reply was not a sufficient free permission. Similar fotos by Stefan Kaminiski have VRT permission. I think it unlikely that Kaminsiki gave permission for the other files but not for the latest one:

for example:

there are also images without VRT ticket:

examples

C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned cases are different from the ticket point of view. I see no obvious mistake. --Krd 04:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2017060910013007

For Commons:Deletion requests/File:1960.Lößnitz-Stadt mit der St.Johannis Kirche.40x30.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:1960.Lößnitz-Stadt mit der St.Johannis Kirche.40x30.jpg, uploader cites the above ticket, but it was never applied to the files. Thanks. —holly {chat} 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ticket doesn't apply to anything else than processed at that time. --Krd 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible/easy to use a VRT permission email when uploading 10,000 images from an organisation?

Hi all

I'm helping a UN agency upload around 10,000 images to Commons, really useful statistical graphics for each country in 6 languages (hence the large number). I'm currently exploring how to do the licensing for this project and my question is; is there a way that is easy and convenient for VRT for the agency to send a VRT permission email? I'm assuming you have some kind of automated tools to do permissions so is it possible to send a spreadsheet with the file names or something? I could do the upload and then provide a list of filenames in a spreadsheet in the email upload?

I know that it may be easier to have a licensing permission on the website, however currently this is probably not possible. I'm just looking to find alternatives that make it possible to upload the content in a way that is smooth and easy for VRT.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings: The responsible individual at the agency can ask for a template indicating their permission when they email VRT, preferably with a carbon copy to you to keep you in the loop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G., can you explain more about what you mean and point me towards some documentation? To expand on my explanation it would be me uploading the content using Pattypan on my account and then someone at the agency sending an email to confirm the license. I know that a user from the organisation can get a special template created for their account, however if I'm the one uploading the images I think that would mean they would have to add the template manually to 10,000 pages, which simply isn't realistic. John Cummings (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Please do things in this order:
  1. You upload a sample image using {{subst:PP}} and contact the responsible individual at the agency per above.
  2. They negotiate with a VRT Agent to get the permission template created (which hopefully categorizes the images).
  3. You use the permission template when uploading those images.
This way, there is no need to add the template manually to 10,000 pages (or use VFC). I helped users do this successfully when I was a VRT Agent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G., just to double check I understand, in the permission email they can nominate me as the person who is the uploader and permitted to use the template? Also is it possible to send a follow up email to remove this permission at a later date (not retroactively, just so they have some control over it in future). John Cummings (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Yes to both.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G., is there any documentation on requesting the VRT permission to upload is removed? John Cummings (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Probably not formally, but the answer is just "Send an email to the same address, retracting the permission going forward." - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jmabel, once I've gone through the process I will draft some documentation for this process. John Cummings (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024020210006478

I sent an e-mail with the photographer authorize by the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0,ON 02/08/2024. I'm waiting an answer if everything is ok or if I need to produce something else. Regards, Vera Moraes Moraesv (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Moraesv: I've addressed the ticket. Elli (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024011910006135

The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation has given its consent in principle to the use of its materials on Flickr under a CC BY 4.0 license (not updated since January 2023), while all its materials have been transferred to photo.senatinform.ru (copyright rules). MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Permissions-ru has a 25 days backlog. I don't know if we have actives agents in that language. I may proceed in English if that helps. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kulka Frigyes szoborportréja.jpg

The photo nominated in this DR has ticket:2013011010004405 attached to it. Can a VRT agent please weigh in? Thanks. —holly {chat} 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Holly Cheng: The ticket is too old, from 2013, and was handled and approved by Hungarikusz Firkász who appears to have CSDed it recently for copyvio. Since, it is Hungarian, I'm uncertain if I can offer any more insights. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi: what is "CSD"? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, ah, sorry, it should mean COM:CSD'ed? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I've consistently seen "speedied", "CSDed" is a new one to me. I will add it to Commons:Glossary (it was definitely not there). - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't sure. This term is very common on en-wiki. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Joan Armatrading's song Love and Affection 1976, apparently used on Tracey Chapman's Debut Album in the 1980s. Any evidence?.

My email for a response, if any to the above note is: relfe@att.net. Or, if someone else's research reveals that there has been a professional relationship between Joan Armatrading's earlier composition of, "Love and Affection", and Tracey Chapman's use of it later on her so called Debut Album. That's it. Love this program which I have continued to support financially, and welcome any response as this is my forst use of the possibility of contacting you: Roger I. Relfe, ChFC, British, USA Citizen July 2012 and heavily involved in the music industry(backstage at Live Aid One July 1985) while serving for 19yrs in the Royal Air Force, and retiring to USA with my wife in 1989. Britscript (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please check the ticket

The association I've been working with to add their logo to Commons have some troubles, as the VRT agent can't identify the organization's email as the one and valid one. Can someone check the case, and maybe advise how to proceed? Here's the ticket number: 2024012210011266. --Oleh325 (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please proceed as outlined in the ticket: "please provide any evidence that the e-mail address you are sending from is related to the organisation that holds the logo." --Krd 12:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024020610002876

Ticket for the EMERCOM of Russia template - all child resources are now marked CC BY 4.0 on http://mchs.gov.ru. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:MSC

Hi. A clarification for this license is required. The ticket is #2009020710020785. Please see the discussion at Template talk:MSC#License clarification. Could a VRT member scrutinise the ticket and provide commentary on the ticket's correspondence? Thanks -- DaxServer (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ireas handled the ticket in 2009 and I don't see them around. This ticket needs an agent who knows the Deutsch language. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
By "The Deutsch language" do you mean German (Deutsch/Duits) or Dutch (Nederlandisch/Nederlands)? This is a place where code-switching is very confusing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I mean (de/German). ─ Aafī (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The ticket is valid for images uploead 2015 and earlier. If it is used for newer images, a deeper check is required. --Krd 12:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

File:01-cadadia-240209 2037.wav

Hi, This file has a ticket, but no license. Please check. Yann (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Updated the relevant template and commented in the DR. This may be closed as a speedy-keep. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Checking claim of ORTS ticket of Korean wikisource article

I'm not certain that requesting this in here because it's not in commons, but there isn't any other place to request. Please let me know if this cannot be processed in here.

In the one article of the Korean wikisource, there is a claim in the talk page that the 'OTRS' ticket has been sent. I tried contacting the user who made the claim, but she didn't know about the details of the ticket. Is there any possibility that the ticket number can still be found? Or, any confirmation that the ticket has NOT been sent?

Thank you for your help in advance. Aspere (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please assume that the permission was not sent or was not successfully confirmed. --Krd 12:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024022210002498

The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs has authorized the use of material from its website under a CC BY 4.0 license. This template: {{Mvd.ru}}. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ticket of today. --Krd 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation on old tickets

I've just nominated File:Arthur Asa Berger1.jpg for deletion, which was claimed by Esmatly as "own work" but the EXIF info points to a professional photographer as the actual author. I started looking into their old uploads to see if there were similar false claims, and I noticed a number of them that have tickets attached, but they seem very suspicious to me, so I wanted to confirm that everything was kosher.

Thanks for looking into these. —holly {chat} 23:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

bump. —holly {chat} 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Holly Cheng: I cannot view the ticket ending with 8229, but assuming that there's an apparent lie in the ticket for File:Seyed Zia Hashemi.JPG and VRT back in 2013 was not perhaps this much strict. All of the permissions come from same person and they claim sole creator/copyrights holder. However, on some files the uploader says it is part of their archive. Given an apparent lie in one of these tickets, I lean towards deletion of all of these files. VRT agents back in 2013 simply updated permissions after receiving an email without asking if the sender was "creator or how they became the copyrights holder" to release the permissions. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I will drop another comment in the DR. ─ Aafī (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Check of VRT ticket #ticket:2022092210011371 in relation to a related upload

A VRT ticket was submitted in 2022 in relation to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adrienne Rich and Susan Sherman.jpg and the file was kept. Another upload by the same user showing one of the same subjects (File:Susan Sherman.png) has been nominated for deletion with part of the rationale questioning the claim of own work. Can someone please check the ticket on the previous work to see if there is anything that would suggest the uploader also has a right to licence File:Susan Sherman.png? The deletion discussion for the second file is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Susan Sherman.png. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Susan Sherman and Chile President Salvador Allende.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Susan Sherman and Margaret Randall. Havana, 1968.jpg that would also benefit from a comment if there is anything useful to the discussion in the ticket. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Permission is specific for the first image. It doesn't apply to other images. --Krd 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Professioneller Fotograf mit VRT-Tickets

Es gibt auf Commons mehrere wichtige Fotos eines professionellen Fotografen, für die auch ein gültiges VRT-Ticket vorliegt. Letztes Jahr wurde ein weiteres Foto hochgeladen und gelöscht, da per VRT zwar eine Freigabe angekündigt war, aber nicht zeitnah erfolgte. Nun weiß ich aus nichtöffentlicher Kommunikation, dass die hochladende Person zwar den Fotografen kontaktiert hat, dieser ab für dieses Foto nicht oder nicht ausreichend geantwortet hat. Angesichts der sonstigen Aufträge des Fotografen und angesichts der sonstigen Fotos des Fotografen, die es auf Commons gibt, erscheint es mir sehr unwahrscheinlich, das der Fotograf dieses Foto anders behandelt sehen möchte als die anderen für die eine Freigabe vorliegt. Ich könnte mir also vorstellen, dass bei den früheren Freigaben dem Fotografen nicht in der nötigen Deutlichkeit gesagt wurde, zu was er zustimmt, oder dass eine unklare Freigabe akzeptiert wurde. Öffentlich benennen möchte ich nicht, um was es geht, da ich dies aus nichtöffentlicher Kommunikation erfahren habe. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: I'm sorry, I read German fairly well, but I'm not sure I can follow that. You seem to be saying:
  • We have several important photos on Commons from professional photographer . These have a valid VRT ticket (or tickets).
  • Last year, another photo Y from this same photographer was uploaded. The photographer sent a communication to VRT.
  • (I'm a little lost on exactly what you mean by "eine Freigabe angekündigt war". Are you saying that the communication was a valid release? Or what? I'm confused both by whether "Freigabe" here means a valid release, or is more general, and by what you mean here by "angekündigt"; the use of passive voice is particularly confusing to me. By "angekündigt" do you just mean the photographer sending the email, or do you mean something more public-facing?)
  • Photo Y was deleted because the release was not timely.
    • (remark: if it was just untimely (unzeitgemäß), but correct, it should have been possible to undelete photo Y once the release was received.)
  • You (C.Suthorn) now know from non-public communication that the uploader contacted the photographer, but he (the photographer, I presume) did not respond or did not respond sufficiently for this photo.
  • You state (and I agree) that it is unlikely that the photographer would have different intentions for this photo than for others.
  • (Ich könnte mir also vorstellen is a little tricky for me because vorstellen has several meanings, but I assume this can be taken as "Therefore I could imagine". Even that is a little ambiguous in English; are you saying you think this is probably the case, or that you consider it within the realm of possibility, or somewhere between?)
  • You (C.Suthorn) could imagine (see my note above) that in previous releases the photographer was not told clearly enough what he was agreeing to, or that an unclear release was accepted.
    • I'm not sure why it wouldn't be just as likely that this time the photographer dropped the ball, and the other times he completed the process. Plus you seem to be saying that the response wasn't just untimely, but that a sufficient response never came.
If you could help clarify any of what I'm not following here, it would be appreciated. Or you can just ignore me, because I'm not on the VRT, but I'm guessing that at least some of this would be as confusing to others as it is to me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I did communicate with the uploader (at least I did communicate with the person, who said them was the uploader and I am sure that is true). But, i did not communicate with them via wiki accounts or wiki mail, but by different mail addresses. As I am not a VRT member and as I was not involved with the ticket, I can only guess, if the uploader sent a mail to VRT, than VRT asked for a mail by the photographer and the photographer either did not reply, or did not reply to VRT or did reply, but not with a good enough (free enough) permission. The uploader has by now abondened to try to get this image through VRT and instead uploaded a different image and marked it as {own}. I have reason to believe, that this new image was taken by a colleague of the uploader and not by the uploader themselves. But at the moment I hope to meet the depicted person myself soon and then clear up the situation (the situation of the new upload. I have no idea about the older uploads that have been given a VRT ticket. If i get the chance to meet the depicted person and the uploader I will ask about the photographer of the other images, but i am not sure, if i will get any useful information). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Which file or ticket is that? Krd 04:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Status check on ticket:2024020110006149

Just wanted to status check on the above ticket. I asked my friend to upload the files included via VRT after a Instagram convo on Feb 1st, but apparently they haven't been uploaded yet (or at least under the file name I'm familiar with). I believe they are titled J2B-0216.jpg, J2B-0073.jpg and J2B-0023.jpg. S5A-0043Talk 07:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the question? Krd 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: I believe the question boils down to "What is the status of that ticket?". I think it is fair to assume that Agent and Customer have not yet come to an agreement.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
^ This. S5A-0043Talk 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The permission sender did not answer our question which file the permission is about. Please ask them to reply or to send the permission again. --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024022810010272 Ferron_2023.png

Hi, I am the uploader of the file Ferron_2023.png which was deleted. The copyright holder emailed the correct permission form on January 28 and I believe it was only waiting on a review. I haven't received any further notification about this file, so I was surprised to see it deleted. I'd like to figure out what I did wrong. I believe the rights holder sent the correct permission email. Was their permission email incorrect? If so, what can I do to correct it to reinstate this image. Thanks. Justinkrivers (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ask for verification after less than a day. If will be processed as soon as possible, but not earlier than possible. --Krd 06:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024030110007726

An official notification has been received from the Department of Informatization and Communications of the Krasnodar Krai about the transfer of the region’s websites to the CC BY 4.0 license dated February 26, 2024. This template {{Krasnodar.ru}}. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket from yesterday. Please do not ask earlier than three week after the permission was sent. --Krd 15:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024030510011624

Copyright holder received Confirmation of receipt mail with ticket id. I added on the photos {{Permission received|id=2024030510011624}} to help VRT agents. Is that ok thing to do? I wanted to help. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pane.Vino.Wiki: Yes, and thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gizem Bayram, turkish belly dancer, 2022.png

The above DR mentions Ticket:2024010810010301. Can an agent see if this is applicable? Thanks. —holly {chat} 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. Deleted. --Krd 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Permission of Frans Koppelaar

Does Commons:Permission of Frans Koppelaar seriously serve any purpose? ─ Aafī (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Krd 13:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly my thought. I created a DR. ─ Aafī (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foto Susanne Glass.jpg

This DR states that Ticket:2024012210011113 was received for the photo, but there's been no action for over a month on the file. Can someone please check? —holly {chat} 19:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the report @Holly Cheng. I see some correspondence in the ticket. However, it doesn't appear clear that the permissions-sender releases the file under CC BY-SA 4.0 (I just went through to&fro messages). I have sent a follow-up to seek a confirmation. I'll post an update in the DR once received. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Urgent permission to publish legitimate photos

Dear Editors!

The professional director of the Hungarian National Dance Ensemble, Mrs Zsuzsa Zs. Vincze's Wikipedia page has been updated on the occasion of her receiving Hungary's highest state award in a few days. Of course, we have also replaced her photo with a more recent one. The picture "Zs. Vincze Zsuzsa.jpg" can also be found on our website: https://mnte.hu/hu/magunkrol/vezetok/zs-vincze-zsuzsa

Another photo, "Táncrapszódia lumidance 11.jpg" - which has also been removed - was also taken by a professional photojournalist on behalf of the Hungarian National Dance Ensemble. Of course, we signed a contract and paid for it. Therefore, the Hungarian National Dance Ensemble owns the rights to these photos, and we respectfully request that the removed images be reinstated.

If you still need any information about the rights of use of the photos, please let us know as soon as possible, so that we do not have to be embarrassed to have a page without photos on the day of the prize-giving ceremony on 14 March!

Thank you very much in advance for your help. Yours sincerely

User talk:Daka495 Csilla Cseke communication manager Hungarian National Dance Ensemble H-1087 Budapest, Kerepesi road 29/b +36 30 211 3130 www.mnte.hu Daka495 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket from the same day, nothing urgent. --Krd 04:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Germany: Photos made by dead grandfather

Hey,

what kind of permission do you need when I want to upload photos made by dead grandpa? Residence is Germany. His wife and two children are still alive.

Best. Theonlytruth (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Theonlytruth: We would need permission from an heir of his copyrights, probably part of his intellectual property, probably part of the residuum of his estate if not mentioned specifically, sent via VRT. Copyrights in analog photos are generally inherited with negatives.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Files with VRT pending notices

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)

If you think VRT permission is required please nominate them for deletion. Krd 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Corina Yoris.jpg

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)

Hi @NoonIcarus, no. This was uploaded as own work, and was deleted for being a copyright violation as it appeared elsewhere such as here. The file was uploaded by User:Diegovzla112 and not by whom you mention. We would need a permissions release from the original photographer/copyrights owner that releases the file under a compatible license such as CC BY-SA. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
However, I want to make a note: Periodismodepaz also appears to have uploaded some photos of the same subject. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi: Ah, my mistake. I meant the file File:Corina Yoris-Villasana.jpg. I don't remember the license used, but it was stated in the description that the uploader had asked for permission to the author, although not through the VRT process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: It was claimed that the image was sent directly by the photographers but no proof of the licensing was provided. The image appears here. For its undeletion, we would require a permission from the photographer/copyrights holder. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi: Correct. Would it be enough for the uploader to provide said proof permissions-commonswikimedia.org for the undeletion?--NoonIcarus (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if we receive an adequate permission from photographer/copyrights holder on permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, the file will be undeleted. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2023120810006959

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)

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

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

Cause there's no reason to do so, as easily can be seen in the article. --Subbass1 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Then COM:UNDEL please. Krd 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Unclear if VRT request was processed for File:Lumbosacral Plexus MR Tractography.png

On March 8th I had the copyright owner of File:Lumbosacral Plexus MR Tractography.png send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to release the copyright using the release template generator tool. However the file was never undeleted and now I am wondering if this request was processed at all. I do not know the ticket number or agent. Can you confirm if this request was processed? Snake playing a saxaphone (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please assume that it was processed. Please encourage the permission sender to reply to followup questions or to send the permission again. Krd 07:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ticket:2024031610006388

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)

Apparently solved successfully. --Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
@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)
[2] for the Casinò of Campione, [3] for the monument to General Pasi (but on this monument it exists also [4] which has more restrictive provisions, see the DR for the details). Friniate (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
Ruthven, couldn’t the PDF documents copied into an internal resource which would be linked from the ticket? This is my original idea. If not we can close here and linking to the external source is then second best choice. — Speravir – 00:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Speravir Another solution would have been to pass them through VRTS. But it's also true that it would have required a supplementary workforce.
Having an external DB for the permissions is fine, given that 1) it is kept online 2) the PDF files are linked to the relative monuments (in the files or categories, it doesn't matter). But, as it is an external database, it's WMI responsibility to provide requirements 1 and 2 above (and any other requirement that would come from the Commons' community). @Dario Crespi (WMIT): who organized the competition recently. Ruthven (msg) 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Ruthven, if you think this had to be discussed elsewhere, feel free to close my request here. There just should be a solution. — Speravir – 00:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This is not an issue specific to VRTS, and it has been discussed elsewhere. I just invite the organizers of WLM to open a discussion at the Village Pump, in order to decide which modifications to the competition and the files uploading process will comply with the community requirements. (I already stated my opinion, and possible solutions, many times). Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 08:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 08:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Foto André Rochais

[Ticket#: 2024032910003642

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Andr%C3%A9_Rochais.jpg

Se ha enviado una autorización para utilizar esta imagen. Han enviado un mensaje diciendo que se tiene que ls persona que ha hecho la foto ha utilizar un modelo. Dónde está ese modelo?

Qué se puede hacer para que se publique la foto? Muchas gracias por su ayuda. Aho1000 (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

[5] --Ganímedes (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Double check the ticket related to File:CST Logo Seal.png

You may want to double check the ticket related to File:CST Logo Seal.png. The image is the logo or seal of Claremont School of Theology. It would be highly unusual for any organization, including a college, to release its logo or seal under a CC license, allowing others to freely remix a core part of their corporate branding. The ticket is https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024040810009415. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket #2008112410016439

Can you check this ticket please? It's about this image. My concerns:

  • "Stern-Wywiol Gruppe" is a company and, as such, cannot be the copyright holder by German law. Only a natural person can.
  • According to the metadata, the photographer is a person by the name of Henning Angerer. He would be the copyright holder.
  • Mr Angerer apparently works for a photo agency by the name of hochzwei, not for the Stern-Wywiol Gruppe. Which means the Stern-Wywiol Gruppe can only have bought the usage rights, certainly not the right to relicense beyond their usage rights.

So, the question would be: Who was the VRT correspondent? Was it really Mr Angerer who would be the only one entitled to decide on the license? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 15:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a 16 year old ticket (November 2008) and I don't really worry about such old stuff. What I am able to see is that the permissions were given by Stern-Wywiol Gruppe. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Øivind Wilhelmsen.jpg has permission but no licence

The file File:Øivind Wilhelmsen.jpg has a {{PermissionTicket}} but when it was added there was no licence template on the file, so it's not entirely clear what licence it was actually released under. I expect it's the CC BY-SA 4.0 that's on older versions of the file, but I think it would be best if a VRT member confirmed that with ticket:2023051010003283 and added it somewhat officially. --bjh21 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bjh21 Thanks for reporting. You're right about it being under CC BY-SA 4.0. I have updated it. ─ Aafī (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Image: copyright holder has approved publication

Hello Wikipedians,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Valtra_N113_HT5_Forest.jpg

This image has the following text underneath:

The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2015102610015282.

I would like to upload some good images to Wikipedia. Some I took myself and hold copyright that I can release. For other pictures, however, I would need to get the copyright holder to send the confirmation.

When copyright holder approves the publication:

1. Where do I or copyright holder sends that email?

2. Where do I send or upload the image? Benevolent Bureocrat (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


Clarification:
Basically, if I'd like to upload an image in the same way as the example I provided – how do I do that? :) Benevolent Bureocrat (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Benevolent Bureocrat: Please take a look at COM:VRT which has readily available guidance for you. Don't forget seeing the section: COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Checking

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
@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)
@TheAafi any progress on that? -- Anntinomy (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2019042410005211

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)

Lepticed7, I can't read this language but the following pages appear to be linked in the ticket: [6], [7], [8]. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. 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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024021410004402

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)

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

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)

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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2016101010012581

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)

 Comment: Ticket in Italian. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@ZandDev Weird: the permission is aboutfiles coming from Associazione d'Irrigazione Ovest Sesia, namely:
--Ruthven (msg) 08:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Marcocatalani: File:Stemma cdFalconara.jpg is not authorized with this ticket. / Il file File:Stemma cdFalconara.jpg non è stato autorizzato con quel ticket. -- ZandDev (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2011112710000489

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)

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)
Oh, sorry, yes. Here it is. --2003:C0:8F4D:6800:89A:EAC7:978F:195D 21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
Permission is fine. Notability or not it's a different business. VRT only verified that copyrights are respected, nothing else. May you can open a deletion request. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Notability is a different business, that's certainly true. I don't really care if pictures of non-notable people are left lying around here, so I won't bother with a deletion request.
However, I do care about copyright, and I would like to understand the copyright thing. How can copyright be respected when the copyright holder is not even named as "author"? Whose permission did VRT receive, Felix Loewy's or Max Leitner's?
Or is it maybe just from some person from his agency who is most certainly NOT the copyright holder and not eligible to relicense? --2003:C0:8F17:ED00:7144:31FC:83D9:316 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Permission is fine, notability is of of scope of this page. --Krd 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you Please help me? Foto PiotrKrzyżowski.jpg

I need a help with this file: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foto_PiotrKrzy%C5%BCowski.jpg#mw-jump-to-license An e-mail from the photographer with permission to use has been sent, but I don't know what to do now to prevent the photos from being deleted. 31.0.25.254 07:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have the ticket number? --Ganímedes (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course:
https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024032810012438
TicketNumber=2024032810012438 78.30.98.32 20:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The ticket it's in Permissions-Pl. We're waiting permission from the photographer (copyright holder) like this. --Ganímedes (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2023042410007246

So the image subject is Jan R. Krause, and the author and copyright holder is Jan R. Krause. Seriously? Does the VRT correspondence really claim that this is a selfie? --2003:C0:8F17:ED00:7144:31FC:83D9:316 11:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Permission in German. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I could have taken a photo like that of myself. For example, I took File:Joe Mabel self portrait 2020-01-12.jpg. If that is the claim, I would not find it implausible. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Reinhard Kraasch, I'd really apprecite your help with this ticket since you have processed this. I have left a note for you in the ticket. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
His company has assured that they are the owners of the full rights of use. Copyright cannot be assigned under German law, so this is sufficient as permission. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean, "Copyright cannot be assigned under German law"? Copyright, or Urheberrecht, rather, under German law always remains with the photographer. A company may have a usage license, but only a natural person can have the Urheberrecht.
In other words:
  • The claim that this image is "Own work" by Jan R. Krause is extremely improbable.
  • It is extremely improbable that the photographer gave the image to the company under a Creative Commons license.
  • A company is certainly not entitled to relicense an image with a license that permits more than the one they bought.
--2003:C0:8F4F:7F00:DC27:B776:101C:8364 10:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I have again checked the issue, it seems indeed that the permission declaration is somehow incomplete. I will ask the issuer again. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 11:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024030510011624

Full month ago i added on the photos i uploaded {{Permission received|id=2024030510011624}} to help VRT agents. Now the pictures are deleted! Please, please, can someone check the ticket and restore my photos? We have proper permission, pictures should not be deleted!! --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please ask the permissino sender to reply to questions. --Krd 05:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd, he said he has just responded. Is there anything else needed? --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 05:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024032510008305

I would like to check in on the progress of ticket:2024032510008305, concerning File:Fredy Clue and Ida Björs Designing Bäckadräkten 2022.jpg, File:Fredy Clue at Skeppet GBG 2022 Sep 4.jpg, File:Fredy Clue Lecturing 2022 Sep 4.jpg, and File:Fredy Clue Bäckadräkten.jpg. I understand the copyright holder for all four photos to be Fredy Clue / Fredy Samuel Lundh, who is pictured in each one. My understanding is that Fredy became copyright holder for each one through verbal agreement with the photographers. When I got these photos from Fredy and uploaded them to Wikimedia, Fredy told me that they sent an email to VRTS to release the copyright for all four photos. There was a little bit of back-and-forth via email circa March 25–26, I believe, for clarification. The bot of @Krd: added permission tags to all four photos at that time. I believe Fredy sent their most recent email on April 2, but I don't think they've heard back yet and I see this ticket isn't yet resolved. I appreciate any update that can be provided. Thanks! Dugan Murphy (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Without seeing the ticket itself, I can tell you we don't accept "verbal agreement". Nor has the photographer transferred full copyrights by contract or law, nor do we need permission directly from the photographer or his heirs. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Thank you for the clarification! If we don't accept verbal agreements and don't need permission directly from the photographer, is the only way to keep them up to show written agreement from the photographer to Fredy Clue? Why wouldn't the photographer be able to release copyright by emailing VRTS directly? Thank you in advance for the further clarification. I can't find this information in the policies. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
We need permission directly from the photographer. The photographers were aware of this, but they sent permissions "to use" only, without any specific license. I'm talking with them now. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Great. Thank you for helping resolve this ticket! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:EduardMarmet

Input from VRT folk at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EduardMarmet would be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pigsonthewing, as noted elsewhere and in the DR, I am spending my considerable time on this thing. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Liliya Podkopayeva ticket # 2024042210009273

Hello, I am writing to request the restoration of the file "Liliya_Podkopayeva.jpg", which was recently deleted from Wikimedia Commons. I have since sent a permissions statement via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, providing authorization for the use of this file from the copyright holder. Despite its removal, I am keen to ensure that the file is reinstated and made available for public access in accordance with the provided permissions. I kindly request the assistance of the Wikimedia Commons community in reviewing my request and restoring the file "Liliya_Podkopayeva.jpg" to its previous state. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to a positive resolution. Naruighich (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Once the permissions are verified, the file would be un-deleted by a VRT agent or at the request of a VRT agent. This is not a place to seek undeletions. ─ Aafī (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ─ Aafī (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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?

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@CeltBrowne: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Ticket:2024030510010063

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)

@Krd. FYI. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Kimmel meets Hallo Hessen.jpg, ticket:2016041910009151

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)

 Comment Permission is in German. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
I think the ticket is invalid, so I have reopened it. --Krd 07:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2015082610020217

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)

It is in the ticket, but I think the whole ticket is invalid. Additional opinions? --Krd 04:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Ticket now reopened. --Krd 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ticket Number 2024040510007119 (5 April)

Hello, may I inquire into progress with the following ticket, which covers permissions for five images uploaded over two weeks ago: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2024040510007119

I understand there is a 12-day wait at present, which is now exceeded, and wouldn't wish the ticket to go unanswered after 30 days and see the images deleted. Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Who says the ticket unanswered? Krd 12:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, as I am not the publisher and owner of those images and did not supply the relevant permission, I was unaware that the email had been replied to.
All I can see from each of the file's history is that permission is still "pending" - and the "The email is in a queue awaiting processing" message is still there, which I assume means that none has been approved for use on Commons.
Am I correct? If so, what is the problem? Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The problem is the usual one: The permission sender did not reply to our followup questions. Please encourage them to do. Krd 16:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you: I've just done so Billsmith60 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Correspondence with Duane Marsteller

Hi! I have been in touch with Duane Marsteller regarding File:Boulder dedicated to Jonathan Baldwin Turner's speech at the 1851 Granville Convention.jpg. To make a very long story short, due to confusion (and a large part of it my fault) he emailed earlier today about the photo. However, it was already confirmed on the website as released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Please do not respond to the email; he has made it abundantly clear that he would rather not be contacted further. I don't know if it is possible to archive without replying, but if it is, would it be possible to do that? HouseBlaster (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Photo of Jean Dubé

Can you please look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo jean.jpg? The image was uploaded by Jean Dubé, the person depicted in the image, using account Piano6. Apparently the anonymous person that took the photo in 2007 gifted the image/copyright to Dubé (in 2008?), who then uploaded it in 2017 with CC BY-SA 4.0, and is also showing the image on their website at jeandubepiano.org/photos. Betterkeks (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is this a case for this board? Has permission been sent by e-mail? --Krd 05:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Krd: It is explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo jean.jpg. I added this here because (1) the person that uploaded the image in 2017 didn’t take it but says it was given to him (in 2008?), (2) the image is also shown on the uploader’s website without the license under which it was uploaded here and without complying with that license, (3) until recently the image was credited erroneously to a different photographer on that website, and (4) no permission has been emailed as far as I know. Now that you’re looking at it I can walk away, thanks. Betterkeks (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
As no permission has been sent, there is nothing we can do. --Krd 15:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024041710009701 on File:Petra Hoffmann Zschocher.jpg

Could a German-speaker please confirm whether the ticket (referenced in the file description) covers the file (and add the appropriate template, if it does)? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it doesn't. Krd 15:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024&oldid=874703338"