Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. |
This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.
Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
|
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
- Commons:Email templates
- {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
Hi,
FYI, Despite the VRT permission, I re-proposed File:La Fouine in a gym with boxing gloves and four other people.jpg to deletion (as it's quite clearly a fake AI file). There is other files with the same permission id, they may need to be double-checked (and other files without this permission by this user or its sock-puppets as well).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Over-bureaucracy and escalation request for ticket:2026052910009077
[edit]{{subst:Required}}
- **File(s):** All 3 files currently tracked under ticket:2026052910009077 (Portraits of the subject in Dubai, Iraq, and Vienna)
- **Ticket:** 2026052910009077
- **Description:** We are requesting an urgent secondary review by an independent senior VRT agent for all three uploaded portraits of the Professor. The subject of the photos, Prof. W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, sent a direct verification email from his official Hotmail address explicitly confirming his copyright ownership. He stated that the photographs were taken using his own camera equipment, under his direct guidance, and for his personal use, satisfying COM:Licensing criteria for original ownership.
Despite this legally binding verification, agent Alfred Neumann is practicing extreme over-bureaucracy. He ignored our formal email request for a ticket escalation and continues to textually harass the Professor by demanding the specific identity of whoever physically pushed the camera shutter button. The Professor's academic time is valuable and his ownership authority is already established on record. We kindly request another senior VRT agent to review ticket:2026052910009077 and finalize the verification for all three affected files to override this obstruction. Thank you. Wolne Wybory (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- 1. Don't use AI to write comments for you
2. There are no such thing as "senior VRT agent"
3. It is not harassing if VRT members asks for further information related to the permission. As far as I can see, you have listed the author (the person who took the photo) in the photos as the professor himself, but this is not possible, because the professor himself is depicted in those photos. The names of the photographers and their permissions (unless the copyright has been legally transferred to the professor) must be provided for permission to be accepted. Nemoralis (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for your feedback, Nemoralis. Regarding your points, we would like to clarify the copyright framework applicable here:
- Under well-established copyright principles, the legal author and rights holder of a photograph is the person who conceives the creative execution, sets up the camera equipment, controls the lighting/composition, and directs the scene COM:Licensing. Prof. Korab-Karpowicz has explicitly confirmed that these photographs were taken using his personal camera equipment and under his direct guidance, supervision, and instruction for his own personal and publicity use. The person physically pressing the shutter button acted merely as a technical assistant executing the Professor's explicit creative direction. Therefore, the copyright originates with the Professor COM:Licensing.
- The Professor has already sent a direct, official confirmation from his personal email address to verify this ownership and authorize the free license release.
- We kindly ask that an independent VRT administrator or reviewer who understands the distinction between physical shutter operation and creative authorship/ownership review the correspondence under ticket:2026052910009077 to finalize the verification COM:VRT. Thank you. Wolne Wybory (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Does "we" here refer to some organization? If so, what organization? If not, could you explain the use of plural here? - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wolne Wybory is association (Stowarzyszenie). wolnewybory.org ~2026-32729-09 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, Nemoralis. Regarding your points, we would like to clarify the copyright framework applicable here:
Understanding the work you do
[edit]I noticed this picture - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nayanthara_in_2023.jpg. This picture even though from 2023 is not used as the lead picture for the actress and a very old picture is used instead. I think there are newer more relevant pictures here - https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/parties-and-events/photos-nayanthara-9-skin-x-tira-beauty-launch/photos-nayanthara-for-9-skin-x-tira-beauty-launch-5/ which meets all the criteria outlined for Bollywood Hungama pictures (the criteria are outlined in the Wikimedia page of the already uploaded picture). I would like to understand if to upload a newer picture from Bollywood Hungama, do we have to get a permission email from them (looks like a permission email was received and reviewed for the first picture). Or do I just have to upload the picture and the Volunteer Response team will be the one verifying if this can be allowed by emailing them. Thanks Jupitus Smart (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Jupitus Smart: As the uploader, you are responsible to initiate the process of getting a license from the copyright-holder. Usually, you should not upload until you have a reasonable assurance that license is forthcoming. It sounds like you haven't read COM:VRT. There is a Commons:Permission requests if you feel out of your depth making the request, but from what I can tell it is not very active. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Adding ticket:2014030810001523 to Texas Historical Markers
[edit]ticket:2014030810001523 is reportedly permission from the Texas Historical Commission to use their Texas Historical Markers on Commons. I would like to add the permission to the marker images so the images will not be nominated for deletion. Is it OK to do that? Thanks Nv8200pa (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here is a rough search query to find relevant files.
- At a quick glance, the permission looks weaker than we hope. It looks like the organization's representative who wrote relevant emails did not believe those texts were copyrighted, and saw no need for a release statement. They gave assurance that they encourage people to share such photos of historical markers of theirs, but not in the form of a license statement that Commons usually expects (unless I missed something). Some content on those markers might be short enough to be non-copyrightable, others might not be. I'm not saying all those marker pictures should immediately be deleted, but a new request to them for a release seems adequate. It's been more than a decade so it might be better to start from scratch than trying to revive the previous conversation. Disclosure: I was involved in the ticket a decade ago, but to be honest I don't remember to what extent I did research exactly. It would be great if someone else can review this case, too. whym (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
ORTS verify
[edit]I want to know what OTRS ticket 879202 really meant for Chandra X-ray Observatory as the info is outdated and as of 2026 Images from Chandra X-ray Observatory (Category:Images by the Chandra X-ray Observatory) is considered as public domain like other NASA telescope Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- What is the intention behind the question, what exactly does a positive or negative answer change? Krd 07:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd bro, my intention of the question is to verify the statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. indicates NASA ownership of the telescope, we add CXC to indicate Chandra, then the PI's institution and the PI and/team for intellectual credit. If there is only one iteration of these three categories, and NASA is the name indicating ownership of the telescope, then the image or material is public domain. The other places simply give credit for the science discovery. If the first set of three is followed by a comma, and another credit in which the owner of the telescope is not named as NASA, then you have to get permission from the other organization to use that other layer or layers of the image." that can be seen in the category above Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- From what I understand from the conversation in the ticket, the mentioned statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. ..." applies to the specific image with the source: https://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/sn2006gy_xray.jpg It's also said that this applies to the files: File:Sn2006gy_CHANDRA_x-ray.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_light_curve.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_collapse_ill.jpg, File:SN_2006gy,_NASA_illustration.jpg. There is no indication, and I see no reason to assume, that is also applies to other files. If may be good to have this double checked by another VRT user as the ticket isn't straight forward and there may be something I overlook. Krd 04:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for verifying the details. I think the ORTS is used on the Chandra X-ray observatory category as an example. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- From what I understand from the conversation in the ticket, the mentioned statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. ..." applies to the specific image with the source: https://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/sn2006gy_xray.jpg It's also said that this applies to the files: File:Sn2006gy_CHANDRA_x-ray.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_light_curve.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_collapse_ill.jpg, File:SN_2006gy,_NASA_illustration.jpg. There is no indication, and I see no reason to assume, that is also applies to other files. If may be good to have this double checked by another VRT user as the ticket isn't straight forward and there may be something I overlook. Krd 04:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd bro, my intention of the question is to verify the statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. indicates NASA ownership of the telescope, we add CXC to indicate Chandra, then the PI's institution and the PI and/team for intellectual credit. If there is only one iteration of these three categories, and NASA is the name indicating ownership of the telescope, then the image or material is public domain. The other places simply give credit for the science discovery. If the first set of three is followed by a comma, and another credit in which the owner of the telescope is not named as NASA, then you have to get permission from the other organization to use that other layer or layers of the image." that can be seen in the category above Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Irudiak berreskuratzeko eskaera: Latzen, Aitor Uriarte, Sen eta Une
[edit]Kaixo. Lizentzia arazoak zirela eta, berriki ezabatu diren Latzen, Sen eta Une musika taldeen eta Aitor Uriarte musikariaren hainbat argazki leheneratzeko eskatzen dugu.
Argazki hauek berreskuratu nahi ditugu euskal Wikipediako artikuluak hornitzeko. Argazkilari originalek eta taldeak berak (info@latzen.eus helbidetik) eman beharreko baimen eta lizentzia irekien adierazpen ofizialak bidali dituzte dagoeneko permissions-commons@wikimedia.org helbidera.
Mesedez, VRTko administratzaile baten laguntza behar dugu mezu horiek egiaztatu, baimenak lotu eta fitxategiak berrezartzeko. Eskerrik asko aldez aurretik zuen laguntzagatik!
Latzen taldea (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- File:Hellmuga_conv.jpg, File:Latzen_1993-1999.jpg, File:Latzen_lokalian.jpg, File:Latzen@HatortxuRock2025_96.jpg, File:LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-VINILO-000.jpg, File:AitorKantatzen.jpg, File:AitorKantatzen2.jpg, File:AitorLatzen1.jpg, File:Atabal_2026.jpg, File:Latzen_Hellumuga.jpg, File:Une_Ondarroan.jpg, File:Latzen_totem2-10.jpg, File:UnePlateruena.jpg, File:Bihozkadak.jpg, File:SenTaldeaGaizkiEsanak.jpg argazkiak Latzen taldea (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- File:LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-VINILO-000.jpg and File:Latzen Hellumuga.jpg do not appear ever to have existed, those may be typos. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Latzen taldea: when were permissions sent? The VRT queue is usually backed up several weeks, probably more if they specifically need someone who can read Euskadi. (I'm an admin, but not a VRT member.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- The first, from the photographer Iñigo Malvido (malvido@gmail.com) at 3th of June. The rest into the next days ;-) ~2026-36619-10 (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe it's "Latzen Hellumga.jpg" and "LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-MOCKUP-vinilo_00.jpg" ;-) ~2026-36619-10 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- File:Latzen Hellumga.jpg (yes, this is a deleted file), File:LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-MOCKUP-vinilo_00.jpg (@Latzen taldea: no, still not a file name we ever had; looking in your deleted contributions I see a File:LATZEN-DENBORARERN-ORBAINAK-VINILO-000.jpg: 'DENBORARERN' vs. your earlier 'DENBORAREN'. I presume that is the one).
- (I am presuming ~2026-36619-10 is Latzen taldea, just not logged in.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it ;-) ~2026-36619-10 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Pillsbury Doughboy
[edit]Can someone look at the ticket in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pillsbury doughboy.jpg? Thanks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- The conversation is in Hebrew. Nemoralis (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @מקף, Geagea, Hanay- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Answered in the DR. --Krd 11:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC) 
File:F. Murray Abraham.png shows permission having been given via ticket #2010022810019781, but it lacks a license tag and is currently marked for deletion on that basis. Does the ticket specify the license, and if so what is the license? - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- That file was only uploaded today, so you're best asking User:Allan warren if he just forgot to add the licence. It isn't covered by a ticket from 16 years ago. Nthep (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- Remember, I have no way of knowing that the ticket is old.
- Am I right then that the file page is wrong to reference that ticket, and that the ticket template should be removed from the file page? - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- (Do I gather correctly that Michael Bednarek, who added the permission ticket to the file page, is not a member of the VRT?) - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket is invalid for the file, though likely the uploader is the photographer, so give them the usual time to add the license. Krd 05:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 05:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Good morning, I was wondering what the status was on this ticket. Schindler reached out to the photographer who took the photo, and the photographer responded to the email chain on July 1 confirming that they were the copyright holder of the image and that Wikimedia Commons had permission to use the image "in accordance with the licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons". Y2hyaXM (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- The tickets ends at 21 June. If there was anything more later, please provide the ticket number or please send it again. Krd 17:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd It appears a second ticket was created for this image. Could you please review ticket:2026062910010134 as well? If you don't have the latest email for this ticket, I can forward it. Y2hyaXM (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- There are statements of three different senders in this ticket, but none if it is a complete statement. The last statement was "I will send you something" which never happened, or was a misunderstanding. Please encourage the copyright holder to take any action again. Krd 07:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd It appears a second ticket was created for this image. Could you please review ticket:2026062910010134 as well? If you don't have the latest email for this ticket, I can forward it. Y2hyaXM (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)