Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2025

Ticket:2024121410006623

Could any of you have a look at the ticket. Ratekreel (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for confirmation

Please can you confirm whether File:Bernard Boucheix dit Baron de Reyvialles 22 avril 2023 Studio HARCOURT.jpg and File:Bernard Boucheix dit Baron de Reyvialles 22 avril 2023 Studio HARCOURT.jpg are adequately licensed under Ticket:2020112910005534? Pending deletion request. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say No. Krd 09:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ticket possibly containing valueable information about long-term abuse

Ticket in question is ticket:2024121310004403, which is used on File:Darnytsia.jpg. I strongly suspect the uploader, Zaav Haadad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), to be from the banned undisclosed-paid-editing company Wikibusines [sic], also known as Bodiadub. For evidence, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub#03_January_2025, or wait until the editor is blocked.

The ticket may contain valuable information, which could help finding further Bodiadub sockpuppets. I would therefore like to ask you to send such information privately to enwiki functionaries. Thanks.

– Janhrach (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Ticket in permissions-uk queue. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment 2 Even I don't understand the language, I've seen that the ticket includes only that file, and the permission comes from an darnytsia.ua email. I don't see any other thing related to Wikibusines, Bodiadub, Zaav Haadad or similar, but I can be wrong. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. This is interesting... Janhrach (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal affecting VRT work

Please have a look at the proposal Require VRT permission from nude models. To keep the discussion centralized please discuss this there. GPSLeo (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024051610003798: wrongly removed image

As explicitly stated in [1], Alt-right_anime_style.png was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by its creator under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. It was deleted wrongly. Kaotao (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please encourage the permission sender to reply to our followup questions. --Krd 08:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Melissa Ingaruca Moreno

According to this discussion, Melissa Ingaruca Moreno (User:Melissa Ingaruca) has contacted the VRT to confirm her identity; could a VRT member confirm this? Gestumblindi (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's plausible that the request comes from them. Krd 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's plausible, too. And the VRT team did receive the message from Melissa Ingaruca confirming her identity? I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but it would probably help to put to rest remaining doubts. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The VRT has received something which is not a waterproof confirmation of identity, but as the VRT are not notaries, this isn't even possible. What has been received is plausible enough for a keep decision. Krd 12:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think we'll need a "waterproof confirmation of identity". I'll relay your comment to the DR discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

PS: It's not about a "keep decision" in this case, because Melissa Ingaruca wants her images deleted, and the confirmation of identity is to make sure that the request comes really from her, so the opposite. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, my confusion. But in any case it can be taken as granted that the request is authentic. Krd 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 09:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Tharapperhaiti.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, james prospere, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tharapperhaiti.jpg

File:Tharapper.jpg I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Chvgyyy (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

This editor (Chvgyyy) has made a statement on my talk page - User talk:Timtrent#Tharapper.jpg that:

I sent an email over three months ago and, while I understand that responses can take time, I have not received any reply yet. I appreciate the work done by volunteers and I fully recognize their efforts. However, I believe that some consideration could have been given before everything was deleted. It would have been helpful to have been informed or given more time before this action was taken.

It may be that they sent to an incorrect destination, or that the ticket system somehow did not acknowledge their email. I am not privy to the way this works. I have suggested that they resubmit. Perhaps a VRT member night offer them any additional guidance they need, please? 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks A LOT and That's the ticket number ticket:2025012710009517. Chvgyyy (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chvgyyy If that is a recent ticket, please just wait. They will reply. If it is three months old then something has gone wrong, and no-one will object to your asking for a followup. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s a recent ticket number Chvgyyy (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chvgyyy Nothing more required. They will discuss things with you privately. I think this thread may be closed. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 00:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Commemorative Plaques

A deletion notice has been placed on File:June Hancock Leeds Civic Trust plaque.jpg, on the assumption that text is copyright. If so, it would apply to over 200 plaques put up by Leeds Civic Trust, and many other organisations putting up plaques on historic buildings or for a notable person. I emailed the trust and their Communication Officer replied: "We really appreciate all the pictures of our plaques on Wikimedia Commons and indeed make use of them (with the appropriate credit!) for social media posts and the like where we lack our own images. The plaques are owned by us, but they exist to promote public education on Leeds’ history and heritage. The text is not copyrighted, and we would be devastated if your fantastic collection of images were removed. There is absolutely no reason from us for you to remove the images. There is no copyright issue here – they are photographs of an artefact in a public place."

Is there some appropriate policy already? The average contributor such as myself is not aware of the vast amount of rules and case law which apply. I think plaques are a special case. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the question the the VRT? --Krd 15:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chemical Engineer: there really isn't a question for VRT here, but I'm picking this up as an admin. There is a copyright here whether they want it or not; if their intent is to allow these to be used freely, they should either indicate a specific licence on their own website or they should contact VRT (per the usual means laid out at COM:VRT) to indicate that they are granting a licence. I would recommend that, depending on whether they are interested in being credited on all uses or not, they use either {{Cc-zero}} (if there is no need to credit them) or {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} (if they wish to be credited). - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They have sent an email to permissions-commons, so I hope this can be sorted out directly. Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Years ago, I processed similar files including File:Texas Historical Marker trail route.jpg, File:Adobe Walls Texas Historical Marker.jpg and many more. The representative of the Texas government made an explicit release for those markers (specifically the textual content). whym (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2011070410000468

Hello, I respectfully request to see the contents of the permission email referenced in this ticket, so as to verify the actual copyright holder. 2600:1003:B106:639C:0:53:1726:5701 17:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Ticket content is not public, that's the whole point of the system. Yann (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia has stated that, "This work has been released into the public domain by its copyright holder, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum." I have been in communication with the JFK Library and they dispute being the copyright holder. Wikimedia should disclose why they believe they have permission to use the image and from whom. 2600:1003:B106:639C:0:53:1726:5701 21:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The Library can email info-commonswikimedia.org quoting the ticket number and one of the volunteers will deal with their enquiry. Nthep (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2013050510006004

Hello, I'd like to view the ticket containing the permission to use this file. I am the photographer and I do not recall allowing my image to be used. Thank you. 2600:6C65:797F:C85B:D9D6:995F:69F9:2FDD 23:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Contact: info-commons@wikimedia.org --Krd 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024092410007726

Hello,

In September 2024, according to the licensing instructions, permission was sent from the author for the publication of the file [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9A%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%92.%D0%93.1975.jpg], and on 10 December a letter was received from Wikipedia from Wikimedia Permissions on behalf of Anastasia Lvova with a clarification question and confirmation of receipt of the original letter. Would like to know if a ticket has been issued and when will the file be restored?

Thank you.

Varvaratarapova (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

A VRT volunteer asked about the authorship of the photo, but was not answered. Nemoralis (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It was answered within the ticked. If someone claims that a picture is a selfie, we usually can't do anything to disprove it. Only in exceptional cases can we prove that it cannot be the person themself who took the photo. Mussklprozz (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2011031510004978

This is a selfie? The uploader, the author, the copyright holder, and the image subject all being one person? Seriously? --2003:C0:8F41:5F00:847D:3EF2:D9F:400C 19:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The question was dealt with within the ticket. If someone claims that a picture is a selfie, we usually can't do anything to disprove it. Only in exceptional cases can we prove that it cannot be the person themself who took the photo.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024082610006823 (german)

Could please someone look into this? Krd refuses to undelete, although the permission is clear (just a bit crypted by a antispam software). Thanks. --Subbass1 (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, he refuses to read the history in one(!) email ("no time", as he quite often tells) - instead he asks incorrect questions. --Subbass1 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Subbass1: Some support agents know you very well, and some don't. When one of us sees as message, they don't necessarily know the whole history of that specific client. Before this escalates further, allow me some time to look into the ticket. I can probably have a look tomorrow. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my first description was perfectly clear, and of course I expect that a VRT member can and is willing to read in the ticket history - if he don't understand. I fail to understand such a behaviour and I for myself have no time for such pingpong (which here can take (and did) a few months/half a year...) --Subbass1 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Subbass1 Sorry, nope. Please revise your own email history within that ticket. On August On August 26 we received an email from an organ builder with a permission for two images; the links to the files were crippled. Later on that day you specified that the images in question were

• File:Ravensburg, St. Jodok, Orgel (1).jpg
• File:Würzburg, Hochschule für Musik, Rieger-Orgel.jpg

That was accepted, and the permission was readily noted within the file descripions, as you can see there.

Now, on January 29 you sent a complaint about two completely different images which had been deleted, viz

• File:Regensburg, Gymnasium der Domspatzen, Rieger-Orgel (1).jpg
• File:Regensburg, Gymnasium der Domspatzen, Rieger-Orgel (1) (cropped).jpg

When my colleague asked you about the permission for those two files, you referred to the history of the email and and claimed that the release for the latter files was clear from the correspondence. I'm sorry, that's not the case, and it's up to you to resolve the contradiction. –No offense, best regards, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Auf deutsch: nein, als meine Anfrage von Januar nahm ich eine gespeicherte Mail, in der unten als Zitat die Genehmigung der Domspatzendateien einwandfrei ersichtlich ist (08/26/2024 09:10) Die sind also in der Ticketkommunikation enthalten, was ihr wie seht, ist mir egal. Nur danach bin ich auf die Schnelle durcheinadergekommen. Meine erste Mail war völlig korrekt und ausreichend. --Subbass1 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Wir hatten am 2024-08-26 diesem Tag genau zwei Posteingänge zu der genannten Ticketnummer: Um 11:10 CEST die E-Mail des Orgelbauers und um 17:43 CEST die Mail von Dir, in der Du präzisiertest, dass es sich um die o.g. Orgeln in Ravensburg und Würzburg handle. Weitere E-Mails von Dir liegen uns an dem genannten Datum nicht vor, insbesondere keine zur Regensburger Domspatzenorgel. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Nein, in meiner Mail von Januar war als Zitat die Genehmigung zu dem Domspatzendateien enthalten, die also auch unter dieser Ticketnummer bahandelt wurden, das ist eben diese Mail vom Orgelbauer (9 oder 11 hat wohl was mit Zeitzonen zu tun). Einfach den Linktext (verstümmelt durch Antispamsoftware) lesen. --Subbass1 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Dann stimmt die Spezifikation nicht, die Du dann am Nachmittag meinem Kollegen geschickt hast. Wenn man die beiden verkrüppelten Links gelten lässt, dann decken sie die Würzburger und die Regensburger Orgel ab, aber nicht die Ravensburger. Ich kann die Wiederherstellung der Bilder von der Regensburger Orgel beantragen, muss dann aber die Freigabe für die Ravensburger Orgel zurückziehen. Hast Du für Letztere eine Freigabe vorliegen, oder kannst Du eine besorgen? Mussklprozz (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Ich könnte vielleicht, aber will einfach nicht mehr. Macht das selbst (die Email-Adrease habt ihr ja) oder lasst es und löscht was ihr wollt. Um mit krd zu reden: keine Zeit. EOD Subbass1 (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Frederik de Klerk with Nelson Mandela - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 1992.jpg / ticket:2008032810015671

There's a higher resolution by the WEF on their Flickrstream, https://www.flickr.com/photos/15237218@N00/963931930, but it's (now) licensed under CC BY SA NC. Is it OK to overwrite ours with the higher-resolution version? JayCubby (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it isn't. --Krd 18:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this hold true as a general rule--if there is a higher-resolution version of an image with a VRT perm, do we leave the lo-res but ticketed one? JayCubby (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Perhaps it isn't even true in this case. At best please ask WEF if this photo can be release in high resolution. --Krd 19:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Golden pager gift from Netanyahu to Trump

I uploaded the image en:File:Golden pager gift from Netanyahu to Trump.jpg to the English Wikipedia under fair use. However, I think that since the image was released by the Israeli Government Press Office see credit at the article by CNN there may be a different way to upload the image. What would be the process to about doing that? --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see how that would make the object itself any less copyrighted, plus I would not imagine that the Israeli Government Press Office issued a free license here, they just gave permission to CNN. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Please obtain permission from the copyright holder of the photo and from the copyright holder of the depicted object. --Krd 11:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Ticket:2010042410018615

Does this ticket cover any other photos of the Harry Potter film shoot that Dee Jarvis posted on Flickr (plus higher-resolution versions of photos we currently host here)? If it does not cover these, could we contact Jarvis again to request relicensing these Flickr uploads, preferably under the same license (CC BY-SA)? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Regarding contacting Jarvis, I don't think we should ask something in 15 years old ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to contact the photographer on Flickr to request relicensing his photos there. For clarification, which photos does this ticket cover specifically? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

https://w.wiki/D3xh Nemoralis (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have seen those earlier. Were those the only photos on the website, or were they the only photos that he chose to relicense? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission letter only contains these photos. Nemoralis (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have just sent Jarvis an email requesting that he change the licenses for those images. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Donderbui boven Vlissingen.jpg

Hi, Could someone please check the ticket: ticket:2012091010007221. There is a permission, but no license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yann, the license is CC BY-SA 3.0 NL ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}}) Nemoralis (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Chandra Arya portrait.png

I’ve been in touch with the copyright holder via email to obtain the necessary permissions and assist with uploading the file to Commons. It’s been almost a month, and they’ve mentioned they haven’t heard back from the VRT team since the initial response. With the 30-day window nearly up, the file is going to be deleted. I’m just seeking clarification on whether something was overlooked or if the photo didn’t meet site requirements. If it is backlog related, I understand. PascalHD (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

They didn't respond to the last email from VRT (6th February 2025) Nemoralis (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

We need help with a deletion request.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sega Mega Drive games, Can you clarify by sending information to the rights holders of these images? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission was given by w:Super Fighter Team in 2009. I don't think we can ask something in 16 years old ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

So there's no way of knowing what "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose" means in view of the questions we need to consider in the linked deletion requests thread? How would you recommend we proceed? Maybe we should just honor it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've closed that particular one as keep. Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Würzburg, St. Bruno (24).jpg

(Offensichtlich wurde die Anfrage hier komplett ignoriert, daher nochmals)

Ticketnr./Konversation mit ihm finde ich nicht mehr, kann trotzdem jemand nach diesen Dateien schauen, wo das Problem liegt (und mir bitte Namen des Fotografs mitteilen)? Meiner Erinnerung nach wurde die (wie immer von mir vorbereitete) Genehmigung vom Fotografen gesendet. Ungefähr 10 Dateien mit aufsteigender Ordnungsnr.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:W%C3%BCrzburg,_St._Bruno_(24).jpg

--Subbass1 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I could not find a ticket containing this file name. Nemoralis (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Strange - could you please look into the file description and tell me the photograper's name? I don't remember but I'm sure I wrote it down there... --Subbass1 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyone?? --Subbass1 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not an administrator so I can't help you with that, sorry. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Subbass1: photographer name is Daniel Zeller. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thx, now I remember. I'll write him again hoping he sends the text this time (always prepared completely by me). --Subbass1 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Subbass1 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Subbass1 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiAfrica/Artgate

Hi, We have a number of recent paintings with {{WikiAfrica/Artgate}}. I wonder if this foundation really has the right to give a free license for these works. Usually, only the artist and their heirs have this right. If this is the case, it should specifically mentioned in the permission. Yann (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - De Rocchi Francesco, Venezia - San Marco.jpg
• File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Di Romagna Alfredo, Piazza del Duomo a Milano.jpg

The permission letter states that Fondazione Cariplo is the "sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the works". Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: Thanks for your answer. I personally think this is not sufficient. Many GLAMs wrongly claim to be the copyright owner of the works they host. We at least need to know how they acquired the copyright. Yann (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: FYI, I posted about this on VPC. Yann (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Kurt Klühspies

Didym and me are in contact with Kurt Klühspies who offered to provide a better-quality portrait for which he asserts to own the rights and wishes to release it under CC-BY-SA. He sent it to me via e-mail and I have uploaded it as File:Kurt kluehspies portrait.jpg with "permission pending". I asked him to send e-mail permission to permissions-de@wikimedia.org , which should follow shortly, and also to provide more information (date, photographer). This is to inform the team where to look when the e-mail from Mr. Klühspies arrives... A ping as well to Perrak who is also familiar with the case. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I may sound weired, but the VRT receives really a lot of tickets, and is unable to handle such special requests. Please make sure that the permission sender includes the link to the uploaded file in their e-mail. Krd 20:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'll send him another mail (he sent the photo to me with a generic file name "IMG something")... It's not easy to communicate such things to people who are not familiar with Commons and our procedures at all, which is something you are certainly very much aware of, I guess you have a lot of difficult explaining to do in your correspondences... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's very easy, just ask them to put you in CC when sending the permission, so that you can help providing the link to the uploaded file. Krd 07:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: Die Mail müsste soeben bei permissions-de eingetroffen sein. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2014103110012802

It is necessary to know whose permission is given for the images of Poshtova Ploscha Metro Station. The question is raised due to the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poshtova Ploscha Metro Station Kiev 2011 02.JPG. If the permission is given by architect(s) and covers only the object of architecture, then the image of the permanent glass artwork at the station might be not covered. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission is given by family member of architect, ru:Масленков, Игорь Леонидович. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

If the artwork is the only issue, we can cover it with a solid color or a strong Gaussian blur. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

OP closed the DR as keep due to permission received so looks like this can be marked as resolved. Abzeronow (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Confirmation Regarding Licensing and Commercial Use of a Public Domain File (ticket #2008012110017088.)

Dear Volunteer Response Team,

This is Jintaek from South Korea.

I am reaching out to seek clarification regarding the licensing and usage of the following file listed on Wikimedia Commons:

- File URL:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op.18-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg

According to the page, the file is marked as being in the public domain, both for the music and the recording. Additionally, the following statement is mentioned:

"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 #2008012110017088."

I am planning to use a 1-minute segment of this recording as background music for a video project.

The video will be used for the following purposes:

- Displayed in offline public spaces in South Korea

- Shared on various social media platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, WeChat, Xiaohongshu, and Weibo

Before proceeding, I would like to confirm the following details to ensure compliance with the licensing terms:

1. Commercial Use

- Can this file be used commercially without requiring additional permissions or paying fees?

2. Copyright and Permissions

- Does the licensing explicitly cover all intended uses mentioned above, including sharing on social media platforms and use in public spaces?

- Can you provide any further details about the archived correspondence (ticket #2008012110017088) or confirm that this file is entirely free of copyright restrictions?

3. Attribution Requirements

- Is attribution mandatory for this file in all contexts, even if it is in the public domain? If so, how should the attribution be provided if it is not possible to display credits directly in the video?

4. Geographical Scope and Duration

- Are there any geographical or time-based restrictions on the use of this file?

Your assistance in clarifying these points would be greatly appreciated, as it will help me ensure compliance with Wikimedia Commons’ guidelines.

Thank you for your time and support.

I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Jintaek

P.S.

If additional clarification is needed or if I need to take any specific steps to verify this file's licensing, please let me know.

I deeply appreciate the effort of the Volunteer Response Team in maintaining such a valuable resource. Jintaek Lim (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jintaek Lim, the answer to your questions should be contained in the file description. However the link you gave leads into the void. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind clarification. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the file should include a description of the source. So, as long as the source is properly attributed, there shouldn't be any issues with using it, correct? I appreciate your help, and here is the link again: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op._18_-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg?uselang=ko Jintaek Lim (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jintaek Lim, as file description clearly says: "Musopen grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.". You can also read w:Public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Problem with newest Safari version

We have recently received several emails from German Mac users that the texts appear in a small font (about 10 pt), and unfortunately the font cannot be enlarged any more.

The problem seems to be connected with the latest update of the Safari browser. I advised the users to try Firefox instead, and there in deed the problem does not occur.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I tested on Safari Version 18.3 (20620.2.4.11.5) and can not confirm this. The default font size decreased recently but not due to a Safari update but due to the new default skin. But zooming in on the tab worked for me. GPSLeo (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2011082910012791

I suppose this ticket applies for all works by Albert Klijn. A notification on Category:Albert Klijn would be very helpful. I uploaded File:Albert Klijn - Poster Regata.jpg, which needs a notification too (or, if the ticket gives no permission, has to be deleted). Fransvannes (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The permission is only for File:De Dageraad der Menschheid.png Nemoralis (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2020112910005534

Hello,

I need more information about an image on commons for a validation - there is an delete thread of this image.

Thank you. Triomint69 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What information do you need? Nemoralis (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way: Special:PermanentLink/1002559387#An accurate quotation from the email in the VRT system? - (ticket:2020112910005534) Nemoralis (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2024121610007888

File:Dr. David Walt.jpg is another cross-wiki upload by Ng Huy Hoàng (see #Ticket #2024100410007511) that's been marked with {{Permission received}} since December 2024. Can this ticket be verified and this file kept? Can the local English Wikipedia now be deleted per en:WP:F8? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The ticket mentions this file but permission has not been granted (closed as nonsuccessful). I think it can be deleted. Nemoralis (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ticket #2024100410007511

File:1978 Baatar performing in Georgia.jpg, File:Baatar ballet.jpg and File:Noroviin Baatar.jpg were just cross-wiki moved to Commons along with lots of other files by user Ng Huy Hoàng. Ng Huy Hoàng is a new account created on February 26, 2025, who doesn't appear to be a VRT member. It looks like Ng Huy Hoàng is mainly moving files tagged with {{Permission ticket}} so perhaps the moves are fine; however, the three files referenced above are tagged with {{Permission received}}, not "Permssion ticket" and have been tagged as such per since December 19, 2024.

These three files were uploaded locally to English Wikipedia on October 4, 2024, and tagged for speedy deletion per en:WP:F11 on the same day. Someone seems to have emailed VRT about them sometime after that, but this email had problems according to en:Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket #2024100410007511 and en:Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket #2024100410007511. So, it seems unwise, at least to me, to move these three files to Commons if VRT is still unable to verify copyright holder consent.

Normally, English Wikipedia files tagged with {{No permission since}} are deleted five days after being uploaded if copyright holder consent can't be verified; when {{Permission pending}} or "Permission received" has subsequently been added to the such a file's file page, the inital five days is extended to thirty days for things to be resolved. These three files have been tagged for several months now and the issues with the ticket still don't seem to have been resolved. Perhaps discussions are still ongoing? Are they allowed to continue on as long as needed? At some point does VRT decide things just aren't going to be resolved to its satisfaction and the files are deleted? Should all further discussion about these files now take place on Commons since they've been moved here? Can the English Wikipedia files now be deleted per en:WP:F8? Apologies for all the questions, but these files, as posted above, have been in limbo for quite some period of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion can probably be closed now since the three files in question have been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Help getting official Permission for a picture.

Hi everyone. And especially (User:Nemoralis)

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

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

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

Her email is: info@borschtbelthistoricalmarkerproject.org

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

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

Marissa's Message to photosubmission@wikimedia.org:

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

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

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

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

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

ticket:2025030310009175

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File tagged with a "FDCO" template

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

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2013061310007371 [2] -- Ooligan (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Ticket #2025031310019805

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

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

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

ticket:20250316103299789

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Asaf Simchoni 1st Battalion Commander Yiftakh.jpg

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

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

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2018100810007819

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

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

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding images from social media

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

• File:Meryl Swason MP Photograph.jpg
• File:Meryl Swanson MP Photograph.jpg

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

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

Thanks. Agent 007 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2012011710005331

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

• File:Aida Ćorović 2011-mc.rs.jpg
• File:Slaviša Lekić 2012-mc.rs.jpg

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

• her. See also:
• this
• this DR
• this dr
• this
• this dr

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

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

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

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

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

Stavropol Hero of Labor Medal Image

Dear VRT team,

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

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

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

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

I think it can be moved to Commons since it is in the public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It is already in the public domain, it just needs the permission ticket. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Permission from whom? :) Public domain means "no one holds the exclusive rights". Nemoralis (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

But the tag says OTR to replace it with a permission ticket. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The tag was added by you. It usually means copyright holder sent the permission email to VRT. Then one of the VRT members comes and replaces it with another template that says it is in the queue and waiting to be processed. Example: Special:Diff/1012932309 Nemoralis (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The image was uploaded to Russian Wikipedia under the public domain, but the uploader stated that the copyright holder is the government of Stavropol Krai. That is the problem. Does an email need to be sent to the government of Stavropol Krai? Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

If image is in the public domain, there is no copyright holder. Nemoralis (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I know what to do now. It's just that there was a small translation error... Thank you. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 01:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Julian Jacob.jpg

TicketNumber=2025032710007766 Bonjour, J'ai téléchargé sur commons aujourd'hui le document Julian Jacob.jpg. J'ai téléchargé ce document à la demande de Julian Jacob lui-même afin d'illustrer l'infobox de la page wikipedia qui le concerne (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jacob). Un robot propose la suppression du document. Julian Jacob et moi demandons à ce que document soit dans le domaine public et qu'il ne soit pas supprimé de Commons. Comment pouvons-nous mieux référencer la photo ? merci de votre aide. Heraldwolf (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

See also Commons:Service d'aide#Image libre de droits pour article wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 01:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Загрузка фото

Добрый день! Я загрузила фото Алексей Сюмак, 2018, на которое отправляла запрос VRT ticket:2025012010006023 Дата получения письма с разрешением: 24 января 2025 Julia Borodina <eliara.foto@gmail.com> Возможно, запрос был сформирован неправильно, но фото было удалено через неделю. Как мне грамотно его перезагрузить в систему?

NeannaSi (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The photo will be restored when permission is verified. Nemoralis (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Нужно повторно делать запрос? Уже 2 месяца прошло с того момента, как ее удалили. Мне кажется, я неправильно оформила запрос.

NeannaSi (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to send the request again. Krd 01:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 01:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Files with no machine-readable license

According to PetScan currently we have 14 files with granted VRT permissions in Category:Files with no machine-readable license category waiting for deletion:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Albert Cohen BNF.jpg
• File:Albert Cohen BNF (cropped).jpg
• File:Albert Cohen BNF (cropped2).jpg

I though that one of the tasks of the VRT members is to verify that the license in the file matches the license in the permission. I did not checked the history of all the files below, but most never had a license. Can someone with the access to VRT database add license templates to all those files before they are deleted? Jarekt (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done except Albert Cohen files. There are no licenses mentioned in the VRT ticket. cc @Mussklprozz from previous VRT noticeboard discussion Nemoralis (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Nemoralis, thank you for quick response. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Files from the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense

I recently encountered files like File:Skoda Octavia II of Lithuanian military police.jpg and File:804th Infantry Company 8th Territorial Unit NDVF volunteer-soldiers.jpg, which are from the Facebook accounts of Lithuanian Military Police and 804th Infantry Company (arguably subordinate units of the MoD). There are also files from the MoD Facebook account like File:Bayraktar TB2 "Vanagas" 01.jpg.

As the description of {{Ministry of Defense - Lithuania}} appears to only include files from the MoD's website at www.kam.lt, can any VRT agent help to check if the permission actually extends to (a) the MoD Facebook account; (b) subordinate unit Facebook accounts, and (c) other official images that are posted on other official social media accounts (which is for completeness)?

Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

They said they agree to release their photos from their website under the GFDL. But it's not clear if this also applies to images from their Facebook page, the pages of subordinate units, or other official social media accounts. I suggest you contact the MoD directly to get that sorted out. Nemoralis (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible PD-Russia-1996 license applicable, instead of "no permission since?"

Can someone take a look at this talk page to see if this PD tag would apply to this: File talk:Грачёвы надгробие.jpg. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note- I did receive a response on the file talk page. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding VRT permission to a crop of an image that already has it

Hi. File:LASTKINGSRECORDS.jpg has VRT permission. Whereas, File:LASTKINGSRECORDS (cropped).jpg doesn't even though it's a simple crop of the original. Would it be OK to transfer over the VRT permission in a case like this or is that a no-no? Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Nemoralis (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

What is the first date where this VRT permission tag was added to FCDO Flickr photos?

Ticket Number = 2013061310007371

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office's (FCDO) Flickr account at https://www.flickr.com/photos/10246637@N04/

Does this VRT permission tag apply to all past photographs posted on the FCDO Flickr account before this VRT permission email was received and approved?

• Of course, only the photos that comply with this: "Note: This permission only extends to content provided by the FCDO and does not include third-party content."

Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

FCDO's statement:
The images that we hold the copyright for are covered by © Crown Copyright under the Open Government Licence
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

Any images which are credited to third parties do not belong to us and you will need to contact them about use. Nemoralis (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis,

Thanks for the response, however, you did answer my two questions above. Again, they are:

1. "What is the first date where this VRT permission tag was added to FCDO Flickr photos?"

2. "Does this VRT permission tag apply to all past photographs posted on the FCDO Flickr account before this VRT permission email was received and approved?"

(Please, note that Question #2 does not include "Any images which are credited to third parties") --

Ooligan (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not FCDO who emailed us, but a user who contacted FCDO via Flickr and attached a PDF of that conversation in the email. FCDO simply responded that their images are covered by Crown Copyright, {{FCDO}}. I can't give you a date, but I can say that this applies to all photos. Nemoralis (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis, Thank you for comfirming that the VRT Permission ticket related to the FCDO Flickr account, "that this applies to all photos"- which would include all photos uploaded to the FCDO Flickr account before this VRT ticket was processed and the VRT permission tag was created to attach to uploaded FCDO files to Commons.

*(I am assuming that the green-colored text above is a quotation from the "PDF of that conversation.)

When you wrote, "I can't give you a date," does that indicate that no date exists on the VRT ticket PDF document or would disclosing the date due to non-dislosure agreements? Again, thanks. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, green text is a a quote. The date is 14/06/2013 according to PDF. You can also find out the date by looking at the first 8 digits (2013061310007371) of the ticket number. Nemoralis (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your helping me to better understand this VRT ticket and the ticket dating detail as well @Nemoralis, with best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Pictures taken by the family of the author

Hello, about the ticket:2025040710004116 and the ticket:2025040710004116 concerning the files File:Pierre Bordaberry TCC 01.jpg and File:Pierre Bordaberry.jpg :

The author sent an email to your team to explained that it was somebody from his family who's underage who took the picture so he doesn't want to mentioned it.

Then on the French Discord, they told me that the field "famille du sujet" could fit also. Is it OK for you also ? Could you please confirm that it is the right way ? Thanks in advance.

Mikaelak44 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mikaelak44: This is an awfully public forum to say what someone doesn't want mentioned. Isn't that exactly what VRT's confidentiality is for? - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I modified the message... Mikaelak44 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. @Mussklprozz, what do you think? Nemoralis (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis, @Mikaelak44: I also don't think that there is a problem. I even contacted a lawyer who is familiar with French legislation and asked him if it is okay that a parent gives permission for an image taken by an underage child. It is. And of course the name of the child does not need to be revealed. Hence I accepted the permission. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks !

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Mikaelak44 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Mikaelak44 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2010010610013927

The uploader has freely admitted that these are press photos of the band Floh de Cologne, and that he has no idea who the photographer and copyright holder was. The band had the usage rights, but certainly not the copyright and the right to relicense. Please check the VRT communication on this. This should also affect this image which does not have a VRT ticket as of yet. --87.150.12.82 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This ticket is a conversation with Vridolin Enxing, same person in the discussion you mentioned. He did not name the photographer, but said he (Vridolin) is copyright holder and that the photos were acquired by the group at the time. Nemoralis (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2018091010004196 and ticket:2016041710010483

Hello, is it possible to see the correspondence received by the Wikimedia Foundation for the two images in these tickets 2018091010004196 and 2016041710010483 granting permission to use them freely by the public? We would like more confirmation that they are free and clear to use for any purpose. Thank you very much. Sie2025 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

What detail exactly do you want to see? Nemoralis (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't need specific details in the correspondence. I was just wondering if the email correspondence is provided upon request. It would be useful for our records related to our use of the images. Thank you again. Sie2025 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sie2025, what images? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Full email correspondence is not provided upon request (due to non-disclosure agreements), but confirmation of said correspondence or answers to questions about it can be provided. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If I can have confirmation the following images can be freely used in our media project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cuadro_por_espa%C3%B1a_y_por_el_rey,_Galvez_en_America.jpg and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Ferrer-Dalmau#/media/File:La_Marcha_de_Galvez.jpg . Thanks. Sie2025 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Although I don't understand why you want to clarify this again, I confirm that yes, there is indeed such a permission. Nemoralis (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Emille Joson's Photo LICENSE

Hi! I already received an email regarding the license approval of Emille Joson, with number approval: 2025041810005541! Thank you. Iwannarightelle (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It is still processing. Nemoralis (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

But it's officially approved? Thanks Iwannarightelle (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, it is still processing and not yet approved. Nemoralis (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2022090110011866

Hi, could you please have a look into this conflicting info: This image got a VRT ticket, this image which must have been two thirds identical was deleted. How does that go together? --2003:C0:8F14:C400:751F:9006:2926:2943 16:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

"which must have been two thirds identical": I have no idea of what makes you think that but, no, the content is entirely different, other than having the magazine name in the same font (but differently laid out). - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

VRT ticket number - 2014020510008962

File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-105.jpg.

• Is this file's VRT permission tag based on permission from the owner of the building- the Court of the European Parliament in Strasbourg or the photographer?

Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a bit complicated. The permission is based on permission from the photographer, who has received permission to take photographs of the European Parliament during the plenary session ({{WIKI loves parliaments/European Parliament 2014}}). This permission was granted by a beamter in the European Parliament, confirming that the photographers have the right to capture both interior and exterior images of the building.

However, according to later information, this permission does not apply to purely architectural photographs. In the ticket:2014031910013357, the Photo Service of the Parliament said that
"The European Parliament is not the holder of the copyright of the Louise Weis building. However, the Parliament has an agreement with the architects. The Parliament has in fact the right to use the pictures of the building in a NEWS context and, when the building is the main subject of the image, the name of the Architect must be mentioned. Under any other type of use, in particular a commercial use, the prior authorization of the architect is needed."

There are some comments in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg.

Hope this helps. Nemoralis (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about possible attribution requirement, ticket #2015010810007538

Hello,

does ticket #2015010810007538 specify some kind of actual attribution requirement? I'd like to use File:Coocazoo.jpg where this number is mentioned, but the attribution option of the CC template is not set. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses require attribution, yes. By the way, the license in the file description was incorrect, I fixed it as noted in the ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe what Grand-Duc is asking is who should be attributed. The blocked account Hama GmbH & Co KG or someone else? - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I may have expressed myself in a bad way. I thought that it was general knowledge among the VRT crowd that our CC templates, like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, offer an optional value "attribution". Hence I wanted to know whether there were some wishes specified in the ticked on how to do this attribution. As it stands now, the Powerpoint slide stating imagery sources that my son had to have for a school homework reads "Knapsack: Coocazoo.jpg, Wikimedia Commons, CC-by-SA 3.0 DE © Hama GmbH & Co KG". Will leave it as such unless we get other information (and yes, there's no hyperlink, but that's due to place constraints). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no specific attribution requirement. Nemoralis (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Judge Susan Crawford Headshot.jpg

What is the exact issue with the copyright licensing for File:Judge Susan Crawford Headshot.jpg. It is incredibly frustrating because I do not have VRT account so I can't see the discussion. Any missing/additional information, I can reach out to the campaign to provide, so they can remedy the problem. VietPride10 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

An email has been sent around a week ago asking for further clarification as to why the emailer is a authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder as a legal representative, and as to ask how they became the legal copyright holder (rather than the photographer which is usually the case). That's all the info which can be publicly shared from the ticket. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you VietPride10 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Peerage ltw portrait.jpg

File:Peerage ltw portrait.jpg has been uploaded as "own work" by a new user but is clearly a derivative of File:Lord John Taylor.jpg, which has a VRT ticket (ticket:2017022610010486) naming a different photgrapher. Should that ticket be applied to the new upload? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason for that. More it should be tagged as no-permission as the attribution is not done as required. Krd 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I already corrected the attribution. The licence on the original allows for derivatives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Can the derivative work be cc-0, i.e. no attribution required, when the original required attribution? I'm not sure, but I'd say No. If the suspect original really is the original, it should be linked in the Source field, and everything may be fine. If not, then still no-permission. Krd 06:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I missed that. Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Species distribution maps from IUCN data

A while back, User:Chermundy made a lot of these distribution maps, e.g. File:Desert Musk Shrew area.png. The current data (and I believe the past data as well) is licensed for non-commerical use only [3], but was released to Wikipedia for species maps (ticket #2010061810022172). Does that release cover the current data? Or, to put it another way, can I download the data off the website right now and make new maps for wikipedia, or do I need to contact the IUCN for a new permission for that. I would ask Chermundy directly but they do not seem to have responded to talk page messages for over a decade.

Category:IUCN distribution maps has some more recent maps, so I would assume I am free to use the data, but I wanted to double-check. Rusalkii (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I recommend checking with IUCN. Nemoralis (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Request made by me

I emailed the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction and received a response that their mugshots are public domain. How do I send this to VRT to make it a ticket? Lettlre (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You can tell them to email us, or simply have them publicly state on their website that those mugshots are in the public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you already uploaded File:RyanPalmetersuspectimage.jpg. I think adding {{PD-Florida}} is enough. Nemoralis (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

No this is North Carolina, not Florida. I will try to get them to email you. Lettlre (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be enough to create a template like this and add it. Nemoralis (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? Lettlre (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

You could create a PD template for North Carolina. Use {{PD-Florida}} as example. Nemoralis (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

How can I argue with a bot?

Something strange is happening with a bot named User:AntiCompositeBot. How can I argue with a bot? See the message on my talk page User talk:Hanay#Copyright status: File:התצפיתנית לירי אלבג שנחטפה על ידי החמאס ושוחררה מהשבי עם יצחק הרצוג (2).jpg. As I wrote on the pictures talk page: "There is a VRT permission. I don't understand why the template was added: "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." I removed the template. I volunteer at VRT"

See also Template talk:Images that were given by spokesperson unit of the President of Israel The permissin is here Ticket#2025041410006762

I need your help. Thanks Hanay (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Because there is no license on file description page. Nemoralis (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2017041210010641

Engelbert Strauss allegedly is the author and copyright holder of these images. He was born in 1908, which makes him an amazing photographer at age 109.

Now, really: Who is the photographer and copyright holder, and has he or she really consented to a CC 4.0 license? Or do you only have a company representative's word for that, someone who may not even know the difference between usage rights and licensing rights? --2003:C0:8F3F:3200:1136:79DB:B11D:17FE 18:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The permission is given by Engelbert Strauss' representative. I think Engelbert is a company here, not a person. See w:Engelbert Strauss Nemoralis (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That may be so, but a company cannot have the copyright by German law, only a natural person can. The company representative is certainly NOT the copyright holder unless he or she is the photographer. --2003:C0:8F4C:1F00:113B:E0D2:6F2F:4C7F 10:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

By what law? The photographer may have transferred the copyright to the company by working under a contract. Nemoralis (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

German copyright is not transferable except by death and inheritance. The photographer may have transferred usage rights to the company, but he or she cannot transfer the copyright. --2003:C0:8F0D:B700:8551:EAD7:4181:1BE3 06:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen this theory exposed several times here, but I think it can't stand the test of real economy. In some cases, copyrights are a big part if not the majority of a company assets. So if a company could not own copyrights, some companies would be worthless. Also if an employee leaves a company in disagreement, what the company would do if it doesn't own the copyright of works produced by the employee? Yann (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This theory is quoted nearly each day here on Commons, though it is entire nonsense. Of course usage rights can be transferred like in every other country. Krd 12:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been asked "By what law", I gave you the law, and now you are questioning the facticity of this law? This is the basics of German Urheberrecht, not some "theory" I made up.

If you think it doesn't work with real economy, feel free to discuss that with the lawmakers. That discussion is beside the point here. I am sure there are enough legal ways for a company to ensure they have all the usage rights they need of their employees' or ex-employees' work. What they do not have is the right to relicense a copyright holder's work any way they want.

In this case, up to now, we do not even have the faintest idea who the photographer / copyright holder is. I actually consider it unlikely that it even is an employee. This kind of promo photo would normally be taken by some professional photographer who lives off of selling his/her pictures, and his/her business would most certainly be worthless if he/she were to give away their pictures under a CC license. I strongly assume that the photographer knows nothing about this relicensing of his/her work. Which, since its upload, has spread all over the internet; the picture can be found in all kinds of places, referring to Wikimedia Commons and the CC license. --2003:C0:8F0D:B700:A9C2:2B4C:17A5:F6D9 20:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is valid, release from a company who owns copyright. --Krd 12:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 12:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Email in April to file

Back in April I asked Ted Sobel, the owner of this file, if he could release the file on cc-by-sa-4.0, via instagram. On April 8 or 9, he answered he had sent an email to the VRT. I was wondering if one of the volunteers may please see the old tickets and match it to the file. Here is his website, much appreciated! Yovt (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I just asked something on the ticket, could you please ask him to answer my question? Ticket ID is ticket:2025041010000686 Nemoralis (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Yovt, the permission is added now. Nemoralis (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Pagina: "Marco Pelliccioli" - Copyright“: Marco Pelliccioli, Città alta, Bergamo.jpg

Buongiorno, vedo che avete rimosso una fotografia di mia proprietà sulla mia pagina. Ho regolarmente inviato l'email come indicato dando tutte le informazioni di riferimento. Ecco la copia. La foto è di mia proprietà. Potete ripristinarla? Grazie

Subject: Copyright“: Marco Pelliccioli, Città alta, Bergamo.jpg” Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:43:20 +0200 From: Marco Pelliccioli <pelli.marco@tiscali.it> To: <permissions-it@wikimedia.org> Con la presente dichiaro di essere l'autore e/o il solo possessore dei diritti d'autore esclusivi dell'opera: “Marco Pelliccioli, Città alta, Bergamo.jpg” Acconsento alla pubblicazione dell'opera con la licenza libera: “CC0” Riconosco di concedere a chiunque il diritto di usare l'opera anche per scopi commerciali e di poterla modificare secondo le proprie necessità a condizione di rispettare i termini della licenza e tutte le altre leggi applicabili. Sono cosciente che la licenza libera riguarda solamente il copyright e mi riservo il diritto di intraprendere un'azione legale contro chiunque utilizzi l'opera in modo diffamatorio o in violazione delle leggi sulla persona, sui marchi, ecc. Riconosco che non posso ritirare questo accordo e che l'opera potrebbe essere permanentemente conservata in uno dei progetti Wikimedia.

30 aprile 2025, Marco Pelliccioli Marco Pelliccioli (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is ticket:2025043010008248 and waiting to be processed. Nemoralis (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Buongiorno, posso avere un aggiornamento su questo ticket? Ho caricato una fotografia di mia proprietà, inviato l'email ma l'avete rimossa. Potete ripristinarla per favore? Marco Pelliccioli (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no update. The ticket will be processed as soon as possible. Krd 14:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:7th International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering

Hello! I have a very interesting question. The images of this category is captured by my friend, Sadman Sarar, using the camera of one of my University juniors, Nahid. Therefore the metadata of these files include Nahid's name. After uploading these images, whom should I request to send verification email to the VRT? Please ping me when you reply. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017, whoever took the pictures. Nemoralis (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. — Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 17:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Correctly crediting an image from wikipedia

Hi there,

I would like to confirm that this is the correct way to credit this artist: © Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cuadro_por_espa%C3%B1a_y_por_el_rey,_Galvez_en_America.jpg

The artist is Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau and the site page is File:Cuadro por españa y por el rey, Galvez en America.jpg

Thank you, Rosie Rfeerick96 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rfeerick96: correct attribution would be, at a minimum, Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. You are very welcome to include the URL you've given above, but that is not required.

For the future, questions like this are better asked at Commons:Help desk. This doesn't specifically require a member of the VRT to answer it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pope Leo XIV 7.png

Hello, a permission OTRS seems to be send for this file. Is this possible to do it ? The file is used a lot on the wiki. So if we can have the "answer" it would be good. Thanks a lot Olivier LPB (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is still processing. Nemoralis (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Album cover photo

Would someone with VRT capabilities kindly take a look at File:Gaiea Sanskrit 5.jpg ? This photo was first uploaded in January, and as I understood at the time, permission was given by the photographer, but the photo was still deleted after a month. I uploaded the photo again on 8 April, and again I was told by the photographer that permission was given, and this is also visible below the photo, with [TicketNumber=2025040810012221 Ticket] Then someone nominated the file for speedy deletion, because of: recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus. In accordance with instructions I read, I changed this to a normal deletion nomination in case the file is not being approved on time. But again, if no one takes a look at the file and approves it, it may be deleted again, without any clear explanation. Is anything wrong with it? By the way, this photo is on many websites now as it is also the album cover of Gaiea's 31st album. Ouranos85 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There are 3 tickets for this file (2025011610010491, 2025011610010526 and 2025040810012221). They never answered the questions asked in the tickets. Nemoralis (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Aha, that probably explains it. I cannot see the tickets (no VRT login), is there an open question now, and what can I ask the photographer to do? Ouranos85 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The emailer should have received replies to their emails, they should respond to the questions asked in those replies. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand there is confusion now, caused by (in addition to a language problem) two persons running a studio, where one has received a confirmation request, and the other person has approved it. However, both agree that the confirmation is valid. Will try to get you confirmation from the other person as well. Hope this will resolve the situation. Ouranos85 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

e-signature releases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Reuse query for File:Ferrachu. Ball gag.jpg

Hello VRT team,

I see a VRT ticket (ticket:2025031410012597) removed File:Ferrachu. Ball gag.jpg from the Gag (BDSM) article, and I also see the file was later speedy-deleted. Can you confirm whether that same ticket led to the file’s deletion, and whether I can still rely on the original CC BY 2.0 grant for reuse?

I am not requesting access to any private ticket contents or personal data—just a high-level confirmation of whether I can still rely on the CC BY 2.0 grant for reuse.

Thank you for any guidance you can provide.

Bobterse (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand this was a courtesy deletion after a personality right request in the ticket. The original source http://flickr.com/photo/49405355@N04/6236889671 is also removed. There was no discussion about copyright in the ticket, so perhaps is can be assumed that the license originally given at the source was valid. --Krd 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2012101110013816 - MDOT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Krd, what do you think about this email forwarding thing? I think we can allow this. Nemoralis (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I will never understand why a copyright holder can send an e-mail to somebody but not directly to the VRT. What exactly is the problem with sending it directly to us, while keeping the requestor in CC? Krd 06:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

This was the statement they gave me:

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

Marking this section as resolved. @Jake01756, please ask them to email VRT (or publicly disclose that these files are released under PD). Thanks.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Titan Sports Issue Oct. 8th, 2001.jpg

Is the ticket valid for File:Titan Sports Issue Oct. 8th, 2001.jpg? Uploaded to en-wiki by a user with a lot of copyvios, ticket was added on en-wiki and brought over to Commons (with no categories) by [User:Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3]], not sure that was a valid OTRS member. Unusual to have a CC license for a full page of a newspaper. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Same user uploaded similar page en:File:Titan Sports Sample Page.jpg as non-free. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the ticket is valid. Nemoralis (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2010090310009352

I'd be really curious to know how a VRT ticket and "This file is lacking author information" go together. (It's about this image.) --2003:C0:8F30:AA00:61F4:5A07:241D:674E 14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It is very old ticket, added now. Nemoralis (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg

Can someone please verify my email for File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg? It was sent on May 10, 2025 at 5:56 PM Eastern, with the subject "Bioreconstruct/GFGBeach". I originally sent it to the commons-copyvio email, but forwarded it on to the permissions-commons email. Elisfkc (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The sender either has got a reply, of we haven't received the request. If the latter, please send it again. Krd 15:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Confirming user

Hi. I reached out to a photographer to confirm that they had uploaded photos and they confirmed that they had. Can I send this to VRT to confirm their identity on Commons for future reference? Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't it sound like a forwarded response? I am personally not happy happy with anything such. If they are a Commons user and their uploads have been marked for permissions, instead of telling you - they can easily contact VRT to confirm. Let me know in case I misunderstood? _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 09:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I contacted them from the email listed in the photo's exif - I will ask them to follow VRT tho Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Permission pending for File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg and File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg

Hi there!

The copyright holder of these two logos has just sent a consent letter to the VRT a few minutes ago to release them under a free license.

Before the consent letter was sent, these two logos got denied undeletion on Commons in two occasions, see [1] and [2], which prevents me from adding the {{Permission pending}} template to them so I'm just letting you know about this via here instead.

Since the copyright holder couldn't link to any existing Commons file, they added File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg as an attachement. File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg is a derivative version of the first logo, and therefore avaliable under the same license, according to the terms of the license (assuming the copyright holder has chosen to use CC BY-SA 4.0). It's moon (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Noted. --Krd 06:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I was told by Jameslwoodward on my second undeletion request that "This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT".

I recently noticed a new upload was made: File:Institut Català d Ornitologia logo 2007.svg. While this restores one of the two images, it doesn't restore the original file description nor the source from which I originally extracted the logo that I later sent to Institut Català d'Ornitologia so they could send it to VRT.

I spent some time writting both file descriptions and adding the source properly so I would appreciate undeletion over reuploading. It's moon (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC). Rewritten for clarity–It's moon (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz:  ? Krd 04:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hola @It's moon: 1. El archivo se adjuntó a un correo electrónico enviado directamente por el instituto al equipode soporte. Por lo tanto, el instituto es la fuente directa. No se necesita mencionar que el archivo se descargó de un sitio web en otra ocasión. – 2. Si deseas añadir información importante a la descripción del archivo, no dudes en hacerlo. 3. Seguramente te refieres al apóstrofo que falta en el nombre del archivo. Esto se puede corregir fácilmente renombrando el archivo.

No hay necesidad para ninguna acción administrativa.

Hi @It's moon: 1. The file was attached to an email sent directly from the institute to the support team. This means that the institute is the direct source. It needn't be mentioned that the file was downloaded from a website on another occasion. – 2. If you would like to add any essential information to the file description, please feel free to do so. – 3. By typo in the file name, you probably mean the missing apostrophe? This can be easily fixed by renaming the file.

There is no need for any administrative action.

Un saludo, cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The logo they sent to VRT was a copy of File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg that I provided to the institute so they could attach it on their permission request. The original source is a PDF from where I extracted the logo from. I optimized the logo after extracting it. Then I uploaded it to Commons with detailed file descriptions in multiple languges and the institute sent a copy of the Commons file to VRT along with permission. This doesn't make the original source to change, and we do requiere to list the original source (with a link) as well as modifications made to the file (optimization), per the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0. See COM:CONSENT: "Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder."

Additionally File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg hasn't been restored. This file is a derivative of the first one and therefore should be restored under CC BY-SA 4.0 per the terms of the license (share-alike).

Additionally I'm also requesting the original file descriptions I worked on to be restored. I could work on new descriptions but I was told by an administrator @Jameslwoodward: that these two logos would be restored without further action from me upon receipt and approval of permission at VRT: that bar has been met. I don't see why I would have to redo the work I already did. It's moon (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@It's moon: Can you please paste a link to the original source? I am no admin and have no access to the deleted file. – Nor did I know about the whole previous story when we received the permission email from the institute. They did not make any mention about it. I will now ask them to confirm if the file I received from them was a modification of their original work which had been sent to them by a wikipedian. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The original source is Anuari d'Ornitologia de Catalunya 2007 - Cobertes (PDF) which is avaliable on the institute website (ornitologia.org).

When reaching out to them, it might help to add something along the lines of "this is to verify the file original source and will not get the wikipedian in trouble". That way, they can feel comfortable being fully transparent. It's moon (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@It's moon Client has confirmed that the logo came from you. If any admin (@Krd, @Jameslwoodward?) can It's moon's version and delete mine, I can live with that.

Client also mentioned that he has sent you, It's moon, a version of the 50th anniversary of the association. Did you upload that one as well? Mussklprozz (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I was waiting a bit to clear things up before uploading the 50-year anniversary logo. I was also unsure about which source to include with the new upload. Would it be acceptable to state that the logo was provided by the institute via email? It's moon (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Opened a 3rd undeletion request. They have told me that a VRT member should issue the undeletion request in order to approve it. It's moon (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged above, but I'm unable to follow the discussion. Please summarize what exactly is missing. Krd 11:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg has been already reuploaded with a valid, verified license (CC BY-SA 4.0) so no further action is needed.
• File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg is derived from the first file and therefore should be undeleted per share-alike.

It's moon (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Krd 12:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Krd!

I also wanted to ask you about this: ICO sent me another SVG version of the logo for their 50th anniversary, which can be viewed as a PNG on their website.

This new version only adds elements under TOO to the previous design. I'm unsure whether I need to request a new license for it, and also what to specify in the source field —Would "Provided by Catalan Ornithological Institute via email" be acceptable?

Thank you again! It's moon (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a new license. Krd 13:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok! 👍 It's moon (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Dasa darshan.jpg

I've nominated File:Dasa darshan.jpg for deletion (by the time I didnt knew that it was to be informed here..) as it is a clear copyright violation of images posted in Twitter: [4], [5]   and Instagram: [6]. The uploader is unwilling to accept it at all, and has been deleting goodwill message from their talkpage:[7] and content from the deletion-nom: ([8]).

As all of user's uploads are clear copyright-violations: [9], its pretty obvious that the user hasn't reached the film-director or the actor to get the permission for the image.

The corresponding VRT-ticket seems to be: ticket:2025021910001725. Request somebody to have a look into this. --2406:7400:107:D6D5:0:0:0:1 08:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This file has been approved in the mentiontion ticket, but permisison was refused for further files. I'm going to revoke this permission as most likely fraudulent. Krd 10:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Krd: . --2406:7400:107:D6D5:0:0:0:1 10:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Verification requested

Hello, I am the owner/inventor of Stryper Golf. How do I go about the verification process for my account please? StryperGolf (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see the explanation of "Account verification" at Commons:Username policy. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The relevant process is described at Commons:Username policy#Well-known names and names of organizations. In short: use an official e-mail address (meaning: from your domain) to mail an acknowledgement of your account to info-commons@wikimedia.org. You've got to simply state that the account in question belongs to you or the organization. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! Email was sent at 1.30pm GMT+10 from info @ stryper golf dot com dot au StryperGolf (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Unlike in other projects, there is no account verification required at Commons. --Krd 04:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: with all due respect, and understanding that we are in an area where you are usually more expert than I am, I believe you are wrong there. Commons:Username policy states, "Use of the names of organizations is allowed on Commons only if you verify your account, proving that you are or represent the respective organization." That page is Commons policy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In any case, @krd or another admin has replied to the email and verified per the policy. StryperGolf (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Permission pending for multiple files – Ticket: 2025052410001148

Hello, I am writing to inform that permission emails for the following files were sent on May 23, 2025, to permissions-pt@wikimedia.org:

• File:2020.redesign.identidade visual Nathor.jpg
• File:Antonio em Osaka.jpg
• File:Aro 12 2.png
• File:bicicleta adulta linha Antonella Acqua.png
• File:bike balance idealizada para crianças que precisam desenvolver o equilibrio antes de comecar a pedalar.jpg
• File:Camisetas de proteção Rebel Kids. linhas licenciadas abril 25.jpg
• File:clip desenvolvido pela Nathor Bicicletas para armazenas as bikes em lugares fechados.jpg
• File:corte laser CNC.jpg
• File:LOGO_NATHOR_sem-fundo.png
• File:logomarca Vergos.jpg
• File:sede Nathor bicicletas.jpg
• File:Triciclo Princesas da linha de licenciadas da nathor bicicletas.jpg

We have received the automatic response with Ticket# 2025052410001148. The images were deleted due to "No permission", but all of them are original works by Suzana Loewen, representative of Nathor, and proper authorization has been sent.

Could someone from the VRT team please confirm the status of the ticket and restore the files if possible?

Thank you for your attention and support.

David Olinger Berndt (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The files will be restored once VRT grants permission. Nemoralis (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 04:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2025060410011441: Logo Parti Marocain Libéral

Bonjour,

Une autorisation a été envoyée à permissions-fr@wikimedia.org par Isaac Charia (Secrétaire Général du Parti Marocain Libéral) pour le fichier `File:Logo party sansbg.png`.

Pourriez-vous me confirmer si le ticket #2025060410011441 a été bien reçu et validé?

Merci beaucoup!

Imoumen (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The ticket number is wrong, ticket:2025060410011441 is the correct one. It is in the queue with the other tickets and will be answered by one of the volunteers when the time comes. Nemoralis (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I just corrected the ticket number. Imoumen (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove deletion tags - ticket:2025052810027561

Hello,

I just realized that the VRTS ticket number was not included in the file descriptions. Permission was submitted under VRTS ticket #2025052810027561, and I have now manually added the ticket number to all relevant files. However, the "no permission" deletion tags are still present.

Could a VRT member please review the files and, if everything is in order, kindly remove the tags?

Files:

• File:Volume shot.jpg
• File:Namdashi Casual Group Photo.jpg
• File:Namdashi team image.jpg

Thank you very much! TheSodam (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheSodam, this will be done by VRT agents once they confirm the permissions. Kindly avoid adding permission templates on your own. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 12:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I updated the file description pages. Please do not add VRT ticket numbers unless you are a VRT agent. Nemoralis (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Bioreconstruct Email Attempt 2

I am asking again for someone to verify my email for File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg. I originally forwarded the email May 10th and I asked before. @Krd's response makes it seem like it was lost (fair enough) and they immediately archived the discussion before I could respond with any helpful information to find the email. I reforwaded the email to the permissions-commons email address, to hopefully make it easier to find. Please reach out to me on either my talk page or here if you need more information in finding the email. Elisfkc (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the ticket number? Nemoralis (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I never got a ticket number response, so I don't know what the ticket number is. I thought that was strange compared to past instances with the then OTRS team Elisfkc (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You receive an automated response from VRT system that contains your ticket number. Screenshot. Nemoralis (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I also had previously accidentally sent it to the commons-copyvio email, and got a response saying that was the wrong email. Is it possible that it is now filtering my email away? Elisfkc (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Sent a fresh email, after the previous one that had been accidentally sent to the wrong email and then forwarded to the right one in May and earlier today didn't result in a ticket number. Got ticket number 2025060510011171 this time Elisfkc (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I received a reply, saying that Bioreconstruct needs to state that the picture is released under license. However, they released it under the license when they uploaded the picture under their own Commons account. The screenshots in the email prove that Bioreconstruct and @GFGBeach are one and the same, meaning @Gfgbeach has the right to release the image/images from Bioreconstruct's Twitter/BlueSky/other locations. Elisfkc (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Please reply to the email, not here. Nemoralis (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I did. Figured two places is better than one, for non-private info. Elisfkc (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 01.jpg

Hello. I have contacted Wikimedia Commons Permissions via email with the creator of File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 01.jpg and File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 02.jpg, Amit Skimt, on CC. Per the Permissions admin, Alfred, Amit sent over the standard Permission template email to grant permission for me to use one of the photos as Darnell Edge's main photo on his Wiki page. I have not heard from Alfred post following these steps as requested. Please note, I uploaded these photos on 18:51, 21 May 2025. And I corresponded via email with Wikimedia Permissions with the creator on CC on that same date. Can someone please let me know if I am still waiting for approval or if I can now move forward? IvyBowie (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Convenience links: File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 01.jpg, File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 02.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for inserting the photos here! yes, these are the correct ones I have uploaded and that the creator emailed Permissions for usage. Hoping to receive final approval as I am not sure if there's anything else to do on my end or if I can move forward. IvyBowie (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:RH lockup black (1).png

Could a VRT member take a look at File:RH lockup black (1).png? The uploader asked me about it on my English Wikipedia user talk page. The uploader appears to either an employee of en:Robinhood Markets or has been contracted by the company to update the logo on its Wikipedia page. File:Robinhood (company) logo.svg, which is the logo the uploader wants to replace, is licensed as {{PD-logo}}, which might be correct per COM:TOO US. The two versions seem to be essentially the same with the only some minor differences, with the feather being the only potentially copyright eligible element. The feather in the updated version is actually made up of three shapes as opposed to four; so, it's a tad bit simpler. Anyway, if the currently used file is OK as licensed, then the updated version should also be OK as "PD-logo" without needing VRT verification. Similarly, if the VRT ticket is verified and it covers the updated version, it should perhaps also be OK to apply to the older version too, shouldn't it? FWIW, the updated version can be seen here, while the older version can be seen here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We received an email from Robinhood (ticket:2025052810028381) which says "Our logo is not under a CC license. It should be used as non-free content". Nemoralis (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Nemoralis. Should Commons just take their word for it or are they're any en:copyfraud concerns to consider. If it's fine just to take the company's word, then the older version of the logo would need to be deleted as lacking permission per COM:F2 or COM:F5, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think so. Since I'm not an administrator, you should make the deletion request on another page. Nemoralis (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Actress Aishwarya Sharma in 2025.jpg

Hello, The license of File:Actress Aishwarya Sharma in 2025.jpg is invalid and Flickr washing. The image is uploaded to the Flickr account of the same user and reuploaded here in Commons on the same date. The image appeared in a magazine: [10].     --2406:7400:107:CE86:0:0:0:1 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Nemoralis (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Permission pending for File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 50 anys.svg

Hi there! I would like to make sure whether VRT has received an email with permission to use this file under CC BY-SA 4.0. Thank you!! It's moon (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No. --Krd 17:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, retrying this again. It's moon (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Photos of Farhad Rajabli

Hello.

I got a permission from IJF Media Team to upload their photos from their web-site into Commons. I have uploaded them File:Farhad_Rajabli_and_Kobko_at_the_2022_World_Championships_Veterans_in_Krakow.jpg; File:Farhad_Rajabli_and_Kobko_at_the_2022_World_Championships_Veterans_in_Krakow_2.jpg and asked IJF Media Team to send the e-mail with the permission to OTRS team.

However, they answered that they cannot accept that part: "...even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws". They agree to use these photos in Wikimedia but as they said they cannot be used for commercial purposes.

So, is there any license to add for this photos preventing to use them for commercial purposes and if yes what kind of e-mail IJF should send to OTRS?

Best regards, Interfase (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Commercial use must be allowed. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Commercial. Nemoralis (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I asked IJF Media Team to make an exception for these two photos and send appropriate e-mail to OTRS with their URL. Let's wait their answer. Interfase (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Both images are labelled on the linked page as "(c) Sabau Gabriela". That person is not mentioned on the image pages on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Ticket:2023123010003106

The tagged files all depict the same individual (Percy Brown) but consist of photographs of various copyright holders. I have a hard time believing that Brown can relicense any depictions of him. Could someone check the details of this ticket? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

A convenient list for photos can be found at https://w.wiki/ESdc. According to the ticket conversation, the photos are available at https://headshotsla.pixieset.com/percybrown/ by HeadShots LA, while the remaining photos were taken by Percy's friend using mobile phone. Nemoralis (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Does this include File:Percy Brown on the set of Jubilee Media Episode.jpg? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Nemoralis (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Seeking advice on use of Shutterstock image for which Shutterstock has given me license to use

Hello, I have an image purchased from Shutterstock which Shutterstock has given me license to use on Wikipedia but cannot see how this can be uploaded to Wiki Commons. I do have a proof of license and email confirmation from Shutterstock giving approval for the image to be posted to a Wikipedia article. Can you kindly advise on the steps to load the image to Wiki Commons? Thank you. Hulstrom1850 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hulstrom1850: I assure you, Shutterstock has not given you a license compatible with use on Wikimedia Commons nor (in most contexts I can imagine) on Wikipedia. It would completely contradict their business model.

Please read Commons:Uploading works by a third party and especially Commons:Uploading works by a third party#What not to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, photo stock agencies may also distribute public domain material (e.g. imagery from the US coast guard related to maritime accidents), so they may say that one is free to use such images in any way. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hulstrom1850: Do you believe what Grand-Duc wrote here is likely to apply? You never did describe the image. (Grand-Duc is correct that they could have sold you a "license" for something that does not need a license.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Which image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

A license to use an image (on Wikipedia) is not permission to sub/re-license it under a free compatible COM:L license, sadly. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hulstrom1850, to upload to Wikimedia Commons, it needs to be released under a free license. If Shutterstock's permission allows for that, you can go ahead and upload it. You can email VRT to share those proofs. Nemoralis (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Army Chief Bangladesh General Aziz Ahmed SBP, BSP, BGBM, PBGM, BGBMS, psc, G.jpg

Hi, What is the content of ticket:2020012110008851? There is an undeletion request with an argument about this file: COM:UDR#File:Nuruddin khan.jpg. Yann (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It is a permission for this photo. They provided File:Army Chief Bangladesh General Aziz Ahmed SBP, BSP, BGBM, PBGM, BGBMS, psc, G.jpg as file name on Wikimedia Commons. Nemoralis (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding ticket:2025061710007823

Dear all. I'm currently working in the project History of the Basque Country in 100 objects, a GLAM collaboration project where we are asking some institutions to upload images from their collections. Normally, I take the photos myself, but sometimes the institutions are sending those to me or other people from the Basque Wikimedians User Group. When that happens, we ask the institution to send a VRT permission, signed by them, from their official emails, and usually everyting goes ok.

However, today I found, for the second time, a VRT volunteer asking not needed questions to the GLAM workers, including information that already was disclosed (the licensing, the author or why the instituions holds the copyright) and questions about the status of the items depicted. In this case, the items where Middle Ages objects. I know that everyone here is volunteering, but we can't have a process were GLAM institutions are being questioned about the legality of their own property, because that's not what VRT volunteers are supposed to do.

If there was any claim that the images (for reference: File:Izen eztiaren erretaula.jpg and File:Esklabotasunaren Ama Birjina.jpg shouldn't be licensed under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons, this should be discussed as a deletion, not within the VRT process.

As this is not the first time that I have this issue with the same VRT volunteer (and only with him), I'm asking for help from other volunteers on how to proceed.

Best. Theklan (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. As VRT volunteers, we do need to confirm the copyright status of the depicted artwork, not just the photo. If the item is modern or copyright status is unclear, it's standard to ask who created it and when. That said, if the object is clearly medieval and that info was already stated or obvious, the follow-ups may have been unnecessary. I'll reply to the ticket to help move it forward. Nemoralis (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Theklan, permission is granted for both files. Nemoralis (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Theklan (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 06:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Situation about ticket:2020051710002624

Does anyone from VRT who can speak Chinese to take inputs about this ticket? COM:CUR Taiwan is about to be reviewed as per Commons:Village pump/Copyright#COM:CUR Taiwan, where the situation of this ticket has been challenged up. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And probably ticket:2014050810011876 where the editor thinked that that's outdated. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Try User:Mys 721tx, thank you. Hamish (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The tickets are in English and is pretty well summarized under the "Not OK" section already (except my own reading is that the last quote on COM:CUR Taiwan regarding The Central Bank’s website allows the public to use ... is incomplete an does not allow for usage on commercial websites, only "the public"). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Hamish (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo Upload via VRT Release Generator

A few days ago, I contacted a photographer who agreed to release some photos of Orford Musique. I asked for help with the process, and in the end, he himself attached the files to the email generated here. So I’m wondering: how long will it take for the photos to be available on Wikipedia? How can I find the photos once they are published? Could I find them just by searching "Orford Musique" even if that’s not the file name, given that the metadata information might include those details? If he doesn’t have a Wikipedia account and sent the email for the photos to be published, under which account will the photos be uploaded? Goo064s (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

At best the copyright holder uploads the files themselves, or you upload the file for them. Krd 10:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Several images have had the permission pending tag for almost a month.

The images at Category:Undefeated (band) have been pending permission for almost a month. The band (specifically Meredith) said that they submitted the permission forms. Could a volunteer check to see if the permissions were actually submitted correctly? Thanks.--3family6 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I can only find one email received regarding images in that category - more specifically regarding File:Undefeated Promo Photo.jpg. VRT has replied back to the sender asking which file they were speaking about (they didn't mention the file name or link, but I can now identify the image based on the content of the email/attachments). I've replied once again to the sender regarding some follow up questions regarding their release. Regarding the other images, I can't find any emails/tickets. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and follow up about the other images. Thank you!3family6 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 10:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ariel Sharon official portrait (D644-090) (cropped).jpg

... is currently nominated for deletion. There are a bunch of Israeli press VRT tickets which may cover it, possibly including ticket:2023021510005812. Do any agents have the means to take a look? JayCubby (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is in Hebrew. However, it was clear through Google Translate that the ticket cleared the release for File:Isaac Herzog, July 2021 (D1233-049).JPG only. Robertsky (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is in Hebrew. However, the ticket cleared the release for File:Isaac Herzog, July 2021 (D1233-049).JPG only. Robertsky (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Robertsky (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manfred Ball Portrait.jpg

Hi, could a German-speaking VRT member quickly check the ticket related to this DR? Best, ChemSim (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is incomplete. Krd 02:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: What is missing in the ticket. Please respond at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manfred Ball Portrait.jpg. Best, ChemSim (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

As nearly always, the permission sender doesn't react to questions. Krd 18:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 18:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

remove mandatory username verification from username policy

Dear all, please see: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#remove mandatory username verification from username policy --Krd 14:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Igeldo historia eta istorioak cc-by-sa.pdf

Hello,

The file in question was deleted, even though it clearly stated the licensing terms—both within the document itself and in the VRT ticket (2025020710006565). We cannot see any discussion regarding the deletion, as the file has already been removed.

According to the discussion on this end (Thuresson, Theklan), we’ve learned that an email was sent to the author, Jabier Iraola, and since he did not respond, the image was deleted. The issue is that Jabier Iraola is not comfortable with email communication and does not understand any English at all. He most likely deleted the email thinking it was just spam.

I would kindly ask you to inform us about the current status of the file and whether it would be possible to restore it, as the document itself already contains the relevant licensing information.

Many thanks! Xabier Cañas (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz. Nemoralis (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hola @Xabier y @Nemoralis, el problema son las docenas de imágenes de origen desconocido que aparecen en el libro. No está claro y es poco probable que el autor tenga todos los derechos de uso. – The problem are the dozens of images of unclear provenience which appear in the book. It is unclear and unlikely that the author holds the full rights to all of them.

Cheers, un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

P. S.: La communicación con Xabier Iraola en el ticket era en castellano. – The ticket communication with Xabier Iraola was in Castilian Spanish. Mussklprozz (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear all,@Nemoralis @Mussklprozz

I believe the core issue lies in the assumption that the images in this work are of unknown origin, and therefore possibly not legitimate. However, this is not the case. This is a book authored by Jabier Iraola. In the printed edition of the book—which was officially published in physical format—the license under which both the texts and the images are released is clearly stated on the second page. Unfortunately, we cannot verify this at the moment, as the file has been deleted from Commons. That license, embedded in the book itself, is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA), and it explicitly applies to both the text and the images.

To provide some background that may help clarify the situation: Jabier Iraola has spent over 60 years photographing his hometown—its houses, farmhouses, families, festivities, and landscapes. This lifelong vocation was inherited from his father. Alongside his photographic work, he kept handwritten notes over the years. With the support of the local neighborhood council (herri kontseilua), and despite not being familiar with digital technologies (he only writes by hand), he has published this book combining a selection of his photographs and local stories. We would very much appreciate it if this context could be taken into account when reconsidering the status of the file.

Many thanks for your time and understanding.Xabier Cañas (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt you that that the architectural photos, etc., are all his or his father's but there are a lot of photos of individuals that do not look to me like they were taken by one or two photographers. There are also a fair number of posters (over 7 pages of them).

I would think that with clarification from the author, the bulk of this book could indeed be hosted on Commons, but it does look to me like there is some problematic content. - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Jmabel. Do you have another source for those images you think are problematic or that Jabier Iraola doesn't have permission to publish? Thanks. Theklan (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing, and I have little knowledge of Euskara so I'm not the one to get involved here. I was just going by photographic style. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hola Xabier, thanks for your efforts. I have now written a reminder to Xabier Iraola (in Spanish, of course), asking him whether he personally took all those photos. I have also offered him to help him to black out the photos for which the legal status is unclear. I really appreciate if we can publish this book again, but we need an answer from him.

Are you in contact with him, and can offer direct help?

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Vielen Danke @Mussklprozz for your message and for reaching out directly to Jabier Iraola in Spanish.

Yes, I’m in contact with him, and I’ll do my best to follow up. He mentioned that he has received something recently, so I’ll help him understand it and respond appropriately. As I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t use email regularly and is not used to dealing with online procedures, so I’ll try to guide him through the process as clearly as possible. Xabier Cañas (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Xabier Cañas, y todos otros: Jabier Iraola has now sent a version to the support team which he has purged from all photos with unclear authorship- I think we can well assume good faith, so I have uploaded and released this new version:

File:Liburua_Igeldo_historia_lauso_cc-by-sa.pdf

Xabier, the file description I wrote is very poor, since I don't understand the basque text and cannot write much about the book. Maybe you can enrich it a bit?

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This is really going to be just a matter of how much we assume good faith vs. how cautious we want to be. As far as I can see, the photos in the book lack clear attribution. Some are old enough to be possibly out of copyright, and between the author and his father the rest could easily be legitimately licensed pictures back to the 1930s or 1940s. There are no obvious copyvios left. I can't imagine any danger of someone being sued here for copyright infringement, but the precautionary principle is usually understood to be a higher bar than that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, thanks for your argument. However, the author has taken out a considerable number of images. I see no evidence that he lacks the rights for the remaining photos. In any other case, when anyone uploads a photo and writes “it was made by my father”, we accept it unless we have a clue that his claim is unlikely. We are no detectives, at a certain point we need to accept what people say, unless we rudely rebuff people who have a serious concern and a valuable contribution to make.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Muusklprozz: largely agreed; I just wish the book distinguished between "this was taken by me", "this was taken by my father" and "this is so old I believe it is in the public domain." - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mussklprozz! I have added more information in the description section. I included the content not only in Basque, but also in Spanish, English and French, so it can be better understood. If you see that anything else is needed, please let me know and I will try to include it. Thanks also on behalf of Jabier. All the best.Xabier Cañas (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Demande de suivi du ticket #20250604010011441 – logo Parti Marocain Libéral

Bonjour, Je souhaite savoir si mon ticket VRT **#20250604010011441** concernant le fichier `File:Logo party sansbg.png` – logo officiel du **Parti Marocain Libéral** – est toujours en cours de traitement ?

La permission a été transmise par **Isaac Charia** (secrétaire général du parti) et la licence CC‑BY‑SA 4.0 est déjà en place. Y aurait‑il des éléments supplémentaires à fournir pour finaliser la validation ?

Merci beaucoup à la VRT pour son travail et votre aide ! --Imoumen (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Imoumen, please make sure that ticket number is correct. I can't find any ticket with this number. Nemoralis (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the correct number is ticket:2025060410011441. A VRT member has already responded to you, and you must respond to continue. Nemoralis (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Check permission tickets on Eatcha files

Because of the case discussed here the validity of the tickets at File:ILLENIUM.jpg and File:Said the sky photo.jpg need a critical review. GPSLeo (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The tickets appear valid to me. Krd 15:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There's no smoking gun here, but we should be cautious given that the sender's email address is from a free webmail provider (think Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) with no online presence. Normally in these cases we'll accept permissions from unverified accounts based on heuristic evidence (e.g. version in high-res and/or with EXIF that cannot be found online), but with the uploader's history of faking EXIF and authorship, we cannot AGF here and require the most ironclad evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Files are now deleteed anyway. --Krd 03:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Anna Sokolina

Can someone please check whether ticket:2020120410011652 covers the image deleted as en:File:Sokolina 2003 MetMus AerialView St.Pet.jpg in 2020, and if so reinstate it, but on Commons?

en:Wikipedia:Teahouse#Assistance with editing the page: Anna Sokolina refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't. --Krd 17:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2025071710031901

Hey Guys! :)

I've included the email address with the photographer's permission in my email and CC'd the author. I hope that's okay! :) Best regards, KatastrophenKommando (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Noted. --Krd 17:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 17:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Flannery-O'Connor 1947.jpg

Hi there. I have been informed on the English Wikipedia that the above file (an extracted version) requires the permission ticket (id=2020040910007281) from its parent image File:Robie with Flannery 1947.jpg. I tried to do it myself, but an error message appeared, stating that I must request permission to do it here. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 14:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not required, the source is correctly mentioned. Krd 15:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 15:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Screenshots from YouTube channel Jogo Falado

Hi there! I talked with the owner/creator of the YouTube channel Jogo Falado in private (Instagram DMs) and he allowed me to use the screenshots of his interviews (100% his original content) to upload as player/staff pictures here on Commons. I've sent the e-mail to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with screenshots of our conversation (it's in Portuguese though), and already started to upload some files, but I'm not sure if this is enough to solve the issue. Can someone me tell me if I'm doing the right process here? Thank you, BrazilianDude70 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Portuguese queues are backlogged. Krd 06:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Krd I couldn't understand what you said there. Can you elaborate, please? BrazilianDude70 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70: generally, email should come from the copyright-owner, not from you, so it could be an issue. I'm not on the VRT, so I can't say if it will be in this case. Did you at least have the copyright-owner cc'd on the email?

What Krd is saying is that there is a backlog in handling Portuguese-language VRT correspondence, so it could take a while until it is looked at. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel thank you for clarifying. If any translation is needed, feel free to contact me at any point. And I didn't CC the owner simply because I don't know the owner at this extent. I can say I'm a "fan" of his channel, who asked him to grant this kind of permission explained above as it is in my editorial line in WP... So I contacted him the way I knew how and he kindly granted that permission. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Does it have to be done privately? If the source material is available publicly and online, it's usually better to ask to add a license statement there in a publicly visible manner, instead of sending an email. You can use Template:LicenseReview, and VRT won't have to be involved. (License review has its own backlog, though.) whym (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Whym: The channel is private, but the owner granted me rights to publish screenshots of the interviews... That's why I can't use {{LicenseReview}} or {{YouTube}}. I've published the conversation I had with the owner here, I don't know if this is proof enough to keep these images here, I'd like some help please. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The ticket (ticket:2025071310000684) was closed because we are unable to accept forwarded permission statements. You should ask the copyright holder email VRT directly. Nemoralis (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Bioreconstruct Email Attempt 3

I am asking again for someone to verify my email for File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg. I originally forwarded the email May 10th and I asked before. Since then, both I and the original uploader/author have sent emails again in June. I asked for an update at the beginning of June, and got told to respond to the email. The uploader/author used the reference number I had received, ticket:2025060510011171, but was told there was no such reference number. Can someone please assist/look through the email inbox for some of these keywords to try (such as "bioreconstruct", "astronomica", "GFGBeach"), link both things together, and get it approved/undeleted? Elisfkc (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The sent permission in incomplete. Please let the copyright holder provide a complete release. --Krd 08:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

permission to use file

Dear VRT, long ago I received authorization from the owner of the file to use it. It is still under threat of being cancele. Here is the file, ticket:2025070310004387 , and here is the authorization.

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

John Cash 2025-07-03 Cecio208 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Ticket is still open, please be patient. --Krd 08:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2025021010008431 (Boom XB-1)

Hi, the file File:Boom XB-1 Lands on March 22, 2024.png has ticket ticket:2025021010008431 but seems suspicious. The image has a black border on top and right, which is unlikely for own work. The uploader has uploaded other copyvios, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crimea bridge explosion 2025.webm and Commons:Deletion requests/File:AI171 Crashed plane.png. Could a VRT member please confirm the legitimacy of the uploader's proof in the ticket? Thanks, Consigned (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Consigned: I'm jumping in on the thread with another question. How comes that this image has been declared as "Own Work"? The uploader resides in Mumbai by his own accord, whereas the test program of the Boom XB-1 took place in California, on the Mojave Air and Space Port.

While it's not excluded that some aeronautical buff takes upon himself to travel around the world for some hobby related to plane spotting, the self-introduction on the uploader's user page at ArPerfectlyEdits isn't stylistically one I would expect of someone doing this kind of travelling hobby, it seems way too childish.

Furthermore, the vantage point needed to capture this image is most likely situated inside a chase plane. And that's a place where even an aeronautical buff can't easily get access to. I don't think it can be taken from the ground, the environment around KMHV would make for mountains in the frame for a ground-bound observer, that's at least the conclusion I took after watching lots of videos from Boom available on their homepage (https://boomsupersonic.com/newsroom/media-assets/xb-1) and on Youtube. True, I did not spot the exact source yet. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I have similar concerns.

@Krd: who added the ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In the ticket somebody claimed to have created the photo in the US. Technically the ticket IMO is valid, although it may of course be that the ticket sender doesn't tell the truth. I will reopen the case and ask for additional evidence. Krd 18:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: Do we have any news? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No. If nothing else arises, the file should be deleted after 30 days at the latest, and is already tagged accordingly. Krd 08:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Olegar Fedoro on film set

Уважаемые господа!

Подтвердите получение заполненного шаблона Олегар Федоро на съёмочной площадке.

С уважением, г-н О. Ньюис --ШАБЛОН-- Настоящим я заявляю, что я, Mr Oleg Newies — создатель и единственный владелец исключительных авторских прав на следующее (следующие) произведение (произведения): https://www.flickr.com/photos/ 16563851@N04/3804777887 Я соглашаюсь опубликовать это произведение на условиях свободной лицензии Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike версии 4.0. (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Я понимаю, что тем самым даю право любому лицу распространять, изменять и использовать произведение в любых законных целях (в том числе связанных с извлечением коммерческой выгоды) при условии соблюдения указанных лицензий. Я понимаю, что данное соглашение не ограничивается Википедией или связанными сайтами. Я уведомлен, что я сохраняю исключительные авторские права на это произведение вне условий указанных лицензий и что я всегда сохраняю право на упоминание меня как автора в соответствии с выбранными лицензиями. Я согласен/согласна с тем, что информация о моём авторстве будет сохранена в истории правок статей (если речь идёт о текстовой информации) либо на сопроводительных веб-страницах (если речь идёт об изображениях и иных медиафайлах). Модификации, которые сделают другие люди, не будут приписаны мне. Я осознаю, что не смогу отозвать данное разрешение, и что моё произведение может размещаться в проектах Фонда Викимедиа в течение неограниченного времени либо быть удалённым оттуда. 13/07/2025, Mr Oleg Newies Aafilms4 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Aafilms4, please send this to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org. Nemoralis (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, you already did that: ticket:2025070610032332. Nemoralis (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 08:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nemoralis how is this resolved?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see, an email was sent to YG Entertainment in January, 4 months ago, but they haven't responded. There's no question left here that VRT members hasn't answered. Nemoralis (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@JohnCWiesenthal, I noticed that the template has been removed by you. What is the question that remains unanswered by the VRT agents? Nemoralis (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As 999real mentioned above, this inquiry has not yet been resolved; so, why add a template claiming it has? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems that VRT provided all the information it can for now. The community can decide to keep or delete the files with that information, it's not up to VRT and this is not the venue for it. whym (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

[T]his is not the venue for it.

Which venue would be more suitable for this discussion? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You seem to believe there is something more to discuss, but the rest of us (Nemoralis and me at least) don't see what that is.

A possible next stage I can think of is deletion discussion, which you can start at COM:DR. What else, if that's not what you want? This is not a rhetorical question. And just saying "this discussion" is too vague. whym (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2025052410001148 – Still pending after 3 weeks

Hello again,

I’m following up once more on ticket #2025052410001148. The permission email was originally sent on May 24th regarding images authored by Suzana Loewen (Nathor). A topic was previously opened here and marked as resolved, but the VRT team has not confirmed the ticket yet and no images have been restored.

Today, I have resent the permission email to permissions-pt@wikimedia.org with all relevant information and files.

Could someone from the team please check if this ticket is being processed, or let us know if any action is required on our side?

Thank you very much for your support.

David Olinger Berndt (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @David Olinger Berndt, the ticket was never touched by any VRT agent. Only an automatic response has been sent to the client. I can only guess that the reason is that the client wrote in Brazilian Portuguese language, and we have currently have no agent available who speaks Portuguese. Moreover, some if not all of the files which she mentioned cannot be found on Wikimedia Commons, (I gave up searching after having checked three of them in vain).

I will now write to her in English in the hope that thus the case can be resolved.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mussklprozz, thanks a lot for helping us.

Did you suggest me to do anything else? 2804:30C:94B:3000:8C46:1D55:182E:985F 22:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@David Olinger Berndt. Nope, I answered to the sender of the original ticket. I have no reference to yours. Which ticket number did you get in reply to your message? Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Question

I recently uploaded an image and said that I would ask the image holder to send an email to the VRT for approval. I got a deletion warning on my talk page, and got a deletion warning (from AntiCompositeBot). It asked me to place a tag, but what tag would be correct to put on the page? There is already a VRTS pending disclamer. Should I add the tag of the copyright level the author of the image chose? (check my talk page to see the deletion warning)

Image file: [11]

Thanks! Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the tag to the file page. Nemoralis (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cooldudeseven7: in case this comes up again, you might want to read in Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload), point 12 in the numbered step-by-step list there. The software support for this step isn't up to what we'd like, but only the WMF's developers can fix it, so for now that one step (adding the license) has to be done manually. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 14:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Release of Telman Abdinov's works under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license

Hi!

The artist who owns the following works and photos wants to publish them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

The files have now been deleted, but the artist grants permission to publish the works under the above license.

If proof is needed, I can provide it. I'd be happy to discuss the details via email.

Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Tell him to email the VRT permissions queue, this page is not for releasing files. Nemoralis (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Bilirəm, demişəm və ediblər. Amma bütün fayllar silinib. Əlavə sübut istəyirlərsə, onun üçün yazmışam. Sincerely, Gadir (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Please be patient, there is some backlog currently. --Krd 11:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Making a ticket

I was attempting to file a ticket, but the ticket's login page is confusing to me? Is the "2 factor token" part where I put a token from another source, or my Email, to get a token? If the former, where do I go to get a token? Guerreroast (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Guerreroast: the site is accessible to only VRT agents, other Wikimedians don't have access to it. What do you mean by "filing a ticket". Are you trying to send an email to the VRT? _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

for 2FA tokens anywhere, see en:Multi-factor authentication. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to send an Email to get an image in their queue. Guerreroast (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Then just send the email. Someone on the VRT will create the ticket. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Guerreroast, if your email is related to permissions, send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, from your regular email address. It automatically creates a ticket in the VRT system. You should receive an automatic response, which also includes the ticket number. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 03:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 07:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Gorup de Besanez

Hi, this file has ticket:2015022310015758 from 2015. Other files of the same user are being discussed in a very long discussion elsewhere. It would probably help enormously, and possibly resolve the issue entirely, if you can tell as much as you can about this ticket. Even if the ticket is about this file only, it will still help to know if the communication comes from the photographer and if it confirms that the uploader is the photographer (or someone else authorized by the photographer). If the ticket confirms that the uploader is the photographer, then this information answers the question about the other uploads. Thank you in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias, this ticket only mentions File:Troisi.jpg. It comes from the photographer ("creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright"), which has same name with uploader, Gorup de Besanez. Nemoralis (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

[Ticket#2025061410000273]

The file I posted was marked for deletion. This was preceded by the following. I sent a letter asking for permission to use it and received [Ticket#2025061410000273]. After that, user @Johnj1995 removed the information about sending this letter from the file description. I believe that it was the information about my letter to Commons:VRT (for your information, I am the author of this work) that greatly interfered with the deletion, so Johnj1995 simply deleted this important text. He also ignored my question about this strange deletion. Please evaluate the current situation and take measures against user Johnj1995. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 05:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It is because that template should be on file's description, not its talk page. I added the ticket number to both file description and deletion request now. Nemoralis (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 13:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Wiederherstellung von gelöschten Dateien - Löschgrund dürfte geklärt sein (?)

Guten Tag,

ich bin neu auf Commons und habe am 5. Mai 2025 das erste Mal Bilder hochgeladen, die nicht von mir stammen, sondern von einem Urheber, der mir die Erlaubnis dazu erteilt hat. Ich habe dies beim Hochladen angegeben und ich kam zu einem Email-Vordruck mit Einverständniserklärung und Angabe zur Lizenz. Es hieß dieser müsse innerhalb von 30 Tagen vom Urheber eingesendet werden, sonst erfolgt eine Löschung.

Es handelt sich um die Dateien: File:MB-trac 1300 bei der Aussaat (4).jpg bis File:MB-trac 1300 bei der Aussaat (9).jpg

Bereits nach einer Woche (am 13. Mai 2025) wurden die Bilder gelöscht. Am 12. Mai hatte der Urheber (laut eigenen Angaben) die Mail mit Freigabe und Lizenzinformationen gemäß Vordruck an die angegebene Mailadresse versendet. Auf Nachfrage auf der Diskussionsseite des Löschenden (@Krd) hat er mir freundlicherweise geantwortet, dass ich wohl versäumt habe beim Hochladen eine Lizenz anzugeben und es daher schon nach 7 Tagen gelöscht wurde unabhängig von dem fehlenden Einverständnis des Urhebers. Ich solle einfach warten bis die Dateien wiederhergestellt werden [Die Mail vom Urheber enthält ja Informationen zur Lizenz]. Nun ist dies schon Wochen her und ich frage mich, woran es liegt, dass keine Wiederherstellung erfolgt.

Vielen Dank im Voraus!

Felix Daimlerfahrer 1500 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Der Einsender der Freigabe müsste bitte noch auf die Rückfrage des Support-Teams antworten. Krd 06:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hallo @Krd,

vielen Dank für die schnelle Rückmeldung. Ich werde den Einsender darauf hinweisen. Wann wurde die Rückfrage an ihn gesendet? Dann teile ich ihm das mit, damit er die Mail findet, falls sie im Posteingang untergegangen ist.

Gruß Felix Daimlerfahrer 1500 (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hat sich erledigt.

Der Einsender hat die Email gefunden und wird sie umgehend beantworten. Daimlerfahrer 1500 (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Die Bilder wurden nun innerhalb kürzester Zeit wiederhergestellt.

Vielen Dank und Entschuldigung für die Aufwände @Krd

Gruß Felix Daimlerfahrer 1500 (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 11:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

File:An-24 "Angara" in Chita.png

Hi there, is there any valid decision concerning this? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:An-24 "Angara" in Chita.png. Quick1984 (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Updated the file page and discussion page. Nemoralis (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:GoO-donation

This concerns Template:GoO-donation. There is a also a previous thread of the same thing at COM:VPC. That too was started by me. I thought that it would be resolved after that. But I came across the template today only to see that its still the same. Naveen Patnaik demitted office in June 2024. We need to remove his personal accounts from the OTRS permission as he longer is a part of the govt. There is also a need of proper clarification that works released only till the time he was in office can be uploaded or kept. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "his personal accounts"? Nemoralis (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis by "his personal accounts", I mean his personal accounts i.e. the Naveen.Odisha on Facebook and Naveen_Odisha on X and Instagram. These three aren't Government office accounts but Former CM Naveen Patnaik's personal accounts that he handles by himself of his own team even after he has demitted office. The office of Chief Minister has CMO accounts and other departments have their own. Please let me know if any more clarification is needed. Also a ping would be appreciated. Anyways I've now subscribed to the topic that I missed earlier. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta, Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Permission cannot be revoked for files already released, but if the person wants to specify a different license for new files, they must note it. Nemoralis (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis I know all of this. What I want to be done here is that specify in the license/permission that works released only when the person was in office are allowed. By no means I am saying that works released while him being in office should be removed. The day Naveen Patnaik demitted office, the works released on his personal handles cease to be a part of Govt. of Odisha, therefore are no longer covered under the permission. Bcoz the permission was specifically for Works of Govt. of Odisha, which he no longer is a part of like he once was as the Chief Minister. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis a reminder for you to address this. Or maybe anyone else if interested. Maybe, @Krd or @Pigsonthewing or anyone else. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I also cannot follow. Please say in simple language what exactly shall be done. Krd 04:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Krd Look this permission was sent by the state govt of Odisha allowing the works released by a list of accounts to be used here. Among them was the personal Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts of the then incumbent Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik who has now demitted office and is part of the opposition. So he is no longer the part of the govt and therefore any thing released on his personal accounts after date of leaving office (11 June 2024) are no longer the works of the govt of Odisha and therefore can't be used. We can continue to use the works released from his personal accounts till the time he was in office and also continue to use the works released by other (official departmental accounts listed) even now. That's all that needs to mentioned and fixed there. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Where exactly does it need to be mentioned? Template:GoO-donation says "this file" which is crap in any case. Please edit the template accordingly and make is a strict as possible. If your was request was for something different, I still don't understand what exactly needs to be changed. Krd 12:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources listed in the OTRS permission. The list carries Naveen Patnaik's personal account and some official govt department accounts. So we need to clarify in the OTRS permission that works released after he demitted office are no longer part of the work of Govt of Odisha and hence can't be published under this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Please elaborate that in Template:GoO-donation. Krd 12:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You mean like a note or something?

For ex-  Info The works that have been released on Naveen Patnaik's personal Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (now X) handles till June 11, 2024 are to be licensed wrt this OTRS permission. Anything released on those handles after Naveen Patnaik demitted office aren't considered Odisha govt works and hence cannot be considered donated under this ticket.

This is just a sample of what I think would be good. I came here only bcoz I am not good with perfect wordings. I would prefer you or someone more worthy and experienced to do this. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience but this is necessary. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, as I said below, we can't assume that photos on his social media accounts are no longer released under free license (reminder: I am not saying government works) just because he left his job. Nemoralis (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• Who was the donor? Govt of Odisha.
• Why was a person's personal account listed? Bcoz he was a part of the govt.
• Who chose the license? The Govt not just him. (Its not a one man show.)
• Who chose the accounts? The govt, not just him.
• What is the permission for? Works of Odisha govt.
• Is Naveen still a part of the govt? No. So his accounts cease to a part of it bcoz the Odisha govt no longer has authority to decide over his works or account. So now its all Naveen and its a personal account and donation made by govt arent binding on him. That's how I see it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Good. It's a wiki. Please make a start, and then we will see. Krd 13:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Krd thank you for the opportunity and faith and guidance. I've done my part and would request you to kindly review and make changes, if any needed. I've also added this discussion as a reference in the template as well as the edit summary if needed in future. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Why have you pinged me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Just saw you in the Boom XB-1 thread below and thought you are active on this page. And the amount of experience you've, you just like many others would've been of great help. That's why. Sorry to bother you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We cannot just revoke the license just because he left the job. The permission letter sent specifically includes his social media accounts. If he no longer wants to publish photos on his social media accounts under a free license, he should indicate this. Nemoralis (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The permission was for the works donated by Government of Odisha which he once headed and is no longer a part of. When he no longer is part of the Odisha govt, then how can things uploaded from his accounts be considered as such. This should be self understood. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I think Shaan makes sense here. Someone releasing stuff under a role is very different than releasing stuff as a person. It is as simple as that. The images were licensed by Government of Odisha (not by a person), so a person hasn't any direct control over it, and the Government doesn't have any rights to release an individual person's stuff (unless work for hire/or government work or so). Post-that Individual stuff would merit an individual permission release. This is not a difficult or complex issue. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 15:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Aafi. This is a place where I lack sometimes. Finding the correct words to explain. I also need a help from you, or maybe @Jmabel bczo he corrected my wordings in the template. Krd gave an advice in the edit summary which says Please put into the template what exactly it applies to, instead of saying what it not applies to. I believe my explanation above makes it clear what it applies to and what it doesnt. But I am unable to write it on a level that has no mistakes and am also confused as to what exactly needs to be replaced bcoz the last line of the para already clarifies whats allowed. So, Plz help! Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect a complete list of what it applies to would be too long for the template itself, but would be useful to have on the template talk page. It would say what accounts (or, if applicable, simply domains) it covers, and for what dates (if relevant). - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel in that case I think it would be better if we get'em verified by LRs just like every GODL-India upload has to be verified. Bcoz the terms on the template talk page won't have that scale of visibility as on the main page. Regarding the list being long, the list of sources is listed in the OTRS permission that's included in the template (that's also a place where dates need to be mentioned. Regarding the wordings that Krd proposed to be fixed in the template, I would propose you guys or some experienced Template editor to do it, bcoz its way out of my league to fix in a way it would've no flaws. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Files from treeoftheyear.org (ticket:2021021710007114)

Just raising a query about 127 files sourced from www.treeoftheyear.org, an annual tree competition in Europe. With the exception of a single logo image, these images have different authors, and mostly (but not all) have the comment "with kind permission by https://www.treeoftheyear.org - 2021-02-17". Just 32 of these files have a link to the above VRT ticket. First question: should all the rest of the files be linked to the same ticket? Second: given that all the files have different authors, is it in the gift of the Tree of the Year website to allow these images to be published as CC-SA-4.0 on Commons? Presumably the authors had to licence as CC-SA-4.0 in order to have their image published on the website, and that information is in the ticket. But I wanted to verify in any case.

Pinging @Cookroach: as uploader.

Thanks, Dogfennydd (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Dogfennydd for your enquiry. I can't tell you exactly what is included in the ticket. But you are right, normally all these pictures should have the VRT with the ticket. I can only tell you in which process the pictures i uploaded.

In 2020/2021, I was in close contact with the person responsible for the competition in the EU. This person authorised me to use/upload the images by means of an approval email, which led to the creation of the VRT ticket and this include into. After that, there was another process in which I was not fully involved. This included the questioning of each individual image for approval, as the national organisations had to be consulted! There was an online list where the requested authorisations were entered. That was the status at the end of 2021, but by the time of the 2022 competition (February/March), but this contact had already been lost!

Despite repeated efforts to maintain contact, I have been unable to obtain further information about the status of the requested authorisations or the upload of further images from the competitions from 2022 onwards. I think this is an extreme pity, as these pictures are not only of great symbolic value but also of documentary value beyond the competition include and I would have liked to continue the project. It frustrates me not only that the organisation of the competition does not get back to me, but also because of the integration into other international articles on the topic and the individual objects.

I can only see the reason for this in the fact that the competences in and around the competition have changed. Where in 2021 the EU was still in charge of patronage and organisation, the Czech national organisation now seems to have taken over again. I have tried to write to them for information, but have not received a reply. I can't say which of the admins on Commons is now responsible for these tickets, which may not have been fully processed. I would find it very annoying if the images were to lose their status on Commons because of this. Do you have a solution for the situation or how would you like to proceed again?--Cookroach (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Cookroach for the detailed response (and also for uploading this set of high-quality images!). It seems like my question 2 is answered, and the authors have (in principle) been approached for permission for upload. As long as everything is included in the VRT ticket (and that is appropriately linked to all the files) I don’t think there should be an issue, but I’ll defer to somebody who has access to the ticket to check that and confirm either way. Dogfennydd (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The ticket contains 76 entries. Without having read everything I'd assume that the file which contain the ticket permission are good, while other files in the category are still missing permission. Krd 14:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 05:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

File:ABBA4U Tribute01.jpg

Ik zag bij de uitleg voor de foto dat er een e-mail van een vrt geplaatst was. Maar ik kan die als eigenaar van de foto niet lezen. Kan iemand me helpen wat het probleem is Tettelin Bart (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw in the explanation for the photo that an email from a VRT had been posted. But as the owner of the photo, I cannot read it. Can someone help me figure out what the problem is? Tettelin Bart Tettelin Bart (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

ticket.wikimedia.org is for VRT agents, it is not intended to be public. If you are the one who send the VRT permission, you can simply check your email inbox. Nemoralis (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 03:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyright enquiry

Hello! I am interested in the works of Category:Works of Dimitri Tavadze for a potential publication and would like to be certain that the copyright has been verified as below:

"This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. 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 #2014041110014896."

I was kindly directed by someone from the Help Desk forum to view the talk page of the user who uploaded the images, which shows it is the grandson of the artist (also the current owner). I assume that he has thereafter organised consent from the copyright holder (either himself or another family member). Would it be possible at all to obtain any kind of official documentation to verify that the work has indeed been freed of copyright restrictions? (with correct attribution, of course). Would it also be possible to know who is the copyright holder who has given the consent?

Thanks for your help! Pigadiotissa (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The permission letter came from the person listed here and here as the author. I can't provide any official documentation, you can ask User:Cocoracha. Nemoralis (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem, thank you @Nemoralis ! Pigadiotissa (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Rules for revoking/invalidating a VRT permission

Hi all

I'm trying to find some information and I can't find anything written down about it. Is there any documentation on the circumstances where a VRT permission wouldn't be valid or could be revoked? E.g I assume that a VRT permission wouldn't be valid if the person who sent the VRT didn't have permission from organisation to grant permission for the files or they made a mistake within the form eg released them under an incorrect license which they didn't have permission to do?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no general information, as cases may be different and always are complicated. Please contact VRT if you have any issue, and please withdraw the question if this is just a what-if. Krd 11:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There are definitely situations where a permission received through VRT can later be considered invalid or insufficient, even if it was originally accepted. In terms of process, any user — not just VRT volunteers — can raise concerns here on this noticeboard about a specific ticket or file, and another VRT agent can review and re-assess the ticket. If the issue is serious enough, they can invalidate the permission by removing the relevant VRT tag from the file(s). These actions are not taken lightly, and usually involve either internal discussion among volunteers or clear evidence that the permission should never have been accepted in the first place. From the community side, if someone on Commons disagrees with a VRT-accepted permission, they can still open a deletion request (DR) and raise the matter there. Ultimately, it's the closing admin of the DR who decides whether the file stays or is deleted. VRT exists to verify permission in a private and accountable way, but it does not override Commons policies on licensing or community consensus.

Within VRT, agents have access to an internal wiki and mailing list where we regularly bring up tricky or ambiguous cases. If a volunteer is unsure about the validity of a permission, for example if there are doubts about the sender's role, inconsistencies in the message, or third-party content involved, they can consult with other agents to get additional perspectives. In some cases, a permission may have been accepted in good faith at the time, but new information later comes to light that requires us to revisit and potentially revoke it.

So while permissions aren't revoked often, it definitely happens when justified. It's part of our responsibility to ensure Commons' licensing standards are upheld, and agents take that responsibility seriously. If you have a specific case in mind, feel free to link it here and we can take a closer look. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Josve05a, thank you very much. I'm working with an organisation where a representative has sent a VRT permission which has been approved. However there was some misunderstanding between me and the organisation and within the organisation and they sent the wrong resolution images and sent a permission for the wrong license (CC BY-SA 4.0 instead of CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO), both of which they did not have permission from the organisation to do. They still want to share the images, we just need these two things correcting asap. I really want to fix this as soon as possible because their images are extremely valuable (seen millions of times a month on Wikipedia) and they want to share a lot more images. I'm assuming we could do something like this:

1. We agree on how to proceed with this, and someone drafts an email to VRT with the correct wording to fix these issues. Maybe something like "As discussed with VRT volunteers on the VRT noticeboard I confirm that the wrong resolution images were shared on Wikimedia Commons and that the permission should have been sent for CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO, not CC BY-SA 4.0, please could you change the permission to the correct license and delete all previous versions of the files and only leave the most recent versions of the images."
2. I upload the correct resolution images as new versions of the current images, to avoid losing all the hard work of Wikimedians who have been adding them to articles.
3. They send the email confirming the changes.
4. A VRT person approves the changes and deletes the old versions of the files.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This sounds like a question for the Commons community at-large on how they would like to act on the already uploaded files, rather than a VRT question.

If the person who sent the original permission was authorized to release images on behalf of the organisation, then the license they specified (in this case CC BY-SA 4.0) is valid and can't be retroactively changed. CC licenses are irrevocable by design — once someone with authority releases a work under a CC license, that license sticks, even if the organisation later realises they didn't mean to allow that resolution or license type. If the issue is that the person didn't have internal permission to make that release, that doesn't automatically invalidate it. It's like a parent using a joint bank account to buy a car without the other parent's approval — maybe they weren't supposed to, but the dealership still considers the sale binding. So if the sender was authorised to act for the organisation, Commons has to treat the license as valid, and that applies permanently to those files, regardless of what the organisation wishes in hindsight.

If the sender wasn't authorised to license anything at all, then that's a different matter — VRT agents can reassess the permission, and the organisation would need to send a corrected statement from someone who is authorised, clarifying what they want to release and under what license. But from what you're saying, that doesn't sound like the case here. If they still want to share the files, just under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO and at lower resolution, they should confirm that in writing for future uploads. It won’t undo the release of the current high-res versions (those remain freely licensed), but it could help prevent confusion going forward. File history cleanup (removing old versions) might be possible, but that’s about practicality, not revoking rights — and it's unclear if the Commons community would support doing so, since anyone who downloaded the high-res version under CC BY-SA 4.0 still retains full rights to use it.

I'll let others weigh in though, given that we shouldn't want to cause bad-will (but a release is a release)... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thoughts, please can you tell me where this is written down as rules? I'm struggling to find anything actually written down as policy.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The fact that licenses are irrevocable are written in the license terms; see Legal Code - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International - Creative Commons. Who is or isn't authorized is a matter of law and interpretation, not a specific public "guide" here on Commons on who is or isn't authorized for every organization that exists. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixing the license shortly after publication is nothing uncommon. Especially with such a minor change between different versions of CC-BY-SA I see no problem. Just correct the file pages. The change is also transparently visible in the page history for external re users who used the old license. The resolution is a totally different topic that has nothing to do with licensing. CC licenses are for the creative work and not for a specific digital representation of that work. The license therefore applies to every resolution (see CC FAQ). If they have these higher resolution works published anywhere else we should also keep them. If Commons is the only platform where the high resolution versions are publicly available and there are potential problems because people are identifiable they would not be in the lower resolution I would perform a courtesy deletion. GPSLeo (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the explanation. My understanding is that some CC licenses allow dual licensing for different resolutions and some don't, however I can't find that written down anywhere currently, I'll update this message with a link if I find one.

Thank you for the offer of courtesy deletions, yes Commons is the only platform where high res is publicly available, I think all of the images include identifiable people.

John Cummings (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, it is always possible for us to blur faces of private individuals in otherwise high-resolution images. Similarly for license plates, etc., or anything seen as inappropriately identifying individuals. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but this won't solve the issue. John Cummings (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, GPSLeo, Josve05a, please can you tell me would this be acceptable as a VRT email sent by them to

1. Only allow a new lower resolution version of the images on Commons and delete the old versions
2. Change the license to CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
3. Maintain the file names so the images don't get removed from the very high traffic articles they are being used on

Dear Wikimedia Commons VRT Team

I'm writing to you to inform you that recently a permission was sent to you for which the person did not have the authority to release. However we would still like for the images to be available, however we cannot release them under the same resolution or license as was originally shared.

We would like for the new resolution of images to be uploaded under the same file names so the images are retained on the Wikipedia articles they are currently used on, John Cummings can do this for us. We would then like the older versions of the images deleted from Commons and the license changed to CC BY-SA IGO 3.0.

We apologise for the additional work this may cause.

Many thanks

Would this fulfill the requirements and allow the organisation to make the changes they want? I.e to upload new lower res versions under the same file names and switch the license, without the images being lost from Commons so they all get kept in their Wikipedia articles?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

They need to explain why they want the full resolution to be removed. GPSLeo (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @GPSLeo: , could you explain why they would need to say why they want to remove the higher resolution versions. Also what answers would be acceptable to Commons? Eg would it be acceptable to simply state it is not their policy to make high resolution versions available to the public? John Cummings (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This really isn't something the VRT noticeboard can decide. VRT's role is to privately receive and confirm permission statements, and to make that confirmation available to the Commons community. Whether files should be deleted, have older versions removed, or have their license changed after upload is a matter for the Commons community at large — for example, via a deletion request or village pump discussion. VRT could confirm via email if the organisation had genuine privacy concerns with the high-resolution versions, or if the person who originally emailed us did not have any authority whatsoever to release the images (for example, being a random intern with no mandate). In this case, however, it appears you are requesting courtesy deletions of higher-resolution versions due to the organisation wishing to back-track on their release, which is a community matter rather than a VRT decision. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation, I'm just trying to understand what and what isn't allowed, I can't seem to find anything written down so that's why I'm asking here :) John Cummings (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Krd 16:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Kind of Bloop album cover.png

The permission from the person who created the cover art is at ticket:2025052010011304. However, since this might be a work for hire, I wonder if I also need to seek permission from Andy Baio to address the possibility that he owns the copyright. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The permission letter must come from the copyright owner. Nemoralis (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Some significant additional context here that Baio was threatened with a lawsuit over this cover at the time, it being a derivative work of the original Miles Davis album cover: https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ Belbury (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that the "set of comparison images" mentioned in the ticket refers to the one at the bottom of that blog post; accordingly, I have uploaded that as File:Kind of Bloop comparison images.png. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Krd I wonder what problems the ticket has that I assume caused you to delete both of the images. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prospectprospekt, no response to VRT's question. Nemoralis (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

What was the question? prospectprospekt (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

We cannot disclose what was privately discussed with the permission sender. If possible pease encourage them to reply or to send the permission again. Krd 06:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Krd, @Nemoralis: Can I least know what vital information the ticket is missing that made you ask the question? This is because I fear that you might be asking for information that is already known. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prospectprospekt, file's name or URL on Wikimedia Commons. Nemoralis (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: That information is useless because they can't see what the files depict. At least for File:Kind of Bloop album cover.png, the given information should be sufficient; in my initial email to them, I included a link to an archived version of the original cover art on the Kind of Bloop website, and in their reply, they make it clear that they know what they are granting permission for—the original cover art is what was subject to the fair use controversy. You should be able to verify this information by looking at the ticket, which should contain both my email to them and their reply. prospectprospekt (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis Can you check if the permission sender has sent a second ticket to permissions-commons? prospectprospekt (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply @Prospectprospekt. No, there is no second ticket. I will request for undeletion of the file and ask related questions in ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nemoralis If the ticket contains what I think it contains, then the file does not need to be undeleted per my previous comment. If that is the case, then, instead of asking what the filename on commons is Regardless of if you think a filename or commons url is needed, you should also ask 1) if the "set of comparison images" mentioned in the ticket refers to that depicted at https://waxy.org/random/images/weblog/kindofbloop_draw_the_line.png, 2) if they created the set of comparison images, and 3) if they signed any sort of agreement or exclusive license concerning the original Kind of Bloop album art or the set of comparison images. prospectprospekt (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC) edited 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC) edited 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I have forwarded the email I sent them and their response to VRT. These are at ticket:2025071210042515 and ticket:2025071210042499. prospectprospekt (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I will take this matter to Commons:Undeletion requests rather than continue discussing it here. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. prospectprospekt (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)