Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. |
This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.
Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
|
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
- Commons:Email templates
- {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
Event photos of models
[edit]It is alleged that Commons images and x.com images share some features (subjects, event names, angles, captions, etc), that they must have been taken by the same person, and that we need to follow COM:VRT and confirm the identity via email. This concerns hundreds of pictures tagged and linked at User talk:Bject now, including File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg.
I looked into the allegation, asked some questions at User_talk:Bject#File:Trend_Girls_Photo_Session_(May_4,_2025)IMG_4472.jpg, and left with confusion and disagreement over what I think as simple facts. Or perhaps I might be missing something obvious. I hope to get a fresh perspective that will hopefully guide us to a resolution. Here is my summary of what the disagreement is:
The uploader User:Bject claims
- that they are not the same pictures, although there might be similarities if they were taken from the same angle
- that the uploader is not the person behind the x.com account
The tagger User:Alachuckthebuck claims
- that some of them are the same pictures, and/or have exact matches
- that captions match and it adds to the suspicion (that images might have been stolen)
- that the x.com account and the uploader here are likely to be the same person
My opinion is that the tagger's claim is not well substantiated, at least not to the level where VRT can start working on from. I have not seen any previous publication that have pixel-level matches to Commons files listed at the talk page. Similarities in captions are very weak evidence to claim the associated images might have been stolen. I asked for links, and got only one, which didn't show an exact match in my opinion. What do you think? whym (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- At least the example of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg that was apparently matched to https://x.com/stonefree_part6/status/1921401301625196914/photo/2 is a false positive. This is easily visible on the hair patterns and the finger positions (the hair falls differently, the fingers are closer together in our upload). Stemming from my experiences as hobby photographer, I would say that these images, assuming that they were taken sequentially, were shot with maybe less than one to a few seconds in between. It's also possible that the model is proficient enough to get into the same position within a few millimetres when resuming her pose, but the wrinkles on the bikini, IMHO virtually unchanged, make a serial exposure more likely. We could discuss concise Twitter-Commons image pairs, maybe on COM:VPC, but the circumstances do not really point towards pure NETCOPYVIOs. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- When looking for NETCOPYVIOs or duplicates, it's always sensible to look for intricate details while making comparisons: hairs, scales (in animals), pavement and vegetation patterns, the form and quantity of reflections (like in eyes or windows); in short everything that is easily moved out of position by even slight movements of or in the motif or where minute angle changes of the camera change the perception of e.g. the perspective on a pavement. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The claim that the uploader is not the person behind the X account seems weird. Has anyone asked them straight out, "Is the X account using photos you took?" It's not just that it looks like an image taken seconds later (at most), but that it looks like it's taken by someone the same height and with the exact same lens, the same exposure settings, the same aperture, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I may have operated under a misunderstanding, looking for whether images are identical and nothing else. I think that it is quite obvious that the owner of the Wikimedia account "Bject" is also owner of the Twitter account "@stonefree_part6". But that is IMHO mostly irrelevant - as long as any relevant image was not published first on Twitter. Only that was my point: the Twitter image is different from the Commons upload. Furthermore, by the fact that there are quite complete EXIF available here points toward a legitimate upload (Twitter removes them, as far as I'm aware). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Can I conclude that while there is some doubt on the uploader's claims, there is nothing VRT should do about it for now, unless true duplicated publication outside of Commons is found?
- I notified the two users using user talk page. It looks like they don't have further comment to add so far. whym (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- It appears ticket:2025051610000477 is related to this discussion. Krd 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- 私が投稿した画像を削除したことに不服を申し立てます。似ているだけの画像が削除され、加えてなぜ全く違う場所や投稿日のものも巻き添えなのでしょうか。I am complaining about the deletion of the image I posted. Why are images that are merely similar being deleted, and why are images from completely different locations and posting dates also being deleted?--Bject (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd Do you have any response? whym (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly not, but I don't even understand the question. Can you help? Krd 06:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think Bject wants you to explain the deletion of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg and other similarly-named files you speedy-deleted along with it on June 16 (and presumably, what it takes to undelete them). This is about more than 100 files deleted practically at the same time, if I recall it correctly. whym (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is ticket:2025051610000217 about this, but it's in Japanese, which I cannot read. Please assist is possible. Krd 13:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd If it's up to me, I would keep the files without a VRT tag. I already said that much on 30 May 2025 above. I believe COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary applies, so the content of email is irrelevant, in Japanese or otherwise. Publicly available information including discussion here should be enough basis to decide. What do you think? whym (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. Though I don't see any list of the affected files. Do you have any? Krd 08:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think the files are listed in [1], although they are mixed with other deletions. Alternatively you might want to try this: files with the "File:Enako" prefix at User_talk:Bject/Archive_5, and files with the "File:Trend Girls" prefix at [2]] whym (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to double-check, the file links are also in ticket:2025061610008557, ticket:2025061610008539, ticket:2025061610008495, ticket:2025061610008422, ticket:2025061610008315. whym (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think the files are listed in [1], although they are mixed with other deletions. Alternatively you might want to try this: files with the "File:Enako" prefix at User_talk:Bject/Archive_5, and files with the "File:Trend Girls" prefix at [2]] whym (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. Though I don't see any list of the affected files. Do you have any? Krd 08:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd If it's up to me, I would keep the files without a VRT tag. I already said that much on 30 May 2025 above. I believe COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary applies, so the content of email is irrelevant, in Japanese or otherwise. Publicly available information including discussion here should be enough basis to decide. What do you think? whym (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is ticket:2025051610000217 about this, but it's in Japanese, which I cannot read. Please assist is possible. Krd 13:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think Bject wants you to explain the deletion of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg and other similarly-named files you speedy-deleted along with it on June 16 (and presumably, what it takes to undelete them). This is about more than 100 files deleted practically at the same time, if I recall it correctly. whym (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly not, but I don't even understand the question. Can you help? Krd 06:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd Do you have any response? whym (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- 私が投稿した画像を削除したことに不服を申し立てます。似ているだけの画像が削除され、加えてなぜ全く違う場所や投稿日のものも巻き添えなのでしょうか。I am complaining about the deletion of the image I posted. Why are images that are merely similar being deleted, and why are images from completely different locations and posting dates also being deleted?--Bject (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- It appears ticket:2025051610000477 is related to this discussion. Krd 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I may have operated under a misunderstanding, looking for whether images are identical and nothing else. I think that it is quite obvious that the owner of the Wikimedia account "Bject" is also owner of the Twitter account "@stonefree_part6". But that is IMHO mostly irrelevant - as long as any relevant image was not published first on Twitter. Only that was my point: the Twitter image is different from the Commons upload. Furthermore, by the fact that there are quite complete EXIF available here points toward a legitimate upload (Twitter removes them, as far as I'm aware). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- The claim that the uploader is not the person behind the X account seems weird. Has anyone asked them straight out, "Is the X account using photos you took?" It's not just that it looks like an image taken seconds later (at most), but that it looks like it's taken by someone the same height and with the exact same lens, the same exposure settings, the same aperture, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Washington Digital Archives permission
[edit]Please confirm permissions in the VRT ticket listed on File:President of the Senate Victor A. Meyers.jpg
I would like to update several official post-1930 portraits, such as this one of Meyers with higher resolution versions which have become available in the past decade.
Thank you OceanLoop (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- @OceanLoop: Resolution shouldn't affect copyright, presuming the original licensed image is legible. At least under U.S. law as I understand it, there is no distinct copyrightable element in a higher-resolution copy. So if we have the license for the copyrighted material, that should also cover a higher-resolution copy. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I do not know whether we have the license - this is my question to VRT. OceanLoop (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- "This is a public domain web site. It is governed by the Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.56.040-130) which makes this information, and any information you submit to this site, freely available for public inspection and copying." Nemoralis (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- This disclaimer does not allow the free use of any image on the Digital Archives website, as some content is clearly marked in-copyright: it even says this information (refering to the privacy policy - not all information. OceanLoop (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- If there is a ticket on the item, then clearly for that particular item VRT were satisfied; otherwise they would have nominated it for deletion.
- The office of the Washington State Secretary of State is the one Washington State department that routinely puts everything it owns into the public domain. It sounds like the state purchased the Susan Parish Photograph Collection, and it's on the site of the Secretary of State; if that purchase included the copyrights, then I would guess that this would be public domain. I'm not VRT, so I have no idea whether the ticket is any broader than the one image, but if you end up contacting the Secretary of State to clarify this, it would be good to see if they will assert that the entire Susan Parish Photograph Collection has been placed in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like PequodOnStationAtLZ is going for it - bravo! OceanLoop (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- happy to help! PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like PequodOnStationAtLZ is going for it - bravo! OceanLoop (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Both ticket and website mentioned this as copyright policy. Quote from the ticket:
All photos retrieved from the Digital Archives website which you are using are in the public domain. Because they were created using state funds, they are a public record.
Nemoralis (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)- I feel strongly we still need an explicit list of collections which are "created using state funds", and therefore in the public domain, because this is ambiguous to me as a casual user, and clearly not inclusive of all available digital records available. It would be in everyone's interest to get clear and direct permission to copy identified collections to Commons at their maximum available resolution - a formality best left to professionals. OceanLoop (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd doubt this on a couple of levels. (1) Speaking from experience, the Office of the Secretary of State is the only entity of the Washington State government that consistently places its intellectual property in the public domain. For example, note the copyright notices on the pages for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Revenue, etc. So that general statement about state money is simply not true. (2) Regardless of their intent to place content in the public domain, if they purchased a collection of photographs, they can offer licenses only if they purchased the copyright. Have they explicitly said that they did so in this case? - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- This disclaimer does not allow the free use of any image on the Digital Archives website, as some content is clearly marked in-copyright: it even says this information (refering to the privacy policy - not all information. OceanLoop (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Complex release that doesn't fit templates
[edit]
IMG_4472.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
IMG_4472.jpg){kind=link}
James Porter the author and original creator of Disk/Trend Reports is deceased, and his copyright has been licensed to the Computer History Musuem. I asked for and received permission from the museum to extract pages from his many reports and post them to Wikimedia when appropriate, the first such was: File:FDD_Market_1988-1997.png.[3] I filled out a license form and attached to it a png of the emails between the museum and me, but the email comes from my address, so the bot flagged the media. The media is a png marked with both Disk/Trend and the Computer History Museum but it's not clear that the Bot would associate any email address. I've asked the museum to send a release on their email address and I rewrote it a bit to make it clear that it was a general release for any editor to extract images and post them. How do I get the tag removed and how do I not have to involve the museum in every extract I see a reason to post in the future. Tom94022 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Tom94022: Please respond to the email we sent (August 18, 21:01 UTC). Once permission is accepted, we can set up a template for you to use that confirms your permission, so you don't have to email every time. We will also remove that tag once permission is accepted. (If the permission takes too long, we can always undelete the file if needed.) —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Microlino press images / Please check scope of ticket #2020120110011934
[edit]Apparently Micro Mobility Systems (Q680803) did release some of their press material under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (see ticket:2020120110011934). However, since this release, new images by Micro Mobility Systems (Q680803) have been uploaded by a different user (Special:ListFiles/Licion_lee) without any mentioning of the previous release. Can a volunteer please check the scope of the release and ping me? File:Microlino 2.0 Assembly Line in Turin Italy.png has already been deleted but I can undelete it, if the exisiting release is valid for it too. MB-one (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @MB-one: the ticket applies to a list of about 8 files, and is not valid for any other upload, whether old or new. signed, Aafi (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Aafi Thank you for the clarification. Have a great (rest of the) day. MB-one (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
One work by en:Maurice Benayoun uploaded by MoBen is under free licence after ticket #2009072210027786.
Is this ticket:2009072210027786 valid for the other works by the same artist and uploaded by the same user or should they be deleted as copyvio ?
Thanks. Habertix (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC).