SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 3 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Main VRT-related pages

• Commons:Volunteer Response Team
• Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Commons:Email templates
• {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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

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

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 17:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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