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
Adding ticket:2014030810001523 to Texas Historical Markers
[edit]ticket:2014030810001523 is reportedly permission from the Texas Historical Commission to use their Texas Historical Markers on Commons. I would like to add the permission to the marker images so the images will not be nominated for deletion. Is it OK to do that? Thanks Nv8200pa (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here is a rough search query to find relevant files.
- At a quick glance, the permission looks weaker than we hope. It looks like the organization's representative who wrote relevant emails did not believe those texts were copyrighted, and saw no need for a release statement. They gave assurance that they encourage people to share such photos of historical markers of theirs, but not in the form of a license statement that Commons usually expects (unless I missed something). Some content on those markers might be short enough to be non-copyrightable, others might not be. I'm not saying all those marker pictures should immediately be deleted, but a new request to them for a release seems adequate. It's been more than a decade so it might be better to start from scratch than trying to revive the previous conversation. Disclosure: I was involved in the ticket a decade ago, but to be honest I don't remember to what extent I did research exactly. It would be great if someone else can review this case, too. whym (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Let me try to rephrase (in case it was not clear enough). 1) the permission looks week and needs re-evaluation even for existing images, 2) it is unlikely that we can extend the existing permission to other similar markers. Point 2 can be an answer to the request, and in a sense that could end the discussion. However, Point 1 is still not resolved, and I would hope someone else look into it besides me, although I think it was not a question asked originally. What do others think? whym (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Red Bull logo
[edit]Does ticket:2025020610011248, present at File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png, make the Red Bull logo free? And hence w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg among others can be relicensed and transfered to Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'd say No. It makes only the "Red Bull Ring" logo free. Krd 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- But w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg is a part of File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png so logically, both or neither, should be free, or is my logic flawed? Jonteemil (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think you logic is flawed. The Red Bull Ring logo is free, not any other logo that recombines a part of it into another logo.
- In any case this is a general copyright question and out of scope of VRT and this noticeboard. Krd 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I asked on COM:VPC first but it was archived before anyone had answered. I don't see how my logic is flawed. Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not an answer to your question, but as an alternative approach: What if you ask Red Bull for a release for the logos in question? Krd 05:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- I asked on COM:VPC first but it was archived before anyone had answered. I don't see how my logic is flawed. Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- But w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg is a part of File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png so logically, both or neither, should be free, or is my logic flawed? Jonteemil (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png is a derivative work. I think it's worth checking again with the email sender that they have the authority to release the original logo that the file is derivative to. If they don't, their license alone would be insufficient even for the derivative logo (unless you blur it partially, perhaps). whym (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please do. Krd 09:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Scope of VRT ticket:2019010310001751 for Karunanidhi English translations
[edit]I am checking the reuse status of this exact file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KalaignarinenglishtranslationAsisintheoriginal(shortstories).pdf Its file page marks the complete PDF CC0/public domain and cites VRT ticket:2019010310001751. Can a VRT volunteer please confirm whether that ticket covers the copyright in the complete English translations and associated publisher text contained in the PDF, rather than only the underlying Tamil works by M. Karunanidhi? If the ticket covers a larger collection, could you also identify which English-language book files are covered? The intended reuse is extraction and alignment of Tamil and English text, redistribution of the resulting parallel-text dataset with provenance, and use in machine-learning research, including publication of trained model artifacts. No clarification of machine-learning law is requested; I only need the scope of the archived permission and stated CC0 dedication. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- The link you have provided is wrong but:
- File:Tamil-Nadu-Nationalized-Books-Public-Domain-Declaration.jpg should give you context.
- The ticket particularly deals with Category:PDF books in Tamil from TVA in 2015.
- It also hints to this link from Tamil Nadu government.
- As such I don't think it should include English works or translations but Balajijagadesh may have a better opinion/information. signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 18:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is the correct link: File:Kalaignar in english translation As is in the original (short stories).pdf
- The English translation is in the same PDF which is marked as CC0. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- As per this GO, "GoTN_Tamil_Development_Departments_order_on_creative_commons_cc_by_sa.pdf" all the publications of the Tamil Nadu government is in CCBYSA. As the said publication is by a government university it should come under CCBYSA.
- @TVA ARUN Must have better understanding as he is closely related to these work. Balaji (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Eugenides Foundation
[edit]
Can someone look at ticket:2010062210044239?
These are Files from the Eugenides Foundation. User:DieBucheBot (by User:DieBuche) stuck a CC 1.0 license on them in 2010 despite CC 3.0 having been around since 2007. More specifically it used the unversioned template redirect {{CC-by-SA}}.
Questions:
- Does the ticket say anything about a license version?
- File:EugenFound-130.jpg has a National Geographic logo, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- File:EugenFound-123.jpg says "iWERKS moving entertainment", does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- File:EugenFound-119.jpg shows w:Le Petit Prince, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- No license version is mentioned, they only say "free license" and "CC-BY-SA" with no specific version. Regarding permissions, they say "All images that start with
EugenFoundare completely owned by the Eugenides Planetarium of Athens, Greece." Nemoralis (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC) - Per today's standards the ticket is invalid because it doesn't clarify why Eugenides Foundation wants to be copyright holder. I'm going to reopen the ticket. Krd 12:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Undeletion request - ticket:2026062310007873
[edit]I would like to kindly ask to revert the deletion of "File:Guarda-louça - Museu de Alcântara (MCHA.0013) - 2022-10-10 09.55.52.jpg" and many others, as permission was verified with ticket nºticket:2026062310007873.
Edit group links:
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/78d3de0ca0c/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/1e228a9dd07/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/4184de5b4f3/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/d2bd37a6eaa/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/3e87f8787f1/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/1bcdd01bdce/
Thank you in advance, HGodinho (WMB) (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
I would like to check the status of the written consent under ticket:2026062710002852 that was submitted for File:Црква „Рождество на Пресвета Богородица“ - Бориево 4.jpg on 27 June 2026. I notice that the file is still tagged with a deletion template and the deletion request has not been closed. Please note that this is a follow-up to an archived discussion in which I got instructions on the substance of the written consent. Thank you. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket is still open and requires review by a second VRT user. Krd 08:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
ticket number ticket:2026072110008231
[edit]The Wikimedia team has had the image author's declaration of consent on file for a few days now under ticket number 2026072110008231. The image could now be approved shortly. Perhaps a user here could provide a brief status update. LG Abrape (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket is incomplete, as discussed in the ticket. --Krd 13:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- What exactly is incomplete? The author sent the image release consent form to the VRT team from her email address (albeit via mine). I had sent the form to the author pre-filled, which might be why she sent it back to me instead. What did I do wrong? LG Abrape (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- As said above, we discussed the same thing in the ticket. If you request a second opinion, please respond in the ticket. Krd 14:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- What exactly is incomplete? The author sent the image release consent form to the VRT team from her email address (albeit via mine). I had sent the form to the author pre-filled, which might be why she sent it back to me instead. What did I do wrong? LG Abrape (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Hey, I want to verify the the images applied to this ticket. As it is used in Italian Wikipedia for Template:copyright Wikisky. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
File:Bitdefender Headquarters Bucharest Romania.jpg is labeled as having permission documented through ticket:2026050610005024. However, COM:FOP Romania says there is no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Romania. The licensing terms on the image say nothing about licensing or attribution to the owner of the artistic rights in the building's architecture; they only appear to cover the photographer's interest in the image. Does the VRT ticket cover the building's architecture? If so, how should this be properly expressed in the image license? David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- It does. The photo was approved as it is by the architect. Krd 07:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've used this information to go ahead and F8-delete the redundant copy on en from which this was imported. David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Regarding how to submit VRTS Ticket for Template
[edit]Hey @Krd, I want to know how i or anyone can submit VRTS Ticket for Template Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- What exactly could be the question? Krd 07:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I mean how to apply for putting VRTS Ticket on License Template like for example used on Template:Cc-zero-SpaceX Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand the question. How could that be different for a template compared to a file, except that the release would state a file set definition instead of a file name? Krd 08:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I mean the Interactive Release Generator only allows File not Template Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- The Interactive Release Generator generates a draft e-mail which one can modify before sending. The VRT also listens for requests written in own words. Krd 08:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, Thanks Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- The Interactive Release Generator generates a draft e-mail which one can modify before sending. The VRT also listens for requests written in own words. Krd 08:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I mean the Interactive Release Generator only allows File not Template Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand the question. How could that be different for a template compared to a file, except that the release would state a file set definition instead of a file name? Krd 08:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I mean how to apply for putting VRTS Ticket on License Template like for example used on Template:Cc-zero-SpaceX Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC) copyright infringement
[edit]- 2022113010008383 The file was uploaded without the author’s consent. The volunteer discussed the matter with me, and I communicated with them on behalf of the author. However, I failed to notify the author about the licensing of the file.For some time, I was staying with the author, and I personally suggested creating an article and attaching files containing the author’s work to it. The author was not interested in handling this process himself, so I took care of it on his behalf, with access to his computer and email.
However, I did not fully understand the licensing requirements at the time and was not aware of the specific conditions under which the files would be licensed. As a result, I did not provide the author with information about the licensing terms and did not obtain his informed consent to license the files. Therefore, although I was acting on the author’s behalf in creating the article and uploading the files, the author himself did not consent to the licensing of those files. This misunderstanding ultimately led to the current copyright issue, which the author has asked me to resolve. Artland1 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- The response from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department was as expected: the license cannot be revoked. Available in ticket:2026072310004623
Now, no further action within Wikimedia projects is valid; the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department's response is final. Lesless (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 14:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Yours ticket #2026061910004697. where paintings by Eivind Engebretsen is licensced.
[edit]Hello, I see from a Deletion Request here that the image in question (and others it seems due to active renaming of files) have been aproved. The uploader or other as copyrightholders have then transferred rights to Commons.
.jpg){kind=link}
As the uploader earlier have claimed ownership to copies, but not the copyrigt to Eivind Engebretsen works; the permission given may not be valid. As there is an interest in NOːWP to get access to this images; the VRT-process sofar may also have some COI-issues; the matter should be re-evalueted with fresh eyes. Andrez1 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have seen the VTRS ticket and I agree with TommyG's assessment that the permission is valid. Due to the confidentiality agreement all VTRS volunteers have to abide by, neither TommyG nor I can reveal more about the contents of the ticket other than we have already stated unless the person who submitted the ticket agrees to let us do so. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Other works by the painter is still under copyright as this so if commons have other information, good. I somewhat doubt it. The ticket should be reevaluated. Andrez1 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- No-one is claiming the pictures are not in copyright, just that the correspondent has correctly licensed the images they uploaded. Nthep (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- As having the legal rights to transfer copyright to commons through an CC-what license? For this to happens the the heirs of Eivind Engebretsen needs to be identified and they need to give up the remaining 4 years of the Protection period. There are ideal rights like the right to get named. But also rights to protect the painters reputation. That is lost by CC-license. So i doubt they can give away copyright just like that. The deal with commons should be reevaluated.
- Someone might give the portraits Salvador Dalí moustaches and add funny words at the bottom. Andrez1 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: (1) No rights are "transferred to Commons". A license is granted to whomever may choose to use it, Commons included. (2) You seem to be saying that you do not trust the members of the VRT to do the task that they have been chosen to do. It seems odd to me that you are saying that at least two people chosen by the community for this role and having exercised it for some time have certainly not correctly understood a piece of correspondence that you presumably have not seen and where you have no way to know even who were the parties to the correspondence and they would be violating the terms of their position by discussing that. What action could the VRT even possibly take here that would satisfy your doubts (other than saying that they were wrong and you are right, which they obviously do not believe to be the case)? - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- In this case, I have objective objections to what will be VRT's assessments. VRT then seems to be not responsible to anyone, least of all the audience. I would like someone to look at the matter with new eyes. Andrez1 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: VRT agents are experienced volunteers entrusted by the community to review permissions sent by third parties. Nothing more can be done here. Yann (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- More should be done. Andrez1 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: VRT agents are experienced volunteers entrusted by the community to review permissions sent by third parties. Nothing more can be done here. Yann (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- In this case, I have objective objections to what will be VRT's assessments. VRT then seems to be not responsible to anyone, least of all the audience. I would like someone to look at the matter with new eyes. Andrez1 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: (1) No rights are "transferred to Commons". A license is granted to whomever may choose to use it, Commons included. (2) You seem to be saying that you do not trust the members of the VRT to do the task that they have been chosen to do. It seems odd to me that you are saying that at least two people chosen by the community for this role and having exercised it for some time have certainly not correctly understood a piece of correspondence that you presumably have not seen and where you have no way to know even who were the parties to the correspondence and they would be violating the terms of their position by discussing that. What action could the VRT even possibly take here that would satisfy your doubts (other than saying that they were wrong and you are right, which they obviously do not believe to be the case)? - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- No-one is claiming the pictures are not in copyright, just that the correspondent has correctly licensed the images they uploaded. Nthep (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Other works by the painter is still under copyright as this so if commons have other information, good. I somewhat doubt it. The ticket should be reevaluated. Andrez1 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please consider this on hold for VRT internal discussion. --Krd 14:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)