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.

Translate this header

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: 11 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

VRT Noticeboard

Main VRT-related pages

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

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)

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)

Event photos of models

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)

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)

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)

The issue is not yet resolved. The template still says "This file is licensed under…" while not specifying which files it applies to, so anybody can use it with any file. Please change the template wording so that it's clear which files it applies to. --Krd 09:48, 12 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)

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 is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:42, 20 July 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)

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 is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --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 is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --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 is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:25, 18 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 is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 08:41, 20 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)