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)
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)
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)
- BONO (Norwegian Visual Artists Copyright Society), who in some cases have licensed use of work by this painter, denies to be the copyright holder or having given any licences for reuse to Commons. If there is legit copyrightholders out there, they are unknown for BONO.
- If they exist for real, they should identify themselves for the world. Andrez1 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- After VRT internal discussion and additional clarification with the permission sender VRT considers this ticket as valid. If you have evidence that this is not true, please provid it to VRT. Krd 06:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- As You do not give details on the communications with the permission sender it remains unclear who are the copyrightholder(s) by all (or specificǃ) works by Eivind Engebretsen (d. 1960). Ownership of a copy and copyright is two different matters. This is relevant also economically as there might be an upside in identifying as the copyrightholder for painting displayed publicly.
- The Deletion Request here mentions the norwegian "Åndsverksloven", (= Norwegian Intellectual Properties / Copyright law) the text of the law, the §11 and §67. The §5 need to be understod as §67 implies it. The §68 and §69 will also be relevant. How much will Commons pay? When it comes to "§ 75.Arv" (Inheritance); yes, copyright can be inheriteted. If not already given away by the living artist. So who is the copyrightholders for the remaing 4 years before the works falls into the Public Domain; is still relevant.
- If those copyrightholders are in the position to transfer copyrights to Commons under a ... let say CC-BY̠-SA -licence ... are another unanswered matter. I think they should not. If the still do, and that is an informed choice (is it?); will it be an legally binding choice? Will it be contrary to law? (I belive it could be an invalid agreement if so.)
- "VRT considers this ticket as valid." I still doubt it. There is an Deletion Request here. It will have to evaluate that separately and with the same lack of unprovided information as this process. Andrez1 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Granting a CC license is not a transfer of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is. It transferes the exclusive right to make copies from the original copyrightholder(s) to a wider group. Andrez1 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I believe you misunderstand what it means to "transfer" a copyright. If I grant a CC-BY license to a photo I have taken, I allow others to use the photo in a broad range of manners provided that they conform to the terms of this license for a photo for which I still own the copyright. If someone publishes the photo in a non-conforming manner, I as copyright-holder retain the right to enforce my copyright with a lawsuit. No one else has gained that right, and I have not surrendered any right outside of what I have licensed. Granting certain usage rights is not a transfer of ownership. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree in that ownership of a copy and the right to produce copies is two different matters. In this case someone unknown (and not the painter himself) have transferred the copyright they claim to hold to a wider group. The painter himself could have done that, i doubt his heirs (if identified) can do that.
- What they have inherited is a source of income (not acted upon in all respects as BONO knows nothing) and some obligations to protect the artists Intellectual property rights. Including his "ideelle rettigheter" (ideal rights(?)). Andrez1 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- I believe you misunderstand what it means to "transfer" a copyright. If I grant a CC-BY license to a photo I have taken, I allow others to use the photo in a broad range of manners provided that they conform to the terms of this license for a photo for which I still own the copyright. If someone publishes the photo in a non-conforming manner, I as copyright-holder retain the right to enforce my copyright with a lawsuit. No one else has gained that right, and I have not surrendered any right outside of what I have licensed. Granting certain usage rights is not a transfer of ownership. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is. It transferes the exclusive right to make copies from the original copyrightholder(s) to a wider group. Andrez1 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Granting a CC license is not a transfer of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- After VRT internal discussion and additional clarification with the permission sender VRT considers this ticket as valid. If you have evidence that this is not true, please provid it to VRT. Krd 06:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
"This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. TommyG (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2026 (UTC)"
Nope. My earlier comment on "As there is an interest in NOːWP to get access to this images; the VRT-process sofar may also have some COI-issues" implies that users from NOːWP when taking part in the VRT-process may have an conflicting interest between facilitating the inclusion of images under the commons umbrella, and controlling the process. User:TommyG is also seen as an agent in the deletion process with an interest. What the uploader can do within the frame of the remaining 4 years of the copyright period is to publish the images as he wish (within academic or publisity work for the painter and his works) out of the wikimedia system; and within the wikimedia system the option to make an article on ENːWP and upload the images within the frame of "fair use". Similarly the NOːWP could adopt a similar practice. Unwilling to do so; the attempt to include copyrighted material in Commons will be understood as an attempt to bypass copyright regulation as it exist.
In short; User:TommyG have conflicting interest in the case and should not be permitted to close the case.Andrez1 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: this is ridiculous. I'm an admin, I'm not a member of the VRT; I have no more stake in these particular files than in any files on Commons; and I am telling you that if you continue to argue this and cast aspersions on other people's honesty, you will be subject to having your account blocked. Your recent comments add nothing new, you are just repeating the same disagreement with what has been decided by the people who our processes consider competent to decide this.
- The VRT members have seen the relevant correspondence. Presumably, you have not. If someone on the VRT had doubts about TommyG's determination here, by now they have presumably looked into it an assuaged those doubts; otherwise, they would have spoken up here. In fact, every VRT member who has chimed in here agrees with TommyG's assessment.
- It is perfectly plausible that someone's heirs, especially if they have reasonable financial resources of their own would go, "yes, I know there are a few more years in which we could possibly get a little more money out of these copyrights, but we don't really care." After all, every decent photographer who offers CC licenses for their work is doing something very similar.
- You obviously don't accept this, and as a matter of personal feelings that is your prerogative, but no one else here has made any comments agreeing with you. You have laid out no arguments other than your own incredulity. If we were to reverse every decision where one participant in the Commons community has doubts, we could not get anything done here.
- Just saying this has taken more of my own time than this is worth, but feel you deserved a proper explanation of my stance rather than just some immediate sanction. - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I have a previous history with this user from when I was an admin at no:wp, and I can see that they are currently blocked for another year again after recently being blocked for a full year, due to this exact same behavior. TommyG (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Most history is previous. Including that TommyG is not an admin at NO:WP today. And, like User:EdoAug, did not grasp the opportunity to discuss matters in the Meta RFC following. The RFC is now closed. Andrez1 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- Jmabel, thank you for your explanation, "rather than just some immediate sanction." If there is a wish to keep the discussion civil it will not be so under threats of actions. Please clarify your position.
- This case have a history. One matter is a felt need for getting images trough the VRT-process. That discussion have involved frustrated editors and the norwegian wikimedia chapter. I belive TommyG and EdoAug have offered their services. this and this for that. On the painter Engebretsen this problem surfaced. If his works was to be considered under copyright protection or not. Given his death in december 1960 it is belived that his works will fall into Public Domain in 2030 (31?). It was answered "Det håndteres nok av Commons-VRT-folka, som angitt på hver filbeskrivelsesside. EdoAug". "It is (probably/eventually) handled by the Commons-VRT folks". And here we are. Eivind_Engebretsen have some works in public display. But no known copyright holder. He have one long living child (d. 1996) who is a probable copyrightholder until her death. Who inherited the copyrights (and possible income) from here is not known. If not reasonable looked for these works can not be treated as "hitteværk" where the owner of copy claims to be the holder of the copyright. In shortː Norwegian "Commons-VRT folks" have have a history with the matter that could cloud their judgements.
- There is also a collector of the painters works. This collector is belived to be the main editor of the norwegian article on the painter Eivind_Engebretsen, and the uploader of the images in question. That is Marz71 (talk|contribs). That an article is written and images uploaded is a good thing. The editor, personally invested in the subject, is then both belived to know more about this painter, including heirs and heritage, ownership of copies; than most people. That includes possible holders of copyrigts.
- To not give that information to the public trough publication can and will be perceived as COI-editing and by that loosing NPOV. If understood as bypassing copyright regulation by going trough VRT; problematic. If the unknown copyrightholder is not given an informed choice it could be perceived as possible fraudulent and not in the copyrightholders best interest. It will not be the first time collectors have taken control over more than their fair share. The possibility of this should be a red flag when accepting permissions. The lack of transparancy in the process does not commands trust. Andrez1 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- I do not have access to the permissions VRT list, as stated in one of the threads you linked to. As I am unable to help you, please refrain from the continuous pinging. EdoAug (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: I'm going to try exactly once more. If you want to complain about the conduct of other users (and especially use of advanced rights such as those belonging to VRT members), start a complaint in an appropriate place such as COM:ANU, but be aware that it could boomerang. This page is not an appropriate place to make that sort of accusation, and certainly not an appropriate place to double down and keep laying out a "case for the prosecution." - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- Upon re-reading: the one meaningful argument in what Andrez1 has said here (and which could have been expressed in one or two sentences) is his skepticism that there is any known heir who could legitimately grant such a permission. I am not a member of the VRT, but I will say that (1) if someone presented the VRT with confidential evidence that they are the legitimate heir to Engebretsen's intellectual property they are not only under no obligation to share that evidence publicly or identify that person publicly, they would actually be violating the terms of their membership in the VRT to do so and (2) if there is no legitimate heir, then while the acceptance of an inaccurate permission would not be ideal, there would also be no injured party. So, assuming good faith, the worst case is that someone on VRT made a mistake in which there is no injured party. And even not assuming good faith, the worst case would be that someone on VRT made a bad-faith action in which there is no injured party, since it is obvious that if someone does hold these rights they are in no way exploiting them. Either way, this has been a tempest in a teapot. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- The one person who seems to have the sought after information is Marz71 (talk|contribs). That is belived to be a collector of the painters work. And the uploader of the images. And the main author of the NOːWP article on the painter. And the person belived to have sendt in the VRT-permission. Paintings by Eivind Engebretsen (and the painter) seem to be the only (wiki) interest of this editor. I find no good reason for a editor wearing so many hats simultanously, on a so narrow focus; to witholding that information. It is higly relevant for an article on the painter.
- That asideː I have contacted the norwegian BONO on the matter. I have, as late as of today; emailed for clues about who is legally entitled as copyrightholder(s) after the Painter. (If his daughter have any offspring they will be among the candidates.) Whether they are overstepping their rights or are exploited; I do not know. VRT do not know. These persons will be found. It may even be some unclaimed royalities in it for them. Andrez1 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Well.
- Then i have some information gathered trough public registers on the heirs of the daughter "Mokka" (d. 1996). It goes in two steps to a woman with last name R*******, and from that to a man born 1971 with the same last name. (I could just drop the information on the matter here, there is no need for any privacy in the matter, this is information of public interest what conserns one possibel rightholder(s) after the late painter.)
- Marz71 (talk|contribs) have trough his communication given enough information to be identified as that possible rightholder.
- It still leaves open the question if the possible rightholder are in the position to give away the right to make copies to commons. And if that right is limited to the given images, or the whole "œuvre" from the painter.
- The limited access to the whole "œuvre" will work negatively in on an NPOV evaluation on article-making on EN:WP and NO:WP. It will give access to one persons POV, and that person have many roles in the matter. Now also as a possible undisclosed rightholder on the whole "œuvre". And ownership to parts of it.
- I will wait a day or two before posting the relevant names. And will listen to relevant objections on doing so. Andrez1 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Well, almost there at 48h.
- There have been som objections. This leading to this tread where my last reply was here for access to that. My last comment was:
- "And there is no secret to be told. The Metadata on the file up for deletion gives the name."
- That file is this.
- The Metadatas "Author" is a name where there is a 100% overlap on the name found through other sources and mentioned as "R*******" above. VRT may take notice. As there are little or negative interest for which sources, and what else there is to know, that information will not be given unless asked for by the VRT -team.
- A not so funny fact is that the process itself is perceived as somewhat toxic. The price to pay for Shooting at the messenger is by some regarded as "No news". Others may focus on the positive outcomes. Some focus on modern chivalry in an attempt to reduce negative outcomes.
- I have few objection to the tread closing. The deletion prosess will hopefully adress the other conserns raised. Andrez1 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- Upon re-reading: the one meaningful argument in what Andrez1 has said here (and which could have been expressed in one or two sentences) is his skepticism that there is any known heir who could legitimately grant such a permission. I am not a member of the VRT, but I will say that (1) if someone presented the VRT with confidential evidence that they are the legitimate heir to Engebretsen's intellectual property they are not only under no obligation to share that evidence publicly or identify that person publicly, they would actually be violating the terms of their membership in the VRT to do so and (2) if there is no legitimate heir, then while the acceptance of an inaccurate permission would not be ideal, there would also be no injured party. So, assuming good faith, the worst case is that someone on VRT made a mistake in which there is no injured party. And even not assuming good faith, the worst case would be that someone on VRT made a bad-faith action in which there is no injured party, since it is obvious that if someone does hold these rights they are in no way exploiting them. Either way, this has been a tempest in a teapot. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I have a previous history with this user from when I was an admin at no:wp, and I can see that they are currently blocked for another year again after recently being blocked for a full year, due to this exact same behavior. TommyG (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bonjour, Je n'ai pas eu de feedback sur ce ticket. Il semblerait que ce soit pour des raisons de copyright sur le modèle. L'auteur (Benoît Jarry) qui m'a transmis ce document a écrit
Dear Reviewer / Administrative Team,
I am writing to provide the legal basis under French law and Wikimedia policy regarding the copyright status, identity consent, and authorization for the uploaded image of my official French press card (carte de presse française issued by the CCIJP):
Ownership & Self-Identity Consent: I am the legitimate holder named on this press card. As both the physical owner of the card (Article L. 111-3 of the French Code de la propriété intellectuelle - CPI) and the sole photographer who captured this digital image, I hold full authority to upload this photograph and release it under the chosen free license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Explicit Data Subject Consent (Unredacted PII): I have intentionally chosen to leave my personal details visible. As the data subject under applicable privacy regulations (GDPR), I explicitly consent to the publication and display of my personal identity details on this photograph for encyclopedic and illustrative purposes.
Copyright Status of the Card Layout (Articles L. 111-1 & L. 112-1 CPI): Under French copyright law, protection is strictly conditioned on the presence of individual creative originality (empreinte de la personnalité de l'auteur). Standard administrative layouts, security grid patterns, and functional credential formats established by statutory bodies like the CCIJP are utilitarian administrative documents that do not meet this threshold of originality.
Factual & Educational Purpose: This image serves solely to provide an authentic, unedited visual reference of an official French professional journalist credential.
Please let me know if any additional administrative tags are required.
Pouvez-vous aider à résoudre ce ticket svp sachant que cette carte n'est pas un post isolé : la categorie Press_passes contient nombre de cartes de presses dont les modèles sont encore d'actualité, contrairement à celle-ci. Moustov (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket requires review by another VRT user. Krd 09:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Contributions rémunérées non déclarées sur Wikipédia en français ?
[edit]Bonjour afin de lever tout soupçon de COI et de contributions rémunérées non déclarées sur Wikipédia en français. Je souhaiterais savoir si le ticket VRT introduit pour File:ESCP logo 2026.webp établi un lien entre l'uploader et l'ESCP ou Sorbonne Alliance dont il a également uploadé le logo File:Logo Sorbonne Alliance.png même s'il a reconnu ensuite qu'il n'était pas détenteur des droits pour le faire sur sa page de discussion. Bien à vous, Madelgarius (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
A message with permission to use this file was received by the VRTS service 25 days ago. Please grant permission, as the monthly period is coming to an end and the file may be deleted. https://w.wiki/TM4x Виктор Пинчук (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Permission will be granted once the volunteer VRT agent has reviewed it and assessed whether it is valid, asking here does not change anything. And files can be restored after being deleted. Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. I just wanted to remind for the volunteers VRT. Why go to the point of deleting a file, creating unnecessary work for yourself and others? Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Виктор Пинчук: one could exactly as well ask why ask quasi-rhetorical questions of people who have a backlog on their work, creating unnecessary additional work for them? - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- The text shown on the template recommends doing this: "You can also send a request to VRTS agents". Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Виктор Пинчук: one could exactly as well ask why ask quasi-rhetorical questions of people who have a backlog on their work, creating unnecessary additional work for them? - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. I just wanted to remind for the volunteers VRT. Why go to the point of deleting a file, creating unnecessary work for yourself and others? Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Разрешение для File:New Samotsvety official lineup 2025.jpg
[edit]Здравствуйте!
Подскажите, пожалуйста, можно ли проверить статус разрешения для удалённого файла File:New Samotsvety official lineup 2025.jpg?
Фотограф отправил разрешение в VRT 22 июля 2026 года и получил автоматическое подтверждение о получении письма, но дальнейшего ответа не было.
22 августа 2026 года файл был удалён с причиной «No ticket permission since 22 July 2026». После этого фотограф также ответил на первоначальное письмо VRT с просьбой проверить разрешение, но ответа пока не получил.
Номера тикета у меня, к сожалению, нет. Можно ли проверить, было ли получено разрешение, по названию файла и указанным датам и, если всё в порядке, восстановить файл?
Спасибо! Nemchenkova (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Здравствуйте! Подскажите, пожалуйста, можно ли проверить этот случай? Прошло уже больше недели с момента обращения. Насколько я понимаю, сейчас есть задержка с обработкой русскоязычных разрешений. Фотограф также проверил входящие письма и папку «Спам» — дополнительных писем от VRT после автоматического подтверждения не было.
- Спасибо! Nemchenkova (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Hello! I’m following up in English in case it helps an English-speaking VRT volunteer review this request.
- The photographer emailed the permission for File Samotsvety official lineup 2025.jpg on 22 July 2026 and received an automatic acknowledgment, but no further response. The file was deleted on 22 August 2026.
- Unfortunately, I don’t have the ticket number. The photographer has checked both the inbox and spam folder and has not received any additional emails from VRT.
- Could someone please check whether the permission was received and let us know if anything else is needed to restore the file?
- Thank you very much! Nemchenkova (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- There is a backlog in Russian queue. Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
ticket:2026081910005352 — permission awaiting processing
[edit]Hello. Could someone please check the status of ticket:2026081910005352?
The permission was received on 19 August 2026, but the files are still marked as awaiting processing:
- File:Serhii Dukhota in red T-shirt.jpg
- File:Serhii Dukhota posing in a gym.jpg
- File:Serhii Dukhota performing a squat in a gym.jpg
The copyright holder has already sent the permission by email. Could you please check whether any further action is required?
Thank you. FingerWiki (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- There appears to be a backlog with Russian language. Krd 03:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- cc @Lvova, there is also another thread below. Nemoralis (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Just rechecked; I didn't answer because this letter is in Ukranian, and I don't know this language (I can understand, but believe that I shouldn't answer in Russian while we have Ukranian agents). For last days the letter is already in the correct queue permission-uk. Анастасия Львоваru/en/de 18:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- Update: unfortunately, all three files now appear to have been deleted after the 30-day permission-pending period expired:
- File:Serhii Dukhota in red T-shirt.jpg
- File:Serhii Dukhota posing in a gym.jpg
- File:Serhii Dukhota performing a squat in a gym.jpg
All three were covered by ticket:2026081910005352, and the permission was received on 19 August 2026 but remained awaiting processing.
Could a VRT agent please review the ticket and, if the permission is sufficient, restore the three files?
Thank you. FingerWiki (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
- @FingerWiki, if you send it to the English queue (permissions-en), it might be reviewed faster. Nemoralis (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
File:LampЫ_Orchestra_2026.jpg - Status of ticket:2026081710004517
[edit]
Hello! Could a VRT agent please check the status of ticket 2026081710004517? This ticket contains the copyright permission from the band manager for the deleted file File:LampЫ_Orchestra_2026.jpg. My undeletion request was declined because the file administrator could not verify the ticket content. Is there any problem with the email text or license format that needs to be addressed? Thank you! --Mogilka (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- There is a backlog regarding tickets in Russian. --Krd 04:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
I could really be missing something regarding File:Eugenia vera cruz badinha original.jpg (my apologies if I am), but I'm finding it hard to see how the person behind this website can possibly be the copyright holder of a photo most likely taken more than 120 years ago per COM:Portugal, COM:Cape Verde, or COM:US. I'm posting about this here because someone emailed their consent to VRT. Not only does the photo seem too old to be still eligible for copyright protection, but (according to Google Translate: Portuguese to English) the person running the website seems to claiming their site is using content/photos created by others without receiving authorization to do so (in a way that sounds like a fair use or fair dealing type of claim). -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- Link labeled "most likely taken more than 120 years ago" leads to a non-existent page. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: The link was for a draft being created on English Wikipedia which stated the subject of the photo died after 1878. The draft was submitted for en:WP:AFC review but declined because of en:WP:LLM reasons; the creator of the draft, who's also the uploader of the file, then blanked the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
- ticket:2025040610005779 ticket was sent in July 2025 in Portuguese. however it was not responded to by any VRT agent until later in August 2026 with a request to resend the email in English as that there were not enough active VRT agents who can look at PT queue. That request was not followed up by the person. Robertsky (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking Robertsky. I'm assuming that the file will automatically be tagged for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F4 if VRT can verify consent, right? The thing is, though, it seems any claim of consent being made by email is likely invalid since the chances the photo has already entered into the public domain seem quite high, at least to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- yes. It would be tagged as F4 if they don't send in the permissions within 30 days. Personally, I am treating the ticket above as expired and am awaiting for a new ticket given that essentially the given permission wasn't acknowledged, and there would have been follow up questions anyway. Robertsky (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking Robertsky. I'm assuming that the file will automatically be tagged for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F4 if VRT can verify consent, right? The thing is, though, it seems any claim of consent being made by email is likely invalid since the chances the photo has already entered into the public domain seem quite high, at least to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- I see. If she was born in 1826, and judging by the photo could not be more than 60 years old in this picture, we have a latest possible date before 1886. There are very few scenarios under which this image would be copyrighted. The VRT process seems to me to be beside the point. - Jmabel ! talk 08:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Permission pending template
[edit]I have uploaded dozens of drone photos that are authored by a friend of mine using the Upload Wizzard, and now I see that the files contain the persnission pending template (e.g. this, this, this, this etc.). This was not the case in the past, so I suppose it is a novelty introduced to immediately request author’s permission from the uploader, which is fine, but it is unclear what kind of permission is required. Does the author need to give written permission for every single file or one permission for all files in a specific category is sufficient? Is it also possible to give a permission for future uploads? Thank you. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- At best one permission for all files, after they have been uploaded. Krd 11:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd: can they give a permission that would extend to future uploads by Kiril Simeonovski on their behalf, or only the past uploads? - Jmabel ! talk 11:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps they can, but it will depend on the situation to be clarified within a ticket, and if it makes sense regarding the number of affected files. Krd 11:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd: can they give a permission that would extend to future uploads by Kiril Simeonovski on their behalf, or only the past uploads? - Jmabel ! talk 11:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Kiril Simeonovski: if you are uploading files where someone else owns the copyright (which seems to be the case here) and if there is nowhere else that people can verify their offer of a specific license then, yes, you need to come through the VRT process. The only novelty is that we changed the Upload Wizard to better reflect this longstanding policy, so it could more consistently be dealt with promptly rather than lots of files getting deleted months or years after they were uploaded. See COM:THIRD if you want a more general overview of policy and guidelines in this area.
- I'm not a member of the VRT, so I'll leave it to one of them to clarify just what communication they need from the owner of the copyrights. - Jmabel ! talk 11:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd and Jmabel: Thank you for your thoughts. These drone pictures were produced as part of the project Macedonian Wikiexpeditions in 2026, and they are categorised in the supercategory and are marked with the template Викиекспедиции 2026. In the future, similar drone pictures will be produced as part of the same project or the related Macedonian Geoexpeditions and Macedonian Archaeoexpeditions. I'd like to know if it's possible to use the categories of the sort "Macedonian Wikiexpeditions YEAR" or the templates of the sort "Викиекспедиции YEAR" as keys (maybe it's better to use the templates as they're clearly visible in all files, whereas the categories are basically supercategories that contain the files) in the text of the permission that would cover both past and future uploads in a single ticket. So, my suggestion for the text of the permission is the following:
I, Dean Lazarevski with the username Деан Лазаревски, give consent to have all files documenting my photographs, taken as part of the projects Macedonian Wikiexpeditions, Macedonian Geoexpeditions and Macedonian Archaeoexpeditions, and marked with the templates of the sort "Викиекспедиции YEAR", "Геоекспедиции YEAR" and "Археоекспедиции YEAR" where YEAR denotes the year when the photograph was produced, licensed with the license CC BY-SA 4.0.
- Do you think that this will be enough? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- At best please let the copyright holder put it into a ticket. What-if in most cases created additional work for all sides., please let them write directly to VRT. Krd 12:17, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll let them know how to submit the permission to the VRT. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- At best please let the copyright holder put it into a ticket. What-if in most cases created additional work for all sides., please let them write directly to VRT. Krd 12:17, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Do you think that this will be enough? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
The ticket was originally used to validate the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lapalmauz. They were sculptures by Franco de Palma and the uploader seems to be the son and therefore the heirs. However, same user claims in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cupola d'Oro-Un particolare della sala interna durante un matrimonio (1982).jpg that the ticket applies to a photograph by Massimo Marmenti, clearly a different author. I would like to know what is the actual scope of the ticket. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Ruthven: Krd 12:16, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Günther Frager That's true: the ticket applies to photographs of the Marmenti brothers (Massimo and Marco) of "La Cupola d'Oro". Ruthven (msg) 16:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
ticket:2026092110007853 — Permission pending
[edit]Hello,
I would like to kindly ask about the status of VRT ticket ticket:2026092110007853 regarding the permission for File:Abu Bakr El Deeb.jpg.
The permission email was sent on September 21, 2026, and the file is still showing as pending.
Could you please let me know whether the email has been received and when it is likely to be reviewed?
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Best regards,
S.s.m000 (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I think we don't have anybody who cat answer that language. Does the sender speak English? Krd 12:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I speak English and I can communicate in English.
- I am following up regarding VRT ticket #2026092110007853 and the permission for the file “Abu Bakr El Deeb.jpg”.
- The permission email was sent on September 21, 2026. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether the email and the permission statement were received, and let me know if any additional information is required from me.
- Thank you very much for your assistance.
- Best regards,
- Ssm000 S.s.m000 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I've been speaking of the ticket itself. It is in a language nobody can process. Does the permission sender speak English? Krd 13:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. I am the sender of the permission email, and I speak English.
- I confirm that I am able to communicate in English regarding the permission for “Abu Bakr El Deeb.jpg”.
- If necessary, I can resend the permission statement in English or provide any additional information required to verify the permission.
- Thank you for your assistance. S.s.m000 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Please make it so. --Krd 05:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- I've been speaking of the ticket itself. It is in a language nobody can process. Does the permission sender speak English? Krd 13:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 05:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC) Hello Krd,
Thank you for your reply. I have now resent the permission statement in English to [permissions-commons@wikimedia.org](mailto:permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), referring to the existing VRT ticket #2026092110007853.
I hope this will help with the review of the permission for File:Abu Bakr El Deeb.jpg.
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards, S.s.m000 07:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-54284-42 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
ticket:2026100510007087 question
[edit]Per discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Epstein pose.jpg, does ticket:2026100510007087 confirm that the person depicted in the photo is "fine with" this image that side-by-side compares his appearance to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein? Belbury (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- Personality rights are out of scope of VRT tickets, so No. Krd 14:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Bonborilaa: scope of tickets 2026100210000544 and 2026092510004081
[edit]Could a VRT volunteer please check the scope of ticket:2026100210000544 and ticket:2026092510004081 for my uploads? The first ticket is displayed as received on 2 October 2026 on several file pages; the second is displayed on File:レジリエント照明06.jpg as received on 25 September 2026. I understand that receipt is not approval and that there is a backlog.
The public BONBORI image gallery and licensing statement identifies Bonborilaa as Masahide Kakudate's account and states that the images and diagrams are copyrighted by Masahide Kakudate and BONBORI Lighting Architect & Associates, Inc. and available under CC BY-SA 4.0. The earlier notices and current discussion are at User talk:Bonborilaa.
There are two specific questions:
- Seven composite images received derivative-source notices on 11 October. Could you check whether the correspondence establishes the authorship and permission for the constituent photographs, maps, logos or drawings, as applicable, as well as for the assembled images? I have added direct links to the published images and named author information, but these additions do not by themselves establish the provenance of every component. The files are: File:大洗まちあかり01.jpg; File:大洗まちあかり03.jpg; File:ボイドー大野村ー断面.jpg; File:大洗まちあかり02.jpg; File:大洗まちあかり04.jpg; File:大洗まちあかり05.jpg; File:大洗まちあかり06.jpg.
- Ten files mentioned in the earlier notices currently have no file available (some retain description pages). Could you check whether either ticket covers them and, if the evidence is sufficient, arrange restoration of the deleted file revisions or advise what additional evidence is needed? The files are:
I have left the existing review and derivative-source tags in place. This is a request to clarify the evidence and, where justified, restore existing files, rather than to presume that either ticket has been approved. Thank you. Bonborilaa (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- Follow-up: I confirm that every photograph, map, logo, drawing and other visual component in the seven listed composite files was photographed or created by me, Masahide Kakudate (角舘政英), and/or BONBORI Lighting Architect & Associates, Inc. (株式会社ぼんぼり光環境計画). This confirmation covers the underlying images as well as the assembled pages, and has now been added to all seven file descriptions.
- I am also cleaning up unused uploads. Following a usage check, I have requested courtesy deletion of 32 currently unused files at Commons:Deletion requests/Unused uploads by Bonborilaa (12 October 2026). I therefore withdraw the earlier request to restore the ten unavailable files listed above. Please continue the permission-scope review for the retained files; I understand that the review is still pending. Thank you. Bonborilaa (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2026 (UTC)