Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. |
This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.
Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
|
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
- Commons:Email templates
- {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
Adding ticket:2014030810001523 to Texas Historical Markers
[edit]ticket:2014030810001523 is reportedly permission from the Texas Historical Commission to use their Texas Historical Markers on Commons. I would like to add the permission to the marker images so the images will not be nominated for deletion. Is it OK to do that? Thanks Nv8200pa (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here is a rough search query to find relevant files.
- At a quick glance, the permission looks weaker than we hope. It looks like the organization's representative who wrote relevant emails did not believe those texts were copyrighted, and saw no need for a release statement. They gave assurance that they encourage people to share such photos of historical markers of theirs, but not in the form of a license statement that Commons usually expects (unless I missed something). Some content on those markers might be short enough to be non-copyrightable, others might not be. I'm not saying all those marker pictures should immediately be deleted, but a new request to them for a release seems adequate. It's been more than a decade so it might be better to start from scratch than trying to revive the previous conversation. Disclosure: I was involved in the ticket a decade ago, but to be honest I don't remember to what extent I did research exactly. It would be great if someone else can review this case, too. whym (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Let me try to rephrase (in case it was not clear enough). 1) the permission looks week and needs re-evaluation even for existing images, 2) it is unlikely that we can extend the existing permission to other similar markers. Point 2 can be an answer to the request, and in a sense that could end the discussion. However, Point 1 is still not resolved, and I would hope someone else look into it besides me, although I think it was not a question asked originally. What do others think? whym (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Red Bull logo
[edit]Does ticket:2025020610011248, present at File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png, make the Red Bull logo free? And hence w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg among others can be relicensed and transfered to Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'd say No. It makes only the "Red Bull Ring" logo free. Krd 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- But w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg is a part of File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png so logically, both or neither, should be free, or is my logic flawed? Jonteemil (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think you logic is flawed. The Red Bull Ring logo is free, not any other logo that recombines a part of it into another logo.
- In any case this is a general copyright question and out of scope of VRT and this noticeboard. Krd 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I asked on COM:VPC first but it was archived before anyone had answered. I don't see how my logic is flawed. Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not an answer to your question, but as an alternative approach: What if you ask Red Bull for a release for the logos in question? Krd 05:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- I asked on COM:VPC first but it was archived before anyone had answered. I don't see how my logic is flawed. Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- But w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg is a part of File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png so logically, both or neither, should be free, or is my logic flawed? Jonteemil (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png is a derivative work. I think it's worth checking again with the email sender that they have the authority to release the original logo that the file is derivative to. If they don't, their license alone would be insufficient even for the derivative logo (unless you blur it partially, perhaps). whym (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please do. Krd 09:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Scope of VRT ticket:2019010310001751 for Karunanidhi English translations
[edit]I am checking the reuse status of this exact file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KalaignarinenglishtranslationAsisintheoriginal(shortstories).pdf Its file page marks the complete PDF CC0/public domain and cites VRT ticket:2019010310001751. Can a VRT volunteer please confirm whether that ticket covers the copyright in the complete English translations and associated publisher text contained in the PDF, rather than only the underlying Tamil works by M. Karunanidhi? If the ticket covers a larger collection, could you also identify which English-language book files are covered? The intended reuse is extraction and alignment of Tamil and English text, redistribution of the resulting parallel-text dataset with provenance, and use in machine-learning research, including publication of trained model artifacts. No clarification of machine-learning law is requested; I only need the scope of the archived permission and stated CC0 dedication. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- The link you have provided is wrong but:
- File:Tamil-Nadu-Nationalized-Books-Public-Domain-Declaration.jpg should give you context.
- The ticket particularly deals with Category:PDF books in Tamil from TVA in 2015.
- It also hints to this link from Tamil Nadu government.
- As such I don't think it should include English works or translations but Balajijagadesh may have a better opinion/information. signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 18:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is the correct link: File:Kalaignar in english translation As is in the original (short stories).pdf
- The English translation is in the same PDF which is marked as CC0. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- As per this GO, "GoTN_Tamil_Development_Departments_order_on_creative_commons_cc_by_sa.pdf" all the publications of the Tamil Nadu government is in CCBYSA. As the said publication is by a government university it should come under CCBYSA.
- @TVA ARUN Must have better understanding as he is closely related to these work. Balaji (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Eugenides Foundation
[edit]
Can someone look at ticket:2010062210044239?
These are Files from the Eugenides Foundation. User:DieBucheBot (by User:DieBuche) stuck a CC 1.0 license on them in 2010 despite CC 3.0 having been around since 2007. More specifically it used the unversioned template redirect {{CC-by-SA}}.
Questions:
- Does the ticket say anything about a license version?
- File:EugenFound-130.jpg has a National Geographic logo, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- File:EugenFound-123.jpg says "iWERKS moving entertainment", does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- File:EugenFound-119.jpg shows w:Le Petit Prince, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- No license version is mentioned, they only say "free license" and "CC-BY-SA" with no specific version. Regarding permissions, they say "All images that start with
EugenFoundare completely owned by the Eugenides Planetarium of Athens, Greece." Nemoralis (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC) - Per today's standards the ticket is invalid because it doesn't clarify why Eugenides Foundation wants to be copyright holder. I'm going to reopen the ticket. Krd 12:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Undeletion request - ticket:2026062310007873
[edit]I would like to kindly ask to revert the deletion of "File:Guarda-louça - Museu de Alcântara (MCHA.0013) - 2022-10-10 09.55.52.jpg" and many others, as permission was verified with ticket nºticket:2026062310007873.
Edit group links:
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/78d3de0ca0c/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/1e228a9dd07/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/4184de5b4f3/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/d2bd37a6eaa/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/3e87f8787f1/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/1bcdd01bdce/
Thank you in advance, HGodinho (WMB) (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Ticket number 2010030210041811 question.
[edit]Does this ticket, ticket #2010030210041811, give continuous permission to upload members of the Iowa General Assembly, for all years after the date of this ticket and future years?
Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Here is a file with this ticket - [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesse_Green_Iowa.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooligan (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- No. Nemoralis (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis,
- 1. Does this ticket or a new ticket need to be requested for each year to cover all members of the Iowa General Assembly or for each person?
- 2. Does this ticket have the contact to request a new ticket(s)?
- 3. Can you share that contact here or can I make a new VRT request that permission be granted again this year? -- Ooligan (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ooligan, the ticket actually contains a general release: it states that the same release may be used for “any similar low-resolution official portrait images” taken from the Iowa General Assembly website. See: {{Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission}}. So a new ticket should not be necessary for similar low-resolution official portraits covered by that statement. Also, the contact listed in the ticket died in 2013. Nemoralis (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Nemoralis, could you share the job title or position of the 2013 official (not his name)? -- Ooligan (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ooligan, the ticket actually contains a general release: it states that the same release may be used for “any similar low-resolution official portrait images” taken from the Iowa General Assembly website. See: {{Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission}}. So a new ticket should not be necessary for similar low-resolution official portraits covered by that statement. Also, the contact listed in the ticket died in 2013. Nemoralis (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesse_Green_Iowa.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)
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)
Davis Burleson
[edit]File:Davis_Burleson.jpg was uploaded a week ago with a tag indicating that permission would be sent. Would someone be able to check if anything was actually sent in for this image? Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- No, we generally don't do that. File will be delted 30 days after upload if no permission is achieved. Krd 07:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd: would it be a correct understanding that if you received correspondence, and it was not sufficient to keep the picture, you would have written back to the sender? So if Ravensfire is in touch with the rights-holder, and the rights-holder believes they sent you an email, and they haven't heard back, and the picture is still marked just as "an email has been sent," then the rights-holder should try sending again? - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- I had tagged a previous image with the same file name as being a copyright violation and it was deleted. This image was uploaded by a new editor with a tag saying permission was sent to VRT. I didn't see any update after a weekish, and before this disappeared off my watchlist and forgotten, wanted to check if anything might have been sent. I totally missed that after 30 days it would be deleted if no permission. So my apologies for jumping the gun on this. Patience (and actually reading ALL of the text in the tag) is a Good Thing. I don't know who the rights holder would be, nor am I in contact with them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd: would it be a correct understanding that if you received correspondence, and it was not sufficient to keep the picture, you would have written back to the sender? So if Ravensfire is in touch with the rights-holder, and the rights-holder believes they sent you an email, and they haven't heard back, and the picture is still marked just as "an email has been sent," then the rights-holder should try sending again? - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Ticket #ticket:2026082810004827 – request for status and restoration of deleted file
[edit]Hello, I would kindly like to ask about the status of VRT ticket #2026082810004827. The copyright holder, the Provincial Police Headquarters in Opole, sent the required licensing statement directly to VRT from its official police email address. The deleted file is: File:Uroczystość przed tablicą pamiątkową Piotra Jesienia w KWP w Opolu.jpg In the previous undelete discussion, I was informed that the file would be restored once the free licence had been received, reviewed and approved by VRT. Could a VRT member please check whether ticket #2026082810004827 has been processed and, if the licensing statement is sufficient, arrange for restoration of the file? Thank you very much for your assistance. StaszekM1955 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket is being processed and currently awaiting answer for the sender. --Krd 07:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC) VRT ticket:2026081810010222 – Permission pending for 6 files
[edit]Permission ticket awaiting processing for six files
Hello,
I am requesting assistance with six Wikimedia Commons files that currently have a {{PermissionTicket}} notice indicating that a VRTS email has been received and that the ticket is awaiting processing.
VRTS ticket: ticket:2026081810010222
Affected files:
- File:LOGO ISIMS.jpg
- File:ISIMS cour extérieure 1.jpg
- File:ISIMS cour extérieure 2.jpg
- File:ISIMS cour extérieure 3.png
- File:ISIMS salle de cours 1.jpg
- File:ISIMS salle de cours 2.jpg
The VRTS notice on these files indicates that the ticket is currently awaiting processing. Could someone with a VRTS account please check the ticket and process it when possible?
Thank you for your assistance. ~2026-48248-33 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- The ticket was mistakenly not processed until today. Permission sender has now got a reply with a followup question. Krd 06:07, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update.
- Unfortunately, the email containing the follow-up question is no longer available to me, so I cannot see what information is being requested.
- Could you please provide the follow-up question here on the noticeboard, or let me know what information is needed so that I can respond?
- Thank you for your assistance. ~2026-48248-33 (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- No. Please ask the permisison sender Krd 04:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
What does the permission ticket:2017111310008371 on the above file actually do? The file only has a {{PD-old-70}} which 1) is not true, Krugers died less than 70 years ago (1964), a permission ticket cannot change time and 2) even if it were true, why would a public domain work require permission from a copyright holder? Permission templates are meant for the copyright holder to release a copyrighted work under a free license, not for them to state a work is already in the public domain.
I would like it if someone could look into the ticket and check if it actually released the work under a free license, and if so what that license is. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 10:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- The permission was received after the file was nominated for deletion. The licence specified in the e-mail is CC-BY-SA-4.0 but it looks like that was never reflected on the file page. TommyG (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- If it is a legitimate release by the copyright holder, can we simply change the template? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the release is legitimate, so yes, updating the license template is probably correct. TommyG (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have fixed it now. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 06:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the release is legitimate, so yes, updating the license template is probably correct. TommyG (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- If it is a legitimate release by the copyright holder, can we simply change the template? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:29, 7 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)