Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

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

Translate this header

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) You can request permissions verification here, or anything else that needs an agent's assistance. This page is multilingual — when discussing tickets in languages other than English, please make a note of this and consider asking your question in the same language.

Please read the Frequently Asked Questions before posting your question here.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 14 days (graph) update

Start a new discussion

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

Category:Album covers by YG Entertainment (ticket:2013102510001373)

Is it okay to upload high-resolution versions of these album covers? (e.g. replace File:2NE1 2nd Mini Album Cover.jpg with this one from Apple Music)
Please check which artists have been approved in the OTRS ticket, and whether it's acceptable to upload other albums by the same artists that have not been uploaded yet. Is uploading allowed only for these six artists—2NE1, Big Bang, Winner, Se7en, Blackpink, and Jennie—or are there additional approved artists? (Winner and Blackpink did not debut in 2013.) Are all albums released under the name of YG Entertainment authorized for upload regardless of the release date? (If that's the case, what happens in the case of albums released in collaboration with another company, rather than just YG Entertainment?)--Namoroka (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. I found files for discussion at enwiki in 2022 and it seems that every album covers published by YG Entertainment after October 25, 2013 is allowed. However, this still seems like an incredibly wild claim. Many users are unaware of this fact and are still uploading files on local wiki under fair use.--Namoroka (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namoroka, I would say that the ticket is invalid or at least clarification is needed from YG Entertainment. We recieved permission release in 2013 but it was not verified/finalised. Krd, Xia and MdsShakil, do you have any comments to add? Looking at search results it is used on 61 files. ~~I checked a few and they seem to be added by non-VRT users.~~ Ratekreel (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check previous talks: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2022#ticket:2013102510001373, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#File:E (Big Bang album).jpg, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#Ticket:2013102510001373, en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Special:ListFiles/Ygent ebiz--Namoroka (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's been a week since I sent a request to YG Entertainment, but I have yet to receive a response. (Perhaps, unlike in 2013, they are no longer interested in Wikipedia.) On en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Teemeah (now Xia) inquired whether the request could be applied to other projects besides the local Hungarian Wikipedia, but Teemeah was unable to get a response due to a full mailbox. At that time, Teemeah was already aware of the ambiguity about the email. In my opinion, unless specific usage requirements are stated in the current VTRS ticket, the ticket should not be considered valid. The English Wikipedia community also raised doubts about the validity of the ticket. As long as YG Entertainment does not clearly specify, this issue will likely persist on and on. The phrase "YG Entertainment allows the use of YG Entertainment album covers ..." may seem clear, but it is actually very ambiguous. It's unclear whether this applies to albums of music groups that did not exist in 2013, albums released by subsidiaries of YG Entertainment, or albums co-produced by YG Entertainment and other companies.--Namoroka (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Blackpink and Jennie examples you mention is due to simplicity, not because they have been relicensed by YG Entertainment. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But the current VTRS ticket is still unclear. If we cannot received any clarification from YG, I think we should not use these album covers (for 2NE1, Big Bang & Seven).--Namoroka (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding this here: w:WP:FFD/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg, an additional discussion on the English Wikipedia in November–December 2022. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2012101110013816 - MDOT

Hello. I uploaded a couple files that I was unsure of the copyright status on. I posted a help request on the village pump copyright section. To summarize: I uploaded files produced by the Michigan Department of Transportation thinking that they were in the public domain because they were a state government agency. Learned that it is simply not the case, oops. I then went to the wikipedia page for Interstate 696 and they had another image taken by the department with a ticket number. I basically need to know if it for just the single image of Oak Park or if is a blanket request for that applies to all things produced by the department. If it is just for the one image then I can probably get another permission request for the PDF (I emailed them but it is Friday so may not get a response until Monday).

(I am only linking this file because the other 6 files are the 6 pages of the PDF but extracted as images of File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards.pdf. If a free license is given then the other 6 images would automatically be covered as well.)

Thank you. Jake01756 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I got a email from MDOT granting that the file I uploaded is in the public domain. But it was just a simple “They are in the public domain”. Is this enough for the permissions or do we need the full VRT release? Jake01756 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this file been publicly noted as being in the public domain? If so, yes, it is enough. Nemoralis (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemoralis: I know VRT don't normally accept forwarded emails, but given that this is an assertion of PD, not a license, is this perhaps a case where Jake could forward that, then someone from VRT could reply to both Jake and the sender at MDOT to confirm its validity? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to do the email forwarding thing? The files have now been deleted from the project as it has been a little slow (they can easily be undeleted so not a huge deal). Jake01756 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No. It has not been publicly noted. They have agreed to release it into the public domain and are working on using the VRT generator.

They are only releasing the main PDF file. The other images I uploaded were extracted from it so once it is public domain those will be covered under the same ticket as well. Jake01756 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the statement they gave me:

"All documents prepared by the Consultant under the Contract, including tracings, drawings, estimates, specifications, field notes, investigative studies, and other relevant documents, are the property of MDOT." Jake01756 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

e-signature releases

I'm exploring more streamlined ways for people to release their photos, in the vein of the interactive release generator. Through WikiPortraits, we've been meeting individuals and organizations who would like to release their work, and we're interested in minimizing effort in the release process to make it more scalable.

Many people and organizations (including WMF) use e-signature services like Docusign. I'm not sure if there is any precedent here – would VRT agents accept releases submitted through an e-signature service? The form would remain the same as the standard release template (with links to the uploaded files on Commons), and would be sent to the copyright owner's official email address for review. Once filled out and signed by the owner, I would send the signed document over to VRT. The service would verify that the signer accessed the form from their official email address. I know the expectation is that releases are sent to VRT from an official email address, but given that e-signature services can effectively verify when a form has accessed and signed via a particular email address, I’m hoping this approach would be acceptable to VRT (especially as these services are now widely recognized as legally valid).

For the record, we likely would use an open source alternative to DocuSign that follows various e-signature standards (UETA, ESIGN, eISAD).

Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be more easy to use difficult signing process and a peson in the middle instead of just letting the copyright holder speak to the VRT directly? Krd 06:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the biggest advantage is it makes it easier for a Wikimedian to drive the process, instead of having to hope that the third party properly drafts an email, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 08:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You contact the copyright holder by e-mail. They forward their response to the VRT and put/keep you in CC. I cannot imagine anything more simple. Krd 08:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Jmabel said. Sure, forwarding an email isn't difficult, but a Docusign-esque form with pre-populated filenames makes the process a bit more seamless. On my end (as a Wikimedian), I can better guide and monitor each release. On the releaser's end, they get a clear action item in their inbox: open, fill out, sign, and submit. No going back-and-forth between instructions, no figuring out the filenames, no copy-pasting, no remembering to CC, etc. Docusign is familiar to many and it minimizes the chance of errors and drop-off. I've had people that, after I describe the release generator and emailing process to them, ask why we don't just use Docusign (or similar). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Species distribution maps from IUCN data

A while back, User:Chermundy made a lot of these distribution maps, e.g. File:Desert Musk Shrew area.png. The current data (and I believe the past data as well) is licensed for non-commerical use only [1], but was released to Wikipedia for species maps (ticket #2010061810022172). Does that release cover the current data? Or, to put it another way, can I download the data off the website right now and make new maps for wikipedia, or do I need to contact the IUCN for a new permission for that. I would ask Chermundy directly but they do not seem to have responded to talk page messages for over a decade.

Category:IUCN distribution maps has some more recent maps, so I would assume I am free to use the data, but I wanted to double-check. Rusalkii (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files from the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense

I recently encountered files like File:Skoda Octavia II of Lithuanian military police.jpg and File:804th Infantry Company 8th Territorial Unit NDVF volunteer-soldiers.jpg, which are from the Facebook accounts of Lithuanian Military Police and 804th Infantry Company (arguably subordinate units of the MoD). There are also files from the MoD Facebook account like File:Bayraktar TB2 "Vanagas" 01.jpg.

As the description of {{Ministry of Defense - Lithuania}} appears to only include files from the MoD's website at www.kam.lt, can any VRT agent help to check if the permission actually extends to (a) the MoD Facebook account; (b) subordinate unit Facebook accounts, and (c) other official images that are posted on other official social media accounts (which is for completeness)?

Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They said they agree to release their photos from their website under the GFDL. But it's not clear if this also applies to images from their Facebook page, the pages of subordinate units, or other official social media accounts. I suggest you contact the MoD directly to get that sorted out. Nemoralis (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2017041210010641

Engelbert Strauss allegedly is the author and copyright holder of these images. He was born in 1908, which makes him an amazing photographer at age 109.

Now, really: Who is the photographer and copyright holder, and has he or she really consented to a CC 4.0 license? Or do you only have a company representative's word for that, someone who may not even know the difference between usage rights and licensing rights? --2003:C0:8F3F:3200:1136:79DB:B11D:17FE 18:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is given by Engelbert Strauss' representative. I think Engelbert is a company here, not a person. See w:Engelbert Strauss Nemoralis (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but a company cannot have the copyright by German law, only a natural person can. The company representative is certainly NOT the copyright holder unless he or she is the photographer. --2003:C0:8F4C:1F00:113B:E0D2:6F2F:4C7F 10:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By what law? The photographer may have transferred the copyright to the company by working under a contract. Nemoralis (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German copyright is not transferable except by death and inheritance. The photographer may have transferred usage rights to the company, but he or she cannot transfer the copyright. --2003:C0:8F0D:B700:8551:EAD7:4181:1BE3 06:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this theory exposed several times here, but I think it can't stand the test of real economy. In some cases, copyrights are a big part if not the majority of a company assets. So if a company could not own copyrights, some companies would be worthless. Also if an employee leaves a company in disagreement, what the company would do if it doesn't own the copyright of works produced by the employee? Yann (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked "By what law", I gave you the law, and now you are questioning the facticity of this law? This is the basics of German Urheberrecht, not some "theory" I made up.

If you think it doesn't work with real economy, feel free to discuss that with the lawmakers. That discussion is beside the point here. I am sure there are enough legal ways for a company to ensure they have all the usage rights they need of their employees' or ex-employees' work. What they do not have is the right to relicense a copyright holder's work any way they want.

In this case, up to now, we do not even have the faintest idea who the photographer / copyright holder is. I actually consider it unlikely that it even is an employee. This kind of promo photo would normally be taken by some professional photographer who lives off of selling his/her pictures, and his/her business would most certainly be worthless if he/she were to give away their pictures under a CC license. I strongly assume that the photographer knows nothing about this relicensing of his/her work. Which, since its upload, has spread all over the internet; the picture can be found in all kinds of places, referring to Wikimedia Commons and the CC license. --2003:C0:8F0D:B700:A9C2:2B4C:17A5:F6D9 20:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request made by me

I emailed the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction and received a response that their mugshots are public domain. How do I send this to VRT to make it a ticket? Lettlre (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell them to email us, or simply have them publicly state on their website that those mugshots are in the public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you already uploaded File:RyanPalmetersuspectimage.jpg. I think adding {{PD-Florida}} is enough. Nemoralis (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No this is North Carolina, not Florida. I will try to get them to email you. Lettlre (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be enough to create a template like this and add it. Nemoralis (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Lettlre (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files with no machine-readable license

According to PetScan currently we have 14 files with granted VRT permissions in Category:Files with no machine-readable license category waiting for deletion:

I though that one of the tasks of the VRT members is to verify that the license in the file matches the license in the permission. I did not checked the history of all the files below, but most never had a license. Can someone with the access to VRT database add license templates to all those files before they are deleted? Jarekt (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done except Albert Cohen files. There are no licenses mentioned in the VRT ticket. cc @Mussklprozz from previous VRT noticeboard discussion Nemoralis (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nemoralis, thank you for quick response. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Pictures taken by the family of the author

Hello, about the ticket:2025040710004116 and the ticket:2025040710004116 concerning the files File:Pierre Bordaberry TCC 01.jpg and File:Pierre Bordaberry.jpg :

The author sent an email to your team to explained that it was somebody from his family who's underage who took the picture so he doesn't want to mentioned it.

Then on the French Discord, they told me that the field "famille du sujet" could fit also. Is it OK for you also ? Could you please confirm that it is the right way ? Thanks in advance.

Mikaelak44 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikaelak44: This is an awfully public forum to say what someone doesn't want mentioned. Isn't that exactly what VRT's confidentiality is for? - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry, I modified the message... Mikaelak44 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2022090110011866

Hi, could you please have a look into this conflicting info: This image got a VRT ticket, this image which must have been two thirds identical was deleted. How does that go together? --2003:C0:8F14:C400:751F:9006:2926:2943 16:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"which must have been two thirds identical": I have no idea of what makes you think that but, no, the content is entirely different, other than having the magazine name in the same font (but differently laid out). - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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