Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this header
VRT Noticeboard
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members, or VRT agents with one another. 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: 4 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
VRT Noticeboard
VRT Noticeboard
Main VRT-related pages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

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

productionsrhizome.org[edit]

Hi, VRT will receive (or may have alresdy received today) an email from the address productionsrhizome.org, with an attachment in French. Just to be sure that VRT knows what it is about and it doesn't get lost, it relates to the files in the category Category:Tapis rouge des arts littéraires. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asclepias, thanks for the info, I tried looking for Category:Tapis rouge des arts littéraires on the VRT and it didn't get me any lists. If the permissions-release mentions link to this category, it would make the work of VRT agents easy. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, It may refer to the user account who uploaded the files: User:FrederiqueDube. (N.B.: I know there might be a few things to clarify. It's a bit complex. I opened a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#"Photobooth" portraits about the fine points of how to analyze the copyright situation. For now the idea was to obtain for the VRT archives at least this communication from the source of the photos. Before a follow-up, it could be good to wait a few days to know the opinions at VP/C, as that may affect how the matter can be managed.) -- Asclepias (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Rza Talibov[edit]

A DR has been filed that appears to assert that Ticket:2022052110004218 was processed incorrectly. It would probably be helpful if any VRT agents familiar with this case could chime in to provide clarity and/or evaluate if the challenge to the ticket's closure is persuasive.

Pinging Krd, who added the permission confirmation to the Commons page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think the ticket is processed correctly, but I admit that there may be different opinions based of different perspective. Having this reviewed by another VRT member is welcome to me. Krd 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lee Sang-ho.jpg and ticket #2014070110000717.[edit]

This file came up while I was doing my daily check of Flickr files that need license reviews. The Flickr source is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 at https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/39760227514, but there is a Korea.net license template with a VRT template on the file that give it a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. The VRT Template links to https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2014070110000717 I'm told that this ticket has red flags and is a cluster but I want to try to see if I can resolve the contradictions on this file before I file a deletion request or request a F4 speedy. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow: The ticket relates as far as I can understand to a single image on Flickr which has been relicensed to CCBYSA by Korea.net on request: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koreanet/14518090226/. This photo is available on Commons as File:NMK Network Fellowship Program 14 (14518090226).jpg. There may have been intentions to ask for more free licensing to Korea.net in 2014/2015, as template {{Korea.net}} seems to be some general format. This template has been made by User:Russavia, now banned. In one of the emails of the tickets, reference is made to this discussion. Imho it would be the safe route to delete the template and all images where it is used per COM:PRP (after checking the flickr source), except the mentioned image, and to mention the ticket only on that image. Perhaps User:-revi can comment before final decision on this, because they were involved in the template and speak Korean. The VRT agent at the time cannot be contacted any more, it seems. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ellywa. For now, I'll just start a DR on this one image. I'll wait for -revi to comment before I take any action on the template itself. Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Currently not at home and will need until weekend to thoroughly read stuff. Ping me over the usertalk page if I haven't commented by Monday.) — regards, Revi 05:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2018110410002829[edit]

The permission was sent twice, the ticket is still not approved. Please confirm it and undelete the photos:

Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket is in Polish and still being processed. Please be patient (or consider to let the copyright holder send it again in English). --Krd 15:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for information, I will ask the original author for such possibility. So we are waiting now. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The remainder of Category:Photographs by Stevan Kragujević not yet uploaded to Commons[edit]

Hello VRT, Serbian Wikipedia over at sr:Kategorija:Stevan Kragujević contains many files not yet transferred over to Commons. Some of them locally uploaded there have OTRS tags, but not all, despite all having the claim to have been uploaded "with the approval of [Stevan's] daughter Tanja Kragujević" ("po odobrenju kćerke Tanje Kragujević"), just like the rest of files VRT verified on Commons. Are all OTRS tagged files ready to be moved to Commons? What about the rest? There are many non-tagged files, so I worry we could be left without these if not resolved on time. I asked on the linked Serbian Wikipedia category's talk page but haven't received a relevant answer to my question. –Vipz (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this usual?[edit]

An organisation I'm working with (let's call them "Acme") has sent one of the standard emails to VTRS, asserting their ownership of rights in some images and releasing them under a suitable licence. The images, taken recently and depicting the organisation's premises, are uploaded as being photographed by "Acme Staff member".

A VTRS volunteer responds, asking them who took the photographs and how did the organisation come to own the copyright.

Surely if his information is required, it should be included in the standard email templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is usual, and no it shouldn't. There are reasons, but they shouldn't be discussed publicly. --Krd 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not buying "shouldn't be discussed publicly"; we need more transparency in how VRTS operates, not less. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are mistaken. Intransparency is the only reason for the VRT to exist, and if you remove it, you'd better remove the VRT. If your question is how a permission owner shall act to satisfy the VRT, you'd also better ask how to achieve releasing the file without the VRT at all. It's easy, put the file elsewhere at a trusted place, i.e. at the own website, under a free license, and handle it at Commons with license review. Krd 09:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is information out there that can help understand what VRT is expecting here though. For instance, a procedure description we created for Dutch permissions from GLAM also speaks about clarity on the copyright holder. And the status of copyright holder depends on the legal relationship between the creator/employee/volunteer and the GLAM - same is for the organization you are working with at the moment. Sometimes the relationship is very obvious, in other cases not so much and that is why this part cannot be standardized and needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
I hope the link helps a bit Andy - I know you raised questions about transparency of VRT procedures in the past, and I hope my answer will not lead to a repetition of that situation but does provide some additional insight. Ciell (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is a statement from the rights holder that they are the rights holder not sufficient? If they are are going to lie about that, they could as easily lie in response to the question in my OP. Thank you for the link but I can see nothing pertinent there. As to my previous concerns about (what was) OTRS' transparency, there is no chance of a "repetition of that situation", as that situation is not yet resolved and I still await the answers to my original questions; which were most recently put to members of the board in Singapore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: "Why is a statement from the rights holder that they are the rights holder not sufficient?" That begs the question. If VRT knows the person is legitimately the rights holder, then such a statement (combined with granting a license) presumably is sufficient. But we've all seen it over and over on more "open" matters as well: someone may misunderstand what rights they hold, or may misrepresent themselves. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I refer you to my second sentence; which you appear to have overlooked in your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a lot of things you can't lie about, or which it is very difficult to lie about, and that can be used to validate a claimed identity or claimed possession of rights. But up to a point you are right: if someone is willing and able to present plausible, forged legal documents (ID, transfer of rights) they'll probably get away with a false claim. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were no "legal documents" in this case; all that was required, apparently, was a statement to the effect "the images were taken by an Acme staff member, at work". Given that the images were already sourced to "Acme staff member", with an statement, in the original email to VTRS, that Acme is the copyright holder, the redundancy should be obvious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Generally speaking, there are two ways for someone to lie about being authorized to issue a copyright release: 1) they lie about who they are; 2) they lie that the person they claim to be (whether true or not) is the copyright holder. Usually, the more "official-looking" the person or entity that the sender claims to be or represent, the more likely the former is to happen and the less likely the latter is to happen, and vice versa. If someone claiming to be from Coca-Cola sends us a permission email, I would take great care to ensure that they are actually an authorized representative of Coca-Cola, but once that passes muster I wouldn't worry for one second that Coca-Cola is not in fact the copyright holder as claimed. If Joe Shmoe claims to be the author of a professional-looking photo, I will assume that they are telling the truth about being Joe Shmoe since there is no advantage to be gained by lying there, but I may request additional evidence to show that they took the photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary. VRTS exists to ensure confidentiality in communication between Wikimedia volunteers and the subjects of articles or media; or rights-owners of media; there is no need for the "intransparency" of VRTS policies or procedures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you may have noticed, most people don't have any understanding in copyright, but state what they think to be true. The VRT permissions team tries to as far as possible figure out what really is the case, and obtain permission from the real copyright holder. To achieve that, questions are sometimes required. Perhaps smetimes these question may seems surplus, but they aren't, and they are always easy to answer at no cost. --Krd 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to be orthogonal to the issue of "intransparency". Nor does it address the matter of "Surely if his information is required, it should be included in the standard email templates?". The cost of requiring extra emails is burden on image donors, for many of whom this is neither a hobby nor core business, and may thus loose us goodwill. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: To your point about transparency, I always advocate for avoiding VRT whenever possible, because it useful for everyone to be able to verify the provenance of an image if there's no private information involved. I only recommend people go through it if we need to verify an email address, talk to someone without a Commons account, or otherwise discuss confidential matters. Honestly, the practice of drive-by tagging of previously unpublished uploads which are claimed to be "own work" with {{No permission since}}, simply because the tagger does not believe it is own work, and pointing them to VRT is quite lazy. In a vast majority of cases the uploader does not respond and the image is deleted. When the uploader does in fact email VRT, what happens a lot of the time is the agent will do a reverse image search, find no results, and accept the permission because the claim of own work looks reasonable enough. Great, we just made them go through hoops for nothing - instead of an "own work" claim from a random username, we now have an "own work" claim from a random email address. In cases where we want additional evidence to be comfortable assuming good faith, we sometimes ask them to email us the original file with EXIF. But again, that is something they could have done on-wiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quicker/smarter permissions procedure for Lieder project[edit]

I'm running a wikiproject called Lieder (on commons, wikidata and cawiki). There is a project of recording lieder songs from a live concert (December 2023), organized by the ESMUC (the Catalan music college) and the Schubertíada de Vilabertran. They organize an international academy (Lied the future) whose students will be signing, on registering, to allow uploading their concert participation to commons, as part of the Lieder project. I would like to be able to upload those recordings without having to ask the interpreters to send another authorization email, as they will have already authorized the recording AND uploading. Could someone advise me on the best way to prove those authorizations? Thanks. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robertgarrigos: If you send a copy of what the "students will be signing, on registering" via VRT, that should speed the permissions along.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming you mean Lieder in a narrow sense (and the mention of Schubert suggests that you are), this should all be fine. Of course, some works by some more modern composers that could arguably be called Lieder (Ralph Vaughan Williams, for example, or Schoenberg, many of whose works are still copyrighted in the U.S.) would still be in copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, we are taking care of uploading only not copyrighted composer. Thanks. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Jeff G., I will do that. Robertgarrigos (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robertgarrigos: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Email sent to VRT with the text. I hope we can find a satisfactory solution for everyone. Robertgarrigos (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2012071210005204[edit]

Here's another such case like the one above. Why on earth would anyone believe this to be a selfie? --2003:C0:8F19:9100:2568:EC01:7D27:89AA 20:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could easily take an equivalent picture of myself, using a shutter delay. I see no particular reason to doubt if that is what someone claimed to have done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So is that what the VRT correspondence says? "This is a selfie, I used shutter delay"?
Here's your reason for doubt, if you actually need one in such an obvious case. --2003:C0:8F19:9100:2568:EC01:7D27:89AA 21:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's another one, also with a nice VRT ticket (ticket:2012071210006356). An upload by the same user, allegedly also a selfie. Of a different person. Does he seriously claim to have taken selfies of two different people?
(Not to mention the fact that this is obviously a professional promo photo and not a selfie.) --2003:C0:8F46:4900:6C4A:1E52:3252:D466 08:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet another one, ticket:2018090110002802. Again, the uploader is the image subject. By Austrian Urheberrecht law, this would mean the picture must be a selfie. Seriously? What on earth did the uploader tell the support team in the VRT correspondence? --2003:C0:8F3D:2E00:4C53:A07B:9E8F:667C 20:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet another one, ticket:2023071910006206. A selfie? Really? --2003:C0:8F2E:E500:2DB9:A69C:7D24:E5B7 17:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2023091010000046[edit]

Hello, it's been 17 days since the email was sent for File:Anri, 2023.jpg and I was wondering if I could get an update for the processing. reppoptalk 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reppop We've asked for the original photograph to the author, in order to verify its source. Waiting for an answer. Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked the user (the brother of the author) about it and they said that the author sent photos for verification. reppoptalk 20:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reppop - If the brother's email didn't contain "Ticket#2023091010000046" in the title (which seems fairly likely given the situation), it might be have been caught by the spam filter and lost. I would recommend re-sending the email to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org, with "Ticket#2023091010000046" in the title. whym (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About a file with unclear copyright ownership[edit]

I originally tagged the file for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of an Instagram post. It was undeleted today by Krd, citing Ticket:2023093010005745. I saw the image was added back to the article it was being used for on the English Wikipedia (w:en:Deeper (band)) and tagged the image again, as I didn't see the VRT ticket and assumed that the page had been disruptively recreated. However, the image was deleted again by Elcobbola, citing insufficient permission. I'd appreciate if a VRT agent could clarify what happened with this file, thanks! Also pinging Xm4729, the page creator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A response was already sent through the VRT system, and notation of the issue provided. There is nothing to be accomplished on-site. Эlcobbola talk 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69, I second what @Elcobbola has said above. The question that has been asked here on what happened with this file has already been clarified in a response to the ticket. It is sufficient and if the issues raised are not sorted out, we cannot host such an image here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the replies; I mostly asked here for the benefit of Xm4729, who presumably has now received the VRTS notification. My only involvement with this image, as I said above, is finding it in use on the English Wikipedia and nominating it for deletion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query regarding a deleted file[edit]

File:1910s_Kingsley_Griffith,_Liberal.jpg had been deleted from Commons in 2013, apparently as a copyvio, referring to OTRS ticket:2013100610005833. As we are still hosting this image on enwiki, could someone please check for me what the reasoning may have been? Felix QW (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It stays unclear in the ticket if the uploader is copyright holder at all; in any case they didn't intend to publish it for commercial use. I suggest to delete the file on enwiki. --Krd 08:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krd: Thank you very much for the clarification! I was just wondering how it could still be in copyright, as a 1910s studio photograph whose phtotgrapher died in 1934. Felix QW (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It hasn't been said anywhare that the photographer died in 1934. Is there any evidence for that? Krd 13:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2009111810076787[edit]

Hello, I have a couple of doubt regarding this ticket. It was opened in 2009 to add permission to some images of an Argentine football team taken from the internet when its articule was being promoted in eswiki. The author of these images is Carlos Cermele, a well known professional photographer, and I imagine the uploader contacted him, got the permission, etc. However, I have a couple of doubts of how this ticket was used afterwards:

Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Günther Frager: The author authorizes Cazadoroculto to upload any future works by them under the same terms. I guess this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Aafī Thanks for the info. It is a bit weird as the images are taken from the web (i.e. who knows under which license), but if that is on the ticket I guess it is fine. However, it doesn't explain my second question regarding its use on anonymous work, certainly not done by that photographer. Günther Frager (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Günther Frager, This seems to be a mistake. I have removed the ticket details from that file. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2023021610013794[edit]

Hi, File:Voie romaine Pons-Guimps, entre Marignac et Sainte Lheurine.tif was uploaded on November 2022, but this is a derivative work of a non-free map. What's in the ticket? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket (in French) seems not conclusive for this and 3 other images. @Reinhard Kraasch: can you please comment? Ellywa (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ticket is still open for these files and the permission not accepted - my colleague User:Mussklprozz has asked the uploader "All four drawings are based on maps. These are often protected by copyright. So in each of the four cases, we need proof that either full usage rights have been granted to you under a free license for the underlying map, or that the map has been published under a free license." The uploader will probably not answer properly, so the files in question will be deleted. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. So Commons:Deletion requests/File:Voie romaine Pons-Guimps, entre Marignac et Sainte Lheurine.tif. Yann (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket permission added by non-VRT member[edit]

Please check these edits: [1] and [2]. Thanks, Komarof (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket in Cyrilic text. Ellywa (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Ahonc, could you please check these? --Komarof (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2016032310006997[edit]

File:Charleroi-industrie-terril-paysage-Christophe-Vandercam.jpg , last update 4 avril 2016 à 19:58, https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016032310006997.

Basically, I would like to understand if it is possible to have proof of purchase by the city of Charleroi, as expressed " image faisant partie d'une commande passée par l'administration communale de Charleroi au photographe Christophe Vandercam. http://www.charleroi-bouwmeester.be/"

As I was able to understand directly with the photographer, the image was sold to the city and other privates. Suddenly the city made it available in wikimedia with CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed. The problem is that the Visual Right Group company is saying that the rights belong to another company (image stock/database provider) and is demanding payment for the rights.

Thank you Bangiomorpha (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thibaut120094: , can you please look into this question? Ellywa (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DR needs ticket info[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:War Memorial Korea 20150623 01 (18884521489).jpg could use some assistance. There is a VRT tag for ticket:2014070110000717 but the concern is about whether this is a DW of non-free content. Does the ticket relate purely to the photo uploaded, or the items being photographed, or the items in the photo in the photo? DMacks (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very tricky indeed. this discussion might help. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No response[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eschau-Wibolsheim,_Chapelle_St-S%C3%A9bastien_(1).jpg#mw-jump-to-license This picture soon will be deleted unfortunately. I can't reach the photographer (who also built the organ - a perfekt symbiose of "own work"..). I did send a reminder already. But I'm very sure that he is ok with it, as he was with other pictures time ago. Can we perhaps integrate it to the former ticket? Thanks, --Subbass1 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done, I guess I overlooked the already added permission. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

general policy on movie posters[edit]

I uploaded a movie poster that was found on IMDB. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hovsepig#c-Trade-20231031212600-File_tagging_File%3AMotherland-2022-poster.jpg

I understand that we have to go through copyright rules. But when I was uploading this poster, I didn't see an obvious option for movie posters -- like if the poster is on IMDB, then is it by default fair use? Hovsepig (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Motherland-2022-poster.jpg.
@Hovespig: Commons does not accept images on a fair-use basis. This will certainly be deleted unless you can get a license from the copyright-holder.
Keep in mind, nowadays in virtually every country of the world, images are copyrighted by default. If it is at all recent, and is copyrightable, it is almost certain that it is copyrighted (though of course it may be licensed). The only exceptions are things like a few governments (most notably the U.S. federal government) that automatically put the work of their employees in the public domain, or things that are too simple to copyright.
If your intent is to use this in an article in one of the Wikipedias: some of the Wikipedias allow images to be uploaded on a fair-use basis, but that does not involve Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Korea President Park Smithsonian 20130507 02.jpg[edit]

I'm writing an article on the artwork seen in this picture. The licensing says it's free to use, but is it referring to only the photo or the photo and artwork? APK (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@APK: That might be problematic. I don't see any indication that the person or entity that licensed the photo got clearance from the artist, and it is certainly a derivative work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thank you. I might crop it and use a fair use photo I’ll take this weekend. APK (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Ownership rights", ticket:2023102410007985[edit]

The way the uploader of this image emphasizes "ownership rights" by the image subject makes me curious about the ticket. Is it based on this claim to "ownership rights" (which obviously do not include copyright), or has the copyright holder actually given their consent? --2003:C0:8F1E:8300:9996:9232:427A:C72 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket mentioned is valid for that file. We are unable to publish details about the ticket. —MdsShakil (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —MdsShakil (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Лев Наумов с романом Пловец Снов.jpg[edit]

I deleted the file yesterday due to missing permission and for being re-uploaded content deleted per community consensus. But uploader claimed, that permission e-mail was sent already in 16th of July (or couple of days earlier) and the file is erroneously deleted. File history does not show a trace of such permission. Is there a way to search a permission? Taivo (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploader Copytron said, that the e-mail was sent in 14th of July, but did not give a ticket number. Taivo (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Received no auto-reply with ticket number[edit]

I did sent a request to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the to:-line "Venus Berlin 2023 - Presse-akkreditierung" at Sun, 5 Nov 2023 01:13:12 +0100 but received no notification, that the mail was received (got no ticket number). Do I need to resend the request? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=818598849"