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: 3 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.

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]

It will need a Serbian language user to determine, but my impression with Google translate is that "No" is the answer. --Krd 12:37, 10 November 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]

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 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]
We received back in 2016 a scanned written CC BY-SA 4.0 permission from Christophe Vandercam with his signature (link for VRT agents). Thibaut (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checking for permissions for File:Dyanasofya02.jpg and File:Dato'_Sri_Ruddy_Awah.jpg.[edit]

The photographer of File:Dyanasofya02.jpg informed me that he has sent a release email on the 15th of November (he may not have mentioned the URL), while the photographer of File:Dato'_Sri_Ruddy_Awah.jpg sent a release email on the 17th of November and would like the full resolution version taken down and replaced with a lower quality version. For the latter, is it better to delete the file and upload the replacement as attached by the photographer? HejTuWou (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up to image permission[edit]

I recently had a few photos deleted because verification was not adequately supplied in time for these four images:

A user says that VRT followed up with questions but he never responded, so I'm getting on that now. He has asked who the sender was; is there a specific person who sent the follow-up email so I can tell him that's who he has to look for? Alternatively, is there a specific email that everyone uses? Panini! (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Panini!: It is usually the same email address that received the permission, but please have him check any spam email box.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lucian Freud Naked Portraits Museum für Moderne Kunst Frankfurt 2000 Rolf Lauter.jpg[edit]

I have been pulled into a dispute over permission on this file. @Nat: stated, "Nope. Permission is only for the photo and not the painting." Can someone please confirm? Is permission for the photo only or both the photo and the painting? @Gnom and Krd: FYI Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the time the permission was first confirmed, the painting was not explicitly covered, but it was later confirmed that also permission is granted to show this photo including the painting. Cross check by another VRT user welcome. Krd 08:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, we would need (1) a permission from the photographer, Mirko Krizanovic (or from someone representing him or from someone holding the necessary rights), and (2) a separate permission from the heirs of the painter, Lucian Freud (or from someone representing them or from someone holding the necessary rights), regarding the painting. This is especially relevant because an according "double" release would allow us to cut out the painting, straighten it, and include it in the Wikipedia article on Lucian Freud. My feeling is that the estate of Lucian Freud would not grant such a permission. Gnom (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The relevant stuff is in entry 18 of the ticket. As said, cross check welcome. Krd 09:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading the entry 18 of ticket:2020021110009349 the permission for the painting is autentic imho. Ellywa (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I checked the attachment to entry 18 as well and see it also as an authentic permission. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Revoking my argument, see below. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for checking, although I remain very skeptical. I inserted the image into the article en:Lucian Freud. Are we really 100% that his heirs won't come running and screaming? I simply cannot imagine them releasing this photo... Gnom (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krd @Gnom: Sorry, but: I checked once again, and found a hole. :-/
The said permission in entry #18 of the ticket comes from a lawyer in London. Earlier, in entry #14 of the ticket, the client had claimed that this lawyer was Lucian Freud's lawyer at the time. Yet I could not find any watertight proof that she really was. Nowhere in the ticket did I find a contract or a power of attorney for this lawyer with Lucian Freud. It is possible that I have overlooked it in the extensive correspondence. But if it is indeed missing, we will have to request proof from the lawyer and, if this is not provided, accept that the portrait on the wall should be pixelated.
Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2020090210005026[edit]

Hello, I noticed that File:Image_of_an_Ovary_-_English.jpg is being requested to be deleted because this image was found at https://www.carlsonstockart.com/photo/reproductive-system-female-illustration/

The copyright is not CC BY-SA, but "© copyright by Dave Carlson". I noticed that this file has been reviewed by VRT, so does ticket:2020090210005026 support this?

Thank you. Witcater (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, assuming the permission is good, is the author credit at File:Image_of_an_Ovary_-_English.jpg the desired credit? - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos taken by self-timer[edit]

I am copyright holder for the subject of a draft article I am writing and I wish to use photographs taken by the subject (deceased) using his Rolleiflex-Automat self-timer and which the subject developed and printed himself. What further requirements are needed in order to do so, please? IonaFyne (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not need to contact VRT if the photo is previously unpublished. However, you should explain very clearly in the file description page that: 1) the subject took the photo using self-timer; and 2) you are the subject's heir (if that is how you became the copyright holder). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 5 December 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) 19:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ticket:2023112810012291[edit]

Hello there, hope all is well. The bot has tagged these images as "permission received" and from my understanding it is usually queued up for 3 days or so to be reviewed by a VRT member. I was wondering what the status is or if anything is required from the permission sender or if someone can confirm that an email was sent to the permission sender for additional question, so I may follow-up with them.

Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pseud 14: If the email message was to the regular permissions-commons address, discussions probably continue. If it was sent anywhere else, please indicate that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: thanks for responding, the email consent was sent by the permission sender to the permission-commons address. I have yet to check with the permission sender if they received an email reply after sending the consent. Is that something that you can confirm? As I'm not sure and have no way of knowing unless I email/follow-up the permission sender.
Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14: Sorry, I have no way of confirming now, I no longer have authorization to see permission tickets. Please ask permission senders to carbon copy you in future.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, appreciate the confirmation. Ruthven I was wondering if I could trouble you with checking the status please? :) I see from above discussions that you have authorization to see permission tickets (I could be wrong, but worth asking) Totally understand if you are busy though. Cheers. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14 Please refer to Krd's reply at User talk:Krd#Status of images (permalink). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mdaniels5757 thank you for checking, I just needed to confirm that there was a indeed follow-up email so I can contact the permission sender with date/details, since I wasn't cc'd. I will let the sender know. Thank you Pseud 14 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: the permission sender has reached out and he got the email asking about permission for taking a picture of the stage in the first two pictures, saying it is “likely” copyrighted. Since this is indoors I don’t think freedom of panorama applies? Would you know how to approach or what is required? Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14 and Mdaniels5757: It is my understanding that the Philippines doesn't even have FOP yet. Do you have permission from the authors of the projected images?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: The permission sender who is the photographer provided me the email of the stage designer responsible for the scene installation, this is with regards to the first 2 images, so I am waiting for a response from the stage designer, if that is required. For the third image however, would the first email consent suffice? Since the email reply only pertained to the two images with the scene, here is the full email for context.
in the first two images the main subject appears to be the scene design and not any person. As the scene is likely copyright protected, do you have permission from the copyright owner to publish your photo under a free license? If yes, what is the exact agreement?
I am also unsure if scene copyright applies to the Philippines. I have very little knowledge of copyright rules and how it differs in various jurisdiction, hence my clarification as to how to go about it. Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tanuki Routhwick (u-BluTheLion).png[edit]

I uploaded this user icon minutes ago on behalf of the original artist, who also sent VRT an e-mail last month after I told him about the process and gave him the steps. All we need is the ticket ID, and we're finally done after several months of waiting. (Once again, this becomes important in the commentary of my forthcoming Miraheze FTA, currently in preparation.) --Slgrandson (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slgrandson, I have updated the ticket-number on the file-page. VRT received this email some 16 days ago, and a follow up was sent, which remains un-responded. I have added a note on the ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2014050910013283[edit]

Please check this ticket (this image): The uploader's name is T.mackowiak, the author's name is Jürgen Schön, nobody's name is Herbert Boswank. That, however, is the name of the photographer and copyright holder according to this website. --2003:C0:8F3B:CB00:1CE6:9527:6077:CCB3 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket is in German. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rachel Pickup.jpg[edit]

Hi, this file was given VRTS ticket:2022041010003312 on 13 April 2022‎, would it be possible to check if the ticket is valid? The user who uploaded the file is now blocked on all Wikimedia sites and their Commons talk page, User talk:Oli2000s, shows two other files they uploaded have been deleted as copyright violations. I investigated after seeing a query at en:Wikipedia:Help desk#how can I remove a photo?. TSventon (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Jarekt as Agent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeff G., I was already asked about it, but I seem to have lost my VRT privileges 3 days ago, so I can't help with this one. --Jarekt (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jarekt: I'm sorry to hear that; I lost mine, as well. Krd didn't think I was active enough, despite helping out here frequently.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TSventon, Although I can see the incidents of socking on en-wiki and the uploader being globally locked, the image is with EXIF and I can't find instances of it being published elsewhere before it was uploaded here in April 2022. The ticket was closed as successful by @Jarekt on 13 April 2022. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Aafī, I thought the history looked odd, but I don't have VRT experience. The photo looks professional and I believe it was formerly on rachelpickup.com, see fourth headshot at https://web.archive.org/web/20140202125247/http://www.rachelpickup.com/photos.html . The date in the Metadata is 2011. The editor who uploaded it claimed to be reaching 18 in 2023 on their Commons userpage. Their Commons talkpage notes two other images they uploaded were deleted as possible copyvios. They were blocked on en Wiki for poor English at en:User_talk:Oli2000s#UTRS_appeal_#69994, which seems odd for a professional photographer in the US or UK. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TSventon: You are right. I trust what you are saying and can find a similar photo on the archive link, I tried downloading a few images but all these appeared to be lesser than 200kb. Did you try this? The file on Commons is 2,400 × 3,000 and 4.28 mb, a good indication apart from the metadata, that could have made @Jarekt approve the permissions. I would ask input from @King of Hearts whose analysis I trust. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per en:User:Oli2000s (check history), the user has lived in Hungary all his life and was 17 when the photo of Rachel Pickup was taken. Therefore I find it very unlikely that he took this photo of a British actress. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jarekt and Jeff G.: I'm concerned to hear about this. I'm still waiting for a reply from the board to my questions about how VRTS is governed (having put them to board reps at Wikimania in August). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2022082710002347[edit]

Can someone check this ticket please? The uploader is the author of the book, but does that mean he himself is the photographer and copyright holder of the photo? And is his publisher o.k. with a CC license for the book cover? --91.34.41.45 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears to be about File:Meisterwerke Olms Inlaycard.jpg and File:Das Klassenorchester in gemischter Besetzung 1.jpg. The ticket is in German which I don't know. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sorry, meant to add the links to the files. There are issues with both of these files, but in different ways: This one is the one with the photo I meant above. In this one, all the pictures are old and certainly public domain, but the book cover was obviously designed by a graphic designer who may also have a thing or two to say on copyright. Plus, there is the question of publisher's rights. --91.34.41.45 18:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission verification[edit]

Hello

I would like to request request permissions verification for File:Blausen 0657 MultipolarNeuron.png. The permission correspondence is listed under ticket # 2013061010006654.

Thank you,

Stephanie Kuhns 174.16.116.152 18:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=830480783"