Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N  • Commons:VRTN

ticket:2012011710005331 added to the file below by non VRT volunteer:

• File:Aida Ćorović 2011-mc.rs.jpg
• File:Slaviša Lekić 2012-mc.rs.jpg

As far as I can see the situation is not clear. see:

• her. See also:
• this
• this DR
• this dr
• this
• this dr

The point is that the ticket already added to 573 files. If it's ok, maybe it's worth to create License template as User:MGA73 suggested. -- Geagea (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems we agree that the ticket is okay for old files but perhaps not for new files. So I made Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-Medija centar Beograd. Let me know what you think. But someone should really check the ticket because it was long ago since I read it (Google Translate).

I suggested to stop using the permission because those that was involved in it earlier think that it may not be as good as we would require today. But I'm open to let it have no end-date. --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Dungodung, your opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, agreed, I might have said this in an earlier thread of similar nature a few years back. This type of permission wouldn't be accepted nowadays, since it's a blanket confirmation for the whole website, and it's not certain that the person that gave the permission really knew what they were doing. I would honestly void this and perhaps it makes sense to approach MC again to ascertain whether this practice of using their images can continue, in which case we could create something more formal (maybe even include WMRS, CC @Gorana Gomirac (VMRS)). Filip (§ ) 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

1. 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)
2. 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. (削除) I checked a few and they seem to be added by non-VRT users. (削除ここまで) 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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

(ticket #2020051110005981) It appears compressed (squished) a bit. Is it safe to upload a version stretched by 50px as a new file? JayCubby (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@JayCubby, yes. -- Geagea (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Blackandwhite.07 (talk  · contribs) has uploaded six images that all reference VTRS ticket #2018100810007819. As far as I can tell, this was used on a single image uploaded in 2018. Would someone mind verifying if this is valid for the new images? This user may also be related to Knightman007 (talk  · contribs) who is blocked for adding false OTRS tickets to images, and also uploaded an image referencing this ticket. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This permission is only for File:Sai Pallavi at Mca-pre-release-event.jpg. No other photos. Pinging @Magog the Ogre as admin who blocked Knightman007. Nemoralis (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear VRT team,

I have uploaded the image "Медаль «Герой труда Ставрополья».png" to Wikimedia Commons ([link to the image: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C_%C2%AB%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F%C2%BB.png. The image was originally uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia and is currently used on the Portuguese Wikipedia.

On the image page in the Russian Wikipedia, it is stated that the copyright holder is the government of Stavropol Krai. However, according to Article 1259 of the Russian Civil Code, official symbols and medals issued by the government are considered public domain.

I would like to know if any additional steps are required to confirm this status, or if the image can be kept on Commons based on Russian copyright law.

Looking forward to your guidance. Apollo 13013 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it can be moved to Commons since it is in the public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It is already in the public domain, it just needs the permission ticket. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Permission from whom? :) Public domain means "no one holds the exclusive rights". Nemoralis (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

But the tag says OTR to replace it with a permission ticket. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The tag was added by you. It usually means copyright holder sent the permission email to VRT. Then one of the VRT members comes and replaces it with another template that says it is in the queue and waiting to be processed. Example: Special:Diff/1012932309 Nemoralis (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The image was uploaded to Russian Wikipedia under the public domain, but the uploader stated that the copyright holder is the government of Stavropol Krai. That is the problem. Does an email need to be sent to the government of Stavropol Krai? Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If image is in the public domain, there is no copyright holder. Nemoralis (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah. I know what to do now. It's just that there was a small translation error... Thank you. Apollo 13013 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Finnobrien127 (talk  · contribs) has engaged in adding copyright images from sociial media and tag them as VRT permission requested to avoid suspicion. Request to verify the following.

• File:Meryl Swason MP Photograph.jpg
• File:Meryl Swanson MP Photograph.jpg

Thank you Agent 007 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No tickets found. Nemoralis (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. Agent 007 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

TicketNumber=2025032710007766 Bonjour, J'ai téléchargé sur commons aujourd'hui le document Julian Jacob.jpg. J'ai téléchargé ce document à la demande de Julian Jacob lui-même afin d'illustrer l'infobox de la page wikipedia qui le concerne (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jacob). Un robot propose la suppression du document. Julian Jacob et moi demandons à ce que document soit dans le domaine public et qu'il ne soit pas supprimé de Commons. Comment pouvons-nous mieux référencer la photo ? merci de votre aide. Heraldwolf (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See also Commons:Service d'aide#Image libre de droits pour article wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Commons community

• VRTS