Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N  • Commons:VRTN

This ticket refers to a lot of memorial images taken from an apparently minor 2015 Facebook gallery of inspirational posters with photographs and quotations.

Taking one of those posters, File:Malcolm-muggeridge.jpg, it shows https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/english-journalist-author-and-television-personality-news-photo/3432143, a 1959 Stringer photo by Derek Berwin, via Getty Images. The photo has been subsequently cropped down from the Facebook poster to illustrate en:Malcolm Muggeridge, crediting the Facebook page for the portrait.

What does the ticket say? Is it just the owner of the Facebook account confirming they've released the posters you can see on their Facebook page under a CC-licence? Belbury (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Belbury, this is in Ukranian so I can't help unfortuntely. Pinging @Ahonc. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 04:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This permission is from Ukrainian Institute of National Memory for files about Holodomor from their site and facebook galleries. @Antanana: got that permission. She may have more info.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

ticket:2015020310012351

This ticket from 2015 if I understood correctly covers the images in Files provided by the Museo del Bicentenario. Most of the images are either old official photographs, pictures of objects from the museum, etc. However, there are other that I think should not be covered by it, for example File:Museo del Bicentenario - "¡Basta!" por Carlos Terribili.jpg is a painting from 2011 or File:Museo del Bicentenario - Revista PBT.jpg, File:Museo del Bicentenario - "Asunción del Presidente Arturo Illia".jpg that are caricatures published in magazines, etc. Does the ticket have a permission from the real artists or their heirs? Because museums usually own objects, but rarely their copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

My read is that the ticket provides permission for the images, not the underlying works. However, I do not speak Spanish. This ticket was previously discussed in Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#Spanish ticket check. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! I recently instructed a third party to forward an email chain to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 18 December - ticket:2024121710009651; they received a reply, requesting further information about which specific media files on Commons they were authorizing; now, should I be uploading all of the files with the Template:permission pending template?

I believe the email I sent was referencing both a) a large number of files and b) potential for new files to be uploaded; would each of these need to be approved independently by the copyright holder or is there a template we would be able to create for this? (such as Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission or Template:PD-NCGov-legislator photo)

Thanks - and sorry that I'm asking so many questions! Staraction (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

{{PD-WVGov-legislature photos}} has been created. I would suggest not uploading any files until the copyright holder can verify that the information in the template is correct. When you upload the files, please include the custom license template and {{Licensereview}} so they can be checked by a license reviewer. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Staraction: Does the copyright holder still intend to provide the permission? If yes, please encourage them to answer our questions in the ticket. Krd 11:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Krd I'm not entirely sure, as I've not received a response from them either. I understand this may result in the ticket being closed. Apologies for the inconvenience. Staraction (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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 ]

Dear Volunteer Response Team,

This is Jintaek from South Korea.

I am reaching out to seek clarification regarding the licensing and usage of the following file listed on Wikimedia Commons:

- File URL:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op.18-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg

According to the page, the file is marked as being in the public domain, both for the music and the recording. Additionally, the following statement is mentioned:

"The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2008012110017088."

I am planning to use a 1-minute segment of this recording as background music for a video project.

The video will be used for the following purposes:

- Displayed in offline public spaces in South Korea

- Shared on various social media platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, WeChat, Xiaohongshu, and Weibo

Before proceeding, I would like to confirm the following details to ensure compliance with the licensing terms:

1. Commercial Use

- Can this file be used commercially without requiring additional permissions or paying fees?

2. Copyright and Permissions

- Does the licensing explicitly cover all intended uses mentioned above, including sharing on social media platforms and use in public spaces?

- Can you provide any further details about the archived correspondence (ticket #2008012110017088) or confirm that this file is entirely free of copyright restrictions?

3. Attribution Requirements

- Is attribution mandatory for this file in all contexts, even if it is in the public domain? If so, how should the attribution be provided if it is not possible to display credits directly in the video?

4. Geographical Scope and Duration

- Are there any geographical or time-based restrictions on the use of this file?

Your assistance in clarifying these points would be greatly appreciated, as it will help me ensure compliance with Wikimedia Commons’ guidelines.

Thank you for your time and support.

I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Jintaek

P.S.

If additional clarification is needed or if I need to take any specific steps to verify this file's licensing, please let me know.

I deeply appreciate the effort of the Volunteer Response Team in maintaining such a valuable resource. Jintaek Lim (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Jintaek Lim, the answer to your questions should be contained in the file description. However the link you gave leads into the void. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your kind clarification. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the file should include a description of the source. So, as long as the source is properly attributed, there shouldn't be any issues with using it, correct? I appreciate your help, and here is the link again: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op._18_-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg?uselang=ko Jintaek Lim (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jintaek Lim, as file description clearly says: "Musopen grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.". You can also read w:Public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sega Mega Drive games, Can you clarify by sending information to the rights holders of these images? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The permission was given by w:Super Fighter Team in 2009. I don't think we can ask something in 16 years old ticket. Nemoralis (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So there's no way of knowing what "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose" means in view of the questions we need to consider in the linked deletion requests thread? How would you recommend we proceed? Maybe we should just honor it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've closed that particular one as keep. Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(Offensichtlich wurde die Anfrage hier komplett ignoriert, daher nochmals)

Ticketnr./Konversation mit ihm finde ich nicht mehr, kann trotzdem jemand nach diesen Dateien schauen, wo das Problem liegt (und mir bitte Namen des Fotografs mitteilen)? Meiner Erinnerung nach wurde die (wie immer von mir vorbereitete) Genehmigung vom Fotografen gesendet. Ungefähr 10 Dateien mit aufsteigender Ordnungsnr.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:W%C3%BCrzburg,_St._Bruno_(24).jpg

--Subbass1 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I could not find a ticket containing this file name. Nemoralis (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Strange - could you please look into the file description and tell me the photograper's name? I don't remember but I'm sure I wrote it down there... --Subbass1 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Anyone?? --Subbass1 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am not an administrator so I can't help you with that, sorry. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Subbass1: photographer name is Daniel Zeller. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thx, now I remember. I'll write him again hoping he sends the text this time (always prepared completely by me). --Subbass1 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Subbass1 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Subbass1 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, We have a number of recent paintings with {{WikiAfrica/Artgate}}. I wonder if this foundation really has the right to give a free license for these works. Usually, only the artist and their heirs have this right. If this is the case, it should specifically mentioned in the permission. Yann (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - De Rocchi Francesco, Venezia - San Marco.jpg
• File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Di Romagna Alfredo, Piazza del Duomo a Milano.jpg

The permission letter states that Fondazione Cariplo is the "sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the works". Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Nemoralis: Thanks for your answer. I personally think this is not sufficient. Many GLAMs wrongly claim to be the copyright owner of the works they host. We at least need to know how they acquired the copyright. Yann (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Nemoralis: FYI, I posted about this on VPC. Yann (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We have recently received several emails from German Mac users that the texts appear in a small font (about 10 pt), and unfortunately the font cannot be enlarged any more.

The problem seems to be connected with the latest update of the Safari browser. I advised the users to try Firefox instead, and there in deed the problem does not occur.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I tested on Safari Version 18.3 (20620.2.4.11.5) and can not confirm this. The default font size decreased recently but not due to a Safari update but due to the new default skin. But zooming in on the tab worked for me. GPSLeo (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Didym and me are in contact with Kurt Klühspies who offered to provide a better-quality portrait for which he asserts to own the rights and wishes to release it under CC-BY-SA. He sent it to me via e-mail and I have uploaded it as File:Kurt kluehspies portrait.jpg with "permission pending". I asked him to send e-mail permission to permissions-de@wikimedia.org , which should follow shortly, and also to provide more information (date, photographer). This is to inform the team where to look when the e-mail from Mr. Klühspies arrives... A ping as well to Perrak who is also familiar with the case. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I may sound weired, but the VRT receives really a lot of tickets, and is unable to handle such special requests. Please make sure that the permission sender includes the link to the uploaded file in their e-mail. Krd 20:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, I'll send him another mail (he sent the photo to me with a generic file name "IMG something")... It's not easy to communicate such things to people who are not familiar with Commons and our procedures at all, which is something you are certainly very much aware of, I guess you have a lot of difficult explaining to do in your correspondences... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's very easy, just ask them to put you in CC when sending the permission, so that you can help providing the link to the uploaded file. Krd 07:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Krd: Die Mail müsste soeben bei permissions-de eingetroffen sein. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It is necessary to know whose permission is given for the images of Poshtova Ploscha Metro Station. The question is raised due to the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poshtova Ploscha Metro Station Kiev 2011 02.JPG. If the permission is given by architect(s) and covers only the object of architecture, then the image of the permanent glass artwork at the station might be not covered. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The permission is given by family member of architect, ru:Масленков, Игорь Леонидович. Nemoralis (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If the artwork is the only issue, we can cover it with a solid color or a strong Gaussian blur. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I suppose this ticket applies for all works by Albert Klijn. A notification on Category:Albert Klijn would be very helpful. I uploaded File:Albert Klijn - Poster Regata.jpg, which needs a notification too (or, if the ticket gives no permission, has to be deleted). Fransvannes (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The permission is only for File:De Dageraad der Menschheid.png Nemoralis (talk) 17:50, 28 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 ]

• Commons community

• VRTS