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: 7 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.

New Zealand Police mug shots[edit]

There seem to have been conflicting views over whether mug shots taken by the NZ Police are public domain. (At any rate, the response I received from the NZ Police indicated that their mug shots are not freely licensed.) I raised this question here but did not get a response. Can the Admins please explain ticket:2024030110007726 ticket:2024022610012756 vs. ticket:2024021210003685? Thanks, Muzilon (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the tickets but reading your posts and the deletion requests linked, I'm not sure what's going on. While the police does not claim copyright (as per Squirrel) they also say their mug shots are not freely licensed. What does that mean? If there is no clear indication the police is releasing mug shots under a free license or into the public domain, since COM:NEW ZEALAND does not state they already are, then the files should be delted and remain deleted. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brenton_Tarrant.png. A contributor uploaded a NZ Police mugshot whose copyright status was questioned (by me). The uploader responded that he'd received some sort of copyright clearance from the NZ Police, which he forwarded to VRT. This "clearance" was apparently accepted by an Admin on 19-Feb-2024 - which would have set a precedent for NZ mugshots on Commons. (In the meantime I received a contrary email from the NZ Police saying their mug shots are not freely licensed.) Then on 24-Feb-2024 a different Admin deleted the mugshot with a note about "copyright violation". There have been previous cases where uploaders have asserted that NZ police mugshots are "public domain". So, perhaps Commons needs to add a definitive statement to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand. Muzilon (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging User:The Squirrel Conspiracy and User:Krd, who seem to be the two Admins involved with these tickets. Muzilon (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2024030110007726 does not appear to be relevant to this case. ticket:2024022610012756 is the second ticket in this case. It specifies that the response that we received in ticket:2024021210003685 was an error, and pointed us towards the NZ PD's copyright page, which contradicted the first ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. (I have corrected the pertinent ticket number in my OP.) It seems curious that the NZ Police apparently contradicted themselves on this issue. Muzilon (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bongo Cat Redraw.png[edit]

This VRT-confirmed file is User:GiraffeWorld's COM:DERIV close redrawing of a meme image by named Twitter user Strayrogue. Under COM:DERIV, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse.

Can somebody with VRT access confirm for me whether ticket:2019100310000707 includes confirmation that that Strayrogue licenced their work to GiraffeWorld for reuse in this particular way? Or is it just GiraffeWorld confirming that they personally drew the uploaded image? Belbury (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury: It is not confirmed in the ticket the uploader is the same person as the creator of the twitter image. They appeared just using it to create this image. It was thought the image just consists of simple geomatric shapes. Ellywa (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: Thanks. So there's no suggestion that it was created with the permission of the Twitter user, just that the uploader and/or VRT reviewer felt that the original drawing of a cat was simple geometry so we didn't need to seek permission from the artist or credit them in the author field?
I'm puzzled that the image isn't actually flagged as {{PD-geometry}} - or that we haven't just used the original Twitter image! I'll take it to a deletion discussion over the "no original authorship" claim, if there's no permission here. Belbury (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anne Karine Dybdal.jpg[edit]

Hi, Could someone please review the file (listed as a screenshot) and the report on the VRT listed in the source. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: For me it shows, "This ticket does not exist, or you don't have permissions to access it in its current state". I guess the ticket is in a specific language queue. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsaa:  ? Krd 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The [https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=12798541 VRT ticket looks fine: "Med dette bekrefter jeg herved at jeg har alle rettigheter til de vedlagte bilde. Jeg lisensierer dem herved under lisensen «Creative Commons Attribution 3.0»." (Norwegian). B.r. Nsaa (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2009063010002351[edit]

Requesting check on ticket #2009063010002351 — Does the ticket owner claim to be from Gibson Ridge Radar? A Commons patroller added it + the ticket immediately after removing a US-GOV copyright template. Basically, who claimed the ticket? The person on Twitter who posted the public-domain info, or “Gibson Ridge Radar” as stated by the patroller who added the ticket. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket is from 2009, last entry from 2012, and I won't say if or if not it was valid in 2009, but in any case not sufficient per today's standards. I think it shouldn't be used for new files which are not mentioned in it. --Krd 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: This opens a bit of a can of worms as to what licensing would be correct for this file, which is a screenshot/recording of public domain data rendered using a non-free software program. I tagged the file with the ticket because it pertains specifically to screenshots from that software program, but if the ticket is insufficient the file (and potentially several others) may need deleted depending on what its actual copyright status is. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(See also this for additional background on the issue.) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any license mentioned in the ticket, or any claim who is a copyright holder of what for which reason, and/or why permission from the sender is required at all? I don't. Krd 10:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused; Are you saying that permission isn't needed for screenshots of public domain radar data rendered using non-free software programs? I would be fine with that, I just didn't think that was the case. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally sure and I haven't read all discussions, but I think if a ticket is applied, it should be clear from the ticket who is the copyright holder for which reason, because otherwise they cannot give any permission.
At first impression I'd think that if nothing copyrighted is reproduced, then no permission is needed. Krd 10:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions to read related to radar images:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/05#File:Evolution of the Minden–Harlen tornado.gif (Request for clarification from EN Wiki) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg. The deletion request was about a radar screenshot from RadarOmega, a radar application just like Gibson Ridge Radar. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2024052610000558[edit]

File:2020 Camaro 2SS.jpg

Ticket:2024052610000558

This image is clearly a copyrighted promotional image, yet the uploader claims it as their "own work" and does not indicate its original source (e.g. General Motors). Does the VRTS ticket indicate that GM (or whomever the actual copyright holder is) gave permission for this image to be uploaded to Commons? --Sable232 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the ticket it is plausible that the original photographer gave permission. If you have any different evidence, please provide it. Krd 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024052310010338[edit]

File:Anthony Gavard portrait.jpg ticket:2024052310010338 Hello, I'm the uploader and claims it as my own work. But a moderator said that since I'm in the photography, the holder of the rights is the photographer. But there is no photographer. This image was taken with my own phone, and since I'm in it, of course I asked someone to take it, but that doesn't make him the photographer - or elsewhere a tripod can be owner of rights. I answered the moderator last week, but have no feed back yet. Can someone tell me how it's going ? Thank you for your time ! Totolezero (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's going good, you just got response. --Krd 06:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Michael Gudinski Credit Brian Purnell of Mushroom Creative House.jpg[edit]

Uploader says they sent an email for this file (and File:Michael Gudinski Credit Brian Purnell of Mushroom Creative House - cropped.jpg) but I see no VRT tags or related activity in these files' history. Could a VRT agent please check if any exists? DMacks (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I tried searching with all possible strings, username, author name, source link, file links, names, but couldn't find anything. Where was the permission sent? If the file pages haven't been updated for the two years then it was unlikely received. It needs to be sent again. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ Aafī (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Permission received files[edit]

Would a VRT member mind taking a look at the following files? They were tagged with {{Permission received}} about a month ago by Krdbot. If their licensing issues haven't been resolved by now, then perhaps they never will.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file will be deleted after 30 days, which is still some days to go. Krd 05:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Krd. I'm aware of that's how things work. I'm just curious though as to whether there's been any attempt made by the uploader or whoever emailed VRT at trying to resolve whatever problems there were with the email. I'm assuming a VRT member did reply to the original CCONSENT email to let that person know there was a problem, but I'm not sure that's how things work. Is another email sent out as the 30-day deadline draws near as a reminder that the file in question is going to be deleted if things aren't resolved asap? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. @Marchjuly. Ideally, as stated elsewhere, if there is no response for 30 days after a VRT agent responds to the ticket, the file gets deleted. VRT folks are very few and it is very difficult to follow up and remind people that they haven't gotten back to us. Once an agent responds, the ticket is by-default marked as closed. If it doesn't receive a response/valid permission within 30 days, it won't be marked as open by us. It just remains there as it is in the archives. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2024052210003759[edit]

I miss the final processing here. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Szpajdel images[edit]

Last April 20, I uploaded two pictures of Christophe Szpajdel, after receiving the original high-resolution files and permission from the photographer and copyright owner (Kevin Eisenlord). The pictures were: File:Christophe Szpajdel 2016-1.tif and File:Christophe Szpajdel 2016-2.tif.

On April 23, Eisenlord filled out the permission request form via the release generator. By May 1, the permissions had not been added to the files, so I posted on this noticeboard asking for feedback. It was suggested that Eisenlord re-send the permission form a second time, which he did on May 4. On May 9, I asked for an update at which time I was told that the permission email had been received properly and the tickets only needed to be updated on the images' pages once the volunteer team got around to it. However, I was notified that the two images were deleted earlier today, with the note "No ticket permission since 4 May 2024". Can someone please look into what happened? Thanks! Bricks&Wood (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=881382823"