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.

Feedback request: Draft instructions for giving permissions to accounts to upload content from an organisation[edit]

Hi all

I've been working to help organisations (mainly in the UN) share their content on Commons for many years and one thing I've always found difficult is what happens when an organisation wants to share a lot of files at once, it becomes difficult for them to upload the files, or for me to do it for them. Recently I found out there is a was to for an organisation to give permission to an account to upload content from their organisation, however I can't find any instructions at all on how to do it, so I've started to draft some. User:John_Cummings/VRT_organization_permission

Please can you tell me if there are any issues with what I've drafted so far, what is missing etc. I'm not a VRT volunteer so I don't understand exactly how your internal systems work, but hopefully by simply using the standard VRT permission ID template this should make it simple to integrate. I know that it will make it easier for organisations to contribute content on a large scale and hopefully this will mean a larger number of organisations make mass donations to Commons.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out at different venues, such generalisations don't work. Cases are different. Please negotiate with the VRT for individual solutions. Krd 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd, thanks, a couple of questions:
  1. Has anyone tried to write instructions before on this process? Are they still available somewhere?
  2. What specifically can't be documented/generalised? What specifically doesn't 'work' in terms of providing an overview or guidance for this process?
  3. What in your experience are the parts of the process that need to be created individually for different organisations?
  4. As you've helped people do this before, how did they find out about this as a possibility? I've never seen anything written down about it, I found out by accident after 10+ years of doing Commons uploads.
  5. Are there many Commons people who help organisations give permission for an account? I'd like to know their experiences as well.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don‘t like this kind of interrogation. What exact problem do you intend to resolve? Krd 19:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd this is absolutely not supposed to be an interogation :) I'm just trying to understand why you think providing instructions for such a useful process won't work and what may be possible to document. You seem to be the only person who knows how this works, that's why I've asked you the questions. I guess the problems I'm trying to resolve is that while being able to approve an account for uploads is an extremely useful feature, currently there doesn't seem to be any way to find out this is possible beyond word of mouth and no clear way to learn how to do it. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you want to know the process in detail only for the reason not to follow it. All solutions have been well outlined to you at different places: A. put the files under a free license at the source, or B. contact the VRT, briefly explain your intention, and follow their suggestion for the best solution for the individual case. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with verified accounts before, but primarily in the case of individuals. For these situations involving individuals, a complex licensing statement is not needed; a mere online proof of identity will suffice (e.g. an email from an address listed on the person's official website confirming the name of their Wikimedia account). This is because once the identity is confirmed, releasing entirely self-created works is no different from any other Commoner who needs no verification because their works have no other online presence. I've dealt with organizations as well but the process has always been adhoc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much King of Hearts, very helpful to explain that invdividuals can do this as well. Do you know if the process for individuals documented anywhere? Also could you describe your process when you've done this for organisations? I'd like to include it in the documentation :) John Cummings (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verified accounts are to ensure that the person really is the person they are claiming. Regarding permissions this is only half of the story, because it doesn't at all say that the person is the copyright holder of the files in question, so is no replacement for explicit permission. --Krd 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krd I think there is some kind of missunderstanding, I'm not suggesting anything is changed relating to explicit permission for uploading files, I'm just trying to document the process to make it easier for people to follow, or at the very least know it exists in the first place. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by verifying an account. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered. Contact the VRT about your issue, and you will get help, in nearly all cases in form of very simple and easy to answer questions. It is impossible to create a helpful documentation that covers all possible scenarios, as copyright issues are different for each case and each source country. Most likely you are misleading users even more, and create additional work for the VRT. Please stop it. Krd 11:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use-case for which John's suggested process is a solution is a fairly common one; I've used a very similar process, more than once, without issue. The questions he asked are not an "interrogation", and if you are not willing to answer them, then it is reasonable for anyone reading to dismiss your objections as unfounded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO imagery follow-up[edit]

Hi all. An email was sent to VRT from an @esa.int address on 02/27/2024 at 14:33 UT with a response from VRT coming in at 14:36 UT the same day opening ticket:2024022710008671. The contents of the @esa.int email pertains to the discussion at Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA#Revisiting SOHO warning: redux wherein the removal of the line in {{PD-USGov-NASA}} referencing the w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is being discussed. Can a VRT agent weigh in to this discussion with the information given in the email?

Additionally, do the contents of this email have implications for all of the applicable SOHO imagery that may have been wrongfully deleted in the past? CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. there was an earlier interaction with ESA now 14 years ago. This interaction is logged under 2010012510051743. Please remember however that things can change in 14 years (notably since ESA itself applied a policy of using Creative Commons). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly there was exception for commercial use made back (on their own website), that the community didn't like and I asked about it and I basically got the same information back as was stated on the website and a confirmation that there was no explicit license like Creative Commons that applied. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading about this past communication in your comment to this discussion. I provided a direct quote from the recent email that VRT was copied on in the discussion that prompted the email to VRT which gives specific licenses. In hindsight, I probably should have inquired about this past correspondence in my request. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 #2013032610004579[edit]

ticket #2013032610004579 I was wondering if this ticket has the permission from the architect or the photographer Other photographs of the museums interior do not have a VRT ticket, therefore my doubt. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no museum photographs in this ticket. Which image do you refer to? Krd 08:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket seems to be valid for several files, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -003.jpg, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -014.jpg, File:Mercedes-Benz-Museum 2015-01 by-RaBoe -008.jpg among others. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely invalid. Krd 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: what is "completely invalid"? The ticket? Paradise Chronicle's last statement? Something else? Jmabel ! talk 14:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, fwiw, the ticket does not mention any of the files mentioned by @Paradise Chronicle. It does impact some images but those are not what PC has stated above. I am producing the list of images this ticket impacts:
With that, I don't think there is anything else that is missed. This ticket is not valid for anything else. ─ Aafī (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. The ticket is invalid for the use of museum interior, see: Commons:Deletion requests/User:Raboe001/Permission MBM. Krd 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 10:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

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]

File:International Philosophy Olympiad official Logo, made by Sacha Pierluigi (France).png[edit]

the same file was uploaded as File:International Philosophy Olympiad Logo, made by Sacha Pierluigi (France).png. but the file is deleted. is it possible to transfer the VRT ticket? --eien20 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader requested deletion of that file because it is incorrect. Krd 14:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. I'll request to get them to send a new vrt ticket . --eien20 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --eien20 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard&oldid=879684835"