Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. |
This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members. (For VRT agents to communicate with one another please use VRT wiki.) 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.
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
|
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
- Commons:Email templates
- {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
Adding ticket:2014030810001523 to Texas Historical Markers
[edit]ticket:2014030810001523 is reportedly permission from the Texas Historical Commission to use their Texas Historical Markers on Commons. I would like to add the permission to the marker images so the images will not be nominated for deletion. Is it OK to do that? Thanks Nv8200pa (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here is a rough search query to find relevant files.
- At a quick glance, the permission looks weaker than we hope. It looks like the organization's representative who wrote relevant emails did not believe those texts were copyrighted, and saw no need for a release statement. They gave assurance that they encourage people to share such photos of historical markers of theirs, but not in the form of a license statement that Commons usually expects (unless I missed something). Some content on those markers might be short enough to be non-copyrightable, others might not be. I'm not saying all those marker pictures should immediately be deleted, but a new request to them for a release seems adequate. It's been more than a decade so it might be better to start from scratch than trying to revive the previous conversation. Disclosure: I was involved in the ticket a decade ago, but to be honest I don't remember to what extent I did research exactly. It would be great if someone else can review this case, too. whym (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Let me try to rephrase (in case it was not clear enough). 1) the permission looks week and needs re-evaluation even for existing images, 2) it is unlikely that we can extend the existing permission to other similar markers. Point 2 can be an answer to the request, and in a sense that could end the discussion. However, Point 1 is still not resolved, and I would hope someone else look into it besides me, although I think it was not a question asked originally. What do others think? whym (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Red Bull logo
[edit]Does ticket:2025020610011248, present at File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png, make the Red Bull logo free? And hence w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg among others can be relicensed and transfered to Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'd say No. It makes only the "Red Bull Ring" logo free. Krd 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- But w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg is a part of File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png so logically, both or neither, should be free, or is my logic flawed? Jonteemil (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think you logic is flawed. The Red Bull Ring logo is free, not any other logo that recombines a part of it into another logo.
- In any case this is a general copyright question and out of scope of VRT and this noticeboard. Krd 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I asked on COM:VPC first but it was archived before anyone had answered. I don't see how my logic is flawed. Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not an answer to your question, but as an alternative approach: What if you ask Red Bull for a release for the logos in question? Krd 05:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- I asked on COM:VPC first but it was archived before anyone had answered. I don't see how my logic is flawed. Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- But w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg is a part of File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png so logically, both or neither, should be free, or is my logic flawed? Jonteemil (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png is a derivative work. I think it's worth checking again with the email sender that they have the authority to release the original logo that the file is derivative to. If they don't, their license alone would be insufficient even for the derivative logo (unless you blur it partially, perhaps). whym (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please do. Krd 09:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Scope of VRT ticket:2019010310001751 for Karunanidhi English translations
[edit]I am checking the reuse status of this exact file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KalaignarinenglishtranslationAsisintheoriginal(shortstories).pdf Its file page marks the complete PDF CC0/public domain and cites VRT ticket:2019010310001751. Can a VRT volunteer please confirm whether that ticket covers the copyright in the complete English translations and associated publisher text contained in the PDF, rather than only the underlying Tamil works by M. Karunanidhi? If the ticket covers a larger collection, could you also identify which English-language book files are covered? The intended reuse is extraction and alignment of Tamil and English text, redistribution of the resulting parallel-text dataset with provenance, and use in machine-learning research, including publication of trained model artifacts. No clarification of machine-learning law is requested; I only need the scope of the archived permission and stated CC0 dedication. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- The link you have provided is wrong but:
- File:Tamil-Nadu-Nationalized-Books-Public-Domain-Declaration.jpg should give you context.
- The ticket particularly deals with Category:PDF books in Tamil from TVA in 2015.
- It also hints to this link from Tamil Nadu government.
- As such I don't think it should include English works or translations but Balajijagadesh may have a better opinion/information. signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 18:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is the correct link: File:Kalaignar in english translation As is in the original (short stories).pdf
- The English translation is in the same PDF which is marked as CC0. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- As per this GO, "GoTN_Tamil_Development_Departments_order_on_creative_commons_cc_by_sa.pdf" all the publications of the Tamil Nadu government is in CCBYSA. As the said publication is by a government university it should come under CCBYSA.
- @TVA ARUN Must have better understanding as he is closely related to these work. Balaji (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Eugenides Foundation
[edit]
Can someone look at ticket:2010062210044239?
These are Files from the Eugenides Foundation. User:DieBucheBot (by User:DieBuche) stuck a CC 1.0 license on them in 2010 despite CC 3.0 having been around since 2007. More specifically it used the unversioned template redirect {{CC-by-SA}}.
Questions:
- Does the ticket say anything about a license version?
- File:EugenFound-130.jpg has a National Geographic logo, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- File:EugenFound-123.jpg says "iWERKS moving entertainment", does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- File:EugenFound-119.jpg shows w:Le Petit Prince, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- No license version is mentioned, they only say "free license" and "CC-BY-SA" with no specific version. Regarding permissions, they say "All images that start with
EugenFoundare completely owned by the Eugenides Planetarium of Athens, Greece." Nemoralis (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC) - Per today's standards the ticket is invalid because it doesn't clarify why Eugenides Foundation wants to be copyright holder. I'm going to reopen the ticket. Krd 12:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Undeletion request - ticket:2026062310007873
[edit]I would like to kindly ask to revert the deletion of "File:Guarda-louça - Museu de Alcântara (MCHA.0013) - 2022-10-10 09.55.52.jpg" and many others, as permission was verified with ticket nºticket:2026062310007873.
Edit group links:
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/78d3de0ca0c/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/1e228a9dd07/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/4184de5b4f3/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/d2bd37a6eaa/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/3e87f8787f1/
- https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/1bcdd01bdce/
Thank you in advance, HGodinho (WMB) (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Yours ticket #2026061910004697. where paintings by Eivind Engebretsen is licensced.
[edit]Hello, I see from a Deletion Request here that the image in question (and others it seems due to active renaming of files) have been aproved. The uploader or other as copyrightholders have then transferred rights to Commons.
.jpg){kind=link}
As the uploader earlier have claimed ownership to copies, but not the copyrigt to Eivind Engebretsen works; the permission given may not be valid. As there is an interest in NOːWP to get access to this images; the VRT-process sofar may also have some COI-issues; the matter should be re-evalueted with fresh eyes. Andrez1 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have seen the VTRS ticket and I agree with TommyG's assessment that the permission is valid. Due to the confidentiality agreement all VTRS volunteers have to abide by, neither TommyG nor I can reveal more about the contents of the ticket other than we have already stated unless the person who submitted the ticket agrees to let us do so. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Other works by the painter is still under copyright as this so if commons have other information, good. I somewhat doubt it. The ticket should be reevaluated. Andrez1 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- No-one is claiming the pictures are not in copyright, just that the correspondent has correctly licensed the images they uploaded. Nthep (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- As having the legal rights to transfer copyright to commons through an CC-what license? For this to happens the the heirs of Eivind Engebretsen needs to be identified and they need to give up the remaining 4 years of the Protection period. There are ideal rights like the right to get named. But also rights to protect the painters reputation. That is lost by CC-license. So i doubt they can give away copyright just like that. The deal with commons should be reevaluated.
- Someone might give the portraits Salvador Dalí moustaches and add funny words at the bottom. Andrez1 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: (1) No rights are "transferred to Commons". A license is granted to whomever may choose to use it, Commons included. (2) You seem to be saying that you do not trust the members of the VRT to do the task that they have been chosen to do. It seems odd to me that you are saying that at least two people chosen by the community for this role and having exercised it for some time have certainly not correctly understood a piece of correspondence that you presumably have not seen and where you have no way to know even who were the parties to the correspondence and they would be violating the terms of their position by discussing that. What action could the VRT even possibly take here that would satisfy your doubts (other than saying that they were wrong and you are right, which they obviously do not believe to be the case)? - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- In this case, I have objective objections to what will be VRT's assessments. VRT then seems to be not responsible to anyone, least of all the audience. I would like someone to look at the matter with new eyes. Andrez1 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: VRT agents are experienced volunteers entrusted by the community to review permissions sent by third parties. Nothing more can be done here. Yann (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- More should be done. Andrez1 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: VRT agents are experienced volunteers entrusted by the community to review permissions sent by third parties. Nothing more can be done here. Yann (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- In this case, I have objective objections to what will be VRT's assessments. VRT then seems to be not responsible to anyone, least of all the audience. I would like someone to look at the matter with new eyes. Andrez1 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: (1) No rights are "transferred to Commons". A license is granted to whomever may choose to use it, Commons included. (2) You seem to be saying that you do not trust the members of the VRT to do the task that they have been chosen to do. It seems odd to me that you are saying that at least two people chosen by the community for this role and having exercised it for some time have certainly not correctly understood a piece of correspondence that you presumably have not seen and where you have no way to know even who were the parties to the correspondence and they would be violating the terms of their position by discussing that. What action could the VRT even possibly take here that would satisfy your doubts (other than saying that they were wrong and you are right, which they obviously do not believe to be the case)? - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- No-one is claiming the pictures are not in copyright, just that the correspondent has correctly licensed the images they uploaded. Nthep (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Other works by the painter is still under copyright as this so if commons have other information, good. I somewhat doubt it. The ticket should be reevaluated. Andrez1 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please consider this on hold for VRT internal discussion. --Krd 14:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- BONO (Norwegian Visual Artists Copyright Society), who in some cases have licensed use of work by this painter, denies to be the copyright holder or having given any licences for reuse to Commons. If there is legit copyrightholders out there, they are unknown for BONO.
- If they exist for real, they should identify themselves for the world. Andrez1 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- After VRT internal discussion and additional clarification with the permission sender VRT considers this ticket as valid. If you have evidence that this is not true, please provid it to VRT. Krd 06:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- As You do not give details on the communications with the permission sender it remains unclear who are the copyrightholder(s) by all (or specificǃ) works by Eivind Engebretsen (d. 1960). Ownership of a copy and copyright is two different matters. This is relevant also economically as there might be an upside in identifying as the copyrightholder for painting displayed publicly.
- The Deletion Request here mentions the norwegian "Åndsverksloven", (= Norwegian Intellectual Properties / Copyright law) the text of the law, the §11 and §67. The §5 need to be understod as §67 implies it. The §68 and §69 will also be relevant. How much will Commons pay? When it comes to "§ 75.Arv" (Inheritance); yes, copyright can be inheriteted. If not already given away by the living artist. So who is the copyrightholders for the remaing 4 years before the works falls into the Public Domain; is still relevant.
- If those copyrightholders are in the position to transfer copyrights to Commons under a ... let say CC-BY̠-SA -licence ... are another unanswered matter. I think they should not. If the still do, and that is an informed choice (is it?); will it be an legally binding choice? Will it be contrary to law? (I belive it could be an invalid agreement if so.)
- "VRT considers this ticket as valid." I still doubt it. There is an Deletion Request here. It will have to evaluate that separately and with the same lack of unprovided information as this process. Andrez1 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Granting a CC license is not a transfer of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is. It transferes the exclusive right to make copies from the original copyrightholder(s) to a wider group. Andrez1 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I believe you misunderstand what it means to "transfer" a copyright. If I grant a CC-BY license to a photo I have taken, I allow others to use the photo in a broad range of manners provided that they conform to the terms of this license for a photo for which I still own the copyright. If someone publishes the photo in a non-conforming manner, I as copyright-holder retain the right to enforce my copyright with a lawsuit. No one else has gained that right, and I have not surrendered any right outside of what I have licensed. Granting certain usage rights is not a transfer of ownership. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree in that ownership of a copy and the right to produce copies is two different matters. In this case someone unknown (and not the painter himself) have transferred the copyright they claim to hold to a wider group. The painter himself could have done that, i doubt his heirs (if identified) can do that.
- What they have inherited is a source of income (not acted upon in all respects as BONO knows nothing) and some obligations to protect the artists Intellectual property rights. Including his "ideelle rettigheter" (ideal rights(?)). Andrez1 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- I believe you misunderstand what it means to "transfer" a copyright. If I grant a CC-BY license to a photo I have taken, I allow others to use the photo in a broad range of manners provided that they conform to the terms of this license for a photo for which I still own the copyright. If someone publishes the photo in a non-conforming manner, I as copyright-holder retain the right to enforce my copyright with a lawsuit. No one else has gained that right, and I have not surrendered any right outside of what I have licensed. Granting certain usage rights is not a transfer of ownership. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is. It transferes the exclusive right to make copies from the original copyrightholder(s) to a wider group. Andrez1 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Granting a CC license is not a transfer of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- After VRT internal discussion and additional clarification with the permission sender VRT considers this ticket as valid. If you have evidence that this is not true, please provid it to VRT. Krd 06:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Ticket number 2010030210041811 question.
[edit]Does this ticket, ticket #2010030210041811, give continuous permission to upload members of the Iowa General Assembly, for all years after the date of this ticket and future years?
Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- Here is a file with this ticket - [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesse_Green_Iowa.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooligan (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- No. Nemoralis (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis,
- 1. Does this ticket or a new ticket need to be requested for each year to cover all members of the Iowa General Assembly or for each person?
- 2. Does this ticket have the contact to request a new ticket(s)?
- 3. Can you share that contact here or can I make a new VRT request that permission be granted again this year? -- Ooligan (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ooligan, the ticket actually contains a general release: it states that the same release may be used for “any similar low-resolution official portrait images” taken from the Iowa General Assembly website. See: {{Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission}}. So a new ticket should not be necessary for similar low-resolution official portraits covered by that statement. Also, the contact listed in the ticket died in 2013. Nemoralis (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Nemoralis, could you share the job title or position of the 2013 official (not his name)? -- Ooligan (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ooligan, the ticket actually contains a general release: it states that the same release may be used for “any similar low-resolution official portrait images” taken from the Iowa General Assembly website. See: {{Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission}}. So a new ticket should not be necessary for similar low-resolution official portraits covered by that statement. Also, the contact listed in the ticket died in 2013. Nemoralis (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesse_Green_Iowa.jpg){kind=link}
Can someone check if there was confirmation that J. Ross Baughman owned the copyright to this photograph rather than the Associated Press? Based5290 (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Was there any instance where Associated Press claimed copyright over it? We often trust a claim when there is no other conflicting claim. whym (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- The AP newsroom states that the photo is copyrighted by the AP ([2][3]). Granted, I've found that the newsrooom stamps AP copyright notices on a couple photos that definitely aren't theirs (this photo of a fight at the 1979 Daytona 500 was captured by Orlando Sentinel photographers, not AP photographers), but given that Baughman was working under contract for the AP, the chances that the AP actually holds the copyright is a bit higher. Based5290 (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Does't it depend on the content of the contract, which we don't know? It's true that it seems unclear who has (had) the copyright, though. If you really want to be strict, I think we would need to ask both sides what the contract said. If the issue is moot (according to the file page), I feel like we can just let it be unclear. whym (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is moot for the purposes of whether this work can be hosted on Commons, but it is not moot for reusers outside the US whose countries still protect this image under copyright law. I don't want those reusers to get in trouble with a major press agency because of us, but I also don't want to scare off those reusers if the licensing is perfectly fine. Based5290 (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- If you want to warn reusers, please feel free to do so. I don't think we (VRT) have anything more to add about the photographer's claim beyond what the file page says. The rest is up to the community - to add warnings, delete the file, or do nothing. whym (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- It is moot for the purposes of whether this work can be hosted on Commons, but it is not moot for reusers outside the US whose countries still protect this image under copyright law. I don't want those reusers to get in trouble with a major press agency because of us, but I also don't want to scare off those reusers if the licensing is perfectly fine. Based5290 (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Does't it depend on the content of the contract, which we don't know? It's true that it seems unclear who has (had) the copyright, though. If you really want to be strict, I think we would need to ask both sides what the contract said. If the issue is moot (according to the file page), I feel like we can just let it be unclear. whym (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- The AP newsroom states that the photo is copyrighted by the AP ([2][3]). Granted, I've found that the newsrooom stamps AP copyright notices on a couple photos that definitely aren't theirs (this photo of a fight at the 1979 Daytona 500 was captured by Orlando Sentinel photographers, not AP photographers), but given that Baughman was working under contract for the AP, the chances that the AP actually holds the copyright is a bit higher. Based5290 (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 09:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Bonjour, Je n'ai pas eu de feedback sur ce ticket. Il semblerait que ce soit pour des raisons de copyright sur le modèle. L'auteur (Benoît Jarry) qui m'a transmis ce document a écrit
Dear Reviewer / Administrative Team,
I am writing to provide the legal basis under French law and Wikimedia policy regarding the copyright status, identity consent, and authorization for the uploaded image of my official French press card (carte de presse française issued by the CCIJP):
Ownership & Self-Identity Consent: I am the legitimate holder named on this press card. As both the physical owner of the card (Article L. 111-3 of the French Code de la propriété intellectuelle - CPI) and the sole photographer who captured this digital image, I hold full authority to upload this photograph and release it under the chosen free license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Explicit Data Subject Consent (Unredacted PII): I have intentionally chosen to leave my personal details visible. As the data subject under applicable privacy regulations (GDPR), I explicitly consent to the publication and display of my personal identity details on this photograph for encyclopedic and illustrative purposes.
Copyright Status of the Card Layout (Articles L. 111-1 & L. 112-1 CPI): Under French copyright law, protection is strictly conditioned on the presence of individual creative originality (empreinte de la personnalité de l'auteur). Standard administrative layouts, security grid patterns, and functional credential formats established by statutory bodies like the CCIJP are utilitarian administrative documents that do not meet this threshold of originality.
Factual & Educational Purpose: This image serves solely to provide an authentic, unedited visual reference of an official French professional journalist credential.
Please let me know if any additional administrative tags are required.
Pouvez-vous aider à résoudre ce ticket svp sachant que cette carte n'est pas un post isolé : la categorie Press_passes contient nombre de cartes de presses dont les modèles sont encore d'actualité, contrairement à celle-ci. Moustov (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket requires review by another VRT user. Krd 09:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
consultation autorisation ticket:2018040610008781
[edit]Bonjour, je souhaiterais avoir plus d'information sur les autorisations de cette image tirée du film Le Prince Ahmed [4], notamment qui a délivré la licence creative commons et sous quelles conditions car le film en question et les images associées sont toujours sujets au droit d'auteur. N'ayant pas accès au ticket #2018040610008781 je ne peux pas vérifier ces informations moi-même. Merci par avance Aspleened (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lotte_Reiniger_Prinz_Achmed_002.jpg?uselang=fr){kind=link}
- The ticket appears valid, but we cannot disclose any details. What is your specific concern? --Krd 09:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 09:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC) 
This file was uploaded by user TryFast while editing enwiki. Its obviously a screenshot from this video, but the uploader claimed it to be "own work". A template alleging permission was added to the file page, although it has not been confirmed for some weeks now. Did this file receive a genuine permission? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 08:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is the relevant ticket link ticket:2026073110007981 – Howardcorn33 (💬) 08:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- They claim copyright because they are the one who took a "snap shot from a publicly available platform". I don't think this is a valid permission letter. Nemoralis (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- If that's what it says on the ticket then its certainly invalid. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 08:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. deleted. --Krd 09:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC) Contributions rémunérées non déclarées sur Wikipédia en français ?
[edit]Bonjour afin de lever tout soupçon de COI et de contributions rémunérées non déclarées sur Wikipédia en français. Je souhaiterais savoir si le ticket VRT introduit pour File:ESCP logo 2026.webp établi un lien entre l'uploader et l'ESCP ou Sorbonne Alliance dont il a également uploadé le logo File:Logo Sorbonne Alliance.png même s'il a reconnu ensuite qu'il n'était pas détenteur des droits pour le faire sur sa page de discussion. Bien à vous, Madelgarius (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
A message with permission to use this file was received by the VRTS service 25 days ago. Please grant permission, as the monthly period is coming to an end and the file may be deleted. https://w.wiki/TM4x Виктор Пинчук (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Permission will be granted once the volunteer VRT agent has reviewed it and assessed whether it is valid, asking here does not change anything. And files can be restored after being deleted. Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. I just wanted to remind for the volunteers VRT. Why go to the point of deleting a file, creating unnecessary work for yourself and others? Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Виктор Пинчук: one could exactly as well ask why ask quasi-rhetorical questions of people who have a backlog on their work, creating unnecessary additional work for them? - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- The text shown on the template recommends doing this: "You can also send a request to VRTS agents". Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Виктор Пинчук: one could exactly as well ask why ask quasi-rhetorical questions of people who have a backlog on their work, creating unnecessary additional work for them? - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. I just wanted to remind for the volunteers VRT. Why go to the point of deleting a file, creating unnecessary work for yourself and others? Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Разрешение для File:New Samotsvety official lineup 2025.jpg
[edit]
Здравствуйте!
Подскажите, пожалуйста, можно ли проверить статус разрешения для удалённого файла File:New Samotsvety official lineup 2025.jpg?
Фотограф отправил разрешение в VRT 22 июля 2026 года и получил автоматическое подтверждение о получении письма, но дальнейшего ответа не было.
22 августа 2026 года файл был удалён с причиной «No ticket permission since 22 July 2026». После этого фотограф также ответил на первоначальное письмо VRT с просьбой проверить разрешение, но ответа пока не получил.
Номера тикета у меня, к сожалению, нет. Можно ли проверить, было ли получено разрешение, по названию файла и указанным датам и, если всё в порядке, восстановить файл?
Спасибо! Nemchenkova (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
ticket:2026081910005352 — permission awaiting processing
[edit]Hello. Could someone please check the status of ticket:2026081910005352?
The permission was received on 19 August 2026, but the files are still marked as awaiting processing:
- File:Serhii Dukhota in red T-shirt.jpg
- File:Serhii Dukhota posing in a gym.jpg
- File:Serhii Dukhota performing a squat in a gym.jpg
The copyright holder has already sent the permission by email. Could you please check whether any further action is required?
Thank you. FingerWiki (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- There appears to be a backlog with Russian language. Krd 03:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Davis Burleson
[edit]File:Davis_Burleson.jpg was uploaded a week ago with a tag indicating that permission would be sent. Would someone be able to check if anything was actually sent in for this image? Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
