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.

Translate this header

Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

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.

The current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is: 10 days (graph) update

Start a new discussion

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

Category:Album covers by YG Entertainment (ticket:2013102510001373)

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)
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. ~~I checked a few and they seem to be added by non-VRT users.~~ 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]

@Nemoralis how is this resolved?

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, an email was sent to YG Entertainment in January, 4 months ago, but they haven't responded. There's no question left here that VRT members hasn't answered. Nemoralis (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCWiesenthal, I noticed that the template has been removed by you. What is the question that remains unanswered by the VRT agents? Nemoralis (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As 999real mentioned above, this inquiry has not yet been resolved; so, why add a template claiming it has? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Farhad Rajabli

Hello.

I got a permission from IJF Media Team to upload their photos from their web-site into Commons. I have uploaded them File:Farhad_Rajabli_and_Kobko_at_the_2022_World_Championships_Veterans_in_Krakow.jpg; File:Farhad_Rajabli_and_Kobko_at_the_2022_World_Championships_Veterans_in_Krakow_2.jpg and asked IJF Media Team to send the e-mail with the permission to OTRS team.

However, they answered that they cannot accept that part: "...even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws". They agree to use these photos in Wikimedia but as they said they cannot be used for commercial purposes.

So, is there any license to add for this photos preventing to use them for commercial purposes and if yes what kind of e-mail IJF should send to OTRS?

Best regards, Interfase (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use must be allowed. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Commercial. Nemoralis (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I asked IJF Media Team to make an exception for these two photos and send appropriate e-mail to OTRS with their URL. Let's wait their answer. Interfase (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both images are labelled on the linked page as "(c) Sabau Gabriela". That person is not mentioned on the image pages on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permission pending for File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg and File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg

Hi there!

The copyright holder of these two logos has just sent a consent letter to the VRT a few minutes ago to release them under a free license.

Before the consent letter was sent, these two logos got denied undeletion on Commons in two occasions, see [1] and [2], which prevents me from adding the {{Permission pending}} template to them so I'm just letting you know about this via here instead.

Since the copyright holder couldn't link to any existing Commons file, they added File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg as an attachement. File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg is a derivative version of the first logo, and therefore avaliable under the same license, according to the terms of the license (assuming the copyright holder has chosen to use CC BY-SA 4.0). It's moon (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Krd 06:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by Jameslwoodward on my second undeletion request that "This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT".

I recently noticed a new upload was made: File:Institut Català d Ornitologia logo 2007.svg. While this restores one of the two images, it doesn't restore the original file description nor the source from which I originally extracted the logo that I later sent to Institut Català d'Ornitologia so they could send it to VRT.

I spent some time writting both file descriptions and adding the source properly so I would appreciate undeletion over reuploading. It's moon (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC). Rewritten for clarity–It's moon (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: ? Krd 04:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @It's moon: 1. El archivo se adjuntó a un correo electrónico enviado directamente por el instituto al equipode soporte. Por lo tanto, el instituto es la fuente directa. No se necesita mencionar que el archivo se descargó de un sitio web en otra ocasión. – 2. Si deseas añadir información importante a la descripción del archivo, no dudes en hacerlo. 3. Seguramente te refieres al apóstrofo que falta en el nombre del archivo. Esto se puede corregir fácilmente renombrando el archivo.

No hay necesidad para ninguna acción administrativa.

Hi @It's moon: 1. The file was attached to an email sent directly from the institute to the support team. This means that the institute is the direct source. It needn't be mentioned that the file was downloaded from a website on another occasion. – 2. If you would like to add any essential information to the file description, please feel free to do so. – 3. By typo in the file name, you probably mean the missing apostrophe? This can be easily fixed by renaming the file.

There is no need for any administrative action.

Un saludo, cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logo they sent to VRT was a copy of File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg that I provided to the institute so they could attach it on their permission request. The original source is a PDF from where I extracted the logo from. I optimized the logo after extracting it. Then I uploaded it to Commons with detailed file descriptions in multiple languges and the institute sent a copy of the Commons file to VRT along with permission. This doesn't make the original source to change, and we do requiere to list the original source (with a link) as well as modifications made to the file (optimization), per the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0. See COM:CONSENT: "Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder."

Additionally File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg hasn't been restored. This file is a derivative of the first one and therefore should be restored under CC BY-SA 4.0 per the terms of the license (share-alike).

Additionally I'm also requesting the original file descriptions I worked on to be restored. I could work on new descriptions but I was told by an administrator @Jameslwoodward: that these two logos would be restored without further action from me upon receipt and approval of permission at VRT: that bar has been met. I don't see why I would have to redo the work I already did. It's moon (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It's moon: Can you please paste a link to the original source? I am no admin and have no access to the deleted file. – Nor did I know about the whole previous story when we received the permission email from the institute. They did not make any mention about it. I will now ask them to confirm if the file I received from them was a modification of their original work which had been sent to them by a wikipedian. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is Anuari d'Ornitologia de Catalunya 2007 - Cobertes (PDF) which is avaliable on the institute website (ornitologia.org).

When reaching out to them, it might help to add something along the lines of "this is to verify the file original source and will not get the wikipedian in trouble". That way, they can feel comfortable being fully transparent. It's moon (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It's moon Client has confirmed that the logo came from you. If any admin (@Krd, @Jameslwoodward?) can It's moon's version and delete mine, I can live with that.

Client also mentioned that he has sent you, It's moon, a version of the 50th anniversary of the association. Did you upload that one as well? Mussklprozz (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting a bit to clear things up before uploading the 50-year anniversary logo. I was also unsure about which source to include with the new upload. Would it be acceptable to state that the logo was provided by the institute via email? It's moon (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a 3rd undeletion request. They have told me that a VRT member should issue the undeletion request in order to approve it. It's moon (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kind of Bloop album cover.png

The permission from the person who created the cover art is at ticket:2025052010011304. However, since this might be a work for hire, I wonder if I also need to seek permission from Andy Baio to address the possibility that he owns the copyright. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The permission letter must come from the copyright owner. Nemoralis (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some significant additional context here that Baio was threatened with a lawsuit over this cover at the time, it being a derivative work of the original Miles Davis album cover: https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ Belbury (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "set of comparison images" mentioned in the ticket refers to the one at the bottom of that blog post; accordingly, I have uploaded that as File:Kind of Bloop comparison images.png. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Event photos of models

It is alleged that Commons images and x.com images share some features (subjects, event names, angles, captions, etc), that they must have been taken by the same person, and that we need to follow COM:VRT and confirm the identity via email. This concerns hundreds of pictures tagged and linked at User talk:Bject now, including File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg.

I looked into the allegation, asked some questions at User_talk:Bject#File:Trend_Girls_Photo_Session_(May_4,_2025)IMG_4472.jpg, and left with confusion and disagreement over what I think as simple facts. Or perhaps I might be missing something obvious. I hope to get a fresh perspective that will hopefully guide us to a resolution. Here is my summary of what the disagreement is:

The uploader User:Bject claims

that they are not the same pictures, although there might be similarities if they were taken from the same angle
that the uploader is not the person behind the x.com account

The tagger User:Alachuckthebuck claims

that some of them are the same pictures, and/or have exact matches
that captions match and it adds to the suspicion (that images might have been stolen)
that the x.com account and the uploader here are likely to be the same person

My opinion is that the tagger's claim is not well substantiated, at least not to the level where VRT can start working on from. I have not seen any previous publication that have pixel-level matches to Commons files listed at the talk page. Similarities in captions are very weak evidence to claim the associated images might have been stolen. I asked for links, and got only one, which didn't show an exact match in my opinion. What do you think? whym (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least the example of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg that was apparently matched to https://x.com/stonefree_part6/status/1921401301625196914/photo/2 is a false positive. This is easily visible on the hair patterns and the finger positions (the hair falls differently, the fingers are closer together in our upload). Stemming from my experiences as hobby photographer, I would say that these images, assuming that they were taken sequentially, were shot with maybe less than one to a few seconds in between. It's also possible that the model is proficient enough to get into the same position within a few millimetres when resuming her pose, but the wrinkles on the bikini, IMHO virtually unchanged, make a serial exposure more likely. We could discuss concise Twitter-Commons image pairs, maybe on COM:VPC, but the circumstances do not really point towards pure NETCOPYVIOs. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When looking for NETCOPYVIOs or duplicates, it's always sensible to look for intricate details while making comparisons: hairs, scales (in animals), pavement and vegetation patterns, the form and quantity of reflections (like in eyes or windows); in short everything that is easily moved out of position by even slight movements of or in the motif or where minute angle changes of the camera change the perception of e.g. the perspective on a pavement. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the uploader is not the person behind the X account seems weird. Has anyone asked them straight out, "Is the X account using photos you took?" It's not just that it looks like an image taken seconds later (at most), but that it looks like it's taken by someone the same height and with the exact same lens, the same exposure settings, the same aperture, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I may have operated under a misunderstanding, looking for whether images are identical and nothing else. I think that it is quite obvious that the owner of the Wikimedia account "Bject" is also owner of the Twitter account "@stonefree_part6". But that is IMHO mostly irrelevant - as long as any relevant image was not published first on Twitter. Only that was my point: the Twitter image is different from the Commons upload. Furthermore, by the fact that there are quite complete EXIF available here points toward a legitimate upload (Twitter removes them, as far as I'm aware). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2010090310009352

I'd be really curious to know how a VRT ticket and "This file is lacking author information" go together. (It's about this image.) --2003:C0:8F30:AA00:61F4:5A07:241D:674E 14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is very old ticket, added now. Nemoralis (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg

Can someone please verify my email for File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg? It was sent on May 10, 2025 at 5:56 PM Eastern, with the subject "Bioreconstruct/GFGBeach". I originally sent it to the commons-copyvio email, but forwarded it on to the permissions-commons email. Elisfkc (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sender either has got a reply, of we haven't received the request. If the latter, please send it again. Krd 15:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 01.jpg

Hello. I have contacted Wikimedia Commons Permissions via email with the creator of File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 01.jpg and File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 02.jpg, Amit Skimt, on CC. Per the Permissions admin, Alfred, Amit sent over the standard Permission template email to grant permission for me to use one of the photos as Darnell Edge's main photo on his Wiki page. I have not heard from Alfred post following these steps as requested. Please note, I uploaded these photos on 18:51, 21 May 2025. And I corresponded via email with Wikimedia Permissions with the creator on CC on that same date. Can someone please let me know if I am still waiting for approval or if I can now move forward? IvyBowie (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience links: File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 01.jpg, File:Darnell Edge during a game with Ironi Ness 02.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inserting the photos here! yes, these are the correct ones I have uploaded and that the creator emailed Permissions for usage. Hoping to receive final approval as I am not sure if there's anything else to do on my end or if I can move forward. IvyBowie (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming user

Hi. I reached out to a photographer to confirm that they had uploaded photos and they confirmed that they had. Can I send this to VRT to confirm their identity on Commons for future reference? Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it sound like a forwarded response? I am personally not happy happy with anything such. If they are a Commons user and their uploads have been marked for permissions, instead of telling you - they can easily contact VRT to confirm. Let me know in case I misunderstood? _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 09:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted them from the email listed in the photo's exif - I will ask them to follow VRT tho Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 10:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025