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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- I have sent an inquiry to YG Entertainment for clear confirmation.--Namoroka (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Has YG Entertainment responded yet? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- I have sent an inquiry to YG Entertainment for clear confirmation.--Namoroka (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Nemoralis how is this resolved? REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
Photos of Farhad Rajabli
[edit]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)
- Commercial use must be allowed. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Commercial. Nemoralis (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- The permission letter must come from the copyright owner. Nemoralis (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Event photos of models
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thanks for the comments. Can I conclude that while there is some doubt on the uploader's claims, there is nothing VRT should do about it for now, unless true duplicated publication outside of Commons is found?
- I notified the two users using user talk page. It looks like they don't have further comment to add so far. whym (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- It appears ticket:2025051610000477 is related to this discussion. Krd 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- 私が投稿した画像を削除したことに不服を申し立てます。似ているだけの画像が削除され、加えてなぜ全く違う場所や投稿日のものも巻き添えなのでしょうか。I am complaining about the deletion of the image I posted. Why are images that are merely similar being deleted, and why are images from completely different locations and posting dates also being deleted?--Bject (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- It appears ticket:2025051610000477 is related to this discussion. Krd 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
remove mandatory username verification from username policy
[edit]Dear all, please see: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#remove mandatory username verification from username policy --Krd 14:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The tagged files all depict the same individual (Percy Brown) but consist of photographs of various copyright holders. I have a hard time believing that Brown can relicense any depictions of him. Could someone check the details of this ticket? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- A convenient list for photos can be found at https://w.wiki/ESdc. According to the ticket conversation, the photos are available at https://headshotsla.pixieset.com/percybrown/ by HeadShots LA, while the remaining photos were taken by Percy's friend using mobile phone. Nemoralis (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Permission pending for File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 50 anys.svg
[edit]
Hi there! I would like to make sure whether VRT has received an email with permission to use this file under CC BY-SA 4.0. Thank you!! It's moon (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- No. --Krd 17:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, retrying this again. It's moon (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Inquiry regarding ticket:2025061710007823
[edit]Dear all. I'm currently working in the project History of the Basque Country in 100 objects, a GLAM collaboration project where we are asking some institutions to upload images from their collections. Normally, I take the photos myself, but sometimes the institutions are sending those to me or other people from the Basque Wikimedians User Group. When that happens, we ask the institution to send a VRT permission, signed by them, from their official emails, and usually everyting goes ok.
However, today I found, for the second time, a VRT volunteer asking not needed questions to the GLAM workers, including information that already was disclosed (the licensing, the author or why the instituions holds the copyright) and questions about the status of the items depicted. In this case, the items where Middle Ages objects. I know that everyone here is volunteering, but we can't have a process were GLAM institutions are being questioned about the legality of their own property, because that's not what VRT volunteers are supposed to do.
If there was any claim that the images (for reference: File:Izen eztiaren erretaula.jpg and File:Esklabotasunaren Ama Birjina.jpg shouldn't be licensed under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons, this should be discussed as a deletion, not within the VRT process.
As this is not the first time that I have this issue with the same VRT volunteer (and only with him), I'm asking for help from other volunteers on how to proceed.
Best. Theklan (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Seeking advice on use of Shutterstock image for which Shutterstock has given me license to use
[edit]Hello, I have an image purchased from Shutterstock which Shutterstock has given me license to use on Wikipedia but cannot see how this can be uploaded to Wiki Commons. I do have a proof of license and email confirmation from Shutterstock giving approval for the image to be posted to a Wikipedia article. Can you kindly advise on the steps to load the image to Wiki Commons? Thank you. Hulstrom1850 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Hulstrom1850: I assure you, Shutterstock has not given you a license compatible with use on Wikimedia Commons nor (in most contexts I can imagine) on Wikipedia. It would completely contradict their business model.
- Please read Commons:Uploading works by a third party and especially Commons:Uploading works by a third party#What not to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, photo stock agencies may also distribute public domain material (e.g. imagery from the US coast guard related to maritime accidents), so they may say that one is free to use such images in any way. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)