Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard)
Welcome to the VRT noticeboard

Wikimedia's volunteer response team (VRT) handles copyright permissions, email inquiries from the public, reuse inquiries, article errors, and a wide range of non-public inquiries. The email service is operated and managed by a cross-project team of volunteers at the Meta-Wiki level and not by the English Wikipedia community. Actions by VRT members on English Wikipedia are ultimately subject to review by the Arbitration Committee.

Please be aware that there is sometimes a backlog in processing tickets sent to the permissions-en queue. This backlog is currently 0 days.

This noticeboard is primarily for
  1. Permissions verification and inquiries for text and files (hosted on the English Wikipedia) said to have been granted permission via VRTS.
  2. Requests for VRT member review of matters that have been described as VRT comments or actions.
  3. Other inquiries to VRT members that do not involve, disclose or reference private material.
Do not post
  • Private information or links to private information (including but not limited to emails, phone numbers, physical addresses).
  • Fishing requests (asking for all details of a ticket or generally probing ticket information). You should make a specific request and clearly state the reason for your request.
  • Additional questions on a point, once a VRT member has indicated they cannot answer due to privacy issues. (Further inquiries and any complaints should be made via email.)
  • Requests for VRTS access (use meta:VRT/Volunteering instead).
  • Questions regarding media hosted on Wikimedia Commons (use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard instead).
  • Media questions unrelated to VRT (use Wikipedia:Media copyright questions instead).
Useful VRT email addresses
Removal of private or defamatory information Requests for oversight or
Submission of photos to be used in a Wikipedia article
Follow the instructions here
Confirmation of copyright permission
Follow the format given here
Reports of threatened harm to self or others
Guidance: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm
Reports of child pornography
See Wikimedia Legal Policies
Issues with an article about you or your organization
Guidance: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help
Any other inquiries involving private information

An FFD has been filed claiming a number of album covers are covered under ticket 2013102510001373. There is c:Category:Album covers by YG Entertainment on Commons, but no information about the scope of the ticket. Can somebody please have a look and comment at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg -- thanks! Whpq (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Whpq The permissions are valid to use YG Entertainment album covers under the CC BY 2.0 license. —MdsShakil (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following comment was added to the FFD for the album covers after it was closed. I've moved it here in case there is further action that needs or can be taken. This post was made by User:Xia and moved from here:

@Paper9oll I used to be an OTRS agent, and I was the one who obtained the permission from YG. I noticed that someone who claimed to be from YG uploaded album covers under CC to Commons, and asked the person to verify to OTRS that he is indeed who he claims to be and that they should give permission for all album covers. Sorry for opening up a closed page but I only got a notification of being pinged after it was closed. This was huge victory back then. Note that back in 2013 Kpop was nowhere near as global as it is now, and so agencies were more willing to give such permissions. I think until they start complaining we can still use that permission and if they change their mind, they should explicitely express it. I still have the original email from Mr Ahn (who signed the permission) in my indbox. Xia talk to me 15:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xia This is very ambiguous and we shouldn't assume that they are fine with the album/single's covers after the ticket date to be licensed and/or re-licensed under CC BY 2.0 licensing. Any possibility if you can re-confirmed with them if their position are okay with Wikimedia re-licensing album/single covers released after 25 October 2013 to be under CC BY 2.0, and also ask them to confirm if future releases (meaning album/single that are unannounced and yet to be release) can be licensed under CC BY 2.0 moving forward. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paper9oll well you can also do that, why should it be me specifically? That person no longer works for YG, so please feel free to find a contact and discuss with them. Our opinions differ on this, I am fine with the current permission. :) Xia talk to me 19:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xia Ah I see, was asking because you communicated previously with them while I didn't know the contact person no longer works for YG, idk who to contact also lol but its okay, no worries. Was asking you that question earlier because 3 album/single covers released after 25 October 2013 was tagged as licensed under CC BY 2.0 of which 2 of it were uploaded by you, while another 1 by another editor.
I'm okay with leaving the non-free album/single covers by YG released after 25 October 2013 (minus that 3 album/single covers, not sure what to do with it) as non-free as it's has always been for majority of the album/single covers (minus those that couldn't meet threshold of originality) by any labels, just wanted to make everything clear (for references moving forward) that all YG album/single covers released by them (be it digitally or physically) after 25 October 2013 shouldn't be converted to CC BY 2.0 licensing. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 03:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paper9oll If the person who released the album covers no longer works for YG, shouldn't the latest date for those released under CC BY 2.0 be when he/she left YG rather than when the ticket was sent? 2600:1700:9DD0:8FD0:B862:5072:4807:3A1C (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it should be till 25 October 2013 instead which is the date of the ticket filed. Any album/single's cover with actual release date released after 25 October 2013 by YG is outside the scope of the ticket. Any album/singer's cover with actual release date released after 25 October 2013 uploaded here is currently tagged as non-free which so far has zero legal-related issues hence I'm not exactly sure which you're so insistent with relicensing them as CC BY 2.0 when the current non-free licensing works perfectly fine here on Wikipedia unless you have ulterior motive outside of Wikipedia and is using the album/single's cover here for other means outside of Wikipedia then you shouldn't be here. Neither do I know when does that employee left YG as that's their personal matters which doesn't concern us. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 04:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Explicit: as the admin who closed the FFD. I am not sure what the next steps for this would be. Normally a challenged FFD closure would be sent to deletion review, but I suspect that would just result in an "endorse closure" and punt it back to VRT to sort out. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If VRT agents here believe that the permissions ticket continues to apply to album covers published after October 25, 2013, then I think it should be okay to just relicense the files accordingly. This issue is probably outside the scope of FFD anyway. plicit 00:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree fully with Paper9oll. There is absolutely no evidence, in the ticket or elsewhere, that makes any claim that future album covers beyond the date of the ticket would be licenced freely. Without any such verification from the copyright holder, we should not even consider making any changes. Only newer album covers that are too simple to copyright can be licenced freely. Everything else newer than October 2013 must be considered still in copyright unless we get verification from the copyright holder, so one of the editors promoting the idea of future licencing from the ticket date should obtain that verification or please put this to bed now. ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]