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
This may have a ticket, but it's a professional promo photo and certainly not a selfie. Sven Teuber cannot be the author / copyright holder on this. --~2026-19750-08 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Same thing goes for this image, ticket:2021011210008231. --~2026-19750-08 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Although it is not mentioned in the permission letter (nor was it asked in the ticket), they are usually able to take such pictures themselves with a remote controlled tripod. Both ticket is in German, so I will leave this to our German VRT members. Nemoralis (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- The person shown in the image of the second ticket has acquired the integrity of rights. In the ticket it was written that the photographer's name can be mentioned, but does doesn't necessarily have to. To settle all doubts, I now added the photographer's name to the file description. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- However, there are in deed doubts about the first ticket. I have written to the client again, asking for clarification. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Multiple issues with VRT volunteer
[edit]Dear all, I want to ask for help on how to handle this issue.
One of the projects I working on as a member of the Basque Wikimedians User Group is called "History of the Basque Country in 100 objects". In this project we are working with various GLAM institutions, most often museums, trying to have them contribute with images of historical objects from their collections. The project is succesful, and most museums are kindly donating images. Building trust with these institutions takes time, sometimes months, explaining why we need thoses images, how are going to be used and what are the license needs for the project. Not easy, but after long conversations, we are getting good results.
However, even if we are doing everything correctly, many times we are finding an issue with the same VRT volunteer (User:Krd). The main issue is that they ask for things that shouldn't be asking for, like copyright status and authorship of Roman artifacts or working permits of museum staff, which are not responsability of VRT volunteers.
Here are some examples of recent interactions with them:
- Ticket:2025070110004112: where they asked to list files that were already listed and then asked for copyright status of Iron Age artifacts. Never closed nor resolved it.
- Ticket:2025011510005463: where they asked for copyright status of ancient objects and to show the contracts of the photographers with the institution. (closed by User:TaronjaSatsuma))
- Ticket:2025061710007823: where they asked how is that the author of an image, sending an image from his official e-mail account, signing a document with his own name is the copyright holder of the photographs themselves, and how is that the author have the right to photograph a Middle Ages sculpture. (Closed by User:Nemoralis)
- Ticket:2025060310007662: Where they ask to list photos that are already listed (closed by User:TaronjaSatsuma)
- Ticket:2026042810003577: the last one, where they ask again to a Museum how is that they own their own images.
We have reports from these partners telling us that they are not willing to continue with this kind of contributions if they are going to ask for things that are out of scope. Some of our collaborations are at risk, and I really don't know how to proceed.
Best. -Theklan (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please refer also to COM:ANU § How to handle a problematic VRT volunteer. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Theklan: , I can not see the actual discussions you are referring to; however, some of those questions might be appropriate. The issue with 3D historical objects from CLAM collections is that although the objects themselves are in public domain, the photographs are assumed to be copyrighted by the photographers that took them. If the VRT permission is from the photographers than the case is simple, but if the permission is signed by the GLAM institution than one should ask for the explanation about how they acquired those copyrights. The answer could be for example that the photographer is employed by the institution, under agreement that their photograph's copyrights belong to the institution. It is a little like with wedding photographers, who sell you the wedding photographs, but might or might not sell you copyrights to them. --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Inded, that's why all of the institutions who own the photographs are attesting that they own those photographs. Some of the questions asked by Krd are about the authorship and copyright status of the objects themselves, which are in some cases Paleolithic. This kind of questions make the institution think that they are treating with non serious people, and create tension between the GLAM institution which is doing the things correctly and the User Group, which has been working for months with those institutions on how the licenses should be handled. Theklan (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, perhaps a bit of an aside: Commons tends to be stricter about laws governing effective transfers of copyright than is the actual practice in the real world. No doubt that there are times someone does work on behalf of an institution and not all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted. I think we sometimes can become focused on that in ways that do not really matter. No professional photographer hired by a museum to photograph its collections for its own use is going to turn around and sue a reuser for trusting a license issued by the museum based on the museum's claim of copyright, even though the latter might not be seen as perfect in a court of law. They would never get museum work like that again if they did so. Yes, technically this is a bit looser than our precautionary principle, but at a certain point commons sense needs to come into play. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ticket:2025061710007823 is a paradigmatic case of asking for things out of scope. The responsible of a cathedral sent some photos taken by himself, inside the institution where he is responsible, from an official e-mail from that institution. He filled exactly what the VRT template says and the one that we have been using in this project without problems except when Krd takes them. After a long conversation where he insisted that he wanted to know who the photographer was (even if this was stated in the permission), he then turned to ask, quote "please say the copyright status of the depicted artwork.". After that, he asked again "For the depicted artwork, which in general is itself copyright protected, we need to hear what is the exact story. Who is the creator? Do they give permisison? When did they die? When was the work created? Etc., as the case may be."
- The images are from a sculpture from the Middle Ages. It's inside a church, and it's publicly accessible. I could have taken the photos myself and upload them, but we decided to collaborate with the church itself, so they felt part of the project.
- The attitude of Krd asking for completely out-of scope things made me have another conversation with the church, a quite bitter one, explaining how this was completely strange, and apologizing about the burden. I don't know if they would collaborate again with us, or they would tell other colleagues that we ask for wild strange things.
- The purpose of the VRT process for GLAMs is not that, and I think that it should be noted.
- Also, for closing purposes, there are two VRT petitions (Ticket:2025070110004112 and Ticket:2026042810003577 that have been abbandoned mid conversation and should be closed. Thanks. -Theklan (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hola @Theklan, as I have seen that @Krd has returned the tickets to the group, I have spoken with him. I can cope with the tickets and take care of the permissions, but I have a technical problem which I would like to address on your discussion page.
- For the future: can you please ask the museums to name their photographers in their file descriptions? Both in the sense of the precautionary principle, and out of courtesy to the photographers.
- Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Theklan: I have now processed the abandoned tickets, added permissions and written to the client. So everything should be fine. But, please check.
- Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- thanks! Theklan (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, perhaps a bit of an aside: Commons tends to be stricter about laws governing effective transfers of copyright than is the actual practice in the real world. No doubt that there are times someone does work on behalf of an institution and not all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted. I think we sometimes can become focused on that in ways that do not really matter. No professional photographer hired by a museum to photograph its collections for its own use is going to turn around and sue a reuser for trusting a license issued by the museum based on the museum's claim of copyright, even though the latter might not be seen as perfect in a court of law. They would never get museum work like that again if they did so. Yes, technically this is a bit looser than our precautionary principle, but at a certain point commons sense needs to come into play. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Inded, that's why all of the institutions who own the photographs are attesting that they own those photographs. Some of the questions asked by Krd are about the authorship and copyright status of the objects themselves, which are in some cases Paleolithic. This kind of questions make the institution think that they are treating with non serious people, and create tension between the GLAM institution which is doing the things correctly and the User Group, which has been working for months with those institutions on how the licenses should be handled. Theklan (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Theklan: , I can not see the actual discussions you are referring to; however, some of those questions might be appropriate. The issue with 3D historical objects from CLAM collections is that although the objects themselves are in public domain, the photographs are assumed to be copyrighted by the photographers that took them. If the VRT permission is from the photographers than the case is simple, but if the permission is signed by the GLAM institution than one should ask for the explanation about how they acquired those copyrights. The answer could be for example that the photographer is employed by the institution, under agreement that their photograph's copyrights belong to the institution. It is a little like with wedding photographers, who sell you the wedding photographs, but might or might not sell you copyrights to them. --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Hi,
FYI, Despite the VRT permission, I re-proposed File:La Fouine in a gym with boxing gloves and four other people.jpg to deletion (as it's quite clearly a fake AI file). There is other files with the same permission id, they may need to be double-checked (and other files without this permission by this user or its sock-puppets as well).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Over-bureaucracy and escalation request for ticket:2026052910009077
[edit]{{subst:Required}}
- **File(s):** All 3 files currently tracked under ticket:2026052910009077 (Portraits of the subject in Dubai, Iraq, and Vienna)
- **Ticket:** 2026052910009077
- **Description:** We are requesting an urgent secondary review by an independent senior VRT agent for all three uploaded portraits of the Professor. The subject of the photos, Prof. W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, sent a direct verification email from his official Hotmail address explicitly confirming his copyright ownership. He stated that the photographs were taken using his own camera equipment, under his direct guidance, and for his personal use, satisfying COM:Licensing criteria for original ownership.
Despite this legally binding verification, agent Alfred Neumann is practicing extreme over-bureaucracy. He ignored our formal email request for a ticket escalation and continues to textually harass the Professor by demanding the specific identity of whoever physically pushed the camera shutter button. The Professor's academic time is valuable and his ownership authority is already established on record. We kindly request another senior VRT agent to review ticket:2026052910009077 and finalize the verification for all three affected files to override this obstruction. Thank you. Wolne Wybory (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- 1. Don't use AI to write comments for you
2. There are no such thing as "senior VRT agent"
3. It is not harassing if VRT members asks for further information related to the permission. As far as I can see, you have listed the author (the person who took the photo) in the photos as the professor himself, but this is not possible, because the professor himself is depicted in those photos. The names of the photographers and their permissions (unless the copyright has been legally transferred to the professor) must be provided for permission to be accepted. Nemoralis (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for your feedback, Nemoralis. Regarding your points, we would like to clarify the copyright framework applicable here:
- Under well-established copyright principles, the legal author and rights holder of a photograph is the person who conceives the creative execution, sets up the camera equipment, controls the lighting/composition, and directs the scene COM:Licensing. Prof. Korab-Karpowicz has explicitly confirmed that these photographs were taken using his personal camera equipment and under his direct guidance, supervision, and instruction for his own personal and publicity use. The person physically pressing the shutter button acted merely as a technical assistant executing the Professor's explicit creative direction. Therefore, the copyright originates with the Professor COM:Licensing.
- The Professor has already sent a direct, official confirmation from his personal email address to verify this ownership and authorize the free license release.
- We kindly ask that an independent VRT administrator or reviewer who understands the distinction between physical shutter operation and creative authorship/ownership review the correspondence under ticket:2026052910009077 to finalize the verification COM:VRT. Thank you. Wolne Wybory (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Does "we" here refer to some organization? If so, what organization? If not, could you explain the use of plural here? - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wolne Wybory is association (Stowarzyszenie). wolnewybory.org ~2026-32729-09 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, Nemoralis. Regarding your points, we would like to clarify the copyright framework applicable here:
Understanding the work you do
[edit]I noticed this picture - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nayanthara_in_2023.jpg. This picture even though from 2023 is not used as the lead picture for the actress and a very old picture is used instead. I think there are newer more relevant pictures here - https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/parties-and-events/photos-nayanthara-9-skin-x-tira-beauty-launch/photos-nayanthara-for-9-skin-x-tira-beauty-launch-5/ which meets all the criteria outlined for Bollywood Hungama pictures (the criteria are outlined in the Wikimedia page of the already uploaded picture). I would like to understand if to upload a newer picture from Bollywood Hungama, do we have to get a permission email from them (looks like a permission email was received and reviewed for the first picture). Or do I just have to upload the picture and the Volunteer Response team will be the one verifying if this can be allowed by emailing them. Thanks Jupitus Smart (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Jupitus Smart: As the uploader, you are responsible to initiate the process of getting a license from the copyright-holder. Usually, you should not upload until you have a reasonable assurance that license is forthcoming. It sounds like you haven't read COM:VRT. There is a Commons:Permission requests if you feel out of your depth making the request, but from what I can tell it is not very active. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
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)
Comparing old ticket to EXIF
[edit]Just wanted to check to see if the correspondent for File:Portrait de Thierry BOLLORE photographe Cyril DE PLATER.jpg (ticket:2018112310005077) was the same person who is credited in the EXIF of File:Sequana Accorhotels.jpg. Both files were uploaded by User:Maibp85. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- I can confirm that ticket:2018112310005077 was sent from a legitimate Renault email address. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Nemoralis (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC) ORTS verify
[edit]I want to know what OTRS ticket 879202 really meant for Chandra X-ray Observatory as the info is outdated and as of 2026 Images from Chandra X-ray Observatory (Category:Images by the Chandra X-ray Observatory) is considered as public domain like other NASA telescope Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- What is the intention behind the question, what exactly does a positive or negative answer change? Krd 07:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd bro, my intention of the question is to verify the statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. indicates NASA ownership of the telescope, we add CXC to indicate Chandra, then the PI's institution and the PI and/team for intellectual credit. If there is only one iteration of these three categories, and NASA is the name indicating ownership of the telescope, then the image or material is public domain. The other places simply give credit for the science discovery. If the first set of three is followed by a comma, and another credit in which the owner of the telescope is not named as NASA, then you have to get permission from the other organization to use that other layer or layers of the image." that can be seen in the category above Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- From what I understand from the conversation in the ticket, the mentioned statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. ..." applies to the specific image with the source: https://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/sn2006gy_xray.jpg It's also said that this applies to the files: File:Sn2006gy_CHANDRA_x-ray.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_light_curve.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_collapse_ill.jpg, File:SN_2006gy,_NASA_illustration.jpg. There is no indication, and I see no reason to assume, that is also applies to other files. If may be good to have this double checked by another VRT user as the ticket isn't straight forward and there may be something I overlook. Krd 04:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for verifying the details. I think the ORTS is used on the Chandra X-ray observatory category as an example. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- From what I understand from the conversation in the ticket, the mentioned statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. ..." applies to the specific image with the source: https://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/sn2006gy_xray.jpg It's also said that this applies to the files: File:Sn2006gy_CHANDRA_x-ray.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_light_curve.jpg, File:Sn2006gy_collapse_ill.jpg, File:SN_2006gy,_NASA_illustration.jpg. There is no indication, and I see no reason to assume, that is also applies to other files. If may be good to have this double checked by another VRT user as the ticket isn't straight forward and there may be something I overlook. Krd 04:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd bro, my intention of the question is to verify the statement "So NASA/CXC/UC Berkeley/N. Smith et al. indicates NASA ownership of the telescope, we add CXC to indicate Chandra, then the PI's institution and the PI and/team for intellectual credit. If there is only one iteration of these three categories, and NASA is the name indicating ownership of the telescope, then the image or material is public domain. The other places simply give credit for the science discovery. If the first set of three is followed by a comma, and another credit in which the owner of the telescope is not named as NASA, then you have to get permission from the other organization to use that other layer or layers of the image." that can be seen in the category above Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Irudiak berreskuratzeko eskaera: Latzen, Aitor Uriarte, Sen eta Une
[edit]Kaixo. Lizentzia arazoak zirela eta, berriki ezabatu diren Latzen, Sen eta Une musika taldeen eta Aitor Uriarte musikariaren hainbat argazki leheneratzeko eskatzen dugu.
Argazki hauek berreskuratu nahi ditugu euskal Wikipediako artikuluak hornitzeko. Argazkilari originalek eta taldeak berak (info@latzen.eus helbidetik) eman beharreko baimen eta lizentzia irekien adierazpen ofizialak bidali dituzte dagoeneko permissions-commons@wikimedia.org helbidera.
Mesedez, VRTko administratzaile baten laguntza behar dugu mezu horiek egiaztatu, baimenak lotu eta fitxategiak berrezartzeko. Eskerrik asko aldez aurretik zuen laguntzagatik!
Latzen taldea (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- File:Hellmuga_conv.jpg, File:Latzen_1993-1999.jpg, File:Latzen_lokalian.jpg, File:Latzen@HatortxuRock2025_96.jpg, File:LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-VINILO-000.jpg, File:AitorKantatzen.jpg, File:AitorKantatzen2.jpg, File:AitorLatzen1.jpg, File:Atabal_2026.jpg, File:Latzen_Hellumuga.jpg, File:Une_Ondarroan.jpg, File:Latzen_totem2-10.jpg, File:UnePlateruena.jpg, File:Bihozkadak.jpg, File:SenTaldeaGaizkiEsanak.jpg argazkiak Latzen taldea (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- File:LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-VINILO-000.jpg and File:Latzen Hellumuga.jpg do not appear ever to have existed, those may be typos. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Latzen taldea: when were permissions sent? The VRT queue is usually backed up several weeks, probably more if they specifically need someone who can read Euskadi. (I'm an admin, but not a VRT member.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- The first, from the photographer Iñigo Malvido (malvido@gmail.com) at 3th of June. The rest into the next days ;-) ~2026-36619-10 (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe it's "Latzen Hellumga.jpg" and "LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-MOCKUP-vinilo_00.jpg" ;-) ~2026-36619-10 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- File:Latzen Hellumga.jpg (yes, this is a deleted file), File:LATZEN-DENBORAREN-ORBAINAK-MOCKUP-vinilo_00.jpg (@Latzen taldea: no, still not a file name we ever had; looking in your deleted contributions I see a File:LATZEN-DENBORARERN-ORBAINAK-VINILO-000.jpg: 'DENBORARERN' vs. your earlier 'DENBORAREN'. I presume that is the one).
- (I am presuming ~2026-36619-10 is Latzen taldea, just not logged in.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it ;-) ~2026-36619-10 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello! I wonder if someone can answer the question @Eloisevictoriaj asked here: [1]. Since I'm not a VRT-member, I can only guess. See deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Molly Burnett.jpg. Well, I know the WP-part: since the new pic was deleted from Commons, I added the old one again, since I consider it better than no image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Molly_Burnett.jpg&diff=1238154099&oldid=1237900360){kind=link}
- We cannot answer questions in the edit summary of deleted file pages. The copyright holder was already in contact with VRT; perhaps they decide to continue the conversation. Krd 19:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd Per the afd, there was a ticket, TicketNumber=2026052110013344, but the pic was deleted anyway. While my link [2] doesn't work anymore, the uploader said basically "I don't understand why it was deleted and I'm a Commons-newbie." Where do you mean @Eloisevictoriaj should continue the conversation? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- If they are the permission sender, then in the ticket, i.e. by e-mail with VRT, If they are not, then in some way with the permission sender, to encourage them to continue the conversation with VRT. Krd 04:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: FWIW, as an admin I can see the deleted version. To clarify one thing Krd said, there was never any indication of the VRT process being complete, just of there being an open ticket. (That happens when someone writes to VRT, someone from VRT writes back with a question or request, and the original sender drops the thread and does not respond.) An obvervation from me: the uploader claims to be both the photographer and subject of a photo where that would be quite difficult. In theory, it could be self-taken with a tripod and timer by someone who really knew what they were doing. I'm pretty good a that, and I don't think I could do a self-portrait like this with such good focus on the face, shallow depth of field (meaning almost no margin of error for the placement of the head), and a very relaxed pose that would not be compatible with any rush from setting up the shot to posing. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Thanks, that was pretty much my guess, that @Eloisevictoriaj hadn't communicated sufficiently with VRT. Hopefully the comments here will help her, and she can of course comment herself. She does say she took it [3], I have no opinion on the technical bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't figure this out. it's so complicated - thank you so much for responding, I'm still not sure how... I can prove I took the picture of myself? I did it on a digital camera, set it up, put it on my lap top, and cleared my camera card of all the pictures... Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- thats exactly what I did. I used a tripod and took my own photos so I didn't have to spend a bunch of money on new headshots because the entertainment industry is brutal right now. But it looks like I didn't even ask the question in the right area - I have responded to everyone after questions have been asked. I uploaded the photo from my lap top. I just am not sure what else to do. I didn't realize uploading it to my own instagram would make it be an issue given its.. of me, by me on my social media. Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- (also it's actually pretty easy to take something like this once everything is set up - my right hand has the little clicker that takes the photo, thats why I put it up by my head so I could hide it when my thumb clicked it. (just in case you ever need/want to take photos of yourself) I'm honestly honored people think there's no way I could have taken this myself lol Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well-done shot, then.
- @Krd: do the comments here satisfy VRT's outstanding questions? (I assume it's pretty clearly established by now that the account and the person you are corresponding with are the same.) Or do you still need questions answered specifically in the email conversation? - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hey Thank you! and thank you so much for your help. I'm more than happy to email correspond with anyone. I didn't make my screen name my real name but Eloise (is my dogs name)and Victoria (is my moms middle name). I didn't think I'd have any problems, but it turns out wikipedia is quite hard and confusing lol (Also in the first paragraph of my profile where it says what I'm best known for, the character I played on Queen of the South is spelled Kelly Anne, and not Kelly Ann - but I didn't want to get nitpicky with my profile. Just change my main picture to something more recent because it actually affects our ability to be cast in projects if the casting director checks out the IMDB/WIKI and the picture isn't current. Plus in this wikipedia picture I look like a child, because I am in this lol) thank you so much again for your help Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- VRT always needs the information in the ticket. Though if the information is public and commons users are satisfied without VRT interference, that is always the better choice. Are you going to restore the image based on the above claims? Krd 05:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd: I would be inclined to do so, but I have no way to know what issues you consider unresolved in correspondence I cannot view. If you have doubts based on things I cannot see, please say so, and I will defer to you to continue the confidential correspondence rather than my simply undeleting based on what I can see. - Jmabel ! talk 06:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång
- @Krd I'm not sure what a VRT is but please let me know what I can do to help!! I'm not really sure how else to prove I took the picture of myself, but if I need to re-upload it to wikipedia or something I can absolutely do that! If someone wants to upload and add a different more recent photo of me that has whatever approval is needed, that's fine. I actually thought just uploading my own picture of myself would be easiest. But I had no idea it would like this. I just need a photo up on my page that isn't me at barely 18 years old :( Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel so sorry I meant to tag you too Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Eloisevictoriaj You sent a mail to Commons about this pic, right? That mail went the Volunteer Response Team, VRT for short, they're a small group trusted to deal with this stuff. These mails are confidential, that's why Krd (member of VRT) can't just tell us what's in them on this open noticeboard anyone can read. Jmabel and myself can't read these mails because we're not VRT members.
- As I understand it, you mailed VRT. Then VRT responded to your mail (now also called a "ticket"), saying something like "You have to do X before we can accept this pic." And you didn't respond to that, so the pic was deleted after awhile. Krd wants you to continue that mail conversation. This is me guessing, I might be wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Eloisevictoriaj There is another thing you can do if you're willing: Go to [4]. Add to your original message this:
- "I took this picture of me on the blue chair myself, and I'm publishing this picture under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence."
- I'm pretty sure @Jmabel would be willing to restore it then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I know, I answered everything, so that's why I'm confused what happened here. But like I said, this is a lot more complicated than I understood (thank goodness I've never asked to edit any of the facts on my page that aren't totally accurate. for example I was raised in Littleton which is a suburb of Denver - not the other way around, which is what it says) Also to clarify, Are you saying I should add the "I took this picture of me on the blue chair myself" etc to my instagram post? It's a little weird to add that because it's a carousel of shots and videos, and that only applies to the first picture (for context on the complication of that, the second photo in this carousel is from the Love Y'all Book Fest - and I am contractually obligated to tag them and get approval on the post before it goes live. They might clock that and get upset with me/my agent might.. can I just comment on the post saying that so it lays right under it? Like I said, if there is another approved picture of me where I'm not 18 that anyone wants to post, they're more than welcome to. I'm literally just trying to make sure my wikipedia page is an accurate representation of myself because it affects my job. And I thought the easiest way to do that would be to upload a photo I took of myself by myself. Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here's where my "can't read the mails" ignorance kicks in, I can only guess.
- On the Instagram, what I'm trying to help you accomplish is something Commons-acceptable like this: File:Jendrik Sigwart Instagram release.jpg. See what Jendrik Sigwart wrote. I wanted to make it clear you were releasing the pic we're discussing only, not every pic/vid in the post, but that's up to you. If you think it's better, you can also make a new Instagram post with the required text and only the pic we're discussing.
- I have no opinion on what your agent might like or not, but I'm reminded of this 2025 story:
- "Dixit, for example, found Jeremy Strong of Succession at a New York showing of the new The Apprentice and asked to take a new headshot of him for Wikipedia. “His publicist said no,” Dixit said. “But Jeremy said, ‘Wait, you’re from Wikipedia? For the love of God, please take down that photo. You’d be doing me a service.’ So he stood and posed, and I got a shot of him.” Strong’s old photo was from 2014. " Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Fwiw, no-one is disputing that this pic will improve the Molly Burnett WP-articles, and the contribution is appreciated. The issue of out-dated etc WP-pics is well-known, and you're trying to help that. But the legal/bureaucratic bit is important around here, we want Commons to stay online. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I know, I answered everything, so that's why I'm confused what happened here. But like I said, this is a lot more complicated than I understood (thank goodness I've never asked to edit any of the facts on my page that aren't totally accurate. for example I was raised in Littleton which is a suburb of Denver - not the other way around, which is what it says) Also to clarify, Are you saying I should add the "I took this picture of me on the blue chair myself" etc to my instagram post? It's a little weird to add that because it's a carousel of shots and videos, and that only applies to the first picture (for context on the complication of that, the second photo in this carousel is from the Love Y'all Book Fest - and I am contractually obligated to tag them and get approval on the post before it goes live. They might clock that and get upset with me/my agent might.. can I just comment on the post saying that so it lays right under it? Like I said, if there is another approved picture of me where I'm not 18 that anyone wants to post, they're more than welcome to. I'm literally just trying to make sure my wikipedia page is an accurate representation of myself because it affects my job. And I thought the easiest way to do that would be to upload a photo I took of myself by myself. Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel so sorry I meant to tag you too Eloisevictoriaj (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- tl;dr If you restore the image and accept it without the ticket, this is fine for me. Krd 04:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd: I would be inclined to do so, but I have no way to know what issues you consider unresolved in correspondence I cannot view. If you have doubts based on things I cannot see, please say so, and I will defer to you to continue the confidential correspondence rather than my simply undeleting based on what I can see. - Jmabel ! talk 06:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel Thanks, that was pretty much my guess, that @Eloisevictoriaj hadn't communicated sufficiently with VRT. Hopefully the comments here will help her, and she can of course comment herself. She does say she took it [3], I have no opinion on the technical bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Krd Per the afd, there was a ticket, TicketNumber=2026052110013344, but the pic was deleted anyway. While my link [2] doesn't work anymore, the uploader said basically "I don't understand why it was deleted and I'm a Commons-newbie." Where do you mean @Eloisevictoriaj should continue the conversation? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Pillsbury Doughboy
[edit]Can someone look at the ticket in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pillsbury doughboy.jpg? Thanks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- The conversation is in Hebrew. Nemoralis (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @מקף, Geagea, Hanay- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
VRTS ticket number 2014030810001523
[edit]Could a VRT member take a look at ticket:2014030810001523 and assess how it applies to the files being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Texas Historical Commission plaques in Fort Bend County, Texas? The reason the files were nominated for deletion wasn't because the nominator felt the photos themselves are copyvios, but rather because the photos are of other potentially copyright-eligible works and thus could have COM:FOP US problems. If the VRT ticket resolves those issues, then great; if, though, it only covers the photos themselves, then the copyright status of the photographed works still needs to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- They are free from copyright. Nemoralis (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 18:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC) The file File:No Excuses 10 - Preventing cultural justifications of violence (Vimeo, better quality).webm was recently deleted for lacking VRTS permission, but I know for a fact that permission was recieved in ticket:2026052810012011. I know this because I assisted the creator in sending the release. Please confirm this and undelete the file. Rose Abrams (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Done --Krd 04:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)