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: 38 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

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

VRT Noticeboard

Main VRT-related pages

• Commons:Volunteer Response Team
• Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Commons:Email templates
• {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

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)

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)

@Krd Do you have any response? whym (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Sadly not, but I don't even understand the question. Can you help? Krd 06:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I think Bject wants you to explain the deletion of File:Trend Girls Photo Session (May 4, 2025)IMG 4472.jpg and other similarly-named files you speedy-deleted along with it on June 16 (and presumably, what it takes to undelete them). This is about more than 100 files deleted practically at the same time, if I recall it correctly. whym (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is ticket:2025051610000217 about this, but it's in Japanese, which I cannot read. Please assist is possible. Krd 13:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Krd If it's up to me, I would keep the files without a VRT tag. I already said that much on 30 May 2025 above. I believe COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary applies, so the content of email is irrelevant, in Japanese or otherwise. Publicly available information including discussion here should be enough basis to decide. What do you think? whym (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Though I don't see any list of the affected files. Do you have any? Krd 08:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the files are listed in [1], although they are mixed with other deletions. Alternatively you might want to try this: files with the "File:Enako" prefix at User_talk:Bject/Archive_5, and files with the "File:Trend Girls" prefix at [2]] whym (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If you want to double-check, the file links are also in ticket:2025061610008557, ticket:2025061610008539, ticket:2025061610008495, ticket:2025061610008422, ticket:2025061610008315. whym (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Whym: I think this is resolved. If not, please advise what is missing. --Krd 07:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is not resolved until undeletion (or more precisely, undoing the mass speedy deletion). I was expecting you to undelete the files you speedy-deleted, because you said "I don't disagree". If you need links, I provided them in my last 2 comments. --whym (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If possible please provide the list. Krd 13:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

List of tickets is in the comments immediately above. @Krd are you asking for a list of files, or, if not, what? - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I understood that only some files should be restored. I'm now restoreing all files in the tickets as ticket_received. Please check and tag them accordingly. Krd 05:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the tags using VFC. whym (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Whym: why are you removing the VRT templates as in Special:Diff/1084919618/1088634919? That doesn't look useful... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What would you propose to do instead? A VRT agent may remove tags when it is unnecessary. Usually, if the file is not previously published elsewhere, VRT is not going to be involved. I said I would remove tags, and I thought everyone here agreed, at least implicitly. [3] whym (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The VRT tag said that there's a permission archived on a certain date. That's quite important info to avoid any future hassle - this thread here went on for 5 months. There's no need for a repeat, any future questions could be referred to the permission mail, but it needs to be linked to its files.

It's in my opinion better to have as much background on the imagery creation known as possible, also when thinking about personality rights. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to leave something that suggest the existence of previous discussion (and emails, if you want, although as I said, I think the emails contain nothing more than the file page does, and VRT didn't confirm anything her). I don't know what form should it take or which template to use, though. Please feel free to edit those file pages. whym (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Washington Digital Archives permission

Please confirm permissions in the VRT ticket listed on File:President of the Senate Victor A. Meyers.jpg

I would like to update several official post-1930 portraits, such as this one of Meyers with higher resolution versions which have become available in the past decade.

Thank you OceanLoop (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@OceanLoop: Resolution shouldn't affect copyright, presuming the original licensed image is legible. At least under U.S. law as I understand it, there is no distinct copyrightable element in a higher-resolution copy. So if we have the license for the copyrighted material, that should also cover a higher-resolution copy. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not know whether we have the license - this is my question to VRT. OceanLoop (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

"This is a public domain web site. It is governed by the Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.56.040-130) which makes this information, and any information you submit to this site, freely available for public inspection and copying." Nemoralis (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This disclaimer does not allow the free use of any image on the Digital Archives website, as some content is clearly marked in-copyright: it even says this information (refering to the privacy policy - not all information. OceanLoop (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

If there is a ticket on the item, then clearly for that particular item VRT were satisfied; otherwise they would have nominated it for deletion.

The office of the Washington State Secretary of State is the one Washington State department that routinely puts everything it owns into the public domain. It sounds like the state purchased the Susan Parish Photograph Collection, and it's on the site of the Secretary of State; if that purchase included the copyrights, then I would guess that this would be public domain. I'm not VRT, so I have no idea whether the ticket is any broader than the one image, but if you end up contacting the Secretary of State to clarify this, it would be good to see if they will assert that the entire Susan Parish Photograph Collection has been placed in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like PequodOnStationAtLZ is going for it - bravo! OceanLoop (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

happy to help! PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Both ticket and website mentioned this as copyright policy. Quote from the ticket: All photos retrieved from the Digital Archives website which you are using are in the public domain. Because they were created using state funds, they are a public record. Nemoralis (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel strongly we still need an explicit list of collections which are "created using state funds", and therefore in the public domain, because this is ambiguous to me as a casual user, and clearly not inclusive of all available digital records available. It would be in everyone's interest to get clear and direct permission to copy identified collections to Commons at their maximum available resolution - a formality best left to professionals. OceanLoop (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd doubt this on a couple of levels. (1) Speaking from experience, the Office of the Secretary of State is the only entity of the Washington State government that consistently places its intellectual property in the public domain. For example, note the copyright notices on the pages for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Revenue, etc. So that general statement about state money is simply not true. (2) Regardless of their intent to place content in the public domain, if they purchased a collection of photographs, they can offer licenses only if they purchased the copyright. Have they explicitly said that they did so in this case? - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, sorry for late response. No they didn't said anything about that. Nemoralis (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Permissions

Hello! I'm trying to get permissions for use of this in a museum exhibit and would like to have something written in terms of correspondence and am curious what you all found in your review to be able to mark this as public domain. I've emailed and tried reaching out to the artist a few times with no reply. Thank you! It's for this: ticket #2016041710010483
File:Cuadro por españa y por el rey, Galvez en America.jpg ZslaughSL (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

This is very long correspondence in Spanish (which is merged into ticket:2013032610005631). What information are you looking for? Nemoralis (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Uploads without licence

About 3/4 of the permissions we receive from France and Spain refer to images without licence tag. This means considerable extra work for VRT, because we need to remove the complaint from the User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense and add the appropriate licence each time after having checked and approved the permission.

This has been going on for months now. Is there really nothing that can be done about it? It should be prevented that files get uploaded without licence tag. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that we have so many accepted licenses that having a filter to prevent this is not really possible. If we decide that new users are only allowed to use the regular cc licenses we could easily create a filter. GPSLeo (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

How about a filter that forbids to leave the licence empty? This would eliminite 80% of the problem cases, since most users decide for cc-by-sa anyway. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest not to solve this by edit filter but by changing the upload interface. But it has to be found out at first which of the dozen ways for uploading creates this problem. Krd 12:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be the upload wizard. See e.g. File:Laura Urbina.jpg and File:Jorge León Gustà.jpg. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the issue comes from the Upload Wizard. I mentioned that a few months back, and I am surprised that it has not been fixed yet. Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the bug that selecting the permission option removes the license is still present. Just tested here File:Testfile2.png. @Sannita (WMF) could you have a look why this is still not resolved? GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, on April 13 of this year, I edited Commons:Uploading works by a third party to describe the necessary workaround for this on uploads, because Sannita let me know he did not expect the fix to occur promptly. I still have no idea why a fix to this would be difficult. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo Unfortunately, the Structured Content team is no longer active, and it is still unclear who owns UploadWizard in the latest re-organization. I'll keep pushing for a solution, if you would be so kind to send me the Phab ticket, I can try to find someone to work on it. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The ticket should be phab:T391600. And the WMF did drop the maintenance of a core tool again? Is there an official statement why this happened? This is exactly what was the main criticism by the community in the open letters and also in the community call series. GPSLeo (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo AFAIK an announcement on Commons is in the making, but I have no news on when it will be published. About the ticket, I reached out to the devs, and they have it on their rader, but it's going to take at least another couple of weeks before it gets addressed, due to other priorities at the moment. I'll keep you posted, but please feel free to ping me here or in private about it, just to be sure it doesn't slip off my mind. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Bild nach Commons exportieren

wenn ich das Bild

• he:קובץ:Natan Gurdus.jpg

nach Commons kopieren will, bekomme ich eine Warnung, dass bei dem Prozess OTRS tangiert wird. Ich habe keine Hebräisch-Kenntnisse, sehe nur, dass das Foto unter Cc-by-sa-3.0 eingestellt ist und dass ein OTRS-Ticket 2015090610003781 hinterlegt ist.

Was ist zu tun? Goesseln (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ich meine, dass es einen Editfilter gibt, welcher das Einfügen von VRT-Tickets verhindert, wenn man selbst kein VRT-Mitarbeiter ist. Als Lösung würde mir einfallen: entweder bittest Du einen VRT-Kollegen, das zu übernehmen, oder Du importierst die Datei (mit Download auf deinen PC und Upload) manuell. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Urgent: Please remove deletion warning – File:Iの似顔絵.jpg – VRT ticket:2025072110000231, ticket:2025071510002393, ticket:2025091310000135

Urgent follow-up regarding File:Iの似顔絵.jpg

This file is tagged for deletion, but valid permission has already been provided and received by VRT.

- Permission emails from the copyright holder (Koishikawa Incident Support Group) were sent and received under VRT tickets:

 ticket:2025071510002393 (sent 2025-07-15),
 ticket:2025072110000231 (sent 2025-07-21),
 ticket:2025091310000135 (sent 2025-09-13).

- The official website publicly states that the newsletters and included images are released under CC BY-SA 4.0: https://www.enzai-koisikawa.com

The deletion deadline is approaching. Since valid permission exists and is verifiable via the above tickets, could an agent please review and remove the pending-deletion/warning tag?

File page: File:Iの似顔絵.jpg

Jkb1515 (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to be afraid of file deletion. Your files will be restored (if they were deleted) after confirming the permission. Nemoralis (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Verification of Italian image

File:Communion 2007.jpg lists ticket:2007021910012328. However, it doesn't have an author , and that ticket was created after this bit-for-bit same image on English Wikipedia was uploaded by a different user a few months prior: en:File:Samples of Italian favors for First Communion.jpg.

Could anyone shed some light on this? Some possible backstory: it:Discussioni utente:Ore Liete. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Added the author information. Nemoralis (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Brian Hannan Images

Hello, I'm updating my father's wikipedia page and have sourced images from the internet that are in the public domain to populate his page as well as one that I took myself. These images are from over 40 years ago in Australia and it will be impossible to chase up who took them. I've been contacted by one of the Wikipedia team to say I need to tag them or prove copywrite permission but I don't know where they are from. As I mentioned, they are already in the public domain so I believe there shouldn't be a problem using them to illustrate the work that my father has done. Thanks, Clare Hannan Swartee (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

If you don't know who took them and they only 40-ish years old, how can you possibly know they are in the public domain? Are you sure you understand the term "public domain"? Do read en:Public domain and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia if you are not sure.

Commons requires that photos must be in the public domain in both their home country and the United States. Otherwise, they need to be free-licensed. Any photo taken in Australia before 1 January 1955 should be public domain in Australia; that date will move year-by-year. Australian photographs taken before 1 January 1946 should be public domain in the United States; that date won't begin moving until 2042. There are some edge-case exceptions (Crown copyright can persist longer in Australia; U.S. copyright can last longer if the photos were published in Australia, but not soon after they were taken; photos published in the U.S. without notice before 1 March 1989 could have lost their U.S. copyright; etc.), but it's unlikely any of them apply to these.

Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You can always try asking your father. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply ChildrenWillListen. That was useful information.

As I mentioned, the images were sourced on the internet, how do I "tag" the images with the websites I got them from? Is that all I need to do?

Thanks,

Clare Swartee (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

No. If you got them from other websites, chances are it isn't licensed under a free license. Can you tell us exactly where you got the images from? ChildrenWillListen (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Please also actually read what I wrote above. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. Did you get the links that I sent you? 2A0A:EF40:E76:7601:B458:73C5:297D:4F37 22:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I have received nothing either from this IP address nor from Swartee. (Assuming that anon-IP comment was from Swartee, please consistently log in when participating on a thread like this. Otherwise, you can appear to be two different people, which is at best confusing.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

"You must provide exact URL link(s) to the content or attach the content to the email message"

If someone sends me a link to his Dropbox folder does that still count as providing the exact URL links to the content? The Dropbox folder in question have almost 100 images and videos so adding the URL for each of them would make the email very long Trade (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Trade, if possible upload all of them here and give us a link (maybe list of image URLs or category name?) Nemoralis (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

All images related to the VRT that i have uploaded is in Category:BattlerGC Pro along with an URL to the source Trade (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Please send this to the VRT ticket also. Nemoralis (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I think i might have uploaded the images too early. Would you mind deleting them? We can just undelete them if the VRT works out Trade (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

PD-text logo with VRT permission attached

Shouldn't we have a rule against attaching VRT permissions to files that are too simplistic to be eligible for copyright protection in the first place? It's feels misleading to tell Commons users that literal colored text and a circle is protected somehow by copyright in the US Trade (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

File in question is File:New MANTECH Logo - 2025.png--Trade (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

VRT agents only confirm that the claimed rights holder has issued a valid free license. They do not assess whether the file is actually copyrightable or whether a PD-tag might be more accurate. That second part is always up to the Commons community. VRT agents are, of course, also part of the community, but any such re-tagging would be done as normal community editing and not as a VRT action. It is also worth noting that in some cases it may later be judged that a file is not actually in the public domain (for example, if the threshold of originality is found to be met). In such situations, having a confirmed free license through VRT provides a useful fall-back. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

How are we (the community) supposed to indicate that the "cc-by-sa-4.0" only applies in cases where the PD-tag is considered invalid? Right now there is just two conflicting licenses with no indication of which one actually takes precedence Trade (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

1. When two license tags are offered, a reuser can choose which license to use.
2. There might be countries where this is above TOO; in those countries, a reuser can use the offered license.

Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Except you can't expect the reuser to simply choose which license they wanna use because there is nothing on the page to indicate they should do that in the first place nor is there anything to indicate to them that the reuser should use the offered license in a country with a higher TOO

You can't expect reusers to do something that Commons makes no effort to tell them is even an option

That's the issue. No indicators or anything. Just two licenses whose text directly contradicts each other with no explanation at to why Trade (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If there is more than one license, it's obvious that any of them can apply. IMHO you are describing a non-issue. Krd 08:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like a template that said "the author/presumed copyright owner has provided this free license FOO, but the Commons community has determinate that it may fall under license BAR", but that's not a VRT issue. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there a limit as to how simplistic a image will have to be before VRT will not longer accept the permission as being valid? Or does anything just go no matter what as long as the author says yes? Trade (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact that an image is considered below the threshold of originality and therefore in the public domain is ultimately a presumption of fact that we ask reusers to trust. A release under a free license, however, provides a concrete assurance that is not based on that presumption. If the file later turns out to be copyright-ineligible in some jurisdictions, reusers can still rely on the granted license until such a determination has been done by e.g. courts or USCO. This makes VRT permissions useful and not contradictory, but rather complementary to PD assessments.

As an aside, English Wikipedia uses explanatory templates in somewhat related cases (for example en:Template:Non-free with permission), which clarifies that there is both a non-free use claim and a granted permission. While that situation is not identical, it shows that we sometimes need to document how permissions and licensing interact, so it may be worth considering a Commons template that clarifies when both PD and a VRT license apply. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

"If there is more than one license, it's obvious that any of them can apply." When one license explicitly says that the image is protected by copyright and the other explicitly says that it's not that's called an oxymoron

"IMHO you are describing a non-issue." No, you just dont care about it. That's a completely different thing.

There's plenty of copyright violations on Commons that nobody have cared enough to nominate. That doesn't make it an argument to keep them once someone does nominate them Trade (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you think it is, it appears that consensus is that the answer to your original question is No. Krd 19:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Need assistance from a French-speaking agent

Hi. Can you please see if ticket ticket:2021032110004214 covers the images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations?

Many thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy. this ticket only covers this files. Nemoralis (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Disappointing, but thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Juan_Luis_Ysern_de_Arce

Can someone, idealmente con conocimientos de español, have a look at

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juan_Luis_Ysern_de_Arce

Per Ticket:2025061710012166, we have received permission for those, which seems valid to me. However, I doubt that all this stuff really falls into Commons:Project_scope.

@Juan Luis Ysern de Arce: Para tu información. Tengo dudas que todo eso forma parte del alcance del proyecto.

Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: I'm not sure why the scope issue is being discussed on this page, but having looked at a few of these, I'd say they are in scope, and maybe even of more than routine interest. We don't tend to get documents like this outside of major cities. File:Melleico -cuaderno de la historia.pdf is a local oral history project by school students. File:Traslado de la Capilla de Tey.pdf is a document in which a bishop argues for the importance of a particular chapel, trying to convince the community that it is worth preserving in place; he points out that he has the authority to act unilaterally to save it, but would much rather form a consensus than impose his will. File:1999- Carta Miguel Millar Silva.pdf is a letter in which, at a quick read, the bishop seems to be instructing the head of the local Catholic radio station that the station has too much become simply a secular advocate for the local poor, and that while he says (overtly) that he does not oppose the orientation toward being the voice of the voiceless, he wants the station to steer back more toward an explicitly Catholic perspective in doing so.

I only looked at these three documents, and only took a total of about 12 minutes, but it looks like a very interesting trove. They'd be of interest to anyone looking into the local history and politics of that region, but would also be of enormous value to someone looking into the various ways that a Catholic bishop exerts power in a manner short of dictatorship. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: thanks. I will add permission tags to those files. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Watermarked images in ticket:2025060410006591

Is it OK to remove the watermark from the file and associated images? It appears that the VRT ticket stipulated a low-res version only. JayCubby (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

(Please read Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2025#Rules for revoking/invalidating a VRT permission for background.) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)