Wikimore

	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: 3 days (graph) update

Start a new discussion

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN Category:VRTS#Noticeboard

Category:Commons community

Adding ticket:2014030810001523 to Texas Historical Markers

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)

Let me try to rephrase (in case it was not clear enough). 1) the permission looks week and needs re-evaluation even for existing images, 2) it is unlikely that we can extend the existing permission to other similar markers. Point 2 can be an answer to the request, and in a sense that could end the discussion. However, Point 1 is still not resolved, and I would hope someone else look into it besides me, although I think it was not a question asked originally. What do others think? whym (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Red Bull logo

Does ticket:2025020610011248, present at File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png, make the Red Bull logo free? And hence w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg among others can be relicensed and transfered to Commons? Jonteemil (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say No. It makes only the "Red Bull Ring" logo free. Krd 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

But w:File:RedBullEnergyDrink.svg is a part of File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png so logically, both or neither, should be free, or is my logic flawed? Jonteemil (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you logic is flawed. The Red Bull Ring logo is free, not any other logo that recombines a part of it into another logo.

In any case this is a general copyright question and out of scope of VRT and this noticeboard. Krd 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked on COM:VPC first but it was archived before anyone had answered. I don't see how my logic is flawed. Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but as an alternative approach: What if you ask Red Bull for a release for the logos in question? Krd 05:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like File:RB Ring am SPG vec hor RGB-pos.png is a derivative work. I think it's worth checking again with the email sender that they have the authority to release the original logo that the file is derivative to. If they don't, their license alone would be insufficient even for the derivative logo (unless you blur it partially, perhaps). whym (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do. Krd 09:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Scope of VRT ticket:2019010310001751 for Karunanidhi English translations

I am checking the reuse status of this exact file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KalaignarinenglishtranslationAsisintheoriginal(shortstories).pdf Its file page marks the complete PDF CC0/public domain and cites VRT ticket:2019010310001751. Can a VRT volunteer please confirm whether that ticket covers the copyright in the complete English translations and associated publisher text contained in the PDF, rather than only the underlying Tamil works by M. Karunanidhi? If the ticket covers a larger collection, could you also identify which English-language book files are covered? The intended reuse is extraction and alignment of Tamil and English text, redistribution of the resulting parallel-text dataset with provenance, and use in machine-learning research, including publication of trained model artifacts. No clarification of machine-learning law is requested; I only need the scope of the archived permission and stated CC0 dedication. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The link you have provided is wrong but:

File:Tamil-Nadu-Nationalized-Books-Public-Domain-Declaration.jpg should give you context.
The ticket particularly deals with Category:PDF books in Tamil from TVA in 2015.
It also hints to this link from Tamil Nadu government.

As such I don't think it should include English works or translations but Balajijagadesh may have a better opinion/information. _signed,Aafi (guesthouse) 18:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the correct link: File:Kalaignar in english translation As is in the original (short stories).pdf

The English translation is in the same PDF which is marked as CC0. ~2026-39545-88 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

As per this GO, "GoTN_Tamil_Development_Departments_order_on_creative_commons_cc_by_sa.pdf" all the publications of the Tamil Nadu government is in CCBYSA. As the said publication is by a government university it should come under CCBYSA.

@TVA ARUN Must have better understanding as he is closely related to these work. Balaji (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Eugenides Foundation

Can someone look at ticket:2010062210044239?
These are Files from the Eugenides Foundation. User:DieBucheBot (by User:DieBuche) stuck a CC 1.0 license on them in 2010 despite CC 3.0 having been around since 2007. More specifically it used the unversioned template redirect {{CC-by-SA}}.
Questions:

Does the ticket say anything about a license version?
File:EugenFound-130.jpg has a National Geographic logo, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
File:EugenFound-123.jpg says "iWERKS moving entertainment", does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?
File:EugenFound-119.jpg shows w:Le Petit Prince, does the ticket clarify that it is produced by/for the Eugenides foundation?

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No license version is mentioned, they only say "free license" and "CC-BY-SA" with no specific version. Regarding permissions, they say "All images that start with EugenFound are completely owned by the Eugenides Planetarium of Athens, Greece." Nemoralis (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Per today's standards the ticket is invalid because it doesn't clarify why Eugenides Foundation wants to be copyright holder. I'm going to reopen the ticket. Krd 12:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion request - ticket:2026062310007873

I would like to kindly ask to revert the deletion of "File:Guarda-louça - Museu de Alcântara (MCHA.0013) - 2022-10-10 09.55.52.jpg" and many others, as permission was verified with ticket nºticket:2026062310007873.

Edit group links:

Thank you in advance, HGodinho (WMB) (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

cc @Albertoleoncio. Nemoralis (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

ticket:2026062710002852

I would like to check the status of the written consent under ticket:2026062710002852 that was submitted for File:Црква „Рождество на Пресвета Богородица“ - Бориево 4.jpg on 27 June 2026. I notice that the file is still tagged with a deletion template and the deletion request has not been closed. Please note that this is a follow-up to an archived discussion in which I got instructions on the substance of the written consent. Thank you. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ticket is still open and requires review by a second VRT user. Krd 08:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Grant McDonald.jpg

I recently uploaded an image here (and a cropped version of that image here) which was in the public domain pursuant to {{Noord-Hollands Archief-de Boer}}. However, they for some reason had the Permission pending template added automatically. I don't understand how or why this happened. As I understand it, I don't need any permission to upload this file. I don't know how to address this template being on this file or how to avoid the template automatically being added if I upload images from the same source in the future. Please advise. Denniscabrams (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What if you just remove the permission-pending template? Krd 12:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Is that kosher? I thought it was generally not cool to remove such templates from one's own files or pages. Denniscabrams (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You yourself said you'd send permission, and now you don't, because it's not required. Why should that not be ok? Krd 14:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you select "This work was created by someone else and it is free to share" and then "I have permission to upload this work from my employer or the creator of this work" when uploading via UploadWizard, it adds that template automatically. Nemoralis (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not select the latter option. Denniscabrams (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What options did you choose? Nemoralis (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably "This work was created by someone else and it is free to share" -> "This work is not protected by copyright law" -> "Add a specific public domain tag, if applicable" Denniscabrams (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I just tested this, and it didn't add PP automatically. I also checked the software's code, and there's no code path that would add PP based on your selections. Please make sure you didn't select the Employer/Creator option by mistake.

In any case, if the template was added accidentally, you can simply remove it. Nemoralis (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

ticket number ticket:2026072110008231

The Wikimedia team has had the image author's declaration of consent on file for a few days now under ticket number 2026072110008231. The image could now be approved shortly. Perhaps a user here could provide a brief status update. LG Abrape (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Ticket is incomplete, as discussed in the ticket. --Krd 13:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is incomplete? The author sent the image release consent form to the VRT team from her email address (albeit via mine). I had sent the form to the author pre-filled, which might be why she sent it back to me instead. What did I do wrong? LG Abrape (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

As said above, we discussed the same thing in the ticket. If you request a second opinion, please respond in the ticket. Krd 14:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

ticket:2020041110002628

Can you let us know whether the permission-giver in this ticket is Dominic Frisby? And if yes, is there any evidence that he operates the User:Frizzers account? The reason I ask this is due to this deletion request concerning several other files uploaded by the user without any cited VRTS. I don't know if there is any evidence for connection between the person and the account at all, let alone in the VRTS ticket, but I thought I'd ask. Rose Abrams (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if the ticket allows to answer this question, I think specific permission is required for the files mentioned in the deletion request. Krd 07:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

ticket:2009052010051757

Hey, I want to verify the the images applied to this ticket. As it is used in Italian Wikipedia for Template:copyright Wikisky. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Copyrighted free use on VRTS

I want to know does Template:Copyrighted free use can be introduced as one of the license options for VRTS Ticket Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why? Krd 06:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Krd, Nothing, I just want to know if is it possible and is it even a good idea to implement Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It is possible, but shouldn't be done unless it can be elaborated why CC-zero isn't a better choice. Krd 06:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I understood Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also @Krd, I found many users very great regarding Attribution only license. Like they tell "Mentioning my name is enough, i never thought that much deep on license" Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Gradges123

Gradges123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
ticket:2026021410004301

Both of this user's uploads don't look like their own work, given the weird low-quality background removal and lack of EXIF metadata. However, one of their uploads received the VRT permission linked above.

Is this VRT permission also relevant to their other upload: File:Goldin100.jpg?

—Janhrach (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No. --Krd 06:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Scope of ticket:2026050610005024 for File:Bitdefender Headquarters Bucharest Romania.jpg

File:Bitdefender Headquarters Bucharest Romania.jpg is labeled as having permission documented through ticket:2026050610005024. However, COM:FOP Romania says there is no freedom of panorama for architectural works in Romania. The licensing terms on the image say nothing about licensing or attribution to the owner of the artistic rights in the building's architecture; they only appear to cover the photographer's interest in the image. Does the VRT ticket cover the building's architecture? If so, how should this be properly expressed in the image license? David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It does. The photo was approved as it is by the architect. Krd 07:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I've used this information to go ahead and F8-delete the redundant copy on en from which this was imported. David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 07:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding how to submit VRTS Ticket for Template

Hey @Krd, I want to know how i or anyone can submit VRTS Ticket for Template Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

What exactly could be the question? Krd 07:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean how to apply for putting VRTS Ticket on License Template like for example used on Template:Cc-zero-SpaceX Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the question. How could that be different for a template compared to a file, except that the release would state a file set definition instead of a file name? Krd 08:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean the Interactive Release Generator only allows File not Template Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The Interactive Release Generator generates a draft e-mail which one can modify before sending. The VRT also listens for requests written in own words. Krd 08:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 11:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026