SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

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: 5 days (graph)  update

Start a new discussion

Main VRT-related pages

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

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

ticket:2019042510004531

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)

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)

Multiple issues with VRT volunteer

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)

ticket:2026051210002641

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

{{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:

1. 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.
2. The Professor has already sent a direct, official confirmation from his personal email address to verify this ownership and authorize the free license release.
3. 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)

Understanding the work you do

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

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)

Comparing old ticket to EXIF

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)

ORTS verify

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)

Non-English consent in a hard-copy format

I would like to know if it is possible to use a translated hard-copy version of the email message template for release of rights to a file as a proof for getting consent to use a file. The problem is that the owners of the copyright are people who do not have good command in English and cannot practically use the VRT release generator. The plan is to get their signatures on a translated hard-copy version of the email message and send a scan of the signed version to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as well as use the VRT release generator on their behalf. Thank you. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but it will be only useful if VRT users can read that language. Which language is it? Krd 07:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Macedonian. Isn't it possible to use a mobile app to verify the accuracy of the translation? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Macedonian... Out of curiosity, there's no other usable and perhaps more widely used language? Perhaps Greek, Serbian, Russian, or Italian, German? The issue with machine translations is that when there's no large corpora of text already translated, the machines don't have much upon which to base their MTL tasks and will often introduce errors. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt that people in the rural areas would be fond of signing a document in another language even if they understand it. A possible solution is to translate the message here and then print it so that they can sign it. Best regards. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The best thing is to avoid VRT completely. Is there any way to put the license directly at the source? Which file do we speak of? Krd 10:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It's this file. I got a verbal confirmation on the day of taking the picture that the author has relinquished the copyright and that everyone can take free pictures of this fresco, but the file was nominated for deletion and we probably need a document as a proof. I've already contacted a member of the Macedonian community who lives in the closest city to this village, and he expressed interest to travel there in order to get a written consent from the people who are appointed by the Macedonian Orthodox Church to maintain the church, but he still needs instructions on what kind of document he should bring with him for signing so that the trip isn't futile. Thank you. Best regards. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Sadly I have no suggestion. Krd 15:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Won't something quite simple work, @Krd, @Kiril Simeonovski? Like: I, [Insert name], represent the church congregation of [Insert location name]. The congregation has all relevant intellectual property rights on artwork shown on its premises. Upon that authority, I consent to having the depiction of the fresco depicting the Nativity of the Theotokos, available under the title "File:Црква „Рождество на Пресвета Богородица“ - Бориево 4.jpg" on Wikimedia Commons, licensed with the license Creative Commons By-SA 4.0. It's avoiding legalese, should be the necessary proof and is simple enough to ensure that a machine translation won't make much mistakes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In this very case, without creating any precedent, this may work. Krd 04:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for the instructions. Best regards. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 10:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Carl Stahl GmbH

User:Carl Stahl GmbH has uploaded various files. Some have VRT permission:

• File:Firmengebaeude Carl Stahl Hauptsitz.jpg
• File:Carl Stahl Konzernbereich Architektur.jpg
• File:Carl Stahl Konzernbereich Feinseile.jpg
• File:Carl Stahl Konzernbereich Hebetechnik.jpg

• Ticket:2017030210007925
• Ticket:2016121510008895
• Ticket:2019092010002695

Can you see if any of these tickets might also apply to any of their other uploads? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

They don't apply. --Krd 03:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ändern der Kategorien unter einem Foto durch Administrator

File:1986-02-09 West-Berlin Charlottenburg Helmholtzstraße.jpg Das Foto stammt aus dem Jahr 1986 in West-Berlin. Unter Kategorien finde ich dort "1986 in Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf". Diese Kategorie habe ich nicht ausgewählt ! Warum ? Zu dieser Zeit war Charlottenburg noch ein eigenständiger Bezirk in West-Berlin und nicht mit Wilmerdorf zusammengelegt. Wir wollen bitte bei den historischen Tatsachen bleiben, die dann etwas Recherche erfordern ! Andernfalls entsteht bei den Betrachtern der Fotos ein falsches Bild der Verhältnisse, die zum Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme herrschten. Danke, mit freundlichen Grüßen. Throttle lever (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Grummel... Da ist da Kategorie-System ja in einer Scheiß-Unordnung, weil die Gebietsreformen ignoriert werden. Noch habe ich keine Ahnung, wie man das beheben soll, zumal einige Kategorisierungen offenbar per Vorlage gesetzt wurden. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Out of scoape of this noticeboard. --Krd 04:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Mein Vorschlag wären Kategorien, die die Bezirke einzeln benennen (Berlin-Charlottenburg usw.) zur Verwendung für die Zeit vor der Gebietsreform. Für die Zeit nach der Gebietsreform dann eben die Benennung mit den Doppelbezirken (Berlin Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf). Die richtige Verwendung sollte ausschließlich beim Fotografen liegen. Danke, mit freundlichen Grüßen. Throttle lever (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 04:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

User:HumanAnatomy17

• HumanAnatomy17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor says they work for SciePro GmbH, but is now CheckUser-blocked on enwiki for sockpuppetry involving undisclosed paid editing; the sockfarm has no apparent connection to SciePro.

They uploaded over 600 illustrations, all attributed to SciePro. I don't want to be too hasty with a deletion request, but this surely needs VRT verification, doesn't it?

—Janhrach (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. --Krd 14:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 14:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)