Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
This page is where users can communicate with Commons Volunteers Response Team members, or VRT agents with one another. 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, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team
- Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
- Commons:Email templates
- {{subst:PP}} (Permission pending)
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days. |
ticket #2016092010010486[edit]
Hello, could you please verify if the permission for the ticket #2016092010010486 (https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2016092010010486) was given by the National Gallery in Prague (Narodni galerie v Praze)? Thank you! BR 195.250.133.238 09:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ankry is the best person to help on this. I don't know the language of this ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- It seems so. Why are you asking? Ankry (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! We would like to use that image in a scientific publication. 195.250.133.238 08:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- And also I would like to save some costs for the reprorights. 195.250.133.238 08:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! We would like to use that image in a scientific publication. 195.250.133.238 08:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- It seems so. Why are you asking? Ankry (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ganímedes (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Copyright infringement: ticket:2023021610014444[edit]
Hello mates, the Royal Society wants File:Sir Everard Home 1756–1832.jpg to be deleted because it infringes their copyright. The source page of the file is also not clear. If I were an admin, I'd have deleted it (provided that it was not into PD). I'm bringing it here to seek opinions from you. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- That is a painting published in 1829, whose creator died in 1845. The only possible claim to copyright they have is that they are claiming copyright in the photo/scan of the painting. But the relevant Wikimedia Commons policy is COM:COREL; the Wikimedia Foundation takes the view that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain. This has a fairly firm basis in the law of the United States, the country where Wikimedia Commons is hosted and where the Wikimedia Foundation is domiciled; the {{PD-art}} tag exists for this very reason.
- As such, I believe that we should
Keep this file, both in my capacity as a VRT agent and in my capacity as a Commons editor. If the Royal Society believes that they hold a valid copyright on the image, they are free to send a futile DMCA to the Wikimedia Foundation or to throw a weak court challenge the WMF's way, but asking Commons to delete this file―a faithful reproduction of a copyrighted work―represents an attempt by the Royal Society to restrict our rights and freedoms to access the content of the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Red-tailed hawk: I was confused in between two things. This clarifies a lot. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Lizenzstatus für Kieferer Krippen / permission state for nativity scenes from Kiefersfelden[edit]
Fünf Bilder aus der Kategorie Kieferer Krippen stehen seit etwa 2023-02-10 im Status {{Permission received}}:
- File:Kiefersfelden, Dorfkrippe, Engel, 1.jpeg
- File:Kiefersfelden, Dorfkrippe, Stern, 1.jpeg
- File:Kiefersfelden, Dorfkrippe, 3.jpeg
- File:Kiefersfelden, Dorfkrippe, 4.jpeg
- File:Kiefersfelden, Rahmenkrippe Sebastianskapelle, 1.jpeg
Der Bearbeiter hat den Förderverein Kieferer Krippen mit folgender Aufforderung kontaktiert (Ticket 2023020910007304):
- „bitte geben Sie an wer die Fotografen sind, die diese Fotos aufgenommen haben, und aufgrund welcher Umstände Ihr Verein Rechteinhaber an den Foto wurde…“
Wer die Fotos gemacht hat, geht aus der Vorlage {{Artwork}} hervor. Was die Rechte an den Krippen anbelangt, hat der Förderverein nicht behauptet, selbst Rechteinhaber zu sein, sondern bei den Rechteinhabern nachgefragt zu haben („…unter der Lizenz cc-by-sa-4.0 freigegeben sind. Die Rechteinhaber an den Krippen haben dem zugestimmt.”)
Die Künstler Albrecht und Constantin Hahn sowie Siegfried Leitner, die die Krippen (abgesehen von Grundmaterial, das keine Schöpfungshöhe erreicht) angefertigt haben, waren bis zu Ihrem Tod (2022 bzw. 2019) Mitglieder des Vereins. Ich sehe daher keinen Grund zu bezweifeln, dass der Vereinsvorstand bei den Erben nachgefragt und eine positive Antwort bekommen hat. Dass der Verein das gewissenhaft handhabt, sieht man zum Beispiel daran, dass für eines der Fotos (einer anderen Krippe) eine Erlaubnis nicht zu bekommen war; dieses Foto wurde dann auch nicht hochgeladen.
Wenn die Aussage des Vereinsvorstandes, dass die Rechteinhaber einer freien Lizenz zugestimmt haben, bezweifelt wird, ist natürlich nichts zu machen, denn die Rechteinhaber werden keine notariell beglaubigte Erklärung schicken. In diesem Fall müssen die fünf Bilder zunächst gelöscht werden, mit dem Vermerk, dass sie nach 70 Jahren (2092 bzw. 2089) wieder freizugeben sind. –– Renardo la vulpo (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi to all,
I have uploaded this video but it do not work and it's size is 1.5 GB. Yesterday, I have rebuild another identical version starting from the original MP4, but in WebM, and it's size is only 320 MB.
Is it possible upload a new file, with the name File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.webm and reuse the same VRTS ticket (2023011810005096) without send another ticket 'cause the file is the same and the only modification is the codec?
I ask it 'cause is difficult contact Francesca Volpini which have give me the singles video that I have mixed.
Thank you in advance, Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 11:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Galessandroni: If the source remains same for the modified file, it is alright to use the same VRTS ticket number. No need to send another permission. Please let me know if you have any doubt. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is so because File:Wiki Loves Marche 2022 award ceremony.ogg is already released under CC BY SA 4.0. You just need to follow guidelines of this, and you are allowed to "to copy, distribute and transmit the work, to adapt the work" keeping in view that you "give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use" and "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.". I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TheAafi Thank you. It's true. I know but my request it's a bit different.
- Now that I have re-codec the file, and the first one is only a weight for our servers is it possible delete the first file? It is impossible to use it and it is the same to this one. If the answer is no, can I insert (in the ogg file) a simple link to the webm file?
- Thanks, Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 12:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Galessandroni: I just removed the VRT tag because it appeared unnecessary and instead inserted a manual text indicating that from where this file has come from. I don't think the file in ogg format is worthy to be deleted. However if you want to get it deleted given its redundant nature and that it won't be ever used, I'll drop a comment on the ticket that the file has been replaced by a webm version and will insert the ticket over there. The COM:DUPE mentions, Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates, but instead possibly redundant. You will need to explain why the webm version is much better than the ogg format and list the file for deletion via COM:DR. There's nothing much where VRT can offer you advises, but I hope this much is helpful. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @The Aafi you have completely answered all my questions and you have helped me to understand several details. Thank you very much for your courtesy. Eventually yes: the file in ogg format is unusable. This is the main reason 'cause I ask for its deletion, to avoid an user finding that file and cannot see the content. But this is another story, outside VRT section. Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 13:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Galessandroni: I just removed the VRT tag because it appeared unnecessary and instead inserted a manual text indicating that from where this file has come from. I don't think the file in ogg format is worthy to be deleted. However if you want to get it deleted given its redundant nature and that it won't be ever used, I'll drop a comment on the ticket that the file has been replaced by a webm version and will insert the ticket over there. The COM:DUPE mentions, Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates, but instead possibly redundant. You will need to explain why the webm version is much better than the ogg format and list the file for deletion via COM:DR. There's nothing much where VRT can offer you advises, but I hope this much is helpful. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)