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: 10 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 2026

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

Bleeps.gr

I have noticed several images depicting graffiti by street artist Bleepsgr, real name Vlassios Kakouris, while almost all uploaded by Villiamcurtis (talk · contribs).

Things to consider.

• They are definitely derivative works. So the original artist has to be attributed.
• There is no FOP in Greece, so the original artist should have given permission.
• All images are {own} and author Villiamcurtis.
• File:Ακάκιε s΄agapw.jpg description states "this work is created by me as a street art project under the pseudonym bleeps.gr which i use for my art initiatives" (but no other images state this).
• File:-GREECE NEXT ECONOMIC MODEL-.JPG has a vrt ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2011120610022994

Can you check this ticket? Is the uploader the original artist? And if so, why its not his name or alias in the descriptions and attribution? Geraki ^T_L^G 18:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the permission letter is from original artist (Bleeps.gr/v.kakouris). Nemoralis (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there proof of identity? Geraki ^T_L^G 09:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Nemoralis (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

ticket:2026030910013442

i'm having trouble with something: basically i uploaded the image File:Ruben Sim (2026).jpg on march 8th, and had the rights holder (ruben sim/ben simon, since it's a photo of him) email the commons permissions email. they seem to have misunderstood my intent when i clarified this (i told someone to get him to contact them, and he did) saying they did not accept "proxy statements", but it wasn't a proxy statement.

VRT replied to my initial concerns on march 10th (28 days ago) but haven't replied to my follow-up emails since, and the file is set to be deleted in 2 days because it hasn't been taken care of. i sent brief follow-up emails on the 19th, 31st and today. the image is currently being used in a GA about the subject, what should i do? Kinnimeyu (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Kinnimeyu: Not directly addressing your question, but are you saying the subject of the photo owns the copyright? Unless it's a selfie, that would be unusual. - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  ...i mean, i don't know how that would work out? he uploaded an edited version of the photo to twitter after sending it for use, and he seems to have shared the camera with a friend. Kinnimeyu (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

can the image be put on some sort of hold so it can stay up? since nobody's replied to me since march 10th, i wasn't aware if there would be any problems with it. i just don't want it to disappear from a GA since i can easily ask for more details or an additional response if needed. Kinnimeyu (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

image has been deleted from article... could somebody PLEASE reply? Kinnimeyu (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

it's been literal radio silence since march 10th and i have no clue what i'm supposed to be doing! Kinnimeyu (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

hello @Krd: i have explicitly been trying to get ticket permission for the whole month! i'm really not sure what i'm doing wrong here since i've just been waiting on a reply the whole time Kinnimeyu (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kinnimeyu: as of this writing, File:Ruben Sim (2026).jpg is still here on Commons. If it was deleted from an article, that is not the doing of anyone on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk`

my bad, i should've explained that better: the cropped version of the image was automatically removed because of the 30-day deadline. Kinnimeyu (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

now the image is actually deleted, with still no reply... will someone please tell me what i'm supposed to do? @Krd: i've been waiting since march 10th to hear anything. Kinnimeyu (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

permission has been sent out by the original photographer, michael (schlep), now that i know this was required. Kinnimeyu (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please say the ticket number of the ticket that actually contains the permission. Krd 04:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Status for the ticket from pinkprogramming.se?

I assisted my colleague in sending a permission email to VRT a while ago, from a sender address ending in "@pinkprogramming.se", concerning a few files, one of them being File:Pink Programming logo (color).png. All the files in question were already deleted when the email was sent, but the instructions at COM:VRT assured me that undeletion would be handled by the VRT member with no further action required on our part. Since the files are still not undeleted, I would like to ask about the status for this ticket?

Since my colleague (who is the representative) sent the email, I cannot personally check for any reply from VRT, and she haven't told me that there's been any reply. I am also aware that there's no proof for my relation to the email's sender, but perhaps you're still allowed tell me. I can be reached by email for nonpublic communication. Rose Abrams (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

If possible please provide the ticket number. Krd 15:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there some way for me to find it? I'm not a VRT member so I don't have access to the system, and I also don't have access to the sender's email account. Rose Abrams (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Your colleague probably received an automatic response with a ticket number in it. Nemoralis (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rose Abrams: You don't say how long "a while" is, but it has been weeks and she's had no reply (I presume she has checked her junk folders, etc.), and she has checked the address she sent to, she should probably just re-send the email, and this time she should CC you. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Potential Improvements to VRT

Hey everyone, I want to talk that a new way to approve VRTS should be introduced similar to how uploading Flickr images on Commons are done. The reason is that it is very time taking and complex work for the copyright holder that is approving the VRTS and sometimes they complain about the process when the copyrights holder already allowed to use there work on Wikipedia. So, I think there should be some changes should be done with the process.

The improvement that i am telling is to bring is that VRTS Tickets should not only be per images but should also be per copyright holders and a custom tag can also be given as per need. Like once the copyright holder allowed to use then only for regular updates from the copyright holder could be done as per need rather than asking permission for every time when the copyright holder is already willing to give images to Wikipedia under Creative Commons. So, I think this improvement should be implemented as soon as possible. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is already a thing, for example, we have: {{Verified account}}. Nemoralis (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Then why on Gmail when i was talking with wikimedia they told to do that time taking work and no alternative are available when this is available. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What exactly have you been talking about with whom? Krd 04:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean i asked about a way in that multiple images could under one VRTS Ticket and new one based on the copyright holder choice will be added under that VRTS ticket rather than doing VRTS everytime for every image. I want that Template:Verified account option should be added on the interactive generator and email format, With an additional optional section where guidelines from copyright holder should be added. As generally sometimes copyright holder wants some guidelines before giving the image into creative commons one most asked is that "the person want to use there images on Wikipedia article first should inform about the image and the related page they want to use" to copyright holder before uploading. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Status check on ticket:2026040810014969 (CC-BY-3.0)

Hi admin,

It's been a while since I uploaded File:2025 Fifty-Six AR to Fairdealing MO EF4 tornado in Ripley County MO.jpg for 2025 Fifty-Six–Larkin tornado, with permission from the copyright holder on April 7.

I'm wondering if any updates are available. If so, then let me know.

Have a good day. Eranston (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Permission sender got a reply the next day but never answered any more. Krd 04:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi admin,

It seemed that the copyright holder didn't notice because he was storm chasing recent severe weather events.

He said he couldn't find anything, so either resend a new email or I don't know what.

Thank you for your cooperation. Eranston (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

He asked whether the email from "Alfred Neumann" is the one he should reply to. Eranston (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the problem. Is the e-mail a reply to what they sent? Does it contain a question? If both are Yes, likely they expect an answer to the question. Krd 10:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I explained it to him. Eranston (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: the copyright holder claimed he has responded to your email. Notify me if something's amiss.

Thank you for your time, admin. Eranston (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no answer from them in ticket:2026040810014969. Krd 06:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

He did respond he said. What if you mistook for something else? You could also double check for reassurance. Eranston (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright so something went wrong with the inbox as the email he needed to reply wasn't able to be found. Weird. Eranston (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:VP U Nyo Saw.jpg status check

Hello, I am uninvolved with this upload and am a license reviewer (though I edit Myanmar topics on Wikipedia). I've seen several accounts upload this image, yet this upload has EXIF. Since it was uploaded on April 8 and the VRT backlog is only 10 days, I was wondering if I can get a status check. Thank you. TEMPO156 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

We are unable to search efficiently. Please provide the ticket number. Krd 06:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I have access to ticket numbers as I am not a member of the VRT team nor the uploader. TEMPO156 (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am a license reviewer and highly skeptical that the Myanmar government actually contacted VRT. This will remain in all sorts of articles for ages if there's not even a ticket. Pinging Phoebe regina but they have made only this one upload so not sure if they'll respond. They added the VRT template. TEMPO156 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I wish we had some information about how the VRT queue is organized so license reviewers could help you. If you can search by email address domain, it probably has to come from an email ending in .gov.mm. TEMPO156 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

VRT get thousands of e-mail each day, the database is large and a search takes minutes, which we don't have time for. Please ask them for the ticket number and please ask them to put you in CC from the beginning. As a license reviewer, please consider to apply for VRT acceess. Krd 06:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah I didn't realize the search itself is too computationally intensive, I thought you just needed something to search for. I pinged them above, unlikely they will respond. So I may just give it a week or two and nominate for deletion if nothing changes. I would love to help with VRT and think I'd be good at it, but I was under the assumption it is a hard right to get that requires an enormous amount of experience and that even thousands of license reviews handled well is not enough to qualify me yet; what can you tell me about that? TEMPO156 (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Please contact me by e-mail. Krd 06:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 06:52, 24 April 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)

ticket:2025051310004728

I am confused about this ticket as it seems to mostly added to images which should have {{PD-old-100}} license. What do they claim to have copyrights to and what are the conditions for the image to be covered? Jarekt (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz, any input? I can't comprehend the ticket. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 09:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the files were uploaded by the Library of the University of Stuttgart using a custom licence template which I had built for them. This template has a parameter where you can choose a licence. I am pretty sure that they know that the images are in the public domain, but they did not realize that PD-old-120 would be the proper choice in this case. I would write to them and suggest that we replace all ce cc-0s by PD-old-120, okay? Mussklprozz (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)