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. | |
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
|
Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN
An accurate quotation from the email in the VRT system? - (ticket:2020112910005534)
[edit]Is the text located under this file license an accurate quotation from the email in the VRT system?
- Ticket Number = 2020112910005534
Is this quotation in French accurate (see below):
- « Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. »
Agnes BROUARD Chargée de la valorisation des collections Studio Harcourt Paris'
Translation to English (see below):
- "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now owned by the Ministry of Culture, kept by an entity called Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine and disseminated by the photographic agency RMN-Grand Palais. This photographic collection is not subject to a property right so anyone who has a portrait of the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet. ”
Agnes BROUARD
In charge of the enhancement of collections Studio Harcourt Paris'
Thank you for verifying this possible VRT text, -- Ooligan (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: as the original VRT agent who can probably translate the French text more accurately than me. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 18:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)- Thank you, @Matrix for pinging @Mussklprozz related to this French VRT Ticket question. Best Regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Matrix, @Ooligan: IMO the translation is correct. Mussklprozz (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the phrasing vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet is ambiguous, as well as its English translation above. Literally, it could mean: You can reuse a portrait which you found on the internet, which is obvious nonsense. the only sensible interpretation is you can reuse on the internet any portrait which you found (in the collection). Mussklprozz (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: What is the conclusion? Are you going to reopen the ticket? --Krd 02:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz, @Krd and @Matrix- If reopening the ticket helps to clarify as Mussklprozz wrote, "the only sensible interpretation is you can reuse on the internet any portrait which you found (in the collection)." This fresh interpretation of the French translation may have some bearing on the disscussion here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992). Pinging @Tisourcier Par courtoisie s'il vous plaît. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Krd, @Matrix, @Ooligan: If you think that my faith towards the client was inappropriate, I can write them again. Allow me for two weeks do so, since I am away the next two weeks (in France in deed). I have re-opened the ticket and put it on hold until Sept. 29. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz, @Krd and @Matrix- If reopening the ticket helps to clarify as Mussklprozz wrote, "the only sensible interpretation is you can reuse on the internet any portrait which you found (in the collection)." This fresh interpretation of the French translation may have some bearing on the disscussion here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992). Pinging @Tisourcier Par courtoisie s'il vous plaît. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: What is the conclusion? Are you going to reopen the ticket? --Krd 02:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the phrasing vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet is ambiguous, as well as its English translation above. Literally, it could mean: You can reuse a portrait which you found on the internet, which is obvious nonsense. the only sensible interpretation is you can reuse on the internet any portrait which you found (in the collection). Mussklprozz (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Matrix, @Ooligan: IMO the translation is correct. Mussklprozz (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Matrix for pinging @Mussklprozz related to this French VRT Ticket question. Best Regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Wdwd (discusión) 12:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
[edit]MOVED from Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team, clearly the wrong place. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
por favor reintegrar mis fotos borradas, sonde mi autoría. mi dispositivo multiplexor y su sistema de grabado de imágenes por medio de 5 cámaras especiales desarrolladas en mi laboratorio son de alta velocidad. solo graban videos. por eso tome una captura en momentos específicos que pueden graficar estados reales de la composición de la luz. puedo poner a disposición un enlace a mi OneDrive para que comprueben que esas imágenes son mías - https://1drv.ms/v/c/0394aa8157382055/EauaGYkt00NMtKC3iOtF5_8Bmp61FFx8SqsuYi9PYGJP-A Akayser1 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
END MOVED Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I'm not a VRT member, I'm a admin trying to help sort this out. I'm not certain this is a VRT issue at all, but I wanted it to be in a place where someone relevant might see it.
- Quick translation of the above into English; his style is a bit telegraphic, but I'm pretty sure I've understood correctly: "Please restore my erased photos, they are [sonde => son de] of my authorship. My multiplexer device and its image recording system by means of five special cameras, developed in my laboratory, are high-velocity. They only record videos. Because of this, one takes a screenshot in specific moments that can graph real states of light composition. I can put at [your] disposition a link to my OneDrive to prove the images are mine."
- Offhand, it sounds to me like this isn't about any existing ticket. Perhaps what needs to happen is for him to send confidential email to the usual VRT address for Spanish, containing that link to his OneDrive? Or does this need something else to happen? It looks like the deleted files were:
- File:Momento x 2.jpg
- File:Intermodulación x1.jpg
- File:No a la canselacion por face. Si a la Intermodulación de frecuencias de Partículas curvilíneas de energía Cuántica.jpg
- File:4 posición 4.jpg
- File:3 posición x.jpg
- File:2 posición dinámica 2 de cientos.jpg
- File:Multiplexor Cuántico.jpg
- File:Segunda union.jpg
- File:Fotones 2 posición.jpg
- File:Resultado de Intermodulación de flujo de fotones.jpg
- I didn't look at all the histories, so some might be different, but typically Omphalographer marked as possible copyright violation because "These are all obviously screenshots of a video, not own work," and WdWd deleted. It does look likely to me that these could be legitimate, and that the uploader could be the videographer.
- Please feel free to ping me if help is needed from a general admin rather than a VRT member. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Exacto! Muchas Gracias Akayser1 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Entiendo que las fotos son de tu autoría, y que son capturas de videos. Lo que no me queda claro es qué es Kayser-Cuantum C ni quién creó las imágenes del video. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Kayser cuantum C en el nombre de fantasía que he hecho para rotular el trabajo de investigacion generando imágenes reales. No son resultados de simulación por ordenador. En estas imagenes a mi parecer el foton copia ell recorido entre las dos orbitas del electron que lo genera. Asi su forma es algo similar a una C mayúscula. Por eso en vez de llamar quantum lo llamo Cuantum C. El experimento que realizó con el multiplexor me deja ver a mi parecer que los fotones no son ondas. Sino lo que dijo planck paquetes individuales de energía. Una especie de partícula individual de energía. Que tiene segun mi parecer al ver los videos, de ensamblarce unas a otras cercanas y en determinados momentos hacer cadenas que han confundido a muchos a creer que es una onda. El patron mal llamado de interferencias. No lo provoca cancelación por enfrentamiento de Fase. El patron observado es un espectro de intermodulacion. Que si pudiera subir un video se podría comprender mejor mi teoría.
- gracias 88.4.27.130 10:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Luis A Kayser: Please, given that this is a question of identity, log in when posting. May we presume that last paragraph came from you?
- Por favor, dado que esto es un asunto de identidad, inicia una sesión antes de escribir aquí. ¿Podemos presumir que el último párrafo fue escrito por usted? - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- hola, perdón por los errores. si, el ultimo párrafo lo escribí yo, pero desde el smartphone. en lo sucesivo tratare de usar el ordenador. ῀῀῀῀ Akayser1 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer and WdWd: Not sure if either of you read Spanish; if not, and if Google Translate isn't enough, I can translate more. It sure sounds to me like this really is the person who created these, even though a video was involved as an intermediate step in his process from his lab equipment to still images. Would you be willing to simply undelete, and if not what sort of evidence would you want? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Luis A Kayser: es posible subir un video. Véase Commons:Video/es. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Buenos días Jmabel. gracias por el dato de donde subir videos! he subido varios. por ejemplo este:
- Akayser1 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Entiendo que las fotos son de tu autoría, y que son capturas de videos. Lo que no me queda claro es qué es Kayser-Cuantum C ni quién creó las imágenes del video. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Exacto! Muchas Gracias Akayser1 (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
File:Storm passing through Moore, Oklahoma May 3, 1999.png & File:Storm passing through Bridge Creek, Oklahoma May 3, 1999.png
[edit]Can a VRT member remove the ticket/attribution tags on this image? It should be tagged with {{PD-NEXRAD}}, as U.S. weather radar images do not meet the threshold of originality (see this Village Pump/Copyright discussion for further info). Every U.S. weather radar image has been tagged under that PD-NEXRAD template, as the entire background data is 100% public domain (owned/created by the U.S. government), and a human does not interact with it, as the data becomes instantly available to the public / instantly placed in archives to be accessed. File:Tornadic classic supercell radar.gif is the exact same storm also seen from that same radar. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- As further proof, File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg was kept following a deletion request, as the data is PD and the only human interaction is the taking of the screenshot. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
File:Faye bezemer-1531129229.jpeg is covered under this ticket but as has been pointed out at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faye bezemer-1531129229.jpeg this is a DW of another photo, which is not covered under FOP. Does the ticket mention that the original photo was taken by the uploader? Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: . Krd 09:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I requested clarification in the ticket . When a response will be received, I will make a note on the DR. Ellywa (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
F-35C Deletion Request ticket:2016052110008897
[edit]Hi, the file File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg has VRT ticket ticket:2016052110008897. I suspect the file is not free/PD so submitted a DR (COM:Deletion requests/File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg#File:F-35C Lightning II at-sea trials 141104-N-ZZ999-017.jpg 2). Can a VRT member please check the ticket and validate whether appropriate permission from the photographer Andy Wolfe of Lockheed Martin was provided? Thanks, Consigned (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Consigned, I can't see anything such in this specific ticket. I can see this specific file is marked as PD on the source. The ticket includes a set of forwards including the emails that you been linked on the DR but I can't seem to find any permissions from the photographer. I guess it is been dealt with "courtesy" and "courtesy stuff on the website is also PD" per " all content - even those listed as 'Courtesy' are public domain and available for anyone to use." I don't think there is anything else that I can help with from the archives. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Aafi: Thanks for checking, I figured as much. I'll continue with the DR. Consigned (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Aafi: I found another similar case, could you take a look at ticket:2016052110008897 about the file File:USMC-06806.jpg to see if it has sufficient proof from Lockheed Martin that they have released the photo under a free license or PD? Consigned (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Consigned, no. Most stuff from the ticket is already here. It was poorly handled and I guess all VRTS approvals by Amitie 10g should be re-checked. The only statement that the ticket contains is "all content - even those listed as 'Courtesy' are public domain and available for anyone to use. There should be no hesitation on your end" from DVIDS. Regards, Aafi (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:USMC-06806.jpg. Regards, Aafi (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I'm doing my own search for US Government files with "Courtesy of" so will probably encounter more of Amitie 10g's VRT approvals. Consigned (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Consigned, no. Most stuff from the ticket is already here. It was poorly handled and I guess all VRTS approvals by Amitie 10g should be re-checked. The only statement that the ticket contains is "all content - even those listed as 'Courtesy' are public domain and available for anyone to use. There should be no hesitation on your end" from DVIDS. Regards, Aafi (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Aafi and Consigned: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:An F-35 Lightning II completes a flyover of USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000). (29774535153).jpg/VRT ticket:2016101910017989 Elisfkc (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Elisfkc, thanks. I'll take a look on this ticket in the morning. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Consigned, the ticket that @Elisfkc has mentioned is beneficial here. It supports keeping all of the F-35 files, per " All F-35 Lightning II photography and videography taken by contract photographers (Lockheed Martin, KBRwyle, etc.) in support of F-35 Lightning II flight test are official DoD imagery and in the public domain." as stated in the linked DR as well. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- If that's the case, which license tag should be applied to the files? The variants of {{PD-USGov}} do not apply since the files were not created by an employee of the US Government (contractors are excluded). Consigned (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Consigned, the ticket that @Elisfkc has mentioned is beneficial here. It supports keeping all of the F-35 files, per " All F-35 Lightning II photography and videography taken by contract photographers (Lockheed Martin, KBRwyle, etc.) in support of F-35 Lightning II flight test are official DoD imagery and in the public domain." as stated in the linked DR as well. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Elisfkc, thanks. I'll take a look on this ticket in the morning. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Aafi and Consigned: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:An F-35 Lightning II completes a flyover of USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000). (29774535153).jpg/VRT ticket:2016101910017989 Elisfkc (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Use of image
[edit]Hello. From reading the information on your site, it appears that I may use the image #2012051610007039 (man with 2 sons) for free. Is that correct? Please advise if I am misunderstanding the information. Thank you! Nolan Lewallen (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nolan Lewallen, please do not share email addresses/phone numbers this way. Could you please share a link to the image you are asking about? The ticket number that you have supplied talks about Commons:Bible Illustrations. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the image.
- https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gospel_of_Luke_Chapter_24-14_(Bible_Illustrations_by_Sweet_Media).jpg Nolan Lewallen (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nolan Lewallen, File:Gospel of Luke Chapter 24-14 (Bible Illustrations by Sweet Media).jpg is free to use but there are certain guidelines/limitations when you use files like this. This is released under CC BY-SA 3.0, and you have to follow the license terms when using the file. The terms as suggested are: "Attribute: You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.", "ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original", and "No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." Please make sure you follow these guidelines when using this file (whether commercially or non-commercially). Failing to follow these guidelines would be an infringement. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I will certainly comply, but what is "appropriate credit" in the case of this particular image, and how do I obtain a "link to the license"? Nolan Lewallen (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nolan Lewallen, appropriate credit is there on the file page. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aafi. 108.161.10.150 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nolan Lewallen, appropriate credit is there on the file page. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I will certainly comply, but what is "appropriate credit" in the case of this particular image, and how do I obtain a "link to the license"? Nolan Lewallen (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nolan Lewallen, File:Gospel of Luke Chapter 24-14 (Bible Illustrations by Sweet Media).jpg is free to use but there are certain guidelines/limitations when you use files like this. This is released under CC BY-SA 3.0, and you have to follow the license terms when using the file. The terms as suggested are: "Attribute: You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.", "ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original", and "No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." Please make sure you follow these guidelines when using this file (whether commercially or non-commercially). Failing to follow these guidelines would be an infringement. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Can someon with access to both tickets (info-commons and permissions) verify what is the conclusion of their content and provide information in this DR? Ankry (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- -) seems the permissions were granted in hurry - and no evidence/contract was sought how the permission sender owned the copyright. We don't find any message from photographer in the earlier email (for verification), yet Nouveau uses the term "we" in their email - Conclusion is that the person granting permissions was not allowed to do so because they themselves state they don't own the copyright and it stays with the photographer. If they themselves falsify their own previous statement, then we don't have any reason to keep the file. @Ankry, I'm traveling and won't be able to comment on the DR as well. Regards, Aafi (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)