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: 3 days (graph) update

Start a new discussion

Shortcuts: Commons:VRT/N • Commons:VRTN

ticket:2015112710013066

This ticket refers to a lot of memorial images taken from an apparently minor 2015 Facebook gallery of inspirational posters with photographs and quotations.

Taking one of those posters, File:Malcolm-muggeridge.jpg, it shows https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/english-journalist-author-and-television-personality-news-photo/3432143, a 1959 Stringer photo by Derek Berwin, via Getty Images. The photo has been subsequently cropped down from the Facebook poster to illustrate en:Malcolm Muggeridge, crediting the Facebook page for the portrait.

What does the ticket say? Is it just the owner of the Facebook account confirming they've released the posters you can see on their Facebook page under a CC-licence? Belbury (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury, this is in Ukranian so I can't help unfortuntely. Pinging @Ahonc. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 04:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This permission is from Ukrainian Institute of National Memory for files about Holodomor from their site and facebook galleries. @Antanana: got that permission. She may have more info.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket #2015020310012351

ticket:2015020310012351

This ticket from 2015 if I understood correctly covers the images in Files provided by the Museo del Bicentenario. Most of the images are either old official photographs, pictures of objects from the museum, etc. However, there are other that I think should not be covered by it, for example File:Museo del Bicentenario - "¡Basta!" por Carlos Terribili.jpg is a painting from 2011 or File:Museo del Bicentenario - Revista PBT.jpg, File:Museo del Bicentenario - "Asunción del Presidente Arturo Illia".jpg that are caricatures published in magazines, etc. Does the ticket have a permission from the real artists or their heirs? Because museums usually own objects, but rarely their copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that the ticket provides permission for the images, not the underlying works. However, I do not speak Spanish. This ticket was previously discussed in Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#Spanish ticket check. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a VRT ticket

Hi! I recently instructed a third party to forward an email chain to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 18 December - ticket:2024121710009651; they received a reply, requesting further information about which specific media files on Commons they were authorizing; now, should I be uploading all of the files with the Template:permission pending template?

I believe the email I sent was referencing both a) a large number of files and b) potential for new files to be uploaded; would each of these need to be approved independently by the copyright holder or is there a template we would be able to create for this? (such as Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission or Template:PD-NCGov-legislator photo)

Thanks - and sorry that I'm asking so many questions! Staraction (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-WVGov-legislature photos}} has been created. I would suggest not uploading any files until the copyright holder can verify that the information in the template is correct. When you upload the files, please include the custom license template and {{Licensereview}} so they can be checked by a license reviewer. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction: Does the copyright holder still intend to provide the permission? If yes, please encourage them to answer our questions in the ticket. Krd 11:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd I'm not entirely sure, as I've not received a response from them either. I understand this may result in the ticket being closed. Apologies for the inconvenience. Staraction (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2012011710005331

ticket:2012011710005331 added to the file below by non VRT volunteer:

As far as I can see the situation is not clear. see:

The point is that the ticket already added to 573 files. If it's ok, maybe it's worth to create License template as User:MGA73 suggested. -- Geagea (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we agree that the ticket is okay for old files but perhaps not for new files. So I made Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-Medija centar Beograd. Let me know what you think. But someone should really check the ticket because it was long ago since I read it (Google Translate).

I suggested to stop using the permission because those that was involved in it earlier think that it may not be as good as we would require today. But I'm open to let it have no end-date. --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dungodung, your opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed, I might have said this in an earlier thread of similar nature a few years back. This type of permission wouldn't be accepted nowadays, since it's a blanket confirmation for the whole website, and it's not certain that the person that gave the permission really knew what they were doing. I would honestly void this and perhaps it makes sense to approach MC again to ascertain whether this practice of using their images can continue, in which case we could create something more formal (maybe even include WMRS, CC @Gorana Gomirac (VMRS)). Filip (§) 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Album covers by YG Entertainment (ticket:2013102510001373)

Is it okay to upload high-resolution versions of these album covers? (e.g. replace File:2NE1 2nd Mini Album Cover.jpg with this one from Apple Music)
Please check which artists have been approved in the OTRS ticket, and whether it's acceptable to upload other albums by the same artists that have not been uploaded yet. Is uploading allowed only for these six artists—2NE1, Big Bang, Winner, Se7en, Blackpink, and Jennie—or are there additional approved artists? (Winner and Blackpink did not debut in 2013.) Are all albums released under the name of YG Entertainment authorized for upload regardless of the release date? (If that's the case, what happens in the case of albums released in collaboration with another company, rather than just YG Entertainment?)--Namoroka (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. I found files for discussion at enwiki in 2022 and it seems that every album covers published by YG Entertainment after October 25, 2013 is allowed. However, this still seems like an incredibly wild claim. Many users are unaware of this fact and are still uploading files on local wiki under fair use.--Namoroka (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namoroka, I would say that the ticket is invalid or at least clarification is needed from YG Entertainment. We recieved permission release in 2013 but it was not verified/finalised. Krd, Xia and MdsShakil, do you have any comments to add? Looking at search results it is used on 61 files. ~~I checked a few and they seem to be added by non-VRT users.~~ Ratekreel (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check previous talks: Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2022#ticket:2013102510001373, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2016#File:E (Big Bang album).jpg, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#Ticket:2013102510001373, en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Special:ListFiles/Ygent ebiz--Namoroka (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an inquiry to YG Entertainment for clear confirmation.--Namoroka (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since I sent a request to YG Entertainment, but I have yet to receive a response. (Perhaps, unlike in 2013, they are no longer interested in Wikipedia.) On en:User talk:Ygent ebiz, Teemeah (now Xia) inquired whether the request could be applied to other projects besides the local Hungarian Wikipedia, but Teemeah was unable to get a response due to a full mailbox. At that time, Teemeah was already aware of the ambiguity about the email. In my opinion, unless specific usage requirements are stated in the current VTRS ticket, the ticket should not be considered valid. The English Wikipedia community also raised doubts about the validity of the ticket. As long as YG Entertainment does not clearly specify, this issue will likely persist on and on. The phrase "YG Entertainment allows the use of YG Entertainment album covers ..." may seem clear, but it is actually very ambiguous. It's unclear whether this applies to albums of music groups that did not exist in 2013, albums released by subsidiaries of YG Entertainment, or albums co-produced by YG Entertainment and other companies.--Namoroka (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has YG Entertainment responded yet? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackpink and Jennie examples you mention is due to simplicity, not because they have been relicensed by YG Entertainment. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But the current VTRS ticket is still unclear. If we cannot received any clarification from YG, I think we should not use these album covers (for 2NE1, Big Bang & Seven).--Namoroka (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding this here: w:WP:FFD/2022 November 25#File:Square One - Blackpink.jpg, an additional discussion on the English Wikipedia in November–December 2022. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation Regarding Licensing and Commercial Use of a Public Domain File (ticket #2008012110017088.)

Dear Volunteer Response Team,

This is Jintaek from South Korea.

I am reaching out to seek clarification regarding the licensing and usage of the following file listed on Wikimedia Commons:

- File URL:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op.18-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg

According to the page, the file is marked as being in the public domain, both for the music and the recording. Additionally, the following statement is mentioned:

"The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2008012110017088."

I am planning to use a 1-minute segment of this recording as background music for a video project.

The video will be used for the following purposes:

- Displayed in offline public spaces in South Korea

- Shared on various social media platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, WeChat, Xiaohongshu, and Weibo

Before proceeding, I would like to confirm the following details to ensure compliance with the licensing terms:

1. Commercial Use

- Can this file be used commercially without requiring additional permissions or paying fees?

2. Copyright and Permissions

- Does the licensing explicitly cover all intended uses mentioned above, including sharing on social media platforms and use in public spaces?

- Can you provide any further details about the archived correspondence (ticket #2008012110017088) or confirm that this file is entirely free of copyright restrictions?

3. Attribution Requirements

- Is attribution mandatory for this file in all contexts, even if it is in the public domain? If so, how should the attribution be provided if it is not possible to display credits directly in the video?

4. Geographical Scope and Duration

- Are there any geographical or time-based restrictions on the use of this file?

Your assistance in clarifying these points would be greatly appreciated, as it will help me ensure compliance with Wikimedia Commons’ guidelines.

Thank you for your time and support.

I look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Jintaek

P.S.

If additional clarification is needed or if I need to take any specific steps to verify this file's licensing, please let me know.

I deeply appreciate the effort of the Volunteer Response Team in maintaining such a valuable resource. Jintaek Lim (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jintaek Lim, the answer to your questions should be contained in the file description. However the link you gave leads into the void. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind clarification. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that the file should include a description of the source. So, as long as the source is properly attributed, there shouldn't be any issues with using it, correct? I appreciate your help, and here is the link again: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sergei_Rachmaninoff_-_piano_concerto_no._2_in_c_minor,_op._18_-_ii._adagio_sostenuto.ogg?uselang=ko Jintaek Lim (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jintaek Lim, as file description clearly says: "Musopen grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.". You can also read w:Public domain. Nemoralis (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Problem with newest Safari version

We have recently received several emails from German Mac users that the texts appear in a small font (about 10 pt), and unfortunately the font cannot be enlarged any more.

The problem seems to be connected with the latest update of the Safari browser. I advised the users to try Firefox instead, and there in deed the problem does not occur.

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tested on Safari Version 18.3 (20620.2.4.11.5) and can not confirm this. The default font size decreased recently but not due to a Safari update but due to the new default skin. But zooming in on the tab worked for me. GPSLeo (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket:2011082910012791

I suppose this ticket applies for all works by Albert Klijn. A notification on Category:Albert Klijn would be very helpful. I uploaded File:Albert Klijn - Poster Regata.jpg, which needs a notification too (or, if the ticket gives no permission, has to be deleted). Fransvannes (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is only for File:De Dageraad der Menschheid.png Nemoralis (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ticket #2012101110013816 - MDOT

Hello. I uploaded a couple files that I was unsure of the copyright status on. I posted a help request on the village pump copyright section. To summarize: I uploaded files produced by the Michigan Department of Transportation thinking that they were in the public domain because they were a state government agency. Learned that it is simply not the case, oops. I then went to the wikipedia page for Interstate 696 and they had another image taken by the department with a ticket number. I basically need to know if it for just the single image of Oak Park or if is a blanket request for that applies to all things produced by the department. If it is just for the one image then I can probably get another permission request for the PDF (I emailed them but it is Friday so may not get a response until Monday).

(I am only linking this file because the other 6 files are the 6 pages of the PDF but extracted as images of File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards.pdf. If a free license is given then the other 6 images would automatically be covered as well.)

Thank you. Jake01756 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The permission is only for File:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg Nemoralis (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got a email from MDOT granting that the file I uploaded is in the public domain. But it was just a simple “They are in the public domain”. Is this enough for the permissions or do we need the full VRT release? Jake01756 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this file been publicly noted as being in the public domain? If so, yes, it is enough. Nemoralis (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemoralis: I know VRT don't normally accept forwarded emails, but given that this is an assertion of PD, not a license, is this perhaps a case where Jake could forward that, then someone from VRT could reply to both Jake and the sender at MDOT to confirm its validity? - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to do the email forwarding thing? The files have now been deleted from the project as it has been a little slow (they can easily be undeleted so not a huge deal). Jake01756 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has not been publicly noted. They have agreed to release it into the public domain and are working on using the VRT generator.

They are only releasing the main PDF file. The other images I uploaded were extracted from it so once it is public domain those will be covered under the same ticket as well. Jake01756 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the statement they gave me:

"All documents prepared by the Consultant under the Contract, including tracings, drawings, estimates, specifications, field notes, investigative studies, and other relevant documents, are the property of MDOT." Jake01756 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

e-signature releases

I'm exploring more streamlined ways for people to release their photos, in the vein of the interactive release generator. Through WikiPortraits, we've been meeting individuals and organizations who would like to release their work, and we're interested in minimizing effort in the release process to make it more scalable.

Many people and organizations (including WMF) use e-signature services like Docusign. I'm not sure if there is any precedent here – would VRT agents accept releases submitted through an e-signature service? The form would remain the same as the standard release template (with links to the uploaded files on Commons), and would be sent to the copyright owner's official email address for review. Once filled out and signed by the owner, I would send the signed document over to VRT. The service would verify that the signer accessed the form from their official email address. I know the expectation is that releases are sent to VRT from an official email address, but given that e-signature services can effectively verify when a form has accessed and signed via a particular email address, I’m hoping this approach would be acceptable to VRT (especially as these services are now widely recognized as legally valid).

For the record, we likely would use an open source alternative to DocuSign that follows various e-signature standards (UETA, ESIGN, eISAD).

Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be more easy to use difficult signing process and a peson in the middle instead of just letting the copyright holder speak to the VRT directly? Krd 06:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the biggest advantage is it makes it easier for a Wikimedian to drive the process, instead of having to hope that the third party properly drafts an email, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 08:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You contact the copyright holder by e-mail. They forward their response to the VRT and put/keep you in CC. I cannot imagine anything more simple. Krd 08:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Jmabel said. Sure, forwarding an email isn't difficult, but a Docusign-esque form with pre-populated filenames makes the process a bit more seamless. On my end (as a Wikimedian), I can better guide and monitor each release. On the releaser's end, they get a clear action item in their inbox: open, fill out, sign, and submit. No going back-and-forth between instructions, no figuring out the filenames, no copy-pasting, no remembering to CC, etc. Docusign is familiar to many and it minimizes the chance of errors and drop-off. I've had people that, after I describe the release generator and emailing process to them, ask why we don't just use Docusign (or similar). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2020112910005534

Hello,

I need more information about an image on commons for a validation - there is an delete thread of this image.

Thank you. Triomint69 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What information do you need? Nemoralis (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: Special:PermanentLink/1002559387#An accurate quotation from the email in the VRT system? - (ticket:2020112910005534) Nemoralis (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Help getting official Permission for a picture.

Hi everyone. And especially (User:Nemoralis)

I am currently working on a Wikipedia article and I got permission from Marisa Scheinfeld the Founder and Project director for the Borscht Belt Historical Marker Project. This is a non profit. She is also a legal representative for Steingart Associates which owns this image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Concord_News,_Kiamesha_Lake,_NY,_1964.jpg

They have given Wikipedia permission to use this image and we have been trying hard to get Wikimedia commons to approve this image.

Her email is: info@borschtbelthistoricalmarkerproject.org

She gave the bellow written permission to: photosubmission@wikimedia.org, but she attached the image and not the file link. She has since sent the file link, but has not heard anything back as of yet, so now the image appeaers to be in wikipedia limbo.

Can you please help us in anyway, and if you need any additional information, I and or Marissa would be happy to provide you with more info. Thank you.

Marissa's Message to photosubmission@wikimedia.org:

I hereby affirm that I represent Steingart Associates , the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Thanks everyone. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the ticket number. Krd 07:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the ticket system 100% works as I am still new at this, but I think the number is ticket:2025022810004474 Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2024100410007511

File:1978 Baatar performing in Georgia.jpg, File:Baatar ballet.jpg and File:Noroviin Baatar.jpg were just cross-wiki moved to Commons along with lots of other files by user Ng Huy Hoàng. Ng Huy Hoàng is a new account created on February 26, 2025, who doesn't appear to be a VRT member. It looks like Ng Huy Hoàng is mainly moving files tagged with {{Permission ticket}} so perhaps the moves are fine; however, the three files referenced above are tagged with {{Permission received}}, not "Permssion ticket" and have been tagged as such per since December 19, 2024.

These three files were uploaded locally to English Wikipedia on October 4, 2024, and tagged for speedy deletion per en:WP:F11 on the same day. Someone seems to have emailed VRT about them sometime after that, but this email had problems according to en:Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket #2024100410007511 and en:Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard/Archive 6#Ticket #2024100410007511. So, it seems unwise, at least to me, to move these three files to Commons if VRT is still unable to verify copyright holder consent.

Normally, English Wikipedia files tagged with {{No permission since}} are deleted five days after being uploaded if copyright holder consent can't be verified; when {{Permission pending}} or "Permission received" has subsequently been added to the such a file's file page, the inital five days is extended to thirty days for things to be resolved. These three files have been tagged for several months now and the issues with the ticket still don't seem to have been resolved. Perhaps discussions are still ongoing? Are they allowed to continue on as long as needed? At some point does VRT decide things just aren't going to be resolved to its satisfaction and the files are deleted? Should all further discussion about these files now take place on Commons since they've been moved here? Can the English Wikipedia files now be deleted per en:WP:F8? Apologies for all the questions, but these files, as posted above, have been in limbo for quite some period of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2024121610007888

File:Dr. David Walt.jpg is another cross-wiki upload by Ng Huy Hoàng (see #Ticket #2024100410007511) that's been marked with {{Permission received}} since December 2024. Can this ticket be verified and this file kept? Can the local English Wikipedia now be deleted per en:WP:F8? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket mentions this file but permission has not been granted (closed as nonsuccessful). I think it can be deleted. Nemoralis (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 03:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Asaf Simchoni 1st Battalion Commander Yiftakh.jpg

(ticket #2020051110005981) It appears compressed (squished) a bit. Is it safe to upload a version stretched by 50px as a new file? JayCubby (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2025030310009175

Please check the correspondence on this image. Who did it come from? There are several things weird about this:

It claims that the "author" is Philip C. Reiner, which is clearly not the case. He is the image subject, and this is not a selfie.
"Source" says "He sent it to me for this article". "He" obviously is meant to mean Philip C. Reiner, and "me" is the uploader. So, quite clearly, the uploader is not the photographer/copyright holder either.
The exif data say that a photographer by the name of Juliane Eirich is the author and copyright holder. Do you actually have her consent for a CC 4.0 license?

Note that we are talking German copyright (Urheberrecht) here: non-transferable. Thanks, --87.150.7.252 12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is valid. --Krd 13:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick reply. Not quite resolved though: Why doesn't the name of the photographer appear as "author"? This is at least misleading. --87.150.7.252 14:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they waived their right to be mentioned as photographer. Krd 16:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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