Template talk:BollywoodHungama

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reviewer[edit]

There is a discussion here [1] regarding how to verify uploads. It has NOT yet been decided to delete images after seven days so do not worry :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "It will be deleted within seven days if not done so." so we do not make someone panic or risk that admins start to delete the images. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaFMreview[edit]

New template created for IndiaFM images please check it Template:IndiaFMreview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpkpm007 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Old one works with license reviewer script [2]. --MGA73 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally when we review files we just add a new template saying that file is reviewed. On these files the review template is build in the license template. That is done to make sure, that all files uploaded with the license template will be reviewed.

So far the review was done by adding a "|status=confirmed|reviewer=<name>" to the {{Cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM}}. That could make the review hard for new reviewers. Also there is no option to fail files other than mark them as a copyvio or with a "no permission".

User:Dpkpm007 introduced a new template {{IndiaFMreview}} to be used (to replace the other one I asume). Most of it looked ok but is still talked about "Flickr" and "the license". If we are to change the system I suggest we start with a discussion if we want one template to include both the source, the license and the review, or we want the review to be in a separate template (so reviewed files have 2 templates).

If we only want one template I suggest we use the old name that is mentioned in the OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear wording[edit]

"Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it - please check before you upload." <- Check what? Or with whom? --Bensin (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link collection[edit]

Serious issue[edit]

Previous day I've successfully tagged File:Filming of Rockstar film.jpg for speedy deletion and today File:Filming of Barfi!.jpg this one. Now its even more concerning because these two were reviewed by in my opinion by one of the most trusted Indian OTRS members, Sreejith K and Dharmadhyaksha and went unnoticed for a year. I would advise new users to use caution while uploading such files, more so if they are from film sets. Such copyright-infringement is not expected from BollywoodHungama. Soham 08:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear template[edit]

The template lists some examples of images which can be uploaded. Is the list meant to state that anything which is © Bollywood Hungama is OK whereas anything which is © someone else isn't OK? w:File:Bollywoodhungamalogo.png doesn't match the examples in the template, but it is obvious that Bollywood Hungama is the copyright holder. Does the licence cover that image? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Bollywood Hungama has not given a blanket CC-BY license to all of their copyrighted works; I haven't seen the ticket myself, but from what I've been told it only applies to photos taken by their own photographers at Bollywood Hungama parties/events. I'd be very surprised if their branding IP was included. —RP88 17:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the set pics[edit]

Does this license allow on the set pics? Found a number of on the set pics which were deleted but later on undeleted. See here under heading Bollywood Hungama "film sets" images. Boseritwik (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Or else they wouldn't have been undeleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do read section Serious Issue posted above User:Dharmadhyaksha.Boseritwik (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable[edit]

As worded, this template would make an image unacceptable to Commons:

"[The image] is provided with a direct link to the source on the Bollywood Hungama website."

That says that if BH takes an image off its web site, as it has done recently for some Commons images, we can no longer keep it. That, effectively, would make the license revocable, which we do not allow.

Fortunately, the OTRS ticket which is the basis for this template does not have this requirement, so I think we can simply remove it. I will do so unless someone objects. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Jameslwoodward), what I understand is that the image has a free license if those 5 conditions are met at the time of license review. It don't care whether the link is dead or alive after that, as in all our license reviewed files. Jee 11:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jee, the CC-BY license requires attribution in a reasonable manner, but does not require anything else. So even if the copyright holder had asked for this, they can't have both a CC-BY license and require this link. With that said, I see nothing in the OTRS ticket which has this requirement -- although, I will admit that the ticket is a bit of a mess and I may have missed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Datestamp missing[edit]

Using the syntax instructed at Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama:

{{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama|status=confirmed|reviewer=~~~}}

the template hands off to {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama/confirmed|~~~}}, which yields:

This image, which was originally posted to Bollywood Hungama, was reviewed by the administrator or reviewer DMacks (talk), who confirmed that it was available on BollywoodHungama.com on that date.

The message says "on that date", but there is no datestamp visible--use of three tildes inserts my username only. Should the instructions say |reviewer=~~~~, where four tildes yields:

This image, which was originally posted to Bollywood Hungama, was reviewed by the administrator or reviewer DMacks (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC), who confirmed that it was available on BollywoodHungama.com on that date.[reply]

Or should {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} have a separate |date=~~~~~ field for five tildes (or auto-populated by {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY2}}), which is then passed to {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama/confirmed}}? DMacks (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the script to review them, it creates the second version. The instructions are probably wrong, but the wording is itself ugly. Reventtalk 00:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about possibly deleting many or all files with this template[edit]

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Template:BollywoodHungama --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12#Template:BollywoodHungama --GRuban (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation[edit]

Hello @GRuban, Red-tailed hawk, and all others, we are having a discussion on VRT Cafe about possible deprecation of this template given the inaccuracy in permissions from a long time. If any VRT agent is watching this page, please contribute to the discussion so that we can stop a bulk of copyrighted material from getting uploaded to Commons under this outdated ticket. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to the VRT wiki, could it be only open to active VRT agents? If so, that's not a great place to have this discussion. --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: You don't have any access to VRT-Wiki. I really hope that we have this discussion publicly here or on the VRT Noticeboard. Pinging @Jeff G. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi I concur with your analysis.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban, @Jeff G., @Red-tailed hawk: I've moved the entire discussion to just below this thread. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permission deprecation[edit]

This dicussion has been copied/moved entirely from VRT Cafe. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered a discussion I had at Commons concerning Bollywood Hungama files. There has already been a thread here in past, [Cafe], and subsequent discussions on Commons, here, there are a plenty of files uploaded afterwards on Commons with no justifications whatsoever. You might want to see this. Given this, the previous permission ticket should be overruled in my opinion and a new policy should be adopted until we get a explicit justification. Pinging concerned agents including @Jeff G. and @CptViraj. Looking forward to having a firm resolution to this. We cannot seriously accept files where copyright is suspicious but yeah we had once accepted a permission in past. The past permission does not make any sense given this much of imprecision. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheAafi: Unless we get firm permission on Ticket:2008030310010794, we need to move forward on explaining to Yann, overruling the previous permission, stopping new uploads with c:Template:BollywoodHungama, deprecating that template, deleting files tagged with it, and finally replacing it with a copyvio tag. I have been reluctant to do that myself for reasons of Commons politics (not being an Admin there or here yet). Justification by a Commons Admin or VRT Admin would help smooth things over.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., Deprecating c:Template:BollywoodHungama is all that could help us here imo and I feel we have consensus to do that given the previous discussions. A VRT admin, possibly Krd, who is a 'crat and an admin on Commons as well, can update the template. This permission is outdated and we cannot fill Commons with a plethora of copyrighted images. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TheAafi: I can technically deprecate the template (as a template editor), but it would help to have consensus for that here, to wit the following.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Could you please explain the reason for this vote? This template exists since March 2008‎, and there never was any opposition from BH until now. BH not responding to email is not a valid reason for a permission which was given 15 years ago. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has a base. Please take some time and go through Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12#Template:BollywoodHungama ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of anything there. BH sells images, so it is not surprising that these images could be found elsewhere. Yann (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious about the "before" in this discussion. @MGA73, do you have anything to add to this discussion? If BH sells images, it would happen that the images are uploaded elsewhere afterward not "earlier than BH". We seriously need to put a "pause" on this ticket-permission until issues like this are sorted out. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no absolute contradiction here. If a photographer works for, or sells images to, several organisations, the pictures could be found on several sources. We don't know what are the details of the contract between them, so we can only speculate about possible licensing agreements. Yann (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the main problem is not the permission but that there have been cases where we had reason to doubt that the photos on the website is actually taken by photographers from BollywoodHungama. So even if we get a new mail saying in a perfect way that they agree to everything it would still not remove the problem completely.
As far as I know we never had any complaints from BollywoodHungama or other claiming that they have the copyright for the photos. That is no good proof but it does give us an indication that there are not big copyvio problems related to BollywoodHungama.
So yes there are some doubt and things could be better. The main question is how sure do we want to be? COM:PRP says we should act if there is "significant doubt". To me it means that we should not delete because there is a few fishy files. If its 10 out of 100 k files (or how many they have on their website) I would not worry. But if it is 1,000 files I would start to worry. Anyone have an idea how big the problem is?
Long post, in short: Hmmmm good question. --MGA73 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: In addition to the 16,804 files in Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama, there are 2,253 files in subcats of Category:Bollywood Hungama files by uploader. There are also 126 pages in Category:Bollywoodhungama.com related deletion requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the 126 pages ended with delete. And some of the deleted files are probably a result of uploaders not understanding that the permission was never valid for all files from Bollywood Hungama. I think if it is 100 out of 19k files it is not a big enough issue to delete all files. But its perhaps a big enough issue to check if the wording of the template is good enough. Not much help I know :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging also C1K98V per User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2020/November#Bollywood Hungama files. I tried to contact Bollywood Hungama in February 2021, to no avail. A nonspecific reference to "the Creative Commons licenses" in 2018 is just not specific enough.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riana: On what basis did you initially choose {{Cc-by-3.0}}? I couldn't find a specific license or version number when I checked Ticket:2008030310010794, or I would not have written to the owner.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi@Jeff G.@MGA73@Yann final thing to consider, is the VRTS permission from 2008 binding in all files from the beginning, or to some specific files only. One red flag I observed is the copyright statement at the bottom of the Bollywood Hungnama website claiming "all rights reserved". So this should also be considered. A new clarification from Bollywood Hungnama is needed if the 2008 VRTS permission is still valid for all files or only applicable to a set of files but not all others. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the template says, it is only applicable to images of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India. Specifically, Hungama sometimes has images about Bollywood events in London or in Dubai. These are not covered by the permission. Yann (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the photos have source urls that no longer exist on HB, and aren’t in the Wayback Machine. How are we meant to verify who took the photos and whether they are actually owned by HB? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, what is the specific wording of the permission granted in the VRTS ticket? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further concern: I have been through a number of images, and the source URLs are no longer valid and they are not archived by the Wayback Machine. How sre we meant to know who took the photos? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons version[edit]

The VTRS ticket doesn’t state what version of Creative commons these images are licensed under. Unless we can get this clarified, it invalidates all image licensing - after all, how do we know they don’t mean CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of Template:BollywoodHungama (!votes)[edit]

  1. Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support as proposer. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support Per the discussion above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose There is no evidence that the permission and the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Oppose It's a tough call, and I've definitely nominated a few Bollywood Hungama files for deletion that look like they're from other sites, but we have so many files under this license (15,000! from looking at Category:Files_from_Bollywood_Hungama) that I'd really not want to delete them all, if there is any way around it. --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on some previous discussions, I really have no problems with previous media but with whatever is unreviewed. I mean, at the least, we can put a precautionary headline in the template that can aware the license-reviewers of some of these problems so that they look around before giving the files a green signal. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support listing warnings; I tried to give details in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12#Template:BollywoodHungama. It's a tough choice all around. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAafi, I believe that license reviewers diligently perform all necessary steps before marking a file as reviewed. Therefore, there should be no doubt about their conduct. Additionally, only a few editors review uploads from BH, and I hold them in high regard. I have personally learned a great deal from their expertise. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support - I recommend adjusting the template, as it is only applicable to Parties & Events in India. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't what it already says? of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India; Yann (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Yann, I would like to clarify that under the BH license, only Bollywood Parties & Events in India are permitted on Commons. I have personally uploaded files that were part of Bollywood sets and were deleted after discussion. I suggest adjusting the template accordingly and implementing an edit filter that triggers a warning, encouraging license reviewers to thoroughly monitor foreign location uploads. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 17:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @C1K98V: What does the ticket say? Is it different from what the template says? Yann (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support given there are 100+ images that were deleted, I am concerned enough that the Bollywood Hungama has real reliability issues when it comes to guaranteeing their content is compatible with Commons licensing requirements. That we have so many images from them heightens my concerns, because accepting even more will make the review of an already massive collection bigger all the time. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: We have a permission with clear limits for the last 15 years. I don't see what issue you are referring to. Yann (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s nice of them, but it sounds like they have images they publish that they don’t have the rights to. Examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahurat of Koi Mil Gaya.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aishwarya Rai at 64th Annual International Cannes Film Festival (11).jpg. I’m sure there are more if I mine the deletion requests for HB. It would be therefore irrelevant if they gave us permission or not. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both cases are clearly defined in the permission and the template. The permission only covers pictures made by Hungama photographers, so derivative works are not included, and only pictures taken in India, so pictures taken in Cannes, France, are not included. There are errors by reviewers, it doesn't invalidate the template or the permission. Yann (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it state on the BH website which photographer took the photo, and where does it state that it is a BH photographer? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All pictures under Parties & Events in India are made by BH photographers, except when otherwise specified. Yann (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And given that the source URLs for many of these are no longer valid, how would we know who took these photos? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also why we have a review process. Yann (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. That actually is persuasive. Just one final question, in the VTRS permission, they specifically said that the images can be licensed under Creative Commons? If so, which version? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. I can't read the ticket now, and I don't remember what was in it. Is the CC version not mentioned in the ticket? Yann (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yann: It is not.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is problematic. How do we know what license they want us to apply? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: We don't. That's why I asked.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So does this invalidate the VTRS ticket? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: Yes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose without a clear proposal on what exactly is to be deprecated. The original permission is clearly valid for at least some images, so the answer cannot be "all of them". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it valid if the VTRS ticket doesn’t specify the Creative Commons license version? What if the version first allow for commercial usage? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The VRTS ticket indicates "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff G. can you confirm? Above you said it didn’t have a version. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2 and @King of Hearts: In my 2021 email exchange with the principal following and in reference to the archived discussion Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12#Template:BollywoodHungama, the organization was not able to comprehend our requirement of confirmation of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY-3.0) license in the template, as opposed to "the Creative Commons licenses" specified in his email message of 05/02/2018 05:05, as quoted by Aaron Green 02/05/2018 02:33. Those timestamps appear to correspond to the same day, 5 February 2018, in different timezones.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we don’t have confirmation at all. We are now in a situation where we have thousands of images without any clear indication of appropriate permission.
    This is a huge problem. We need a decision on this extremely awkward and unfortunate situation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: Yes, my decision is to delete all the files. That should come as no surprise to the principal, I warned him that this could happen three years ago after he neglected to confirm the license and version to Aaron Green six years ago.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, what do we need to do to kick this off? It seems like a huge risk to the project. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see this discussion proving anything. In 2 of the 3 cases, the images are still on BH website, while they are not available on the other links. It is perfectly possible to license a low resolution with watermark under a CC license, and a better or high resolution under a different agreement. Nothing in these examples invalidates the CC license we have from BH. Moreover deleting 17,000+ images because there are a few images with uncertain sources looks to me throwing the baby with the bathwater. It is an extreme overreaction. Yann (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of them are under a specific CC license. As Jeff G. says, they have never advised what CC license they are using. How is this an overreaction? Unless, of course, you are aware of what CC license they are specifying. No offense, but your response seems like an extreme under reaction. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that we have a template with a permission for a CC license for the last 16 years which wasn't approved by the copyright holder? And they have never complained? King of Hearts above says that VRTS ticket indicates "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License". Where does that come from? Yann (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It very much looks that way. Jeff G. Has access to VTRS and he says there is no stated version. I know that sounds unpalatable, but here we are. In fact, it looks like people actively reached out to them to clarify over the years and they never have.
    whether they have complained or not is irrelevant. We have an invalid license permission, now we have to fix this. If the principle refuses to clarify what license they want us to use, then that’s not our problem except for the fact that we probably need to delete all their images.
    If the principle clarifies in writing what version CC license they granted, this wouldn’t be a problem. They haven’t and for some reason seem to be refusing to do so.
    So yes, we have a template with permission for a CC license for the last 16 years which wasn’t approved by the copyright holder. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reached out the Indian cinema task force and the Hindi page about the subject to see if some local people could help. Yann (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. If we can get the permissions sorted, this will all become a moot point. I would obviously prefer this a resolution than deleting thousands of photos. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: Sadly, I no longer have access to VTRS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please see the text where the copyright holder gave us CC 3.0 permissions? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: "Photo released by IndiaFM/Bollywood Hungama under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. All photographs used by this site with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by their own photographers and released under this license." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: In which Article of ticket:2008030310010794 might someone with access find that specific license?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:BollywoodHungama&oldid=872719625"