I doubt the usefulness of putting the release generator directly here. The release has to come from the copyright-holder, not the Commons user, so this might encourage the wrong person to write a release. At the very first step of the generator, they need to indicate their role, and none of the choices is "I'm the Commons user who wants someone else to provide a release." It would be more useful to provide the URL https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries and explain to the Commons user that is what they need to send to the copyright-holder.

I doubt the usefulness of putting the release generator directly here.

I think it makes sense to have the link as in most cases the uploader is the one who also has the rights on the image but we need the verification. If the uploader is not the rights holder they can fill in the form in behalf of the rights holder and send it to them that they only need to forward the mail to the VRT address.

I would also add something like "Only use this if you already have the permission. Do not use this if you hope to get permission!" to the box to reduce misuse of this option.

Thanks so much for your input, really appreciate you taking the time to flag this.

@Jmabel The release rights email generator includes the option “I represent the copyright holder,” so our assumption was that a representative could send the email on the creator’s behalf. That’s why the copy also currently reads: “The creator of this work or their representative must send written consent…” @GPSLeo's comment also confirms our assumption.

@GPSLeo The selection already states, “I have the permission…” We can definitely consider reinforcing that message further, though in our experience, adding too much explanatory text reduces the likelihood of users reading it.

Always open to finding the right balance, happy to explore tweaks if needed!

@Sneha The proposed flow makes sense, except for 1 thing: that checkbox.
What it is showing is essentially 2 forms (one with a checkbox, then the licensing radios) under the "I have permission to uploads..." option.
All of that code is extremely generic and dictated by fairly simple config, so that Campaigns have flexibility in the options they show. Sadly, nesting 2 such forms (and handling that validation etc) is not something that is currently available and would require a significant amount of work to build - likely even updating the config schema, which may mean breaking (or manually updating) config for existing campaigns.
Anyway, the gist is: if we can get rid of that checkbox, which is not one that serves a functional purpose other than requiring explicit action from the user to acknowledge the importance of this all, that would avoid all of the above complications. Besides, the addition of the selection now also requires active action from the users, so maybe simply stating the importance as some sort of warning suffices?

@matthiasmullie I have added the new proposal in the description, based on the constraints you outlined. It removes the checkbox, however it now uses a warning style notice and highlights the deletion of media part if the email is not sent in 30 days. That should provide an equivalent level of clarity as checkbox.

Looks great - that seems feasible enough :)

One small thing: The warning box says deleted but the warning to provide an author says removed. It should be the same for both. I think deleted is better.

@GPSLeo Updated the proposal with consistent wording.