Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2011

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

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Zac allan

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question - Can you describe the tasks you will do as a reviewer, and other courtesies you will be willing to do that are not required? ZooFari 02:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only want to check images from Flickr and mark them as "free"/"not free" in the system. If the license is too old and now it is different from what i see, i can set some template variations which is determined by what i see now. Here is written more of it, Template:Flickrreview. As i told that's the only work i will do. Thanks. - Zac allan (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I can't support right now. There's more to it than just checking the license, and it is not quite just a question of your honesty. It is also question of dedication and how much you will be willing to do. We have plenty of reviewers already that keep the backlogs low, and they don't just check the license. I don't feel comfortable opposing, however. ZooFari 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Anne-Sophie Ofrim

[edit]
Comments
Promoted per no objections, time passed. fr33kman -s- 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Beria

[edit]
Comments

Promoted. Though there was a question, there is no relation to license review. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

BarkingFish

[edit]
Comments

✓ promoted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Lymantria

[edit]
Comments

Promoted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Mono

[edit]
Comments
  • According to OTRS ticket #2008030310010794, bollywoodhungama.com images may be uploaded if the website is attributed and an exact link to the source is provided. This applies to images taken by bollywoodhungama.com photographers only. In response to the other question, I use a tool to upload most external images, which automatically reviews the upload, so that wouldn't be an issue. THENEWMONO (a real person) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted, no objections. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

The Interior

[edit]
Comments
  • Note Some of my ~5500 edits at en-WP have been image-related, so I do have experience with Wikimedia's copyright policies. But if more Commons editing is required for this position, I understand. I am trying to get more involved here, reviewing Flickr licenses seemed like a good place to start. Perhaps you could suggest some other backlog areas that need work in the Commons where I cold be of help. The Interior (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --ZooFari 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Morgankevinj

[edit]
Comments
  •  Support after  Question What kind of Creative Commons licenses can't we use on the Wikimedia Commons? What if a user re-licenses their work on Flickr after it has been uploaded to the Commons? THENEWMONO (a real person) 02:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial use or derivative works is not allowed on the Commons. In the shorthand Creative Commons license it is either ND or NC.
    • If the file is changed from a prohibited license to a permitted license, or to a less restrictive license(.ie CC-BY-SA to CC-BY), then that license may be used. But if a user changes the license to a prohibited license or more restrictive license(ie. CC-BY to CC-BY-SA), then it must be left unchanged on Commons, since they irrevocably released their rights. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Explain step by step the procedures you will do if you come across a non-free Flickr file. --ZooFari 04:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is licensed under a prohibited license on flicker, I will notify the user on their talk page, and give them time to change the license.(~7 days)
    • If the user clearly does not have the right to relicense the image, or does not change the license, I will tag it for speedy deletion. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Awiki100

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question If an image has a comment under it mentioning that it has been taken by someone other than the flicker account owner, what would you tag the image? If the image is of a building in a public place what copyright issue may apply? What licenses are permitted on the commons? Can you review your own uploads? MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. no 2. copyrighted logos on the building 3. cc-by and cc-by-sa 4. no --An (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2.[reply]

✘ Not promoted. Per votes above and time passed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

NickK

[edit]
Comments
  •  Support Seems to be a trusted fellow. I reviewed many of the files uploaded by him. There were only few discussed but no body's perfect. Electron  <Talk?> 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question If the license is changed after the review should the license change on commons? What licenses are excepted on commons? When can a photograph taken of a copyrighted building or artwork be uploaded to the commons? MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1, 2) We can change the license if the newer license is less "strong" then previous one. For example, if the user uploaded the photo under cc-by-sa-2.0 and later changed it to cc-by-2.0 or made them public domain (e.g. by adding relevant comment to the description of the photo), we can change the license. If the user changes from cc-by-2.0 to cc-by-sa-2.0, although both licenses are acceptable, changing the license does not make sense. If the user changes the license to -nc-, -nd- or ©, we should not change the license and can add {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. The licenses I mentioned in the previous sentence are excepted here, generic permissions for "use in Wikipedia" or "use for private purposes" are rejected as well.
    3) Generally a photo taken of copyrighted building or artwork can be uploaded to commons if relevant laws of the country of origin allow its distribution under a free license. But I have to note that the question is much more complicated as FOP norms are different for each country, we have concepts of trivial work (i.e. we can upload the photo if there is nothing original pictured) and de minimis (i.e. we can upload the photo if the object in question is not the main object in the picture with some other limitations). Plus we have problems with defining "artwork", finding copyright owner etc, and laws for paintings and buildings may be different as well (e.g. copyrighted paintings are in most cases not OK, and copyrighted buildings are quite often OK). It should be judged on case by case basis, it's difficult to find a one simple rule — NickK (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per answers to my questions. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Béria Lima msg 09:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lymantria (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per consensus above MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Adrignola

[edit]
Comments

✓ Done per no opposition and time passed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

VasilievVV

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question: If a flicker user changes the license the image after it passes the review, how should you respond? MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is changed into a more permissive license (e.g. CC-BY-SA -> CC-BY), I will change the license on Commons. If it is change to more restrictive license (e.g. CC-BY-SA -> CC-BY-SA-NC), I will keep the old license, because Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, and put {{Flickr-change-of-license}} on it. VasilievVV (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet - I think you could use some more activity before you are granted the review bit. Not only is your edit count low, but you have less than twenty edits this year. You have done a good job in the past. You have recently joined the OTRS team? If you keep up with the good work, especially in OTRS, you may want to definitely come back later if not promoted since OTRS people are the higher people of trustworthiness. Right now the only minor problem is activity which makes it difficult to judge on commitment. Thanks for volunteering, --ZooFari 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much active, but he is trusted and knows what he is doing, so I'm fine with him becoming a license reviewer... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Activity less important, but this might help a little. --ZooFari 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Snake311

[edit]
Comments
  • Here at commons, I'm trying to help with the license reviews. There isn't a lot of active reviewers, so one more helping hand couldn't hurt. In addition, I do extensive work with handling the file renaming backlog and patrolling any vandalism I may come across. By doing other areas of maintenance, I think it can give me a task and keep me busy. —stay (sic)! 12:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to grant Image reviewer permissions in nearly a week. ✘ Not done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Mys_721tx

[edit]
Comments

✓ Done. theMONO 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Soundvisions1

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question What licenses are acceptable on the commons? How do you tag images with an unacceptable license? MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:The Wikimedia Foundation has a goal to be a free content provider. For Wikimedia Commons what that means is the material that is being distributed here must fall with the definition of a free cultural work. As for actual licensing there are various acceptable licenses. You can get an overview at Acceptable licenses. If you are no fully sure about somehting specific that you found elsewhere (That you are not the copyright of) you can also ask a specific question at Commons talk:Licensing. Some material may also be considered a derivative work and while the image itself may be licensed freely, the underlying material may not be free.
What two Creative Commons liscenses are acceptable? MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for your second question. On the page you are looking at now there is a section called "Toolbox" on the left. There is a little "arrow" icon that will either show or hide a submenu. When it is expanded there is a list of options. On this page you will see a "Nominate for deletion" option. For image pages those options also include "Report copyright violation", "No source", "No permission" and "No license." Depending on what you see one of those could be a choice. As your question was specific to "images with an unacceptable license" you could choose any of them except the "No license" option. To take one an an example - I notice that you tagged File:ༀམཎིཔདྨེཧཱུྃ། Tibetan pilgrim spinning a prayer wheel (mani wheel) at the Tibetan Buddhist Monastery,Bir,HP,India.jpg for deletion. I can understand how it might be confusing however in this case the uploader is also the copyright holder. They chose an acceptable free license here, which is allowable, and are using another one at their Flickr page. This would be entirely different if it had been a third party who had uploaded the image and claimed a different license - in which case it could have been tagged as a copyvio. or had the third party claimed they had permission we could tag it as needing an OTRS.
In the case you mention the uploader did not source the image as coming from flicker so i treated it differently. If an image is sourced from flicker as a reviewer you tag the image differently to give the user time to correct the license on flicker. Please review Commons:License_review#Specific_procedures_for_Flickr.MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that answered your questions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The mess here worries me a great deal -- the questions weren't answered; the roundabout responses were not satisfactory. Review licensing guidelines, learn them, and come back. theMONO 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a liscence reviewer you need to understand what liscenses are permited on the commons and that is why i am asking you. Flicker allows files to be liscensed under the following liscenses. Respond yes or no as to wether they are permitted on the commons:

  1. All rights reserved
  2. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
  3. Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
  4. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
  5. Attribution Creative Commons
  6. Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
  7. Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons

To give the uploader time to change the liscese there is a specific template that you should use. After taking a look at Commons:License_review#Specific_procedures_for_Flickr can you tell me what template you would use? MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply:
As I have already said now - the set goals of the Foundation are to be a free content provider. More specifically, for Wikimedia Commons they must fall within the free cultural work - which is this:
  1. The freedom to use and perform the work
  2. The freedom to study the work and apply the information
  3. The freedom to redistribute copies
  4. The freedom to distribute derivative works
As such:
  1. no
  2. no
  3. no
  4. no
  5. yes
  6. yes
  7. no
Now, one must also pay close attention to text provided by legit uploaders. Flickr has a tendency to change things around, so, for example, you might come across this image and check the license, which is BY v2. That is fine - however if you also take the time to read the human entered description you will find the work is actually licensed under CC0 (Which you left off your list above and is also very much acceptable here).
Also of note: As of version 2 all CCL's include attribution (The "by" part), but Wikimedia Commons also would accept earlier versions such as CC SA 1.0, CC BY 1.0 and CC BY-SA 1.0.
As for the second part of the question - the entire reason I posted here in the first place is because I used the {{Flickrreview}} tag on an image I transferred from Wikipedia, after checking the license was verified and correct, and the automated message said I did not have the rights to use it. So the "tag" I would use would be that - with the correct parameters. If I had a question I would go to the users Flickr account and contact them if there was a clear means of doing so. Matter of fact I have done that several times for over three years at Wikipedia (And over 30 years in the real world of dealing with contracts and licenses) and am still doing it. The next "tag" I might use in not a tag, but a personal message placed on the uploaders talk page, such as the one I did here. However since you are specifically asking about Flickr and what to do if a review found an incompatible license *and* you wanted to ask the copyright holder to fix the license (vs the uploader who may not be the copyright holder) - you could tag the image itself with the Flickrreview tag and the incorrect license (i.e a NC/ND one). However, at least for me, I would most likely try to contact the copyright holder first. If the uploader was *not* the copyright holder I might tag the image, via the "automated" tools which would also leave a message on their talk page, as {{No permission since}} which would allow the uploader a grace period in which to contain the correct license. If they did do that and informed me I would place an {{OTRS pending}} tag on it and when the permission came though an OTRS volunteer would assign a ticket number and place the {{OTRS}} tag on it.
Now in addition to all of the above it is possible for a source to be listed as "All Rights Reserved", or under an unacceptable license, and be allowed here. This would be done via the OTRS system and such material will have the {{OTRS}} tag on it. This is also why I have always felt if that sort of dual licensing was in effect an OTRS should be required.
In addition, in case you want to ask: No, Wikimedia Commons does not use Fair Use, nor does it use a Non-Free content policy. The Foundation explicitly exempted Wikimedia Commons from adoption of an EDP. As such any image marked as "Fair use" is subject to deletion.
See also Commons:Questionable Flickr images
See also Category:Flickr images needing human review
See also Category:Flickr review needed
See also Commons:Derivative works
See also Commons:Non-copyright restrictions
Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

 Not done No consensus and very little time since last request. fr33kman -s- 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundvisions1

[edit]
  • Soundvisions1 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reasons: Above request appears to ae been only a "vote" count and not read prior to close. One editor appeared to come here after mistagging an image for deletion to ask about various licensing and how to tag images for deletion and than said they had "serious objections" to me but gave zero reason other than "per mono". All "mono" did was pop in as I was responding in even more detail to Morgankevinj to say "the questions weren't answered; the roundabout responses were not satisfactory. Review licensing guidelines, learn them, and come back." Despite the disckish comment I can understand how they might feel they know more than someone who has dealt with Copyright, I.P and contract law on a regular basis for over three decades because they hold some privileges here, but the truth be told I was first asked to come here by various admins because there is an image backlog and I deal with images and their license terms (As in verification of them) and their copyright. What I find even more humorous is that after I posted my answers Mys_721tx repeated the same answers in a shorter form and the same two editors say "support". Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. An image is tagged as otrs pending and is licensed as all rights reserved on flicker. What tag do you use?
  2. What flicker review specific tag can you use for an incorrectly sourced image?
  3. What scripts can you use to aid with reviewing?
  • Reply: Sorry, I am busy with RL at the moment. To answer:
  1. If the image is tagged with OTRS pending I, personally, wouldn't do anything. Whoever is assigned the ticket number will verify the OTRS and if it is acceptable they will change the OTRS pending status to an OTRS confirmed status.
  2. You had asked this above but to try and be more direct. The tag would depend on the license used *and* the "incorrectly sourced" source. Based on the question, as worded, the source might be Flickr in which case I would check the source - however if the source was given as Flickr and the image was not at the link given my first instant would be to ask the uploader to clarify the source link. If they did not reply in a reasonable amount of time that I would send the image to a deletion discussion or I could simply use {{Nsd}} *if* there really was no source. Other options an editor could use, depending on what their research turned up, might be "no permission" - provided an actual source could be found that was *not* the given, incorrect, source. Also if the source turned out to be, say, Getty images or the like I could tag it as a copyvio. (This is important because many time Flickr users simply take images from elsewhere and up them and others will take them from there and up them here - that is why I linked to Commons:Questionable Flickr images in my first reply.)
  3. I had asked about Scripts early on (Not in this discussion) and nobody answered - so I leave that answer to that. The slightly longer answer is that I use my brain - my eyes and my knowledge. If A source if given I check it, depending on a script may not always be the best thing. Again, Commons:Questionable Flickr images sets up some known Flickr users that have posted questionable material. A script such as flickreviewr might check to see if the license was acceptable but a script won't look at the content. As User:FlickreviewR explains if the bot returns as The image on Flickr and the Commons are the same, as well as the license that it is "passed" - however only human interaction could tell if it is a copyvio.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Should have passed first time round. The answers previously were much longer than necessary, but the user clearly has the knowledge to be a reviewer, and that is what is supposed to be being assessed here. CT Cooper · talk 10:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would support, but I have not seen any evidence that Soundvisions1 has read the relevant pages like Commons:License review. In the above request, he only demonstrated his knowledge towards copyright but none about the common practices of reviewing. If Soundvisions1 can answer the questions Morgankevinj asked, I will not assume "knows-it-all-so-don't-read-guidelines", and I'll support. Yes, the requests have been question-spammed, but I think they got needlessly complicated given that the answers are found straightforward in guide page. --ZooFari 17:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: A reviewer is required to know which licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons and be familiar with restrictions that may apply.... - I am. My "needlessly complicated" replies shows that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Bluegoblin7

[edit]
Comments
  • Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your concerns however I would like to politely suggest you look at my contributions to simple.wikipedia in particular, where you will see that a large amount of the work I participate in there is clerking, backlogs etc. I'm also not someone who requests flags unnecessarily, and wouldn't be asking for this unless I was certain that I had a need for it and that I would be putting it to good use. Thanks again for your comments, though. Regards, BG7even

✓ Done per consensus MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Nascar1996

[edit]
Comments

 Not done per nomination withdrawn MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

matanya

[edit]
Comments

✓ Done per consensus MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it. Closed as successful. theMONO 04:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question What is the purpose of license reviewing? Is license reviewing needed for all images from external sources? What to do if licenses at commons and at the external source don't match? Lymantria (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse order, because I tend to do things that way. If the licenses do not match, there are two possibilities- if the license found externally is compatible with Commons, just change the license tag so it matches. If it is not compatible, the file must be tagged with {{Uffd}} which will list the file for speedy deletion. In theory, someone other than the uploader ought to verify the status of every external image uploaded to the Commons, however, the image review process that is formalised does not do so, this process covers images from sites that allow a choice of licenses which uploaders may choose from, such as Flickr or its competitors. License reviewing is done because these sites allow that license to be changed at will. Changing the license on Flickr, however, does not revoke a release under CC, which is explicitly non-revocable. However, Flickr and the others don't maintain logs (at least not public ones, not being a photographer, I do not have an account to check) of such changes. Therefore, to ensure the license was valid at some fixed point in time, which is all CC requires, we require a second entity than the uploader- be they human or robot- to verify that the license is currently valid when checked, and therefore is forever valid, whatever the original author might change the license to on the external site. Courcelles (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it. Withdrawn. Courcelles (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damirgraffiti

[edit]
Comments

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it. Not done. Courcelles (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Route11

[edit]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it. Done. --ZooFari 14:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy xu wrk

[edit]
Comments

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Raghith

[edit]
Comments
  • I don't know that it's mentioned in the instructions, but isn't part of the point of reviewers to make sure that at least two people (or one and a bot) look at the file? Not to be reviewing your own uploads? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly discouraged, and is frequently raised in requests for reviewer status. I haven't seen any mention of it in the instructions, so it perhaps should be added. CT Cooper · talk 15:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooper as you said earlier "marked an image as reviewed" that is because I got a "FlickrFixr ok other bad" link on that page. As i felt it was some mistake , I requested for the reviewer status. So ,don't mind; I wont do it again. You can close this request.Thank you all . -- Raghith (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done withdrawn Lymantria (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

WhiteWriter

[edit]
Comments
  •  Comment Oh, um, reviewing your own files is very discouraged. It's better if neutral reviewers review your own files in case you make a mistake. How about reviewing images of others only? --ZooFari 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --ZooFari 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Logan

[edit]
Comments

✓ Done — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Hydriz

[edit]
Comments
I would use {{Flickrreview}} on that image description page and specify the license that is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. Hydriz (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And without the OTRS tag? MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not have the OTRS tag, I would add {{Uffd}} to request for speedy deletion of the file and then specify the license incompatible in the license parameter. Hydriz (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No opposes in three days. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Mattes

[edit]
Comments
Template:Answer Such images cannot be uploaded legally unless an approved OTRS ticket but not if pending (ticket must be closed first). --Mattes (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When an image has an incompatible license on flicker it fails the review but it can not be tagged for speedy deletion if it has an OTRS tag. Commons:License review gives the tags used in both cases. MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What tag do you use for an image that fails review and is eligible for speedy deletion?(no OTRS tag)
What tag do you use for an image that fails review and is not eligible for speedy deletion?(has an OTRS pending tag)
@ "image that fails review and is eligible for speedy deletion? (no OTRS tag)" -- RE:  Oppose Speedy DEL required.
@ "image that fails review and is not eligible for speedy deletion (has an OTRS pending tag)? -- RE: pending to temp.  Keep until further admin decision in the near future, because of approved OTRS ticket. The limiting time frame should be of a span less than a week or so excl. holidays and sundays.
--Mattes (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]

because of the special locations. --Neozoon (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per no opposition and time passed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Hoangquan hientrang

[edit]
Comments

 Not done speedy close per serious objections. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Moneya

[edit]
Comments

no first of all, whenever i upload photos i make sure It is a valid (for use on wikipedia) copyright. If in doubt I do not upload it. so i would see know need to review my own However even if i would want to I belive it is not aloud to review your own uploads

No because derivative and commercial use not allowed as stated by the person who uploaded The person who uploaded it ,assumiming he also took the photo holds the copyright under Freedom of panoramia in us(because it is of a piece of artwork in us) because the statue was erected in 1913 ,before 1923, any copyright the holder of the artwork had is no longer valid. see Template:PD-1923 --Neozoon (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Rillke

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question What flicker specific tag do you use on images with incompatible licenses? If an image has an incompatible license on flicker but is ineligible for copyright(ie pd-simple, pd-text), what do you tag the image? MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. For incompatible licenses on Flickr-uploads I use {{subst:uffd}}. Then, I notify the uploader with {{subst:unfreeflickrnote}}. Furthermore, I change the review-request-template to {{flickrreview|YourUsername|Date|CurrentFlickrLicense}}.
2. Because PD-Images can't be protected by copyright by definition, I would remove the review-request-tag, change the license to PDx (but only if I am 100% sure that PD applies) and will probably put a note on the discussion-page of the user, that generally the license-type of the Flickr-image is not allowed on commons.
BTW, if you want to "review" an audio-file you have to listen to the whole file. I intend to upload some larger ones ... but I'll not be allowed to review them myself. -- RE rillke questions? 20:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Guerillero

[edit]
Comments
  1. While I wouldn't upload it myself because it is too small, I would approve it. There is a long tradition of having product photos on commons. example
  2. I would approve it; there is no reason to beleive that this piece of artwork would be a copy vio. Directly after that I would nominate it for deletion due to the fact that it is out of scope.
  3. My gut feeling is that it is a copyvio because it is a album cover; however, a google and tinyeye search bring up nothing. I would approve it.
  4. Since there is no link to verify that the video that the screen shot comes from is under a free license I assume that it is copyrighted and not eligible to be released. I would not approve it.
  5. It appears to be a company logo. Since it is more then text and basic shapes, it is open to copyright. Since very few companies release their logo on a free license, I will assume they retain the rights to it. I would not approve it and ask for the uploaded to get a OTRS ticket for the image.
  6. I would only approve the day time shot. The lights at night are retained under copyright (I forget the court case) --Guerillero 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Signatures are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain in Italy (The creators birthplace) and the USA. cat --Guerillero 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, taking time to respond to my questions. While imagining the fictional situation of 1), did you think the flickr-account was held by a company or a private person?
I imagined it was created by a private individual. --Guerillero 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have to disappoint you: This image is embedded in a company's website. It looked to professional as being created by this user. It is always important to check this. -- RE rillke questions? 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5) is a logo created by a company for a European Union directive. But it is not created by any government, therefore your decision is the right one. -- RE rillke questions? 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a question or a statement? --Guerillero 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A statement. -- RE rillke questions? 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. You get the point, but the technicalities are touchy. The screenshot is of a copyrighted web page, no matter what the video content. The logo is clearly copyrighted and would likely be reusable 'with permission' (by following usage guidelines)...not acceptable. theMONO 05:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - User is clearly competent enough to be a reviewer. I can see nothing particularly wrong with the answers given. Expecting a user to roughly know there was around Commons' policies is reasonable, but anything more than that is not necessary. CT Cooper · talk 15:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold Waiting for answers on the user's discussion page. -- RE rillke questions? 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support You have a good knowlage of the license-requirements on commons; however in practise there were a few problems. I think in future you will care about the mentioned issues and "not to take the word of some wikipedians at face value". Furthermore you will check, wether there was flickr-washing (e.g. by using 2 search engines). -- RE rillke questions? 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold same as Rillke --Neozoon (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support If you have question about future reviews, do not hesitate to ask us --Neozoon (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted. theMONO 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Future Perfect at Sunrise

[edit]
Comments

✓ Promoted. theMONO 04:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

MacMed

[edit]
Comments

✓ Promoted. theMONO 20:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Kolyarudoj

[edit]
 Oppose. Several of your recent uploads were copyright violations, as noted on your talk page before you blanked it repeatedly without archiving or responding.[1][2][3] Just four days ago, you uploaded File:Tori Black 2010.jpg, where you failed to realise that the Flickr user was not the copyright holder. Just a little over three months ago, you were blocked for a week for uploading 21 copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. You have since uploaded 13 additional copyright violations. You have blanked problem tags from your own uploads (files which were subsequently deleted as copyright violations). You have also uploaded low-resolution copies of Flickr files which already existed in full resolution on Commons. Reviewing your own uploads is discouraged for all users. In your case, it would be downright inappropriate. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✘ Not promoted. Per comments of LX. There is nothing to add and no chance in a foreseeable time. Read COM:L, the archive of LicenseReviewer requests and the instructions. -- RE rillke questions? 12:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Waihorace

[edit]
Comments
What about FOP in Japan? -- RE rillke questions? 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some maybe OK but some are not. Just look at what the image is and if I am not sure just skip it. All things will be done according to that policy. --Waihorace (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the spelling mistake (just copy&paste from the archive). Here is the correct question:
If a flickr-user changes the license of an image after it passed the review, how should you respond?
Are CC-licenses revocable? -- RE rillke questions? 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, CC is not revocable, but I will be worry for the copyright holder complain. If this worry can be fix,  Keep it.--Waihorace (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose One of the values of license reviewing is that is confirmed that the image was published under a free license, even if this was changed afterwards. Waihorace is unsufficiently aware of the irrevokabilty of free licenses. Lymantria (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this case, but I will be worry. --Waihorace (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Hoangquan_hientrang

[edit]
Comments
  •  Oppose Numerous deleted uploads; I'm concerned about the user's knowledge of copyright law. MacMed (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Well, as I said in the first application I didn't understand licensing when I was a new user so I made copyvio. And other deleted uploads are my mistakes (because I misunderstood the author). A week ago, I asked for permission for image File:Maiara Walsh 2010.jpg and I receive the permission on FlickrMail without changing license on the image page. I forwarded to OTRS but the volunteer there said that the license must be present on Flickr -> deleted. So please make allowances for this. The uploads that I asked for permission is more than those which is available on Flickr. If you have any questions, please let me know--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Logan below, and my opinion remains oppose. MacMed (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but that comment doesn't inspire faith in me. Like last time, I still don't feel that you are experienced enough/know licensing well enough to have that right. Logan Talk Contributions 11:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It seems to me that an understanding that would be required for this role would have lead you to understand about the relicensing of the flickr work you had deleted. I think a few more months of work is needed. fr33kman 02:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 No consensus to promote. theMONO 02:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Vibhijain

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question: OK on Commons? [4] [5] [6] theMONO 16:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my knowledge of Flickr policies, Only Ella the Snow Dog is eligible to be on Commons, whereas Dog tired and dog fetch can't be on Commons. Hope it is right. :) Vibhijain (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not supporting or opposing here, but from what I've seen, Vibhijain, though well-intentioned, seems to be on a kind of right-collecting spree. While enthusiasm is good, from what I've noticed in different wikis, this user is a bit too enthusiastic which can cause problems, particularly in something like license reviewing, which should never be done in a rush. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pmlineditor, you are right, i have got many rights in a short span. But my intention is not to beautify my userpage, I requests user rights to serve better to the community and sometimes to revive small projects. License reviewing is a very complex task, and I also agrees that it has to be done after being 101% satisfied with the licences. Vibhijain (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I would have remained neutral, but the issue about the picture you uploaded makes me think that you need some more time to get acquainted with COM:DW and the like. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are in the right direction, but not quite ready to receive this right. Your most recent copyright violation was not too long ago and your account is around 3 months old. I think you should come around Commons more often to become familiar with many of the copyright issues involved in the project, such as Freedom of Panorama Oops, you had mentioned this in your request :). Since it looks like you are experienced in patrolling other wikis, perhaps you might be interested in COM:PATROL (we need more people in this area!). Thanks for volunteering though! --ZooFari 17:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support theMONO 19:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I saw User:Rillke asked this before and thought that it was a good question - what would you say about transferring this image to Commons? --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That really a tricky one. I saw that this picture has Japan tag, which means that it has been taken in Japan. According To Japanese Copyright Policy, such works which are located at public places, or where public can easily see that work, are allowed for reproduction. But still, this picture can't be kept on Commons because its allowed only for Non-commercial purposes (as per Japanese Copyright Policy), So in short, this picture may comes with a attribution licence, but its actually with a Attribution-NonCommercial licence, which can't be kept on commons, So it can't be transferred to Commons. Hope it was right. Vibhijain (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I think that I need more experience with some other policies. I will like to use my current rights to serve the community and would like to have more time to understand the policies. Thanks to all who commented here. :) Vibhijain (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. CT Cooper · talk 10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Awiki100

[edit]
Comments

 Not done. Feel free to ask again after gaining more experience. --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

NonvocalScream

[edit]
Comments
The pages need to harmonize, so change the one on the file desciption page to match the flickr license. The author can also be linked to the profile on the website. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really clear to your question, or two questions. Could you restate it? R, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You stumble upon a file. It has been verified as CC-BY-SA 2.0 three months ago. How would you react in each of the following situations:
  • The license on Flickr has been changed to CC-BY 2.0
Answer:
  • The license on Flickr has been changed to "All Rights Reserved"
Answer:
  • You have received an OTRS ticket demanding the takedown of the file, claiming that the Flickr user "did not mean to release it under Creative Commons."
Answer:
Hope that helps. The third one I added myself. Regards, MacMed (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too inactive. After taking a quick look at your edits, you have so far made only 16 edits to Commons since January 2011. It would be better for a candidate to be more involved in Commons before making a request. —stay (sic)! 04:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be less active, or more. I can't guarantee it. My thoughts were, if I'm able to translate permissions from COM:OTRS, I should do fine with this. Kindly, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)  Not done NonvocalScream (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Abigor

[edit]
  • Reasons: I already was ellected as revieuwer before I got admin [7], the system changed in the meanwhile and the permission got lost because I was a administrator. I would like to have it back so I can work futher on files. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

 Not promoted User has too much outstanding drama at this time. Killiondude (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Electroguv

[edit]
  • Reasons: I had contributed enough to Commons, but to work more effectively, it would not be bad for me to be license reviewer. I want not only to upload images by myself but also to check the license of others's uploads. Electroguv (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose for the same reasons given in your rejected request from last month before you had your user name changed. That discussion was closed with the comment "no chance in a foreseeable time." —LX (talk, contribs) 11:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per LX. Continue uploading useful and free content, maybe work on the category-system, patrol and revert vandalism, help to translate templates or guide new users around the technical issues on helpdesk. - You see we need help and you can help even without the image-reviewer right. -- RE rillke questions? 12:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not promoted No consensus at this time. Feel free to ask after some time. --Ben.MQ (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Warfieldian

[edit]
Comments
#2 is not acceptable due to it not being available for commercial use, #3 is not acceptable due to 'All Rights Reserved' #1 looks like an acceptable license but it looks very professional and is a photo of a celebrity so I would be concerned about potential Flickr washing. #4 not acceptable because it is an architectural photo in the UAE which has no usable FoP provisions in their copyright laws. Warfieldian (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Derekthomascolor.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Taubmanmuseumofart.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) -- RE rillke questions? 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Derekthomascolor.jpg - I was looking for a headshot for an article I was creating on Wikipedia. I was communicating with the subject of the article by e-mail trying to license a photo I had found on the internet. He agreed to release it but it became apparent that he was not the copyright holder and he didn't know who it was. So, we deleted Derekthomascolor.jpg and substituted another photo that he gave me and licensed it under CC 3.0 with OTRS confirmation. Taubmanmuseumofart.jpg - I was looking for a photo of the museum for an article on WIkipedia and that was before I knew about the requirement that it be available for commercial use. So, it was deleted and I went out and took my own picture of it and released it under CC 3.0. Warfieldian (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Hoangquan hientrang

[edit]
Comments
I think the year which the painting will be released is 2058 (works from 1923 to 1963 are copyrighted for 95 years after first publication)
Correct, except I think 1962 + 95 = 2057, not 2058. —stay (sic)! 07:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No freedom of panorama for sculptures and other artistic works in Denmark and Finland. The FOP is only applied for building, not artistic work.
When I asked the flickr user to release File:Maiara Walsh 2010.jpg to free license, he allowed me to use it under GFDL/CC-BY_SA but didn't change the license on Flickr page. I forwarded it to OTRS but Adrignola said that the license must be stated on Flickr page and delete it. I tried to contact with him again but no reply. --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Logan failed the license review for that file; I can't recall a ticket for it, but I go through so many as it is. If I have no way to associate a given email's source address with a Flickr account I don't allow OTRS to be used for possible license laundering for Flickr images. If the Flickr user changes the license, standard review procedures apply. They can also upload a lower resolution free version and the same resolution uploaded at Commons. Or they can put their email address in a public profile description and only then will I OTRS tag a file that happens to be at Flickr under a non-free license. This is all a side issue and more related to OTRS rather than license review. I'd hope Hoangquan hientrang would not positively review such an image like the one above in the future because of a private conversation with the Flickr user that isn't on record and verified in the OTRS system. Beyond that I'd hope Hoangquan hientrang would be aware that it would be bad form to license review files you yourself have uploaded. I don't really have an opinion either way on this nomination, but I do see that a previous nomination referenced a past conversation on my talk page. That was pointed out in the nomination by Logan, who as I mentioned saw the license at Flickr and failed this file. Everything comes full circle. – Adrignola talk 03:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Because I've marked many of this user's uploads and I can say that he does know about about flickr licenses. Its the issue about FOP that's a real headache...even for Common's Admins because the rules change radically from state to state. Sometimes, COM:FOP is of no help because it has no entry for a massive country like Indonesia (incredible!), Ethiopia or the Democratic Republic of Congo. So, what are the rules for sculptures or 3D art from these places? No one knows; its a black hole since no one has done any research (yet) sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Due to correct answers above. Seems to have some knowledge about FOP and licensing policies. —stay (sic)! 07:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support: I think you're now ready to start with this job. Adrignola, thanks for the explanation. -- RE rillke questions? 09:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

A7x

[edit]
Comments
The reason why my signature is stylized as —stay (sic)!, is because I wanted to a little creative with it, and have my signature be unique instead of the plain "User:Username (User talk)". According to Commons:Signatures, users are allowed to customize their signatures however they'd like, as long as it isn't disruptive. I believe that my signature (hopefully) isn't disrupting anyone. I can understand that my signature might be a bit misleading to some people who may not know me on Commons, but I'm not trying to intentionally mask my real username. Actually there would be no point in hiding my username while having a registered user account, imho. Kind regards, —stay (sic)! 10:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted Warfieldian (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Sreejithk2000

[edit]
Comments
  •  Question What happened here?:
-- RE rillke questions? 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Imagine the following situation: You find an image, which has to be reviewed, and you want to review it. You found that the license on Flickr is compatible with Commons' licensing policy. What are the next steps? Are there other reasons why you may not approve/pass this image? -- RE rillke questions? 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My answers below.

  1. These are all deleted for different reasons.
    1. File:Al Wakra.jpg was deleted because the license is Non-commerial |No Derivative Works both of which are not acceptable at Commons.
    2. File:AkronOhio.jpg does not have much information in the deletion summary and I do not have access to the deleted image. If I remember correctly, it was a collage of images and the original sources were not disclosed.
    3. File:06.09.02.Schilling-aerialMINE.jpg was a screenshot of Google earth or maps which does not have a free license compatible with Commons.
    4. File:Ahmad-Vahidi-in-the-Irani-001.jpg was taken from a website whose copyright is with them itself.
  2. I would not review my own uploads just the same way I do not approve the OTRS tickets of images which I have uploaded. Images from the categories Category:Images from the kseb.in website and Category:Images from the ldfkeralam.org website are all uploaded by me and I would not have reviewed them even if I had reviewer rights then.
  3. Flickr shows the license of the image on the right side below the gallery and group links. If the license is Creative Commons and allows Commercial and Derivative uses, I will mark the image as reviewed. But I will definitely check whether the account is a flickr washing account and also whether the images fall out of FOP in the country of origin. When in doubt, I would leave the image as it is and let someone else handle it. For approving, I am planning to use Flickrreview.js or licensereviewer.js whichever is more convenient (I haven't tried these yet) and will follow the procedures outlined at Commons:License review

--Sreejith K (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted —stay (sic)! 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Electroguv

[edit]
Comments
“ I would like to check the license myself, as it would be more quickly ”

 Not granted Consensus is against granting at this time. Courcelles (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Drilnoth

[edit]
Comments
  •  Neutral Thank for volunteering but I think you need to be more active on Commons. You have made over 1200 edits and uploaded 30 images since 2008. But I don't say that you don't understand licensing policy, just need to be more active--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment; I was starting to wonder if I'd get any. :) I'm just curious, does activity level matter? I'm much more active on en.wp, where most of what I've been doing recently is also image-related. Drilnoth (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, if you really want a question, here is a very difficult one:)  Question Are you allowed to upload fair-use-media to commons? -- RE rillke questions? 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only non-free media which may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are logos of the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects; all other non-free images need to be uploaded to the project which wants to use them, and not to Commons. However, not even all of Commons' sister projects (such as some languages of Wikipedia) allow non-free images. Drilnoth (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per answers. -- RE rillke questions? 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question If you review a Flickr image under a Creative Commons license and the Flickr user later changes his mind and changes the license to All Rights Reserved, would you then nominate the image for deletion on Wikimedia Commons based on the change to the copyright status? Warfieldian (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. The purpose of license reviewers is to verify that the image is licensed under a Commons-acceptable license, specifically so that if the license is ever changed at the source (or if the source is deleted, etc.), there is still evidence that the licensing is accurate. That certainly doesn't prevent the image from being nominated for deletion for other reasons, such as being a derivative work of a non-free object or the like, but the change in itself is not a reason for deletion. Drilnoth (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Question you appear to have good understanding of license but I'm just curious what happened with these?
File:PoPOldMan.jpg
File:Iris small.png
File:Iris small green.png
For a long time, it was thought that Ubisoft had appropriately licensed screenshots of their games with a Commons-compatible license. This seemed too good to be true, and was discussed ad infinitum, until Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 19#Finally an answer from Ubisoft, which confirmed that the images were in fact non-free. When I uploaded those three images, {{Attribution-Ubisoft}} was still a valid licensing template. A couple of them were deleted right away because they weren't screenshots, but rather derivative works of Ubisoft-created logos, or somesuch (hard for me to tell now because it was so long ago and I can't view the deleted revs), but basically the explanation is that I uploaded them at a time when the license was considered valid. A rookie mistake, yes, but I was still just getting started to work with images on en.wp and here. Drilnoth (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ promoted Warfieldian (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

InverseHypercube

[edit]
Comments
  • Would you approve the following Flickr images for importing into the Commons? Why or Why not? 1

2 3 4 5. Warfieldian (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not approve the first because it is marked as "Noncommercial"; I wouldn't approve the second because it is marked as "No Derivative Works"; I wouldn't approve the third because it isn't even under a free license; and I would approve the fourth since it is licensed under CC Attribution Share-Alike 2.0, a license accepted by Commons. Although there is no freedom of panorama in France, the Eiffel Tower's architecture is old enough to be in the public domain, and thus I would approve the fifth picture, licensed under CC Attribution 2.0. If it were night-time, this one would be more complicated as the lighting was installed more recently, and thus not in the public domain. Thank you, and I will answer Hoangquan hientrang's questions ASAP. InverseHypercube (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question How do you notice license laudering (e.g Flickr, Picasa washing)?
And do you consider reviewing your own uploaded image?
If a Flickr user changes the license the image after it passes the review on Commons, what will you do?--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
I notice license laundering usually when there is a watermark on something which suggests it is not the uploader's file; as well, low-resolution images often seem fishy. In fact, I have nominated for deletion two license laundered images, which were promptly deleted: File:Crocopato.jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Replicates.jpg. I verified the former was not a free image by using TinEye to trace it to the original website, which I often do with images to find the original. A new favourite tool is the Google Images "Search by Image" feature, which seems to yield better results than TinEye. Usually, the lack of description, metadata, or a user with many completely different images on Flickr is also a sign that an image might be license laundered.
I would not review my own image since Commons:License review discourages it. I can see the value in having another person look at an image to find a problem I might have missed.
I will do nothing if a Flickr license is changed (unless it is revealed the original licensor was not the owner of the file); Creative Commons licenses are perpetual ("Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License"[12]). If, however, the owner changes to a more permissive license (such as from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY), I will make this change. InverseHypercube (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. InverseHypercube (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answers look good but  On hold for response on talkpage. -- RE rillke questions? 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Although it is a trademark, it probably does not meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted. InverseHypercube (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess not. —stay (sic)! 02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What are you trying to imply? InverseHypercube (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I might have made a mistake on my part. Sorry. I think I need a vacation. —stay (sic)! 06:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support; good answers and a good record. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ promoted Lymantria (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Ebe123

[edit]
Comments

 Not promoted (no consensus) Please gather some experience, read our guidelines and help and feel free to ask after some time again. -- RE rillke questions? 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Omkar1234

[edit]
Comments

  •  Oppose: Not enough experience. I'd like to see a few hundred or so more edits, preferably related to licensing (cleaning up files transferred from Flickr and Panoramio, adding review tags, and tagging copyright violations) before supporting. A more informative reason for the request would also help, as would having a user page indicating the languages you speak. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not promoted Feel free to ask again after gaining more experience --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Strainu

[edit]
Comments

✓ Promoted —stay (sic)! 23:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Bill william compton

[edit]
Comments
Beside public domain images, creative commons attribution and creative commons attribution and sharealike.
Yes, as image has CC-BY licensing.
 Nope, your answer is incorrect. That image cannot be uploaded onto Commons because there is no freedom of panorama for buildings in the United Arab Emirates, as they are protected under UAE copyright laws. —stay (sic)! 23:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Are there any other considerations you take in to account besides just the license when evaluating Flickr images? Warfieldian (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many points to consider like: To know if the user on Flickr using same or different cameras we can check EXIF metadata of pictures, time and date of files can be useful in determining the authenticity of user's claim, FOP of different countries, TinEye can help many times, derivative work should be considered, reviewing user's Flickr profile may be helpful in determining the types of images he takes, etc.
You seem to have some understanding of licenses but you approved an obviously incorrect image above which raises doubts. Recommend you spend some more time becoming more familiar with license requirements and FoP and re-apply later. Warfieldian (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd suggest that Bill spend more time studying FOP laws, as they are important when reviewing Flickr files. —stay (sic)! 23:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it matters, I answered on the basis of license of the file only, as first question of A7x was based on it. I already know that there is no FOP in the UAE, because if there were then we could have a decent free image at Burj Khalifa article or in Category:Burj Khalifa. Just a few months before we've to lost BAFTA's mask on the issue of FOP-UK only, and recently I have raised a FOP issue with some Italian painting of unknown source, so this is not a case that I'm not aware of FOP thing.--Bill william comptonTalk 03:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not promoted Warfieldian (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Editor182

[edit]
Comments


1. No, the expectation of privacy requires consent be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place.

Any compulsory requirements to contact the author automatically dismisses the work as free-content and cannot be approved for use on Commons.


2. No, there is no freedom of panorama (FOP) in Slovenia, however, works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be freely used.

The Slovenian Parliament is a government controlled building and clearly not generally accessible premises.


3. No, derivative work of the image has not been permitted, which does not meet the conditions required for use on Commons.

If derivative work or Share Alike had been permitted under the same or similar, the image could have been approved.


4. No, the author specified non-commercial use of the image, and has not granted derivative work.

The conditions do not meet the free-content requirements for acceptance on Commons. Editor182 (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose -- Unfortunately, none of your answers are completely correct. #1 -- This image is the only image uploaded to the Flickr account and is available elsewhere on the web so it is likely a {{Flickrvio}} and should be nominated for deletion. If the work was original from the Flick account holder than an image of a person with a free license can be uploaded to the Commons with a {{Personality}} tag to delineate the personality rights of the person in the image. #2 Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares and other generally accessible premises cannot be used because they may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. #3 Derivative works are permitted for this CC-BY license and it should be allowed on the Commons. #4 You are correct that a non-commercial use license it specified but he has granted permission to adapt to a derivative work. The reason it is not allowed is only because of non-commercial use. I recommend studying more about licenses on the commons and FoP provisions and re-apply later. Warfieldian (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's disappointing, but thanks for the review. I might reapply after studying what you outlined in the above response. Regards, Editor182 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - [14] --ZooFari 16:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Avenue X at Cicero

[edit]
Comments

 Oppose. You've had several files uploaded under one of your old accounts deleted as copyright violations relatively recently. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:RajivGandhi-Adolescent.jpg you missed the entire point of the discussion. Perhaps you've learned something since then, but you've only uploaded a handful of files since then, and the fact that you didn't mention that discussion, your recent account name change, and your other accounts does not inspire much confidence. Sorry, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I didn't even know that I had a CU case against me, and I totally miss the point of the case actually. And yes, the files I uploaded back them, definite copyvios, I agree. But since I became I filemover at en.wiki, my knowledge of copyright has improved. The Rajiv Gandhi deletion request was on June 19, 2011, and my knowledge of files and copyright has significantly improved since then. I have started to vote and hope to be more active at Commons soon. As far as the fact that I didn't mention Ganeshbhakt (talk · contribs) and GaneshBhakt (talk · contribs) was because I thought we had to mention only our reason for requesting rights here. Anyways, the reason why I created "GaneshBhakt" was because I had started to use the account with the capital B at en.wiki long before the CU case and had forgotten about the previous account I had in my belt. Had I known, I would have requested rename rather than creating a new account. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as above per LX. You state your knowledge of copyright has improved since June 19, 2011 but as recently as late August a file that was deleted File:IndiraGandhi-VarunGandhi.jpg as missing essential information such as a license or permission. I'm not sure when you uploaded it but it doesn't inspire confidence to be a license reviewer that you are uploading files that are deleted for that reason Warfieldian (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the file too was uploaded at June 19, and my knowledge of files and copyright has significantly improved since then. And yes, some files I uploaded back them, definite copyvios, I agree. But more recently, I have uploaded some images, and hope I can be judged on their basis too. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I know there is some utter confusion regarding this request and with this statement, I hope to clear the clouds of doubt: I am Avenue X at Cicero (talk · contribs), and I would like to help out with Flickr license reviews. I've uploaded a number of files, and am familiar with licenses Commons allows. Earlier, I used to volunteer for Commons with the username GaneshBhakt (talk · contribs), and even before that as Ganeshbhakt (talk · contribs). I agree that I had uploaded 3 copyvios with my "Ganeshbhakt" account, but believe that that qualifies as history as it happened more than an year-and-half ago. I have been a regular contributor on en.wiki and commons from mid-April. And yes, some files I uploaded back then, like File:Mamata Didi.jpg or File:Buddho.jpg, definite copyvios, I agree. But since I became I filemover at en.wiki, my knowledge of copyright has improved. I uploaded many more files on June 18–19, and had two of them deleted, File:RajivGandhi-Adolescent.jpg and File:IndiraGandhi-VarunGandhi.jpg. But may I assert, that my knowledge of files and copyright has significantly improved since then. I have started to vote and hope to be more active at Commons soon. Even though four out of around ~45 files I have uploaded have been deleted, more recently, I have uploaded some images, and hope I can be judged on their basis too. Hope this has cleared the clouds of doubt surrounding this request. Thank you. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose (international) copyright on commons is a complicated issue. Thank you for your offer to support the Flickr license review team. I suggest that you gain some more knowledge on the topic of copyrights (e.g. participation on Deletion Request discussions). Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but could you please tell me the criteria on which you said I had to gain some more knowledge on the topic of copyrights (I already participate on Deletion discussions, for the matter of the fact). If you are voting on the basis of the June 19 uploads, I request you to look up the more recent files I've uploaded, and if you are still not satisfied with the uploads, you could possibly quiz me. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not promoted No consensus to promote --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Safety Cap

[edit]
Comments

 Not promoted, speedily closed as SNOW --Ben.MQ (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Katarighe

[edit]
Comments

 Not promoted No consensus to promote. Warfieldian (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

FrobenChristoph

[edit]
Comments

 Not promoted No consensus to promote. Warfieldian (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Armbrust

[edit]
Comments
I disagree with regards of the book cover. It is a commercial book (see amazon http://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Critic-Antonio-Restaurant-Guide/dp/1608160440/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4) and I do not find any special remark that and why this cover should be available under free license. I would not accept this without a written statement by the FLICKR uploader to OTRS that the file can be used under free license. --Neozoon (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, too. I am going to start a deletion request. -- RE rillke questions? 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the quick answer. I have seen a lot of good uploads and checking for missing permissions. Please get familiar to the OTRS procedure in cases that you are not shure about the license ->  Support Neozoon (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust, please note that you can also use the google-SearchByImage-gadget (GoogleImages tab), which is fast and often returns more results. You should always perform a search; there are Flickr-Accounts which have a lot of wrongly licensed files, not only one. Please also note that reviewing own uploads is discouraged. When reviewing photos which depict something made by humans, you have to care about a lot of other things like COM:FOP and COM:DW. COM:Image casebook can be really helpful. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 10:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Quan (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Sridhar100

[edit]

I have interest in image review

Comments

--Sridhar100 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC) {{Retired}}--Sridhar100 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed per above --Ben.MQ (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Sridhar1000

[edit]
Comments
  • Request:-The reasons given by you fellows are about another user sridhar100. But my user name is sridhar1000. You fellows see my contributions not sridhar100 contributions. Please see my uploads then comment.
  MYUPLOADS--Sridhar1000 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you retired the same day, Sridhar100 did. You can't tell me that you are not the same person, I won't believe it. This is not funny and I'll ask for a block if you do not stop treating us like fools.
And BTW there are a lot of problems, too. -- RE rillke questions? 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think I am a fool. I waste my lot of time to find the images for wikipedia. Days and days months and months. Without perfect reasons my many upload are deleted. They blocked me because of socket puppet of sridhar100. Yes I am the sridhar100. They blocked my first account for vandalism. I requested many times but they wo'nt hear my words. They completely block from wikipedia. I create many accounts. But they also closed as socket puppets. I requested them to complete my article but they refused and taught me like as a fool. That day I feel very sad so I want to retire and abandon all my projects. I close all my accounts and retired. But In telugu wikipedia the other member requested to rejoin. So I want to work only for telugu wikipedia. My recent uploads only for telugu wikipedia. By your decision I feel very sad. I work for wikipedia by wasting my lot of time. But every where I am refused and abandoned. I tired and agree your decision. If any mistakes or any grammar errors forgive me.--Sridhar1000 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel your time wasted, just stop your work here and go to telugu wikipedia. Concerns about copyvios and general treatment of intellectual property may differ but I do not accept stealing other people’s work. If you feel that somebody was wrong, go to COM:AN and explain in detail why. Sorry this is my last word. -- RE rillke questions? 07:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should note here that Sridhar1000 has made several license reviews despite not being an approved, and while most were marked as failed, it is still inappropriate. I have notified the user about this on their talk page. CT Cooper · talk 13:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not Promoted Closing this based on Snowball clause. sockpuppets are generally not trusted users. Warfieldian (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Magog the Ogre

[edit]
Comments

✓ Promoted Quan (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

MyCanon

[edit]
Comments
  •  Support I have reviewed many of MyCanon's upload and I think this user know about Flickr license. MyCanon has uploaded 328 images from July. Despite the lack of activity in DRs, this user is experienced enough to be a LR--Quan (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose MyCanon, I you have my trust in general, I fear there are too many "ambiguities". I hope you carefully look at other's license reviewers’ contributions and at the instructions. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 19:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose based on the answers below (nominating a creative commons licensed image for deletion), I think more time spent learning about copyright is needed. Warfieldian (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to review my photos from Flickr, so everyone sees everything I did. Such as User:Nehrams2020. Thank you. --MyCanon (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the steps you do when performing a "flickr-review". You are aware that you request a user-right, not a feature, aren't you? Or are you just looking for how to set-up a gallery. I am sorry if I misunderstood something. -- RE rillke questions? 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I wanted to review the license, so I review photos like the rest of the users. Thanks for the talk. --MyCanon (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry for the long delay. List the steps you do when performing a "flickr-review", please. What do you have to care about? -- RE rillke questions? 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want this property, so I review Flickr images, I have experience in licensing images, I want to use this property if allowed. Thank you Rainer. Good luck in your life. --MyCanon (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last attempt: It is a common practise to ask one or two questions here to make sure you understood what is involved in the procedure of license-review. Please, in your own words, what are the steps to take when reviewing an image which comes from an external website and has {{Licensereview}} on it? -- RE rillke questions? 12:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you verified that a license stated at some external site indeed corresponds to the license stated here at the Commons, can use this template. and If you've found a license mismatch, mark the file using the "nominate for deletion", "no permission" or "report a copyright violation" links in the sidebar instead. and Use the template only for successful license reviews. and Verification from the user, date, and link. Thanks for the debate on this important topic. --MyCanon (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my curiosity: Would you use one of the "links" (nom. for deletion, ...) if the uploader used cc-by-sa-3.0 on Commons but the license on the external site is cc-by-2.5-hu? If not, what's the right action?
By the way, please note that reviewing your own uploads is discouraged for "security reasons". -- RE rillke questions? 17:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that, when Upload by the user image and the license and the publisher is not appropriate, I put in the picture, a picture Nominating for deletion.

Such an image was nominated for deletion.

And the image also has been nominated for deletion, was deleted see: here. The result was a copyright. Thank you Rainer. --MyCanon (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we should delete the cc-by-sa-3.0 image from my example because it has an "inappropriate" license? Yes/No? -- RE rillke questions? 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we must delete the picture, but removed by administrators. Thanks. --MyCanon (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions. We would just change the license on Commons to {{Cc-by-2.5-hu}} because this license is compatible. No need to delete. Thanks anyway for your patience with me. -- RE rillke questions? 19:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not Promoted No consensus to promote. Warfieldian (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Americophile

[edit]
Comments
  • Since no one seems to do something here:  Question What is a derivative work? Describe it in your own words, please. Let's say you were on a performance in London, England, UK and took a video. Do you need permission from the actors? If they sang a song, what do you additionally have to find-out? Of course you are free not to answer. Your decision. -- RE rillke questions? 16:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great question! In my own words, a derivative work is a work based on a previous one. The copyright status of a derivative work depends on the original work. If I were in a performance in London and took a video of their performance, I'm definitely NOT the only copyright holder of my video. They earn a living through this way (through selling tickets, DVDs, etc) and I must not disturb their business. Luckily I have nominated several images due to this reason. Have a look at this, this, this, this, this and etc. I try to find copyvios in fawp, faws, fawn and other projects and I think that I can be an asset here. Thanks. AMERICOPHILE 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 QuestionIf a user changes the license on the original web page should the license change here? MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult question but great! Commons only accepts perpetual and non-revocable licenses. If an author published his/her work under a non-revokable license that completely meets other criteria, his/her own work is eligible to be hosted on Commons. If (s)he changed his/her mind and wanted to stop distributing the work under that license, (s)he is free to do that, but any derivative work that has been published when the original work was a free content, continues to eligible to be hosted on commons. The original file must be deleted (BUT NOT THE DERIVATIVE WORKS) if the new license doesn't completely meet the necessary criteria. AMERICOPHILE 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I'm not completely sure whether the original file must be deleted or not. I try to do nothing when I'm not sure, so I'd rather not involve myself in and instead, I would ask a more experienced user to deal with it. AMERICOPHILE 20:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is reviewed and is an "original copy" and the flickr-user changes the license, we would not delete it due to that reason since those licenses are irrevocable. It is also important to keep those files the record for derivative works. -- RE rillke questions? 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per block on fawiki for abusing multiple accounts. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak support per answer below. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - I'm almost hesitant to ask, because I know sometimes users can get railroaded on small local wikiprojects. But why are you blocked on fa.wikipedia, and why have you had several blocks before? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's difficult to explain but fawiki is different from other projects. You may know about the w:2009–2010 Iranian election protests and the huge gap between people caused by that (i.e. advocates of the regime vs protesters). In fawiki there's an obvious systematic bias for w:Iranian Green Movement and against current regime. Using social networks such as facebook and twitter is banned in Iran (they are filtered by the government even the secure connections) so the protesters consider wikipedia a cool place to help establishing a democracy in Iran. I know that democracy is great but wikipedia is an encyclopedia about realities NOT our ideals. Wikipedia is NOT a place to show our hatred of the current regime. I'm an americophile myself but when I log into any of the wikimedia projects, I try to put my personal opinions aside and just focus on realities. Unfortunately not every user of fawiki agrees with me (better to say most of them disagree with me!) and this makes fawiki a strange community that any objection may result in long-term blocks. I admit that I abused multiple accounts there and I now regret doing that. There's a proverb in Persian that says "Do not swim against the current" or maybe "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". I'm not the hero or savior of fawiki and I changed my mind. After return, I try to not involve myself in controversial issues and instead just focus on scientific or historic articles. I ask the Commons community to give me another chance to start again. I promise to not disappoint you. Thanks very much. AMERICOPHILE 09:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ps: Thanks for your question. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. If you think the details of the sockpuppet investigation discussions are needed to help your decision-making, I'm ready to translate them into English. If you want to know about my previous blocks or their duration, I will explain in details (Not all of them are separate blockages, some of them are just changing the setting of a blockage). Feel free to ask any questions. AMERICOPHILE 14:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

Would someone oppose if I assign permission now and we check whether there are problems or this right is not used after a while? For me it is important, that what the user does on Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted Since there were some "reservations", please re-apply here in 3 months. (Just add your request and link to the archived discussion.) Don't review own uploads and not those of your suspected socks, please. Good luck! We have a big backlog here. -- RE rillke questions? 13:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Evalowyn

[edit]
Comments
  • I only have about 800 edits here on commons, but on SV Wikipedia I have almost 10k, and there I have also been and admin for 3 years. So, even though I may seem "young" here on commons, I have many years of experience on Wikipedia. Evalowyn (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. 800 edits is still a fair bit, especially since they're mostly related to image rights. From what I've seen, you're a well-known, by-the-book, no-drama, all-round sensible editor. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted These weren't full 2 days. If anyone opposes to this closure, let me know. Happy tagging! -- RE rillke questions? 13:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Vitor Mazuco

[edit]
Comments

You mention that you've had an account since 2008. Since your first edit under this account was made in 2009, it might be in order to point out the other account(s) that you've used: User:Vitor mazuco, User:Balista, User:Gagomon, User:Latios ex, User:Sk8er, User:Raptorx and possibly others. Having used sockpuppets and uploaded large numbers of copyright violations (as you did using those accounts) is not really a merit for reviewer status. That said, the problems seem to be pretty far in the past. As far as I can tell, the last of those problems were in August 2009. I think your request would have been helped by mentioning them, though. Perhaps you could comment a bit on what you have learned since then? I'd also like to know a bit about what type of files you would like to review before I make up my mind. Regards, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LX, I learned many things, principally when I participated the creation of the URC here on Wiki-pt. Because in there time I knew what kind of files wikimedia commons accept and not, and what kind of files the wiki-pt accepts. Now in may accually account is a prove that i learned about commons. And i just moved all this filies to here. I'm asking files on flickr for i upload pictures here. Finally many things changed in mine person since 2008. Awanmser your question about what type of files I would like to review, is about music on Flickr files. Sincerely Yours. Vitor Mazuco Msg 17:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. I have a follow-up question: are you intending to review Flickr files that you have transferred to Commons yourself or files that others have transferred? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That others have transferred on Flickr. Vitor Mazuco Msg 18:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support based on your answers (and after thinking about it for a while). There is quite a bit of trouble in the past, but it's rather long ago, and you seem to have genuinely changed your approach and learned a lot in the process. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 12 days and nobody opposed to grant the flag --Ezarateesteban 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Morning Sunshine

[edit]
Comments

✓ Done No opposes for 5 days. -- RE rillke questions? 15:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Clarkcj12

[edit]
Comments

Hello Clarcj12, thanks for your offer, from your contribution it is difficult to see if you are experienced with the different aspects of international copyright regulations.

Can you take a look at these examples and provide your estimation if we could use this images on commons?

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first image it is licensed on Flickr as CC-BY-SA 2.0. The CC-BY-SA 2.0 images are allowed on Commons, as well it should have the Personality rights template on the files page as well. The second image, well in my opinion I think should not be used on Commons, as it is a self shot image. The 3rd image is licensed under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license as well on Flickr and is allowed on Commons. The fourth picture is licensed on Flickr as being a CC-BY-2.0 which is allowed on Commons as well PD Images, but in this case, but since it say that the yearbook was published in 1971 which was before 1978 and was without a copyright notice it is in the Public Domain. But it would be Copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term of US Works for example; Canada, Main China, Mexico, Switzerland. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clarkcj12, thanks for taking this test :-)

My view (I took all example pictures from the queue for Flickrreview, so this was exactly what we are doing here)

  • Picture 1 : Agree with your solution Flickr image with compatible license, uploaded to Flickr by the photographer.
  • Picture 2 : Disagree with your solution The flickr account do not open at your workplace! collects pictures from nudes and the picture in question [17] is attributed to Submitted on Shootingmyself.com which seems to be his supply for these pictures. So this is a clear case of an image on flickr that can not be used even if it is available under a free license.
  • Picture 3: Disagree with your solution This is an image from a museum in france. The Artists died in 1983 (Miro) and 1980 (Josep Llorens i Artigas) so the sculpture is protected by copyright (until 70 years after their death -> year 2053). Even if the sculpture would be in a public place in France, we would not be able to use it, since there is no Freedom of Panorama in France.
  •  Question Will you respond to enquiries on your talk-page related to the license-review process? I read yours on en.wp and here on Commons and got the impression that you are not very responsive. And another unrelated question: How did you create Template:Edit request/tr? Did you use the text from an automated translator? (Just curious.) -- RE rillke questions? 08:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did use an automated translator to translate the template. Also I will respond to license-review requests as fast as I can, as sometimes I get busy for period of times, but I will try to respond as fast as possible. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. -- RE rillke questions? 10:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted --Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed request for license reviewer status. Do not make edits to it.

Alpha Quadrant

[edit]
Comments
Files on commons must be legal under United States law where the servers hosting Commons are located. Files containing child pornography and files that are defamatory or libel are not permitted on commons, as they would violate United States law. Files used under fair use or for non-commercial use only are not permitted on commons, as commons only accepts media released under a free license. Files must be in a permissible file format.
When using images on Commons, one needs to take personality rights and trademark law into account. Trademark law is separate from copyright, and in order to use the trademarked content, one needs to ensure you are not infringing on the trademark. For example, the Microsoft logo is a {{PD-textlogo}}, but it is under trademark. It would be acceptable to use an image of the logo on a Wikipedia article, as through that use, it is merely identifying the subject in question. However, if you were to use the image to attempt to impersonate Microsoft, then it would infringe on the trademark. {{trademark}} is usually used to alert people reusing commons content of their responsibility to ensure that their intended use does not infringe on trademark law.
In some countries, people have personality rights, requiring photographers to obtain permission before photographing them in a public or private place. It is generally acceptable to upload photographs of people in a public place. However, the uploader is normally required to obtain permission before uploading files of people in a non-public (private) place. There are some countries where one is required to obtain permission before using images of identifiable people, whether they are in a public or private setting. {{Personality rights}} may be used to alert people reusing commons content of this requirement. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply shows both: A high level of competence and experience. I  Support this request. -- RE rillke questions? 16:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Promoted--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2011&oldid=417987552"