Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2019

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.

Roy17

  • Roy17 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I am willing to help review files. I am most familiar with China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the southeast Asian countries. I can read Chinese and a bit of German. I first had the thought of becoming a reviewer when I was categorising my old uploads, and found that a few Youtube files I transferred were waiting after months (and now still). Back then the number of videos waiting for human review was about 7k (now 8.5k). This long queue is certainly not good for Commons because licences might be changed or the source files might be deleted while waiting, especially so when the files are related to current affairs which are often deleted because of censorship or fear of repercussion.--Roy17 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 23:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
    • @廣九直通車: The Radio Free Asia (RFA) file was an early mistake. I thought RFA was same as VOA to be sponsored by the US govt, but in fact it is not. yue:File:Bangla road - phuket.jpg was an early upload (in 2008) on the local wiki and lacked information. I assumed it was uploader's own work when I was going through a lot of files to prepare for transfer to commons. It was reasonable at first glance because
      1. I had tried Google image search for the two separate parts and the image as a whole. No matches could be found.
      2. The uploader had contributed many articles on roads in Thailand and uploaded a few images. I assumed the uploader perhaps lived in Thailand and the photos were genuine.
    • I was just about to argue along this line, but I also checked the uploader's wuu.wikipedia records and found wuu:File:Warrandyte Bridge.JPG (source files specified) and wuu:File:Scb with thai flag.jpg (which he said it was a photoshop work but still claimed own work). As such, the file was not reliable enough and I supported deletion.--Roy17 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have read many information pages and DR cases on Commons. Last month I went through all the files on yuewiki to help tag fair use files properply, nominate unsuitable files for deletion and transfer free ones to Commons. Some 160+ files are still waiting for admin action. You may inspect how I handled individual cases.--Roy17 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @1989: I was just typing my response, but before I could send it the request was closed. Would you like to reconsider?--Roy17 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not Promoted Re-closing. Due to no contribution to CSD/DR, I cannot determine if you fully understand COM:L, COM:DW, COM:FOP, etc. Until you gain experience, you’re not eligible for this role. -- 1989 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Roy17

  • Roy17 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: Per special:permalink/333317570, I would submit my request again. I have given my motivation above. Last request was not closed until my knowledge of Commons license requirements and contribs had been evaluated. I have explained my deleted entries above. The three early ones were uploaded before I had good knowledge. There was one in the middle that was a duplicate File:Swatow 20120713 1.jpg. And the latest one was also explained above. That should be all the five deleted uploads of mine.
  • On the lack of DR records: I focus on blatant copyvios and uncontroversial FOP's and TOT's and tag them for speedy. An admin may check my deleted entries. I always give consistent edit summaries and detailed reasons on why they violate commons rules.
  • I had wanted to clarify these when I applied, but I felt there would be no need unless prompted by questions. However, I had not been given such a chance before the last request was closed. As suggested by the closing user, I would like to submit again and ask for more evaluation of my knowledge and records. Thank you.--Roy17 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would focus mostly on videos if this right is granted. I go through some videos once in a while and have not yet identified any problematic ones, but I could not help at all. In my motivation I mentioned that I uploaded some youtube files that are still waiting for reviews. I understand I cannot pass my own uploads, and actually I seldom upload videos. However, I believe reducing the queue is important so as to avoid deletion because licenses are changed or source files are deleted on the net.--Roy17 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 17:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
How would you deal with these?. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Strongest possible Support - I'm extremely impressed by Roy17s answers here and I will go as far as to say in the 2-3-4 years of !voting here on LR I've never been so impressed at this board until now!,
Clearly they understand what LR is and what we do and don't accept (and I will certainly admit they know a hell of a lot more than I do!), Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 02:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I think that you have slightly miscategorised CC-PD. If you read the text you will see that the dedicator "either (a) certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the work of authorship identified is in the public domain of the country from which the work is published, or (b) hereby dedicates whatever copyright the dedicators holds in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain" [1]. The problem comes more with the fact that many people were confused and started plastering that mark on everything. Another issue is that the word 'either' does not mean 'both', thus if somebody takes a photo of a copyrighted work, they can still release their additional copyright into public domain, however, the photo is not free untill the subject also becomes PD; I could not see a legal argument in taking a photo of a public domain work, using CC-PD and then saying that you still retain your own copyright, however, due to "A certifier, moreover, dedicates any copyright interest he may have in the associated work". However, your analysis, although flawed, is very consistent with the community mythology that the second quote does not exist in the dedication text. I would urge you to file a deletion requests on CC-PD works, but to also vote {{Vk}} on those deletions straight away (unless, of course, there is another reason for deletion as well). ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 02:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
        • @Gone Postal: To be honest, I am not familiar with this PDM problem. I got to know all these by reading commons guideline pages, some DR cases I found by chasing links, and external sources I googled. I have just read a bit more and would make a summary. Please check if I make any mistake.
        • There was something called Public Domain Dedication and Certification (PDDC), but it has been retired and replaced by PDM 1.0. The clauses you quoted were from PDDC, but they are no longer part of PDM. By reading PDDC and PDM, my understanding is that PDDC works should be OK, because part b relinquishes the dedicators' rights, but PDM contains no such clause so PDM files would be not OK.[2]--Roy17 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much, you are correct and I have learnt something new. There's a thing though, if a creator identifies a work as being free from all restrictions under the copyright law, that creator will definitely lose any potential claim in court saying that they want to stop redistribution. There is definitely a hurdle legally that the identifier must be the content creator, if I identify a photo you took as CC-PD it is meaningless and is just my opinion, if you identify your photo it is a public domain release. However, there's still a point that the community insists that such images (or other media) go through the deletion request process. Thus your previous analysis is correct, and we (as reviewers) should not automatically review such files without community discussion. Personally I would still file a DR and {{Vk}} on it immediately. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Personally I agree with you, that if an author puts PDM on his own work, it should be understood as if he puts PD-self. He can hardly argue in a court that he meant otherwise. But since commons rules do not make this assumption, I will DR and vote to keep. However, let's say it is kept, what would be the licence tag then? PDM? PD-self? Or something else?--Roy17 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Let's say the person does not add CC-PD, but rather writes the text identical to CC-PD under the image, I'm pretty sure that it is much more clear than most "I release this work into public domain" statements that we accept as {{PD-self}}. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support@Roy17: Your explanation has addressed my concerns raised in the original discussion. I believe that you are now eligible for being a license reviewer and I hereby withdraw my opposition voted before.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted per consensus. -- 1989 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken

Comments
  • Thanks for the information, but tsk tsk for the unnecessary dig. If you'd like to point me to where it is required to use CropTool, I'd be glad to see the policy, but until it is required, I'd prefer to do what I've done for 13 years and thousands of uploads, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Then kindly retract "refuse to use" and replace it with more collegial language, such as "prefer not to use". "Refuse to use" sounds like a bad boy being scolded by his headmaster Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are aware that as Licence reviewers we aren't allowed to review the files that we have uploaded ourselves. It does cause some pain (I had some files deleted due to that), but it is a policy on this project. So if you review the file you have uploaded that review will probably be considered untrusted and the file will appear to be unreviewed for all practical purposes. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Gone Postal has an excellent point; the reason for license reviewers is the second set of human eyes - I've been doing license review for some years now, would like to think I'm at least reasonably good at it, and yet a couple of times I screwed up on my own uploads, that others caught. Alexis's point is also good, actually; even if you don't use crop tool, the extracted from template should suffice, once the original image is reviewed by human or bot, subsequent edits don't need to be individually reviewed, they can just refer to the original. If you want to review other people's uploading that would be different, but reviewing your own edits is not what this is about. --GRuban (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Per my colleagues above. Please feel free to apply again in a year or two when you have a clear understanding of how LR works. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I honestly do t think it takes one or two years to understand a simple policy. Since Beyond is an experienced editor, such a recommendation might be exaggerated. --küñall (nütramyen) 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Withdrawn — 1989 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Davey2010

Comments
  • @Davey2010: let's test. Answer the following questions for each of the following images: 1. Would you pass the image? (ignore scope, only look at the license) 2. Why am I asking you about this particular image?
There may be traps. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Ooooh. Alexis plays hard ball. I'm not sure I would pass this test; I'll be waiting for the right answers with bated breath. --GRuban (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's the answer key. No peeking.
no peeking!

CHEATER!!

I said no peeking damnit!

xxxxxxixexxoxaxxxxxuxxxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxoxxxixxxxoxxxoxexxixxaxxaxxxxoxxxixaxexxxxxxexexxxxxxxxxxxxxxoxxxoxexxxxxexxexxxxxxxixxixxoxxiouxxxxaxxxoxoxxoxxexxxixxxxixxouxxaxxouxxexxoxxxxex xxuxxxixaxexxxxxouxxxoxexxaxxxxxixxxxexxxuxxxixaxexixxxxeexxxxixexxexxixxxxxxaxxx xxxxxxixexxxxxxxaxxxxxoxxuxaxxxxxxxaxxiexxxxiexxxxxxxxxxxexxexxxuxxxxoxoxoxxxxexxaxxixxxoxxxixxxexxxxuxxxexxixixixxxxxexxuxxexxxixxxxexxaxxxxoxxxxexxexaxxxxxuxxoxxoxxxxaxxx xxxxxxixexxxeaxixexxoxxoxxxexxixxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxxxoxxxxouxxexxxoxxooxxuxxxxaxxxxexxexxxxxexxixexxexxoxxxxexexxuxxoxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxxxeaxixexoxxoxxxoxxxxoxixiexxxixexxixxxxxxxaxexexxxxxeaxixexxoxxoxxxxxxxixuxioxxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxixexxexaxxxaxxxixuxioxxxxexoxexxxexxixaxaxxxexxxaxexxxxxuaxxxxxxxxexxxoxoxxxuxxxxaxxxxxoxxxouxxxxoxxex xxxoxxixexxexxexiexxxaxxxeaxxxxoxxxoxxxixaxaxxxxaxxixexxexxexiexxxoxxxxeaxixexoxxoxxxoxxxxouxxxxexxxoxixexx xxxxxxixexxxxxoixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx exxxxxixexxxxxoixxxoxoxxxxxxxxxxoixxxoxoxxxxixxxixexxexxaxxxxeaxixexxoxxoxxxxxxxixuxioxxxxxxxxxexxexixaxixexxoxxxxxxxxexxixaxaxxuxexxxaxxxexeaxexxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxxxxx xxxxxxixexxexxxooxxexaxxxixuxioxxaxxxxaxxxxxexxaxxxxexoxexxxexxixaxaxxxexxxaxexxoxaxoixxxoxxuxioxxxxxouxxxxexxxixaxxxxixxxouxxxxxaxxxexauxexxxaxxxxxxexxixexxexxoxxxxexxexixaxixexxoxxxxxxxxexxixaxaxxuxexxxxxouxxxixxxoexxxxxxoxexxxxexuxxexxxixxxxxxxoixxxoxoxxxxixxxixxxxxxxxxxxexxixaxaxxxaxxuxxoaxexxxoxexxxxxoxexxxxxoxxoxxuexxioxxxxxexex xxxxxxixexxoexxaxxaxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxexxixaxaxxuxexxxaxxxexexaxxxxaxixxxxixxaxxixixaxxxxxxexxxxxuixxxxooxxexixaxexxeaxxxxxoexxxxxxxixxxuxxaxxxoxxiouxxxxooxxxoxxxoxxxioxxxxxexxauxxixexxeaxxxxxxxixxxxxxxexuxxxixxxxooxxxoxxxoxxxioxxxuxxxxaxxxxxexoxxxxxexxuxxxoxxaxxixexxexxexiexexxxxoexxxoxxxeexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxoxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxx xxxxxxixexxexaxxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxxexaxxxexxxoxxxexxexoxxxxuexxioxxxa xxxxxxixexxaxxxxaxxxxxixxoxexxxxuxexxxaxxxx xxxxxxixexxxixxxxexuxxxxxxxxxxixxxexxaxxxxexuxxixxaxxexixaxixexxoxxxaxxxaxxeaxxxxoxxexixxxixxixxxoxxxoxxxixxxxxxxoxxaxxx xxxxxxixexxuxxoxoxxxxxxxxxxixxixaxexxooxxxxuixexaxxixxxixexoxexxxxxoxxaxxxxaxxxexoxxexxxxaxxxxixxxxxxxxxuxxixxxoexxxxxxaxxexxxxxxxaxxuxxoaxexxxxxuxexxxxxxexxxxeexxexxoxxxxaxexxxxxxixxxixxxuxxxuxxoaxixxxxixexxxxoxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxxoxxxxxxexoxixixaxxxouxxexxouxxxxaxexxoxxexxxoxixexxxxxxouxxxoxexxaxxxx xoxxxxixxixxxoxixxxexoxexxxoxeoxexexxexxxxxoxxexxxxxexxxxaxxxouxxxxxoxexxixexxexxaxxxxxexexxxaxxooxxxxaxxexixxxoxxxxxuxxixex xxxxxxixexxxoxxexxxxxxxxxxxaxexxxoxxxixaxaxxuxexxxxexxxixaxxxxexxoxxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxxixaxxxxxxoxixixaxxxouxxexxeexxxxoxxexxxoxixexxxxaxexaxxxuxxoxoxixxxxaxxxexxexxxxxixxouxxxxexoxixixaxxxouxxexxxoxxaxxx xxxxxxixexxoxaxxxxxuxxxxxxaxexixxaxxuxxxooxxxxouxxxxxxxxxxoxxouxxexixxixaxexxxoxxxoxxxxxexxxouxxaxxxxxuxxxxxxexxaxxxxxxoxxaxxx xxxxxxixexxexuxxxaxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxx

Hmmm.. Where did the consonants go? I guess I'll share those later.

Good luck Davey. (and anyone else who likes a challenge.. but let Davey go first) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Alexis Jazz, Thanks for your questions :),
File:2016 Rally Portugal - Sébastien Ogier.jpg I would pass as the licence was CC0 at that time and therefore their new licence have no bearing on all previous images hosted,
File:Android-2018790.jpg is a pass because it was uploaded before 2019 meaning it would've still had the old licence (The archive copy states "Pixababy licence" which is only because it was archived in 2019 and not near to when the file was uploaded)
File:Buldogo.svg is a pass as old licence(CC0) still applies
File:Moe Manga Lady.png is a pass as old licence(CC0) still applies
File:Feral cat 8.jpg is a pass because it was uploaded before 2019 meaning it would've still had the old licence (The archive copy states "Pixababy licence" which is only because it was archived in 2019 and not near to when the file was uploaded)
File:Child Jesus.jpg is a pass as old licence(CC0) still applies
File:Chopper.png is a pass as old licence(CC0) still applies
File:Creative common leyfistákn.png is a pass as old licence(CC0) still applies
File:Donald Trump $100 bill.jpg is a pass as old licence(CC0) still applies
File:Jeju Black pig.jpg is a pass because it was uploaded before 2019 meaning it would've still had the old licence (The archive copy states "Pixababy licence" which is only because it was archived in 2019 and not near to when the file was uploaded)
File:Donald Trump's face in a mushroom cloud.jpg is a pass as old licence(CC0) still applies,
Thanks, –Davey2010[ talk:Davey2010|Talk]] 11:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Err... all pass? And no guesses why Alexis picked these ones? I mean, some are really debatable here, so I was ready to accept you with a decent try, but is this really a decent try? Can you at least explain why some might be debatable? --GRuban (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hint: yes, they're all on Pixabay before the license change date, but pretend they were on some other site. Are there potential issues with the images themselves? I mean, as above those issues can be debatable, but what would the potential debate look like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRuban (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"I was ready to accept you with a decent try, but is this really a decent try?" - Rude much!, Apparently I know fuck all so consider this withdrawn. –Davey2010Talk 15:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suddenly just realised the trump images could well be copyright as is the android logo (and I have a feeling the bulldog image is too), I was asked to focus on the licences which I did so I never gave a thought about the actual images, Entirely my fault this failed but hey ho I shan't request here again, Thanks all. –Davey2010Talk 16:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ouch. So sorry, Davey, I did not mean that to happen, I hoped you'd try to discuss potential issues with each in a bit more detail. This was a rough test, as least in my reading of it; honestly most license reviewing is >80% easy pass, >15% easy fail, and less than 5% complicated issues like this. Here is my take on these (and Alexis may well follow up and say that I'm all wrong here! We've met at a few image deletion discussions!). First, of course, you got the issue with the Pixabay license change, which these all pass. But there is something to discuss about most of these.

  • File:2016 Rally Portugal - Sébastien Ogier.jpg - this is a car covered with commercial logos, especially the Red Bull logo on the hood. The logos themselves are copyrighted; in this case, we can probably consider them de minimis, but I'm pretty sure this is what Alexis is getting at with this one. See the note on the top of Category:Red Bull cans.
  • File:Android-2018790.jpg - this is a derivative work of the Android logo. But we have a whole Category:Android logos, so as long as we keep that, this should fit fine there.
  • File:Buldogo.svg - Not a logo that I recognize, no issues
  • File:Moe Manga Lady.png - this is a composite image, a drawing on top of a photo. I don't see any evidence that the Pixabay user didn't create both, though
  • File:Feral cat 8.jpg - no issues, you're allowed to take photos of cats
  • File:Child Jesus.jpg - this is a 3d artwork, so I can imagine someone saying that the photographer doesn't own the statue. It could be all right if it were taken in a public space in a place with permissive Commons:Freedom of panorama such as the UK; but the Pixabay user seems to come from Germany, which allows Freedom of panorama for the outdoors, but not for interiors...
  • File:Chopper.png - this isn't actually the image in any of the links! There are 3 links for source, and this image isn't any of them. It is arguably very close to the first one, if it was edited just a bit...
  • File:Creative common leyfistákn.png - These are Creative Commons logos, but I'm pretty sure Creative Commons releases their logos under a Creative Commons license.
  • File:Donald Trump $100 bill.jpg - This is a composite image, of a Trump cartoon and a pretty accurate bill. Template:PD-USGov-money applies for one, and ... I don't recognize the specific Trump cartoon, as there are so many. Arguably the image owner just drew it. Someone could in theory try to find the original Trump cartoon, perhaps Alexis just recognizes it, but other than that it should be fine
  • File:Jeju Black pig.jpg - again, no issues, photo of animal
  • File:Donald Trump's face in a mushroom cloud.jpg - again a composite/derivative image where each part could be copyrighted. I don't think they are; many mushroom cloud pictures are from the US Federal government for obvious reasons, and again, there are so many Trump photos and cartoons, we'd need to find the specific one to show the uploader didn't just draw this one from their own imagination.

So, I could see any given one of these being perfectly fine, but I think this is what Alexis was trying to get at with them. --GRuban (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a great understanding with some of the things above so I feel this was generally a non-starter from the start, As I said on my talkpage I didn't feel the question was as clear as it could've been I simply assumed it was licence-related but regardless of the clearness it was my fault for not picking up on certain things with the images from the start (instead I focused solely on the licences),
Anyway I accept your apology and I apologise to you GRuban as well as to everyone else for my reaction,
There's more to Licence Reviewing than I first thought so I guess had these questions not been asked I could've caused a few issues with LR so in some ways I'm glad the questions were asked, Meh I enjoy categorising etc so it's not the end of world :), Anyway thanks all and again sorry to have wasted your time. –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010, GRuban, and Hedwig in Washington: The thread was archived so quickly I was unable to share to answer key with you. Here it is, including consonants:

  • File:Donald Trump $100 bill.jpg: Copyright on money is always complicated.. There's {{PD-USGov-money}}, except.. this is obviously a photoshopped bill without a source for the Trump image. I would open a DR, if the Trump image is freely licensed it'll pass.
  • File:2016 Rally Portugal - Sébastien Ogier.jpg: the Red Bull logo on the car is copyrighted, but de minimis: the subject is the car, not the decals. Author ok. Pass.
  • File:Creative common leyfistákn.png: well joy, you get to look up what the heck the license for these buttons is. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Add the license and attribution, remove the Pixabay template. Arguably PD-textlogo, but that's not your problem. No license review, at least not for Pixabay. (a license review for creativecommons.org could he provided)
  • File:Android-2018790.jpg: The Android Robot is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. The derivative work by the Pixabay user was released as CC0. Add the CC BY 3.0 license, Google attribution and pass. Perhaps remove the Pixabay template to avoid confusion, though technically it could stay because that's the license for the derivative work by the Pixabay user, though it doesn't cover the underlying Android Robot which is CC BY. The Pixabay has uploaded more 3D models, so no questions there.
  • File:Moe Manga Lady.png: the Pixabay user has several drawings in a similar style. A quick Google image search doesn't bring up any obvious proof for copyvio. An exhaustive search might result in proof for copyvio, but that's beyond the duty of a license reviewer. Does not meet COM:PRP so COM:AGF. Pass.
  • File:Feral cat 8.jpg: The answer to the second question was: I like cats, and this one's cute. Pass.
  • File:Child Jesus.jpg: Little baby Jesus is a derivative work and appears to be infringing on copyrights. No pass.
  • File:Buldogo.svg: This image looks quite a bit like one I know and may be older than this SVG.. but it doesn't matter. It was uploaded by user "Clker-Free-Vector-Images", which is just uploading files from http://www.clker.com/. The original source would have to be provided. I would open a DR (or skip it so it becomes someone else's problem.. yes that sounds more like me) and there's a good chance it won't survive.
  • File:Chopper.png: Image from Pixabay user OpenClipart-Vectors. {{PD-OpenClipart}}, original source needs to be provided. Same as Buldogo in that respect. Without the original source, no pass.
  • File:Donald Trump's face in a mushroom cloud.jpg: No source indicated for both the cloud and Trump. Open a DR. No pass.
  • File:Jeju Black pig.jpg: CUUUUUUUUUUUUTE pass.

@GRuban:

  • You are right that Chopper.png is not an exact match, but I would personally consider them similar enough to assume the image was updated at the source or something. Or overwrite the Commons image with whatever is at Pixabay now. And then there's also the matter of "was this derived from someone else's photo?", but it didn't matter, so I didn't go that deep in the answer key.
  • The Trump cartoon (at least the style) does look very familiar, I may remember at some point where I've seen it before. Looking at the other contributions from the Pixabay user, this is a photoshopper, not an illustrator.
  • The thing I recognized the bulldog from is https://www.thebulldog.com/. It's not quite the same, but still similar. But it doesn't matter without the Clker source.
  • For Little Baby Jesus, FoP is unlikely to apply in most countries. FoP generally requires a permanent exposition.

The second important criterion for the application of § 59 UrhG is the permanent display of the work. The Federal Court of Justice held in 2002 that neither does this require the work to remain at its place for the entire duration of its existence, nor is it purely a question of the author’s dedication. The relevant criterion, then, is the original intention of the work display as perceived by an “objective observer.” Based on this, the Court ruled that the photographic reproduction of a work photographed in the context of a two-week long exposition cannot be subsumed under § 59 UrhG because the temporary character of the exposition clearly showed that no permanent presentation was intended.

— Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama

Christmas may feel like an eternity to some, but legally it isn't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Withdrawn Re-closing. Again. – 1989 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Tulsi Bhagat

Comments
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 20:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Cultural differences might play a role for one. There is also an issue that well, I guess I can't blame you for not knowing because hardly anyone seems to know. Actually, that issue will likely not result in actual deletion, but something needs to be fixed. The last one may be considered debatable. If you manage to figure out why one of these is a fail, I'd say you passed with flying colors. (if not, you still passed for me) And relax, most license reviewing is not as hard as this. I'm just a . - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Oops, Thank you for clarifying. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 05:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
+1: I wasn't sure about the last three ones so i pointed out these. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 06:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: Oh, I just noticed you detected a similar issue below! For me, you passed with flying colors! (but others still have to vote, so you haven't won the race yet) The similar issue was that images from https://pixabay.com/en/users/Clker-Free-Vector-Images-3736/ require the actual source from http://www.clker.com/. Still, two images left. Could you achieve a perfect score? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: File:Star-wars-29792.svg looks like from www.clker.com/clipart-10557.html. Also, available on too many sites. Debatable one. File:Augmented-reality-1957411 960 720.jpg has metadata OK. Author OK. I would still pass it though. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 05:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: I assume you are not familiar with the Star Wars franchise. This is an AT-AT. As I just discovered, there is a DR for the same image in PNG format: Commons:Deletion requests/File:AT-AT walker.png. Regarding File:Augmented-reality-1957411 960 720.jpg, the medical education mannequin would ultimately not be considered a utilitarian object. But opinions may vary. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For 1: OK. I see, ultimate source is openclipart, {{PD-OpenClipart}} is considered.
  • For 2: Debatable one. It will probably pass. I would open a DR. (COM:FOP France and Com:De minimis..?)
  • For 3: OK. License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) and source from YouTube's official channel.
  • For 4: OK. License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) and source from YouTube's official channel.
  • For 5: Not OK. I didn't find Commons acceptable license. Permission required.

I hope, I did it well. Suggestions and more questions are welcome. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 04:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you believe that extra case questions are required whilst this candidate already demonstrated his/her skills? This isn't some kind off mini RFA. Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: I agree further grilling isn't really needed. But anyway, my take, just for fun:
  1. Source needs to be changed to openclipart, {{PD-OpenClipart}}, pass.
  2. Due to a lack of commercial FoP in France, debatable. I would probably skip it, leave it to someone who is more familiar with the limits of French FoP. As this is a test, I looked it up: Louis Vuitton Foundation. The building (which is largely obscured anyway..) I would consider utilitarian, a French judge may or not agree. The glass sails actually appear to have a function: guide rainwater to storage tanks. If they were pointless, I'd say fail. But considering the glass sails actually do have a function, I'd pass it. They can send Wikimedia a DMCA notice if they disagree. As volunteers, we are already going beyond the call of duty here. But as I said, I'd probably skip it as I'm not familiar enough with the community consensus for French FoP.
  3. Pass without audio. You should have indicated if you meant the whole video or screenshots. Even if Tulsi Bhagat assumed the video with audio, I won't blame him. He's from Nepal, I don't know if Lady Gaga is very popular in Nepal. I wouldn't expect him to know MTV doesn't own Lady Gaga either.
  4. Pass including audio. Antonio Vivaldi died in 1741.
  5. Oh damnit. The United States Army Field Band, {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}, right? No. First of all, is the United States Army Field Band even an official part of the army? I don't know and it doesn't matter. Description: "Staff Sergeant Kyra White sings "Where Are You, Christmas?" from the film How the Grinch Stole Christmas, arranged by Master Sergeant Adrian Hernandez." How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000 film) is protected by copyright, so forget about the audio. But what about the video? We can take screenshots maybe if the United States Army Field Band is USGov right? Right? Well I guess not with the information we are given. They perform somewhere indoors, so presumably they used services of the owner of the facility to record the gig. So the recording may have been done by non-military personnel. But then, perhaps that doesn't matter because it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld. So okay I guess if this video is something that is considered something the government uses, it's PD! Well I can't be lazy on this so let's visit http://www.armyfieldband.com. Or not, because the site won't load. Well, luckily archive.org has it. The site actually doesn't really give any useful information on the surface. The about page is useless. I really, really, really don't want to go digging through financial reports or something to figure this out. There is one clue though, besides the name: the US Army Field Band has a mail.mil e-mail address. And I'll settle for that. We could probably take screenshots of this video, but I'm sure there are also Commons users who will prefer to stay on the safe side of COM:PRP here. I actually can't decide. I'd open a DR. Or ask Clindberg.
And there I was, thinking I was mean. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this a tough test? Sorry to say, but I even haven't heard the name of Lady Gaga before. — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 06:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: Lady Gaga is quite well known.. to mostly young people in the west. So it's a cultural thing. I don't blame you for it, although it may be wise to be cautious around what appears to be possibly popular western media. If a westerner encounters something popular from Asia, they will often not recognize it either. I support you, and yes, some of these tests are ridiculously hard. I think nobody here is going to ace these tests. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: Your answers on 1 is good; on 2, 4, and 5 are ok; on 3 is wrong. I would have asked you to reconsider but User:Alexis Jazz disclosed all the key points (please don't next time). #1, there is an actual author instead of public domain vectors. FOP Bangladesh should be considered. #2, no FOP and straight to deletion. For videos, of course I refer to both visual and audio. It is not very useful to watch someone lip sync on wikipedia. Taking screenshots is surely acceptable. #3, although it's youtube CC from a genuine account, the song is copyrighted. #4, easy pass. #5, PD-USGov, a very common licence to see on Commons, but the song is copyrighted.
No one is expected to know everything, but the possibly copyrighted materials in these files are obvious because they are specified in the titles and descriptions. Google can help you find that en:Applause (Lady Gaga song) and en:Where Are You, Christmas? are recent works. It's more common to find unspecified copyrighted materials in YTCC videos. And there exist many fake accounts releasing other people's works under YTCC. The same applies to all websites. Declared licences are not guaranteed genuine.
I had read the nominee's contribs, but it was not convincing. Neither were the questions before me, so I asked. LR is different from other roles such as file movers, patrollers, and rollbackers. Those deal with technical stuff, which can be reverted by a few clicks, but LR is linked to the integrity of copyright statements of Commons files.
Weak  Support. User:Tulsi Bhagat you should be more cautious and always ask yourself whether there is anything possibly copyrighted, be it photos in montages, songs, movie clips, news footage or whatever, and whether the accounts and licences are real.--Roy17 (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support as per above answers. Yann (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support User:Tulsi Bhagat as a license reviewer.
    For me, this right is supposed to be about reviewing the license of a file on the source website, so that the community can make sure that at least two independent people can confirm the image was once available on the source with a free license, in case the copyright holder changes their mind. The problem of voice of Lady Gaga can always be discussed, without any concerns for time. The same applies to Star War franchise and United States Army Field Band. I do think our license reviewers need to be more knowledgeable than User:FlickreviewR (which is a bot that obviously cannot judge content), but they do not need to know every aspect of copyright law (BTW, who knows?) So, I ask the community to lower its expectations from license reviewers. I don't think it's bad to nominate an already license-reviewed file for deletion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Promoted. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Acagastya

Comments
@Roy17: Regarding the first video, Vivaldi Concerto for Strings in D Major; Vivaldi was an Italian composer who died more than two centuries ago. His composition has entered Public Domain. But that does not automatically mean that this audio is in Public Domain. The reason being, anyone can make use of content in Public Domain, make a derivative work of it, can claim copyright on that newer version of it. (For the sake of example, story of Rapunzel, by Grimm brothers, is in Public Domain, but the story of Tangled, is a derivative work of that story, and the new story is under Walt Disney's copyright). Question is, was the composition of this audio different from Vivaldi's? Now, that is subjective: no composition can be played exactly the same, without any delay in a note, but those changes are too minute. As a whole, this work is "faithful copy" of work in PD. Also, the uploader, as the name suggests was part of the institute. It would have been better if there was an official website of their's for crosschecking. However, looking at the other videos uploaded by the same uploader hints they are part of the institute and thus, the recording was not by any spectator filming it. This should be okay as the party concerned performed faithful copy of PD.

As far as the second one is concerned, the score of a song from Pirates of the Caribbean, I had never watched any Pirates of the Caribbean movie, and I did not know the score. I listened to the movie score today, just to make sure that it was actually a score from the movie. This was composed by Hans Zimmer, first released in the US, and under Walt Disney Record label. The composition is protected under copyright, and the uploader has not paid enough attention to detail that just because they have filmed something, does not mean that they are free to release it in any license as they desire (unless they had received permission from the copyright holder to perform and re-license it under a free license -- and till a valid proof is available, it should be treated as permission was not granted). This is a clear no-no.
acagastya 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted 1989 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

IagoQnsi

Comments
 Comment A couple of questions:
  1. What happened with File:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal IMG 0882.jpg and File:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal IMG 0883.jpg?
  2. Why did you upload the first version of File:2016 MLS All-Star Game logo.jpg including the AT&T logo?
  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Those two images are files that I both uploaded and tagged for copyvio deletion, and they were essentially close-ups of FC Cincinnati's kit design. In the other images from that set, the kit design was incidental enough to be acceptable per COM:DM, but those two images were entirely focused on the kit. When I first looked through the image set, I mentally noted that those two weren't usable. But by the time I downloaded the images, converted to JPEG, and set up VicunaUploader, I forgot I needed to exclude those. I realized my mistake when I was going through the images to categorize them, and appropriately tagged them for deletion.
When I uploaded the AT&T logo, I was thinking that the logo didn't exceed COM:TOO, especially after seeing that several similar images had the same license in Category:AT&T logos. However, I failed to notice that this AT&T logo was subtly more complex -- it had a 3D effect and you could see the obverse of the sphere in the background (you can see it for yourself here). It's still a relatively simple logo, but it probably exceeds the threshold of originality. So, mea culpa -- I've learned my lesson to keep a closer eye for subtle complexities in PD-simple logos. –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted 1989 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Cherkash

Comments
E.g. these: File:Spectre_logo_without_text.svg, File:Foreshadow logo with narrow text.svg. They are identical to the files published on the referenced websites, and the CC0 license there is clearly posted. The result would be how e.g. this file was marked: File:Spectre logo with text.svg. Cherkash (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
1 weak oppose - 0 support → No consensus to promote. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Wildly boy

Comments

 Not done No consensus to promote. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

ChoHyeri

Comments

✓ Done There is consensus to promote. Jianhui67 T★C 03:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

QueerEcofeminist

Comments
Aldnonymous I just checked the proposed policy page and I suggest following path to go about it,(with my confusions)
  • Frankly, I don't know whether I am on the same page as I should be but, discussion might start on these lines.
  • Being a selfie, first question comes to my mind is, what would be the educational use of that particular image? as many selfies might be of no educational/documentation value.
  • If it passes the first question then, probably we can ask for permission of a actual camera person,
  • Still it remains confusing for me as, I would like to go back to the goal of the project and decide on the same lines.(As there are many images on commons which are kept here assuming good faith/personality rights, But all of it might fall under the bystander selfie category and come under scrutiny soon)
  • The all of the above, if the image depicts only uploader and nothing else then that particular person's permission might be enough to mark it as acceptable bystander selfie.(assuming good faith on uploader and their permission to release that file under commons compatible license.)
  • So basically, We need to think of personality rights, identifiable people, selfie, educational/documentation value and importantly copyrights. And collective consideration might give clear answer regarding the single case.
  • Probably a three-four point checklist can be developed to go about bystander selfies. thanks and regards. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 09:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Insufficient experience and no consensus to promote. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Steve Mulch Civic (Pro)

Comments

 Not done. No consensus to promote.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 14:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

ZI Jony

Comments
I believe that I tried my best to learn all about it and hope I did. Regarding the mention I was report itself at COM:VPC, see this after that I learn about Derivative works. I also believe that learning never end and we can learn till end of day. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 10:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@ZI Jony: What did you learn about uploading here from YouTube?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: In short if YouTube users mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license then can be uploaded on Commons else the file is violating copyright rules and that file can't upload on Commons. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Not even a cursory mention of the problem with derivative works in videos and how that can affect license review. Seeing as they stated that they learned about derivative works just a few lines up and then proceeded to state that a CC license on a YouTube video is an immediate ok in their book makes me very uncomfortable giving them the ability to review uploads. --Majora (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. No consensus to promote.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 03:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Tiven2240

Comments
  • Tiven2240 could you please link to the failed requests? What have you learnt from the failed requests and what has changed in the last one year? Looking forward to reading your response. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    T Cells The link to the failed request can be found here. I've learned that I lacked knowledge of being a license Reviewer that time. I was unaware of the necessities of this rights such as COM:DW, COM:PRP and COM:TOO and I have been since working on this. In my contributions you can find DR mostly on COM:SCOPE and Speedy requests for unfree derivative works and copyright violations under COM:SPEEDY. I've been active on the OTRS and learnt about permissions and COM:UNDEL and even been successful to report few users for violations at COM:AN/V. I have also been active in organising COM:WLL19 where I have learned categorizing and organising events. I have also been translating pages and moving files as per COM:FM. So this is a quick preview of my works in last 2 years after my LRR was rejected. Hope this helps. Thank you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question Could you please elaborate a little on the provenance/licensing of File:Bhupesh Baghel, June 2018.jpg? I'm a little confused by "Previously published: I haven't publish this anywhere. This photo was taken by his own cameraman. Author: Domino786". Is Domino786 the cameraman (The original upload log says: "Uploading a self-made file...")? If not, where can the CC0 license be confirmed? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Thanks. -- Begoon 04:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    Begoon regarding the file. It was transferred by me to Wikimedia commons from English Wikipedia as the politician (who is the subject of the image) was under elections and there was need for his image on articles. The subject is now the Chief Minister of a state in India. This image was not published before anywhere before so this is probably original work. The uploader has many more uploads like these but the exif doesn't match. Nevertheless I have asked for clarification of the same from the original uploader via mail and will Assume good faith untill the next 7 days. Failing so I will nominate the image for deletion.

    Regarding Public Domain work, the public domain is complicated. Its laws varies from country to country. A general rule of thumb is that if the creator of a work has expired for more than 70 years, then their works is in public domain of that country where the creator was a citizen and in the country where the work was first published. Since this is not a image uploaded from a external website so the procedures of COM:LR is not possible to verify it's License. The uploader needs to follow the procedures prescribed under COM:OTRS. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

    The list of files uploaded to Commons by Domino786 is here, which all seem to be landscapes/architecture uploaded for Wiki Loves Earth, rather than portraits - just 7 images uploaded within the space of one minute (with 4 (or 5) different cameras in the EXIFs), all described as "own work" and tagged CC4. At en.wiki, here is the upload list, just 4 pictures, all of this politician, 2 deleted for lack of license details, one the file you transferred here, and one seemingly the image from which it was cropped. Where are you seeing that "the uploader has many more uploads like [this]"? Again, my apologies if I have misunderstood you. Thanks. -- Begoon 10:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    Dear Begoon, Am speaking about the same uploads that you pointed above. At current I don't think that I am here for discussing the Image. If you find this image problematic feel free to mark the Image for DR and let more people discuss it. Hope this helps. Thank you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    As I see it, you are here to have your suitability to review licenses assessed. This seemed to me a good opportunity to discuss the process and how you would approach it, with a tangible example. From COM:LR - "To become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons. A reviewer is required to know which licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons and be familiar with restrictions that may apply". In my opinion, assessing this file is a useful indicator - LR is not just about robotically looking at a Flickr etc. page and ticking a box - awareness of uploader history and behaviour are important, since not every externally claimed license will be valid. Thank you for your answers so far, and if you don't feel inclined to discuss it further that's entirely your call. Good luck. -- Begoon 11:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per the last response to Begoon. License reviewers are expected to be open for discussion particularly when the issues raised has to do with files they uploaded, reviewed or transfered here from other projects. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no Indication above that I am not open for discussion. I just noted that this is not a place for discussion of the image. Wikimedia Commons has specific procedures and I tend to follow up discussion about a Image at the image talkpage, uploaders Talkpage, the Village pump or on the DR. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Both these videos are in the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license on YouTube. The first video is from Bhubaneswar a city in India. As per COM:FOP India it is not ok to upload 2D works. Since Indian copyright laws are modelled on that of UK, we have to refer to COM:FOP UK where "Works of artistic craftsmanship" are OK, "graphic works" are not. So the upload is problematic.
The second videos description clearly states "All of the content in this video belong to their respective owners. We do not own any of the footage or music used in this video." the YouTube uploader has no permission to release these in Creative Commons license, so this video is not Ok to upload on Wikimedia Commons. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sincere apologies, but, given the above, I'm still concerned the candidate might tend to "rubber stamp" rather than properly investigate. I could, however, change my mind reasonably easily if shown a couple of examples which demonstrate otherwise. -- Begoon 02:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support: sufficient knowledge of copyright; some minor complaints in the last two years. Thanks for the answers.--Roy17 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the candidate has learnt from past requests, and can be trusted with license reviewer rights. Sufficient knowledge of licensing and copyright is demonstrated. I don't see why not. Jianhui67 T★C 14:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

✓ Granted → I feel, we got a consensus to promote this candidate. Please use this tool consciously! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 14:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Catherine Laurence

Comments
There's absolutely no need to be so harsh, Jeff. This discussion is about whether they're worthy of getting the license review rights, not about their abilities to comment out templates. --küñall (nütramyen) 05:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should explain these: SignBot remind me to sign because of Special:diff/343723576 and Special:diff/343722889. I think this is just a robot error. And I don't know that I should remove {{No RFP}}, because the page prompts me To apply, submit your request at the bottom of this page. Copy the code below and only replace "Reason" with the reason you are requesting this user right.. So I did not remove the template, I sorry about this. Finally, I don't know what mean is your " correctly fill out templates"? If you mean this editor ,I think that this just editing tool has error because this kind of thing happened once in meta-wiki. Regards. -- Catherine Laurence 06:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, we all make mistakes, but, since you are applying for the right to review licenses, I'd hope to see a little more thought, inspection and review of all the pertinent details, which were all present, albeit with a minor typo: [ ->{. I've fixed the file page, I think. Do you think there is anything else to do on this? -- Begoon 08:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I am after doing this, I will check if the comic author is still alive or dead for more than sixty years. Then I will check if the author is a US citizen. Finally, I will check if this comic is a fan art (Because I don't know Sherlocko the Monk is a original comic). Regards. -- Catherine Laurence 09:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok. The comic series was published in Hearst's syndicated press (US) from 18 january 1911. Gus Mager, the author, was an American painter, illustrator and cartoonist who died in 1956 (linked on the file page when you tagged it). According to the Arthur Conan Doyle encyclopedia, this strip: The Mystery of the Empty Hen Coop was first published in 1911, well before 1924. So I'm not really very concerned about any of that. What I was more wondering was whether you thought it might be polite to do something about the warning you left on User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. -- Begoon 09:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Then why didn't you change the license instead of nominating it for deletion? — Racconish 💬 09:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is correct, so I requested it. --Catherine Laurence 09:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Thank you for your answer. I think you should wait until you acquire more confidence with licenses before reviewing them. — Racconish 💬 10:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. There is no consensus to promote at this time. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 06:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Fitindia

Comments
  • Could you please help with reviewing the following files when you can, or comment on their licensing?
  1. File:AU2I9124 (48039897016).jpg
  2. File:Masumura Yasuzō 増村 保造.jpg
  3. File:Satellite Close Up of Hurricane Michael's Eye.webm
  4. File:Rakuten Rental 2012 ゆうメール (7745729916).jpg
  5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/rhysadams/12415053685/ , is this video in its entirety compatible with Commons?--Roy17 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: sorry for the late revert with the time difference just got on Commons now. FitIndia 14:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. Photo is damaged but better version can be found on Flickr, the author in the summery/Flickr are same but the author in the metadata is different. Would require permission from the original author.
  2. The image was published in 2011-09-06 by Athens International Film Festival and uploaded to Flickr in 2012, looks like Flickr washing
  3. This one is fine
  4. Stamps have copyright issues
  5. Music in the background a copyright issue
@GRuban: Thank you for your support vote, In the case of #4 as per the Japanese Copyright law, only stamps published 70 years ago or before 1st January 1968 are in the public domain and these stamps were published in 1994 and 1998 respectively, and in the case of #5 the clip seems to be shot in Las Vegas and as per US Federal law 17 U.S.C. § 1101 imposes civil penalties for the unauthorized recording of live performances or the transmission or distribution of such content. FitIndia 16:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 Support I think Fitindia is competent. But, for #1, a corrupt transfer from flickr, the way to handle it is to overwrite with the original (by pasting the link to the original in the upload form), and let the bot review it again. Authorship of this particular file is fine: EXIF says gffoto17, which most likely stands for Gregg Forwerck foto 17.--Roy17 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted 1989 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Daffy123

Comments
  • First question: Are you aware that you will be unable to review images that you have uploaded, and will still need to wait for them to be reviewed by others? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: I think that's a standard conflict of interest issue so yes I am aware of that. (although if it's an approved bot I believe you can still review your own images) --Daffy123 (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Which group of unreviewed files do you plan to focus on? Category:License review needed? Videos? Flickr images needing human review? Or just anything in general?--Roy17 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: I would have to say Flickr images would definitely be a priority though I do have experience nominating non-Flickr images for deletion, some of which were eventually deleted. --Daffy123 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose - User hasn't demonstrated at all what knowledge they have inregards to licence reviewing. –Davey2010Talk 01:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Not voting now, but what the candidate has said so far fails to convince me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Daffy123: could you please comment on the following from a reviewer's perspective?
  1. File:Marina de Tavira.tif
  2. File:Louvre Museum (42139866211).jpg
  3. File:Office Mix.jpg
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/luderbrus/11826974696/ --Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: First one is probably Flickrwashing (the photo is copyrighted to a Mexican photo agency called JerryML). Second one is okay. Third one is okay but with wrong license (I suggest PD-textlogo and Trademarked should do it). Fourth one has background music issues. --Daffy123 (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Daffy123: #2 Louvre is not OK. Can you think of why?--Roy17 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: L122-5 of the French Code of Intellectual Property limits freedom for panorama for works in architecture.

 Not promoted No consensus at this time. Experience is needed for this role. 1989 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Balajijagadesh

  • Balajijagadesh (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: More than two thousand out of copyright books in the Tamil language are added to the commons in 2016. The license of these files are not reviewed. Because the file name and source details are in Tamil language. To clear the backlog, I wish to volunteer for license review of Tamil books uploaded in commons. In addition A brief intro about me. I am in commons from 2010. I have uploaded more than 1800 files. Many of them orginial work. Some are derivative translational work. I have contributed many useful pictures which are used in many wikipedia articles. Regards. -- Balaji (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 06:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Oppose Files with expired copyright generally don't need a license review. Also, when I looked at your contributions File:Bio Pic Of PeriasamyThooran.jpeg was the latest edit. You imported this file from enwiki, blindly believing the claim "I created this work entirely by myself." for a photo of someone who died in 1987. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The file is there is english wikipedia from 2008. Last 10 years no action was taken. Also I can understand your concern. I did a reverse search of the image in google before uploading to commons. I couldnt find anything controversial. The file was tagged as move to commons in the wikipage. Hence I moved that file. If it is not appropriate I am ready to resolve it positively and learn on the way. For this incident opposing my application i feel harsh. please do check the good work/original works done by me for the last 8 years. Kind regards. -- Balaji (talk)
@Balajijagadesh: I guess English Wikipedia doesn't police copyvios as thoroughly as Commons does. Frankly I already knew that. I also see plenty of good uploads, though in all those temple pictures you didn't declare (for example with {{Licensed-PD}} what the permission for the sculptures is. I guess {{PD-old-100-expired}} for the ancient stuff and {{FoP-India}} for anything more recent.
File:Input font problem in tawikipedia.png: you linked the source article, but not the images. (which would be annoying if the article was deleted or the images were changed) Also the entire screenshot is "own work", but you didn't write the article.
File:Chowmahal palace (14).jpg is obvious COM:DW. Please continue contributing, but you have a bit more to learn before you could be a license reviewer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Alexis Jazz: thanks for taking time to explain the problems in my work. I will add all these to my learnings and improve in the future. Kind regards. -- Balaji (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
hi@Alexis Jazz: //Also the entire screenshot is "own work", but you didn't write the article.// I didn't understand this line. 'own work' states that the picture(screenshot) is created by me. not the content inside the picture right? correct me if i am wrong. -- Balaji (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Balajijagadesh: without any other attribution, "own work" means that you claim everything, the screenshot, the depicted article and the depicted photos as "own work". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Alexis, Whilst mistakes do happen this mistake should not of happened, I'm also unimpressed with their reply "The file is there is english wikipedia from 2008. Last 10 years no action was taken" - Just because no action was taken it doesn't mean the file's okay and it's worth mentioning the file has barely been edited. –Davey2010Talk 10:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Davey2010: from Alexis words // I guess English Wikipedia doesn't police copyvios as thoroughly as Commons does.// I didnt know this. With this new understanding I conclude my statement "The file is there is english wikipedia from 2008. Last 10 years no action was taken" is not good. I will add this to my learnings as well. Anyway thanks for taking your time to comment on this. Kind regards - Balaji (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Completely understand, If you've never edited there then I can understand your logic here, But I still feel it was careless, Anyway good luck with your LR. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for me to pile on as this user has acknowledged the feedback in good faith and I'm confident that they will improve. That being said, there is nothing to add to what my colleague has said above. Since this isn't going anywhere, I'll ask any patroling admin or LR to close this request. Regards. T CellsTalk 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Not promoted. Good attitude but lack of experience now. (I believe concensus is clear and this can be closed early.)--Roy17 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Patrick Rogel

Comments
1st question: Please note I'm not applying for being an OTRS Team member but I would say no. 2nd question: I won't do it. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am fully aware that this is not a request to be an OTRS volunteer but a test of your general knowledge of copyright. I do not think I deserve to be reminded that this is a request for a LR. Could you please explain your "I would say no" and $ I won't do it" response? Regard. T CellsTalk 08:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't upload files to Commons so it won't be easy to explain the process. Nevertheless and if I remember it well there's a phrase like "I hereby affirm..." so a permission is not transferable. Besides there will be a conflict of interest in granting a permission for someone of his family. I remember having asked explanations to an OTRS volunteer who had reviewed his own files. He replied he was the only OTRS agent on his own language. Finally an another OTRS agent has granted his permission. But I don't know if it's formally forbidden (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Riggwelter). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@T Cells: I think this is an interesting but pretty complicated question. It's probably related to Property rights (economics) and may depend on the country. I suspect (not sure!) a parent would be able to license the work of their child (if this is reasonably in the best interest of the child), but only until the child becomes an adult. That would make it impossible to grant any sort of irrevocable license like Creative Commons. License reviewers rarely if ever have to deal with this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment This surprises me. I'm kind of inclined to support, but I've seen Patrick cut some corners in the past regarding DRs. I think this is less of an issue nowadays, but I didn't keep track. Can you explain in detail the general procedure/steps you plan to follow when reviewing files? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
As Patrick didn't answer my question, I think it would be odd for me to support him. I won't oppose him either though, and there appears to be plenty support for my vote not to matter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Facebook images are not free of use. Obvious copyvios doesn't need a regular DR (anyway that's what I've been told) but a "no permission since" tag would have been suitable too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 Support Enough experience.--Roy17 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted 1989 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Xoaw

  • Xoaw (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason:Please I also request to be a reviewer of wikimedia images, I know that I have made mistakes in wikimedia, but I am willing to solve it and accept the rules and policies of wikimedia, I am not perfect, but I want to review images and notice if the images do not violate the rules and policies of wikimedia. I will read and know and learn more about the rules and policies of wikimedia to not make the same mistakes I made earlier.
  • Scheduled to end: 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Oppose This is a terrible terrible terrible idea. I know who you are. Don't ask for proof, you know I have proof. The only reason I'm not saying it out loud is to protect you, and indirectly, Commons. Because you cause more damage when you sock. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: To you with all respect, I do not know him very well, but what he does not have proof of, he better stop walking falsely accusing Antisocial Jazz,I also appreciate that you protect me--Xoaw (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I know I'm a rookie, but I'm willing to solve what I've done wrong to not do it again--Xoaw (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You know me perfectly well, and I know you. And you know I have proof. Your past behavior (not just this account) disqualifies you for the position of license reviewer, for life. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I do not know Alexis, we all make mistakes, but we all deserve a second chance, and I do not know very well, but if I have done something wrong I apologize, and so you know I will change to not make the same mistakes.--Xoaw (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Stop trolling. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Please, leave your lies because I am going to report it to an administrator--Xoaw (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone, close this request before Xoaw gets himself blocked.. again. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No idea what is going on above, but - since he asked for my vote - this user does not seem to me to have demonstrated at this point an ability to be a license reviewer. — Racconish 💬 18:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Racconish: Please give me an opportunity and I can show you that if I can, really, give me an opportunity--Xoaw (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Racconish: Please, I just ask for an opportunity, I can really show you that I can be a license reviewer.--Xoaw (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Boldly closing early. This user's action clearly shows a lack of competence and knowledge to be a reviewer. If you diagree, feel free to bring this to COM:VP or COM:AN.--Roy17 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Catherine Laurence 2

Comments
  1. This may be the error of the editing tool, I always forget that wikiplus will have strange errors on some non-Chinese wiki projects. In order to avoid such errors, I will disable it on this project.
  2. I have no impression of this picture. I also wonder why I uploaded it because itis an electronic bus stop photo taken with a mobile phone and can be understood as a screenshot. However, the system and software of this screen does not seem to be free software and may not meet the requirements of COM:SS. So the derivative works may be copyrighted. Maybe I only checked whether the uploader made it by himself or not but didn't check other things and mistakenly recognized that there was no copyright issue, so I uploaded it. I will pay attention to this issue in the next work.

Regards. Catherine Laurence 06:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Some concerns were raised in the two previous requests. What have you done differently? What has improved? T CellsTalk 05:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I personally think that the second harvest is more than the first. This makes me understand: 1. For a mismatched license, I should manually correct it instead of asking the DR to make changes. 2. For some of my own wrong editors, I should clear the inappropriate notice and politely apologize to the other party. In the recent editors I have worked hard to achieve these points. Regards. --Catherine Laurence 06:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. File:The bunny in rest.jpg
  2. File:WalberMoura RelogioDasFlores Garanhuns PE.jpg
  3. File:Nokia Communicator 9000 Opened 01.jpg
  4. File:Ayuntamiento Albelda de Iregua.jpg
  5. File:Leprechaun-28759.svg
  6. File:Donald Trump $100 bill.jpg
How would you review the files above? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. Yes
  2. I may mark the failure. Because this is a derivative work, and this clock may have copyright. Sorry, I have been looking for a long time and I can't find if this clock has reached the threshold of originality.
  3. Yes. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects
  4. Yes, COM:FOP Spain
  5. Yes. This photo was uploaded in 2012. Pixabay changed the license of the website in 2019. All licenses for this photo still belong to CC0.
  6. Yes. Per above.
@Catherine Laurence: are you able to visit flickr.com? Is it blocked by Great Firewall for you?--Roy17 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence: You got every single one wrong. Wanna try again? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis and Jazz: I reviewed it again, except for the second one, which was a bit uncertain, and the other files seemed to me to be fine. And the license is exactly the same as flickr. Sorry, can you explain to me in detail why everything is wrong? Thank you very much. -Catherine Laurence 10:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So you could visit flickr, but did you notice some photos were entirely different from the URL provided?--Roy17 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, like File:The_bunny_in_rest.jpg. But the photos in this source are in the same album as the target photo. -Catherine Laurence 12:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. Source link had to be fixed first.
  2. Clock probably covered by {{FoP-Brazil}}, but the photo is PD-mark, which Commons doesn't accept.
  3. The photo on the screen is either COM:DM or should be blurred/removed. Either way I'd have expected you to mention it.
  4. FOP Spain had nothing to do with it. The source link had to be fixed first.
  5. Original source from clker.com should be added first.
  6. Commons:Currency#United States of America plus a caricature of Trump that we can't safely assume to be the original work of the Pixabay user
(oh, didn't notice this was closed. Must have been closed right before I clicked edit.) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not promoted - Given your last 2 requests failed this year alone I'm rather surprised you'd come back for another go, Anyway no evidence in terms of their understanding and improvements from the last 2 requests have been presented so as such I'm closing this up so save the communities time further being wasted, Catherine I would strongly suggest you don't come back here again as you will end up blocked for disruptive editing. –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

大诺史

Comments
@Alexis Jazz: I do admit that was my fault for not knowing that only a license reviewer can verify that. I’ve already apologised for my actions (See User talk:大诺史/Archive/2019#Do not licence review), and since then I didn’t verify any other files. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Which specific category would you like to review? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: As flickr files already have a very active bot that reviews the files within minutes, its completely pointless to check that. So, I'll be primarily focusing on DW of videos that are posted on YouTube and possibly check flickr files needing human review from time to time. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Lets say for instance you stumble across these videos:
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4
Video 5
Which ones would you pass and which ones would you fail?. –Davey2010Talk 17:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: That's not too hard. (won't spoil it) Only #4 presents a potentially interesting conundrum that I fairly extensively discussed in a DR some time ago, a conundrum that I bet you didn't think of when selecting this clip. To be honest, I don't expect anyone here to pick up on what I'm talking about, so won't fault the candidate for not seeing it either. (but bonus points if they do know what I'm talking about) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
1.Possibly no (taken that there is no other content on the attributions links, I can’t seem to see anything). If so, no because there isn’t a reuse allowed tag.
2.Definitely no, even if the uploader states reuse allowed, it is a movie so its copyrighted by the production company.
3.I would say yes, the video had a “commons approved” license and it seems to me that no DW is involved.
4.No, although a valid tag is used, it is a self-made video taken by Vin Diesel himself. So he is the copyright holder of the video.
5.No for 2 reasons, derivative work and no re-use allowed tag.
I tried my best, so correct me if I’m wrong! 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 23:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm genuinely impressed! :),
Alexis - My thought for number 4 is the same as 大诺史 the video was indeed taken by Vin himself who probably didn't release it under a CC licence - I would assume the video was uploaded either to Facebook, Insta or his own YouTube channel if he has one, Given there's no mention at all of the Youtube channel that posted the video I personally believe it was reuploaded from somewhere else,
Gonna look rather dumb if there is something else I've completely missed lol. –Davey2010Talk 01:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: First some small notes, video 3 contains a little music and the blue car design appears to be copyrightable. I'd consider those things to be COM:DM in the scope of the entire video though, but extracting a screenshot of the blue car is probably not OK. Video 2 is Hush (2016), even though the title says "Logan Full movie". Video 5 is a clip from The Fast and the Furious.
This is the DR I was talking about: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crank Sturgeon - OEMF 2012 - 01.jpg. Now here's the conundrum: Vin Diesel says in the clip he's livestreaming it. For the sake of argument, let's say he didn't record it. Imagine for a moment that nobody had: Diesel could not possibly copyright the stream in that case. Anyone who saw it could create works inspired by it, and Diesel couldn't sue any of them for copyright infringement. Now clearly someone recorded it, but what if Diesel himself didn't? Could he still claim copyright over someone else's recording? Morally, the answer is obviously yes. Legally, you'd have to ask a copyright lawyer.. and I'm not sure they would know either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow that DR is a surprise and does raise some very good questions inregards to copyright and what not,
But I do agree unless the person in question physically releases something under a CC licence then Skype screenshots etc I assume would fall under copyright although who's copyright is the million dollar question. –Davey2010Talk 20:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Editor seems knowledgeable with various licencing and what not, The manual adding of the LR tag is highly concerning however having done checks this indeed was only done once and meh mistakes happen, Anyway support. –Davey2010Talk 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support- Knowledgeable and a prolific editor, will surely be of help to the community. FitIndia 02:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @大诺史: Do you have any previous or alternate accounts? Also, can you tell a joke in Chinese that doesn't work in English? It doesn't have to be a good or even a funny joke, as long as it's technically a joke. For example (English because I don't know Chinese): Knock knock. Who's there? Mirror. Or who? would be sufficient in terms of being (not) funny. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Unless you have a better suggestion to test if the candidate is truly a native Chinese speaker. Maybe ask something in Chinese that Google translate doesn't understand. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: This is my one and only account. I’d rather someone ask me a question in Chinese than me telling a joke . 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
为什么你不会说一个开玩笑？--DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Thanks, but even I can answer that with Google translate. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Shouldn’t it be 为什么你不会开玩笑 or 为什么你不要说个玩笑？ 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: Indeed, and that was the point - someone who doesn't know Chinese (like Alexis Jazz, I assume) would be able to still answer it, but only someone who actually knew the language would spot the slight grammatical error - I still got my point across, with the question, and you still demonstrated your knowledge of the language, with your answer. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
But technically, wouldn't it need to be 写 instead of 说? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Aaah! Clever! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: It’s kind of weird to say 写 instead of 说 as jokes are meant to be said not written. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
'为什么你不要说个玩笑' sounds so wrong to me... like '不要'... what do you mean by 不要? Is it 不想 / 不会 / 不能? Why not just '不说个玩笑'? And then there's '说个玩笑'... '开个玩笑' is much more idiomatically correct than that. Jokes are meant to be started :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Chinese is a wonderful language where you can play around with words. So there can be many translations for an English sentence, and the only (possibly) factor that might contribute to a different translated sentence is where the person is from (i.e. slang) 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 23:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support- Helpful, friendly, competent user who reacts positively to suggestions and to any minor errors being pointed out. Obviously very keen to assist, and will be an asset. I'll just add the same caution I added to their other recent rights request about not letting quantity and haste become the enemy of quality and care, because they are prolific, so it's important to take care and not to make quick, repeated errors - it's never a mistake to ask if you're ever at all unsure of exactly what to do - but I trust them to understand that. -- Begoon 06:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Weak support (weak due to account age).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems to know what they're doing. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 23:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Promoted. I believe there is a clear consensus to promote this user. T CellsTalk 13:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Sachinthonakkara

Comments
You may be blocked for your edits to Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Sachinthonakkara. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Speeded that, If they're not suitable for LR then they're most definitely not suitable to be a bureaucrat. –Davey2010Talk 13:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -I don't think you have enough knowledge about License reviewing as yet. Please try and do some meaningful edits and come back again when you have gained more experience. The tool you are requesting for is meant for trusted experienced users. FitIndia बातचीत 14:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not Promoted Refrain from requesting any more user rights as you have no experience. 1989 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

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

ZI Jony

Comments
I don't think uploading a logo via flickr is appropriate as we can't proof that the uploader is the company itself. Right? @Jeff G.: 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Right. @ZI Jony: Feel free to convert to DR. Where was {{PD-TextLogo}} when I tagged it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Travis Perkins are a UK company. It's a very simple logo but UK TOO is very low, so you maybe shouldn't take it for granted - there is some creativity in it with the coloured circle, and not much more than that's been known to be enough for some UK cases wrt corporate logos. Probably ok but worth a second opinion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos -- Begoon 14:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose per Jeff G. - The uploading of I presume a selfie and the Travis Perkins logo is highly concerning and what makes it 1000xs worse is that they were both uploaded this year, I don't expect perfection with candidates but I certainly do expect competence and diligence which unfortunately neither were shown here. –Davey2010Talk 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

*Striking my !vote - I completely failed to spot the Travis Perkins logo wasn't even uploaded from Flickr (I assumed it was for some reason), I'll hold back pending further questions and answers. –Davey2010Talk 15:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not promoted. This isn't going anywhere. No consensus to promote. Regards. T CellsTalk 09:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Bijay chaurasia

Comments
  • Which kind of files or area do you plan to focus on?
Would you pass or fail these videos? Why?
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKO0-J7bDcQ
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOjreQWc2dY --Roy17 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, Thanks for the question.

Primarily I will focus to review files uploaded from Bollywood hungama website. I am aware of Commons license policy and can use my experience and skill to deal with files that copied from YouTube.

  • (1) ✓[OK] The video is uploaded under CC license on YouTube so it is compatible to upload on commons.
  • (2) ✘[No] The video is uploaded under CC license but I doubt about the authorship of the video and the Youtube Channel. You can see the original video via this :# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1F0lBnsnkE

Thanks-Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the question GRuban

I would like to check following parameters before I go into review process

  1. Attributed and file created date on BH website?
  2. The photo is clicked at Event & parties or not?
  3. Event venue is within India territory or not?

The file fails (1) because it is not clear that Bollywodhungama is the real creator of this file. The photo is uploaded in this website on September 26, 2011 while bollywoodhungama website placed this photo on September 28, 2011.
Thanks--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Support I myself would focus on the image being full length on ITA, and cropped on BH, but you got it, well done.--GRuban (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 Support good answers.--Roy17 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. Clear consensus to promote. Regards--Biplab Anand (Talk) 15:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Ahmad252

Comments

Please provide a link to your user talk archives at your current talk page. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done and thanks for reminding me of it. Ahmadtalk 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
What do you think of these files?
  1. File:Tabriz WTC Building.JPG
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNlmbtAMsA4 --Roy17 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Hello, and thank you for questions.
  1. Regarding the first picture (File:Tabriz WTC Building.JPG), there are two main points: 1. Copyright status of the photo; and 2. Copyright status of the subject, in this case it is "World Trade Center Tabriz". Now, about the first point, I could find it here, in a Persian website. The upload date in Commons is 19 December 2014, while the photo on that website is published in November 7, 2014 (and that photo is 800px × 1,455px); this website doesn't have any indication showing it publishes its content under a free license. Meanwhile, the photo uploaded to Commons has a metadata, so I would tag it as "no permission" in a hypothetical situation; but there is another problem: There is no FOP in Iran (see COM:FOP Iran). They had started building this building in 2007, and they finished building it in 2017 I think, so it fails this. I would start a DR for it.
  2. Regarding your second question, so you can see CC license in page's source, but it isn't the end of it. To put it in a nutshell, I wouldn't pass it. In the uploader's Youtube channel, I can see that they have 15 subscribers and some videos that their name start with "Slutwalks in den Nachrichten". Now, this phrase means "Slutwalks in the news". To be specific, in that link, the title ends with Reuters; so it's highly likely that the video belongs to Reuters and not the uploader. If I've missed anything, please tell me. Thank you. Regards, Ahmadtalk 16:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 Support wonderful answers.--Roy17 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Granted. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

CptViraj

Comments
Hi, Thank you for your questions. I will pass both files because:
1. Both files matches with BH file ✓ Passed
2. Taken by BH photographer ✓ Passed
2. Set, event or party picture taken in India ✓ Passed
Btw I would recommend not to overwrite and to make a seperate file for File:Rohit Saraf in 2018.jpg's cropped version. -- CptViraj (📧) 20:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oops. One more try. It's not so easy, at least my image isn't. Look on the category page for instructions. Look in the very recent history of this very page and find the last person who wanted to review Bollywood Hungama, and see how they answered. Or, if that's too much work, I can  Oppose if you would prefer. --GRuban (talk)`
Ah, I got it. I will fail File:Smriti Irani at Star Parivar Awards 2010.jpg because I found out full version of the file on many websites (1 2), since BH has cropped version (with No Watermark) It's clear that this picture was not taken by BH photographer. I don't see any problems in File:Rohit Saraf in 2018.jpg. Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 02:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 Support Nominate it for deletion, would you? --GRuban (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be License review by non-image-reviwer? If not then definitely I will. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Not really IMO. You are not editing the LicenseReview template. Just nominate it for deletion just like you usually do. Don't forget to add the sentences you posted above, to the nomination statement. Masum Reza📞
✓ Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smriti Irani at Star Parivar Awards 2010.jpg. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted --Majora (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

QueerEcofeminist 2

Comments
  • Thank you for re-applying. I'd like to ask you one of the questions you were asked at your last application, to ascertain whether you would answer it differently in light of your experience and reflection since: Have you read Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie? If so can you give us your opinion about it. -- Begoon 06:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: , I read it again, though I am confused about your question as even last time, no one talked about what was wrong in my answer. Neither this time you are asking clear question. My opinions about in process/proposed/undecided policies have decided whether I can be a LR or not and even this time you want to do the same. So, it would be very useful if you narrow it down to specific case or issues. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 04:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't my question - it was someone else's. I'm just repeating it. What do you think is "unclear" about it? It merely asks for your understanding and any thoughts you might have. It seems perfectly relevant to me to ask you how you interpret, and what, if any, thoughts you might have about a proposed policy - interpreting and understanding pages like this which are actual policy is an important part of license review. I found your answer last time very unclear and difficult to follow, not specifically "wrong", and just wondered if you'd had any further thoughts since which might be clearer. If you haven't, or just don't want to answer for any reason, that's fine. -- Begoon 04:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I think to bring more clarity to that policy sub-page we need to include points about sole author which makes it more easier to understand. as the whole debate is about who is the sole author and whether they can claim copyrights over that work or not. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I won't press you any further on that question. Since you asked for a specific case or issue, could you please take a look at File:Marilyn Monroe in How to Marry a Millionaire.jpg and tell us [a] your opinion on the current licensing in place for that file, and [b] what factors you would consider if asked to review the licensing for that particular file. Thanks. -- Begoon 23:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: , thanks for accepting my request, After looking at that file, what I got is, yes the file is in PD and the license is valid as per my knowledge.
If suggested to review the same file, I would pay attention to following.
a) Whether the source is mentioned properly, as without source we can not move ahead to review. b) When this file was created, who created. to check what was the copyright status when it was produced. c) What would be the appropriate license for it, or whether the up loader's license is appropriate or not. d) tag accordingly. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 03:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
So, in this particular case, what would you consider are the answers to (a), (b) and (c)? Are there any unanswered questions about this file's licensing? What, actually, is the original source of the image? The licensing tag says that copyright was "not renewed". Is there any evidence to support that claim on the file page? Could that claim be checked in any way? Does COM:PCP need to be considered here? Thanks. -- Begoon 08:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: , Please explain me, what is wrong in refusing to answer such a broad question, answers to which are still unknown to everyone. where is the policy that states I should answer all the questions? QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 03:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to answer questions then why are you here ?, Refusing to answer questions implies you have no idea what the answer is which is problematic to say the least. –Davey2010Talk 14:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
How would you evaluate these files?
  1. File:PremioLukaBrajnovic.jpg
  2. File:Obelisco di Montecitorio, by Beggs.jpg
  3. File:Fryslan 2018 Walk Cycle Compilation.webm--Roy17 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thanks for the cases,
  1. File:Obelisco di Montecitorio, by Beggs.jpg - Definitely acceptable as it's a photo of a old construction, licensed under acceptable license CC-BY-SA-2.0 and source confirms it.
  2. File:Fryslan 2018 Walk Cycle Compilation.webm - Acceptable, as it was licensed under CC BY 3.0 on vimeo and and source confirms it, it also acceptable license for our project.
  3. File:PremioLukaBrajnovic.jpg - Acceptable, it was licensed under CC-BY-SA and source confirms it. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 04:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
For #3, it was created in 1997(?) and the artist died in 2001. Is the work still protected? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Question: for #1, the image appears to be taken in Italy. Did you take a look at COM:FOP Italy? If so, did you find evidence that the site was not subject to preemptive authorisation? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you please look at Fryslan 2018 Walk Cycle Compilation.webm again? Because I'm afraid you might have neglected an important detail.--Roy17 (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't deal with aggression and such questioning by non-LR's. I am surprised to see how enthusiastic some editors are to show that I am not eligible at all. I want to withdraw my request. now @大诺史: you can close it with happiness. thanks all of you for demotivation and aggression in earlier and this request. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Withdrawn 1989 (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Arosio Stefano

Comments

 Not done I don't know if this is trolling or not and I realize that I voiced my opinion above but coming back here after three years and asking for LR to review your own uploads again is bordering on pure disruption. I'm closing this early. This is not going to happen. Do not apply for this right again unless you can show that you understand our policies and procedures please. --Majora (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Jumping in as an uninvolved admin in case someone has an issue with Majora both voting and closing the discussion - fully support this decision. ~riley (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Coffeeandcrumbs

Comments
  • Say that someone were to upload screenshots from these four videos, and you find them in License review needed. Which would you accept, and which not, and why? --GRuban (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-z030x01YE
      • This is a copyrighted video with no cc licence shown on YouTube. So I would nominate to delete any screenshots 99.999% of the time. Theoretically, there are cropped screenshots that one could take that would qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. But why would any Commons user do that?
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g58MjV528Ws
      • YouTube does not indicate the copyright status of this video, but it is in the public domain. In most case, all footage of proceedings of the United States Congress in chambers (House Floor, Senate Floor, and inside committee hearings) are in the public domain and should be tagged with {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-CSPAN}}. Theoretically, the footage can come from another network but CSPAN footage is easy to identify and verify. I would only be concerned by screenshots of the opening 30 minutes or so. The YouTube channel is the work of a U.S. Govenment employee so no problems there but I would not be quick to assume that the photograph of the exterior of the Capitol building is the work of a U.S. Government employee.
      • I just reread {{PD-CSPAN}}, it clearly indicates that Committee hearings are not included. This means that this video is also not allowed on Commons.
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srldov_7AHg
      • Very interesting. This entirely depends on the screenshot. MSNBC (surprisingly?) published this under Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). However, there are several clips from other copyrighted material. In this instance, a screenshot of Maddow (at 0:08) would be perfectly fine, or even one of McGahn (at 0:17) in the White House maybe fine. However, I don't think another screenshot of McGahn (at 0:22) would be acceptable. I have seen that shot of him on several other networks and it likely does not belong to MSNBC. They can't give permission for a work that doesn't belong to them.
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzntvgIbAA
      • Theoretically, a screenshot of Warren on the house floor would be acceptable but the uploader should crop out the banner at the bottom as that is copyrighted. But really why any Commons user do that? As a whole this YouTube channel is violating MSNBC's and several other networks' copyrights. I would nominate to delete almost any sourced from this YouTube channel. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
     Support --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted 1989 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Alex Cohn

Comments
How would you analyse the copyright status of these?
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSFZXwk8vvo
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIAwxKwEylk
  3. File:The Bund Light Show 2.webm
  4. File:West Lake Light Show.webm--Roy17 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Cohn: could you please answer the questions?--Roy17 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. is OK for Commons - the video was uploaded by its probable author and is licensed under an allowed CC license. Content appears to be solely video of an event run by the uploader, and does not contain, e.g. clips from movies screened at the film festival.
  2. is not OK. It has a CC license, but is likely problematic because the the park is in the UAE, which does not have freedom of panorama and the statues are recent enough to still be covered by copyright. The music also requires attribution, which was done correctly on YT but would need to be checked if uploaded to Commons.
  3. is OK if audio is removed. It's a video with audio of architectural lighting of buildings in a city in mainland China; {{FoP-China}} applies to the video. It also contains audio that is not covered by FoP-China and is likely protected by copyright in the US. I don't recognize the song, but Shazam does and lists a 2018 copyright date.
  4. is OK if audio is removed. It's video with audio of a light and water show in mainland China; it also contains audio of a song by Celine Dion that is almost certainly a copyright infringement in the US. {{FoP-China}} applies to just about any art in a public place, so it would be acceptable if the audio were removed.
Sorry for the delay in responding! Alex Cohn (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Cohn: many thanks for the answers! Would you like to take a look at #1 and #2 again?--Roy17 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: One potential problem I can see with #1 is the background music, a song "Will To Survive" by a band called "My Tribe Your Tribe". It's unclear if the uploader received permission to include it in this video; I couldn't find any evidence of a CC license for it. There are personality rights issues as well - while video of the interviews was taken with consent, we can't say the same about the B-roll of people milling about or the people performing on stage, and we don't know if any of the people pictured consented to commercial use of their image. (I'd also question if this was in scope for Commons - it seems promotional)
#2 is actually in Qatar, not the UAE - oops. Qatar doesn't have FoP either. The music is "Islands" by "Dipcrusher", which appears widely online as "non-copyrighted", but I could not find any concrete proof the artist actually agreed to a copyleft license. Their Soundcloud has a note about contacting their label for sync rights, which makes me think they haven't.
Thanks for following up. Even if you don't feel I'm ready for license reviewer yet, I have enjoyed exploring the intricacies of these with you. Alex Cohn (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support based on the very good answers. I asked again just because of the BGM in #1. Also I supposed UAE was only a careless but harmless mistake. :) --Roy17 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support Users edit count is a bit on the low side but seems to be a competent editor and we need all the help we can get. - FitIndia Talk Mail 23:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Promoted. T CellsTalk 08:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Catherine Laurence 3

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

request archive:1 2 3

  • Scheduled to end: 11:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments

 Strong oppose Your 3rd request was barely 3 months ago. I am not convinced that you have gain enough experience in the last 3 months. I recommend that you wait for at least 12 month and this request be speedily closed as  Not done. Regards. T CellsTalk 14:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@T Cells: I know that the failure of three requests indicates that my experience has major doubts. But what I want to say is: I think that the experience has been greatly improved than before. Take the last request and compare this time: Last time I had a misunderstanding about the original source of the picture. I mistakenly believe that as long as the image is in the source website, whether it is in the sub-page or not. But now I have also realized how naive this idea is. Then, I think I am familiar with COM:TOO. (This is often encountered in my daily patrols). And mark the files that I think are not in line with this policy as deleted. I am very happy to see that the vast majority have been removed. This proves that I do have a good grasp of most of the content of the policy. The reason I applied again was because I found that a lot of new files were from external websites and I needed a license review program. Now the backlog of this project is particularly serious. I want to do my part to help complete this work. If you have good suggestions, I hope you can ask. --Catherine Laurence discussion 15:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't help but think he is hat collecting. A few weeks ago, in his self-nomination statement for request for Global renamer right on meta, he said that he knows "global username policy", clearly no such thing exists. I know that's not relevant to this request, but it clearly shows that he doesn't know much about rights he requests. It doesn't matter how much cross-wiki experience you have. This is a local process, and I don't think you have much experience. So  Oppose, a strong one. If this request gets declined, I suggest you to come back after a reasonable period of time. Masum Reza📞 15:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Sorry, what I wanted to say at the time was m:Global rename policy instead of Global rename policy. Forgive me for my memory error at the time. --Catherine Laurence discussion 15:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I apologize for misunderstanding you.
You already have a bunch of responsibilities in your shoulder. You are a global renamer and a global rollbacker. It is true that we need more hands in reviewing files but I don't think you'll be able to devote much time. I fear that it will only result in sloppy reviewing since you don't appear to have much experience in patrolling files. Masum Reza📞 16:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: I don't know what reason you think I don't have much experience, maybe quality? It is true that compared to other active users, I may have fewer files to patrol than them, but I don’t think this is because I have always kept the quality above the quantity in the patrol, that is, I prefer to patrol less and not because of the large number. The patrol caused a lot of mistakes. Especially in a DR, I mistakenly think that a place of historic interest in France is considered to be recently constructed and marked as needing to be deleted (because COM:FOP France) and then caused some confusion to the original uploader. Although the uploader forgive me later, it also made me pay more attention to the quality of the inspection. Another problem is that my time is not always sufficient, and most of the editors are editing at night. So I can't spend too much time on the patrol. And as you know, I am a GR and a GRN, so I think I will seriously consider whether each edit is reasonable, whether it is in line with the guidelines, and so on. Catherine Laurence discussion 23:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Being a GR and GRN have nothing to do with license reviewing. Even if you are careful, it is easy to make mistakes. By the way, I saw Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christelyn_Karazin_2019.jpg. Why did you start a DR? A npd tag would be sufficient, not to mention we have a speedy deletion criteria for apparent copyvio, F1. Have you read COM:NETCOPYVIO? I also saw that you nominated File:واجهة التطبيق.webp for deletion, with the rationale "screenshot of a non-free website". That is definitely not a screenshot of a website but of an app. That would be a straightforward G10, if you looked at where it was being used. It is likely the uploader's own work seeing how they advertised on arwiki. Masum Reza📞 06:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Christelyn Karazin 2019.jpg: I only found some similar pictures, but because there are too many pictures and I can't find the picture from the website, so I am careful to report to the DR to hope that someone can help me to see if it really comes from this website.
  • File:واجهة التطبيق.webp: Sorry this is my fault. Most of the websites in my country are presented to mobile users with such an interface, so I mistakenly think this is a website. And I didn't notice that they were used on arwiki. I am sorry.
--Catherine Laurence discussion 06:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Good answers. If you are uncertain or you could not find the source file, or the copyvio isn't obvious, it is always best to start a DR. On this DR, you said Possibly unfree image. Why do you think that? You need to provide clear rationale and strong arguments. And also in this DR, you said "screenshot of a non free website". That is possibly a non-free website. The description of the file itself is promotional. If I were you, I would mention that. Most of your nomination statements of DRs are vague. I don't think you are ready for this permission at the moment. Masum Reza📞 06:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Because it's like a photo of a document or an official photo of a government worker (such as [6]), this is not the uploader's own work. However, as to whether the picture was published under a free agreement, I did not find the exact evidence, so I kept the AGF and reported to the DR and wish someone would be able to assist in the judgment. --Catherine Laurence discussion 07:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It would not kill you to add what you said above to the DR request. I don't think you have read COM:DR#Overview. You see what I mean? Stop using vague statements in DRs. Or are you implying that you don't even have time to write down simple sentences? Masum Reza📞 07:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Please assume good faith, We are volunteers not employes. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But license reviewing is a sensitive procedure and requires extra time (except for some obvious cases). I am afraid if he continues the way he is currently patrolling files, it will only result in sloppy license reviewing. Masum Reza📞 09:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/joncandy/4629562029/
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alisdare/22614847804/
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ixxxi/1684026221/
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/iyoupapa/8750589704/
  5. File:The Bund Light Show 2.webm
How would you analyse the copyright status of these?--Roy17 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. Not OK:Although the author noted that the image was released as CC-BY-SA 2.0, this is clearly an advertisement derivative work, and I noticed that the symbol is under the logo, indicating that the logo is copyrighted. Protected and its size does not match COM:DM.
  2. OK: COM:FOP Egypt
  3. Possible OK: COM:FOP China. But I noticed that the image contains fonts that may be protected by copyright, so some processing may be required to be OK.
  4. Possible No OK: Sorry, I am not familiar with this monument. So the following judgments are based on the information given in [7]: The monument seems to have been created in 1970, not meeting the 70-year requirement, and COM:FOP Japan does not apply to works of art. So it may be protected by copyright. Although I judge this, I prefer to ask the Japanese LR for help in determining the year in which the stone was specifically created.
  5. OK: The show is similar to Fireworks_displays, and the buildings that were photographed are all in accordance with COM:FOP China, so I think there should be no problem with copyright. And I found no similar videos on the Internet.

--Catherine Laurence discussion 13:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Catherine Laurence: could you please comment on one more: File:West Lake Light Show.webm?--Roy17 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: After looking carefully, I think the processing method is similar to File:The Bund Light Show 2.webm. One of them is that the video also I can't find a similar video on the Internet. Secondly, I noticed the two video files. Both are webm format and are free video formats. So I think it should be OK. --Catherine Laurence discussion 14:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
My answers would be #1 maybe OK since cocacola logo is PD-old and the sign looks quite simple even under UK law; #2 OK; #3 OK; #4 not OK unless the statue is old enough (which can be further investigated); #5 video OK but it contains copyrighted music, which was the reason I asked an extra #6 that has the same problem. For the photos, being more cautious is OK, but unfortunately failing to notice the music twice is not good enough. Thank you for your answers.  Oppose.--Roy17 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I didn’t notice that the speakers didn’t open properly when I watched the video. Your two questions will allow me to be cautious about the sound issues the next time I review the video. Thank you again for taking the time to give me your opinion. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: hank you for your interest in my application again. But I have a few questions: What do you mean by "disruptive editing"? I admit that I have applied for permission many times in the past few months because more and more people from mainland China are participating in editing Wikipedia, and I just want to unlock some permissions for better assistance. You can see that I answered the question significantly better than the last application, except for some error like video because I reviewed the video for the first time and other problems than making a low-level mistake basically seem to be the same as the correct answer. And during this time, my correct rate for reviewing image licenses is getting higher and higher. You can see that most of the files I mentioned for deletion was be deleted except for a small part due to OTRS or misjudgment. So I don't understand what experience and knowledge I still lack. I hope you can give pointers. Thank you. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Let me try to answer your question about what may constitute disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is when a user appears to be wasting community time. For example, requesting for the same permission multiple times after being advised to gain enough experience before applying again. You seem to have requested for this flag 4 times in less than a year with no significant improvement. Thus, one may reasonably consider this disruptive. Regards. T CellsTalk 15:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
My colleague T Cells has hit the nail on the head and has said it better than I ever could, Personally I'm still not seeing the required knowledge so therefore my !vote remains as is, Cheers. –Davey2010Talk 21:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done There are still some concerns about the candidates experience and abilities. I agree with User:4nn1l2 that we should not be strict in granting most rights but in this instance it seems preferable for Catherine to gain more experience. I note that Catherine has made a lot of nominations for deletion and a lot of tagging for copyright violation recently. This is the sort of work that will enhance a future application. On a related note, I would urge Catherine to engage in greater levels of dialogue. Your user talk page shows a number of requests and questions to which it appears you have not responded on your talk page. It may be that you have responded elsewhere but it would be good to see a few replies or even acknowledgements on your own talk page. If another user is unhappy with an action you’ve taken, you would need to be responsive to such questions whether you are a confirmed user, a file mover, an admin or a bureaucrat. Please also consider leaving a longer gap before your next request for rights. -- Green Giant (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Jin-gook

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

  • Jin-gook (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason:
    English: I would like to review the files, originally uploaded to an external site, which has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the assigned license is valid.
    Português: Gostaria de revisar os ficheiros, originalmente carregado num site externo, que ainda não foi revisto por um administrador ou revisor para confirmar se a licença atribuída é válida.
  • Scheduled to end: 18:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments

 Not promoted. T CellsTalk 07:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

YouTubeReviewBot

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

Comments

✓ Done Bots follow the COM:BRFA process, image reviewer bots need not apply here. Granted to permit trial in accordance with Commons:Bots/Requests/YouTubeReviewBot; permission will be removed if bot not approved. ~riley (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Bradford

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

Comments
Please read the first line here where it clearly mentions Reviews by image-reviewers on their own uploads will be considered invalid. I think you should apply for Patroller rights first. We appreciate all the work you have put into the community but am leaning towards a  Oppose vote. - FitIndia Talk Mail 08:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, at User talk:Bradford/Archive 1 I see far too many uploads deleted as copyvio etc over a long period, some even this year. I'm afraid I'd need to see a longer trouble-free period and more evidence of a thorough understanding of license requirements before I could support. The statement that you see "no problem" in reviewing some of your own uploads shows me that you haven't properly reviewed the requirements for this right before applying, and that's pretty much a disqualifier for me too. I don't want to discourage you - with more experience and some time you could be a suitable applicant. Applying for patroller rights first seems like a good idea, and would help you to establish that track record. -- Begoon 09:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too early. — Racconish 💬 11:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not promoted This isn't going anywhere per above. Thus, I'm closing this request early to save everyone's time. Bradford, please feel free to apply again when you gain sufficient experience and remember to read COM:LR prior to requesting this right in the future. Regards. T CellsTalk 10:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

FascinateGuy

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

Comments

 Not promoted You are not ready yet to become a License review, Please come back after you gain some experience. - FitIndia Talk Mail 13:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber

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

Comments
  • @AntiCompositeNumber: would you pass/fail these videos and why?
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7EhL1kldOU&t=155
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOpjWjDppRQ --Roy17 (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Roy17: Ooh, those are fun.
    1. The first video is a derivative work, so the copyright of the video itself and the underlying musical work must both be considered. Based on the title and description, the song is "Nyame Ye" by Franklin Eleblu, first performed by the Legon Interdenominational Church. A quick Google search shows that this piece was written in 2011, which rules out public domain by age. I could not find any evidence that the copyright holder released the song under a compatible license, including in the LIC's original release video. This would be enough for me to fail the license review for this video because it is likely a non-free derivative work. The copyright over the video itself is potentially problematic as well. There really isn't enough information to evaluate a potential claim of copyright by the videographer, but I would lean toward not accepting the video for that reason as well.
    2. This video is also a derivative work with a video and an added soundtrack. The video was filmed in Dubai, in the UAE. There is no FoP in the UAE outside of "broadcasting programmes". That term is not defined in law, but I don't think that posting a YouTube video meets the defined term "broadcasting". The video has two songs as background music that are not attributed anywhere in the video or the metadata. Using an automatic music identification app, I identified the tracks as "Dans son regard y'a' tellement" by Delphine Girard and "Good For You" by Thbd. I wasn't able to find a good source for the first song, so I'll have to assume it's non-free. The second song is (surprisingly) published under a CC-BY-3.0 license and is acceptable with proper attriution. To be able to pass this video, the first half of the audio would have to be muted and any significant reproduction of the surrounding buildings would have to be removed. Otherwise, I'd fail it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 Support. thanks for the good answers.--Roy17 (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 Support Per answers to above --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. Merry Christmas \o/ Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2019&oldid=384814370"