Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2021

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

Adam Cuerden

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

Comments

✓ Done Per others, should know what they do -Killarnee (C•T•U) 09:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Aurelio de Sandoval

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dinesh_Parag.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grun_Dyari_2017,_1.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack_Salter_2019.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hangzhou_Spark_win_in_Stage_3.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesperi_Kotkaniemi.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_del_Castillo_2018.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_Jae-hwan_in_2019.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Las_selecciones_de_baloncesto_femenino_de_Espa%C3%B1a,_Gran_Breta%C3%B1a_y_Suecia_en_el_Fernando_Mart%C3%ADn_05.jpg I want to contribute to ending the long waiting time, I know that I have made some mistakes when uploading images, but I have not made the same mistake anymore, if you give me the opportunity please.---Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Scheduled to end: 03:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Question
  1. What did you learn from the two failed requests?
  2. Which areas will you mainly participate in?
  3. Do you review the files you upload?
-akko (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Ok, it is true, it is forbidden to check my own loads--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per: 4 failed requests in 2020; copyvio File:Durcal in Havana Mural.jpg from November 2020, deleted in December 2020; neglect of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Durcal in Havana Mural.jpg; and use of an external rather than internal link above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is no clear consensus to promote.(｀・ω・´) (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Aurelio de Sandoval

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dinesh_Parag.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grun_Dyari_2017,_1.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack_Salter_2019.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hangzhou_Spark_win_in_Stage_3.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesperi_Kotkaniemi.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_del_Castillo_2018.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_Jae-hwan_in_2019.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Las_selecciones_de_baloncesto_femenino_de_Espa%C3%B1a,_Gran_Breta%C3%B1a_y_Suecia_en_el_Fernando_Mart%C3%ADn_05.jpg I want to contribute to ending the long waiting time, I know that I have made some mistakes when uploading images, but I have not made the same mistake anymore, if you give me the opportunity please.---Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 03:31, 9 January 202--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Scheduled to end: 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  • ¿Estás listo? Vamonos: Imagine the following images had been uploaded and you check them. Pass or tag them for deletion?
  1. This nice Mallard duck from flickr.
  2. Feininger's painting "Western Sea" from Springfield Museums.
  3. The "Centre Pompidou" in Metz copied from this site
  4. Steve Johnson's abstract painting which he did publish on Unsplash

Good luck! --Achim (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  •  Question This is your fifth application. Why did your first four requests fail? What have you learned from these failed requests? (｀・ω・´) (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @-akko: The first requests that I sent declined because I did not have enough editions, examples I had a 1000, 2000, I learned through the suggestion of other users that I should accumulate more editions, the last 2 were for not having a consensus.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    1. ✘[No]The first image would not approve of it because it does not have an accepted CC license on Wikimedia
    2. ✘[No]The second image is not in the public domain in my opinion since it was published in 1932 in the U.S.A and there is no license that accepts it in the commons, also it does not indicate the year in which the author died.
    3. ✘[No]The third only shows an image, only that, I do not see a license that tells me if it is suitable or not in Commons.
    4. ✘[No]The fourth image is not suitable either because there is no CC license that indicates its copyright status.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    Would you accept it if the author of the third image said it was released as cc-by-sa 4.0? (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aurelio, in result your decisions are right, but the rationales are not convincing. #1 is OK, #2: This is a painting. There are pages on Wikipedias about Feininger as well as a category page here on Commons. When will the copyright expire? #3: This is a FOP case, please elaborate. #4: For some image hosting sites like pixabay or unsplash there are special rules here on Commons. Please explain. --Achim (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @Achim55: #2The painting is not in the public domain because although the author Lyonel Feininger died more than 60 years ago that work was published in 1935 and there is no license that makes it valid in commons, another story would be if the work were published in 1924, the PD-old-auto-expired licence | 1956, #3The architectural work cannot be published in Commons because France does not have freedom of panorama regarding this type of works, #4Unsplash works are not accepted in Commons because it gave up using the Creative Commons license and as quoted in its Wikipedia article it says: The Unsplash license is incompatible with Creative Commons licenses, which does not allow its use in such sites as Wikipedia . Unsplash allows the use of your photographs for commercial purposes, but prohibits compilation, sale of copies, sale in the form of prints. So it comes to the conclusion that their licenses are not accepted--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you are not aware of the warning on Category:Eiffel Tower at night. In addition two minor hints: a) there are two different Centre Pompidou buildings, one in Paris and one in Metz. The architects of the latter (the one in question) are still alive. b) Uploads from Unsplash and the like require looking up the date the image has been uploaded to Unsplash, see {{Unsplash}}, {{Pixabay}}, {{Pexels-Cc-zero}}. So I'd say  Neutral and leave the decision to others, sorry. --Achim (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done I'll assign the rights for 3 months, benefit of some doubt. After say 2.5 months you can request here to get the rights indefinitely. Lymantria (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

C1K98V

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

Comments
 Oppose. Since the previous failed request, I am not impressed by his attitude towards aspect ratio in his original upload of File:Arjun Gupta and Olivia Taylor Dudley.jpg, or his understanding of the problem in the discussion at User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2021/February#License review. I am also not impressed with his unwillingness or inability to create what became Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp per User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2021/January#License Review.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Jeff G.: , Thanks for the kind words. As you said above regarding the aspect ratio, yes the video file was in a high resolution when I took the snap, I understand the subject was looking thinner. But I do believe, minor fixes could be done later on, after review. And for mine understanding problem, I couldn't get you square aspect ratio doesn't work so I asked you. Inability, yes you can say, I had to admit while patrolling, I never came across too many duplicate uploads. I remember three instance of duplicate uploads, two of them which you mentioned above, and one was adult actress pic which I came across and tagged CSD F8. Unwillingness really, I was in a bad health last year, but in that state too, I edited and will always do my work honestly. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 07:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose - The ratio thing is really bizarre, That aside no evidence has been provided that they understand YouTube licences etc etc. I'm also unimpressed with them asking Jeff to repeatedly do licence reviews and the diffs provided by Jeff are concerning. Oppose. –Davey2010Talk 20:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus to promote this user. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GhostP.

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

Comments
  • @GhostP.: Your number of edits on Commons is a bit low but your edits look good to me. Perhaps you could pick some random files and list them here with a comment if you would review them or nominate them for deletion? --MGA73 (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the kinda late reply. I've responded to a similar question below. If you have another question feel free to ask. Thank you! GhostP. (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support Thank you @GhostP.: . I think you reply shows that you know about copyright. In my opinion a review is not a gurantee that every second of a video is okay. If I'm in doubt if there is too much copyrighted stuff I usually pass the review to verify the license and then start a DR so we can discuss if de minimis apply etc. --MGA73 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I would pass only the first video. The first video was taken by the author himself and uploaded as CC-BY, so this is a valid license, there isn't copyright infringement involved. However I must note two things: 1, depending on the country, due to freedom of panorama, it would not be possible to upload to Commons, but according to FoP-UK, "it is not an infringement to take photographs of buildings, or of sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public." 2, there is some de minimis content on the video, but in the UK, "Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, or broadcast", however it is not allowed to crop the de minimis part; "For the case of a photograph which includes a poster [...] [i]f someone takes the photograph and crops it so that only the poster remains, the de minimis defence is no longer available, as the poster design then becomes an essential part of the crop." The second video is a compilation of car crashes and, clearly, the videos were not taken by the author, so he can't "officially" release it as CC-BY. The third one has a similar problem and is not marked as CC-BY, and the fourth one is a video originally by BBC, only BBC could release it as CC-BY if they wanted to, but the video is just a repost of the original and is not a work by the uploader, so this is copyright infringement. If I am wrong in any of these please correct me, and if you have any more questions feel free to ask. Thank you! GhostP. (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey GhostP., Many thanks for taking the time to answer these, Very impressed with your answers!, Many thanks. –Davey2010Talk 23:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 Support based on the good answers.--RZuo (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support - I'm genuinely impressed with GhostIPs answers above - they're all correct and their answers are very detailed too. they had even took into account FOP and de minimis - these didn't even enter my mind!. Anyway thoroughly pleased with his answers. GhostIP would make a fantastic licence reviewer. –Davey2010Talk 23:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Consensus to promote. --Minoraxtalk 03:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ShyAlpaca482

  • ShyAlpaca482 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I would like to request rights to become a license reviewer because I noticed that there are a lot of images pending license verification on Commons and copyright is a topic of great interest to me. I have read through COM:LR and COM:L, and I want to contribute to Flickr review, Pixabay review, YouTube review, and review of images from websites in general. I understand that my tenure on Commons is a bit short, but I believe that I have a healthy understanding of copyright (although by no means would I call it a thorough understanding - I am not a lawyer and I have never been officially licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction). With all that in mind, here is a brief summary of what I've gathered from my time on Commons about Commons policy and copyright in general:

The vast majority of works on Commons are licensed under the following licenses: CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC0, and public domain (not really a "license," per se, but nevertheless allowed on Commons). GFDL is not considered acceptable as the only license on an image after a policy change in 2018. Images from before this date may remain on the site. However, it is rare to find a photo licensed under the GFDL only on Flickr, YouTube, etc. Non-commercial licenses are also not inside the scope of Commons. Furthermore, fair use is not considered acceptable on Commons and therefore must always be rejected if used as the sole rationale for an image.

Despite being licensed under an acceptable license (like CC BY), images from online sources like YouTube or Flickr may still be unacceptable on Commons because the copyright holder never had the right to license the image in the first place (usually because a subject in the image is copyrighted). For example, in most areas (exceptions will be noted later), a picture of copyrighted (i.e. recently published) 2D artwork such as a mural painted on the side of a building is considered not allowed unless the copyright holder grants permissions because the picture would be a derivative of the mural. We must take this into consideration when determining whether an image is acceptable.

Copyright expires after a set duration, depending on the country. For certain types of works in some countries, copyright may be as short as 50 years after publication (as is the case for anonymous works published in Canada), but it may be as long as 100 years after the death of the author (e.g. Mexico). This should be taken into consideration, as a photograph of a work that is now out of copyright is perfectly acceptable on Commons (provided it is licensed under a suitable license, of course). In addition, "common property" and very simple objects that do not show sufficient originality are not covered under copyright in the first place. However, it should be noted that the "threshold of originality" differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the United States, if there was no copyright notice and the work was published before 1978, the work may also be in the public domain, but this exception is unlikely to apply to works published on platforms on YouTube or Flickr. When reviewing an image, research should be done to see if the subject is copyrighted or not (expired copyright or ineligible for copyright). If there is considerable doubt, err on the side of caution (COM:PCP).

There are two major exceptions to copyright that Commons accepts (three if you count non-renewed works published before 1963 in the United States, but that does not apply internationally so I won't cover it here, although it is important):

1. Freedom of panorama. This is the most common and, unfortunately, (in my opinion, at least) the least well-defined of the copyright exceptions. There is no common rule that most countries follow and the situation is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some countries like the United States or Russia allow freedom of panorama for architectural works only (Russia also happens to allow it for "works of garden design." I have a suspicion that these will not come up that often, but if they do, I will certainly keep this in mind). Others like Canada allow freedom of panorama for 3D works and public interiors (interiors of buildings which are accessible to the public), while others still do not allow it at all (A notable example is France. Images of the Eiffel Tower at night and the Louvre are not considered free except for de minimis or other exceptional cases). Angola is an example of a jurisdiction where even reproductions of 2D works are covered under freedom of panorama.

2. De Minimis. De minimis is the concept of the use of a copyrighted work that is too trivial to be considered an infraction and therefore does not require the permission of the copyrighted work. Obvious de minimis cases will generally be uncontested. If there is significant doubt cast on a de minimis claim, it may be necessary to apply the precautionary principle and start a discussion to resolve the issue through community consensus.

In some uncommon cases, copyrights can be restored after they have expired. When copyright was changed in the European Union from 50 years pma to 70 years pma, some expired copyrights were extended retroactively. That means that a work in which an author died from 1925 to 1944 and the rights had already expired could suddenly be back into copyright. The last of copyrights potentially affected by this change expired on 1 January 2015. Another example of copyright restoration is the URAA. The circumstances surrounding issues arising from copyright restoration are complicated and should be decided on a case-by-case basis and by applying the precautionary principle when in doubt. Another subset of works under different rules in copyright are works done by the government and posthumous works. A general rule is that works by the United States government are not copyrighted, but this may be different in other jurisdictions. There are also many minor quirks and exceptions in the copyright rules of certain countries that are too numerous to discuss in detail here, including limited perpetual copyright (the Soviet Union used to do this), seized enemy property during wartime (Alien Property Custodian in the United States), compulsory/statutory licenses (do not apply on Commons, but I thought it would be interesting to anyone reading this), typographical copyright and publication right (for example, in the United Kingdom), sui generis database rights (European Union), and the restored copyright of certain soldiers from certain countries who died in World War II. Fortunately, these do not show up very often, and information on these rules can always be located in COM:CRT or other authoritative documentation online on a case-by-case basis if necessary.

I hope that my detailed (although a bit long, admittedly) explanation proves that I at least have a basic understanding of copyright and Commons policy, but I understand that no matter how much theory you know, the best test of knowledge is with real-world examples. I will gladly perform an analysis of copyright of certain images on request (as I've seen many others do in the license reviewer request archive). Also, please feel free to ask me any questions you may have about my application and/or my understanding of copyright. Again, I understand that my tenure on Commons is not very long compared to other applicants, but it would be an honor for me to be able to help out with the backlog of pictures pending review on the site and make a bigger contribution to Commons. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Scheduled to end: 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
what do you think of these videos?
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wum4cJu7Ir4
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ5Ny5jgews --RZuo (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is my verdict on the videos:
  1. Reject because despite the fact that the video is licensed under an acceptable license for Commons (CC BY), there is no freedom of panorama in Dubai except for "broadcasting programmes." The Burj Khalifa (prominently visible in multiple shots of the video) was completed in 2009 and because of this is still protected under copyright and will continue to be protected for the foreseeable future.
  2. Reject (until 1 Jan 2025) because although the video is freely licensed (CC BY), there is no freedom of panorama in France and the works depicted in the video are copyrighted. The video prominently showcases paintings by Henri Matisse. While some of the images may be public domain in other countries (such as the United States), Commons requires that works be public domain in both the source country and the United States in order to be acceptable. Matisse died in 1954 and copyright in France lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Therefore, the copyright on his artwork will expire on 1 January 2025 (1954+70+1), which is when this video will become acceptable on Commons. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
weak oppose. there's a more important problem in #2 -- the youtube channel is not the real copyright owner.--RZuo (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I will try to keep it short and sweet in the future. I wasn't sure how long an application is supposed to be and I will keep this in mind. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi ShyAlpaca482, I apologise if I've come across rude that certainly wasn't my intention - I appreciate you were trying to be informative as possible and I appreciate you were trying to explain your knowledge here but unfortunately no one's going to read it.
You're more than welcome to take a read of Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2020 and get a general jist of the length and then retry again. (Your short and sweet version below is perfect btw).
Again my apologies for the unintentional rudeness above, Happy editing. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Thank you for your kind words! I will consider trying again in the near future. :) --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
For anyone dissuaded by the wall of text in my original request above, here is a significantly consolidated summary of the main points I made:
  • I have read through COM:LR and COM:L, and I would like to contribute by reviewing from Flickr, Pixabay, YouTube, etc.
  • I understand that Commons only accepts certain types of licenses (e.g. CC BY, CC BY SA, CC0, etc.)
  • I understand that sometimes, an online photo or video may contain other creative works that may be copyrighted.
  • In order to determine if these works are acceptable, we must primarily consider 4 factors: whether the material is eligible for copyright, whether the copyright has expired, whether it is covered by freedom of panorama, or whether it is covered under the principle of de minimis
  • In rare instances, the status of a work may be unclear or the work may be acceptable under another exception to copyright. These may be decided on a case-by-case basis
  • I am happy to answer any questions or prove my knowledge with examples. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn. It appears that I need to gain more experience before becoming a license reviewer. Maybe I will request this right again in the future (after all, that backlog is not going to resolve itself! :)). --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I actually liked your wall of text; you seemed to have looked at the issues thoroughly, and the oppose reasons didn't bother me. I'd recommend you reapply sooner rather than later. --GRuban (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Red-back spider

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

Comments
  • 680 edits seems to be too soon for this userrights. Please gain more experience for this userrights. Wishing you the best :) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ
  •  Oppose - Edit count isn't the be all and end all here however you need a few edits and years under your belt which unfortunately you don't (1 year / 620 edits isn't enough to demonstrate knowledge imho). Keep uploading, Keep participating in CSD/DRs, Participate in discussions and come back in a year or 2. Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 20:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. 1989 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

BureibuNeko

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

It's also worth mentioning that I have a lot of free time to deal with the backlog.--海の向こうは敵だ！ 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  •  Oppose - User has only been here since January of this year, User has also only uploaded 3-4 files in the time they've been here. Whilst their speedys look okay - for me this isn't enough to warrant or grant the tool. Unless you're a sock you don't acquire all sufficient knowledge in 4 months of being here. –Davey2010Talk 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Hello, Davey2010. It's true that I've only been active in commons since this year (but I registered a year ago). To be honest, I've uploaded a few files, because I'm not so sure about my photography technology (I don't think it's because I forgot where to shoot them), but I don't think it affects my checking of new files, You can see my editing in UT space, which roughly represents my inspection record. I don't think the number of uploaded files can affect the policies I need to know when checking other people's files. In addition, as a patroller, I often encounter infringing articles on zhwiki and mark them. One of the reasons why I want to be LR is that I want to help commons better. Finally, thank you for your advice! I hope these answers can help you change your mind.--海の向こうは敵だ！ 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Personally for LR reviewers I like to see a lot of uploaded files - That too me demonstrates some knowledge in regards to licences/policies etc, My main concern is your tenure and unfortunately I won't be changing my mind - As I said you don't know the ins and outs of Commons all within 4 months. Tenure for me is a major factor here. –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Well... But according to your criteria, I may not be involved in LR, because I don't have any good material to shoot and upload, so I focus on checking other people's files and submitting infringing files many times. I always think that can make up for my shortcomings in upload, but now it seems not. So what should I do? I just want to help with the documents to be checked. It is also worth mentioning that if I fail to apply for LR this time, I will apply to become a patroller. I hope you will give me your advice. Thanks! --海の向こうは敵だ！ 11:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
No you've misunderstood me - You haven't uploaded any files from sites such as Flickr, Vimeo or YouTube which would require knowledge as you obviously cannot upload just anything, Uploading from these sites could also prove you have some knowledge inregards to COM:DW too. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 12:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, so you mean this... I see. If I don't pass this time, I will do as you say, and then come back to apply. Thank you! --海の向こうは敵だ！ 12:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Hi, Davey2010.Sorry to trouble you again. I just imported three files from Flickr. They are from LOC. If you can, I hope you can give some suggestions before I continue to upload（ The copyright license is known and will be added in bulk tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.) thank you!--海の向こうは敵だ！ 12:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I meant importing images over a consecutive period. –Davey2010Talk 13:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Hello,Davey2010. I have imported 50 pictures from Flickr in a row. What's your opinion? Regards.--海の向こうは敵だ！ 14:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
My opinion is the same as 2 days ago - Your tenure is problematic as is your low upload count - Uploading files now doesn't mean anything - Knowledge still has be shown which currently it hasn't been for me. I won't be replying further as I feel like I'm repeating myself. –Davey2010Talk 14:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus to promote this user.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Aurelio de Sandoval

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

Comments
  •  Oppose due to tenure and image issues - User's only been here since January 2020, Also came across this (which may or may not be a copyright violation) and the users talkpage full of DRs (deleted images) doesn't fill me with much confidence either. User shouldn't of been told to come here at all. –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I encourage you to come back with a proper evaluation of their candidacy for license reviewer.
  • "due to tenure and image issues" - Considering they are trusted as a temporary license reviewer and there has yet to be a complaint about a file they have reviewed, you have lost me.
  • "User's only been here since January 2020" - ... that's over a year? it's license reviewer, not adminship.
  • "User shouldn't of been told to come here at all." - Considering their temporary license reviewer expires in two weeks, they were appropriately directed here.
  • "the users talkpage full of DRs (deleted images) doesn't fill me with much confidence either." - Only one file has been nominated for DR since they were granted temporary license reviewer and COM:TOO can be subjective for even experienced users, all the others are back in 2020. Also, their 14 quality image promotions fill me with some confidence.
That said, I have no comment myself. Best of luck, Aurelio de Sandoval. ~riley (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This was a proper evaluation and It's rather sad you felt the need to nitpick at every little thing. Anyway I have nothing else to say that hasn't already been said above. Tenure (amongst other things) proves they're potentially more knowledgable, IMHO being here a year is not sufficient enough for me however I don't speak for Commons and just because I don't believe the aforementioned things that doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. I appreciate LR isn't Adminship but as I say IMHO for me tenure equals more knowledge. –Davey2010Talk 23:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Was it a proper evaluation? You glanced at his edit count, his account age, and his talk page. The user was given temporary license reviewer permissions for a three month trial period. The entire point of that trial was to give the user a chance to demonstrate if they are competent as a license reviewer. Not only did you fail to acknowledge that the user was in the right place ("User shouldn't of been told to come here at all"), you failed to comment on the most relevant thing: their use of license reviewer permissions. Don't make the guy jump through more hoops than he needs to, give him actual feedback on his work. ~riley (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
As I said I have nothing else left to say that hasn't already been said - I obviously don't believe this user should be an LR, Yourself and others below believe otherwise so without being disrespectful/blunt this discussion isn't achieving anything. –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Promoted Consensus to make it permanent.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

C1K98V

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

Comments
@Davey2010: Thanks for asking the question. Most of the YouTube content are not eligible to upload on commons. But YouTube offer content marked Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC-BY which is free license and it's accepted on Commons. If the video is marked with a CC license, the author or uploader retain the copyright, but creators get to reuse the work subject to the terms of the license. Also we should not upload work that appears to be plagiarized or is out of scope. My first LR request was declined due to my long history of mistake, see here. I accept I did mistake, in the past but I won't repeat them again. And for my second LR request, I somehow disturbed Jeff. And on the aspect ratio part, I was mistaken as I use wiki on mobile, so the view is compact. I checked later and found the image was stretched out. Last I didn't deal with lot of similar files, so I ask for help. Now I know and can handle it if I came across such instance. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 01:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries, Many thanks for answering them :), –Davey2010Talk 12:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support - Pleased with their answers and indeed mistakes do happen we all make them and we all learn from them, User seems knowledgable and has been here for a few years so I have no issues and don't see any red flags. –Davey2010Talk 12:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Promoted None against. C1K98V have improved and tagged many copyvios. I can support too.

Nosferattus

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

Comments
  • Support - Tenure is a slight issue however Nosferattus's informative rationale above has IMHO made up for that and has imported nearly 400 images from Flickr none of which have been CSD'd or DR'd, I see no problems with granting Nosferattus the right. –Davey2010Talk 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Promoted --Lymantria (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

ShyAlpaca482

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

  • ShyAlpaca482 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I am requesting to become a license reviewer, primarily for YouTube, Pixabay, and Flickr. I have read through COM:LR and COM:L. My last request was on 2 April 2021. Here are answers to some questions you might be wondering about right now:
  • Why was I not promoted previously? I withdrew my previous request because I found that I might need some additional experience to become a license reviewer. Also, my previously request was very long which likely dissuaded some people from reading it.
  • Why am I applying again so soon? I am applying again because I feel that I have gained some more experience since then. In addition, some of my fellow Wikipedians kindly encouraged me to apply again soon, which may or may not have played a role and which I appreciate. ;)
  • What have I learned since then? Here is a brief summary of what I have learned since then (please don't hesitate to ask for clarification if you'd like):
  1. It is imperative to check whether the uploader of the image actually had the rights to upload it.
  2. If the uploader did have the right to upload the image, it is necessary to check the applicable copyright laws for specific details such as eligibility for copyright, expiriation of copyright, freedom of panorama, and de minimis.
  3. The above rules will cover most cases. Anything else should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
  • Where is my previous request? You can find it here. It contains significantly more details on reasons why I would be an appropriate candidate for a license reviewer. It is a bit long, but it showcases the full extent of my knowledge so I recommend you take a quick look if you haven't already. It almost certainly contains information that will aid you in your decision.
  • How can I prove my knowledge of the copyright policies on Commons? I'm glad you asked! I have included how I would review some edge cases below. You can also ask me anything you'd like and I would be more than happy to answer.

Here are a couple of examples of my reviews of the copyright status of some works (you are more than welcome to ask me additional questions):

  • Burj Khalifa - Reject because despite being licensed under an acceptable license, there is no freedom of panorama in the UAE except for "broadcasting programmes" and the image prominently depicts a copyrighted piece of architecture (the Burj Khalifa). The Burj Khalifa was completed in 2009 and will be protected by copyright for the foreseeable future.
  • Statue of Liberty - Accept because it is licensed under an acceptable license for Commons and there are no additional restrictions. Despite there being no freedom of panorama for 3D works in the United States, the copyright on the statue has expired since it was first "published" (i.e. erected, according to United States law) before 1 January 1926. In addition, (while not necessary for this image to be accepted to Commons) there should be no restrictions on the work in any other countries either as the sculptor died in 1904 (over 100 years ago) and the longest copyright duration in the world (as of 2021, not counting special exceptions) is Mexico's 100 years pma. In addition, a brief review of the uploader's account shows no evidence of Flickrwashing. ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 22:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  • Support - Same as the above request - Slight issue with tenure but that's made up by the detailed rationale above. Don't see any red flags here. Easy support. (Thank you for returning and for keeping it much shorter :), Take care Sky.). –Davey2010Talk 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Promoted per above: T CellsTalk 08:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

BureibuNeko

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

It is worth mentioning that I also checked out 100 infringing files (in terms of the number of deleted editors)--What color are you, Sibyl System? 13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 13:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Oppose - Nothing's changed since the last LR other than the user has mass-uploaded historical images from a Flickr album. Imo that alone doesn't demonstrate knowledge. Come back in a years time. –Davey2010Talk 13:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I do not hope that this request will be passed now. From the last application, it seems that no one will answer me except you. So I just want to understand one question, why? （ In other words, I applied only when I saw that the request was passed）--What color are you, Sibyl System? 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose per Davey, the previous request only 3 weeks ago, inability to spell "flickr", sig in the form of questions rather than ability to "be attributed to a specific user" per COM:SIGN, and canvassing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Jeff. I want to make it clear that I am not canvassing. I just hope to invite people because no one else is participating in this discussion (and last time). And I think it's unfair just because the above one is in the same situation as me, and he got support, but I got only opposition. In addition, if I want to canvass, I can look for people I know in other wikis rather than people who have participated in LR permission requests and I don't know. In addition, thank you for your participation in the discussion. That at least taught me something. Besides, I can easily mistype. Regards, What color are you, Sibyl System? 12:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
You are canvassing. Sending a request to editors who supported someone above is canvassing. The difference between you and Nosferattus is that they've uploaded 300 odd files PRIOR to their LR request - You've uploaded 300 files AFTER your LR request - There's a massive difference BureibuNeko and unfortunately it seems you're not grasping that.
I told you previously you should upload more but never once stated you should mass-upload over 300 files in a 2 week timeframe. –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
If it's all canvassing... Well, I wrote it all for nothing. （I have indicated that no matter what point of view you hold, it's good as long as you express your point of view. I never let them support me. I don't understand why they are still regarded as canvassing. Sure enough, the invitation can't be so polite.） And if so, I apologize to you. This is my problem. I don't understand your meaning. I'm sorry. For this request, I withdraw, who let a horse that travels thousands of miles a day not meet bole, but always meet the horse feeder.（In order to avoid misexpression, the Chinese original of the last sentence is attached below: 谁让千里马没遇上伯乐，却总是遇上食（sì）马人呢。） --BureibuNeko (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Since "Bain news service" is a publishing house, it is the copyright owner(But generally speaking, the photographer should be the author.). I have repeated that. And due to the problem of Flickr import, I can't customize the author information of the uploaded content, so.....(In addition, the license of Fæ upload version is correct.) In addition, could you please delete the file I uploaded? Thank you! --BureibuNeko (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@BureibuNeko: I came here with enthusiasm but your response seems unclear to me. Perhaps it's your grasp of the English language. Well. The photographer is unknown, and so the author is unknown. Bain is the publisher. Such unknown photographer/author probably took that photograph under contract with Bain. And so, Bain is/was the copyright holder, but not the author. The author remains unknown. --Kuatrero (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kuatrero: Yes, I pointed that out. I said "Since "Bain news service" is a publishing house, it is the copyright owner(But generally speaking, the photographer should be the author.)"--BureibuNeko (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to promote this user to a LR. Do address the concerns raised and re-apply in future. Minoraxtalk 15:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Contributers2020

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

Comments

 Not done - Insufficient editing experience - User has only been here since August 2020 and has only made 53 edits - 2 of which were only this year and to this page. Closing to avoid the communities time being further wasted. NAC. –Davey2010Talk 10:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Lệ Xuân

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

  • Lệ Xuân (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: As a person who uploads files from external websites such as YouTube, Flickr, blogs, etc., I would like to help with the LR backlog. Although my account is quite young compared to other experienced users here on Commons (< 1 year old), I am familiar with the Commons licensing policy and understand that only public domain or freely licensed images (for example {{PD-old}}, {{PD-USArmy}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}} etc.) are allowed here on Commons.
    I also spent a lot of time researching Creative Commons copyright tags and know that images like this one are allowed while images from websites like this are not, as the owner of this website published their work under a CC BY-NC-ND license. Although this license allows people to copy and distribute the works, it prohibits people from adapting, remixing, updating, or using them for commercial purposes. I also understand that not all images published under a compatible CC license can be uploaded to Commons. Images like this, although published under the CC BY 4.0 license, come from various sources on the internet and do not belong to the blog owner (All images are of poor quality, lack exif information, and look like Instagram posts).
    If you have any questions about me, you are welcome to ask. Thanks! LX | Talk 02:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 02:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
@GRuban: Hi, thank you for asking:
  1.  Not OK In contrast to poor video editing, the images used in the video look too professional to belong to the channel owner.
  2. OK As stated on https://missecointernational.com/, the channel linked above is the official YouTube channel of "Miss Eco International". The video is usable as it is published by the party that holds the copyright.
  3. OK The uploader appears to be a professional photographer. Exif information are still intact. I don't see any issue here.
  4.  Not OK This last photo cannot be uploaded to Commons due to two reasons:
    • First - this is a image of a magazine cover and its copyright most likely belongs to the publisher or the photographer.
    • Second - the Flickr account "Manhhai" is currently blacklisted due to flickrwashing. Sidenote: It is certainly not an exaggeration to say that Manhhai is probably the largest source of images related to Vietnamese history on the internet. Although some of the images on this account are in the public domain ({{PD-old}}), most of them, such as those taken during or after the Vietnam War, are still protected by copyright and can therefore not be used.
Best regards! LX | Talk 06:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Promoted clear consensus and we need all the help we can get with the backlog. Thank you for volunteering. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Ruwaym

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

Comments
  •  Oppose - The user has a fair few no perm notices and DRs on their talkpage (not something I would expect from someone who's been here 3 years), I'm also very concerned with the above rationale "Anyway, during my participation in Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021, I see some users are strict and revert my added image until they checked formally. So, I guess being uploader and license checker at same time is useful for me and for the project." which to me reads as if the user wants LR to review their own work and then the image(s) can be added to that page. Reviews must NOT be reviewed by your self.
In short I have concerns with this user and at this present time I have no confidence with this user. –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus to promote this user. Do address the concerns raised and re-apply in future. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 19:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Contributers2020 (2)

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

Warm Regards, Contributers2020 (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Previous requests: Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2020#Contributers2020 & Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2021#Contributers2020

  • Scheduled to end: 03:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Oppose - Lack of experience and since the last LR request they've only uploaded 26 files. Personally I'd feel more comfortable granting this to them in 2-3 years when they've uploaded a plethora of files and potentially had to go to DR for a few. –Davey2010Talk 11:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC*
  • Davey2010- Davey sir, please don't judge me by the experience. To judge me, you can ask questions from me. Also, I was very much involved in disputed license pictures as seen on my Contributions page. I don't think so someone qualifies at the parameter of uploading files. I am also having a very high edit rate approx. 4-6 every day. Also, please consider that my last LR request was before 1 month. Is 26 files very less for that period of time? Contributers2020 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
You seem like a really nice person so believe me when I say I didn't want to oppose (I was looking for reasons to support!) but I cannot support someone who's only been here since August 2020 and so far hasn't done a great deal and I would Oppose anyone for this reason as I have done in the past. Others may support you but I simply cannot at this time, Continuing uploading files, participate in DRs and speedies and retry in 2-3 years where hopefully you'll have more knowledge and more edits under your belt. –Davey2010Talk 17:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Davey, thanks for complimenting me. I think you're correct but let other admins also give their views on me. Still, if you have any questions for me to solve, I am ready anytime.
Warm Regards,
Contributers2020 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose per Davey2010 and canvassing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Jeff G.I didn't know canvassing is inappropriate. Jeff G., can you please reconsider your decision. I seriously didn't know that was wrong and I will never ever do it again. I am also sad that everyone pick my bad area; no one ever sees my good area. I rather will be happy if you all asked questions related to LR rather than saying bad about me. That would show you my potential and knowledge about LR inside me At a time, anyone can do a mistake, even experienced editors, but that doesn't mean he will do it forever. Canvassing was not in the scope of LR, so I never learnt about it. By seeing all of your response, I am depressed but I have nothing to do.
Warm Regards,
Contributers2020 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020: There is still plenty to do here, starting with COM:TALK and COM:BACKLOG.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't understand what you just told. Request to please elaborate. Warm regards, Contributers2020 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020: Here, you used 2 more colons. In your previous edit, you used 0 more colons. The correct number is 1. I am also unimpressed by your inability to see that File:Some Emojis which are used in WhatsApp.png is a derivative work of WhatsApp Inc. copyrighted content.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Does the colon mistake makes me incapable for being a LR. Also, the picture you mentioned, doesn't match with the whatsapp ones or if you don't trust that, all emojis may come in threshold of originality. Contributers2020 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
No but it means you lack basic knowledge of Wikitext - Cards on the table I mess up indenting on a daily basis however I go back and immediately fix the indent .... I don't just leave it. You've been here a year so you should know 0% indentation isn't okay and makes you look incompetent too.
The emoji picture should never have been uploaded as I would assume these are copyrighted (if not by WhatsApp than by someone). –Davey2010Talk 14:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I've also spotted you haven't signed your message above me, Again there's a real lack of experience here (indentation issues, not signing posts and uploading potentionally copyrighted material). –Davey2010Talk 14:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose per Davey2010 and Jeff G. Also per the reply above, shows that Contributers2020 lacks the understanding when it comes to copyright. Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


  • I fixed every WikiText sir. I am now sure that I lost this request as well but just for the record I did it. If you think that reply is wrong, I'll delete it. Also request to not close the application right now. I would be greatful if you closed it after 3-4 days. And Bidgee if you can please tell what was the problem with the reply. I will try to fix it next time. Not giving excuse but I was seriously stressed out at that time in real life. Warm regards, Contributers2020 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed it again for you. You did what ? ... waste the communities time again ?, Certainly did. Bidgee didn't mention a reply - they mentioned the copyright issues.
C2020 the next time you come here your request will be speedily closed - Please retry in 2-3 years, coming here sooner will result in it being closed. I won't be replying further. –Davey2010Talk 15:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Then it is what it is. I was just doing it because this post was emotionally attached to me and meant a whole world to me. Now if you are not replying further, I will withdraw my request and apply in 2022-23. You can close this request for now. Contributers2020 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to promote, and withdrawn by user. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeeno

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

Comments
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: This is how I would review each one:
  1. Decline. A compilation of videos not created by the uploader, as seen in the title and the rest of the channel's videos. Tag F3 for non-free derivative work.
  2. Decline. Clear copyvio. A scene from the TV show Emmerdale, as a quick Google search reveals. Tag copyvio/F3 for non-free derivative work.
  3. Accept. Seeing the uploader has produced similar-looking videos on the same topic, very likely they are the original author/copyright holder. Any copyrighted images in the video would be De minimis. FOP covers buildings in the UK.
  4. Accept. The uploader identifies as a "car spotter", and there are two images of the same vehicle from different angles. The EXIF data is also consistent across images, so we can quite confidently say the uploader is the copyright holder, and the images are in the public domain. No FOP concerns, vehicles are utilitarian objects that cannot be copyrighted.
  5. Accept. Similar rationale to above for the image itself. I would argue the police logo can be included per COM:DM United Kingdom, since the image is mostly of the van.
  6. Accept. Photo was clearly taken by the uploader. Per COM:TOYS, '"A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States.' (Policy is unclear regarding the UK, but I assume it is similar) The Royal Mail logo is De minimis, as the focus of the image is on the toy van. CC license is acceptable.
  7. Decline. Clearly a screenshot from a copyrighted BBC broadcast. Tag copyvio/F3 for non-free derivative work.
  8. Accept. Uploader identifies as a photographer and describes his reasoning for taking all these photos. Although they have no EXIF data, he has other photos in the area. FOP covers buildings in the UK. CC license is acceptable.
Thanks, --Yeeno (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for answering these Yeeno, I'm extremely impressed with your answers and your knowledge, Originally I asked about #5 as at the time of asking I was unaware that we now actually accept PDMS (prior to 2020 we never did), With #6 I did DR an image of a toy van and it was deleted however up until now I believed we didn't ever accept toy vans here so I honestly have no idea if we do or don't but not something I ever upload anyway so meh, Anyway thanks again for answering these. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I actually didn't notice the difference between the PDMS and CC0 (which I'm more used to seeing), so thanks for bringing that to my attention! My take on it seems to be similar to the community consensus though, which is that PDMS implies PD if it was marked as such by the author. Yeeno (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify: we are only accepting PDM if it is released by the copyright holder. If it isn’t from the copyright holder, then don’t accept it. Obviously if the uploader links to somewhere that shows it was released by the copyright holder, that’s acceptable. --Green Giant (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support - Extremely knowledgable editor, has been here for 3-4 years, Most DRs listed on users talkpage were actually kept, I don't see any red flags here, Support. –Davey2010Talk 21:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Promoted per above. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Berrely

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

  • Berrely (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: Hi, I'm currently a patroller and often patrol new files, but I noticed the size of the LR backlog and though it would be helpful to help there as well. I am well versed in Commons policies, and know what licenses are allowed on Commons (something I've also learned from CCI on enwiki). Yes, I do have a few DRs on my talk, but almost all of them where from when I was quite new. On the Swizzels sweets image, I thought since the image had been on Commons for a few years it would be fine, and I didn't know about COM:PACKAGING (I have now tried learning all photo specific guidelines), and on the Discord logo I genuinelly believed that a controller falls under TOO, and apparently I was wrong (if I become a license reviewer I don't intend to do logos anyways). If I become a license reviewer I'd like to help with the Flickr and YouTube backlog, and Farsnews and other Persian news outlets as a Farsi speaker. Feel free to ask any questions. — Berrely • T∕C 08:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 08:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
Collapsing nonsensical !vote as we don't oppose based on swearing. This is primarily a teen-adult website not a childrens nursery. –Davey2010Talk 12:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Experience is pretty good, but my support is weaken after I saw you used swear words in the edit summary (for others- See in Contributions>older 50>scroll down) . I am not good with that completely. Also, regarding your recent DRs of your own file, you can't just delete a file which will not be used. You never know when will it be important. Basically, if you do that to other files, Commons will be done for. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 04:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    I have never used a swear word at someone else, I'm just a bit self-deprecating, I am aware I swear a bit too much and have tried to reduce doing so. Also, I highly doubt anyone would ever want to use an image of my signature? I uploaded it a long time ago for usage on my userpage (which I should've really uploaded onwiki), and nominated it because I thought it was of no use. I'd be happy to withdraw the nom but I don't really see why. — Berrely • T∕C 08:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
You know, Commons doesn't have a age restriction. Your swear word can impact on the younger editors. If you want advanced rights you have to be perfect in certain basic etiquette. Swearing in a website which doesn't have a age restriction can't be justified in any way. When you know that you swear too much, fix that problem completely and then apply later. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 10:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the least of a younger editor's concerns on Commons is a user occasionally swearing in self-spite. As I said, the last time I swore in an edit summary was a self revert 10 days ago, and that was the first time in over 2 months, and I have not sworn at all since then. — Berrely • T∕C 10:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Berrely Ignore the above. The person above is mad because they've 3 times been refused LR so now they're apparently opposing for really stupid reasons, It should go without saying that particular issue isn't an issue here and wont impact your LR request. –Davey2010Talk 12:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. File:Kristen Stewart during interview in 2019.png
  2. File:Sarout supporters in Istanbul.png
  3. File:Bolivia protests of 2019.png
  4. File:King’s Resort 1.jpg
  5. File:Protests in Iraq October 2019.png
how would u assess these files?--RZuo (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. Accept, image is extracted from what appears to be except of a film interview. The uploader is distributor of such material in the Middle East "Empire International is the exclusive distributor of Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Dreamworks Animation and Fox Star Hindi titles in the Middle-East."
  2. Accept, Sokoon Media is known for filming events in Istanbul, and all of the clips look to be of the same quality. It's reasonable to assume they are the copyright holders. The images people are holding are des minimis and the flags public domain due to their age.
  3. Reject, the video description says the video is via a user called "@EduardoFlores". While they may have obtained the copyright for usage on their YouTube channel, there is no evidence of this, and it's unlikely they have the rights for usage.
  4. Accept, image is from a video advertising a "WPTDeepStacks" resort, and is published from its official YouTube channel. The video clearly contains original footage so it's unlikely they reused footage from other sources.
  5. Reject, tentatively. The first red-flag is the YouTube channel, a channel to "Earn Money Today", which hardly seems like a channel to upload such a video. The video itself is low quality, and so is the into text, which suggests it's a screen grab of some sort. It may be own work, but I doubt that it is. I'm highly tentative on this one.
@RZuo — Berrely • T∕C 09:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 Support thank you. RZuo (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 Question - User:Berrely, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/
  7. https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. Decline, clearly a compilation of other's videos that they almost definitely don't have permission for. Tag as copyvio.
  2. Decline, clip from the BBC series Emerdale (that I really should get round to watching). Copyright owned by BBC and not released under a free license. Tag as copyvio.
  3. Accept, the uploader uploads a lot of videos very similar to this, especially in the same rough area. They also have a blog and Instagram profile where they upload similar videos.
  4. Accept, the uploader described themselves as a "car spotter" which means it makes sense for them to take such photos, and the image has EXIF data, further reinforcing this. According to COM:UA, "There are special provisions in US copyright law to exempt utility articles to a wide degree from copyright protection", cars counting as utility objects falls under this.
  5. Accept for same reasons as above. The police logo likely is above TOO for the United Kingdom but it's a very small amount of the photo so it falls under des minimis.
  6. Reject, screenshot from a copyrighted BBC News broadcast that is not released under a free license. The uploader seems to have a pattern of doing this so maybe they should be added to the blacklist?
  7. Accept, the lack of EXIF is a bit suspicious (there is location though), however, his about page has a detailed biography about himself, explaining that he was a former councillor taking photos of... the London Borough of Haringey. The users photostream contains photos of the same resolution, that also don't have EXIF, so it's reasonable to assume he did take the photo.
@Davey2010 — Berrely • T∕C 12:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Spot on! (You did more searching than I expected and I appreciate that thank you),
 Support - Admittedly the tenure is a slight concern (always prefer 2+ yr tenure) however DRs look fine and presumably copyvio-tagging's all fine - Clearly knowledgable and trusted editor - I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 14:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Promoted per above. Has sufficient knowledge to handle the tool. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe

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

  • Buidhe (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: I already have patrolling right but I would also like to help out reviewing images needing manual license review. For example, today I came across this photo File:Tortura argitzeko protesta - Iruñea 1.jpg. If I were a reviewer I could mark it as reviewed because I went to the external site and checked that it was available under a free license (in this case, CC-BY-SA-3.0) and that the same license is used on the image page.
  • I'm already familiar with licensing and I know that CC licenses that are non-derivative or non-commercial only are NOT allowed. I also know that when the photograph is a derivative work, you have to consider the copyright status of the underlying work, as well as freedom of panorama exceptions that might apply. For example, in the Iruñea image, the banner uses mostly simple text so there is no copyright issue with photographing it (any copyrighted elements are de minimis). On the other hand, a photograph of a World War II memorial in Greece would NOT be allowed in most cases, as there's no freedom of panorama in Greece; I would nominate for deletion. Thanks for considering my request. Buidhe (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 05:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
1) Which are the areas you are planning to participate in?
2) Will you review your own files?
3) Will you accept this file or not in commons and why?- https://pixabay.com/es/vectors/emojis-emoji-hipster-gracioso-4518355/
--Contributers2020Talk to me here 04:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question - User:Buidhe, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/
  7. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - OP has been on EN and Wikidata today ..... so it seems pointless granting the tool to someone who's presumably not here that often. –Davey2010Talk 12:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I did not get the ping. For these files I would :
      1. decline, this is clearly a clip of a commercial film or TV show
      2. decline, the uploader does not have the rights to the individual video clips used in this compilation
      3. accept, this walk video appears to have been filmed by the uploader and they have filmed other similar walks. However, non-copyright restrictions may apply so I would make sure to place a tag indicating personality rights. Although there may be copyrighted objects appearing in the film, I believe that they are most likely de minimis in terms of the entire work.
      4. Accept, the uploader has uploaded many similar photographs and this one does not have any red flags for being someone else's work, although there is no EXIF. (Public Domain Mark photographs are now accepted if the mark is applied by the copyright holder.) Photographing a utility object such as a vehicle should not give rise to copyright issue and any copyrighted elements such as logo would be de minimis.
      5. Accept for the same reasons as 4. There is no exif but the uploader seems legit (he is/was a local councillor for the area being photographed).
      6. Accept, this photograph does not raise any red flags and has EXIF information.
      7. Reject, this is clearly a copyrighted BBC news program.
    • Yes, I participate on multiple projects, but I don't see that as a barrier to license reviewing on Commons. There are currently tens of thousands of files in license review needed category. Many are likely copyright violations and threaten the integrity of the project if not detected. That's why I'm offering to help out. Buidhe (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose OP just ignored my questions as seen in the Contributions list- he continued to edit on random things rather than responding my questions. Also as per Davey. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 17:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Contributers2020: The areas I'm planning to help out with are the backlog of tens of thousands of files in the Category:License review needed, specifically images and video files. No, I would not review any of my own uploads. As for the emoji file, I would probably leave it to a more experienced editor to patrol or nominate for deletion for the community to consider. Although some emoji may be below the threshold of originality depending on the jurisdiction, some of these also appear to be above TOO and I don't really see any indication either way if they were created by the uploader or ripped from some copyrighted source. Reverse image search doesn't indicate any obvious source for the original image. Buidhe (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I stand by my comment of strong oppose because 1.) You ignored my questions in the first place. 2.) You're not online at most times in Commons. You focus mainly on EN and Wikidata so ask for right there. 3.) Answers are not at all satisfactory. You just can't leave ignoring the file for any one else. The answer is simple- It is a Decline because 1.) The file was created on 2nd October 2019. Files uploaded to Pixabay after 9th January 2019 are not accepted in commons. 2.) Emojis are copyrighted from WhatsApp. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, calm down with your opposes, people. We are dealing with an established user who has demonstrated basic knowledge on copyright and Flickr and YouTube reviewing. Cut them some slack.

    Their answers to Davey's questions look good. They also said that they won't review their own files, and they are going to help clear the general backlog, which is not a bad answer to me. They didn't know the right answer to the Pixabay question, but come on, let's be honest here. That Pixabay part is not well-known. I think Buidhe is more focused on photos and videos of real-life things, considering that they said they are familiar with FoP. In fact, I commend them for deferring files to someone more experienced. That's what a good admin do! Are LRs supposed to memorize every damn thing related to copyright right now?

    Their activity is not bad either. If they haven't edited for 6 months straight, sure, but this looks reasonable to me. Are LRs supposed to be editing every day in Commons right now? Are LRs now supposed to make Commons their home wiki? Remember, we are in LRR, not RFA! There probably are also some admins here who aren't active in Commons as much as their homewiki. Why don't you de-RFA them? (rhetorical question)

    Also, Contributers2020, I suggest you put reading AGF once a month as a habit. This statement, You focus mainly on EN and Wikidata so ask for right there. looks like you're accusing them of hat collecting. pandakekok9 04:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    I understand Pandakekok9 that giving it to a much more experienced editor is a very correct practice. Although, I am asking the question to verify the knowledge of the OP. The OP can just research about where from are we taking the picture, in this case Pixabay, and will it be a copyrighted image. Now, I know some administrators which doesn't have their home-wiki as Commons, but they at least reply in time, which this OP didn't did, even after my ping. And yes, this can be a case of hat-collecting. And the OP mentioned they are going to try all photos and videos, means they are going to answer all the questions related to that. I still stand by my comment. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 06:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Now, I know some administrators which doesn't have their home-wiki as Commons, but they at least reply in time, which this OP didn't did, even after my ping.

    This is not always the case. Admins can be on a vacation, or have an emergency, or can just be too busy in a project. If we give admins benefit of the doubt, why can't we do the same for LR candidates? Also, pings don't work all the time. I myself have experienced this. Assume good faith please.

    And yes, this can be a case of hat-collecting.

    You just doubled-down on your bad faith assumption. Amazing.

    And the OP mentioned they are going to try all photos and videos, means they are going to answer all the questions related to that.

    And now you are putting Buidhe's words in their mouth. They didn't say that. They said they are only going to work in the backlog in general. And you are ignoring the fact that they seem to tend towards cases that require understanding of FoP, of which emojis from Pixabay aren't covered.

    I still stand by my comment.

    Meaning you're going to continue opposing good-faith candidates for silly reasons. Man, I think I don't want to apply for LR again. If that's your goal, congratulations! You successfully discouraged someone from requesting for LR privs! I will just go back to helping newbies in #wikipedia-en-help. Even if I get abused sometimes by some entitled helpees there, I know that my fellow colleagues will back me up. pandakekok9 10:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Sorry Pandakekok9 but you don't file an LR request here and then immediately go away for 2 days .... I don't expect people to be on here 24hours of the day and 365 days of the year however I do expect answers to be answered in a timely manner .... By ignoring the discussion for 2 days (whilst being on other projects) you give the impression A) you're either not here that often or B) You couldn't be arsed to come here. Of course if there an emergency of some sort I could understand and would be more forgiving but that doesn't appear to be the case here. –Davey2010Talk 11:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry Davey2010, but they didn't "immediately go away for 2 days". Check the timestamps. You asked your question on 15:05 of 11 August, and then opposed 12:14 the next day, not even waiting for a full 24 hours. The candidate was only able to see and respond to your post about 12 and a half hours after your oppose. That doesn't look unreasonable to me. Maybe they didn't really see your ping, which happens from time-to-time. Maybe they forgot to look at their Commons watchlist (or even forgot to put it in their watchlist), or expected they will get a ping. Opposing a candidate that looks promising just because they weren't able to respond within a day just seems rude to me. I'd at least ask them first if they're still interested in the privs.

    Another thing: they weren't even active much on enwiki and Wikidata during 12 August. Perhaps they were busy irl and had a limited time on wiki. So they were only able to do the tasks they have jotted down on some note or list beforehand, like moving en:Automobile dependency to en:Car dependency. And perhaps they forgot to jot down "watch your LRR request" in their task list. Or maybe they did but they suddenly became very busy irl, and didn't have the time to properly review the items you listed. Life is unpredictable. pandakekok9 12:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    They posted this request on 05:47, 10 August 2021 and then answered on 01:40, 13 August 2021 so actually it was 3 days not 2. I don't dispute them not getting the ping I don't get pings either so can understand. That's a lot of maybes .... at the end of the day instead of coming back and replying to answers they instead chose to ignore Commons and edit elsewhere - That is enough for a slamdunk oppose for me. It would be like going to RFA and then disappearing for 3 days .... you wouldn't do it (unless you obviously really had too). –Davey2010Talk 12:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Pandakekok9 Literally, the OP doesn't even seem to care about this. Is this accepted? The most recent user who is promoted to LR, Berrely had a easy support by all people because Berrely replied all questions on TIME and CORRECTLY. Also as per Davey2010. And when you tell me I am doing a bad faith assumption, I mean, like why are you nitpicking my sentences. I am myself a aspiring LR, and when I make a request I tried to be online as maximum time as I can, because LR is a big post. Buidhe just doesn't even care about it. Even if there is a sudden emergency, or on a holiday, why isn't the User Page marked with that template? --Contributers2020Talk to me here 14:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • flag assigned. It is a correct behavior not to touch files if you are not sure with them, I can’t accept it as an argument against the flag. The same is applicable even to sysops: everybody has its area of competence, we are a volunteer project and have backlogs and applying own expertise helps anyway. And the user is a long-term contributor participating for years: we can’t blame if the user isn’t active for a day a two. It is not a problem here as we can just keep the discussion open till we get required answers. I would specifically want to warn User:Contributers2020 not to forget to AGF (and not to close such requests yourself unless you are a sysop or a reviewer yourself). I suppose you have some negative predisposition due to your own recently declined requests but please stay civil and respectful. Other cases reviewed by the user are correct. rubin16 (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Albertoleoncio

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

Comments
  •  Question - Albertoleoncio, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/
  7. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/
  8. Lastly would you review files you've uploaded yourself from Youtube (or anywhere else)
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Hi! Thank you for the test. Let's see...
  1. The video is from a small channel and has every indication of being an original production. The only problem would be the freedom of panorama. Some parts have poster images (which is a no-no in the UK), which makes everything more complicated. If possible, I would ask the uploader or someone else to cut/blur parts of the video because of that.
  2. No way. Obviously it's a collection of videos from different sources, without any indication of origin, authorship or license.
  3. Nope. Apparently it's a scene from en:Emmerdale, probably captured from TV, which obviously doesn't have a free license.
  4. The Flickr account appears to belong to a professional photographer, is licensed with a compatible license, he states in the description that he took the photo, there is nothing to suggest problems with the freedom of panorama... Everything is alright, I see no reason to not accept.
  5. Same thing: The Flickr account appears to belong to a professional photographer, is licensed with a compatible license, there is EXIF information (which is a good indication that he is the author of the photo), there is nothing to suggest problems with the freedom of panorama (there is even an entire category of this type of car)... Everything is alright, I see no reason to not accept.
  6. BBC is a public company, but that doesn't mean its content is free. Also, the image is a TV capture. No.
  7. Again: The Flickr account appears to belong to a professional photographer, is licensed with a compatible license, there is EXIF information (which is a good indication that he is the author of the photo), there is nothing to suggest problems with the freedom of panorama (there is even an entire category of this type of car)... Everything is alright, I see no reason to not accept.
  8. The policy says no, which is ideal. I try to do my best, but I can make mistakes too. Having other eyes is always more appropriate.
I think that's it. Albertoleoncio (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Spot on!- Thank you for answering these Albertoleoncio, The walkaround video would be fine tho as the posters you note would be COM:De Minimis but other than I'm happy with your answers, Thanks again,
 Support - Knowledgeable editor, Tenure looks fine, Users talkpage has barely been edited since 2007 (which is great) (copyvios on their page are from 2011 so not really fussed about that), All in all I see no red flags here. Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 Strong support Great answers to Davey! OP is highly experienced, knowledgeable. I don't even need to ask questions to you. Easy Support from me as well. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 04:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 Support per Davey and Contributers.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Promoted per above. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Bedivere

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

Comments
Hi there Rubin16. I understand your hesitations (given the rejectment of my requests for rollback and filemover permissions), I don't object them at all. I think I have done more than 500 edits here however, since many of them are deleted because I often request speedy deletion of copyvios. I often check Spanish Wikipedia articles, and those with doubtful "free" licenses are always under my radar. Despite the number of edits, I can only say I am confident I can do a great job by identifying possible mislicensings and passing those files that comply with copyright laws and local guidelines. --Bedivere (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rubin - I'm sensing very strong HATCOLLECTING vibes here however that aside the user has only been here a year (I prefer 2+ tenure) and whilst the user has transferred files from Flickr they've not transferred that many files. All in all IMHO an inexperienced user.
As an FYI chances are if you're going to fail at getting ROLLBACK/FILEMOVER rights than you can be 110% sure you wont get LR rights either however I'm always fair when it comes to reviewing and always judge based on experience etc not what rights are given. –Davey2010Talk 17:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Davey, I'm just eager to help out and feel I am confident regarding my knowledge of licenses and copyright. I'm not surprised to have had those requests denied, but I can assure you my intentions are good spirited and think I would be an asset to the project in the long term. I would have expected, however, to receive questions about copyright instead of getting an instant oppose. Kind regards. Bedivere (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect there are plenty of venues you can help out at (COM:BACKLOG, COM:DR as well as categorising images) .... there's plenty of things to do here. As I said above you've not been here 2+ years so why would I waste my time asking you questions when you haven't met my criteria ?. –Davey2010Talk 01:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Oddly enough I thought that "to become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons and the common practices of reviewing". Voting oppose based on questionable (self-made) criteria is uncourteous, to say the least. Kind regards. Bedivere (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose per Davey and Rubin, more experience needed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing my request for now. As I said before, I expected to be responding questions regarding licensing and copyright, but none popped up. Experience (two-year, as Davey suggested) is not a requisite to be a license reviewer, however, I will be back in some time. And no, this request is by no means hat collecting. Kindest regards everyone. Bedivere (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Well it is. More tenure tends to mean more knowledge and more experience, Of course that's not always the case with everyone but for majority it is. I would advise coming back in 2-3 years so not to waste the communities time. –Davey2010Talk 00:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're being so hostile unnecessarily. Anyway, have a good day! --Bedivere (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus to promote this user. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 01:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Timetorockknowlege

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

Comments
  •  Oppose. I saw your upload File:United Lands of Jesoth flag.png — which I have just nominated for deletion — and took at look at your contributions, leading me here. I'm sorry, but someone who is uploading flags of imaginary nations is not ready to be a license reviewer. Potentially worse (for license reviewer), 6/15 of your uploads have been deleted as copyright violations (XTools). I strongly believe you don't have enough experience on Commons to be trusted with this right. Please read Commons:Licensing, and gain some more experience uploading properly licensed files. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done User active here since November 2020 and has only made 50+ edits. Closing to avoid the communities time being wasted further. Thanks--C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Aranya

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

Comments
  •  Question - Aranya, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/
  7. https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Davey2010, thanks for the questions. This is what I would do:
  1. Decline, claimed to be under a CC license, but the fact that the channel publishes compilations is a red flag. There isn't evidence that the video publisher holds the copyright to each clip or that each clip is under the claimed CC license.
  2. Decline, judging from the channel description, this seems like a fan uploading clips from a TV program. The production company ITV has likely not published it under the license claimed by the uploader.
  3. Accept, likely produced by the channel and published with a compatible license. I would consider the inclusion of copyrighted works seen throughout the walkthrough de minimis (COM:DM UK).
  4. Accept, this person seems to have taken the photos themselves - image quality and included EXIF data is consistent with other photos uploaded. Compatible license.
  5. Accept, similar to above. This person is likely the photographer, with the consistent quality and EXIF data through their photos. Compatible license.
  6. Decline, this is lifted from a BBC News program and copyright is probably not held by this person.
  7. Accept, I think it's reasonable to assume this person is photographer as stated in the description, judging from the quality and geodata of many of their photos taken within proximity. Compatible CC license. Aranya (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for answering these questions Aranya - You answered all of these correctly :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very pleased with their answers here all of which were answered correctly, User has been here for 2 years, uploads regularly and other than the DR issues pointed out above they've not received anymore DR notices since. Knowledgably and trusted editor, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 12:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support - I see no red flags here. Reasonable answers are given by Aranya and pretty experienced. Just a little bit doubt that the OP is mainly active on English Wikipedia (per OP's talkpage) but that is overcomed by literally just 4 DRs and that too very old and the best part being that you learnt to not make mistakes from that period of time. Thanks, --Contributers2020Talk to me here 16:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Clear consensus to promote. Thank you for volunteering. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oscitare

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

Comments
  •  Oppose - User has been here since 2015 however there's been no consistent editing here - They've essentially been on hiatus since 2015/2016 ..... so I cannot support granting the tool to someone who's never here. –Davey2010Talk 13:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus to promote this user. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Maometto97

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

Comments
Davey2010, Thank you for your attention; I always fill in all the required fields and sometimes the optional fields. What exactly do you mean by "source information"? For example, this is one of my recent uploads that has both the name of the photographer (مهدی زارع اردستانی) and the link to the images (https://www.farsnews.ir/photo/14000803000876), I always mention the author and source information in the Licensing and Categories section too.
My apologies you had indeed added source information, I looked at the very first 2 images on your talkpage (1 and 2) but didn't click the diffs. Apologies for this. –Davey2010Talk 14:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Clear consensus to promote. Thank you for volunteering. --- - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Vysotsky

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

Comments
  • Question Vysotsky, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/
  7. https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Answer:
  1. Decline. Original at autonews58.ru (can’t check license there, would have to ask Russian speaking license reviewer)
  2. Decline. Emmerdale promo, copyright ITV
  3. Accept. Looks truly from Skint Adventure, and should also pass FoP-UK
  4. Accept. PD at source, flickruser crash71100 already has 6,000 images on commons
  5. Accept. PD at source, flickruser Paul Townly already has 858 images on commons
  6. Decline. Image copyright BBC. (BTW: Who made Category:Photographs by James Cridland?)
  7. Accept. CC-BY-SA-2.0 at source. Flickruser Alan Stanton ca. 400 images on commons. -- Vysotsky (talk)

✓ Done consensus to promote ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 09:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Kwangya

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

Continuing with the request, I am very confident that this time I am qualified enough to give you a hand in review licenses. I am willing to answer your questions and learn more from you if it turns out to be necessary. If the application is not successful again, I will wait several more years.

PS: I have used the translator since I cannot write it correctly, but I can read it. KWANGYA 21:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Scheduled to end: 21:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
  •  Question - Kwangya, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/
  7. https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  1. I decline it. As its title indicates, this is a compilation. Therefore, I would mark it with criterion F3 as they are works by other people.
  2. I decline it. This is a clip from a series (until the title appears there). Completely a copyright violation.
  3. I accept it. This is practically the author's hobby, uploading videos to YouTube about his walks. I do not know London, but in the biography he gives an explanation of his videos and a link to his social network.
  4. I accept it. The EXIF data indicates that he is the original owner of the image. In fact, uploading car images is the theme of the account. Let's not forget the good quality it has, which is what usually stands out in Flickr images by original authors.
  5. I accept it. Like the answer above, EXIF data helps a lot. The images are also related to the job declared by the user in the profile biography.
  6. I decline it. A newscast snapshot is a copyright violation. I just hope that some newbie sees that profile and thinks it is his original photos.
  7. I accept it. This time there is no EXIF data, but his profile indicates that he is a photographer and has explained in his biography the reasons for the photographs of him.
Thanks for your questions. KWANGYA 01:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Perfect spot on thank you for answering these Kwangya. –Davey2010Talk 14:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per answers above and below - 2+ year tenure, frequent uploader, no DR/Copyvio notices on tp, Looking back I feel we were were overly-harsh with the last 2 requests so I apologise Kwangya for my comments there - Anyway I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 14:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just one additional question: What do you think about File:大都會客運FAA-072 262區間車.jpg (assuming the depictions on the bus are de minimis)? --Achim55 (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being late. I can say that, in my case, I would have accepted that file, although I would have more consideration if the depictions on the bus are copyrighted and if in China (where the photo was taken) they have a policy of consent of photographs, since in some countries You cannot take photos outdoors without consent, and that includes buses with people, people walking, etc. KWANGYA 02:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The file seems to be reviewed, but have a look at its history. --Achim55 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I see. The same user reviewed the file when it should not be done according to COM:LR. And I missed adding that since he is not a reviewer, he CANNOT review any file. KWANGYA 09:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Fine, thank you. I  Support your request. --Achim55 (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Clear consensus to promote. Thank you for helping out. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 22:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yodas henchman

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

Comments
  •  Oppose Er ... you uploaded two files that had no information about their license status? No offence, but that's kind of the first rule of licensing - if there is no information, the file is copyrighted by default. That's why we can't just upload 99% of the images on the Internet, and really why we need license reviewers. Since those were just uploaded a few weeks ago, I think you aren't quite ready to be one. Thank you, and we appreciate your effort, and please do reapply once you learn more about licensing, it is not a simple process. --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Also the requests are supposed to be at the bottom of the page. I'm going to move this there for you. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - User's only uploaded 4 files which have been their only contributions to date. Closing to avoid the communities time being further wasted. Yodas please retry in 1-2 years when you've uploaded over millions of images and have sufficient knowledge of the licences here, Uploading 4 files over the course of a week doesn't mean you're knowledgeable etc. –Davey2010Talk 17:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

AKA MBG

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

Comments
  •  Oppose - tenure's great as are the frequent uploads however the users talkpage is full of notices - some no permission, some DRs, There's also DR here where the user didn't understand music policies for a country (of course that alone isn't a reason to oppose but I just fear licences could be passed because the user doesn't understand them - not saying that would happen mind but I don't know this person).
Anyway overall I'm not confident with this user, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've known this participant for many years. He works at the Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and understands the basics of copyright. — Niklitov (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No consensus to promote.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Niklitov

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

Comments
  •  Question - Niklitov, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU (No, Creative Commons, but Copyright http://autonews58.ru/)
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s (No, Pirate fragment of the film (?) of someone else's authorship)
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM (Yes, Creative Commons and Freedom of panorama in UK)
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/ (Yes, Public domain)
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/ (Yes, Public domain)
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/ (No, BBC Copyright)
  7. https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/ (Yes, - Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic CC BY-SA 2.0)
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for answering Niklitov, Your answers were spot on :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support - (User has provided answers next to links) - Tenure is fine, frequent uploader, OTRS agent which is another advantage, Answers to questions are fine, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 20:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Imagine someone did upload this image of a painting, sourced with that given web link and tagged {{PD-Art}}. How would you decide? --Achim55 (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Dear Achim55! It is recommended to register any artwork through the VRT (OTRS) service. Or upload it under your own name with a link to the page where you can see the author and the free license. — Niklitov (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hm, if the copyright has expired the VRT isn't necessary. When will it expire in this case? Hint: The artist is notable and there is an article page about him on en:wp. --Achim55 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, if you tell about w:en:Jackson Pollock (w:en:File:Autumn Rhythm.jpg), that public domain has not yet arrived for this artist.( I think, according to the law, from 2026, the work will be transferred to the public domain. — Kind Regards, Niklitov (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hint 2: for COM:US you need to look first for the dates of publication, not the lifetime of author rubin16 (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I get it, thanks for the clarification! There are relatives, it is better to get VRT permission from them. And if the image is needed by the wiki project (COM:SCOPE). — Niklitov (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 Question Imagine that some blogger has released all his photos under the acceptable CC-BY-SA-3.0 by stating that in one of his blog posts with all required declarations showing that he understands the license terms. The post is visible, it is searchable but there is no further link to this post in "terms of use", on the main page of the blog or somewhere else. One of the images was published here on Commons with a free license with the link to that old post: will you review it or not? rubin16 (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If, when uploading a file, the link to a page with a free license is indicated and it is correctly formatted, then yes. If you cannot find a license explicitly or is difficult to find, then you need to issue it through the VRT/OTRS service. — Best regards, Niklitov (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    Correct in general for me, thank you. But if the link with the license proof is difficult to find, you can just nominate it for deletion for insufficient source and the uploader either fixes the link or goes through VRT if source isn’t public rubin16 (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Promoted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

আফতাবুজ্জামান

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

Comments
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM
  4. https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/
  5. https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/
  6. https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/
Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 15:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Thanks for your questions. Best wishes ওহিদ (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
ওহিদ Please don't nominate people here again unless you have their approval beforehand, Copying my questions and replying here took time - Time that could've been used elsewhere. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2021&oldid=654346065"