Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2023

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Valo139

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

Valo139 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
Reason: Begründung Hello dear license reviewers etc., I'm Valo139. :) I'm active in Commons since 2019, but really active again since roughly two months. In the german-speaking Wikipedia, I'm more regularly active. I uploaded circa 80 images which I took myself (all licensed with CC BY-SA 4.0) and around 7 vector graphics which have, in my opinion, no threshold of originality. I mainly upload pictures from places where I've been recently, just for fun. But I like the thoughts and general ambitions about free licences and free software in general. So I'd like to go on with this practice and check the real freeness of some pictures to make Commons a place of real correctness and truth. As I've seen, too, you have a rather big backlog in the category for licence reviews. My aim would be to see this category empty. ;) To have a concrete knowledge about all the possible licences, I've read Commons:License review, Commons:Flickr files and Commons:Licensing prior to writing this request. I hope I do have all the requirements for this user right, and I thank all of you for reviewing me for being trustworthy.
Scheduled to end: 18:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Question - Valo139, 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:

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Davey2010, I'd reason the images and videos as followed:

The uploader doesn't seem to be the copyright holder. There are several different clips being used. Authorship is not clear → decline
The uploader doesn't seem to be the copyright holder. Authorship not clear → decline
Good and concrete description. The uploader seems to be the copyright holder too and it was published under a compabtible CC BY licence. Author is clear and license O.K. → accept
The uploader seems to be the copyright holder and put it himself in PD. The lack of any description was not trustworthy. So I looked up the EXIF-data of the file, which didn't support the lack of trustworthiness. Author clear and license O.K. → accept
Published under a non-compatible license with the terms of Commons (CC BY-NC 2.0). Non-compatible license → decline
Is a screenshot of an audiovisual work and so no work of the uploader. (BBC sometime grants permission for screenshots of their programmes (https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/terms/can-i-use-bbc-content/), but there is no such permission visible here.) Not an own work → decline

Info I need to mention that I had in the past some copyright violations as can be seen here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valo139/Archive/2020. At that time I was inexperienced and unfortunately uploaded the wrong material. If you do not trust me because of this, please reject the application. Thank you! --valo139 (💬) 20:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for answering these questions with such an in-depth analysis of each file Valo, Very happy with your answers, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Support - Brilliant answers to question all of which were correct, Tenure looks fine, No recent XFD/Copyvio notices - There are 2020 notices however as the OP correctly states these were 3 years ago when they were inexperienced, frequent uploader and logos they've converted to SVG are all IN USE, I see no red flags here so it's an easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Done Promoted to license reviewer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Mosbatho

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

Mosbatho (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
Reason: Hi, I am requesting License review permission. I have noticed that there is an enormous backlog for files needing license review. Many of the are quite obvious flickr transfers with correct Commons compatible Creative Commons licenses sich as CC-by, CC-by-sa or some PD licenses. I am perfectly aware of CC licenses since the mid 2000s. Would be great if you support my application. Kindest regards, Mosbatho (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 22:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Support Looks good to me! Thank you for volunteering. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Question - Mosbatho, 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:

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Davey, in hurry, my answers.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whichpressoffice/27194404271/in/; couldn't find this news account here and their upload history looks consistent, as such the free cc-by-sa-2.0 license is ok for Commons. License laundry unlikely.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/41519416844/; a No-Brainer, CC0 1.0 license with suitable EXIF data and typical amateur quality. Police vehicle with no copyrightable stuff around and on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDO98lMnZXA; CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Fits very well with Commons but I personally find the content questionable but this is not of interest for licensing questions in a whole. Another problem could be if the uploader is the copyright holder of all those compiled videos (obviously from all over the world) or whether it is not of importance because this video material has been created by automatic video systems being installed on a car's dashboard. The threshold of originality of such material is discussed. The account is not listed here as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDJ-kmfo9c; the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license is ok but is the music covered by this licensing as well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM1bXT01Rm8; CC Attribution 3.0 is basically ok. I do not know these persons but is it some COM:DW from any TV show? Is it this? If yes, then no, not for Commons.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephen_downes/14493547497/in/; CC BY-NC 2.0. No.

Kindest regards, Mosbatho (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mosbatho, Unfortunately some of your answers were incorrect;

is a screen shot of a news programme taken from a YouTube video - no information in the description was given regarding video source and whether it's free or not so therefore it has to be assumed that the video within the screenshot is copyrighted unless proven otherwise
Correct Done
A compilation of random USA car crash videos does not fit very well with Commons at all but that aside all of those compilations are either from one very incompetent driver who's had more crashes/vehicles than I've had hot meals .... or these are all from different users who have submitted the video clips in to the YouTube channel (or the video has been reuploaded under a CC licence) so your answer to this is also incorrect
Correct the video is fine however the music is presumably copyrighted so would have to be declined Done
This is a TV show and the TV show doesn't release any content under a CC licence and as the YouTube channel is a random user your answer is incorrect
Unfortunately I cannot remember what the image was and Flickr has gone down - I purposely chose new videos/images given the request above so I'll reupdate this once Flickr is back up and running again. Correct Done

Some of your answers have been questions back to me (as if you're not quite sure) and others (such as #4 and #5) have been to confirm the licence is fine but the content is not - That to me isn't a definitive answer - Your answers don't confirm whether you'd accept or decline.

Nonetheless thank you for taking the time to answer these, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per the incorrect answers given - Tenure, talkpage notices (or lack of which is fab), uploads have all been brilliant but for me the answers haven't been brilliant and as I said in my reply above although they stated the licence was okay but the content wasn't... they still didn't confirm whether they'd accept or decline - I read their answers 6 times and still got the impression they didn't know and were asking me whether their interpretation was correct or not - It's not up to me to give them the answers - It's no different to me firing up an RFA and then asking the questionee questions on whether my answers were correct (or alluding to that like the answers above).....

Anyway unfortunate oppose per the answers given. –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So, basically your feedback supports me. --Mosbatho (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't .... Maybe I've misunderstood your answer or maybe I've read too much in to it but to me #4 and #5 were conflicting answers - You may well accept images similar to 4 & 5 based on the licence whilst ignoring the content ?, But either way given the answers you've provided I don't believe you have sufficient knowledge as of yet. –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of Creative Commons license. Your attempts of checking my knowledge was based on possible license laundry issues. I have stated in Questions in order to point out that in such inconclusive issues a formal COM:DR is to be filed. Being a license reviewer does not mean that you know any possible cases of license laundrying (you not either, Davey2010) - such things shall be brought to a greater community in order to discuss such cases. A license reviewer is no Admin - I do know this and you surely as well. And BTW, professional TV content is available under free CC licenses, example. --Mosbatho (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you've become so defensive over this, You didn't answer the questions correctly so therefore I opposed because of that, It's not my fault if you don't have the required knowledge to be a licence reviewer. Have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I was not "offensive" at all but you judge the level of knowledge about others, but do you know yourself enough about CC licensing? Do you know know Commons:License laundering? Do you know what is the purpose/existence of Commons:Flickr blacklist? I don't have the impression that this is the case. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said you were offensive .... I said you're being defensive .... 2 entirely different things, I'm slightly confused by the last part of your comment - we wasn't discussing licence laundering or blacklists but yes I'm well aware what both are (I've a few Flickr users added to blacklists) but all of that's irrelevant. Kindly do more research before returning here in future. –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done There is no consensus for promotion at this time. Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 09:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Abzeronow

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

Abzeronow (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
Reason: I've been on Commons for almost five years and Flickr files are a significant part of the maintenance work I do so I could help on bringing that Flickr backlog down Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 16:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Support - Nevermind LR Abzeronow should be an admin - I'm genuinely impressed with their contributions here so much so that I believe this tool is not enough for them!, Tenure is fantastic, No DR/Copyvio messages on talkpage (other that 1 which was explained in the DR), plenty of uploads all from different websites and all presumably have different yet acceptable licences, I won't bother with the default questions as without a single doubt Abzeronow would fly through them, So for me straight and very easy support of the century. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote of confidence. Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Support Good and trusted user. Yann (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Promoted User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yahya

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

Yahya (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
Reason: Greetings everyone, I am Yahya, an active member of the Commons community for several years. I am interested in obtaining the license reviewer rights to assist with the clearance of the backlog. I have already been entrusted with some advanced tools by the Wikimedia community. To acquire comprehensive knowledge of all possible licenses, I have thoroughly read Commons:License review, Commons:Flickr files, and Commons:Licensing before making this request. I believe that I meet all the requirements for this user right, and I am grateful for your consideration of my trustworthiness.

You may see 3-4 messages on my talk page/talk page archive as red flags, but they were all 2021 uploads, and I hope that they will not compromise my credibility. Thank you for your time. Yahya (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Scheduled to end: 21:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

~~Yahya, You come across the following files to be license-reviewed, what would be your observations?~~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BePFWyDXhU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuDE35niq1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FV-HxUpptM

https://flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/51313500841/in/

https://flickr.com/photos/136359789@N02/25325259869/in/

https://flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/6863793141/in/

https://flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3385710690/in/

~~What will you do in every case? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)~~

Thanks @Aafi for your question.

Decline: There are several different clips being used, and authorship is not clear.
Decline: The uploader does not seem to be the copyright holder, and authorship is unclear.
Accept: The authorship is clear, and the license is okay.
Accept: Details are lacking, but the EXIF data confirms that this is uploader's own work.
Accept: Same as above.
Decline: This is not the uploader's own work; it is a screenshot. There is no evidence that the BBC published it under the appropriate license.
Accept: Although there is no EXIF data, the image is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0, and the attached long conversation seems genuine and suggests that it is the uploader's own work.

Yahya (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Great. ~~My Support goes to you.~~ ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) (changing per below ─ The Aafī (^talk) 00:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC))

@TheAafi Please don't use my questions, If you want to ask candidates questions then do some research and use your own links!. –Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Davey2010, forgive me for not crediting you and using these without having asked you (and this is surely for the first and only time). I have a list on my mind and will prepare that until few days. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TheAafi, Many thanks for apologising, Unfortunately it's not the first time it's happened and without spilling any beans there's a reason why but anyway no worries, Have a lovely day, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Answered my questions* correctly, tenure looks fine, I am however concerned about the 3 copyvios last year[1] however we all make mistakes and as far as I can see those haven't been repeated, Other than the copyvios I see no red flags here, Support.

*(I say my questions because TheAafi has simply copied and pasted these from the archives which I originally asked other candidates!). –Davey2010^Talk 12:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If so, I wouldn't count this, because answers can be easily copied too. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 17:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Killarnee, are you sure that Yahya was aware that the questions posted here have been copied from elsewhere? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't read it through at all. I just wanted to say that I think it's weird that you just copied the questions and I'd be more suspicious of something like that. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 20:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'm striking my vote for now! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 00:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(post-close comment), Hi Killarnee Admittedly I do use the same questions for the LRRs although once these are copied/pasted by others then I ask new questions until those get copied/pasted and it's a repeated cycle - only happened twice but I guess twice is enough!, Of course I've thought participants could look for the answers but I had hoped they wouldn't but granted it's not difficult to search through the archives, Anyway duly noted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Lets give him a chance -Killarnee (C•T•U) 15:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

25stargeneral

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

25stargeneral (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
Reason: I'd like to help clear the licence review backlog. I've read COM:License review and have a good understanding of COM:Licensing, Creative Commons licenses, public domain law, FOP, TOO, have uploaded many files, most of which have been kept, and have successfully nominated many, many files for deletion. I feel this is my next opportunity to help the project out. Happy to answer any questions to demonstrate my knowledge of policy and procedure. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 04:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

video (with sound) from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZKEOBqqGHg
video (with sound) from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0jSVjNI5as
screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0jSVjNI5as
screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73F3fUsaFy8
File:Former Jordan Marsh Flagship Store Omni Mall Downtown Miami.jpg
File:DOD 105171196-5ea84443854a6.webm

will you pass or fail these?--RZuo (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Pass - cc license is indicated and the uploader (the music school) is allowed to relicense the content (I consider it reasonably likely a university would've gotten permission from their students to use their work in such clips).
Fail - while there is a cc license, it appears that the uploader is a random account not affiliated with the performers and therefore does not own the content. Also there is a watermark which is different from the account name.
Fail - same as previous.
Fail - while there is a cc license, media not belonging to the uploader is used throughout.
Pass - The U.S. has freedom of panorama for buildings and a compatible creative commons license is clearly indicated on Flickr.
Fail unless source info is provided - While a video created by the Army could be uploaded, I cannot confirm the license is valid without source information from the file. Linking to the DoD homepage is not enough for me to find this video. Without a DoD watermark, it could also have been created by a journalist, for example. I would fail the file for now and ping the uploader on the talk page and ask them to provide the source.

25stargeneral (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Question Are you the photographer who created both File:Nina Jankowicz DHS portrait.jpg and File:Kathy Barnette headshot.jpg? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not, and have not claimed to be. I will note that both these files were nominated for deletion and kept per community consensus. I used the {{consent|full}} template because consent was provided by the subjects themselves through their verified websites/social media. I checked the talk page Template talk:Consent#Additional field? and found that a proposal failed to differentiate between full consent provided by the uploader and that provided by the subject when published externally. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

In these edits on the photo of Nina Jankowicz, you added the {{Consent}} template in a manner that says I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video.. The same thing happened at edit on the photo of Kathy Barnette. I'm not saying that there is an issue with the copyright, but I had found it a bit odd given the difference in partisanship between the two individuals, and I wanted to check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. I personally found that no option in the consent template quite fit, but these individuals did personally share these works through a press kit and official social media, so consent was provided. I checked the talk page for the template before using it and found that this appeared to be an accepted use of the template. I agree with the proposal to add a {{consent|released}} option to clarify the wording in situations like these, but apparently the community did not find it necessary. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

imo you should have used {{Licencereview}} for that, to let a reviewer affirm that the image was from the source provided, an official account. RZuo (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:PHOTOCONSENT encourages uploaders to provide a consent assessment when uploading photographs of identifiable people. It essentially places the burden on the uploader to make this original assessment: The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons. Normally it is sufficient that the uploader asserts that appropriate consent was given. The {{Consent}} template may be used for this purpose, though it is not required. License review is not really a related process. It is not mentioned at PHOTOCONSENT and consent is not mentioned at COM:License review. Whether a file is freely licensed and whether the people depicted in a photograph consent to the use of their image are different concepts. I am certainly willing to be proven wrong if you have policy links to back it up, but I believe I followed the instructions, which do not say anything about requesting a consent assessment through license review. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

a person casually looking at the camera might imply consent to being photographed. a person's twitter publishing that photo might imply consent to the photo being published by that twitter. but i dont see "their consent to the photo being republished" without asking for their permission first. she only said "my official portrait to grab your attention", but nothing about you being able to republish it. so no, your insertion of {{Consent}} is actually bogus.

but people around the world can use that photo freely in terms of copyright, because it's the official portrait of a DHS employee = pd-usgov. RZuo (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: The consent assessments can be somewhat subjective, but I probably would be a bit more careful now than I was a year ago when I uploaded that file. There is a reason I waited until now to make a license review request; it does take some time to learn things through practice. I think if I were to upload this particular file now I would've tagged it with {{Personality rights}} instead. Are you happy with the way I answered your sample license reviews above? 25stargeneral (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - Tenure's fine, upload's fine, answered questions perfectly above, talkpage notices are from 2020 and are crops, I see no red flags here, easy support. (For transparency I did !vote Oppose on Saturday based on incorrect things[2]), anyway easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Support All my concerns have been addressed, and I see decent evidence that the applicant knows how to appropriately review licenses. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Granted. Clear consensus. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 00:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Metacladistics

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

Metacladistics (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I am frequently encountering material sourced from open access scholarly journals, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, for which the licence info given does NOT match the licence of the material as it was originally published in the source journal. Typically this occurs when someone copies eg. a CC BY image, and over on Wikimedia Commons uploads it as CC BY SA. I would love to help fix/review these issues, if I am allowed to.--Metacladistics (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 12:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Question Would you please explain, in your current understanding, what the differences are between the license reviewer, patroller, and autopatroller user rights? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
In my understanding (trying to use my own words rather than just copying and pasting...);
- license reviewers perform the task of reviewing the copyright status of flagged items for review, uploaded here to Wikimedia Commons. License reviewers must be familiar with Commons:Licensing policy , for instance -NC and -ND licensed content, or all rights reserved content is generally not permitted here unless the rightsholder has given special permission via Commons:Volunteer Response Team. License reviewers should check who is the rightsholder (is it the uploader? If not the uploader, then does the uploader have the right to upload), and the precision of the source link. License review concerns itself solely with copyright, licensing and attribution/source issues.
- patrollers deal with vandalism. New pages, new files and edits can be marked as 'patrolled' if they are deemed ok by those with the patrol user right. Patrolling is less about copyright & licensing and more about all the other policies of Wikimedia Commons. I wouldn't necessarily want to sign up for patrol rights at this point. I am merely interested in copyright & licensing issues.
- Autopatrollers. Users who have been observed over time to have provided high quality edits and contributions are given autopatrol rights so that their contributions are somewhat trusted by default and do not require patrolling by other users. Autopatrollers cannot actually mark the actions of others as patrolled - it merely marks their own edits as patrolled. Fun fact: I was given Autopatrolled status over at English Wikipedia in 2020 (but I recognise that Wikimedia Commons and EN Wikipedia are different, albeit linked communities, and I do NOT have autopatrol status here yet). License reviews and patrolleers (reviewing the work of others) are perhaps more similar roles to each other than autopatrol which is more about marking trusted users and not unnecessarily overburdening the queue of edits & new pages that need patrol checks. License reviewing is I hope a narrower and more specific subset of work than patrolling which I sense would require knowledge of a variety of different policies, depending on the specific edit/page.

Metacladistics (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I've got one more set of questions. Would you please let me know what you would do at license review if you were to encounter the following, and why you would take that action? For purposes of these questions, please ignore concerns around COM:SCOPE and focus only on the copyright/licensing:
1. A user uploads this whole video from YouTube with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "Jason Zac - Nathaniel School of Music" as its author.
2. A user uploads a screenshot of Michael Smerconish from 00:00:00 of this YouTube video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "CNN" as its author.
3. A user uploads a photograph of Taipei 101 from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr page as its source and "Jirka Matousek" as its author.
4. A user uploads a photograph of the Louvre Pyramid from Flickr under a {{PD-author}} license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "thinkrorbot" as its author.
5. A user uploads a photograph of the Milad Tower from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "ArdalShah" as its author.
6. A user uploads a photograph of Moses, Notre Dame from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "icfasntw" as its author.
7. A user uploads this photograph from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Bill Baldridge" as its author.
8. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Ron Frazier" as its author.
9. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "David Orban" as its author.
10. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Loco Steve" as its author.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Fail (copyvio) - Although CC BY 3.0 is indicated at YouTube, I am not convinced that the song itself is out of copyright - their is no indication that the performer has permission to put this performance of this song online under CC BY 3.0 . The song "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" was composed in 1949 by Johnny Marks and he died in only 1985 - it's still in-copyright and insufficient attribution is given to the composer.

2. Fail (copyvio) - Although CC BY 3.0 is indicated at YouTube by the Youtube uploader, I am not convinced that the content has been made so by the rightful rightsholder (CNN). The source is given as https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/08/06/smr-roger-waters.cnn and when I click through there, there is nothing on that site which would give me any confidence that this video has been released under CC BY 3.0

3. Pass {{Flickrreview|Metacladistics|2023-03-21}} - License is indicated as CC BY 2.0 at Flickr, and Author is also given as "Jirka Matousek", and source link is good, so that checks out. I consulted Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Taiwan#Freedom_of_panorama and see that there _is_ freedom for buildings in Taiwan so no issues there. I would leave a thank you message at Flickr.

4. Fail (copyvio) - I consulted Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France#Freedom_of_panorama and find that France only permits non-commercial utilizations. The public domain indication clashes with French law on this point (public domain would permit commercial uses) and so this photo in my opinion is not public domain under French law. I also see the "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" message over at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louvre_Pyramid.jpg

5. Fail (copyvio) - Username/attribution checks out, as does the CC BY 2.0 and the source URL is good too. Consulted Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Iran#Freedom_of_panorama Date of completion of architectural work was 2008 - this is protected by Iranian copyright law and cannot simply be licensed under in CC BY 2.0 in Iran.

6. Fail (more information required) - Username/attribution checks out although could additional be attributed to Michelle Johnson perhaps(?), as does the CC BY 2.0 and the source URL is good too. I consulted Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Americas#United_States_of_America and note that although buildings are okay, 17 USC 120 only applies to buildings and NOT to sculptures. The year of the sculpture is given as 1962. Unless there is further proof given by the uploader that defective copyright notice was given or that copyright was not renewed then this is a copyvio until proven otherwise.

7. Fail (copyvio)- At the present moment in time that URL gives me a 404. However, I pass that URL to the Wayback Machine and find an earlier snapshot of the page here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221027200229/https://www.flickr.com/photos/cherokee_bill/32997058528 I would change the source URL to https://web.archive.org/web/20221027200229/https://www.flickr.com/photos/cherokee_bill/32997058528 the image was uploaded to Flickr as "All rights reserved" and on this basis cannot be allowed on Wikimedia Commons.

8. Fail (copyvio) Username checks out, as does the CC BY 2.0 and the source URL is good too. I did a reverse image search (Google Lens) and discovered that the artist Christian Borys is probably the true rightsholder to the Saint Javelin artwork & concept, it's fairly new and the artist is still living. I believe the FLickr user who uploaded this to Flickr does not have the right to make this work available under CC BY 2.0

9. Fail (incorrect licence information, can be salvaged by correcting the given licence information to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 which is what the source work was made available under) easy!

10. Fail (copyvio) - From examination of the Flickr users other photo uploads to Flickr it is clear that 'Loco Steve' (Steve Wilson) is probably not the artist who creates the murals, they are merely a photographer of murals. One therefore needs to consider the copyright of the mural itself. I consulted Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#United_Kingdom and I see "The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder." So unless 'Loco Steve'/ Steve Wilson is artist who actually painted the mural (regardless of whether Steve took the photo or not), this cannot go on Commons. I believe the artist who painted the mural is "Irony" and that there is nothing prove that Irony is Steve Wilson. Metacladistics (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(sorry for the formatting issues) Metacladistics (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. With respect to No. 6, you were given the name of the statue. How would you go about checking for evidence of copyright renewal? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I read COM:PACUSA .

I am confident the statue has been "published" in the USA, after 1928 & before 1978. I am not confident that a visible copyright registration notice was included, so it could be PD-US-no notice. As for registration renewal, I tried searching the US Copyright Public Records Portal https://www.copyright.gov/public-records/ but I could not find a record that matches the statue (this is where I would look for evidence of copyright renewal - to answer your question more directly). I'm not too confident about inferring things from an absence. I think perhaps I would need to ask the uploader if there was a visible copyright registration notice given on/near the statue? One cannot tell from the picture alone? Metacladistics (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk your followup? RZuo (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support The user appears to be a person with sufficient knowledge to properly use the tools. It's a bit unusual to grant the LR toolset to someone with as few edits as this user, but the user seems both competent and trustworthy enough to be granted the tools. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

can you please determine whether you would pass or fail these two files?

also, are you allowed to review your own upload File:Falcataria moluccana infested by Pteroma plagiophleps.png? RZuo (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Pass. The licence stated at Vimeo is CC BY 3.0, I can't see an issue here.

2. Pass but with modifications to the attribution. Pensoft Publishers aren't really the author of this video and the person it should be attributed to is Martin Dančák. Pensoft have merely added the video to their YT channel.

3. According to license review rules at Wikimedia Commons: "image-reviewers may not review their own uploads". So no, I cannot review my own upload Metacladistics (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

oh... on 1. perhaps consent is required if the person is in a private place "Publishing a photo of an identifiable person in a private place usually requires consent" as per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people Metacladistics (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. RZuo (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Granted. Clear consensus. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 23:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

103.252.35.110

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

103.252.35.110 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Reason.--103.252.35.110 16:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 16:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Not done Closing to avoid the communities time being wasted. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Matr1x-101

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

Matr1x-101 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Hello, I am a major contributor on Wikimedia Commons. I am a patroller and I am also frequently active on forums COM:DR, COM:UNDEL, and COM:VPC. I also have reported quite a few copyvios and unauthorised DWs from Category:All media needing categories as of 2016. I have read COM:LR before applying and I therefore believe I have a more than sufficient understanding of licence reviewing and general copyright rules, as well as all related applicable policies on Commons. Thank you, --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 13:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 13:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Well, this is quiet. I guess I'll give User:Matr1x-101 the customary quiz: Which of these would you accept, which would you decline, and why? Cheat at your peril: one of the answers in the request I stole it from is wrong now :)

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

2. Accept: License was changed from "All rights reserved" to cc-by-sa-2.0, the latter of which is allowed on Commons. Photographer's account looks like a professional papparazi, so probably not a copyvio. (was this the one that changed lol?)

3. Accept: As the work of a federal U.S. govt official, it is public domain.

4. Decline: Clear copyvio of some magazine per COM:BOOK. We'd need VRT permission if we wanted it here on Commons.

5. Accept: Looking at the top of the magazine it says "1896", meaning it was probably published in 1896, so {{PD-US-expired}} can be used. Looking at this magazine's Wikipedia page (link), it was made and edited solely by Georg Hirth. He died in 1916, so German copyright expired in 1986 (70pma). So {{PD-old-auto}} can be added with the parameter of 1916 for the deathyear.

--Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 16:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You come across the following files, Please say whether you would accept or decline and why:

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Decline: A copyvio of some British soap opera. Not PD either since the soap opera only started in 1975.

2. Decline: Licenced as cc-by-nc-2.0, which is not allowed on Commons.

3. Accept: Licenced as cc-by-sa-2.0. Was previously licenced as cc-by-nc-2.0, but that has been changed. Tineye only turns up one result and that website gives credit to the Flickr link so probably not a copyvio.

4. Decline: The video is a compilation of car crashes. Not the author's original work. Therefore the author has no right to licence under cc-by.

--Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 17:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Completely forgot the licence history now exists for Flickr!, Thank you for answering these. –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Support looks good to me! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Support - Answered answers correctly, Tenure looks fine, DR notices nothing to worry about- no red flags here, easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Done Granted. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Quenhitran

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

Quenhitran (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I would like to assist in the license review of images, especially images transferred from Flickr. Currently, it can be seen that the backlog for Flickr images review is huge (over 2400 files), and I would love to give a hand. I'm an experienced Wikimedia editor since 2013, and has been granted multiple userrights across the English Wikipedia, Meta Wiki, and particularly, sysop on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Thank you and have a nice day!--Quenhitran (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 10:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

since you're already a sysop on other projects, would you consider COM:RFA instead? that would also let you review licences.--RZuo (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Support —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Done Killarnee (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Uncitoyen

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

Uncitoyen (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I can do license reviews for YouTube and Flickr especially. I have patroller rights here already. I usually make deletion requests so I know the Creative Commons and other simple license terms. In short, I can help with license reviews. Uncitoyen (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 15:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

since you're already a sysop on other projects, would you consider COM:RFA instead? that would also let you review licences.--RZuo (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

and then the guys will come and harass, oh my man, you do not have so many many many and yada yada edits. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Given their local edit count only (4.6k), it's probably too soon for that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Uncitoyen started editing 5 years earlier than Mdaniels5757. RZuo (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Given my own edit count, I tend to

Support this request. Edit count doesn't matter always, please. The guy is a VRT permissions agent and that is enough for me to believe that they have good copyright knowledge to be in the team, and thus could be very much helpful as an image-reviewer. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I also

Support the license reviewer request. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons' sysopship is early for me now. Thanks for your opinions. Uncitoyen (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Done I have speedy closed the request. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 15:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thesaurabhsaha

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

Thesaurabhsaha (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Hello, I am interested in becoming a license reviewer for Wikimedia Commons. I possess a good understanding of the Creative Commons and other simple license terms and can assist in license reviews. Thank you for your time and consideration.-Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 17:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

You've only 135 edits on Commons, are you sure you're ready for this? Killarnee (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see, you've been blocked just 14 days ago: "You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Commons for the following reason: repeatedly uploading unfree files after warnings." Yes, two days ago your second unblock request has been accepted. But sorry, you are definitely not ready for license reviewer. Killarnee (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done Speedily close, this request has no chance in my opinion. Killarnee (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Whpq

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

Whpq (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I am and admin on the English Wikipedia working primarily in the file and copyright areas. I often find myself on Commons sorting out image uploads used on pages in the English Wikipedia including images uploaded from Flickr, Youtube etc. I can help out by clearing these files if they are properly licensed. I am familiar with the licensing requirements of Commons, as well as associated factors such as freedom of panorama..--Whpq (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 14:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Support Would be a great license reviewer. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Support --Rzuwig^► 19:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Done Killarnee (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Robertsky

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

Robertsky (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I review new articles at en:WP:WPAFC and en:WP:NPP, and frequently I encounter drafts and articles from new editors with photos and other images uploaded on commons, thus will also spend the time to check through these uploads. Many of these are uploaded contrary to the licensing requirements here (hence 300+ of my 1,100 edits are deleted ones, having to tag these images). There are also those uploaded through Flickr, YouTube, etc and I would check if they are licenses appropriately at the source as well. Would be nice to have those that are licensed correctly flagged as patrolled rather just leaving them for another reviewer to do so. I have multiple userrights on enwiki, and currently am part of the Wikimania 2023's core organising team.--Robertsky (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 09:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Support Rzuwig^► 11:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Support --Bedivere (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Support, trusted user. --Yeeno (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Done --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 10:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Bedivere

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

Bedivere (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I have been a Commons user for some time, and would like to lend a hand helping out by reviewing files. I can't promise I will review tons of files, but I will help out whenever I can. I am proficient in copyright matters and am open to respond any questions. Have a good day and thanks for your time! --Bedivere (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 17:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Support —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Done Killarnee (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

TommyG

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

TommyG (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I've been a somewhat regular contributor to different wikimedia projects over the last 18 or so years and the last few years I have gotten more involved with the administrative side of contributing and have found I quite enjoy it. License review seems like a useful way to contribute.--TommyG (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 17:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Done Killarnee (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Mickey Đại Phát

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

Mickey Đại Phát (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I have been a Commons user from October last year, and I would like to review licenses for some YouTube uploaded files. After ganining some experiences, I'm now understand the copyright proficiently. It's a good way to contribute and I'll wait for your response. Thank you so much. --Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Question: At 09:20 (UTC) of January 28 of this year, you were given a final warning for uploading copyright violations. Looking through your deleted contriutions, it appears to be the case that multiple images that you have uploaded after that warning was given have been deleted for copyright-related reasons, for which you were blocked in April for 1 week. These files include:
1. File:Hisu Lee - Ao dai - 2015-07-22.jpg (uploaded 14:20, 28 January 2023; deleted by Túrelio for failing license review);
2. File:MITINA - White lingerie.jpg (uploaded 05:24, 29 January 2023; deleted by Túrelio as Flickrwashing);
3. File:MITINA 2.jpg (uploaded 11:44, 6 March 2023; deleted by Túrelio as Flickrwashing);
4. File:MITINA 3.jpg (uploaded 11:44, 6 March 2023; deleted by Túrelio as Flickrwashing);
5. File:MITINA 1.jpg (uploaded 11:44, 6 March 2023; deleted by Túrelio as Flickrwashing);
6. File:MITINA 6.jpg (uploaded 11:44, 6 March 2023; deleted by Túrelio as Flickrwashing);
7. File:MITINA 5.jpg (uploaded 11:44, 6 March 2023; deleted by Túrelio as Flickrwashing);
8. File:MITINA 4.jpg (uploaded 11:44, 6 March 2023; deleted by Túrelio as Flickrwashing); and
9. File:GAO YUANYUAN.jpg (uploaded 12:58, 11 April 2023, deleted by Krd per Commons:Deletion requests/File:GAO YUANYUAN.jpg)

In light of that, I have two questions:

Would you be willing to explain your thought process in uploading these files? I understand the upload of the final file (am730 is a major newspaper in Hong Kong that has its own photography department, ~~so I'm not so sure that the deletion request was wisely made~~ and was sourced to their official channel), but I'm struggling to understand the thought process for the MITINA files uploaded in January and March that are already deleted, as well as the other files you uploaded from that Flickr account that are under DR.
Would you be willing to list the camera equipment that you personally use when taking photos for Commons (manufacturer, model, etc.)?

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

1. For my own photos, I use my mobile phone manufactured by vivo to take. So when I uploaded my own photos, I'm assured I will add this soon.

2. For the previous files, I think if files have CC-BY 2.0 in Flickr, I'll upload it right now without thinking too much. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty; thank you for answering these so swiftly.

However, in light of the answer to #2, I have to regretfully

Oppose this request. Flickr files are a well-known problematic source, as the website generates a good deal of license laundering. While your heart is in the right place in reviewing licenses of YouTube uploads, the response that I think if files have CC-BY 2.0 in Flickr, I'll upload it right now without thinking too much is too close to if files have CC-BY in YouTube, I'll approve it right now without thinking too much. As such, I don't think you're quite ready for the permissions yet.

That being said, you do not need the License Reviewer rights to tag copyright-violating files uploaded from YouTube for speedy deletion nor to request deletion of a file. Anybody can do that, and I would encourage you to get some practice doing that for a few months so that you can be becoming more familiar with Commons policy and copyright laws before requesting permissions again. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. I promise. Thanks so much. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As a note, I've struck part of this comment and replaced it after being reached out to on my talk page. I do not mean in any way to convey that there was something wrong with opening a DR on the file. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose RDH has said everything. Please continue reporting deletions (CSDs and DRs) and show that you have learnt from the mistakes you made. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Not for now, sorry. Bedivere (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Info This user has been blocked indefinitely on en.wikipedia.org. Reason: Long-term dubious unsourced changes, no communication. Killarnee (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done Killarnee (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Satdeep Gill

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

Satdeep Gill (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Looking at the backlog of content pending license review, I believe I can help with this. I have been mainly focused on contributing photographs to Commons in the past year but now I am interested to help with other tasks. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 11:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

would you pass or fail these?--RZuo (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo I would fail the first one because there is no mention of a free CC license in the video and I would pass the second video as the license is clearly mentioned and it is consistent with the license mentioned on Commons. Satdeep Gill (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The first image, what about "Please note: This image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons licensed as noted. The copyright holder has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. See the Creative Commons FAQ on revoking licensing."? Killarnee (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Killarnee Yes, I am aware that CC licenses can not be revoked. But, we have not been able to verify the mentioned license on this video independently. Is there a policy on Commons regarding this? I think this is precisely why we should focus on reducing the backlog. — Satdeep Gill (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill, why would you fail it then? Something that was earlier published under a CC license and a derivative of which was uploaded here, why do you need to fail it given the note that @Killarnee has mentioned above? Just a simple question: why and why not? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 03:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheAafi Aah, right. The Internet Archive source link was not opening for me earlier. So, I was not able to verify if the video was actually released under a CC license in the past or not. Now, I see "Licenza Attribuzione di Creative Commons (riutilizzo consentito)" mentioned in the wayback machine link. I would pass this after confirming the original license. I do understand that CC licenses can not be revoked.

I think I would just start by accepting all the obvious cases. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

file #1 was not an obvious case. it's not your fault if you didnt know about the tricky licence embedded in the archive link. i picked the files randomly.--RZuo (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If the case is not obvious, one should skip the file rather than risk reviewing it incorrectly. But everyone makes mistakes so next time just remember to check whether the license has been changed. Killarnee (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Support ok.--RZuo (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Done Fitindia (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Юрий Д.К.

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

Юрий Д.К. (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: As per backlog in Category:License review needed and per Village pump topic I would to help with license review. I will work mostly in Flickr files, but also may check files from various sources (preferably Russian and Ukrainian, if will). Thank --Юрий Д.К 14:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 14:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

There is a picture taken in France of a building constructed in 2000, but whose architect died in 1850. Would it be okay to upload this photograph to Commons? --Bedivere (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bedivere: As per COM:FOP: "old buildings where the architect died more than (70 years ago in our case) are in the public domain". But 2000 building isn't concidered to be old. Per COM:Copyright rules by territory/France#General "Posthumous works: Life + 70 years if published within 70 years of the author's death, otherwise, 25 years from publication". I think that isn't ok to upload this photo on Commons. However, it is almost impossible situation as usually works of architecture or art are ready during the author's lifetime Юрий Д.К 16:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree it is a tricky situation but not impossible. The actual work would be in the public domain, that's correct, but the construction could be considered a new work. I am okay with your response. Bedivere (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Done Killarnee (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ippantekina

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

Ippantekina (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I am familiar with approved licenses for Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, and looking at the backlog I am willing to help assist with approving/disapproving photos with appropriate/inappropriate licenses on Commons. I have uploaded appropriate Flickr photos onto Commons, as seen in my Uploads log, and I can help with approving other photos from YouTube/Vimeo as well. --Ippantekina (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 04:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

you could show your knowledge by contributing more to Commons:Deletion requests or tagging files, which would fail review, for deletion.--RZuo (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi RZuo, yes, I did participate in a handful of Deletion requests and I also tagged a few (now-deleted) files that fail licensing. Ippantekina (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You have 190 contributions on commons and started two deletion requests only. Why do you think you are already ready to review licenses? Killarnee (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I think they need to participate more in this project. Bedivere (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done Not ready yet. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Modern primat

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

Modern primat (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: hello all, i want to be license reviewer, because there is tons of files that not reviewed yet, about 100k file. for example, see this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ToprakM . since this DR, it comes to my mind to be license reviewer. also, i actively participating in deletion requests and marking copyvio files for speedydeletion. and i will work mainly in youtube. thanks. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 10:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 10:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Info This user has been blocked indefinitely on az.wikipedia.org, tr.wikiquote.org and tr.wikipedia.org. Killarnee (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
You have been blocked on three wikis. Could you please explain to us why? Killarnee (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
i wanna ask, why these blocks are associated with commons? because i really dont got any blocks here, and last "serious" warning is almost 1 year ago. these are really dont relevant with here, but im gonna explain anyway....

for az wiki: i discussed in their village pump about their neutrality problem. that word: "martyr"(in today's literature we(turkic language community) using it for KIA) is creating neutrality problems. i put a light on it, and boom! i got blocked, they not even give proper block reason: "according to our gloroius admin committee we decided this user is should beee indef blocked!!!"

for tr wikiquote: that is really mess, i believe that block is totally unjustified and despite my callings for admin that gave block he didnt even explain why im actually indef banned.. long story short(really short): is this rude?, "you dont put policy here, but you say to me "there is policy"". sorry for bad english, but if you wanna more info about this im ready.

for tr wiki: that is the only justified block. i breaked WP:FORUM rule. @Killarnee ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 15:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Here at Commons, files like images and videos are uploaded and categorised. Others can then use these files for their own or on other Wikimedia projects. Therefore, Commons has an important role for other wikis too.

I started with little experience and made mistakes too. Certainly, some blocks may even be unjustified. But for that you have to stand up straight and not freak out like you are doing right now.

Imagine you are at a job interview. You will be asked things, but the HR manager will not be interested in those questions personally. The interesting thing is to see how is your reaction.

I wasn't against you, then I would have already voted against you. But that doesn't mean I don't take a close look at the candidates. I find your aggressive reaction worrying. Killarnee (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
sorry for find my reaction agressively, almost in all wikis people say "you blocked in other wikis". im just tired of that.... please, just take look at commons wiki.

so, are you oppose or support for my license reviewer? i believe i can do that and here i am. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This user has reacted so agresively to a completely valid question, I can't trust them to have this right. Bedivere (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
asking "why these are relevant?" is agressive.. ok.. i guess i have no problems except being "agressive". ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
" im just tired of that.... please, just take look at commons wiki." No, your behavior elsewhere is a valid element to decide whether to support or oppose you. --Bedivere (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

i dont find these replies aggressive. i can also understand (based on my personal experience) that quite often small wikis have been controlled by a small number of biased users so "normal" users raising "normal" questions and trying to do the right thing would get blocked and kicked out of the small wikis. without investigating details of this user's blocks, i think what s/he said is theoretically plausible.

you could continue contributing to commons longer to show your experience and conduct.--RZuo (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

+1 to @RZuo. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done no consensus for promotion at this time. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Paper9oll

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

Paper9oll (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I have been editor since August 2013 at English Wikipedia (around 65,000+ edits) and here on Commons (around 3,000+ edits). For my work here, I mostly contributes to tagging SD for obvious copyrighted Korean-related images (often non Korean-related ones) which fails to met Commons:Licensing. I would like to lend a hand helping out by reviewing files. Thanks you for your consideration and happy editing! — Paper9oll 10:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 10:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Support. Experienced and competent Wikimedian whose contributions demonstrate a good grasp on copyrights and Commons' licensing rules. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose low amount of edits. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We need to stop this box-ticking process of "edit-counts". Given that, I Support Paper9oll's request to help with licensing files because I could see they are enough competent. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Support Competent user. Bedivere (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Done --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Jonteemil

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

Jonteemil (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I have never really been in need of this right but I stumbled upon a file with a unexpected license, was about to mark the file for no permission since, but the license actually turned out to be correct. I then wanted to add {{LicenseReview}} to the file so that others wouln't perhaps mark it for deletion, however only License reviewers can so here I am. I am of course not seeking the right only for this one file but will surely stumble upon similar cases in the future where the right would be of use. I am well understood into the okay licenses and the not okay ones and have quite some experience here on Commons regarding copyvios, licenses and such.--Jonteemil (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 18:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Weak support since this user has already have many user rights including file mover and patroller, "and has high number of edits" im OK with that request. BUT i just randomly checked his recent contribs and saw a DR about mehmet emin resulzade. there is resulzade's sculpture in az. and it is not free licensed because FoP in az.. but, user also nominated for deletion resulzade's another sculpture that is in turkey, and turkey is letting people take photos under FoP regulations.

so, im suggesting to user check more about FoPs and other related things. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 01:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote in the DR rationale: if these photos were taken in Azerbaijan they should be deleted, I never wrote that they 100% were. I don't understand Azerbaijani so there was no way of me knowing for certain that one of the sculptures were located in Turkey. I guess I could have Google translated the description in Azerbaijana and found out that way so I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks for your support vote. Jonteemil (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Bedivere (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Promoted. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 01:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Modern primat

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

Modern primat (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: last time(approx. 40 days ago) i got declined because i somehow seen as "aggresive", i dont believe i behave aggresively. but ok.. and now i create this request again. because i wanna serve more to wikimedia and commons, create more effect for this. there is tons of files that still waiting to be reviewed. thats all. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 00:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 00:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Promoted. Bedivere (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ooligan

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

Ooligan (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I want to help out with the backlog of reviews. I've read the process and will ask for help, if I am not sure about how to proceed. There is always more to learn, so I welcome advice and suggestions. I will start slowly and build competence with experience. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 21:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Neutral good luck. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 23:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
~~{{S}}~~ trusted and competent user IMO. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral Until they respond (or decline to respond) to RTH's questions. I suggest that this request not be closed (in either direction) until this happens, in order to ensure an informed consideration and closure. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Question I'm looking at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial at nightfall.jpg, which was for an image that you uploaded in September 2022. The image contains a depiction of the Martin King Jr. Memorial, in Washington, D.C., and was deleted due to issues arising from the lack of a freedom of panorama in the United States. These things happen from time to time, and that was a while ago, so I'm not opposed (in principle) to granting the LR rights. However, I would like to see you demonstrate understanding of FOP rules, as well as license reviewing more generally. Would you please let me know what you would do when faced with files uploaded under the following circumstances?
1. A user uploads a screenshot of Michael Smerconish from 00:00:00 of this YouTube video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "CNN" as its author.
2. A user uploads a photograph of Taipei 101 from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr page as its source and "Jirka Matousek" as its author.
3. A user uploads a photograph of the Louvre Pyramid from Flickr under a {{PD-author}} license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "thinkrorbot" as its author.
4. A user uploads a photograph of the Milad Tower from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "ArdalShah" as its author.
5. A user uploads a photograph of Moses, Notre Dame from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "icfasntw" as its author.
6. A user uploads this photograph from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Bill Baldridge" as its author.
7. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Ron Frazier" as its author.
8. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "David Orban" as its author.
9. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Loco Steve" as its author.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan Pinging in case you didn't see this. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral I just wish user used Flick2Commons to avoid duplicates: Talk Page 1, Talk Page 2 or at least respond with why they don't want to. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Neutral I have a good impression of this user but their apparent unwillingness to respond to questions is concerning. Bedivere (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Failed. User failed to respond to RTH's questions, despite being asked to do so by pinging, while at the same time making other edits, deliberately ignoring their request for input. You are welcome to open a new license reviewer request in due time. Bedivere (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Chqaz

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

Chqaz (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Hi. I have noticed that there are many files that need image review. I want to reduce these files. Questions are welcome.--Chqaz (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 14:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Oppose , because i believe we need more time for user to show himself(600ish edits, 7 uploads for 6 months?). + and Commons:Requests_for_rights/Approved/Filemover/2023#Chqaz (1,5 month ago), admin wrote that """""if you see any obvious copyvios, please file deletion requests for them. When I was spot-checking your requests, I found two logos mis-licensed as own work + CC-BY-SA.""""" this has not really big impact of my oppose vote but i wanted to put it here anyway. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 16:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't very knowledgeable about copyright then. For example, what is acceptable on commons under a CC license. I realized I had to be mindful of copyright in the request and learned about Commons' copyright policy and such. Chqaz (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
just giveth time ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
OK.I will contribute by requesting deletion. Chqaz (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)fix--Chqaz (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think this user can be trusted with this permission at this time. Let's see what time brings! --Bedivere (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done Not yet. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Takipoint123

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

Takipoint123 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Hello! I haven't been the most active user in Commons but I occasionally request deletion of copyrighted content and sometimes upload my own work. I am interested in helping out with the license review backlog. I have experience with copyright by being an Uploader in the Korean Wikipedia, and which now I am currently an Administrator.--Takipoint123 (💬) 09:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 09:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Info [3][4] You can also check the requests I have processed in the Korean Wikipedia for the Uploader user right.--Takipoint123 (💬) 09:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose , sorry but very low amount of edits, and "Edits in the past 365 days

45" , no. show yourself in commons first. thanks. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 10:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

While I do understand the basis of your comment, I disagree respectfully for opposing on basis of edit count. I do have relevant experience regarding licenses and file uploads outside the Commons network and would be willing to help out the back log if given the chance to do so. If there is anything I can do to ease some of your (or anyone else's) concerns I would be more than willing to do so. Thank you :) Takipoint123 (💬) 11:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We expect people who have some special right(s) to have some commitment to Commons. That means to be quite active, that's why we require some recent contributions. So get a few thousands edits, and come back. Yann (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Though I do wish to contribute to the review processes, I am more than willing to comply with Commons conventions. If need be, please close this thread if the request seems unfounded, since I wish I don't waste anyone's time :) Sorry for any inconveniences. Takipoint123 (💬) 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Modern Primat may have been a bit strong worded but it is true that more activity is expected from people who want to obtain these special user rights. I am not opposing but rather expect you to take more action here! :-) Bedivere (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Question: In general, Commons has three elevated levels of trust when it comes to dealing with image copyrights: autopatrolled status, patroller status, and license reviewer. Would you be willing to explain the differences between them, and your rationale for applying for license reviewer rather than either of the other two rights? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for the question. These three user rights are very important and similar in the context Commons wiki as they help reduce the workload and make Commons a more reliable source of free content.

However, there are several key differences:

Autopatroll is generally the lowest clearance of the three user rights given that it does not allow the user to mark pages as "patrolled" but rather clear the workload for existing patrollers by marking their own edits only as "patrolled." Usually autopatrolled rights are given to trusted users to reduce the patrol backlog and other than marking their own edits as patrolled it does come with some perks like access to certain gadgets.
Patrolled rights come with all user permissions given with autopatrolled, but with the key difference in that they can also mark other pages as "patrolled." Patrollers mark new pages and other unchecked edits to make sure they are not vandalism and are appropriate under Commons project.
License reviewers also have the patrol and autopatrolled function, but they are generally given more emphasis and specialization in checking for the appropriate copyright tags from external websites (e.g. Flickr), rather than vandalism. They require more specialized knowledge regarding what files should, and should not be cleared into Commons. They also serve to give evidence on whether a file currently marked as non-free was ever free (if reviewed in advance).

Regarding my rationale on why I chose to apply for the license reviewer user right, I thought that it would best use my speciality before becoming an Administrator on KoWiki, where I was given the Uploader user right after being quized on basic license and copyright terms. I did work as an uploader there for a while, which is a user right unlike other wikis. I did find more interest in this narrower feild of checking copyright rather than patrolling for vandalism (which I would also love to do!) so I decided to apply for this user right.

Hope this answer satisfies you. Thank you! Takipoint123 (💬) 03:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

still

Oppose, per yann. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We already saw your vote above. No need to vote twice. Bedivere (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Support I think this user could be a good asset. Their responses above are civil and okay. Bedivere (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
oh yeah? then we make all sysops in other wikis license rewiever here? just let them request it and see they are civil.

if this user(dont get personal) got promoted becuase he got some userrights and several thound edit in other wiki; and not even got 200 edits here in commons wiki: im gonna make a topic about this in village pump. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 07:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
+ because that will be unfair decision for anyone who got declined because of low activity on commons wiki. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Take it easy. It's not really a big deal and the worse thing that could happen is reversing their reviews and stripping them of the right Bedivere (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not promoted for now, consensus is that this user has inadequate Commons experience. I promoted to patroller, however: patrolling also involves looking for copyright violations, which this user is experienced with. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Robotje

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

Robotje (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Hello, I am Robotje and I have been active on Commons since 2006. With 3000+ uploaded files (mostly manually uploaded but also with a tool like CropTool) I think I've a pretty good understanding of what files are allowed on Commons. In the past, no doubt, I have made some mistakes with incompatible licenses but over those 17 years I learned more and more about the process here at Commons. Recently I have been mostly active on Commons and Wikidata but other Wikimedia projects like the English Wikipedia have my attention too. Since there is a huge number of files here at Commons that, sometimes already for years, need a licence review I am willing to help reducing the backlog. Initially I would like to focus on files with YouTube as source, and later on also from sources I am less familiar with like Flickr. If you have any questions, please let me know. - Robotje (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 18:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Question. I'm seeing lots of experience uploading files to Commons. That is good work, and I see no immediate issues with the licensing status of any recent uploads. However, I don't really see much in terms of patrolling for copyright violations in recently, so I don't have much to go off of in terms of your ability to patrol files uploaded by others. I'm not opposed (in principle) to granting the LR rights, and your contributions have been very valuable to Commons. However, I would like to see you demonstrate understanding of some of the more complex rules regarding copyrights, as well as license reviewing more generally. Would you please let me know what you would do when faced with files uploaded under the following circumstances?
1. A user uploads a screenshot of Michael Smerconish from 00:00:00 of this YouTube video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "CNN" as its author.
2. A user uploads a photograph of Donald Trump from 4:27 of this YouTube video] with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "Robert Reich" as its author.
3. A user uploads a photograph of Hikaru Nakamura from 2:27 of this YouTube video with {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "Mordimer's Chess Channel" as its author.
4. A user uploads a photograph of Wolf Blitzer from 0:00 of this video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "United States Senator Lindsey Graham" as its author.
5. A user uploads a photograph of the Milad Tower from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "ArdalShah" as its author.
6. A user uploads a photograph of Moses, Notre Dame from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "icfasntw" as its author.
7. A user uploads this photograph from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Bill Baldridge" as its author.
8. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Ron Frazier" as its author.
9. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "David Orban" as its author.
10. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Loco Steve" as its author.

Cheeers!

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Red-tailed hawk, here are my answers

This is a interview put on YouTube by AlexDelPrete under the CC-BY 3.0 license so that part looks good. A link is provided to the original video on CNN and at the bottom of that page it says "© 2023 Cable News Network". So the uploader on YouTube is not the same as the real source. Therefor "CNN" as its author looks correct but the CC license on YouTube is not correctly applied.→ fail
In this video of Robert Reich many photos and video clips are used. Some of them are old black-and-white (even 1930's) and others recent so it is very unlikely these are all his own work. Since the video clips are short that might be OK as fair use for publishing on YouTube but taking a screenshot of such a recent video clip and uploading it to Commons as a work of Robert Reich is not OK. → fail
I am not convinced that the thumbnail picture of Hikaru Nakamura is a photo taken by the person/people behind the Mordimers Chess Channel. Since it is a thumbnail it might be OK as fair use for a video on YouTube but that is not enough for putting it on Commons. → fail
Under the video it says "Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer where he discussed the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi." It is obvious this whole video is made by CNN and not that senator. It is unlikely that CNN has published this video under that free license. → fail
ArdalShah claims to live in Iran and I checked several of the pictures he has on Flickr and these are also in Iran so there is no reason to doubt he is living there. This photograph was released on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license and that license is mentioned on Commons:Flickr files as OK for uploading on Commons. On COM:FOP Iran it is mentioned that there is no Freedom of Panorama (FoP) in Iran. The main topic of this photograph is that tower (de minimis is not applicable here) so the image is not allowed on Commons. → fail
The image was uploaded on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license and "icfasntw" is indeed mentioned as the author of the photograph. So that looks good. According to the English Wikipedia page you linked it was made by the Croatian artist Josip Turkalj and "Owned by the University of Notre Dame and commissioned in 1962, ..." Here the 1962 year is also mentioned. Turkalj (1924-2007) was at that time working in the USA at the same university as where the statue is now standing outside. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Artworks and sculptures images are basically not allowed for sculptures in the USA. However you can read there also "... any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978)." Since 2015 File:Moses, Notre Dame.jpg is on Commons and that is an indication the exception about a copyright notice is not applicable here. So uploading to Commons seems to be OK. I might consider leaving a thank-you note on Flickr for the uploader there (icfasntw) but at this moment I have no experience with Flickr so I would first need to look into how to do that.→ pass
The photograph is no longer available on Flickr (clicking on the link gives a 404 error) so the review fails. As a courtesy to the uploader on Commons I could try to find it. At the moment of reviewing the image is surely still available on Commons (in your question you did not provide one) so I might be able to quickly check if I can find it between the photos of him on Flickr. If so, it also needs the correct free CC license. I just randomly checked the license state of several photographs of him that are still there and none of them had been released under a free CC license. → fail
I am not convinced that this picture is really about a piece of art created by Ron Frazier himself. Here you can see another image of him on Flickr with the description "The Mighty Zeppelin. Graff Zeppelin ... from my collection of internet sourced material" and released under the same CC license. After searching images on Google [5] I found this page with the same picture.→ fail
The image has the description "Eric Drexler on Wikipedia - before" and was uploaded on Flickr in November 2007. It looks very much like the English Wikipedia article en:K. Eric Drexler at that time. That article was created in 2001 and in November 2007 already many wikipedians had edited that article. As you mentioned it was uploaded on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting "David Orban" as its author. Until 2009 the license for Wikipedia was GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) and later on CC-BY-SA 4.0 was added. So not only the wrong license was used in 2007, the author is not (only) David Orban but many wikipedians.→ fail (one might argue that after adjusting the license and author it would be OK for Commons but without these corrections the review for sure fails)
The description on Flickr is "Boris Johnson visits Leake Street London ... A brilliant mural of Bo Jo has popped up in Leake Street Waterloo.. Mi6 are currently in pursuit of Street Artist Irony" To me that seems to be a mural by an anonymous artist photographed by Loco Steve. Since he was most likely not the artist who made the mural and that mural is the main topic of the photo, uploading to Commons is not allowed. → fail

I hope the average file in the backlog is easier than the 10 of your test. - Robotje (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for doing this, and I have confidence that you will perform well. (With respect to #9, one could adjust the license to {{Wikipedia screenshot}} and it would be fine, as you indicate in your aside.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Support per above Bedivere (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Support , but i wanna say something... besides most of my answers are correct too, i felt like these questions are hard(6 is kinda hard, 9 is hard) . if you asked same questions to me in my request i would got declined xd. thats why i dont review some files, that i dont sure about. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

9 is hard, but it's by design. I like it because it ties together a bunch of Commons policies that relate to license reviewing and copyright, as well as the particulars of Creative Commons licenses. As such, it really allows the LR candidate to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding within the area of license reviewing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 20:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

have you considered becoming sysop straightaway? RZuo (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out to me that becoming a sysop (admin) at Commons is also an option. For now I am willing to help reducing the backlog of files that need a licence review. I don't see becoming a license reviewer as a 'career path' to one day joining the admins here. Future will tell if that might happen later on. - Robotje (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Purga Torrre123

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

Purga Torrre123 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Reason.--Purga Torrre123 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 01:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

File:Alias Fito en Muro de Pabellón.png Puede dar alguien revisando, si las licencias están correctamente hechas, muchas gracias por su atención.

Oppose Invalid request. --Bedivere (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
google translated: File:Alias Fito in Muro de Pabellón.png Can someone check, if the licenses are correctly done, thank you very much for your attention. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 02:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

+ File:Alias Fito en Muro de Pabellón.png . that file is copyvio and should be deleted. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 02:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done Closing to avoid the communities time being wasted. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Nkon21

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

Nkon21 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I am well familiar with what creative commons files are suitable for Wikimedia Commons and would like to assist in reviewing files that are acceptable for Commons.--Nkon21 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 17:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Could you please elaborate, how are you familiar with CC files? Do all files licensed under a free CC license get free pass on Commons? --Bedivere (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
i checked some files and they are good. also user uploaded more than 500 files. but user has 1500-ish edits.. need to more active. so, that is Weak support for me. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 02:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

and good question there. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 02:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

CC files must be licensed under those listed under en:WP:CC-BY. No, not all files that supposedly have this license can be kept on Commons as I have seen too many situations where the file source did not actually come from the copyright owner, that is the person/organization who initially produced the media, but rather a random person uploading it as their own (either on Commons or an external website). It must be confirmed with every file source that the license actually comes from the person who owns the image. Nkon21 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose I'm not particularly convinced by the user's response. Bedivere (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Why would that be? Nkon21 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
my guess: "" must be confirmed with every file source that the license actually comes from the person who owns the image."" not every copyright holder is just a "person". yeah you wrote that too: ""copyright owner, that is the person/organization who initially produced the media"". also, you give a link for en wikipedia, not commons wikimedia, which you should give COM:L(joke: this is a L for you, boooooo :D). still weak support for me, because that answer is still kinda correct. im waiting for bedivere's answer too. greetings...... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry my point was not clear, it really wasn't. I adhere to modern's concerns regarding the low edit count. I am sure you will do fine, regardless if you don't get the right this time. Bedivere (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done no consensus to promote. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Btspurplegalaxy

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

Btspurplegalaxy (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I would like to contribute to the backlog of images that require reviewing. I possess experience with both uploading images myself and submitting my own work. I have also attended to images that might be potential copyright material. I hope you will consider having me. Thank you!--Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 07:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

@Btspurplegalaxy: could you please explain what led you to tag Special:Diff/796982645 as {{subst:npd}}? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
My reasoning for tagging the picture is because everyone can upload a picture and claim it as their own. So by tagging it, the author can show the work is theirs by verifying it through VRT. I hope that answers your question. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Btspurplegalaxy So do all pictures need to be verified by VRT? Which do you believe do and do not need VRT verification? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Not every image necessitates undergoing the VRT procedure. Verification is essential only for images that are lacking the necessary information expected of a picture. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per the edit Mdaniels5757 points out, and especially the lack of information in Btspurplegalaxy's response. There is nothing in that image that suggests it is in any way not a common, ordinary photograph as might be taken by any one of us; it's an easily accessible outdoor scene, it has full EXIF, it's one of a number of very similar photos by the same uploader with the same camera near the same date... What possible proof could the uploader be required to give to VRT anyway? Say they convince VRT that they're Jane Doe. So? How does that make them more or less likely to be the photographer of that image? Btspurplegalaxy does not understand the purpose of VRT. This is not quite the same thing as being a license reviewer, but it's clearly related. Sorry. (VRT is whom you call in when someone uploads an image that is clearly taken by a professional or otherwise not just anyone walking by, when proving that the uploader is someone special - a professional, or a relative of the subject, or someone else with special unusual access that would be required to take or own the photo. Verification is not for "images that are lacking the necessary information expected of a picture" - whatever that might be. What information does BTS think that picture lacks, anyway? It's got plenty.)--GRuban (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
per GRuban , Oppose. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 09:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not assigned per discussion.--RZuo (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

1989

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

1989 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I'd like to help with the backlog regarding Flickr. My last nomination was almost a decade ago and I haven't held the role in almost two years, so a re-review is warranted. 1989 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 14:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Support Sure! Yann (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Support Former admin. Competent enough. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Support Welcome back --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 01:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Support (Taylor's Version) (j/k) --Bedivere (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Done —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

APiggingPig

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

APiggingPig (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I want to get this permission and help other users review files,i am a file reviewer on a other file common site.--APiggingPig (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 08:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Oppose seems to me like hat collecting. Immediately after requesting license reviewer rights, went on to request other rights. Not to mention they've only made a little more than 500 edits and makes me suspicious that, although they speak Chinese, they've made zero edits on the Chinese Wikipedia. The account was created two days ago. No, no. Bedivere (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
per bedivere, Oppose ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 15:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done Account is three days old. w:en:WP:SNOW. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Arian

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

Arian (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I've been a license reviewer on FaWiki (بازبین تصاویر) since 2019 and have been assisting with license reviews and copyvios there. I was recently informed By Maometto97 that there is a massive backlog of unreviewed files from Iran that need to be reviewed. I plan to prioritize clearing this backlog first, and then I will offer assistance with reviewing other unprocessed files.--Arian (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 13:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Oppose Little to no activity this year so far by this user on Commons. In total just over 500 edits. I would expect a little more from candidates. --Bedivere (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
+1 Oppose MODERN_PRIMAT^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 18:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Question @Arian: Hello, Please provide a list of 5 to 10 files from the unreviewed files from Iran, along with your rationale for keeping or deleting them. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@C1K98V: sure, here are some:

Imam Husayn Shrine 1.jpg - Delete: The image is clearly not by karbobala.com ("republished by karbobala.com" watermark on the image) and the original source (and therefore, the original license) is unknown. As such, the stated license is invalid.
Tale Zeynabieh 0.jpg - Delete - Same as above.
Motifs inside Al-Abbas Shrine.jpg - Delete - Same as above.
File:(homeyra riazi)750854 02.jpg - Keep - The photo was taken by a Mehrnews photographer in a Mehrnews interview with the subject (source link checks out) and since all content by Mehrnews are licensed CC-BY-4.0, the stated license on commons is valid.
Cristiano Ronaldo with Al Nassr, 19 September 2023 - 83.jpg - Keep - photo taken by SNN's photographer, watermark on the original image and source link checks out.
Delivery of various pieces of equipment to NAJA (27).jpg - Keep - Content by MojNews were published under CC-BY-4.0 until June 2023, and since the image was published on October 2018 (publish date is visible on source link) and CC-BY-4.0 licenses are irrevocable, the license stated for the image on commons is valid.
1398082311524988018890884 محمد اسلامی.jpg - Keep - Photo was taken by a Tasnim News photographer for Tasnim (Tasnim photographer watermark on original image), and since all content by Tasnim are CC-BY-4.0, the license is valid. --Arian (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems good to me

moral support, I believe that commitment is more important than activity. I suggest pitching an admin and trying to patrol files that are suitable for commons while nominating bad files for deletion. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Support I understand the concerns about the number of edits, but as you can see, we need serious help in unreviewed files from Iran (More than 66 thousand files need to be reviewed.) and considering that I have seen the commitment and perseverance of this user, I believe it can be a great help in reviewing those files.--Maometto97 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Promoted. Bedivere (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Infrogmation

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

Infrogmation (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I'm a long term admin and active user. Mostly I'd like rights to review licenses ~~so I can take care of images I upload from Flickr without someone else having to bother when bot review irregularly doesn't take care of it~~. I think my history shows I will work to use my rights/powers in an informed and responsible way. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)
Since you are already an admin, you can already review licenses. Yann (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: reviewers are not allowed to review their own uploads.--RZuo (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for info. I *thought* I used to have permission to review being an admin years ago, but it seems to no longer work. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
: OK, I manually reviewed File:Monks preparing for ritual at the Great Buddha Temple in Guangzhou.jpg - Could someone check that I did so correctly? I'd been trying to confirm licenses by pressing the "License +" button, but it always gives me an error message, I assumed the problem being that I didn't have rights - do I need to have some ap to use that? Or is it ok I just put in the license review by hand edits like I did on this one? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
You can't review images because you are not a license reviewer. Bedivere (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK, sorry - I was believing what I was told above that since I was an admin I *did* have license review rights. Apparently that was incorrect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The right is not for people to review their own uploads. --Bedivere (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

- ~~OK, withdrawn.~~ -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  - I'll be happy to withdraw if not supported, but first I'd like the issues being discussed to be cleared up - I fear so far what I've been told seems more confusing than clarifying. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
in principle you should be able to review uploads as per COM:LR, but not your own ones Bedivere (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Right, I've already been told one can't review own uploads, noted. As to the rest, now I'm confused - "You can't review images because you are not a license reviewer" and "in principle you should be able to review uploads as per COM:LR" - that is not a contradiction? I *should* be able "in principle", but in practice I actually can't? With File:Monks preparing for ritual at the Great Buddha Temple in Guangzhou.jpg which I tried to review, did I act improperly? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
"it always gives me an error message"

cant help you if you dont say what the error message is. RZuo (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, @RZuo: I just tried pressing the "license +" button on File:Durezza 2022.jpg, I got this error message File:Screen Shot 2023-10-22 at 10.48.16 AM - Wikimedia Commons error message when trying to review image.png. Using Firefox on a MacBook. (Similar results Firefox on Linux laptop). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Infrogmation it appears other users dont run into the same problem? User:Abzeronow reviewed that file successfully?

i assume you're using MediaWiki:Gadget-LicenseReview.js?

if other users can use the same gadget without a problem, and you have the same problem in different browsers, i think the logical deduction must be probably something related to your account, like other gadgets you use or any javascript functionality you enabled or disabled? RZuo (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, I've not downloaded the gadget! I've just tried clicking on the "license +" review link - I was assuming I wouldn't be seeing that button if wasn't clickable for me. Is the "license +" button visible to all accounts? Perhaps a standard error message could be added, something like "This works only if 1)You are a reviewer 2)You have downloaded Gadget-LicenseReview (link)"? Hm. So I guess that's been the problem. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  gadgets are not and dont need to be downloaded. they are switched on/off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets.
  
  Gadget-LicenseReview and those "license +" buttons are only visible to sysops and reviewers who enabled the gadget. RZuo (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infrogmation I did not see or read that you asserted you were an administrator. As an administrator you can review files without having the actual license reviewer right, it comes with the admin bits. Bedivere (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
OK... I guess that clears up that point. Should be useful tool, though I can find plenty of admin work on Commons even without it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Not granted per above, admins are already license reviewers. -- CptViraj (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Johshh

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

Johshh (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Reason:I need to overwrite certain images/files that another user has already uploaded on.--Johshh (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

@Johshh: you should apply for com:autopatrol.--RZuo (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Dan Leonard

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

Dan Leonard (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I'm a long-term editor and very familiar with copyright policy. I mainly review recent edits on the English Wikipedia looking for vandalism, and occasionally encounter Commons uploads that may violate copyright. I can remove the vandalism from Wikipedia but can't do a thing about the linked Commons files. I'd thus like the reviewer right to supplement my anti-vandalism work on the English Wikipedia.--Dan Leonard (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 03:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

if you "encounter Commons uploads that may violate copyright", you can "do a thing about" them, by com:csd or com:dr. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets "Quick Delete" and "com:VisualFileChange" are some useful tools.--RZuo (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these tips. Obviously I know I can flag things for others, as after all I have one deletion request currently pending from a few weeks ago. I meant unilaterally, as Commons has a huge backlog of deletion requests so being able to further flag files via the license review process should help out the project. I'll have to check out VisualFileChange, that looks very powerful and I'll have to try it out when I find files that merit its use. Dan Leonard (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose You do fine work, but I do not see how your work might help the license reviewing process. --Lymantria (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As I see it, the backlog is in the thousands and ever-growing, so I think even if I make just occasional review of files it would still be of assistance to the license review project. So long as I have familiarity with copyright and an ability to work tactfully with uploaders I think I should be an asset. Dan Leonard (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Based solely on your very little activity on Commons. --Bedivere (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done per above discussion. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 09:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

POS78

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

POS78 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Hello. I am almost an old user here, I don't know English well, but I am familiar with some policies. And after receiving this license, I will work in the categories of Farsnews review needed, Mehrnews review needed and Tasnimnews review needed. There are too many images in these categories, and I want to help reduce them. Thanks --{{User|POS78}} ^talk 23:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 23:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Question @POS78: Hello, Please provide a list of 5 to 10 files from the categories you mentioned above, along with your rationale for keeping or deleting them. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Five images that should be keeping: 1 (Source) 2 (Source) 3 (Source) 4 (Source) 5 (Source). Reason: They are licensed according to Fars, Mehr and Tasnim whose source is available and not deleted. The photographer's name is also available on the pictures, which is the main issue And it must be said with certainty that they should not be deleted.

Five images that should be deleting: 1 (Source) 2 (Source) 3 (Source) 4 (Source) 5 (Source). Reason: They are news images that probably got the photos from Google And the news agencys photographers did not take these pictures. Therefore, they should be deleted Because there is no permission for them to keep. {{User|POS78}} ^talk 14:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Support looks ok. good find for those files to fail.--RZuo (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support - good catch. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Looks good. --Bedivere (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Passed. --Bedivere (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Gabldotink

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

Gabldotink (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I’m requesting the license review right because I enjoy helping maintain files (e.g., adding structured data, improving image compression). I have good knowledge of the copyright/license policy on Wikimedia Commons, and have made over 1,300 edits. I plan to primarily review files in Category:Flickr review needed and Category:YouTube review needed. Thanks for taking the time to review this request. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 04:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 04:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

no, low amount of edits. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 16:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I will wait for more input from the user before voting. Hopefully someone will have some questions for Gabldotink! --Bedivere (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

can you try identifying 2 files that you would fail and tag them for speedy/DR, in the categories you mention?--RZuo (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:YouTube review needed: Speedy delete of File:김소현, 공항패션은 단연 빨간 드레스~ (Tik Tok) -kimsohyum.webm was made. Quoting the nomination: “This video appears to be an edit of a TikTok video by Kim So-Hyun, not the YouTube uploader. The original is not claimed to be CC-licensed.”
Category:Flickr review needed: Speedy delete of File:A Canada M5A1 Stuart rolls through downtown (24772532551).jpg downgraded to normal DR, pending. Quoting the nomination: “The photo included on this display is likely not public domain in either the United States or Netherlands (both 70 pma), as the photographer, Gerald Vincent Montague, was only 36 as of 1946. See this file’s talk page.”

Thanks for your patience; I was at school and didn’t have much time to search for copyvios. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 02:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

would you pass or fail

File:PEI Sample License Plate 2013.jpg

File:Alan Cervantes.png? RZuo (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

File:PEI Sample License Plate 2013.jpg: I would delete. The images on the plate and their presentation are above Canadian threshold of originality, so the plate is copyrighted. As a work of the Prince Edward Island or Canada federal government, the license plate is subject to Crown copyright, which expires after 50 years. This plate design was introduced in 2013 (w:Vehicle registration plates of Prince Edward Island), and so is still under both the standard and Crown copyright periods. License plates are not specially mentioned on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada. I wasn’t able to find any successful deletion requests for Canada plates.
File:Alan Cervantes.png: I would keep. The source YouTube video is properly listed with CC BY. The video was taken on the ground on the sidelines. The video was published by the Santos Laguna football (soccer) team, which is shown playing in the game. The footage is absent of a television network logo/watermark. It is safe to assume that this video was taken by the team, who obviously would own the copyright and be able to publish it on their own YouTube channel.

— gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 20:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

thx for the good answers.

Support granting reviewer. RZuo (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me, and the answers above are reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Promoted. -- CptViraj (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

FlorianH76

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

FlorianH76 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: Reason.-Hello, I would like to get a permission to review files in order to help the community with unreviewed files. All my uploads have proper licenses-FlorianH76 (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 13:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Questions: Why did you remove the license from File:Nikolay Melnikov.jpg in this edit less than three days ago? Why did you upload copyvio File:Alisa Selezneva.jpg last month, overriding the warning that it had already been deleted? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
For Nikolay Melnikov.jpg I removed in order to put a license with an attribution. For Alisa Selezneva.jpg I uploaded a different file with the same name. It was a screenshot from here. The video has a CC license, but then I requested to delete this file, because it seems that the YouTube channel doesn't own the copyright of the video. FlorianH76 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. @FlorianH76: {{Kremlin.ru}} is not a license. It even says at the bottom "This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing." Not all your uploads have proper licenses. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
All site materials from Kremlin.ru are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. It is clearly stated there. Why is it not a proper license? FlorianH76 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
"Works published on site before April 8, 2015 are also licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The license tag {{Cc-by-4.0}} was also applied. FlorianH76 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but not until later. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not promoted. User already applied a couple of days ago with no input from the community, and this time it's been opposed. Please wait a prudent time before reapplying. --Bedivere (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

HouseBlaster

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

HouseBlaster (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
Reason: I've noticed that there is a large backlog of unreviewed files, and I would like to help out. I enjoy internet "scavenger hunts", whether it is sifting through Tineye to find the original source of an image, combing the US copyright renewal logs, or hunting down Commons-compatible images to illustrate articles. This seems like a great way to help out while doing something I enjoy. Thanks for your consideration! —HouseBlaster (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

Promoted: no objections, and looks good to me! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2023

Valo139

Mosbatho

Abzeronow

Yahya

25stargeneral

Metacladistics

103.252.35.110

Matr1x-101

Quenhitran

Uncitoyen

Thesaurabhsaha

Whpq

Robertsky

Bedivere

TommyG

Mickey Đại Phát

Satdeep Gill

Юрий Д.К.

Ippantekina

Modern primat

Paper9oll

Jonteemil

Modern primat

Ooligan

Chqaz

Takipoint123

Robotje

Purga Torrre123

Nkon21

Btspurplegalaxy

1989

APiggingPig

Arian

Infrogmation

Johshh

Dan Leonard

POS78

Gabldotink

FlorianH76

HouseBlaster

Navigation menu

Search