Jump to content

Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2024

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:License review | Requests | Archive
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Alachuckthebuck in topic Kakan spelar

Kakan spelar

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Oppose Very low edit count (here and elsewhere, just less than 500 in Wikimedia, less than 50 in Commons alone). Please hang around a little more, and demonstrate knowledge in copyright issues, in order to be trusted with the tool. --Bedivere (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info I understand that I have a low edit count and that I'm still quite new but I can assure you that I understand the copyright requirements and I think this is a great way for me to contribute, doing something I like. Of course, if you still believe that I can't do the job then don't give me it. Kakan spelar (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
    It's nothing personal Kakan, but it would be against custom/tradition to grant this right to somebody who has not actively engaged in the project. You may be proficient in copyright topics (we can't know for sure) but having an edit count that is so low makes it impossible to grant the right. for now, at least. Bedivere (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
    I understand, thanks :) Kakan spelar (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - There is no consensus to promote. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 16:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Günther Frager

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Comments

Granted. No opposition in five days. --Bedivere (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ameisenigel

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

✓ Done Killarnee (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sikander

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

  • Sikander, I'd briefly want to know what did you learn since then? ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @TheAafi: Good question, thanks. Browsing Deletion requests and outcomes has been a great source of information. COM:FOP can be complicated especially when 2d/3d objects have to be considered (and I've tripped on it a few times). I've found COM:TOO to be quite interesting especially now that AI generated images are so easy to create. Websites changing license to NC is super unfortunate but it happens and uploaders and reviewers have to do that extra work to make sure the image is free. The COM:VRT and the effort that goes into verifying images is fantastic and I've contacted my local elected reps and encouraged them to use it for their profile photos. Unfortunately the Canadian government is not as open as U.S. and we don't have a Template:PD-USGov equivalent here. Learning can never be complete so it is an ongoing process. Best regards, // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
    How would you license-review a file where the source changed license from CC BY-SA to NC? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
    @TheAafi: The review would depend on when the file was uploaded to Commons and what the source license was at that time. It we can verify via https://web.archive.org or google cache that the image was available at the source as CC BY-SA, then it can remain on Commons. If no such confirmation exists, then the file should not be allowed here. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  1. File:Dorota_Czaja.jpg
  2. File:WillKoopman2023.png
could you plz try reviewing these?--RZuo (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@RZuo: Sure, thanks for asking.
 Disagree The lack of metadata info on File:Dorota_Czaja.jpg is a concerning but it is a screenshot from a YouTube video so that's understandable. The YouTube video shows license as "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" so that's a good sign. Email address for the YouTube channel is pomyslowyrodzic.pl so that is also a positive sign that the channel is not fake. However, the site is in Polish and looks like an abandoned WordPress site so I would reach out to a license review who speaks Polish and get their input and also ask the reviewer for File:Monika Mrozowska.JPG for help. I myself would not mark the file as valid as I don't have enough knowledge about the source YouTube channel and website.
 Agree File:WillKoopman2023.png is also a screenshot from a YouTube with license set to "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" and and the channel belongs to a streaming service so I have a lot more confidence in the license being valid. I would approve this file. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 Support thx. RZuo (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 Support Trustworthy user. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Killarnee (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ooligan

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

  1. File:Pyongyang_Arena_near_Fatherland_Liberation_War_Museum.jpg CC BY 4.0 International license with a proper link to the CC license, so it is valid. In addition, "Freedom of Panorama" (FOP) is related to the arena is Ok, per COM:FOP North Korea ("Pyongyang"). It states, "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission ... when a copyrighted work in public places is copied."  Keep
  2. File:María_Becerra_2023_03.jpg CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license is valid and the license is linked on the video source page. Image confirmed on video at 7:01. Helpful chart at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses.  Keep
  3. File:李海生.png CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license is valid and the license is linked on the video source page. This person's image appears between 0:23 to 0:26.  Keep
could you plz try reviewing these?--RZuo (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@RZuo, For your review. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 Support thx for the good answers. RZuo (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Actually I don't want to oppose, but we need to talk about this first.
A1Cafel asked you a month ago to archive your talk page. MediaWiki has limits regarding page size and template usage and it is common sense to keep your talk page at a normal size. I really encourage you to reduce the size of your talk page.
What really concerns me is how you talk to others. A1Cafel wants to help you and you are telling them ”this seems like vandalism“. And then you dig out old things from some year ago.
What I also find strange is that you actually remove things from your discussion page. But only when people write you nice messages (1, 2). Your behavior worries me in this regard and so I cannot vote for you in good conscience. Killarnee (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ooligan, do you have an answer to @Killarnee's concerns? ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@Killarnee, I apologize for the delayed response. There was a weather-related power outage for 28 hours.
First, I agree with you about archiving my talk page. I will be archive my talk page soon. I want to restore the text deleted by A1Cafel, before I add an archive bot.
In the link you provided above, A1Cafel wrote they had not removed anything from my talk page, yet I had provided links to show some of their removals from my talk page.
Here [1] A1Cafel deleted content from my talk page and 1 minute later, reposted the same "Flickr2Commons" posting again to my talk page here [2].
Also, A1Cafel removed this exact same "Flickr2Commons" text from my talk page here [3]. I did not know it at that time that these deletions were made to my talk page. I was not notified by this user of these deletions to my talk page and no reason was given to me.
I notified A1Cafel deleting content from my talk page here [4], a denial here [5], acknowledged past deletions here [6], but did not restore their deletions to my talk page. I want my archives to have all the content, including the content deleted by A1Cafel. No other user has deleted content from my talk page. A pattern of unexplained deletions of talk page text by a User with 9 years experience appears not to be a good faith edits. -- Ooligan (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't find the text convincing, because it is basically just a summary of the discussion on your talk page. I'm removing my oppose, which was only there to prevent this request from being closed, but I still cannot support.
Work on your communication and there will be more people on your side. Killarnee (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Changed my vote to neutral. --Bedivere (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Junior Jumper

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments

Hi, Junior Jumper, thank you for offering to help clear the backlogs and I'm glad the medical issues are resolved. Would you mind reviewing these:

  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tompagenet/5848648704/
  2. File:2022-03-06 10-13-34 ILCE-7C DSCAJ1905 DxO (51978143842).jpg
  3. https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/mediagallery/premier-ministr-zustrivsia-z-komandoiu-mizhnarodnoho-valiutnoho-fondu
  4. https://multimedia.dfat.gov.au/fotoweb/archives/5019-PUBLIC-Library/MasterArchive/VideoArchive/000142628.mp4.info
  5. https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/photo-details/P-012499~2F00-11

Thank you! // sikander { talk } 🦖 04:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. No as this logo doesn't come under the category or free image unless the original author send the OTRS permission.
  2. I will pass the review.
  3. I will pass the review under CC BY 4.0
  4. I am not very sure about the license of "Australia-China Helicobacter Fellowship" but I am aware that the file released purely by DFAT is under CC-BY-4.0. So I will decline the review.
  5. I will pass the file as I looked at the official site, and it says the license is also compatible with the GPL version 2 & I think EUPL 1.1 and 1.2 are both acceptable licences for Commons.--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 04:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks!  Support
Also, COM:OTRS (VRTS now) might be difficult to get for the first photo because of COM:FOP SK rules.
You're right that the fourth item could've been {{DFAT}} but the Rights tab on the page says "video may not be altered from its original state"
The last photo is tricky because it could've been covered by {{EC-Audiovisual Center}} but the poster might be problematic and can have copyright issues.
Thank you for the quick responses. Cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

UltimoGrimm

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

Hi, UltimoGrimm, thank you for offering to help fight vandalism and copyvios.

  1. Can you please explain what happened here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christopher Britton.jpg and why the file was uploaded as "own work"?
  2. How would you review this photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/daryl_mitchell/27296565098/
  3. this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk-Sg_xDCsk
  4. this photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/czar_hey/53254629654/
  5. and finally, this one: https://www.dvidshub.net/image/4867004/trident-juncture-2018-oct-30-canada

Thank you! // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

1)hi @Sikander: , that file was not uploaded by me but simply imported from wiki-it. I imported hundreds of files and I made a mistake in that one. It happened a long time ago, now I have much more experience.
2) the licence is CC BY-SA 2.0 but the copyright holder is unclear
3) is copyviol if there is no otrs ticket
4) the licence is CC BY-SA 2.0, it'ok
5) is Public Domain, it'ok--UltimoGrimm (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Neutral (Per below. --Bedivere (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)) Although responses above are fine, except the second one (FoP in Canadá does not cover two-dimensional works as it's the case here), I would expect more activity. --Bedivere (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Thank you for the explanation for #1. COM:FOP is complicated and #2 would not be allowed on Commons due to Canada's two-dimensional works rule, as pointed out by Bedivere. For #5 the photo details state "Courtesy Photo" and "Photo by Private 1st Class Santeri Järvinen, Finnish Defence Forces Combat Camera" so the U.S. DoD Public Domain license does not apply here. Sorry, but I think more experience will help. // sikander { talk } 🦖 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    Good call. I did not notice the photo was taken by a Finnish person (not related to the DOD). I'm changing my vote to neutral. Bedivere (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ayzkao

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Comment You have a total of 227 edits on Commons. Why do you think you are ready to become a license reviewer?
Copyvio deletion requests, including to the file File:Astro Shaw.png were declined. Can you please explain why a) you marked this file as a copyvio and b) why this file actually does not qualify for copyright at all? Thanks, Killarnee (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
A) I marked the file "Astro Shaw.png" as a copyvio due to concerns about it's copyright violation, despite being licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
B) It does not qualify for copyright protection due to its lack of originality, as determined by the COM:TOO-Malaysia guidelines. Ayzkao (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
back to your question about becoming a license reviewer, I want to become a license reviewer because I believe in the importance of maintaining the integrity and legality of shared content on platforms like Wikimedia Commons. By ensuring that files comply with licensing requirements and are either freely licensed or in the public domain, I can contribute to upholding the platform's standards and promoting the open sharing of knowledge and resources within the Wikimedia community. Ayzkao (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
My question wasn't actually why you want to become a license reviewer, but rather why you think you're ready for it. Your answer shows me that you don't know exactly how license review works. Come in six months and show that you have experience, then you will get a support from me. Killarnee (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, alright then. Ayzkao (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus. Please come back later with more experience and clarity. ─ Aafī (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

0x0a

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Question Why are you blocked on Spanish Wikipedia? Yann (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
They were blocked because their username violates local naming policy. His name may have been misunderstood as it reads similarly to the word sexo. It surprises me they haven't requested an unblock though Bedivere (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
OK, so  Support. Yann (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I think I may violate the first rule (username that make it difficult to identify the user by their username) of the Spanish Wiki's username policy. My reasons have been given at es:Usuario discusión:0x0a. -- 0x0a (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Sexo? I think it's because in coding hexadecimal notations prefix with a 0x and in some wikis they only want ”normal“ usernames (what ever that means). Have seen this with other usernames too. Killarnee (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It's still a weird thing to block this user given that they've been around for some time already in other wikis Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Let's leave that aside. Do you have any other questions? --0x0a (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It was kind of rude to hide these comments. They were all valid in the first place. --Bedivere (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Killarnee (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A09

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

✓ Done Killarnee (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Alachuckthebuck

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments

  • Neutral Given the recent granting of autopatroller, then patroller rights, I would see this as a premature or could even be seen as hat-collecting. However, I would like other opinions. User seems knowledgeable. Maybe there will be some questions. --Bedivere (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose no confidence.--RZuo (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - no consensus to promote. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 17:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Gpkp

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments8 people in discussion

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

Comments

Copy not useful, answers can be copied too. Killarnee (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I was about to say the same. Please put some effort next time Chuck Bedivere (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Hello all, My answers are as:
Even though the image has a acceptable license as per: Upload/Flickr, the image is a screenshot of a TV program of ‘itv NEWS’ the creators of which, may or may not have released the copyrights. So I will decline.
The image is uploaded by a Pro User in Flickr with an acceptable license: {{Cc-zero}}, so I will accept.
The video is a collection of different videos uploaded by many users, who may not have released a free CC license, so I will decline.
The user has provided free CC-license for the video, but the audio may or may not be of a free-source, so I wont review it.
The video is of a TV-program, the creators of which may not have released a free license, so I will decline.
The license tag available in the source is not eligible to be uploaded to Commons, as per: Upload/Flickr, so I will decline.
--Gpkp (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
it's not a good idea to reply on a page on a ramdom website. RZuo (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 Question Hello, thank you for applying. How would you review the following media:
Regards // sikander { talk } 🦖 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Hello, My answers are as:
Will accept it. Image has license {{Cc-zero}}. A thing of concern is the lack of EXIF; but all the works of the Pro-user are lacking EXIF in his account.
Will accept it. License is: {{Milim}} with VIRIN:240124-A-XX123-8215
Will accept it. Image has license {{Cc-by-2.0}} and EXIF is available.
Will accept it. License is: {{YouTube CC-BY}}, {{YouTubeReview}}
I myself have uploaded many files from Flickr, Dvidshub, Youtube, Vimeo, Zookeys. You can see it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gpkp/Images and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gpkp/Videos
--Gpkp (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Gpkp: The request is closed now, and congrats on your promotion, however, please be careful with DVIDs media. https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8208267/finland-us-deepen-cyber-defense-cooperation should not be allowed because the photo is "courtesy of the Finnish Defence Forces." I would've been very happy to see a comment about FoP rules around 2d/3d artwork for the two Flickr photos. Anyways, congrats and cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 22:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Faisallutpat2

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Not done insufficient experience on Commons + no answer. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

Hello, thank you for applying and offering to help with the backlog. How would you review the following files if they were uploaded to Commons:
Regards, // sikander { talk } 🦖 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. The website gives a CC-by license: Acceptable
  2. Released under a CC-0 license: Acceptable
  3. Released on a CC-BY-NC-ND license: Not acceptable on commons
  4. Released under a CC-BY license: Acceptable
  5. Released under a PD license with additional restrictions. I see some insignia on the soldier's collar (that may or may not be unit insignia) which is supposed to be obscured (according to the website) before being used for commercial purposes. I would leave this for a more experienced reviewer to handle. MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, https://www.flickr.com/photos/101561334@N08/29907102160/ should not pass review because of FoP rules in South Korea. Good luck! // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but I believe that they are knowledgeable enough to be trusted with this right and not make serious mistakes while reviewing. Seawolf35 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Agreed that user seems knowledgeable but one concern would be that contribution history (at 2,300 right now) seems to be focused on GODL files only. Not my place to assign permissions, so happy to leave the decision to Admins. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖

Not promoted Please reapply once you have gained more experience. Bedivere (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Seawolf35

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

Hello, thank you for applying and offering to help with the backlog. How would you review the following files if they were uploaded to Commons:
Regards, // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the questions, I will answer these in the next few hours Seawolf35 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Sikander - Here are my answers.
  1. Accept - Licensed under {{Cc-by-3.0-au}}. Reverse image lookups find a few Twitter posts but those posts credit the photo back to the DFAT so no concern there.
  2. Tentative COM:PRP decline - The image on the DVIDS website is marked Public Domain, but it is indicated to be a "Courtesy Photo" and the author is not identified, which means it may not have been taken by the US Navy. It could have been taken by the Estonian Navy for all we know, and as far as I can tell, works by the Estonian Armed Forces are not automatically public domain.
  3. Accept - CC BY 4.0 license {{EC-Audiovisual Center}}. I will note the half of the EU flag design appearing on the dog's collar that could be subject to use restrictions in certain cases, such as noted here.
  4. Decline - There is Commons acceptable FOP in the US for buildings, but not for sculptures. The sculpture would not be de minimis since it is the photo's main subject, as indicated in the Flickr description.
  5. Decline - The video itself is licensed properly for commons, but the song lyrics heard throughout the video are copyrighted, the rights are held by the creator of the song, not the creator of that video.
  6. Accept - CC BY 2.0 - Attribution: Pete Forsyth. Also, the author of the picture on Flickr is a established user on Commons so that is assuring for the copyright status of the photo. The appearance of the various posters and banners in the photo would almost certainly be de minimis.
--Seawolf35 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support That's great! Thank you very much. Also, Commons has a handy {{DFAT}} template for dfat.gov.au and the Rights tab on the page also mentions CC-BY. Cheers.
Oh, and hi Peteforsyth, what a funny coincidence! // sikander { talk } 🦖 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support Knows their stuff, Can't wait to see the backlog fall!
All the best -- Chuck Talk 20:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Grendelkhan

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

Not promoted - No consensus at this time. Seawolf35 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Doclys

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Not done - No consensus to promote. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 17:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Contributor2020

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion

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

  • Contributor2020 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: Reason: A good evening to all reading this. I am Contributor2020, (previously Contributers2020) applying for the privilege of license reviewer. I am currently autopatrolled and a file mover on the Commons, amassing over 3500+ edits, (a small fraction of them being bot-like, such as some mass uploading from flickr), and have been here since 4 years. I believe I am in capacity to do maintenance work since from the last request, I have forced myself to divert my focus on deletion requests and also have reported tens, if not hundreds copyright violations in the past year and also have dealt with tagging no permission files. I believe I have done a great job as a file mover, and I do think that I will do justice to the privilege of License Reviewer too. I am also a part of Commons Photographers User Group. From my last request for the post, I have learnt and understood deeply of COM:FOP, de minimis, COM:TOO and also how can I deal with files who's license has been changed from a license acceptable in Commons to the license which isn't, especially when it actually happened with me. I have also understood how I can detect fake metadata by comparing it with the contributions of the user. I am learning many things every day, even things which are very minor. I am very happy and would be extremely prompt to answer your question. Toodles! Contributor2020Talk to me here! 10:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

 Question @Contributor2020: Hello, can you please clarify how many times you have applied for LR rights? A previous request mentions "I guess I have applied 4 times for this post." // sikander { talk } 🦖 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
So:-
14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC): This was my first request however I personally do not count it as it was when I started contributing on Commons after migrating from Wikipedia, and I was kind of panicked after seeing a bunch of warnings on the talk page of some files may get deleted (it was because I was not applying the proper license on the Upload Wizard, however none of them were deleted)
07:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC) : This was my second request, I do also personally do not count it as I still didn't understand that I needed much, much more activity then I was needing to (it was my key takeaway after the third request just after a month or so).
03:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC) : This was my third request, where I tried to convince people that I have beneficial activity but failed because of reason of the second request.
08:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC) : This was my fourth request , I had showed activity, but I was told to reapply after 2 years of 2021 but still did it after 1 year. This request taught me patience, and to keep calm, to keep my attitude in check and always be calm (things I have ensured after many people brutally attacking me with racism and pure nonsense sock puppetry attacks).
After that, I haven't made any requests for license reviewer, and ensured that I have the proper experience and activity to do the same. The first two requests were what I believe, immature and the last two requests were declined by my lack of experience in the subject and lack of patience and obedience.
I have tried to fix things up after these requests, and while I am still learning, I have learnt great things with my 4 years of experience.
TL;DR - This is my 5th request. Contributor2020Talk to me here! 13:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
For reference: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Phương Linh (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the references, Hide on Rosé I had forgot to link it. Contributor2020Talk to me here! 14:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Sikander: . --Contributor2020Talk to me here! 13:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted. No opposition. FitIndia Semi-retired 17:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Mewhen123

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Oppose - You uploaded a copyvio today. Also, this copyvio from last month. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The copyvio thing happens to any user and several times, even I have several like that, we are human and we make mistakes, even the administrators have had that detail. Furthermore, the user, apart from having 2 years in Wikimedia Commons, has more than 12,000 editions, I think he can gain more experience if he is a license reviewer.---Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 23:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aurelio, your comment is both irresponsible and out of the line. The right is not for gaining experience. He is not to gain experience by using the tool. It comes with great responsibility and only those who have demonstrated experience and knowledge are to be trusted with it. I am surprised you came with this reasoning given that only a short time ago you offered yourself as administrator. Basically per Seawolf35, uploading copyvios, as recently as today, is unacceptable and an obvious reason not to trust with this tool. This does not mean Mewhen123 may not get the experience and knowledge later. Just not now. --Bedivere (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Not done: Closing this a few hours earlier because I see no chances to pass and there is no reason to keep this ball hanging for no good result but same. The obvious reasons include issues such as copyright violation - and license reviewing has much to do with copyrights. Feel free to re-apply once you have gained enough knowledge related to copyright and demonstrated it through your contributions. ─ Aafī (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

HeminKurdistan

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments7 people in discussion

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

Comments

POS78, I don't see any acceptance of the nomination. Did HeminKurdistan agree to it?.--C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
If they agree, ping me and I'll close this as successful. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No. @HeminKurdistan Can you confirm my request? Thank you my brother. {{User|POS78}} talk 06:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
HeminKurdistan has been inactive for nearly ten days now. I think we could wait until they accept the proposal, which I hope is soon Bedivere (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere, I am fine with waiting. This is worth a wait. ─ Aafī (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aafi Special:Diff/879996633. {{User|POS78}} talk 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Syunsyunminmin

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

  • Syunsyunminmin, appreciate your help for the backlog. I would like to ask some questions.
     Question 1 - Please answer the following cases whether if you will pass or fail, and explain why you would do so.
    • An image showcasing the packaging design of a product and its graphics.
    • An image of a Coca Cola beverage featuring its original logo (visible only in the image).
    • A derivative work licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0 of another work licensed under CC-BY-NC-3.0 (changes from the original work are quite substantial).
    • A derivative work licensed under CC-BY-NC-4.0 of another work licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0.
     Question 2 - Since you seem to specialize in videos, could you take a look at a couple and say which you'd approve for upload here? this and this.
     question 3 - Would you approve this and this. If so, why. if not, why.

    I understand this are quite a lot of questions, but these are very important for the community to decide your proficiency in the matter. Have a good day! Contributor2020Talk to me here! 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC) correct section.--Syunsyunminmin (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your question.
    Answer 1.
    1. I consider it according to the COM:PACKAGE. I decline all but simple designs and expired works.
    2. {{PD-textlogo}}, so I accept it.
    3. Works based on -NC licensed works will be -NC. Therefore, it is unacceptable. If it is in a state that can be called original due to modifications, it may go to COM:VPC.
    4. -NC licenses are not acceptable. I decline unless the uploader changes his/her mind.
    Answer 2. Both appear to have been initially YouTube CC-BY ([7], [8]). If the license has not been changed at the time of uploading, it will be accepted.
    Answer 3. According to {{Pixabay}}, only the former([9]) is acceptable.--Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
    ̶{̶{̶s̶u̶p̶p̶o̶r̶t̶}̶}̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶s̶w̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶o̶p̶i̶n̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶e̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶l̶e̶t̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶o̶p̶i̶n̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶ Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 17:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose ̶M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶I̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶.----Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please)
     Oppose and believe me, I was looking for reasons to support. Many of your questions and/or explanations are incorrect, which shows your lack of proficiency in this topic. Let me discuss what you got wrong:-
    The second question of the first part, where you were correct that you would accept it, but not under {{PD-textlogo}}. The logo is not just simple text, it is copyrightable due to its design. However, the copyright for this logo has expired (and not renewed), so it is okay to pass images containing the original Coca Cola logo.
    The questions 3 and 4 of the first part where it seems you have misunderstood. Derivative works under CC-BY-NC-3.0 can be adapted and then licensed under any other license, like CC-BY-SA-4.0 or CC-BY-4.0, because there’s no ShareAlike clause that restricts relicensing. Therefore, it’s fine to adapt work from question 3 with significant changes. For question 4, since CC-BY-SA-3.0 requires derivatives to have the same license, passing question 4 is correct because the derivative work isn’t being relicensed to CC-BY-NC-4.0; it remains under CC-BY-SA-3.0.
    The second question of the second part is also incorrect, but I will not blame you since the video is unavailable in Web Archive. If you see the number of views of the channel on other videos (in the range of 350-500, some even 50!), where it has "full one on one" interviews of quite famous people, it is clearly copyrighted by another person/organisation.
    Your contributions are good, and that is why I would not strongly oppose. I recommend you to come after a year or less, with adequate knowledge. Know that you need to see things in deep, not superficcialy (based off from my past experiences). Have a good day --Contributor2020Talk to me here! 03:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Coca-Cola's PD-textlogo license seems to be controversial. Thank you for telling me about it.
  • If ShareAlike is attached, it must be the exact same license, otherwise the license should only allow licensing with the same or more restrictions[1]. Is CC-BY-NC-3.0 an exceptional version?
  • I think my words were not enough. I thought that the person who derived the derived work would have to agree to CC-BY-SA, since the copyright would also accrue to the person who derived the work, but it seems that this was not actually necessary.
  • As for the YouTube video, that certainly seems likely.
Thank you for your insight, it is much appreciated. I will continue my experience for a while. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 Support User Syunsyunminmin's response seem reasonable and adequate and similar to Aurelio Sandoval's first response, I support the application.
I think there's is some confusion in how the questions were worded by Contributor2020 and there is enough details in the response to support this request, especially since Contributor2020 mentions that it "seems you have misunderstood"
Why does "Question 1" have four parts instead of making it 4 separate questions? Asking a user to respond to part three of question one seems like an entirely unnecessary complication, and what does "(visible only in the image)" mean? Does File:Coca-cola 50cl can - Italia.jpg qualify for "visible only in the image"?
"Question 2" linked to two YouTube videos and Syunsyunminmin answered both correctly. Both videos are on Archive.org ([10] and [11]) and yet Contributor2020 says "since the video is unavailable in Web Archive" ??
And again "second question of the second part" is so confusing.
For "question 3" Syunsyunminmin linked to the reasoning behind the answer showing that they can find and explain why one image would be acceptable and the other would not be acceptable.
I'm sorry, but this seems like Contributor2020 wanting to deny LR to a user (who is an Admin on 3 sites, a global sysop, and a global rollbacker) because of their own experience in applying for LR rights in September 2020, in June 2021, in July 2021, in May 2022, and finally a successful application in May 2024.
In summary, I support Syunsyunminmin based on the answers provided. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 Support I agree with Sikander. Syunsyunminmin would be a good asset. If in doubt, they should just not review a file, just like everyone else does. Bedivere (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Sikander, I would like to express my sincere apologies about the question breakout. I wanted it so that one group of questions could be categorized into one, but didn't understand how it can complexify the same. I would like to say I didn't talk anything about the third question (pixabay one) as they were correct. The questions I had issue on is 1.) b.), where they wrote the incorrect explanation for the same, "visible only in the image" means that only the old CocoCola logo is present in the image. It is indeed, incomplete, and I would like to express apologies for the same.
For 1.) c.) and d.), the answers provided were wrong, and I provided reasons for it. For 2.) b.), if you see the other uploads of the user, it is unrealistic that "one on one" interviews of quite famous personalities has only 50 - 300 views. Nonetheless, I appreciate his work on Commons, and it was quite saddening to me that you kind of personally hurt me, saying I was basically opposing his request based on my whimsies. I acknowledge that he is a global sysop, but what my experience was with him that he lacked deep understanding of some things and looked over it superficially. I would have appreciated his request wholsomefully if he answered my questions correctly. If you think in turn I am wrong, please specifically mark it. Please understand my native language is NOT english, and sometimes things that I mean are not expressed correct. Contributor2020Talk to me here! 18:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 Support Seeing that the majority is in favor of the user and that I was wrong to be against it, in favor of the user. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 21:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Please be serious. You supported, then opposed, and now you're supporting again. Make up your mind. Bedivere (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere Sorry, I've already decided that I'm in favor of it, it's just that the user's responses Contributor2020 They confused me a lot, I also don't want to have problems like when I chose irresponsibly. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 01:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ Adapter’s license chart

Granted. We are helplessly short of active License reviewers and the above user can be trusted with this tool. Thank you for offering to help. FitIndia Semi-retired 19:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Geohakkeri

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments


Granted for three months, since there were no support votes. If you use the right correctly during this time, please feel free to ping me at the end of the time (6 October) and I will renew it indefinitely. Bedivere (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Kdslk

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Oppose Thank you for applying and offering to contribute more, however, your account is not yet 4 months old and has 70 edits so far. You will need a lot more experience before reviewing media uploads. Helping with categorization is a great place to start, for example this upload needs categories. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Insufficient evidence and LLM request makes it an automatic no. Seawolf35 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose besides what's been already said, a ChatGPT presentation is a no from me Bedivere (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

TheImaCow

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

✓ Done --Bedivere (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Mazbel

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

✓ Done --Bedivere (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

RodRabelo7

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

Iwaqarhashmi

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Support The user has answered and with correct answers, in my opinion it is fine, now let others give their opinion and give their vote. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the list. With license reviewer permission these files (no license, no source, TOO) would be dealt with in the same way as DRs, so my question was more related to "knowledgeable enough to review files" and if there are any specific types of license related files in the backlog that you intend to process. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Hey, I appreciate your clarification. I'd say, if I'm granted the reviewer right, I'd start off in the Category:FLICKR first, focusing on quality over quantity. This would allow me to gain a complete and comprehensive understanding of the different license types, and as I gain more experience, I might explore other categories as well, such as YouTube. I know it's a great responsibility, and I promise to be very careful with it. Thank you. Waqar💬 18:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that convinces me you're qualified for the right. I mean, while you have provided some links, these don't necessarily show you're proficient in copyright matters, that's why I am  opposing for now while you acquire more experience. Bedivere (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Bedivere: I answered every question that I was asked to the best of my knowledge, and I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I make thousands of edits every month and constantly gaining more experience, and copyright is an area I'm particularly interested in. I always come across lots of files with different license issues, and I was so eager to review them while I was patrolling. I have dealt with lots of images with obvious copyright violations that ultimately got deleted. Anyway, it's ultimately your decision, and I do respect that. I'll keep learning and improving. Thank you! Waqar💬 06:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Hi, that is only my opinion, you could still get promoted if you gain more support votes Bedivere (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply! I hope so, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Waqar💬 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Same, also  opposing for now. With only one upload here it is unlikely that user has encountered unexpected copyright issues and gained experienced that way. Great work tagging bad uploads, and good to see COM:TOO understanding. However, please re-apply later with more experience. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Sikander: Thanks for the feedback! While I understand that I haven't uploaded much myself, I've gained a lot of experience by patrolling other users' uploads.
    I'll definitely re-apply for the right after gaining more experience. In the meantime, I'll keep doing my best to contribute to copyright-related issues.
    Thanks again for your time and consideration! Waqar💬 19:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral while they are prolific in tagging bad files for deletion, I am concerned by the lack of uploads. If granting for a few months as a trial is in the question, I'd support that. Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus for promotion at this time --Mazbel (Talk) 11:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

SCP-2000

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

Iammshussain Born 10 Jan

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Comments

Saddam Hussain •صدام حسین (Born 10 Jan 2001) is an Indian student of Bodoland University. Education department. Founder of Al-Hussaini Institute of Open Education. Established 2023. Social media activities iammshussain


Saddam Hussain Born at Tezpur

Not done. Nonsense request. Bedivere (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Royiswariii

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Not done - No consensus. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Tanbiruzzaman

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Question Hello @Tanbiruzzaman: before voting, I would like to ask you some questions.

You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:

  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/whichpressoffice/27194404271/in/
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/41519416844/
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDO98lMnZXA
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDJ-kmfo9c
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM1bXT01Rm8
  6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephen_downes/14493547497/in/
Thanks,--Mazbel (Talk) 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Mazbel, Thanks for your question.
1.Decline: Screenshot of a tv programe of ITV News (Copyright owner). There’s no proof if ITV News released it under any free licence or not.
2.Accept: Acceptable license, and included metadata.
3.Decline: Mixing of many/random clip, which could may own by different holder.
4.Decline: There're some copyrighted music playing in bg.
5.Decline: This is clip of w:Emmerdale tv show, and uploader isn’t the real copyright holder.
6.Decline: Unacceptable license (nc isn't allowed in Commons).
Regards, –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for you replyes --Mazbel (Talk) 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Granted: Clear consensus. In addition, the user is a VRT agent, so he has experience. --Mazbel (Talk) 02:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

.

Queen of Hearts

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/152945444/
  2. https://dreamypixel.com/jamnik-beautiful-winter-morning/
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/klamurke/34557276701/
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/astrid/53928419784/
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Chamt89dn0

Thanks for volunteering. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Cortesy ping @Queen of Hearts: I will close this once you respond to what has been asked by @Tanbiruzzaman. Regards, Aafi (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Tanbiruzzaman, thank you for these questions.
  1.  Not OK; non-commercial.
  2. OK; while I cannot find a license on that page, this page says that all photos tagged "free" are CC BY 4.0. Perhaps add a note to that effect to the "permission" parameter of {{Information}}.
  3.  Not OK; Montenegro only has non-commercial freedom of panorama.
  4.  Not OK; non-commercial and non-derivative.
  5.  Not OK; American freedom of panorama does not apply to statues, the main aspect of the video; and installed in 2019 so not PD.
Queen of Hearts (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
(cc Aafi) Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
 Support –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 16:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Alachuckthebuck

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments8 people in discussion

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

All the best -- Chuck Talk 20:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 16:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 Question Hello @Alachuckthebuck: , thank you for your nomination, but before casting a vote, I would like to ask you a few questions.
  1. Could you explain why it presents an undefined block on enwiki?
  2. In his request mentions " I'm unable to fully patrol a new image or video because I'm unable to review the license, meaning another person has to go and look at the image" Could you explain why having a license reviewer's permit would help you in your work? I ask you this, because it is not necessary to have a license reviewer's permit to verify whether or not an image has the correct license.

I would also like, if you could review the following

  • You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/thekeyport/8638307717/
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ktee1026/3472022956/
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/44657206@N00/467245145/
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/cc_photoshare/10488395186/
  5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/fischerfotos/14723867088/
  6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/trucknroll/5206638676
  7. https://www.flickr.com/photos/1la/4657069088/

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer the above questions.--Mazbel (Talk) 21:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I don't know why the block is showing as undefined, but the full details are on my en-wiki talk page. If you have any further questions about my block, please leave them on my (commons) talk page.
2. Based on my understanding of policy, if an image as the license review template, a license reviewer must review it unless it meets speedy deletion criteria, then the review isn't needed.
For the images
1. No released with CC-BY-SA-NC 2.0 (emphasis mine) making it non-free and ineligible for upload
2.✓ Yes this is an interesting one, there is no FOP in France, but because Gustave Eiffel died in 1923, all photos of the Eiffel tower taken during the day are photos of a monument/building (its classification is moot at this point) in the public domain, thus can be licensed as the photographer sees fit, in this case, CC-BY 2.0 generic. However, the lights on the Eiffel tower were installed in 1981. As copyright in France is 70 years after death of the artist, they will be unfree until at least 2055.
3.✓ Yes There is FOP in Thailand for architecture and buildings. This image is under CC-BY-SA.
4.✓ Yes Fop for buildings does exist in Singapore, but I would have doubts on scope without knowing what exact buildings are in the photo.
5. No I.M Pei died in 2019. Please see above answer for Eiffel Tower.
6. No Cloud Gate, aka the bean, is protected by copyright in the US. In fact, the bean is used as an example on the commons Copyright rules by territory/United States page. In addition, the artist has been known to be extremely aggressive with copyright, including getting the exclusive rights to use Vantablack in art installations.
7.✓ Yes Unlike the bean, the Statue of Liberty is public domain in the US.
Thanks for the questions!
All the best -- Chuck Talk 22:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.--Mazbel (Talk) 02:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
 Question How are you going to handle files from YouTube (example Vogue Taiwan), are you going to tag for speedy/ nominate for deletion or leave it for others to review? --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 07:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I handle files from Youtube like I handle all other files, and I don't plan on changing that if I become a Licence Reviewer.
All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Iwaqarhashmi

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments7 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Question – Iwaqarhashmi, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/armand_rajnoch/16229391869/
  2. https://youtube.com/watch?v=FFiMWh5ZTRs
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&si=cUUAAmXDx0k2or_E&v=0FV-HxUpptM
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/13476480@N07/28741303700/
  5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeepersmedia/53435432017/

Thanks for volunteering. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 11:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tanbiruzzaman, thanks for the questions.
1. Decline: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, the CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license is not acceptable on commons.
2. Decline: "Dark Star" by Chicano Batman is protected by copyright law, which means it cannot uploaded to a platform like commons without explicit permission from the copyright holders.
3. Accept: The places shown in the video are all public places in London. Public places are generally not copyrighted, which means anyone can make a video of them and upload it for free use. However, the audio in the video is not clear, so I can't really ensure if there's any copyrighted music or other material in the background.
4. Decline: Generally, works published before 1978 are protected by copyright for 95 years from the date of publication. The cover of the Vietnam Magazine, Vol. V, No. 10, 1972, published by the Vietnam Council on Foreign Relations, was published in 1972, it's highly probable that its copyright has not yet expired and likely still protected by copyright.
5. Decline: Copyright for works published after 1977 lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Given that the catalog was published in the late 1980s, it is still under copyright protection. Waqar💬 15:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
 Support. Perfectly answered. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 15:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Waqar💬 15:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Number 4 doesn’t look too bad to me: File:Vietnam Magazine Vol. V, Nº 10 1972.pdf. --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The user who uploaded it on flickr is blacklisted for Flickrwashing, however it’s not the reason for declining, but the author and source willn't be correct if it’s uploaded from flickr, per the file's license information you provided, the flickr user isn’t the copyright holder, and the the license they used to release it also not specified by the copyright holder, by changing those information will make it acceptable, but I want to say that for this case the flickr url has been used as source site. So, I'll still say number 4 should be declined. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ratekreel

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

✓ Done --Bedivere (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Rkieferbaum

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments7 people in discussion

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

Comments

@Modern primat: maybe take a quick look at Commons:WikiProject GeoSets before you do? Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
OK modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 15:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 Weak oppose still, low amount of edits for anti-copyvio. i will change my vote if someone ask questions about files for licenses and you answered good. modern_primatඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Before commenting on this, I'd like to ask you some  Question. @Rkieferbaum, You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPAhzNu-QEA
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/armand_rajnoch/51935707494/
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/showbizsuperstar/3004920413/
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/53967325738/
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAtm-YrjLtY
Regards, –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 16:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tanbiruzzaman: hi there and thanks for your question. Here are my impressions:
1. Reject. Although the YouTube channel seems to be legitimate, the audio track (composition and execution) are presumably copyrighted and there's no indication of a release. Stills from the video would be acceptable.
2. Reject. CC license listed on Flickr is NC and therefore cannot be used bere.
3. Reject. CC license is ND, cannot be used here. Furthermore, the photograph is arguably derivative of the newspaper, so I might reject it (or at least seek a consensus before accepting it) even if the license listed on Flickr was OK.
4. Tricky one, but I'd also reject it (or at least put it up for discussion). The license on Flickr is acceptable and the account seems to be legitimate, but FOP in the USA doesn't cover sculptures. I see no indication that the artist released his copyright for such reproductions under said license. There seems to be a large number of photographs featuring artwork from the Burning Man up on Commons, though, including a few from this photographer, but I couldn't find a discussion about this around here that results in this type of photograph being acceptable.
5. Reject. The YouTube channel seems legitimate but this video is basically a slideshow of several pictures taken from all over the internet, and none of the ones I searched are free.
Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 Support, –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Hello, thank you for applying and offering to help. Since you have less than 2,500 edits since 2016, can you please talk more about how you became "familiarized with the license review process and its intricacies" .. as in what surprising things did you come across that might not be obvious to a user who does not have any interest in license review? Thank you. // sikander { talk } 🦖 00:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@Sikander: hi there and thanks for your question. Maybe I'd start with the reply I gave above: I feel like all five examples might be considered acceptable by a user that's not familiarized with this subject, since all of them are stated to be licensed under CC. However, to my understanding, none of them should be accepted for the reasons I listed. Another example that comes to mind, which I've encountered multiple times, is when a YouTube channel or a TV network licenses their content under CC. Within a program, an image that is not free is used for some reason. Someone then uploads the video and uses a frame displaying the non-free content, arguing, even in good faith, that the TV network made that content available under an acceptable license. In such cases, it might be reasonable to interpret that whatever the network actually owns is indeed usable under CC, while still assuming that their use of non-free content did not release that content unless there's robust indication that it did. Please let me know if this answers your question. I'm happy to go into further detail. Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done, good luck! modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

MasterRus21thCentury

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments

✓ Done Queen of Hearts (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hiyyihjaleh727

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

1.  Fail: Due to trademark concerns with the Coca-Cola logo, this image risks infringement if used without proper permissions, particularly in commercial settings.
2.  Fail: While potentially eligible for fair use in non-commercial contexts, the broad scope of copyright on the original artwork means commercial usage could lead to legal issues.
3. ✓ Pass: This image benefits from the freedom of panorama laws, making it permissible for both personal and commercial uses as it is a public art piece.
4. ✓ Pass: Similarly, this photograph of a publicly accessible monument in a cemetery is covered by freedom of panorama, allowing its use without specific restrictions.
5.  Fail: The vague licensing terms do not provide enough clarity on usage rights, making this video a risky choice for any purpose without further detailed permissions.
I hope this answers your questions! I've responded to the best of my knowledge. Hiyyihjaleh727 (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
On #2, how would you counter "but the file is released under CC BY-SA 2.0, which is compatible with Wikimedia Commons. I want to hear something from the prism of {{FoP-Egypt}}. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
To answer to your question. If it's shared under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license by someone authorized to use it, you can use the image on Wikimedia Commons. This license permits commercial use and modifications, provided you credit the original creator and share any derivative works under the same terms. Note that Egypt's Freedom of Panorama law doesn't apply to two-dimensional works like this poster, so your main concern should be fulfilling the CC BY-SA 2.0 license requirements: proper attribution and sharing alike. Hiyyihjaleh727 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
 Support knows what they are doing. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 03:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
 Support 행운을 빕니다 // sikander { talk } 🦖 04:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done No objections. --Bedivere (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Elli

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Obligitory questions by Alachuckthebuck

Thank you for volunteering to Become a License reviewer! How would review the following files.

  • A lovely photo of the Leaning Tower of Pisa at night, taken in February. (and how, if at all, its copyright status changes if it was posted to facebook before being uploaded to commons.)
  • A photo uploaded to commons of a professional photo with the license saying "sent to be by the photographer", with the exact same thing being sent to VRT.

Thanks for taking the time to answering.

All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions.
For 1, my assumption is that the photos in that video are license-laundered, and therefore I would not accept it as a valid license.
For 2, there is no indication of an acceptable license in the first place, so wouldn't accept.
For 3, the photo is available under an acceptable (tho not ideal) license, is uploaded by a long-time Flickr account that appears to be genuine, and has valid EXIF. Doesn't appear to be from elsewhere. While the patterns in the dress could theoretically be copyrighted (I do not know much about the TOO in Vietnam), in my opinion they are de minimis to the photo at large. Would accept.
For 4, the photo itself is licensed appropriately, but the thing it is a photo of (the magazine) doesn't appear to be. The uploader's blog, which they link, doesn't indicate that they'd have any claim to those copyrights. Work is from '72 so would not be public domain. So I wouldn't accept this.
For 5, there is no FOP in Italy, but the Leaning Tower of Pisa is out of copyright. However, the lighting design, if recent, could still be in copyright, but given that the lighting appears to be basic, and there are plenty of pictures of this unchallenged, I'm inclined to think that there is not an issue there. I'd still need verification that the uploader has rights to the copyright: I'd want EXIF data (which Facebook strips) or a license statement to be posted on Facebook by the original poster (if it clearly the FB poster's original work, if not, of course, I would need to find the actual original source and see if it is appropriately licensed). Assuming that this can be confirmed, I would accept. (Also noting that I usually am suspicious of photos without EXIF data, so this would likely not change my process too much.)
For 6, I'd reply on VRT, explaining how they need permission from the photographer. I would not take action onwiki until appropriate permission from the photographer could be confirmed through VRT. If it wasn't confirmed, the photo would eventually be deleted by an admin.
Feel free to ask follow-ups if you'd like me to explain my thoughts further. Elli (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Please explain how we would verify the owner of the Wikimedia account is the owner of the Facebook account, considering outing concerns? For the leaning tower of Pisa, How does the Italian cultural heritage law affect this case? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
So, the Facebook account could post a comment saying "this photo is licensed under <acceptable license>". Alternatively, they could verify the permission by VRT (which would probably involve them emailing VRT, then posting a confirmation code that an agent gave them to Facebook). Then that photo could be tagged as having permission by VRT.
The cultural heritage law is a non-copyright restriction, and we allow photos of things protected by the law on Commons. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is probably covered by the law, so it might make sense to tag with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} though (some photos of it are tagged like this, though some aren't). Elli (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain why some images without the disclaimer are OK and some aren't, and the factors regarding that? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, as some pages imply the tag is mainly for "Wiki Loves Monuments", but the template itself does not state this (and plenty of photos are tagged with it that weren't taken as part of the 2012 contest). My impression is that the tag should usually be used, but I'm really not sure. Commons:Non-copyright restrictions says that non-copyright restrictions aren't a cause for deletion, though, so I don't think the details of this exactly fall under what a LR is expected to deal with. Elli (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
That template is used as wiki loves monuments has an expemtion from the cultural heritage laws for certain monuments (including the leaning tower) that take part. The law is a copyright restriction, but certain photos were taken before the law was passed, making them ok to host on commons.
All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. Thanks for volunteering. Regards, Aafi (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Turkmen

Latest comment: 1 year ago27 comments7 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Question(s) By Alachuckthebuck Hello Turkmen, thank you for volunteering to become an LR, how would you respond to the following scenarios:

  • User:BIG GYM ENERGY, uploads a complicated logo with a promotional summary, but before it can be tagged, {{VRT pending}} is added to the file page by a VRT member.
  • A photo is uploaded of a model in front of the Eiffel tower at night, with a Facebook post as the source, and the license: "Given to me by the model via DM".
  • A reaction video marked CC-BY-SA on YouTube, with uncited sources.
  • Image from flicker that was moved to commons using upload wizard and tagged as AI generated (on commons, not on flickr)

All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck hi! :)
  • It can be waited until the response from VRT is received. Also, if the uploader does not respond to the email, the template is replaced after 30 days from the date of installation, and after some time the file is deleted because it does not have sufficient permissions.
  • This person may have their own claim. The permit must be approved by the VRT.
  • You need to see the video's upload date to YouTube. Because the material used can also be protected by copyright. But if there are unreferenced sources, I think it would be best to avoid uploading it.
  • If the file is taken from an album website such as Flickr, it must be uploaded according to the appropriate license there. If it does not match the license there, it should be deleted.
Regards, Turkmen talk 07:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
good answers.  Weak support. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 08:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
 Very weak support Per Modern. Answer to number 2 is wrong because the eiffel tower at night doesn't have commercial FoP. Citing a Facebook post and saying "given to me by model" generally is consent to release under a free license. I would CSD as a F1 FoP violation/insuficcent permission. Most photos like this are probably also F10, and if a model, probably a G10 too. All other answers look good, and I like the willingness to open DRs for own uploads, but the fact they were uploaded is concerning. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The Eiffel Tower itself is public domain, and if the Eiffel Tower lighting is just ordinary white lightbulbs, we keep those per User:Yann and community consensus so Eiffel Tower at night has particular nuances. Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow, That's why I wrote the question the way I did. I don't expect everyone to know France's FoP policy, but I do expect them to do research (of the relevant policy) if unsure. I think it can be a better test than 4/5 photos from flickr. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Question A user uploads a photograph of the Louvre courtyard, the photograph is licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0 and it has camera EXIF. The Louvre Pyramid is in the middle, taking up about 15% of the photograph. File has a title that mentions Le Louvre, doesn't mention pyramid. What actions would you take (if any) ? Abzeronow (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow, hi. The image should saved. Because, FOP French ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of art installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza. Also, in the image, the pyramid has not completely fallen and does not specifically mention it. Turkmen talk 06:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Felix QW

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

  Question by Alachuckthebuck Thank you for volunteering to become a license reviewer. Can you summarise the reviewing policy in your own words, and how your reviewing process would work if given the tools? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I will try explaining the process, using an example. For instance, Category:Flickr public domain images needing specific copyright tags, whose header still refers to the PD Review process but should now be read to refer to license review and the license review template, contains File:Anise Swallowtail on Buckwheat (33889118441).jpg. The photograph is credited to Lisa Cox/USFWS, indicating a work by a USFWS staff photographer. I would therefore add the appropriate copyright tag, {{PD-USFWS}} and remove the tags on the page. The question remains which license review template to apply. {{PDreview}}, which is mentioned in the header of Category:Flickr public domain images needing specific copyright tags, has been deprecated. I personally think that {{Flickrreview}} is a bad fit for public domain licenses, so I would prefer adding {{LicenseReview}}. As this is often not obvious for PD files, I would always add my reasoning in the comment parameter of {{LicenseReview}}. Felix QW (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding policy, the guidelines for PD review, summarise the information that may typically help determine public domain status. The instructions at COM:License review focus on verifying that the information on the file page matches the information at the source, and that the source provider has the authority to release a file into the public domain. This is not really the focus for PD files, although I would note that Commons has reached a consensus that where the public domain mark is applied by a copyright holder of a file, it should be treated as releasing that file into the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Clear consensus. Grand-Duc (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Omphalographer

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Questions by Iwaqarhashmi – How would you answer the following questions?
  1. How would you determine the copyright status of a work that was created by an anonymous artist in the 18th century and has been passed down through generations without any clear documentation of ownership?
  2. A user uploads a photo of a painting that they took in a public museum. The painting is over 100 years old and the artist is unknown. Can the user claim copyright over the photo?
  3. A user creates a painting that is highly derivative of a famous public domain work and uploads it on Commons. How would you assess whether this new work is considered a transformative work or a copyright infringement?
  4. How would you handle a situation where a user claims to have received permission from the copyright holder to upload a work, but there is no written documentation of this permission?

Thank you for volunteering. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  1. Ownership of the physical work isn't directly relevant. In most cases, a work created in the 18th century is likely to be PD due to age, but a work which was held privately and never shown to the public in any form might still be under copyright (and an orphan work) due to the late publication date. Further information on the (likely?) source country would be needed.
  2. If it's really just a straight-up photo of the painting, then no, per Bridgeman v. Corel . But if the user's uploaded the photo to Commons with a permissive license, there's no harm in allowing them to offer that license on the photo in parallel to the PD status of the painting; it may make matters easier for downstream reuse.
  3. If the source work is in the public domain, it's a moot point - there's no copyright to infringe upon.
  4. {{Npd}} and let VRT sort it out.
Omphalographer (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Questions by Grand-Duc – How would you answer to the following?
  1. Please tell us what may be circumstantial evidence for a wrongly made licensing or for Commons:License laundering in your eyes. What kind of hints would you expect to spot or would you search for in general? How would you proceed for a Flickr sourced image that raised your suspicion?

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  1. Ooh boy, lots of those. In general: low-resolution photos without EXIF data, or with metadata indicating non-original photos (e.g. Facebook FBMD). Separately: obviously commercial photos (like product photos or professional portraits) have a certain "look" to them and can be a reason for suspicion when uploaded as an own work by a new user, or a user without a history of uploading similar images. For Flickr in particular: galleries containing a small number of photos which were all added all around the same time are characteristic of Flickrwashing, especially if the photos were clearly taken at different times, or at different places. Searching for originals using Tineye or Google Lens can be helpful; for a Flickr gallery, searching for the other photos in the gallery can be helpful (e.g. if multiple photos in a gallery are clear copyvios, the rest probably are too). Omphalographer (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks Omphalographer! I'd like to place another follow-up. What do you think about a Flickr photostream that has:
    1. a self-introduction (on the photographers info page) as fan of travelling;
    2. A CC-By licensing;
    3. Not blatantly obvious commercial images;
    4. a lot of travel image stills from a broad geographical region (e.g. a selection of South American or South-East Asian countries), these stills being at a decent enough resolution;
    5. EXIF that are sometimes non-existent, and, if given, showing a mishmash of cameras with a mix of entry-level and mid-level DSLR and compact or mobile phone cameras?
    Would you accept this licensing upfront as legit or not? Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    Probably not; I'd look closer at the EXIF data. It's not uncommon for an avid photographer to have a couple of cameras they use, or to sometimes take photos with their cell phone, but it's hard to imagine a situation where one would also take some photos with a cheap digital camera, or where someone would have multiple cell phones they take photos with. One thing I'd look for is temporal consistency - do the dates of the photos outline a plausible travel route? Are the same cameras used for photos taken on the same implied trip? etc. Omphalographer (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your sound answers! Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Omphalographer, in case you missed this. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Request successful! Grand-Duc (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Royiswariii

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments8 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Oppose Please come back when you have more experience. The majority of your edits are editing twinkle settings or using suggested edits, with very little copyright work. There isn't enough data to grant LR at this time. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose this is your second LR request, and I don't think you've paid any attention to the valuable comments from the previous one. Your edit count is still too low, and you haven't contributed to copyright-related issues. Please stop requesting LR every few months, it seems disruptive now. Thank you! Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    it is not bad to request LR rights in between agree-able times. i dont believe it is disruptive, especially there is months pass. and also,  Oppose. because, Royiswariii, you dont need LR rights to fight copyright violator user. and indeed you are a copyright violator user. to fight copyvio, any registered user(or even IP users) have these kind of tools: nominate to delete and COM:AN/U. you can still help us without LR rights. but if your work is ok and trying to do more, you should request it. but certainly not this time. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 14:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    My two cents: it would be reasonable to request LR after a month or so if they were actively making any improvements, but that's certainly not the case. They were advised to familiarize themselves with the licensing policies, but I see little to no contributions related to copyright issues or any participation in DRs. LRs are the most trusted and experienced users who help everyone and review licenses, but the OP sees this right as a tool to just fight other users and is somewhat keen on getting it which definitely comes off as rather disruptive than any good. In my opinion, they should wait about at least a year before re-applying, and in the meantime, gather some experience and demonstrate knowledge. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    Referring the user requesting the permissions as disruptive is not appropriate in my opinion, since it appears to be in good faith. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hello, "I am here to fight users who..." well, Commons is not a place to fight other users. Please see COM:GOODFAITH and Foundation:UCOC. Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    +1 to this comment. Commons is a collaborative project, and a lot of users that violate copyright had thought they were uploading free media. Sometimes they just need to be educated on copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, you're not ready yet. License reviewers are trusted users who have demonstrated they have enough understanding of copyright to review files that require a human reviewer. Once you gain some more experience, please feel free to apply for autopatroller at COM:RFR. Abzeronow (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, normally I do not vote in such requests, but it is clear that the user has apparently no relevant experience as stated above; account of 4 months, low editcount. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    I also doubt the quick obtaining of permissions that have some form of reviewing by this user. For example, on the English Wikipedia, the user immediately applied for AFCH access after meeting the 90 day criterion (other prerequisites were obtained before). The user also had multiple complaints about tagging pages for speedy among others as shown on their enwp talk page and its archive. This leaves me with a  Strong oppose since it will rather cause more problems should the user be given the permission. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done clear consensus against. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 21:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Arrow303

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments7 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Questions by Alachuckthebuck

Thank you for volunteering to become a license reviewer. Could you please answer the following questions:

  • Explain the licensing policy in your own words, and how you would explain it to a new user who doesn't understand copyright, if diffrent.
  • User:Celebrityfan01 uploads photos of Taylor Swift with EXIF of a talent agency, claiming "found on the internet, so public domain". How do you respond?
  • Someone uploads photos of a brick with a vandalistc summary, but before you can tag, Krdbot adds {{vrt-pending}} . What do you do?
  • Please describe how Italian public domain interacts with US law as applies to commons.

Thanks for volunteering! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: Thanks for your questions! Here are my answers :)
1) As a more complex explanation, I would say that only images with a free license are allowed on Wikimedia Commons and this happens when: (a) the image (or in any case the multimedia content) is in the public domain either due to the passage of time or for other specific reasons (e.g. {{PD-Textlogo}}, {{PD-Shape}}, {{PD-Chart}}, {{PD-Italy-EdictGov}}, {{PD-USGov-Military}}, etc.); (b) the image is released by the rights holder under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons. In general, Commons only accepts media that are freely usable by anyone, without permission from the author, for any purpose, including commercial ones. Such licenses must also be perpetual and irrevocable.
In particular, the most quantitatively used licenses are CreativeCommons licenses, but not all CC licenses are admissible here: licenses that contain NC and/or ND conditions are not allowed here (e.g. Any material from the site araldicacivica.it is not allowed on Commons, because here it's written that such materials are distributed under CC-BY-NC-ND, which is incompatible.
Another general principle regarding licenses is that any image, unless it has an explicit indication of having a free license, must be presumed to be covered by copyright (Copyright by default). In very exceptional cases, there may be inversions of this principle (for example {{Italy-CAD-OBD}}, but it is a very particular case that I would not mention to a new user, unless strictly relevant to his situation).
It's also important to check that when a user uploads an image that is not "own work" is adopting a valid license (in this case, the uploader should provide the source from which the image was taken and prove where the license he invoked is indicated (e.g. a legal notice section or similar). If this information cannot be found in the source, it is necessary for the rights holder to send a COM:VRT ticket confirming his intention to release the work under the indicated license. The VRT ticket is also necessary when the image is the uploader's own work but has previously been published elsewhere without a free license, this happens because it is necessary to verify that the uploader is really the image's rights holder and confirm his intention to re-license the work).
In addition to copyright, non-copyright restrictions may also apply (e.g. {{Trademark}}, {{Insignia}}, {{Personality rights}}, {{Communist symbol}}, etc.)
To explain this in a few simple concepts for a new user, in addition to linking to the help pages that may be useful, I would limit myself to saying that Wikimedia Commons only accepts freely licensed material and that any image found on the internet, unless otherwise specified, is protected by copyright and cannot be uploaded here. If you have the permission of the rights holder, you need to contact COM:VRT (the same if you are the author, but the work is already published elsewhere under a non-free license). To correctly upload the images, the uploader must indicate the essential information, to allow other users to verify the indicated license.
2) “Found on the internet” is not a valid source: unless otherwise indicated, every image found on the web is protected by copyright. If I find the source of the original image, and there's not a free license notice, I'd tag it as Copyvio otherwise I'd tag it as Nsd (if a source is completely missing) or Npd (if the source is indicated but information on the permission is missing). I then notify the uploader (or I use the automatic tool)
3) If an image is uploaded with the sole purpose of vandalizing or offending someone and itself has no useful purposes for the project, I see no reason to keep that image, even if it can be authorized via VRT. In cases of obvious vandalism with no other potential uses of the image I would treat it as COM:SPEEDY as G3. However, the final decision is left to a sysop. Instead, If there are more doubts about the respect of COM:Scope, a DR may be appropriate, after the vandalism has been obscured via COM:RevDel, if it's outside the image, and provided that the license is valid.
4) When an image is in the public domain and its country of origin is not the US (where the servers are located), then it is necessary for that image to be in the public domain in both the country of origin and the United States.
For example, some Italian photographs are in the public domain in Italy, but are not in the United States, because in that country the copyright has been restored by the URAA. The {{PD-Italy}} template specifies that it is necessary to add a second template to prove why the image is considered to be in the public domain also in the US. :According to Italian law, non-artistic photographs taken on Italian soil (art. 92 L. 633/1941) become public domain in Italy 20 years after their creation. However, they are in the public domain in the United States only if they were created prior to 1976 and published prior to 1978 (otherwise they must be uploaded to it.wiki). This, for example, is a case of an image dating back to the 80s that had been improperly uploaded to Commons, because it is not in the public domain in the US, although it is in Italy. Otherwise, this photo is allowed on Commons because is in the PD also in the US.

--Arrow303 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iwaqarhashmi: you should not close if you've already voted. Killarnee (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not know that. It was clear consensus that's why I closed it. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done clear consensus to promote. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Iming

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments6 people in discussion

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

  • Iming (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
  • Reason: Hi there, I've noticed that there are a lot of images from Youtube that need to be reviewed and I'd be happy to assist. I come from the Chinese Wikipedia, where I have some rights such as Patroller, Rollbacker, etc. and have been able to spot some copyright violations from time to time. I've also found copyright violations in Wikimedia Commons and I submited SD. I've been active on Wikimedia Commons for a while and have imported some images from Flickr and uploaded some myself. For images imported from Flickr, I first consider whether the image is educational and check that the image is the original version, and if it is and the subject of the image is a building, I also check that the image is FoP compliant. If I am granted this permission, using Youtube as an example, I would first consider whether the image is educational or has been used on other projects, if yes, I would check that the image is from the corresponding video and check that the video is the original version, if yes, I would check that the video's licensing agreement is in place, and if yes, I would tend to mark the image as reviewed if it is not a building, and if it is a building, I would also will check if the image is FoP compliant. I have read through and understood the Wikimedia Commons Policies and translated some of the licensing related policies. If you have any further questions or concerns, you are welcome to ask and I would love to hear from you. Thank you for your time! --Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 17:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 17:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

 Questions by Alachuckthebuck: Thank you for vollenteering to become a License reviewer! Could you please explain the licensing policy in your own words, and how you would explain it to a new user who has uploaded a youtube video that is not released under a free license? How would you explain to a new user FOP how US/international copyright law interacts with commons? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: Thanks for your time!
1) A file may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons if, and only if, it meets the following requirements:
a) The file has been out of copyrighted by the passage of time and is in the public domain in both the source country and the United States;
b) The uploader or the author claimed by the uploader does own the copyright of the work (This requires further review, and I usually use TinEye and Google Image for this job.) and has been licenced under an eligible free copyright licence (For example, CC BY is great, but a commercially restricted licence such as CC BY SA-NC is not suitable.);
c) The file is not copyrighted under the law of the country of origin (this usually occurs when the file is an official government document).
At the same time, in cases where the uploader does give the source and author, but the source does not explicitly indicate release of the work into the public domain or provide a free copyright licence, it should be tacitly assumed that the file is copyrighted and legally protected as such, and the uploader should be required to provide proof that the work has been licensed in accordance with the licensing agreement it purports to have. (e.g. links to web pages or e-mails from original authors to VRT)
2) To the new comer:
Thank you for contributing to Wikimedia Commons! It's great to see that you've uploaded a file, however, I must point out that the file you've uploaded is probably not in compliance with our Licensing Policy.
The Licensing Policy of Wikimedia Commons requires that all files be in the public domain at the time of upload (which you can simply interpret to mean that the copyright has expired or that the work itself is not copyrightable under the law) or that the author has licensed them under a free copyright licence (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0).
However, in one of the files you uploaded, XXX.png, I did not find a corresponding licensing agreement in the corresponding Youtube video, which may mean that your uploaded content is still protected by copyright, and thus Wikimedia Commons cannot accept your uploaded file. However, if you are confident that the file is licensed under a free copyright licence, please let us know what makes you think so (one of the best ways to do this is to give us a link to a web page that contains the licence instructions), or you can request that the original author sends an email confirmation of the licence to our VRT volunteers, if you choose the latter option, please also see this page.
3) Freedom of Panorama means the freedom to take, use and distribute images of copyrighted works in public places (such as architecture, sculpture and other public art works) without the need to obtain permission from the copyright holder, to the extent permitted by law. You should note that the rules for the freedom of panorama may vary from country to country, and you will need to further check the copyright laws of your country according to the location of the building you are photographing. Most European countries have more relaxed rules regarding freedom of panorama (but be sure to check the laws of the country where the building is located, for example, France has more severe restrictions on freedom of panorama).
a) In the United States, for example, where there is no explicit FoP statute, copyright protection for architectural works relies on the duration of the copyright after its creation is complete. 17 USC 102(a)(8) and 17 USC 120(a) provide for the copyright of buildings and grant the right to paint or photograph buildings (including the interior spaces of buildings) in public places. This means that any building in the United States of America that was completed on or before 1 December 1990 is considered to have panoramic freedom, and you will not be in violation of U.S. copyright law if you take a photograph of such a building; For buildings completed on or after 1 December 1990, the building in the photograph is protected by copyright and you have the right to take and use the photograph itself, but three-dimensional reproduction of the building's design elements is not permitted. However, it is important to note that US copyright law does not allow people to photograph art and sculpture, which means that if you are photographing something that is art and sculpture, it should not normally be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons unless the works itself is out of copyright or the author (usually the creator rather than the owner) has given you permission to do so.
b) In Germany, for example, a work has freedom of panorama if the following conditions are met, if it has not been altered and if the source is clearly labelled:
i) The location where you took the photo is in a public place (i.e., it's not where the thing itself is, it's where you observed it);
ii) From the public's point of view, the item you are photographing has been planned to remain in a public place for a long (mostly indefinite) period of time.
Here are my answers, if you have any other concerns or questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. If there are any mistakes in my answer, please also point out the mistakes in my answer so that I can learn better, thank you. Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 01:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  this request is premature. because user has just begun editing in 4 november 2024. and only contributed in ~20 DRs. license reviewer right is really not important as it seems. i suggest you to just find copyvios and send them to nomination when you see them. through time you will decide when you should be LR. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 23:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your suggestion Modern primat, I am indeed doing this, but not all files are necessarily problematic and therefore I can't show you results quickly. In fact, I don't think it helps to reduce the backlog if I can't mark them as reviewed after I've looked at them, and it also makes me feel like I've been doing something useless, which reduces my motivation to do this work. Thus, I sincerely ask that you refer to my response above and reconsider your thoughts. Thank you. Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 01:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I see several requests, about 50, for speedy deletion on the grounds of copyright violations, but nearly all of them are from 3 and 4 December. So yeah, I think this is way too premature although these requests were correct. Bedivere (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
i believe file renaming is better than license review. you could apply at COM:RFR#Filemover. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 23:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, I will request that permission in the future if I do need it. I don't see a connection between that permission and reviewing files from Youtube though, could you please point that out? Thank you. Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 01:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
not connection between. but there is approx. 100k files that needs LR. and about %1 of them in the articles. but backlog of file renaming requests is about %25. i believe we need more users on this area. also need more users with diffrent languages. chiniese is one of them. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 11:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I got it, thanks for your suggestion again and I will learn about rename policy deeply recently. Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 13:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus for promotion at this time. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Di (they-them)

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Oppose There are way too much notices about copyright related (speedy) deletion requests, I checked the current talk page status and talk archive number 6. This is not compatible with the responsibilities of a license reviewer. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC) // Struck my vote for now. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Comment The vast majority of uploads that have been deleted are not recent and are from before I became a patroller. The most recent deleted upload of mine is from August, and that simply happened because I misunderstood Chinese freedom of panorama. I've been on Commons for so long that I have learned quite a lot about how it works. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (Disclaimer that I know Di off-wiki, but am only aware of this request because I'm subscribed to this page.)
    I'll give 'em a chance. I'll do the whole "would you accept or decline" thing later (if I don't get beat), but for now a simple question: @Di (they-them), would you review your own uploads? Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, I would not, that would be a conflict of interest. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like my questions aren't needed;  Support. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

 Questions by Alachuckthebuck Hello Di, Thank you for volunteering to become an LR, could you answer the following questions:

  • please explain the licensing policy in your own words, and to a new user, if different.
  • Someone uploads a photo from Jimmy Wale's Instagram with "internet=public domain", what do you do?
  • Please explain FOP:france in your own words, and how it interacts with US copyright.

All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  • As I understand it, Commons licensing policy means that we can only use files that allow free reproduction, modification, and commercial use. This means that we use Creative Commons licenses (but not the noncommercial or no-derivative versions), public domain content, and other licenses such as GNU Free Documentation (GFDL).
  • I would first check to see if Jimmy Wales's Instagram post makes any indication of the file being under a free license. If not, I would tag the file as a copyright violation. If the uploader does not understand, I would explain that not everything on the Internet is legally free to use, and that files must be explicitly released under a Commons-compatible license.
  • Freedom of Panorama is a type of law that allows the reproduction (such as photography) of copyrighted works in public spaces. Unfortunately, France does not have Freedom of Panorama, so photographs of copyrighted works in France cannot be uploaded to Commons. However, Commons can host photos of French works that are in the public domain in both France and the US (like the Arc de Triomphe), and de minimis may apply on a case-by-case basis.
Di (they-them) (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Please tell me what kind of signs on an upload would arouse your suspicion of having encountered a case of fraudulent licensing. I'd like to hear about at least two technical, image-related indicator and one uploader-related indicator. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
If an image was of unusually high quality or appeared to be a professional work, that may make me suspicious. If the file came from Flickr, for example, I would check the account that posted it to see if they were a professional photographer posting their own work or if it was just a repost. If the Commons user had uploaded the work as "own work", I would check their other uploads to see if they had other suspicious uploads. High-quality images uploaded by new users may also make me suspicious, especially if the upload log says "uploaded while editing Wikipedia", because those files oftentimes come from people trying to add images to a Wikipedia page without fully understanding Commons licensing guidelines. Additionally, a high-quality/studio photo of a notable figure or otherwise uncommon subject would likely also pique my suspicion. And of course, official artwork from video games or television is immediately suspicious because it is rare (but not unheard of) for developers to release their official art under a free license. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Your answer is a sound one. But please let me question you a bit more!
1) Imagine yourself as being busy in license reviewing. You encounter a series of uploads here that were sourced from a single CC-By licensed Flickr stream and show travel motifs. The Flickr user is not a professional photographer; the EXIF of 15 or more stills show a mixture of DSLR (let's say, a Nikon D7200 and a Canon EOS 450D), a compact camera (let's say, a Lumix FX700) a smartphone and some EXIF-less images. What could be your conclusions?
2) Again, you are busy license reviewing. You encounter a series of images of a celebrity that are apparently shot at some kind of convention, as the image background tells you. They are sometimes blurry or not well-lit, in any way, clear amateur shot. It's a mixture of JPEG and PGN, but always on a rather small side (something like 1280*720 pixel or a few at 1920*1080px for larger images, mostly have a few hundred pixel per side). What could be your conclusions? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
1) The mix of cameras would make me suspicious because people typically travel with one camera unless they are a professional photographer. Plus, it would be very odd for a non-professional to own a Nikon D7200 since they typically cost several hundred dollars.
2) The small sizes and mix of file types would make me suspicious because most phone cameras are of decent resolution and only produce JPGs (because they are photographic). The small sizes may indicate that the images have undergone compression from being reposted on the Internet a few times, and the inconsistent file types may indicate that some have been converted from their original source.
Di (they-them) (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The D7200 is actually a mid-range camera often used by dedicated photo enthusiasts, so the device is quite common. Professionals most often use Nikon or Canon DSLR that have a single-digit number (Nikon D3, Nikon D4, Canon EOS 1D Mark IV...) and a full-frame sensor, but that is not to say that enthusiasts aren't using them. Anyway, you're true in that a mixture of Nikon and Canon is atypical, because you're ending in something akin to a vendor lock-in with your choice of a camera mount, so it's either Canon or Nikon (on the other hand: my wife favours Nikon with her D7000 and I prefer Canon, using a EOS 70D, but still sometimes exchanging them among us). But, just FYI: a camera mix is a good reason to get suspicious, but sometimes, there are valid reasons for it (like upgrading equipment or simply renting the devices). While I wrote these questions, my case of File:Hotel du Golf Abidjan.jpg sourced from this stream was in the back of my head. I approved the licensing as it came clear after some parsing through his uploads that this "husseinabdallah" was involved in some academic circles, travelled to several countries and likely happened to use photographic equipment available at some university departments he visited. The EXIF were consistent during each batch of pictures, there was no wild switch of devices back-and-forth in-between.
On your second answer, you possibly failed to notice the (importance of the) pixel values, which are the values for typical current video resolutions (HD ready / 720p and Full HD / 1080p), so that would have been an indication of an extracted video frame or screenshot. But you still recognised the marks of possible COM:FLICKRWASHING. Thanks again and regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@Di (they-them), Those are some of the most in depth and difficult questions I've ever seen in an LR request, Great work! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Was it wrong to offer such a kind of challenge? :-/ In my opinion, the license reviewer crowd take on a very important task to preserve the integrity and quality of Commons. Hence, we should work with a sound thoroughness; that's why I created my questions in order to entice a thinking about what the job entails, as I see it. You've got to think about these matters (image sizes, used equipment, time sequences of image captures, shot locations, other EXIF characteristics...) after checking the licensing wording while working, don't you agree? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
No you weren’t, I was just complementing the nominee, I wasn’t trying to say anything about the questions other than their difficulty. They are really good questions. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Clear consensus All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sennecaster

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Questions by Grand-Duc (will try to invent some nice problems):
  1. An elder German tourist travels through Belgium and happens to shoot some Franco-Belgic comic frescos painted on building walls, e.g. Tintin motifs. He is fond of the Wikipedia ideals and tries every now and then to contribute. But as he is not really used to computers, barely able to send E-Mails with attachments, he gets into touch with a relative in the US and mails him his pictures. The relative, knowledgeable about computers, wants to upload these pictures to Commons and contacts the VRT. How would you respond and what help can you provide, if any?
  2. A heir that of a German veteran of WWII who died in the 1960s complains via VRT about the Commons hosting of images taken by his late relative. The uploader took them from some US armed forces site who claimed them as confiscated alien property. How would you respond to them?
N.B. Modern primat asked for some copyright related questions. So, I endeavoured to invent something that asks for some elaborations about the subject, even without clear-cut answers to be found. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Alright these won't require "some" elaboration. I didn't think it would be possible to face harder scrutiny than the enwiki RFA standard without running for steward but here we are.
1. is impossible to answer perfectly without seeing the actual substance, scenario, and ticket. Furthermore a VRT ticket would be responded to by multiple people and we frequently ask for assistance. You said that these are Franco-Belgian. We would establish that they were taken in Belgium first, because France has no FOP. If they were not, then deny permission with an explanation of FOP and why we have to decline. If in Belgium, great! I would probably, once actually figuring out that it's someone assisting with the uploads and being mad aware of the technological limitation, ask that person to have them physically mail the WMF with a statement of permission. Or, like a good VRT agent would do, ask for assistance in our multiple channels of communication to other agents.
2. Also impossible to answer to your satisfaction without an exact ticket. I also probably wouldn't handle this specific ticket because I'm not familiar with wartime copyright seizures by the US Armed Forces and would leave it to someone else to begin with. What is the nature of the complaint? Is it that the images are copyrighted, or improperly attributed? This is an edge case that I would absolutely not answer without opinions from other agents. It could be that copyright protection is not available and that we cannot take down the image under Commons copyright policy. However again, this may not be the right answer without knowing exact specifics of a ticket and I am extremely likely to ignore the ticket, ask for help, or flag it for a fellow agent to handle.
VRT is highly situational and it is extremely difficult and almost counterintuitive to give scenarios when we rely on extensive back and forth. I tried my best but don't sue me if something is wrong. We almost never solely rely on ourselves without reaching out for tricky cases; I've weighed in on tickets that some of the most experienced agents have asked for help with. Sennecaster (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Ups. Here I went again overboard with my ideas... Sorry. Well - I designed the first problem basically around the issue of the country of origin of a work. A German would be perfectly fine in uploading pictures taken abroad under FOP prerogatives. A relevant term would be Lex loci protectionis. German FOP is quite permissive, covering 3D, 2D and text, as long as these works are permanently placed publicly (permanently meaning for an indefinite duration of for the lifetime of the work. The latter limitation gets relevant when e.g. a snow sculpture or a graffiti is the subject of the case - both are usually covered). But: one could argue that the country of origin in my example case is NOT Germany, as the photographer did not publish his stills himself. Belgium and tThe US both do not have sufficient FOP for painted murals. On sites that aren't mostly oriented towards and visited by a local (German) clientele, the FOP claim may pose problems. //Modified, forgot that Belgium introduced FOP rules suitable for Commons (-> COM:FOP Belgium); while writing, I had images like this one in my mind. GD
The second problem is again designed for involving the relationships between US and foreign copyrights. In fact, there are a lot of WWII images that were seized by US forces and later uploaded on Commons that sport a tag warning about their usage in Wikipedia editions that do not rely on the PD-US statement. The heir in question could IMHO have asked for deletion, as the country of origin is invariably somewhere in continental Europe, where 70 years PMA is the norm, disregarding US confiscations. I got inspired to this question by the invocation of "URAA" in the nomination.
I'm sorry that I apparently came across like I wanted to grill you. My intention was to gauge your approach of complex tasks, so my "satisfaction" was not primarily to be gained by knowledge elaborations. You explained a way of carefully approaching a subject, hence:  Support. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I mostly work with FOP where country taken = country published, or if not then the underlying copyright and any copyright treaties would make it ineligible for Commons. URAA sucks. And it's alright, I just feel like these kinds of questions are "gotcha!"s from me stalking the license reviewer requests for about 2 years now. No harm, no foul, I was just surprised at how hard these questions were even in comparison to Di's. Sennecaster (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
im not expert at corresponding copyright rules. but i trust grand-duc.  Weak support. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 12:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. -- CptViraj (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Kakan spelar

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  1. There was recently a publicity event for some celebrity, a member of your peer group, who happens to both know about your hobby of participating in the Wikimedia universe and to be a fan of the celebrity, offers images from his social media stream for you to upload. What are the most important points to observe before any upload here? What question should you ask about those images?
  2. A tourist from abroad, let's say Germany or Austria, travelled in Sweden and shot some photos of models from the Sweden Solar System, including their explanatory signs. Are these acceptable for an upload here?
  3. Please explain the shorthand "70 years PMA" that you often encounter here in your own words.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc:
  1. The first thing would be to confirm that they took the picture and that they is the copyright owner. Second would be that they, either wrote on their social media page that they release the pictures under a license that's allowed on Commons, or that they contact VRT. Also depending where the pictures were taken, people could also have personality rights, but in this case, the pictures was taken at a publicity event where you would have no reasonable privacy.
  2. No, because information boards is seen as a work of literature and is not covered by Swedish FoP (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Sweden#Information_boards_and_maps). But if they wouldn't take pictures of the information boards and the models were in public, we would be able to accept the photos. Even though Swedish FoP is a mess and unclear, we do not remove pictures because of solely the court ruling the Swedish Supreme Court made to Wikimedia Sweden and their website offentligkonst.se in 2016 (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Sweden#Public_art).
  3. "70 years PMA" is how long copyright lasts in most countries in the world (including the US if it was published after 1977). It means that the copyright lasts author's life + 70 years. Some countries have more or less years. // Kakan spelar (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Good answers, Kakan spelar! But I still have an addendum for the third one: how do you calculate the exact date for a work to enter public domain? Please do this for Salvador Dalí, Thomas Mann and Astrid Lindgren while thinking about countries with 70 years PMA. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
With Salvador Dalí, let's say The Persistence of Memory, it will be in PD in the US in 2027. This is because the painting was released in 1931, when US copyright had a total of 95 years of protection from publication. But we can't upload it to Commons due to Spainish copyright law. In Spain, it will go out in the public domain in 2060, because they have author's life + 70 if the author died after December 7, 1987.
With Thomas Mann, and let's say Lotte in Weimar: The Beloved Returns, it will get into the PD in the US in 2035 because it was published in 1939 + 95 years. In Germany it will be PD in 2026, because Thomas Mann died in 1955 + 70 years.
Lastly, with Astrid Lindgren let's go with Pippi Longstocking. Her first book didn't get restored by URAA, but her three other was. This means that her three last books isn't in PD anymore. In Sweden, the copyrights will expire 2073, because she died in 2002. In the US, for an example, her second book, Pippi Goes on Board, will expire in 2042, because that's 95 years after publication. // Kakan spelar (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


Do anyone want to approve it? I see no problems, and I want to begin, I'm bored :D // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done no objections. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2024&oldid=1105233837"