Jump to content

Commons:License review/Requests/Archive/2025

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:License review | Requests | Archive
Latest comment: 21 days ago by Shaan Sengupta in topic Mateus2019

Earl of Gotland

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Not done - Insufficient editing experience. Closing to avoid the communities time being wasted further. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 18:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Earl of Gotland: -The decision seems understandable; the demeanour, however, gratuitous. WIshing you a good year. --Earl of Gotland (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@C1K98V: let's be a little nicer than that. Earl of Gotland, this permission is only given to those who have demonstrated experience with Commons' copyright policies, and meet the criteria for both autopatrol and patrol (since it includes those permissions). Therefore, we cannot grant you this permission at this time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs)
@Earl of Gotland: -Thank you, C1K98V. --Earl of Gotland (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Randompersonediting

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments4 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. --Contributor2020Talk to me here! 04:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Randompersonediting

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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

I’m ready to help ensure files meet licensing requirements and assist with updates or verifications as needed. Thank you,.--Randompersonediting (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Scheduled to end: 05:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

  •  Questions by Grand-Duc: Firstly, thank you for volunteering as helper in LR requests! I want to pose you a few questions and possible scenarios you may encounter in the LR queue, as you said that you have an understanding of our platform's licensing guidelines.
    1. Imagine you're going to work through our Youtube LR queue. A video got transferred, it's sourced from the YT channel of a small media outlet and shows a band rehearsal, complete with a soundcheck, on some regional band festival. Currently, the YT source does not show a free license, but there's a web archive link on the file page, offering similar information as the source entry on this file. While thinking about the file and this question here, you're enjoying some well-known rock tune played by the band in the video. What are the procedures you'll undertake for this file?
    2. Imagine that you passed a review on a Flickr file, legitimately licensed. Some weeks or months afterwards, the original uploader at Flickr contacts you and asks for the removal of the file, as it is currently not available under the Creative Commons license. What does the Creative Commons license and law say about such a situation? I do not need to hear about courtesy or whatever, only about contractual terms.
    3. Please tell me in your words what may be presumptive evidence of fraudulently or erroneously applied licenses at any given source that you may encounter while doing reviews. I'd like to hear about 3 or 4 factors, among them at least 2 related to technical data of the image you're looking at, you'd pay attention to.
Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
1.First, I'd check the "License" section on the YouTube video page to see if it's "Standard License" or "Creative Commons." If the video isn't available, I'll use the web archive link to find the original license information and see if it has changed since it was first posted.
2.Under the terms of the Creative Commons license, once content has been made available under a specific CC license, the permissions granted during that period remain in effect. Even if the uploader changes or revokes the license later, this does not affect the usage that occurred while the content was licensed under Creative Commons. Therefore, any use made while the file was under a Creative Commons license is still covered by that license.If the uploader revokes or change the license for future uses, but this does not affect past uses made under the original license.
3.When reviewing sources for potential fraudulently or erroneously applied licenses, there are several key factors I would focus on, especially related to technical data of images. Here are few points to look out for:
1.Inconsistent Metadata: If an image says it's free to use but the metadata shows a copyright or is missing license details, the license may be wrong.
2.Conflicting Usage: If an image marked "free for personal use" is used commercially, the license might be applied incorrectly or fraudulently.
  •  Neutral mostly good answers, but Creative commons licenses are irrevocable, so the uploader CAN'T revoke the license for any reason. (I'm also planning on closing this, barring any objections) All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
    No, you have to leave it open. Bedivere (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  • sadly,  Oppose. You've missed crucial information in your answers.
On this first question, you answered IMHO wrongly. Checking the basic license of any media is always only a first step and mostly never enough, thee are other factors to check. On videos especially, you will have to pay attention to the background (pertinent policies: COM:De minimis, COM:FOP) and to the acoustic content (pertinent: COM:DW). The question was construed in a way that you should have come to the conclusion: "License review failed", as the video would have been a derivative of the "well known rock tune". For instance, we cannot host fan-made videos of concerts, even if those happen to be CC-licensed on Youtube, as these are derivatives of the songs played.
On question 2, I wanted to hear: "Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable", but if you do not know that, it won't do harm to the integrity of our repository (as passing a fraudulent license would).
A few hints for answer 3: looking for metadata is a good thing. But often, licensors won't write usage conditions into the relevant IPTC fields. Instead, you should pay attention to the camera data! If the camera models on a Flickr stream are a total hodgepodge, switching between point-and-shoot devices, (semi-)pro DSLR and EVIL devices, especially if the makers are also all over the place, then that's a telltale sign of COM:NETCOPYVIO on the stream and COM:LL. Also, the absence of EXIF on JPEG and a small image size would warrant a thorough scrutiny.
I could support your candidacy in the future when there's evidence of a better grasp on the subject of copyrights. You could demonstrate that by perusing our collection, e.g. the recent uploads, to hunt for copyvios, as this kind of work is related to doing license reviews. Regards, (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to promote. Submitting another request after just 30 days is unlikely to yield a different outcome and is a waste of the community’s time. This includes contributors like Grand-Duc, who dedicated significant effort to formulating both questions and answers to evaluate your readiness. It would be more productive to focus on addressing the concerns raised before reapplying. --Contributor2020Talk to me here! 10:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Iming

Latest comment: 10 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  • Let me put up the question Chuck asked in the last request and my answer.
Chuck asked:
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?
My answer:
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.

Thank you. Yours sincerely, Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 17:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks for answering the questions. I do have to point out my name is chuck, not chunk. I also have one additional question: could someone upload a photo of the eiffel tower at night, and why? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Ahhh! I sincerely apologize for my clerical error, which may have been caused by the fact that I was so tired last night. My answer to the question is that it needs to be a case-by-case basis, there is nothing wrong with the Eiffel Tower itself, but if there is something like a light show at night or something like that, I'd say no, because past cases have shown that a light show is likely to bring in new copyrights and no FoP in France. But this doesn't apply to ordinary light though, and multiple DRs confirmed the universality of this at Wikimedia Commons. My English is not particularly good, so if you find anything strange, please let me know. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 03:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I grabbed 10 files more or less at random out of our queues, in order to have enough for when you're actually looking at this task. I hope that you can do at least 5 simulated reviews (but: the more the better!). If one of these files get a review before you're on it, then pass to the next one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
although he didnt answered this reply yet, i still give him a  Weak support. because he became filemover(i suggested it for him) and this shows he is persistent about contributing to commons. i hope he knows enough about copyright situations, good luck. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 14:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc Thank you for your question, I noticed that many of the files have been reviewed, so I'm sending out five of them first for you to check.
  • File:Red suit anime girl.png - Pass. Reason: 1) The file was uploaded earlier than 9 January 2019. 2) I searched for the image using Google Images, and while I found a lot of the same content, they were all later than when the file was uploaded to Pixabay. 3) I searched for the image and confirmed that the subject of the image is not a character in any copyrighted work and is not a derivative work or reproduction.
  • File:Buddha statue 525883.jpg - I tend to delete. Reason: 1) The subject of this image is a wooden carving of the Buddha, which is usually copyrighted by the carver. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Art_(copies_of) 2) The location and whether it is often located in a public place is unknown, which makes FoP checks impossible. In summary, for the precautionary principle and a response from the Intellectual Property Office, Taiwan, I tend to delete it.
  • File:Sea fish.png - Pass, the reason is same to the first one.
  • File:IMAG0339 - Flickr - Papinou49 26.jpg - I tend to pass. Reason: 1) The background of the image should be natural and there are no elements that may be copyrighted, or that can be processed under De minimis. 2) After searching Google Image and Baidu, there are no relevant results. 3) Although the equipment is difficult to confirm because it was actually taken so far back in time, the former reason makes up for it nicely. 4) Based on a community discussion, the PDM was able to be used in this case, but the template needed to be replaced. 5) The only point that gives me some doubts is that the source location is still uncertain, which makes me unsure if PDM can be used in the source country or not, and I would like to ask for your help, which will help me to understand further.
  • File:2024 ATL vs KC Patrick Mahomes.png - Pass. Reason: 1) The corresponding image was found in that video and the video is indeed licensed under CC BY. 2) I searched for that image and took some random video clips to search for and there were no relevant matches. 3) Based on the former reason, the content and presentation of the video, and the verified identity of the ins account which the Youtube account is connected to, I think it's safe to assume that the publisher does own the copyright. 4) After a simple check, no other potentially copyrighted elements were found in the image, or it could be processed under De minimis.
Any comments you have will help me, thank you! :)
Yours sincerely, Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 16:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done The answers were convincing, the support visible. The request was successful. Grand-Duc (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hehua

Latest comment: 10 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  questions by Alachuckthebuck:Hello, and thank you for volenteering! Could you please answer the following questions:

  • How would explain the concept of De minimis and how it varies by country?
  • How you would explain De minimis to a new user (if diffrent from your prior answer).
  • What's one (non-trivial) mistake you have made on commons, and what did you learn from it?

Thanks for taking the time to answer! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 01:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Here are my answers:
  1. The use of a copyrighted work is deemed de minimis if it is incidental, insignificant, or an unavoidable part of the subject but is not essential to the subject or obscuring that portion will not affect what the file is intended to convey. For example, a small, blurry logo in the background of a photograph may be considered de minimis. Cropping the de minimis file should be copyrighted. In many countries, if the use of the file is incidental and not intentional, or a technical infringement is too trivial, it is not a copyright infringement. However, in Peru, there is only a subtle mention of "de minimis" in the law. In Sweden, there are restrictions: People on a scene with decorations in the background and thumbnail-sized photos on a screenshot are copyvio.
  2. Hello, xxx. Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. I am here to tell you that there is a policy in Commons named de minimis. It explains that a file does not infringe copyright if it contains only a minimal use of copyrighted content that is unrecognizable or is not the subject matter described, and that obscuring that portion would not affect what the file is intended to convey. So you can feel free to upload such files. However, please also note that you should not crop the copyrighted part from the whole file. Please also see Commons:De minimis. Thank you!
  3. I made some mistakes with Panorama Freedom when I only checked that the file was published under a freedom agreement but did not check that the content of the image was protected by Panorama Freedom. For example, in China, 2D pictures are not panorama-free, and in some countries, buildings do not qualify for panorama freedom. Now, for similar images, I will check the panorama freedom guidelines of the relevant country to judge. Another time, the website only said, "The text on this site is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0", not the image, and I transferred it to Creative Commons without checking it carefully. Although the original author later added the license for the image, it reminds me to pay more attention to the copyright notice on web pages and not to be careless.
That is all. Thank you!--Hehua (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I'm planning on being the one to close this request, but am keeping this open until other LRs can take a look. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
there is no support or opposition. The time "scheduled to end" is not necessarily mandatory. Let's keep it open until there are some two comments at least. Bedivere (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  1. What's the basic difference between the minimum protection length to be granted under the Berne Convention and the "standard" duration of copyright protection in the European Union?
  2. Would you pass the review of an image that is already widely used as meme on social networks and reported on in mass media? Imagine it sourced from Twitter/X according to the uploader, but also available in several Flickr streams, sometimes as "all rights reserved", sometimes under Creative Commons.
  3. Imagine the following case: A Commons contributor has a stack of, let's say, around 30-50 photographs uploaded already that were also published on Flickr and hence subject to a (successful) review. There was always a name written into the EXIF (like I do it on my own images, example). A new upload from the same account happens to end in the LR queue, but this time, the name in the EXIF differs. It's the same gender, though. How would you react? Pass the review or not?
Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Here are the answers:
  1. The Berne Convention mandates a minimum of the author's life plus 50 years; the European Union extends this protection to the author's life plus 70 years.
  2. In that case, we should find the original creator of the picture and see whether he used a free license. If he used "all rights reserved" or did not provide any copyright information, then  Not OK. If the original creator offers a free license or sends it to VRT, then OK.
  3. In that case, I will approach the review with caution. I will check the EXIF data thoroughly. Ensure that the name discrepancy isn't a simple error or mislabeling. Then, I will compare the new photograph with the previous uploads. If the style, quality, and content align, the new name could still belong to the same photographer. If not, I will search for the new name to see if it's associated with the original photographer or if there are other contributors with that name. If the above actions do not produce a result, I will contact the uploader for more information to decide whether to pass or not.
Thank you!--Hehua (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
On the second question, I would have rather expected a  Not OK answer in any case. Memes stylistically similar to Lolcats, Disaster Girl or Pepe the Frog are most often without any known original creator, so there's nobody able to send a permission to VRT. The thing about Flickr was there to mislead you, because any Flickr uploader would face the same challenge as you as reviewer (and most often not care about IP rights). But you managed to somewhat avoid the pitfall with your answer component of "original creator".
The third question is also a situation where, without any other information, a  Not OK would be in order. Contacting the uploader to make him send a permission to VRT is mandatory, as it is likely that he uploaded a photograph that some person related to him took. Observations of style, technical quality and so on are useful as evidence in determining a continuity in someone's photostream, but, as EXIF name fields mandate a conscious decision to fill them, they are a quite strong evidence, bettering any stylistic analysis.
I've got the feeling that you're embroiling yourself in observing data that are not really pertinent to licensing questions. But you still manage to also get important points. That would sum up to a  Weak support from me.
Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
OK, thank you for your explanations. They will help a lot for me. Hehua (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done Due to the fact that this is approaching the length of an RFA due to limited participation, I'm closing this as limited consensus to support granting LR at this time, with good answers to questions posed by both me and Grand-Duc. Any admin may undo my close in a reasonable timeframe without notifying me. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Storye book

Latest comment: 9 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  • Thank you both for responding, and for reviewing the cropped image. That is much appreciated, because the cropped version's validity is important for the DYK process. I should add my apologies for not realising that an adaptation of a Flickr image which has already been reviewed cannot be re-reviewed by the uploader. Of course I understand that the original upload (the first image linked above) has to be reviewed by someone else, but I was not asking to do that one. So thank you for the additional information. Storye book (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I see no consensus to promote at this time All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Nemoralis

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Questions by Alachuckthebuck Hello and thank you for vollenteering! Please answer the following questions:

  • Please explain the Licensing policy in your own words, and how you explain it to a new user (if different)
  • Why might the Wiki Loves Monuments photo campaign be problematic in the US?
  • Please explain why you can't take photos of the Louvre Museum pyramid at night.

Thanks for taking the time to answer! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  • The Licensing policy ensures that all uploaded media is properly licensed, allowing others to use it while respecting the rights of the original creators. I would explain to a new user that the this policy means they need to make sure any media they upload can be freely used by others. This involves choosing the right license, giving credit to the original creator, and ensuring they have permission to share the content.
  • In the US, you can freely take photos of buildings, but copyrighted artworks and sculptures are restricted. You can photograph permanently installed artworks if they were installed before 1926 or before 1978 without a copyright notice: COM:FOP US and WLM 2024 in US.
  • You can't take photos of the Louvre Museum pyramid at night because the architect has copyright over images of the pyramid, including those with its lighting. This means that taking pictures of the pyramid when it is lit could violate the architect's rights: COM:FRANCE
Nemoralis (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
 Follow up question from Alachuckthebuck
Can you please elaborate on the licensing policy, and why I can't upload photos from the internet to commons and just say "credit to orginal author"?
Regarding FOP France, What factors are at play when determining FOP in France?
All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Because not every file on the internet is released under a free license. The results in Google are not free files, but files indexed from various sites, regardless of copyright.
  • Whether the artwork, such as buildings or sculptures, is permanently located in public spaces and if the reproduction is done by individuals for non-commercial purposes.
Nemoralis (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
cc @Alachuckthebuck Queen of Hearts (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. While Chuck hasn't edited in two days, it's been five days, there are two supports, and the answers look fine to me. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

DontCallMeLateForDinner

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

Would you pass screenshots of these YouTube videos at the specified time

YouTube: "Mount Pleasant lost 2 goals to 1 against Harbour View in match week 22 of JPL (Time: 2m40s)

YouTube: "MultiVersus – Official Cinematic Trailer - "You're with Me!"" (Time: 2m07s)

YouTube: "FULL EPISODE: Can Timmy Escape A Video Game World?! (Time: 7m10s)

YouTube: "The FIRST Ever Episode of The Fairly OddParents 🧚‍♀️ in 5 Minutes! (Time: 1m05s)

YouTube: "Denzil Smith EXCLUSIVE: Life as Trinidad & Tobago’s No. 1 Goalkeeper!" (Time: 4m01s)  REAL 💬 ⬆   00:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Not done 1 oppose and no response to questions. --Bedivere (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Incall

Latest comment: 7 months ago13 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Question How would you explain the licensing policy to a new user? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In simple terms. Commons only accepts freely licensed or public domain content. That means any file must be under a license that allows anyone to use, share, and modify it, as long as proper attribution is given. Common licenses include Creative Commons (e.g. CC BY or CC BY-SA). Incall talk 20:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on FOP? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama is a copyright exception that allows people to take and publish photos of buildings, sculptures, and artworks that are permanently located in public spaces without violating copyright laws. However, the scope of FOP varies significantly from country to country.
Examples: Europe
1) France — Limited Freedom of Panorama (France does not have full Freedom of Panorama. While taking photos of buildings in public spaces is allowed, publishing photos of copyrighted works considered a copyright infringement.)
2) Germany — Full Freedom of Panorama (In Germany, Freedom of Panorama is fully recognized. (You can take and publish photos of buildings, sculptures, and monuments located in public spaces.)
Examples: Central Asia (my region)
3) Tajikistan — Not ok (Although publishing photos of monuments and buildings in Tajikistan on Commons is prohibited, an image may be allowed if the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the photograph.)
4) Uzbekistan — Not ok (Same as above.) Incall talk 05:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question by Grand-Duc: please imagine yourself busy with YouTube video reviews. You come across educational material that fully exploits the opportunities given by the media format: acting humans, animations, subtitles and music. What do you need to verify to be able to say that the given Creative Commons license was legitimately applied to the file? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
    When reviewing a YouTube educational video claiming a Creative Commons license, I must verify that the uploader holds the rights to all components: video footage, music, animations, and subtitles. If third-party content is used, it must be under a compatible license or properly cleared. Proper attribution must be given, including the original author, license type, and source. The license should be clearly stated in the video or description. Finally, I check that no content (e. g. trademarks, personal likenesses and trade secret) outside copyright scope is improperly included under the CC license. Incall talk 05:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
The request was successful, support (and correct answers) evident. I just granted the user rights. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC),

L'Ospite Inatteso

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Comments

@L'Ospite Inatteso:  Not promoted per above. The user group that you are looking for is autopatroller. While the license reviewer group includes all the autopatroller rights, the LR group is for different purpose. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Tvpuppy

Latest comment: 7 months ago8 comments8 people in discussion

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

Comments

✓ Done Clear consensus. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Agent VII

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

@Modern primat: the user is yet to make rename requests. What prompted you to suggest Filemover? Autopatrol is what they can go for right now. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
i just advised bro, with the good work 👍🥰 modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 08:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to promote at this time, but the user is encouraged to make rename requests and apply for Autopatroll at com:RFR. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 02:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Lemonaka

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments 

Successful application, rights granted. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

@Grand-Duc: This one definitely should have been left open for more time given that there was only one support and it was a weak one. Not that I oppose the right being granted but just a note for future closures. Also please make sure to notify an admin in cases like this, if you still wish to proceed and grant the right, since you left them with redundant rights and still needed administrator action, making double work. Thanks. --Bedivere (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Elphie

Latest comment: 4 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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

  • Elphie (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: Hello and thank you for considering my application. I would like to add more value to the project by handling license reviews. Before I tell you why I'm a good candidate to consider I would like to state that I've been active as a Wikipedia editor for years and only recently decided to register an account. It may seem like I'm not experienced with the various projects but that is just because of the factual account age. Please keep this in mind. So for my request: someone tipped me that there is quite work to do on Commons. I'd like to offer my knowledge and some of my free time to go through YouTube videos review needed and review if YouTube indeed shows the right license on the video, the video description shows the right license and/or the video contains a visual license i.e. at the end of the video. I know which licenses are accepted on Commons since I have experience with the Creative Commons licenses from an earlier job and my work on Wikipedia over the years. If someone wants to trial my knowledge feel free to shoot me a message or comment on my request. I hope you have a good day, --Elphie (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 20:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

  •  Questions by Grand-Duc, in the light of your low actual edit count with your account (just over 1000 on NL-WP and a few here):
    • Please explain in your words the authorship / copyright principle of "Country of origin" of a work while observing its relationship with our guidelines like COM:CRT, and why it can be relevant for license reviewing work.
    • You said that you want to tackle Youtube reviews. You've got a "complete" YT clip that makes use of all the opportunities of the medium (moving images, stills, sound, music, text shown on screen) in your review queue. Please describe your checking process, paying particular attention to mention what and why you're checking! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello Grand-Duc, thank you for your questions. The country of origin is the place where a work was first published, or if it wasn’t published, the country of the creator. This matters because copyright terms and rules can differ from country to country. On Commons (per COM:CRT), a file must be free both in the country of origin and in the US since the servers are hosted there. For license reviewing this is relevant because a file that is public domain in one country might still be under copyright in another, and we have to check that both conditions are met before the file can be accepted. Although this is not the first most relevant thing in the particular field of work I would like to be active in, I understand it is important to check my knowledge about this for this role.
When reviewing a YouTube video I would first check whether the uploader is the actual rights holder or an official channel. This is important because licenses are only valid if granted by the copyright holder. After that I would verify the license, like mentioned in my request I would check a few places (license as stated by YouTube but also the video description and the credits at the ending of the video) to see if there is a mention of a license and if so I would check if the license is compatible with Commons. Continuing with checking if any copyrighted elements are used in the video like music (this is often at first glance easy to see on YouTube because the music will be pinned under the video description)[1], (parts of other) videos like tv-shows and movies (sometimes pinned by YouTube in the same way as unlicensed music) or other visual content that has not been released under a compatible license. Finally I would compare whether the license information on YouTube and Commons matches. Only if everything is consistent and compatible I would mark the check as completed.
  1. ↑ This statement is a bit more complicated than stated but to keep an overview I did not put the full explanation there. Music is pinned under the video description when the music is found by the Content ID system and has been flagged as not licensed. It could still be possible that the music is licensed by the uploader and the Content ID claim has been cleared. This means the music will not be pinned. This also does not necessarily mean that the uploader has a license for more platforms than just YouTube.
Elphie (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
For the Youtube answer, you get a passing mark: you addressed the points of interest that have to be observed. The Country of origin thing is a bit meddled, at least, what is written seems to be incomplete.
While you reproduced the content of Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, you overlooked the fact that you will often encounter derivatives of possibly protected works: as license reviewer, you're bound to encounter Flickr-sourced (or from similar hosting services) images where one has to check for COM:FOP compliance. We'll consider where the depicted work is situated to gauge whether there's a FOP violation (this is different from some Wikipedia's practice, as e.g. we Germans are happy to accept locally images that are unfit for Commons but fine under the stipulations of German FOP). The relevant rule is the Lex loci protectionis, for reference also in German: de:Schutzlandprinzip#Schutzlandprinzip und Internet. BTW, this is also relevant for YT reviews, as the clips are also produced around the world.
Let me challenge you with a two more questions:
  • please explain to us how you would deal with a Youtube video depicting a toddler playing on a shoreside in wet clothes. There's no music or artworks seen in the clip, only nearly unintelligible background chatter and noises like screeching gulls. The licensing seems valid, the quality is decent, better than the average mobile phone-made stuff.
  • please explain how you would deal with a video sourced from a (fictional for the purpose of this thought experiment) site similar to en:LiveLeak or en:Best Gore, let's call it ACME-red. This site has a sitewide license statement, e.g. {{CC-by-3.0}}. You get to review a clip from ACME-red depicting the shooting of some captured Saudi fighter pilots in or around en:Taiz, seemingly taken by a Houthi militant. The pilots are clearly recognisable, the shooting effects evident and the depicted dealing with the corpses is similar or more gruesome to what was done to American soldiers 1993 in Mogadishu.
These questions are built to get an elaboration encompassing several relevant guidelines and most likely won't have a black-and-white, / true-or-false answer. I hope to read something from you where I and others can gauge your readiness for the review work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I have a good understanding of what the scope of Commons is and what Commons is not. I think it is everyone’s duty to act on the examples or 'thought experiments' you shared, not necessarily more or less the duty of a license reviewer. However, I understand you want to test my knowledge. For the bad joke of the year award: I would use Common(s) sense during my work and be alert especially on material that is unethical and not meant for educational purposes or another scope of Commons.
  • In the first example – without more knowledge than you gave me – I would want that file to be deleted (so I would nominate it for deletion) because it serves no clear purpose, falls outside COM:SCOPE and could raise privacy concerns under COM:PEOPLE especially given the depiction of a child in a vulnerable context.
  • In the second example, even if the claimed license is {{CC-BY-3.0}}, I would question whether the uploader or site actually holds the rights (see COM:PRP). It happens more than often that people blamelessly reupload content to sites like Reddit and Twitter. If those sites would have such sitewide license agreements the situation would be the same. I would not be in the position to know if the content was released under a free license by the actual rights holder or just a random teenager with WiFi. The highly graphic nature of the content, the identifiability of the individuals, and the potential for it to cause harm would also raise serious concerns. In such a case, I would mark the file for deletion regardless of the claimed license. I would also check the applicable copyright term and freedom of panorama situation for Yemen, although in this case the content and rights holder doubts would likely outweigh any benefit from a favorable copyright status.
Any more questions? Elphie (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for these answers. In my opinion, you displayed an good ability to judge cases and a careful, well thought out approach in dealing with matters relevant to license reviewers. I do not have more questions.
That said, I'd like to see at least one more person offering their opinion, as I'm too much engaged already to close this candidacy. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Totally fair that you would like someone else to make the final decision. I would have the same wish if I were you, so no worries. Thanks for your honesty and the time you invested in my request. Elphie (they/them) (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support answers are Great. Can be trusted with the tools. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

DoctorWhoFan91

Latest comment: 4 months ago18 comments8 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Comment IMHO, it looks like the user is on a hat-collecting spree. Autopatrol in April, Patrol in June, File Mover in July & now LR request in August. That's one flag every month if we skip May (FM filed in May). And if we see the usage of these flags, its just 7 patrols & 3 File moves since they were granted these rights. I am not a fan of this approach, I may vote (either neutral or oppose) as this discussion progresses and we go into licensing knowledge related stuff. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
    • I'm in fact requesting rights as I learn more about Commons- it's kinda rude to describe it as hat-collecting though, as I do edit Commons, and don't wave my rights around, as hat-collectors usually do. As for the flag usage, patrol is used sporadically on commons bcs that's how commons is built, and I have only been back being active on Commons for 2-3 days since FM was granted to me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
      @DoctorWhoFan91 its not about being rude but stating a fact. No thumb rule, but one right per month is exactly what we call hat-collecting. Regarding you saying patrol is used sporadically on commons bcs that's how commons is built, I would contradict that. If you go to the recent changes page, you would find 100s of edit per minute that need patrolling. Rest things are self understood. And I wish that this isn't dragged unless necessary. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk 04:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
      Usually someone requesting rights they are gonna use is not called "hat-collecting". You misunderstood what I said- I said patrol right isn't used on commons much because it doesn't really change anything, unlike say on en wp; hence the right in practice is insignificant. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
      I'm sorry but that is not true. The patrol rights on Commons especially have more impact compared to other projects because changes and new files on Commons have impact on all other projects. If the rights were less important they would be granted automatically, like on (some) other projects. Elphie (they/them) (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
      Since you clearly don't know what patrol is for and how important it is for this project, I am compelled to bring this to the notice of @Abzeronow @Bedivere: who granted you this right. Since you think (as you said) the right in practice is insignificant and doesn't really change anything, this might need to be reconsidered. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
      Since you clearly can't understand context, perhaps I should bring you to WP:ANU for this and your previous rudeness. I said patrolling isn't usually done with the patrol right on Commons, which can be evidently seen from how low the patrol log count is-less than 100 patrols mostly for any 24 hour period; which is extra low when compared with the number of pages on Commons every day.
      If you actually took the time to check my RFR for patrol instead of unnecessarily pinging an admin, perhaps you would see that I requested it for its other uses (btw, you also pinged the wrong admin). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Shaan. --Bedivere (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per above. Shaan SenguptaTalk 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, and maybe even remove the patrol flag. The rhythm and speed of requesting of rights give me an eerie feeling about the intentions behind. And seen as it's likely that the right to view IP behind temporary accounts will be tied to LR and patrol, candidates for those rights should make a much better case on why they want and request them (he admits it himself: the candidate doesn't really make use of this right "patrol"). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    I'm gonna take you to WP:ANU- SS was most likely being rude unintentionally, but you're actually accusing me of such awful stuff. It's "she", mr. rude editor. I do use the patrol right- I just don't mark edits as patrolled bcs most patrollers don't- can you explain why the number of patrolled edits are so low as compared to the number of edits, if marking things as patrolled is so significant? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    @DoctorWhoFan91: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of any previous indication of your gender, there's nothing on your user page in that regard. Statistically, most contributors are male, and the substantive "Fan" in German (my mother tongue) is male (when speaking about its genus), so I think that this misunderstanding was nearly unavoidable.
    Then, speaking about rude: mind avoiding that abbreviation "SS" when speaking about other people? It's historically loaded beyond measure and is IMHO only suitable when speaking about steam-powered ships or the Schutzstaffel itself.
    Then, it's not about the number of patrolling actions, but about the general impression you gave, per the comment 17:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC) above. Please tell me where I accused you of awful stuff - I think that you're currently trying to do things too fast, not that you're unsuitable for LR or patrolling or similar positions of trust in the future. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    It's not nearly avoidable- you can learn to type the language better given how much you type in it.
    How do I give that impression, just bcs someone said so? What awful stuff you said? "The rhythm and speed of requesting of rights give me an eerie feeling about the intentions behind."- I'm so evil/weird/whatever for asking for rights to help out more on Commons? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now. Patroller right also grants one the ability to allow a file to be overwritten by others so it is an important right. I'd consider voting differently in six months though. Abzeronow (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, Abzeronow. That's what I have been trying to tell people, but no, if one is doing what basically every patroller is doing, she should still get her right taken away, because everyone can't be bothered to see how patrolling works for most people on Commons. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  •  Not done: Apparently no consensus at the moment. Please don't get disheartened. Come back later when you have demonstrated the knowledge and the requirement. signed, Aafi (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Oesterreicher12

Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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

I would appreciate your trust! Best regards,--Oesterreicher12 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Scheduled to end: 17:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

  1. Imagine yourself a license reviewer already - please describe your hypothetical workflow for reviewing a set of Flickr images from a single source. Apart from the basic license statement (assume it's a CC-By 2.0 or 4.0!), what signs do you imagine could be telltale of a potential license laundering?
  2. Imagine a CC-By licensed file sourced from a Flickr account operated by a French national and depicting a Belgian Bande dessinée mural, like this one. Would you pass the review or do something else? Please explain.
  3. Please summarize some differences between European COM:FOP legislations, use Germany, Austria and a Scandinavian country of your choice for that.

(If you happen to need a translation to German, ping me, I can reword the questions then). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Grand-Duc: , thank you for your questions.
  1. In a review process, I would ask myself the following questions before coming to a decision: Does the license specified on Flickr match the one on Commons, and is it compatible with our guidelines? Could the license also be correct? Scans from magazines or screenshots, television images are suspicious. Is, if necessary, freedom of panorama for this country given? Does the author specified on Commons match the one on Flickr? Is a correct source (link) provided? Has the uploader already attracted negative attention? (Deletlog, Com:QFI) Is there license laundering? An “inexperienced” user on Flickr who has uploaded a high-quality photo, e.g., of a celebrity, is suspicious to me. Were many/all photos uploaded to Flickr within a short period of time? I could, for example, use Google reverse image search to find the original source, or check whether the image was uploaded elsewhere on the internet at an earlier date than on Flickr. The metadata/Exif can also help me. Finally, I would select a suitable template from “Help:Flickr review templates” for the image or, if necessary, propose it for deletion.
  2. Three copyrights would be relevant for this image: Belgium, France (if the image was uploaded in France), and the US (server location/Commons). In Belgium, works created from 2016 onwards are subject to freedom of panorama. Even though there is no general freedom of panorama in France and the USA, I would release the image in accordance with common practice in Commons (see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law). In addition, it would be necessary to check whether the figure depicted is protected in itself. Even if I draw a protected figure (e.g., from a video game) myself, I am violating copyright law. Since this is not the case, in my opinion, I would pass the image.
  3. It should be noted that the regulations governing freedom of panorama vary greatly from country to country. It is important to read up on the exact details before each case. Germany: In Germany, works that remain in public spaces are permitted, but only the exterior view of buildings. In addition, the work must be visible from public property without the use of special aids (drones, helicopters, etc.) ("Fußgängerperspektive"). Austria: Similar to the German regulations, with the difference that public interior shots may also be permitted and, unlike in Germany, the shot does not necessarily have to be taken from public property. Norway: Here, complete freedom of panorama applies only to buildings. This means that a statue or work of art is not automatically covered by freedom of panorama, as this is only permitted in Norway for non-commercial purposes, and this regulation is therefore incompatible with a Commons-compatible license. Oesterreicher12 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello Oesterreicher12, your answers basically look good. But let me give a bit of a feedback. :-)
  1. Your workflow description is sound, if you keep these standards up, then there won't be qualms in having you as reviewer. But please keep in mind that EXIF data are a helpful tool in spotting inconsistencies among a Flickr stream - you wrote only little about them. Most license launderers don't pay attention to them, so you often see a hodgepodge of cameras, from basic point-and-shoot devices to a selection of several smartphone makers to DSLR or mirrorless cameras. It's especially noteworthy when these devices came from several, incompatible makers (unlikely that a photographer will switch between Sony, Canon and Olympus, for instance).
  2. Spot on. Your deliberation is good.
  3. Apart from that you missed the small detail that German FOP allows the copying of permanently and publicly displayed artworks and not only of buildings (cf. the example of the Aida Kussmund on COM:FOP Germany), your answer shows that you're going to pay attention to such intricacies as FOP regulations.
I'm going for a  Support of your application. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done --Seawolf35 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Takipoint123

Latest comment: 4 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

Hello, Thanks for offering to help with the backlog. Would you mind to answer some common questions, you may face as a LR:

  1. A Flickr file is marked as CC BY 2.0, but the author’s profile says All rights reserved in the bio section. Which statement controls the license?
  2. A photo was first published on Instagram without any license, but later the same creator uploads it on Flickr under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Can we accept it?
  3. If a license says non-commercial use only, but the uploader insists Wikipedia is non-commercial, should the file be approved?
  4. A user uploads a government photo from the U.S. but the metadata shows it was taken by a private contractor. Is it automatically public domain?
  5. Suppose an uploader claims own work, but you find the same image on Getty Images. What should you do before rejecting it?
  6. If a file is under CC BY-SA-3.0 but the author’s webpage requires additional conditions (like must inform me before reuse), is that license valid here?
  7. An uploader changes the license of their photo on Flickr after it was imported here. Which version should be trusted, and why?
  8. A file on Commons says This work is in the public domain because the author died in 1945, but the country of origin has 80 years p.m.a. copyright. (Approve or decline?) 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 06:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
@Taniruzzaman: Hope I don't mess this up
  1. In this case, for this specific image only, I'd say the CC-BY 2.0 license prevails. Image authors can choose to apply a given license to any image they want; a blanket statement in their bio doesn't revoke a CC-BY 2.0 license (in fact, they are irrevocable once granted).
  2. Similar to the top question, an author can later decide to release an image with a CC license when they please. Ideally it would be preferred to ask them to change their description on the original Instagram page. Otherwise, I would check is if the creator is indeed the same as Instagram. It would be OK to upload if there are telltale signs that it has been uploaded by the original creator, such as the image being high quality with with EXIF data. I would also probably check the creator/copyright holder field to match the Flickr account. It would also help if both accounts have the same username, have links that lead to each other, etc.
  3. No. This falls into fair use category, which may be uploaded locally on a given Wikipedia project which allows for fair use. Commons strictly adheres to our principle of hosting free files only (Commons:Licensing).
  4. It is definitely not automatic. Sometimes, copyright might simply be assigned to the US Federal Government, and the US government may not completely own it. Generally, contractors can assert copyright to works commissioned by the US Federal Government.
  5. Bit less confident with this one, sorry. I would think the most important part would be to make sure the person isn't the creator/does not have permission to release the original file at Getty Images. If they are the creator or have permission from the author they can release it through the VRT system. Getty can be a bit of a pain because they try to revoke licenses that authors make on their own sometimes.
  6. Generally yes, the CC license only dictates the use terms of the picture, it doesn't mean that the author waived all rights. The original author could request additional terms such as requesting a reminder that they are reusing the image, enforce a certain way of attribution, ask that modifications not be made on their Commons file, not be used on social media etc. I could see files like 1, 2 too.
  7. The previous version, if recorded by a license reviewer, should be trusted. As stated before, Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. The user couldn't change it on a whim.
  8. It is PD in the source country, but we'd have to check it's US copyright status and publication date. Before 1930, copyright expired in the US. If it was never published in the US, for files uploaded between 1930 through 1977 we give 95 years after publication if it was not public domain as of the URAA cutoff.
Think that's all! Thanks for putting time in your questions. --Takipoint123 (💬) 07:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Actually, I prepared quite a few questions in advance, to ask them according to the applicant's experience. I hope you don’t mind the number of questions I asked! I realize that it might have led us off track sometimes, and I appreciate your patience. Here's my feedback:
1. Correct [OK] (You nailed it)
2. Correct [OK] (But you don’t need to ask to change the description on Instagram, license on flickr is enough if account is verified)
3. Correct [OK] but partially wrong, NC is still a copyright license but it’s not free. Fair use is a legal doctrine, not a license. But this answer is ok[OK] for me.
4. Correct[OK]
5. You missed the important piece: finding an image on Getty does not itself prove copyright infringement, Getty licenses from third parties. So you should have emphasized investigate more deeply before rejecting. But you're on point by mentioning VRT permissions. So, I'd say it's Correct [OK] for me.
6. Wrong [No] a license with additional restrictions is not a valid free license, must be rejected. And the examples of other files shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Commons:Licensing. You suggested that authors may add additional conditions to CC licenses, citing examples. However, file 1 demonstrates why such restrictions (e.g. excluding social media use) make a license non-free, and thus unsuitable for Commons. Only the second example file 2 is valid, since the author’s note is a non-binding courtesy. The inability to clearly distinguish between binding restrictions and optional requests raises serious concerns about granting LR rights.
7. Correct [OK]
8. Little bit drifted. You went deep into URAA and US terms, but the real catch is, if source country has 80y p.m.a., 1945 death means still copyrighted. That means copyright expires end of 2025, the work enters public domain on January 2026. So PD claim is wrong. You didn’t directly say decline. Instead, you wandered off into US-centric URAA. So the answer is Wrong [No].
I'll share my perspective (supporting or opposing) before the closer of this request, or, I'll support only if others ask you questions and you answer them correctly. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 08:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
As for 6, I don't contest your interpretation, but for 8, I got the math wrong. There was a lot of questions and I've got mixed up the years. Yes, you are correct it us January 1 of the year 1945+80+1. I also thought URAA was important to note because we can't host the file in 2026 even if it becomes PD. Takipoint123 (💬) 09:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
 Info I do know very well when PD Day is, I've even tested people on this concept. As for 6, I just realized I missed the slight detail "must", users can request notifications and other restrictions but they cannot require it (Commons:Licensing: [cannot require] "Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses."). I do believe my point stands that users can request nonetheless. Takipoint123 (💬) 09:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support after their last reply, considering how strictly I weighed the initial confusion and their reflective reply and accepting feedback, which is big positive for granting LR.🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 09:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
    •  Comment "You nailed it" for the first point is actually wrong. Technically, the content of the answer is correct ("Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable"), but every (Western) legislation provides for correction of errors when somebody made an erroneous declaration of intent. Furthermore, granting a license needs that the licensor has the actual will to grant such an usage authorisation. Here, the conflict between the blanket statement and the statement affixed to the media itself is something that has to raise doubts upon the actual will of the would-be licensor. Per COM:PRP, a clarification of the licensing is warranted. In doubt, such a thing shouldn't be passed. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
      I was just speaking generally, and would definitely investigate further such as considering the user's activities such as whether they never upload files for CC use or adds very restrictive terms to their Flickr account. Indeed, irrevocable may not apply when the original uploader was unsure of their intent. Users at Commons sometimes do change their licenses if they didn't understand what the license meant, but this usually should occur relatively quickly after uploading. For this question, I don't necessarily think just the three words "All Rights Reserved" by itself would trigger full alarm bells, but you are correct that it is always safe to check with the author for their intent and/or if they had assert additional restrictions. Takipoint123 (💬) 16:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

VGMax

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Comments https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Chief_Minister_of_Tamil_Nadu,_Thiru_MK_Stalin_called_on_PM_Narendra_Modi.jpg

 Not done This is not the place to ask for a file review. Yann (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Aplucas0703

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

 Oppose Too soon. With only 592 edits on Commons, you need more experience before becoming License reviewer. Thanks for volunteering anyway, Yann (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
What edit count is expected? Aplucas0703 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
@Aplucas0703: There's no fixed number. You will need an edit count that encompasses edits which show knowledge about Commons policies and copyrights. This could be done by participating in deletion requests, on the COM:Help desk, the COM:VP or on the COM:VPC. To state an amount: a 4 digit number is certainly expected (1500 to 2500 maybe at the very least) and among those, several hundred in copyright-related subjects on the relevant boards (see the links I gave you). On the other hand: I know about a successful LR candidate who also had a low edit count here, but demonstrated that he was an established and knowledgeable user on a sister project (a Wikipedia edition IIRC). Becoming a license reviewer entails having a great responsibility towards ALL projects and sites that use Commons (all Wikimedia sites, but also every website that relies on InstantCommons [a software library allowing the embedding of media from here on other sites]), so expect, as candidate, a thorough scrutiny. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Not done. --Bedivere (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Jaredryandloneria

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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

Comments

Not done. --Bedivere (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hosseinronaghi

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Neutral and leaning towards  Oppose at the moment. Reason: Several copyvio warnings on TP from 2024, application in Arabian script despite lots of review tasks offered in Latin script (yes, I know that Commons is multilingual, but a de facto mastering of Latin script and knowledge of English is IMO needed for advanced tasks like LR). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose, weak only bcoz the deletion notices in talk page archives are from 1.5 years ago, but they do point to the fact that user needs to know more about COM:DW. Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - No consensus to grant. Seawolf35 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Ooligan

Latest comment: 28 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments

Mateus2019

Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Comments

  •  Support, I'm indeed inclined to shorten the procedure and grant the rights as the user rightfully switched accounts (there's solid evidence for that in the histories of the account names involved). Grand-Duc (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done No need to wait. User was already trusted with the tool. --Bedivere (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere, you may plz remove the redundant AP. Shaan SenguptaTalk 09:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests/Archive/2025&oldid=1138936233"