Commons:License review/Requests

Requests for license reviewer rights

(Translate) (purge this page's cache)

Archives 2007-2010 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011-2020 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2030 2021 2022

Before requesting, please read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files.

To become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons and the common practices of reviewing. A reviewer is required to know which Creative Commons licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons. They should also be dedicated in license reviewing every so often and offer their help in the backlogs.

Post your request below and be prepared to respond to questions. The community may voice their opinions or ask a few questions to verify the user's knowledge. After a few days, a reviewer or administrator determines whether there are no severe objections to the candidate. If there are not, the user will close the request and add the candidate to the list of reviewers. If permissions are granted, you can add {{User reviewer}} (or one of its variants) to your user page and begin reviewing images.

To apply, submit your request at the bottom of this page. Copy the code below and only replace "Reason" with the reason you are requesting this user right. Requests will be open for a minimum of two days (48 hours).

{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}

To close a request, please wrap the entire section excluding the section heading with {{Frh}} and {{Frf}}. If the request is successful, please leave this message {{subst:image-reviewerWelcome}}--~~~~ on the applicant's user talk page.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 5 days.

Kaganer

• Kaganer (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (assign permissions)
• Reason: For more fastest processing russian-language requests. --Kaganer (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Scheduled to end: 21:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

•  Support Very experienced editor and in-depth knowledge of copyright. Meta-Wiki translation administrator and more. Great contribution to wiki projects. — Niklitov (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the following DRS here (2021), here (2020) and here (2019) - Images that shouldn't be here may well end up here due to the users lack of knowledge in certain areas (FOP etc), Everyone makes mistakes and these weren't in 2022 however given the closeness of those IMHO it's close enough that I cannot support this request at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  In two cases was not mistakes.

• 2022 - my position about FOP restrictions (generally and applicable for this case) is non relevant with the license reviewing. License may be valid, but file may be non-acceptable for Commons. This is life. Some files from this set, that was uploaded by me, was transferred from Flickr by mass upload tool.
• 2019 - I certainly wasn't the original downloader of this file. Perhaps I re-uploaded a better quality version or attributed the image. In the deletion request itself, I did not argue for or against removal, I simply did research regarding the source of this image and its legal status.

But 2020 case - this is really my mistake (Seems like the only time in all these years). I have not checked the FOP status in Estonia or did not notice that i'm shot something that falls into this status. --Kaganer (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Question Would you please let me know what you would do at license review if you were to encounter the following, and why you would take that action? For purposes of these questions, please ignore concerns around COM:SCOPE and focus only on the copyright/licensing:
  1. A user uploads this whole video from YouTube with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "Jason Zac - Nathaniel School of Music" as its author.

     I'm not that good at licensing music videos, and even English ones. At first glance, it looks acceptable (author's channel, free license indicated). I can't check the Patreon link right now. But I see that the official channel of the author is another - https://www.youtube.com/@nathanielschool - and there is also a free license. So the license is correct, but the source seems to be wrong. I would have consulted with someone else, but refrained from approval. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  2. A user uploads a screenshot of Michael Smerconish from 00:00:00 of this YouTube video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "CNN" as its author.

     Given source is personal channel, non official CNN channel. In the CNN website not seen free license. The license is invalid. Will be rejected. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  3. A user uploads a photograph of Taipei 101 from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr page as its source and "Jirka Matousek" as its author.

     Look good. Flickr Pro account, file metadata is relevant, license in the source matches the one specified. Will be approved. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  4. A user uploads a photograph of the Louvre Pyramid from Flickr under a {{PD-author}} license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "thinkrorbot" as its author.

     {{PD-author}} is seen relevance for this case. But we do not know what country the author is from, and not all countries have the opportunity to directly release in the PD. As example, in Russia this is impossible and CC0 should be used instead. I would have consulted with someone else, but refrained from approval. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  5. A user uploads a photograph of the Milad Tower from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "ArdalShah" as its author.

     Photo is "Photoshoped" (maybe cropped only, but exif metadata was cleared). I do not see enough information to judge authorship. I'm refrained from approval. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  6. A user uploads a photograph of Moses, Notre Dame from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "icfasntw" as its author.

     Author and license is valid, but depicted object is another. As license reviewer I'm will be approve request, and as Commons' user i'm improve image information, based on source. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  7. A user uploads this photograph from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Bill Baldridge" as its author.

     No free license in source. Will be rejected. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  8. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Ron Frazier" as its author.

     Ron Frazier may be author of photo, but not an author depicted mural (or other original work). I don't know, who is author, but this is not an Ron Frazier, exactly. Will be rejected. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  9. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "David Orban" as its author.

     Wikipedia screenshots should be licensed as CC-BY-SA or GFDL, this is more restrictive that CC-BY. License is invalid. Will be rejected. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  10. A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Loco Steve" as its author.

      Loco Steve is not an author depicted mural (just photographer). No FOP for murals in UK. License is invalid. Will be rejected. --Kaganer 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Replied above, under each numbers. --Kaganer (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Weak support The responses above are generally reasonable responses (though I think #9 could be accepted as a {{Wikipedia screenshot}} template, as one can incorporate CC-BY works into GFDL and CC-BY-SA works provided attribution is given, but it ). Where the person requesting rights is less sure, they note that they would consult other users. In my view, this is a good thing rather than a bad thing. One thing I will note going forward: when evaluating music videos, it's important to figure out if the underlying music being played is being licensed by its copyright holder; we generally can't accept covers of songs unless the owner of the original song's copyright also releases that song under a free license/if that song is in the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting. About "music being played is being licensed by its copyright holder" - of cource, i'm know and understand this approach. But it's such a terrible hassle that I'm just not ready to mess with it. Especially since I'm not a music-oriented person at all. When a single melody plays throughout the video, and it is clearly named/authorship, this can still be checked. But when there is a mix of something unknown - nope ;) --Kaganer (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Achim55 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)