Commons:License review/Requests

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

(Translate) (purge this page's cache)

2020s
2010s
2000s

Kindly read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files before applying for the right.

To become a reviewer, you need 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 compatible with Wikimedia Commons and which are not, and be dedicated to license reviewing every so often and offer their assistance in clearing the backlogs. Relevant knowledge can be demonstrated by regularly participating in deletion requests or in New Files Patrolling.

Post your request below and be prepared to respond to questions. The community may voice their opinions or ask a few questions to verify your knowledge. A few days later (usually 48 hours), a reviewer or an administrator will determine the possible outcome of the request based on the input received from the community. The closing admin/reviewer will grant the right if there are no objections and add the applicant 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.


Click the button to submit your request. Alternatively, copy the code below to the bottom of this page, 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:REVISIONUSER}}==
{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}
  • Note for Admins/Reviewers: 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.

Turkmen

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
good answers.  Weak support. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 08:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Felix QW

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests&oldid=948606761"