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.

Arrow303

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

Iming

[edit]

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

  • Iming (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests&oldid=966627279"