Category talk:Flickr review needed

Uploading Higher resolution - New review or not?

When we find a image in commons, sourced from flickr, already reviewed, but we find a higher rsolution from the same page, what shall be the proper method?

1- Upload the higher resolution, and dont ask for a new review? ex: like this file

or

2- Upload the higher resolution, and ask for a new review?

Thanks in advance for any answer. Tm (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No need, IMO. J.smith (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Transfer of Flickr-sourced images from :en to Commons, after license changed to (C) ?

Do we have any standard policy for the following situation?

File:Sheryl Crow at Revlon Run Walk 2007.jpg was originally uploaded in 2008 to :en and (allegedly) positively Flickr-reviewed. 2 years later, after the license on Flickr had been changed to "(C) All rights reserved", the image was copied from :en to Commons. Is that transfer o.k. and do we have any legal-proof procedure to "transfer" the positive Flickr-review from :en to Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When I review images that have been transfered from a wiki I first check license on Flickr. If it is ok today I just do a review. If not I check for other versions of same file and if I find one I normally add:

Review on original file

{{Flickrreview (copied from other version of file)}}

I do not think we have a perfect solution for cases like that but if you tell in Edit summary what you did we can always find out what happend. That should be good enough. --MGA73 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wages of Fear in Manila

As far as this image is concenred, I used a precedent case where a photo had noncommercial tag but was still used on wikipedia.

Salt The Fries 86 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)