Last modified on 5 August 2011, at 23:13

Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/archive 9

Return to "Flickr images/reviewers/archive 9" page.

Arbitrarily0Edit

Comments

Hello Arbitrarily0,

you uploaded this picture Rays Red Sox from Flicker.

In Flicker the description of the picture reads: "AP Photo/Michael Dwyer"

Flickr version of Rays Red Sox

The Flicker account that uploaded the picture is ncbronte (Flickr Account is marked with the addition No real name given). How did you check that the AP picture is really published under cc-by-sa by the photographer. What did you do to validate that Flicker user ncbronte had the right to publish an AP picture under cc-by-sa?

(Just want to check how you validated that flickr pictures have the right license)

Would you also upload brucespringsteen from the same flickr user?

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I must be perfectly honest, I did not even see this when I uploaded this photo last year. I suspect that ncbronte does not have the rights to publish this photo as CC-BY-SA, but more likely copied it directly from here. If I were to upload this photo again, I would first contact ncbronte (or even Michael Dwyer) to see if it was licensed legitimately. With brucespringsteen, although it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, it would again be necessary to contact ncbronte (for Greetsia Tent/WireImage is credited in the caption). Overall, it's an important lesson that perceived licenses on Flickr and other sites are not to be taken for granted. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: I tagged the file as a {{copyvio}} and it has since been deleted. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

✓Promoted.Kwj2772 (msg) 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeignerEdit

Comments

✓Promoted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 05:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

VictuallersEdit

Comments
    • Can we use these images on commons? If yes why? If no, why?
  1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/beridze/5054363194/in/contacts/ No - doesnt allow derivs in authors lifetime plus 70
  2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgienblogspotcom/5036251246/in/contacts/ No - full copyright in authors lifetime plus 70. Need written permission from Wolfgang Korall (which would supersede (and undermine) the stated copyright)
  3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/koonce/5062082027/ Doesnt allow commercial or derivs in in authors lifetime plus 70. (Marginal/Panorama issue of artwork too)
  4. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rappensuncle/183689226/ No - full copyright in authors lifetime plus 70
  5. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybriks/5062689116/ No - nothing commercial in authors lifetime plus 70
  6. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ian_chen/5062079689/ Fine - attribution only required which commons always gives
  7. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertrand_man/5062081003/ Fine - Attrib only

--George M. (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. See replies above Victuallers (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - well answered :)--George M. (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Promoted
--Dferg (talk · meta) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ElekhhEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question In your own words, explain the essential things you should look at when reviewing an image, and any courtesies you would be willing to do while you're at it. ZooFari 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Briefly: (1) check whether the uploaded image is the same as the indicated source image; (2) check that the license matches the source license, and whether is one that is accepted by Commons (such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) (3) check if the author is indeed the creator and/or copyright holder of the source image. This last step often requires some background research, such as checking the availability of other versions of the same image with higher resolution, earlier creation date, or more detailed description. For instance, in this case the source author appeared to be only re-using and cropping an older image by another flickr user which had a "No Derivative Works" license. To double check I requested clarification from the flickr user, to which he admitted his error and immediately deleted the image from his flickr account. Subsequently I nominated the Commons image for deletion. Let me know if you require further details or have any other specific questions. --Elekhh (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How do you recognize Flickr washing? Geagea (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Inconsistency within the source user's uploads (such as images from a broad range of geographic locations taken within a narrow timeframe or images taken with a broad range of cameras), user with previously identified copyvio history, and single purpose accounts (limited activity for the purpose of a few uploads, shortly after transferred to Commons) are some of the indications of potential Flickr washing. --Elekhh (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • One more, if you don't mind. You mentioned you have done some Flickr uploading in the past. In the future, should you review the images you upload yourself if it is unable to be done by the bot? ZooFari 02:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Certainly not, my uploads should be reviewed by a neutral reviewer. --Elekhh (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Identifying of Flickr washing is part of reviewer work. There are no specific rules. It could be similar user name, file size bigger then the maximum in Flickr or other indication. Geagea (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good responses and shows an understanding of the review system. ZooFari 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.Agree with Geagea and Zoofari:)--George M. (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Seems to know what he is doing. Willkommen im Club lieber Elekhh. Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    Promoted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

VernoWhitneyEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - In your own words, explain the essential things you should look at when reviewing an image, and any courtesies you would be willing to do while you're at it. ZooFari 02:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Check that it's likely that the image at the external source is actually theirs to release (not a screenshot, magazine cover, etc. and that there's not a wide variety of dissimilar in quality/size/metadata images at the source - since these are indications of likely copyvio), and that the attribution and licenses here and at the external source match and that it's a valid free license (which rules out -NC and -ND CC options, among others). I'd be willing to post and thank them for freely licensing the image, although to be honest that part hadn't really occurred to me before you asked. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - What do you think about the uploadings of user:Thejoebloggsblog. Do you check possibility to Flickr washing? Geagea (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think they're a problem, yeah. Company logos are a bad sign - especially more than one company. I would guess that the maps are just Google Maps, and a quick check for an easy to find photo shows that File:Pedalprixlogo.jpg is copied from here. With no indication of association that's copyvio. The car photos are more plausible, but it's not an auspicious start. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Geagea (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ZooFari 05:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    Promoted --Dferg (talk · meta) 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ww2censorEdit

Comments
  • Some questions - Can we use any of these photos
[1] - No, All rights reserved
[2] - Yes, Creative Commons share-alike with Attribution
[3] - No, All rights reserved
[4] - No, All rights reserved
[5] - No, unacceptable Creative Commons non-commercial licence

--George M. (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I have responded beside each image link. Ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - Can you clarify what you mean by "often notice improperly licenced images in articles that are commons uploads so it would be very useful to perform Flickr reviews without having to only manually tag images as copyright violations"? ZooFari 04:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • When reviewing enwiki article images, where I review the copyright status of lots of images, occasionally I find Flickr sourced images uploaded to the commons whose copyright may be in question or even completely false. I can of course simply manually tag such images as copyright violations and let someone else review them later. Obviously I can just do nothing to such images, but being a reviewer will simplify the process and make my reviews more efficient. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What about your own files. Should you review your own files? Geagea (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good answers. Good luck :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaeser (talk • contribs)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question (to everybody - outside of review) Is Bentley (test question 2) really within scope? --Elekhh (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • @ Elekhh: I wonder why you would question that image. An out of focus image of a dog with the older sa 2.0 licence rather than a 3.0 licence, hardly seems like flickr washing or claiming a false licence. Why do you suggest it might be out of scope? Ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read Not a big issue but is better to read COM:SCOPE. Geagea (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The important is to know which license is ok and which is not. Second you need to be honest. I think Ww2censor passes both requirements. Even crappy images should be reviewed so scope is not a big issue here. --MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not say is a big issue here ("outside of review"), but I also see no point of simply validating an upload which is unlikely to be useful (question was: "Can we use any of these photos?"). Private images of humans are regularly deleted, and I don't see a blurred dog face being any different. --Elekhh (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A reviewer's task does not include uploading images from Flickr though. The only case where this question would apply is if the reviewer comes across an out-of-scope image. In such case, it is up to the reviewer to tag the image accordingly, but he/she still needs to review the image regardless, using {{Flickrreview}}. While it would have been smart to say that the image shouldn't be uploaded, the important part is that the user recognizes what can be uploaded rather than what should. Anyways, I think I can Symbol support vote.svg Support this user. ZooFari 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
George M. start with the tradition of questions. One purpose of the questions is educational. So on this occasion he read COM:LR, COM:FLICKRW or COM:SCOPE in this case. I, of course, Symbol support vote.svg Support. Geagea (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That was exactly my intent: educational. Do not oppose the candidate, however as a new reviewer I will abstain from voting. --Elekhh (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

✓Promoted.Kwj2772 (msg) 13:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MonoEdit

Comments
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for volunteering. However, I think you need to become more active in other areas of Commons before being granted the right. You have already requested two rights a few hours ago and this one is not as flexible. The requests for these rights in a short period of time give the impression that you are collecting rights, especially since you have not engaged in activity for one of them (patroller). I want license reviewers to be dedicated to the task and do more than required (like thanking or asking permission from Flickr users). But first you need to demonstrate that with other tools you are granted. ZooFari 04:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Agree with ZooFari. When you get a little bit more familiar - you're welcome :).--George M. (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    Withdrawn for now. THENEWMONO (a real person) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

RehmanEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - Briefly describe the steps you will do when reviewing an image. ZooFari 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Almost similar to reviewing the license of some Wikipedia files, or files that are not by the uploader, I would first confirm the source link. Assess the source whether it is really a trustful source, or just another no-no, or in rare cases, things like COM:FLICKRWASH. If all of these are good, I would then check if the uploader uploaded with a similar licence/attribution to that of the source. And once that is done, I would finally check if the licence is acceptable. Hope I didn't miss any :) Rehman 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Considering the users contribution history (and taking the time to respond on the talkpage), the nature of photographs uploaded at the Flickr page, and the "official" website mentioned there (and it's contents). I would review the licence as passed, and not consider that flickr washed. And will only take it down, if the licensing is proven to be invalid. Rehman 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I meant to simple Flickr washing example but there is more in this example. It is true that the user declared that he operate his (Channing Tatum) official site (her), but the name of the file says ...by-channing-tatum2. So the photographer is channing tatum and not the user. As we have the author we still missing permission. Anyway the situation is not clear and more information needed her. Geagea (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Geagea (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but remember to check for the highest resolutions as well. ZooFari 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Promoted --Dferg (talk · meta) 09:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit

  • (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo) (assign permissions)
  • Reasons: As a regular OTRS volunteer there are some images that need their review status confirmed as well as copyright or OTRS ticket status (e.g. File:Sharman Joshi partyy.jpg) and it would make a lot of sense to do this based on the same investigation. I am familiar with licence types. Though I have not contributed to managing the reviewer backlog, I am a reasonable regular at the OTRS noticeboard and help with occasional purges of the OTRS backlog. My track record includes loading quite a few images of my own, in particular from the British Museum, plus a fair few original submissions from OTRS and a few with permission from copyright holders that I have requested directly. I have also done a fair amount of Gnomic template work, some original and some by copying over the odd useful Wikipedia template (such as {{lf}} and {{divbox}}). (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The involvement of OTRS is not usual and not realistically for IndiaFM. Can you give an example of an image where an OTRS person is really needed? Or how do you plan to approach your work as an image-reviewer? ZooFari 19:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I had in mind a few scenarios the other way around. In the case of File:Sharman Joshi partyy.jpg the template used requires an admin or reviewer to confirm the image fits the OTRS ticket release and as an OTRS volunteer that is neither I cannot finish the job of verification.
    • In terms of approach, I enjoy doing different things on Commons and Wikipedia and sometimes the randomness is part of the enjoyment. Typically over a week I switch between greeting new contributing users, IGLOO dealing with a batch of vandals or random new article issues and detailed follow-ups, detailed research on citations for a longer term article or the backlog at en:wp:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, resolve and investigate several random permission or photosubmission tickets on OTRS, answer some questions on IRC and improve some template code. I would plan to help out with a backlog such as Category:Flickr images needing human review as a source of random images to investigate and resolve probably for at least a handful of sessions every month. BTW, there might be a delay in further questions for a day as I'm taking part in GLAM-WIKI which has a rather busy schedule. (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ZooFari 00:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Geagea (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Promoted --Dferg (talk · meta) 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LunaHuntingEdit

Comments
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry, not nearly enough experience, and the files you've uploaded from Flickr have been low-resolution versions, requiring them to be re-uploaded by others. LX (talk, contribs) 14:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus --Dferg (talk · meta) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Zac allanEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - Can you describe the tasks you will do as a reviewer, and other courtesies you will be willing to do that are not required? ZooFari 02:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I only want to check images from Flickr and mark them as "free"/"not free" in the system. If the license is too old and now it is different from what i see, i can set some template variations which is determined by what i see now. Here is written more of it, Template:Flickrreview. As i told that's the only work i will do. Thanks. - Zac allan (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I can't support right now. There's more to it than just checking the license, and it is not quite just a question of your honesty. It is also question of dedication and how much you will be willing to do. We have plenty of reviewers already that keep the backlogs low, and they don't just check the license. I don't feel comfortable opposing, however. ZooFari 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with ZooFari Neozoon (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Anne-Sophie OfrimEdit

Comments
✓Promoted per no objections, time passed. fr33kman -s- 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BeriaEdit

Comments
  • I've known her for a while, and I trust her judgment as a license reviewer. Though I'd prefer she put her up for adminship (we need more pt-speaking admins here), I'll support her. --Waldir talk 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree and endorse. --ZooFari 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -FASTILY (TALK) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJuliancolton | Talk 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sure Neozoon (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question. If not a secret, where has your username come from?--George, 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

✓Promoted. Though there was a question, there is no relation to license review. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

BarkingFishEdit

  • BarkingFish (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo) (assign permissions)
  • Reasons: I'd like to become a reviewer here, since I often patrol Latest Files, and keep an eye open for anything which needs to be checked or dealt with. I've contributed several of my own photographs here, and I feel that I am conversant with the general licensing terms which Commons support and use. It would also help at times, if while looking through latest files, I find unreviewed flickr content, which I could check off and confirm, thus saving others being stretched. BarkingFish (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments
  • Support of course. --ZooFari 01:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJuliancolton | Talk 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sure, thanks for the offer -- Neozoon (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ promoted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

LymantriaEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is the purpose of "license reviewing" and what should happen if a license at the external site is changed but already uploaded at Commons? --ZooFari 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The purpose of "license reviewing" is to ensure that a photograph from a site where photographs of different licenses are uploaded and among which are photographs with non free licenses, is indeed published under a free license. If a license at the external site is changed, but it was verified by a license review before the change, the photograph can stay at commons. If it was however not verified by a license review, it should be nominated for deletion, or perhaps an OTRS-request could be done. (We cannot be sure that it really changed at the external site then, it might have been wrongly transferred by the uploader as well). Lymantria (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Trusted user, I work with him as an admin on nl.wp. - Silver Spoon (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ZooFari 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - trusted colleague everywhere. MoiraMoira (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -FASTILY (TALK) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Geagea (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

✓Promoted. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

MonoEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What type of IndiaFM files can be uploaded? And should you review files that you upload yourself from other sites to prevent backlog flooding? --ZooFari 23:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • According to OTRS ticket #2008030310010794, bollywoodhungama.com images may be uploaded if the website is attributed and an exact link to the source is provided. This applies to images taken by bollywoodhungama.com photographers only. In response to the other question, I use a tool to upload most external images, which automatically reviews the upload, so that wouldn't be an issue. THENEWMONO (a real person) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok well the answer would be no because they should be reviewed by a neutral reviewer. I guess I can say Symbol support vote.svg Support now, thanks for volunteering. --ZooFari 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

✓Promoted, no objections. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The InteriorEdit

Comments
  • ~30 edits is a bit low I think. I would like to see some more experience and dedication. --ZooFari 02:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Some of my ~5500 edits at en-WP have been image-related, so I do have experience with Wikimedia's copyright policies. But if more Commons editing is required for this position, I understand. I am trying to get more involved here, reviewing Flickr licenses seemed like a good place to start. Perhaps you could suggest some other backlog areas that need work in the Commons where I cold be of help. The Interior (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. --ZooFari 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

MorgankevinjEdit

Comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after Pictogram voting question.svg Question What kind of Creative Commons licenses can't we use on the Wikimedia Commons? What if a user re-licenses their work on Flickr after it has been uploaded to the Commons? THENEWMONO (a real person) 02:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Any Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial use or derivative works is not allowed on the Commons. In the shorthand Creative Commons license it is either ND or NC.
    • If the file is changed from a prohibited license to a permitted license, or to a less restrictive license(.ie CC-BY-SA to CC-BY), then that license may be used. But if a user changes the license to a prohibited license or more restrictive license(ie. CC-BY to CC-BY-SA), then it must be left unchanged on Commons, since they irrevocably released their rights. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Explain step by step the procedures you will do if you come across a non-free Flickr file. --ZooFari 04:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • If it is licensed under a prohibited license on flicker, I will notify the user on their talk page, and give them time to change the license.(~7 days)
    • If the user clearly does not have the right to relicense the image, or does not change the license, I will tag it for speedy deletion. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What if the file has an OTRS pending tag that may take longer than seven days to verify? --ZooFari 06:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Tag it with {{Flickrreview|Morgankevinj|{{subst:date}}|the unfree license}} MorganKevinJ(talk) 06:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ZooFari 06:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Awiki100Edit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question If an image has a comment under it mentioning that it has been taken by someone other than the flicker account owner, what would you tag the image? If the image is of a building in a public place what copyright issue may apply? What licenses are permitted on the commons? Can you review your own uploads? MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. no 2. copyrighted logos on the building 3. cc-by and cc-by-sa 4. no --An (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2.

  • I think you can use some more time and experience here at Commons. Your account is only a few days old and your edit count is currently low to judge your experience on copyright. Continuing to supply Commons with images from Flickr is a good start. --ZooFari 17:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. In addition to ZooFari's suggestions, I suggest that you look at uploads by new users while using the image casebook to find possible copyright violations.MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not enough actions to be able to estimate your experience. But keep up the good work and come back later :-) --Neozoon (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

✘ Not promoted. Per votes above and time passed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

NickKEdit

Comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to be a trusted fellow. I reviewed many of the files uploaded by him. There were only few discussed but no body's perfect. Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question If the license is changed after the review should the license change on commons? What licenses are excepted on commons? When can a photograph taken of a copyrighted building or artwork be uploaded to the commons? MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    1, 2) We can change the license if the newer license is less "strong" then previous one. For example, if the user uploaded the photo under cc-by-sa-2.0 and later changed it to cc-by-2.0 or made them public domain (e.g. by adding relevant comment to the description of the photo), we can change the license. If the user changes from cc-by-2.0 to cc-by-sa-2.0, although both licenses are acceptable, changing the license does not make sense. If the user changes the license to -nc-, -nd- or ©, we should not change the license and can add {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. The licenses I mentioned in the previous sentence are excepted here, generic permissions for "use in Wikipedia" or "use for private purposes" are rejected as well.
    3) Generally a photo taken of copyrighted building or artwork can be uploaded to commons if relevant laws of the country of origin allow its distribution under a free license. But I have to note that the question is much more complicated as FOP norms are different for each country, we have concepts of trivial work (i.e. we can upload the photo if there is nothing original pictured) and de minimis (i.e. we can upload the photo if the object in question is not the main object in the picture with some other limitations). Plus we have problems with defining "artwork", finding copyright owner etc, and laws for paintings and buildings may be different as well (e.g. copyrighted paintings are in most cases not OK, and copyrighted buildings are quite often OK). It should be judged on case by case basis, it's difficult to find a one simple rule — NickK (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per answers to my questions. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Béria Lima msg 09:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lymantria (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done per consensus above MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

AdrignolaEdit

Comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This user is very active(6,833 edits in the last 30 days) and from their contributions appear to have a strong understanding of commons policies. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done per no opposition and time passed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

VasilievVVEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: If a flicker user changes the license the image after it passes the review, how should you respond? MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    If it is changed into a more permissive license (e.g. CC-BY-SA -> CC-BY), I will change the license on Commons. If it is change to more restrictive license (e.g. CC-BY-SA -> CC-BY-SA-NC), I will keep the old license, because Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, and put {{flickr-change-of-license}} on it. VasilievVV (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not yet - I think you could use some more activity before you are granted the review bit. Not only is your edit count low, but you have less than twenty edits this year. You have done a good job in the past. You have recently joined the OTRS team? If you keep up with the good work, especially in OTRS, you may want to definitely come back later if not promoted since OTRS people are the higher people of trustworthiness. Right now the only minor problem is activity which makes it difficult to judge on commitment. Thanks for volunteering, --ZooFari 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not much active, but he is trusted and knows what he is doing, so I'm fine with him becoming a license reviewer... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Activity less important, but this might help a little. --ZooFari 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Snake311Edit

Comments
  • Here at commons, I'm trying to help with the license reviews. There isn't a lot of active reviewers, so one more helping hand couldn't hurt. In addition, I do extensive work with handling the file renaming backlog and patrolling any vandalism I may come across. By doing other areas of maintenance, I think it can give me a task and keep me busy. —stay (sic)! 12:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No consensus to grant Image reviewer permissions in nearly a week. ✘ Not done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mys_721txEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is a CC-*-ND license? Can we use it on Commons? Why or why not? theMONO 03:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    ND license means no derivs, it cannot be used on Commons since it is not free to edit.-Mys 721tx (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is a CC-*-NC license? Can we use it on Commons? Why or why not? theMONO 03:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    NC license means non commercial, it cannot be used on Commons since it is not totally free to use -Mys 721tx (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    Both two license above are not listed on the acceptable licenses of Commons, and are stricter than CC-BY-SA/GFDL which allow freely use with attribution and freely remix if the resulting works are under the same license.--Mys 721tx (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question As a reviewer, how do you tag images with an unacceptable license? MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    Use{{copyvio}} or {{uffd}} with the license states
    Use serval view templates on files which are under OTRS pending, deletion request, etc, depending on where the source of the file is, for example, {{Ipernityreview}}, {{Picasareview}}, etc. The copyright states and license should be specific as the last parameter of the review template.--Mys 721tx (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support theMONO 00:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per answers to questions MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. theMONO 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Soundvisions1Edit

  •  Not done - serious objections. fr33kman -s- 08:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What licenses are acceptable on the commons? How do you tag images with an unacceptable license? MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply:The Wikimedia Foundation has a goal to be a free content provider. For Wikimedia Commons what that means is the material that is being distributed here must fall with the definition of a free cultural work. As for actual licensing there are various acceptable licenses. You can get an overview at Acceptable licenses. If you are no fully sure about somehting specific that you found elsewhere (That you are not the copyright of) you can also ask a specific question at Commons talk:Licensing. Some material may also be considered a derivative work and while the image itself may be licensed freely, the underlying material may not be free.
What two Creative Commons liscenses are acceptable? MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply: There are more than two that are acceptable, and as I have already said above the material that is being distributed here must fall with the definition of a free cultural work. Also, as I have already stated, you might what to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or on my talk page so you don't have to ask here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As for your second question. On the page you are looking at now there is a section called "Toolbox" on the left. There is a little "arrow" icon that will either show or hide a submenu. When it is expanded there is a list of options. On this page you will see a "Nominate for deletion" option. For image pages those options also include "Report copyright violation", "No source", "No permission" and "No license." Depending on what you see one of those could be a choice. As your question was specific to "images with an unacceptable license" you could choose any of them except the "No license" option. To take one an an example - I notice that you tagged File:ༀམཎིཔདྨེཧཱུྃ། Tibetan pilgrim spinning a prayer wheel (mani wheel) at the Tibetan Buddhist Monastery,Bir,HP,India.jpg for deletion. I can understand how it might be confusing however in this case the uploader is also the copyright holder. They chose an acceptable free license here, which is allowable, and are using another one at their Flickr page. This would be entirely different if it had been a third party who had uploaded the image and claimed a different license - in which case it could have been tagged as a copyvio. or had the third party claimed they had permission we could tag it as needing an OTRS.
In the case you mention the uploader did not source the image as coming from flicker so i treated it differently. If an image is sourced from flicker as a reviewer you tag the image differently to give the user time to correct the license on flicker. Please review Commons:License_review#Specific_procedures_for_Flickr.MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply: No, your are incorrect. Please take a (close) look at the first upload, you can clearly see that in "other versions" they link to http://www.flickr.com/photos/falsalama/2851677816/in/photostream/. That is how I knew where to look for the source image. All I did was make a note about the source image and it's license. Also you tagged it for deletion, not me. I don't have a problem with you asking me quesiton if you don't understand the licenses but I really think you need to take the conversation to another venue instead of here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope that answered your questions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The mess here worries me a great deal -- the questions weren't answered; the roundabout responses were not satisfactory. Review licensing guidelines, learn them, and come back. theMONO 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a liscence reviewer you need to understand what liscenses are permited on the commons and that is why i am asking you. Flicker allows files to be liscensed under the following liscenses. Respond yes or no as to wether they are permitted on the commons:

  1. All rights reserved
  2. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
  3. Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
  4. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
  5. Attribution Creative Commons
  6. Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
  7. Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons

To give the uploader time to change the liscese there is a specific template that you should use. After taking a look at Commons:License_review#Specific_procedures_for_Flickr can you tell me what template you would use? MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Reply:
As I have already said now - the set goals of the Foundation are to be a free content provider. More specifically, for Wikimedia Commons they must fall within the free cultural work - which is this:
  1. The freedom to use and perform the work
  2. The freedom to study the work and apply the information
  3. The freedom to redistribute copies
  4. The freedom to distribute derivative works
As such:
  1. no
  2. no
  3. no
  4. no
  5. yes
  6. yes
  7. no
Now, one must also pay close attention to text provided by legit uploaders. Flickr has a tendency to change things around, so, for example, you might come across this image and check the license, which is BY v2. That is fine - however if you also take the time to read the human entered description you will find the work is actually licensed under CC0 (Which you left off your list above and is also very much acceptable here).
Also of note: As of version 2 all CCL's include attribution (The "by" part), but Wikimedia Commons also would accept earlier versions such as CC SA 1.0, CC BY 1.0 and CC BY-SA 1.0.
As for the second part of the question - the entire reason I posted here in the first place is because I used the {{Flickrreview}} tag on an image I transferred from Wikipedia, after checking the license was verified and correct, and the automated message said I did not have the rights to use it. So the "tag" I would use would be that - with the correct parameters. If I had a question I would go to the users Flickr account and contact them if there was a clear means of doing so. Matter of fact I have done that several times for over three years at Wikipedia (And over 30 years in the real world of dealing with contracts and licenses) and am still doing it. The next "tag" I might use in not a tag, but a personal message placed on the uploaders talk page, such as the one I did here. However since you are specifically asking about Flickr and what to do if a review found an incompatible license *and* you wanted to ask the copyright holder to fix the license (vs the uploader who may not be the copyright holder) - you could tag the image itself with the Flickrreview tag and the incorrect license (i.e a NC/ND one). However, at least for me, I would most likely try to contact the copyright holder first. If the uploader was *not* the copyright holder I might tag the image, via the "automated" tools which would also leave a message on their talk page, as {{No permission since}} which would allow the uploader a grace period in which to contain the correct license. If they did do that and informed me I would place an {{OTRS pending}} tag on it and when the permission came though an OTRS volunteer would assign a ticket number and place the {{OTRS}} tag on it.
Now in addition to all of the above it is possible for a source to be listed as "All Rights Reserved", or under an unacceptable license, and be allowed here. This would be done via the OTRS system and such material will have the {{OTRS}} tag on it. This is also why I have always felt if that sort of dual licensing was in effect an OTRS should be required.
In addition, in case you want to ask: No, Wikimedia Commons does not use Fair Use, nor does it use a Non-Free content policy. The Foundation explicitly exempted Wikimedia Commons from adoption of an EDP. As such any image marked as "Fair use" is subject to deletion.
See also Commons:Questionable Flickr images
See also Category:Flickr images needing human review
See also Category:Flickr review needed
See also Commons:Derivative works
See also Commons:Non-copyright restrictions
Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Soundvisions1Edit

  • Soundvisions1 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo) (assign permissions)
  • Reasons: Above request appears to ae been only a "vote" count and not read prior to close. One editor appeared to come here after mistagging an image for deletion to ask about various licensing and how to tag images for deletion and than said they had "serious objections" to me but gave zero reason other than "per mono". All "mono" did was pop in as I was responding in even more detail to Morgankevinj to say "the questions weren't answered; the roundabout responses were not satisfactory. Review licensing guidelines, learn them, and come back." Despite the disckish comment I can understand how they might feel they know more than someone who has dealt with Copyright, I.P and contract law on a regular basis for over three decades because they hold some privileges here, but the truth be told I was first asked to come here by various admins because there is an image backlog and I deal with images and their license terms (As in verification of them) and their copyright. What I find even more humorous is that after I posted my answers Mys_721tx repeated the same answers in a shorter form and the same two editors say "support". Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. Begging for the rights won't work. theMONO 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did you read Commons:License review? (PS users can ask questions to verify your knowledge, which you seemed to be unaware of above). --ZooFari 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question from MorganKevinJ(talk) Please give clear an concise answers after carefully reviewing Commons:License review:
  1. An image is tagged as otrs pending and is licensed as all rights reserved on flicker. What tag do you use?
  2. What flicker review specific tag can you use for an incorrectly sourced image?
  3. What scripts can you use to aid with reviewing?
  • Reply: Sorry, I am busy with RL at the moment. To answer:
  1. If the image is tagged with OTRS pending I, personally, wouldn't do anything. Whoever is assigned the ticket number will verify the OTRS and if it is acceptable they will change the OTRS pending status to an OTRS confirmed status.
  2. You had asked this above but to try and be more direct. The tag would depend on the license used *and* the "incorrectly sourced" source. Based on the question, as worded, the source might be Flickr in which case I would check the source - however if the source was given as Flickr and the image was not at the link given my first instant would be to ask the uploader to clarify the source link. If they did not reply in a reasonable amount of time that I would send the image to a deletion discussion or I could simply use {{Nsd}} *if* there really was no source. Other options an editor could use, depending on what their research turned up, might be "no permission" - provided an actual source could be found that was *not* the given, incorrect, source. Also if the source turned out to be, say, Getty images or the like I could tag it as a copyvio. (This is important because many time Flickr users simply take images from elsewhere and up them and others will take them from there and up them here - that is why I linked to Commons:Questionable Flickr images in my first reply.)
  3. I had asked about Scripts early on (Not in this discussion) and nobody answered - so I leave that answer to that. The slightly longer answer is that I use my brain - my eyes and my knowledge. If A source if given I check it, depending on a script may not always be the best thing. Again, Commons:Questionable Flickr images sets up some known Flickr users that have posted questionable material. A script such as flickreviewr might check to see if the license was acceptable but a script won't look at the content. As User:FlickreviewR explains if the bot returns as The image on Flickr and the Commons are the same, as well as the license that it is "passed" - however only human interaction could tell if it is a copyvio.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Should have passed first time round. The answers previously were much longer than necessary, but the user clearly has the knowledge to be a reviewer, and that is what is supposed to be being assessed here. CT Cooper · talk 10:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would support, but I have not seen any evidence that Soundvisions1 has read the relevant pages like Commons:License review. In the above request, he only demonstrated his knowledge towards copyright but none about the common practices of reviewing. If Soundvisions1 can answer the questions Morgankevinj asked, I will not assume "knows-it-all-so-don't-read-guidelines", and I'll support. Yes, the requests have been question-spammed, but I think they got needlessly complicated given that the answers are found straightforward in guide page. --ZooFari 17:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply: A reviewer is required to know which licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons and be familiar with restrictions that may apply.... - I am. My "needlessly complicated" replies shows that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral pending sufficient evidence that Commons:License review has been read. Please review Commons:License review and answer the questions based on the information given there. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7Edit

Comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fr33kman -s- 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Prefer to see more activity to convince me that the user will dedicate some time to reviewing. --ZooFari 02:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your concerns however I would like to politely suggest you look at my contributions to simple.wikipedia in particular, where you will see that a large amount of the work I participate in there is clerking, backlogs etc. I'm also not someone who requests flags unnecessarily, and wouldn't be asking for this unless I was certain that I had a need for it and that I would be putting it to good use. Thanks again for your comments, though. Regards, BG7even
  • Alrighty then, Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thanks for volunteering! --ZooFari 00:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Too early. Geagea (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Personally, I fully trust BG will do well with the right. The category of files requiring Flickr review is often backlogged, so the help of any experienced user (be it here or in some other WMF wiki) is welcome to me... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lymantria (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done per consensus MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nascar1996Edit

Comments
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know that we've worked together a lot on the English Wikipedia. I would like to see more experience first. There have been some issues lately where I had to deal with some flickr washing. You haven't been here very long and you have a lot to learn first. Royalbroil 04:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll be working on more experience. Before I return here. --Nascar1996 (talkcontribs) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done per nomination withdrawn MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

matanyaEdit

Comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good candidate. --ZooFari 00:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thanks for helping. Geagea (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good candidate. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lymantria (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done per consensus MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

CourcellesEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is the purpose of license reviewing? Is license reviewing needed for all images from external sources? What to do if licenses at commons and at the external source don't match? Lymantria (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Reverse order, because I tend to do things that way. If the licenses do not match, there are two possibilities- if the license found externally is compatible with Commons, just change the license tag so it matches. If it is not compatible, the file must be tagged with {{Uffd}} which will list the file for speedy deletion. In theory, someone other than the uploader ought to verify the status of every external image uploaded to the Commons, however, the image review process that is formalised does not do so, this process covers images from sites that allow a choice of licenses which uploaders may choose from, such as Flickr or its competitors. License reviewing is done because these sites allow that license to be changed at will. Changing the license on Flickr, however, does not revoke a release under CC, which is explicitly non-revocable. However, Flickr and the others don't maintain logs (at least not public ones, not being a photographer, I do not have an account to check) of such changes. Therefore, to ensure the license was valid at some fixed point in time, which is all CC requires, we require a second entity than the uploader- be they human or robot- to verify that the license is currently valid when checked, and therefore is forever valid, whatever the original author might change the license to on the external site. Courcelles (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

DamirgraffitiEdit

Comments
  • Too new on Commons, with only six edits. I welcome you here though, and would encourage you to participate regularly before getting the image-reviewer right! --ZooFari 04:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too new to commons, not extremely active either. Please gain some months of experience. Lymantria (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • All right.I"ll be back here in a few months.--Damirgraffiti (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Route11Edit

Jimmy xu wrkEdit

Comments

RaghithEdit

Comments
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - You marked an image as reviewed just before applying here, which has been reverted. While your licence choice was correct, and you appear to be aware of the licences, more experience is needed. Please make sure you have read Commons:License review thoroughly. Reviewers should also be familiar with Commons:Licensing and other related issues. CT Cooper · talk 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know that it's mentioned in the instructions, but isn't part of the point of reviewers to make sure that at least two people (or one and a bot) look at the file? Not to be reviewing your own uploads? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It is certainly discouraged, and is frequently raised in requests for reviewer status. I haven't seen any mention of it in the instructions, so it perhaps should be added. CT Cooper · talk 15:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Cooper as you said earlier "marked an image as reviewed" that is because I got a "FlickrFixr ok other bad" link on that page. As i felt it was some mistake , I requested for the reviewer status. So ,don't mind; I wont do it again. You can close this request.Thank you all . -- Raghith (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn Lymantria (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriterEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oh, um, reviewing your own files is very discouraged. It's better if neutral reviewers review your own files in case you make a mistake. How about reviewing images of others only? --ZooFari 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oo, you are completely right, i forgot that! :) Sure, only others! That is even more interesting! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If anyone have any question, please ask. I would love to be able to check and review flick and panoramio categories. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --ZooFari 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

LoganEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Describe your experience with Wikimedia Commons. Have you ever uploaded a Flickr file? What Creative Commons licenses are not acceptable on the Wikimedia Commons? Why? theMONO 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've uploaded multiple Flickr photos to Commons - it would take me a while to find them though - I used Magnus's Flickr2Commons tool to upload most of them. Most CC licenses on Flickr are acceptable except for those that prevent derivatives and/or commercial use. Logan Talk Contributions 20:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted, should do well. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lymantria (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done[ Tanvir | Talk ] 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

HydrizEdit

  • Hydriz (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo) (assign permissions)
  • Reasons: I believe I should have the license reviewer right as I am very knowledgeable with the Creative Commons licenses that are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons (since I deal with these licenses everyday). I respect copyright a lot and have tagged some media that are violating copyright. I am a sysop on strategy.wikimedia.org and incubator.wikimedia.org, if these information is relevant to the request I am making now. Thank you. Hydriz (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What tag do yo use on a flicker image that has a license that is incompatible with the commons license policy? And if it has an OTRS pending tag? MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I would use {{Flickrreview}} on that image description page and specify the license that is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. Hydriz (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
And without the OTRS tag? MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If it does not have the OTRS tag, I would add {{uffd}} to request for speedy deletion of the file and then specify the license incompatible in the license parameter. Hydriz (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. No opposes in three days. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

MattesEdit

  • Mattes (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo) (assign permissions)
  • Reasons: If there's a need for more License reviewers, I would like to be a candidate. Being a Commoner for over 6 years with some 100,000 edits and 7,700+ uploads, I am familiar with license issues @ Commons, although I would not consider myself as an expert in this field. Thus, I will only be active with crystal-clear cases to start with (if that right is being granted), and I certainly would be willing to advance my license knowledge. Thank you, --Mattes (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What tag do yo use on a flicker image that has a license that is incompatible with the commons license policy? And if it has an OTRS pending tag? MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:Answer Such images cannot be uploaded legally unless an approved OTRS ticket but not if pending (ticket must be closed first). --Mattes (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
When an image has an incompatible license on flicker it fails the review but it can not be tagged for speedy deletion if it has an OTRS tag. Commons:License review gives the tags used in both cases. MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
What tag do you use for an image that fails review and is eligible for speedy deletion?(no OTRS tag)
What tag do you use for an image that fails review and is not eligible for speedy deletion?(has an OTRS pending tag)
@ "image that fails review and is eligible for speedy deletion? (no OTRS tag)" -- RE: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Speedy DEL required.
@ "image that fails review and is not eligible for speedy deletion (has an OTRS pending tag)? -- RE: pending to temp. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep until further admin decision in the near future, because of approved OTRS ticket. The limiting time frame should be of a span less than a week or so excl. holidays and sundays.
--Mattes (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)]

because of the special locations. --Neozoon (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


✓ Done per no opposition and time passed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoangquan hientrangEdit

Comments
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose User clearly still doesn't understand licensing per this discussion. Does not seem experienced/knowledgeable enough to be a file reviewer. Logan Talk Contributions 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose User removing per edit-war permission missing tag (see version history of File:Penélope Cruz 2009.jpg is a no-go for me --Neozoon (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Please note also that reviewing your own uploads is discouraged, and unless you intend to review other users uploads, you should not need the reviewer right. CT Cooper · talk 22:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done speedy close per serious objections. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

MoneyaEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do you intend to review your own uploads? MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

no first of all, whenever i upload photos i make sure It is a valid (for use on wikipedia) copyright. If in doubt I do not upload it. so i would see know need to review my own However even if i would want to I belive it is not aloud to review your own uploads

No because derivative and commercial use not allowed as stated by the person who uploaded The person who uploaded it ,assumiming he also took the photo holds the copyright under Freedom of panoramia in us(because it is of a piece of artwork in us) because the statue was erected in 1913 ,before 1923, any copyright the holder of the artwork had is no longer valid. see Template:PD-1923 --Neozoon (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)



RillkeEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What flicker specific tag do you use on images with incompatible licenses? If an image has an incompatible license on flicker but is ineligible for copyright(ie pd-simple, pd-text), what do you tag the image? MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
1. For incompatible licenses on Flickr-uploads I use {{subst:uffd}}. Then, I notify the uploader with {{subst:unfreeflickrnote}}. Furthermore, I change the review-request-template to {{flickrreview|YourUsername|Date|CurrentFlickrLicense}}.
2. Because PD-Images can't be protected by copyright by definition, I would remove the review-request-tag, change the license to PDx (but only if I am 100% sure that PD applies) and will probably put a note on the discussion-page of the user, that generally the license-type of the Flickr-image is not allowed on commons.
BTW, if you want to "review" an audio-file you have to listen to the whole file. I intend to upload some larger ones ... but I'll not be allowed to review them myself. Smilies Alien doof.png -- RE rillke questions? 20:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support per contribution history and answers to questions MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support from his contributions and personal interaction --Neozoon (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Geagea (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support theMONO 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support LX (talk, contribs) 07:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

✓Promoted.Kwj2772 (msg) 11:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

GuerilleroEdit

Comments
  1. While I wouldn't upload it myself because it is too small, I would approve it. There is a long tradition of having product photos on commons. example
  2. I would approve it; there is no reason to beleive that this piece of artwork would be a copy vio. Directly after that I would nominate it for deletion due to the fact that it is out of scope.
  3. My gut feeling is that it is a copyvio because it is a album cover; however, a google and tinyeye search bring up nothing. I would approve it.
  4. Since there is no link to verify that the video that the screen shot comes from is under a free license I assume that it is copyrighted and not eligible to be released. I would not approve it.
  5. It appears to be a company logo. Since it is more then text and basic shapes, it is open to copyright. Since very few companies release their logo on a free license, I will assume they retain the rights to it. I would not approve it and ask for the uploaded to get a OTRS ticket for the image.
  6. I would only approve the day time shot. The lights at night are retained under copyright (I forget the court case) --Guerillero 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  7. Signatures are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain in Italy (The creators birthplace) and the USA. --Guerillero 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, taking time to respond to my questions. While imagining the fictional situation of 1), did you think the flickr-account was held by a company or a private person?
I imagined it was created by a private individual. --Guerillero 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to disappoint you: This image is embedded in a company's website. It looked to professional as being created by this user. It is always important to check this. -- RE rillke questions? 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
5) is a logo created by a company for a European Union directive. But it is not created by any government, therefore your decision is the right one. -- RE rillke questions? 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this a question or a statement? --Guerillero 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
A statement. -- RE rillke questions? 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. You get the point, but the technicalities are touchy. The screenshot is of a copyrighted web page, no matter what the video content. The logo is clearly copyrighted and would likely be reusable 'with permission' (by following usage guidelines)...not acceptable. theMONO 05:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - User is clearly competent enough to be a reviewer. I can see nothing particularly wrong with the answers given. Expecting a user to roughly know there was around Commons' policies is reasonable, but anything more than that is not necessary. CT Cooper · talk 15:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Time2wait.svg On hold Waiting for answers on the user's discussion page. -- RE rillke questions? 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support You have a good knowlage of the license-requirements on commons; however in practise there were a few problems. I think in future you will care about the mentioned issues and "not to take the word of some wikipedians at face value". Furthermore you will check, wether there was flickr-washing (e.g. by using 2 search engines). -- RE rillke questions? 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Time2wait.svg On hold same as Rillke --Neozoon (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support If you have question about future reviews, do not hesitate to ask us --Neozoon (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. theMONO 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect at SunriseEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question If you see that some-else previously reviewed a file as having a less restrictive license than what you see on the original website. Should you change their review? MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, the whole idea about the reviewing is that it serves to document what license was there at the time of upload, given the fact that Flickr users can change their licensing later on. If the earlier reviewer confirms it once was, say, cc-by-sa, then that information ought to be trusted, and should not be changed. Fut.Perf. 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support theMONO 04:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. theMONO 04:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

MacMedEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What flicker specific tag is used on images with an incompatible license? MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • {{subst:uffd|2=LICENCE}} (copied from instructions page, yes, but I don't know how else I could answer this question :) ). A note should also be left for the uploader with {{unfreeflickrnote}}. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 03:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Promoted. theMONO 20:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

KolyarudojEdit

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Several of your recent uploads were copyright violations, as noted on your talk page before you blanked it repeatedly without archiving or responding.[6][7][8] Just four days ago, you uploaded File:Tori Black 2010.jpg, where you failed to realise that the Flickr user was not the copyright holder. Just a little over three months ago, you were blocked for a week for uploading 21 copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. You have since uploaded 13 additional copyright violations. You have blanked problem tags from your own uploads (files which were subsequently deleted as copyright violations). You have also uploaded low-resolution copies of Flickr files which already existed in full resolution on Commons. Reviewing your own uploads is discouraged for all users. In your case, it would be downright inappropriate. LX (talk, contribs) 12:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

✘ Not promoted. Per comments of LX. There is nothing to add and no chance in a foreseeable time. Read COM:L, the archive of LicenseReviewer requests and the instructions. -- RE rillke questions? 12:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

WaihoraceEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would you have concerns transferring this image to commons? -- RE rillke questions? 11:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it is useful, transfer is OK as it use CC-BY. --Waihorace (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
What about FOP in Japan? -- RE rillke questions? 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Some maybe OK but some are not. Just look at what the image is and if I am not sure just skip it. All things will be done according to that policy. --Waihorace (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question If a flicker user changes the license the image after it passes the review, how should you respond? -- RE rillke questions? 11:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I never think this case will happen. But if it happen, Symbol delete vote.svg Delete from commons due to copyright violation and not let WMF have risk. P.S. Flickr not flicker .--Waihorace (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the spelling mistake (just copy&paste from the archive). Here is the correct question:
If a flickr-user changes the license of an image after it passed the review, how should you respond?
Are CC-licenses revocable? -- RE rillke questions? 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, CC is not revocable, but I will be worry for the copyright holder complain. If this worry can be fix, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep it.--Waihorace (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One of the values of license reviewing is that is confirmed that the image was published under a free license, even if this was changed afterwards. Waihorace is unsufficiently aware of the irrevokabilty of free licenses. Lymantria (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand this case, but I will be worry. --Waihorace (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What should you do if you come across an image with no Flickr link (source) and therefore cannot verify the license? --ZooFari 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Mark it as no source and may be on failed license review. --Waihorace (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose theMONO 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Concerning the question one I would at least have expected a concern about art from Japan, which's copyright has not expired yet. On question 2 I would expect something like "If the new license chosen by the flickr user is less restrictive, I would change to this license. If the license is no incompatible with Commons, I would do nothing.". Your global contribs look good. If you think I made a mistake, feel free to correct me. -- RE rillke questions? 17:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question If you see an image sourced from Flickr was a clear violation of FOP (Not only japan), What will be the action from your part..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Neozoon (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC) the topic of revocation is the core of this activity

  • No consensus to grant at this time. Please feel free to ask again after gaining some more experience. Courcelles (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoangquan_hientrangEdit

Comments
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Numerous deleted uploads; I'm concerned about the user's knowledge of copyright law. MacMed (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, as I said in the first application I didn't understand licensing when I was a new user so I made copyvio. And other deleted uploads are my mistakes (because I misunderstood the author). A week ago, I asked for permission for image File:Maiara Walsh 2010.jpg and I receive the permission on FlickrMail without changing license on the image page. I forwarded to OTRS but the volunteer there said that the license must be present on Flickr -> deleted. So please make allowances for this. The uploads that I asked for permission is more than those which is available on Flickr. If you have any questions, please let me know--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Logan below, and my opinion remains oppose. MacMed (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but that comment doesn't inspire faith in me. Like last time, I still don't feel that you are experienced enough/know licensing well enough to have that right. Logan Talk Contributions 11:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to me that an understanding that would be required for this role would have lead you to understand about the relicensing of the flickr work you had deleted. I think a few more months of work is needed. fr33kman 02:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 No consensus to promote. theMONO 02:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

VibhijainEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: OK on Commons? [9] [10] [11] theMONO 16:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    As per my knowledge of Flickr policies, Only Ella the Snow Dog is eligible to be on Commons, whereas Dog tired and dog fetch can't be on Commons. Hope it is right. :) Vibhijain (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not supporting or opposing here, but from what I've seen, Vibhijain, though well-intentioned, seems to be on a kind of right-collecting spree. While enthusiasm is good, from what I've noticed in different wikis, this user is a bit too enthusiastic which can cause problems, particularly in something like license reviewing, which should never be done in a rush. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    Pmlineditor, you are right, i have got many rights in a short span. But my intention is not to beautify my userpage, I requests user rights to serve better to the community and sometimes to revive small projects. License reviewing is a very complex task, and I also agrees that it has to be done after being 101% satisfied with the licences. Vibhijain (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, I would have remained neutral, but the issue about the picture you uploaded makes me think that you need some more time to get acquainted with COM:DW and the like. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you are in the right direction, but not quite ready to receive this right. Your most recent copyright violation was not too long ago and your account is around 3 months old. I think you should come around Commons more often to become familiar with many of the copyright issues involved in the project, such as Freedom of Panorama Oops, you had mentioned this in your request :). Since it looks like you are experienced in patrolling other wikis, perhaps you might be interested in COM:PATROL (we need more people in this area!). Thanks for volunteering though! --ZooFari 17:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support theMONO 19:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I saw User:Rillke asked this before and thought that it was a good question - what would you say about transferring this image to Commons? --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    That really a tricky one. I saw that this picture has Japan tag, which means that it has been taken in Japan. According To Japanese Copyright Policy, such works which are located at public places, or where public can easily see that work, are allowed for reproduction. But still, this picture can't be kept on Commons because its allowed only for Non-commercial purposes (as per Japanese Copyright Policy), So in short, this picture may comes with a attribution licence, but its actually with a Attribution-NonCommercial licence, which can't be kept on commons, So it can't be transferred to Commons. Hope it was right. Vibhijain (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Hello Vibhijain,I looked through your contributions and that is good work (keeping your age and the fact in mind that you are quite new to the project). Can you comment on the file File:Ramjas School, Pusa Road.png that you uploaded and which is going through deletion request? Did you take the picture yourself? If so, why did you put the logo onto the picture? Is the logo available under free license? Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    This picture is a still shot of a YouTube video, and it can be kept on Commons, as the logo was included in the video. :) Vibhijain (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the quick answer. Can you give us the link to the youtube video and tell us who the author of this video is? --Neozoon (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    Sure, this video can be seen here, as I am a ex-student of this school, I can recognize the principle (that means that this is a offical video, not one make by a student, as the Principle formally speaks in this video). This is a video for the Alumni Meet, and it must be made by the school itself. So that means that the school itself has published the logo to YouTube. :) Vibhijain (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    Finding a video on Youtube and taking a screenshot of it does not make you the author or copyright holder, and it is not your "own work." These are basic copyright concepts that any license reviewer needs to understand. On that basis: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. LX (talk, contribs) 11:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    Some changes have been made on the picture, which makes it a retouched picture. Its not a copyright violation. Vibhijain (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    When you uploaded it, you claimed that it was entirely your own work. Taking someone else's work and making some changes to it doesn't make it your own work, and it doesn't magically liberate it from the original copyright holder. As an unauthorised derivative work, it is a copyright violation. LX (talk, contribs) 13:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You seem to be very familiar with issues such as COM:FOP, but not the basic stuff. Sorry --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose theMONO 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hello Vibhijain, international copyright is quite complex, take some time to explore it and come back later --Neozoon (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the still taken from a Youtube video, more copyright knowledge is needed before receiving LR. MacMed (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn I think that I need more experience with some other policies. I will like to use my current rights to serve the community and would like to have more time to understand the policies. Thanks to all who commented here. :) Vibhijain (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 Not done per above. CT Cooper · talk 10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Awiki100Edit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I won't really oppose because there is no issues with your edits/uploads. But 50+ edits seems too weak to prove that you have a strong understanding about copyright issues --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ben.MQ. --ZooFari 05:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Less than 40 edits between this request and the last one four months ago. LX (talk, contribs) 09:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per LX. MacMed (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry to pile on, but I do think that the relative lack of experience and also the communication skills that leave something to be desired make this candidate not ready to become an image reviewer at this time. Logan Talk Contributions 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done . Feel free to ask again after gaining more experience. --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

NonvocalScreamEdit

Comments
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What would you do when the license on Flickr is different from the one indicated on file description page? --Ben.MQ (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The pages need to harmonize, so change the one on the file desciption page to match the flickr license. The author can also be linked to the profile on the website. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question...and if the image has already been reviewed?MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    Being a clear mistake, fix it. As a courtesy, let the original reviewer know. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe to make the question clearer. say the file is reviewed as cc-by-sa 2.0 What if you see that file on flickr as cc-by-nc? or what if it is now cc-by? --Ben.MQ (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really clear to your question, or two questions. Could you restate it? R, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You stumble upon a file. It has been verified as CC-BY-SA 2.0 three months ago. How would you react in each of the following situations:
  • The license on Flickr has been changed to CC-BY 2.0
Answer:
  • The license on Flickr has been changed to "All Rights Reserved"
Answer:
  • You have received an OTRS ticket demanding the takedown of the file, claiming that the Flickr user "did not mean to release it under Creative Commons."
Answer:
Hope that helps. The third one I added myself. Regards, MacMed (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too inactive. After taking a quick look at your edits, you have so far made only 16 edits to Commons since January 2011. It would be better for a candidate to be more involved in Commons before making a request. —stay (sic)! 04:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I might be less active, or more. I can't guarantee it. My thoughts were, if I'm able to translate permissions from COM:OTRS, I should do fine with this. Kindly, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)  Not done NonvocalScream (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)