Reason: I would like to request the "License Review" permission for helping in the review of images coming from Flickr that need human revision, GODL-India and Bollywood Hungama. Before making this request, I have read carefully COM:LR, COM:FLICKR, OTRS and the header of those categorys. I have been able to gain more experience with the license and which is consistent with the Commons. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk) 18:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 18:52, (UTC) (the earliest)
CommentThese achievements were as little as five months in the past, whereas Commons is very serious about licensing. Does the candidate really hope to pass with such recent record? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe that I tried my best to learn all about it and hope I did. Regarding the mention I was report itself at COM:VPC, see this after that I learn about Derivative works. I also believe that learning never end and we can learn till end of day. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk) 10:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: In short if YouTube users mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license then can be uploaded on Commons else the file is violating copyright rules and that file can't upload on Commons. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk) 11:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Not even a cursory mention of the problem with derivative works in videos and how that can affect license review. Seeing as they stated that they learned about derivative works just a few lines up and then proceeded to state that a CC license on a YouTube video is an immediate ok in their book makes me very uncomfortable giving them the ability to review uploads. --Majora (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Reason: After being rejected twice in 2017, I have tried my best to gain experience on Commons and is also a part of the OTRS team. Would like to review files from GODL-India and others. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Scheduled to end: 15:28, (UTC) (the earliest)
Tiven2240 could you please link to the failed requests? What have you learnt from the failed requests and what has changed in the last one year? Looking forward to reading your response. Regards. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
T Cells The link to the failed request can be found here. I've learned that I lacked knowledge of being a license Reviewer that time. I was unaware of the necessities of this rights such as COM:DW, COM:PRP and COM:TOO and I have been since working on this. In my contributions you can find DR mostly on COM:SCOPE and Speedy requests for unfree derivative works and copyright violations under COM:SPEEDY. I've been active on the OTRS and learnt about permissions and COM:UNDEL and even been successful to report few users for violations at COM:AN/V. I have also been active in organising COM:WLL19 where I have learned categorizing and organising events. I have also been translating pages and moving files as per COM:FM. So this is a quick preview of my works in last 2 years after my LRR was rejected. Hope this helps. Thank you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Question Could you please elaborate a little on the provenance/licensing of File:Bhupesh Baghel, June 2018.jpg? I'm a little confused by "Previously published: I haven't publish this anywhere. This photo was taken by his own cameraman. Author: Domino786". Is Domino786 the cameraman (The original upload log says: "Uploading a self-made file...")? If not, where can the CC0 license be confirmed? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Thanks. --Begoon 04:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Begoon regarding the file. It was transferred by me to Wikimedia commons from English Wikipedia as the politician (who is the subject of the image) was under elections and there was need for his image on articles. The subject is now the Chief Minister of a state in India. This image was not published before anywhere before so this is probably original work. The uploader has many more uploads like these but the exif doesn't match. Nevertheless I have asked for clarification of the same from the original uploader via mail and will Assume good faith untill the next 7 days. Failing so I will nominate the image for deletion.
Regarding Public Domain work, the public domain is complicated. Its laws varies from country to country. A general rule of thumb is that if the creator of a work has expired for more than 70 years, then their works is in public domain of that country where the creator was a citizen and in the country where the work was first published. Since this is not a image uploaded from a external website so the procedures of COM:LR is not possible to verify it's License. The uploader needs to follow the procedures prescribed under COM:OTRS. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The list of files uploaded to Commons by Domino786 is here, which all seem to be landscapes/architecture uploaded for Wiki Loves Earth, rather than portraits - just 7 images uploaded within the space of one minute (with 4 (or 5) different cameras in the EXIFs), all described as "own work" and tagged CC4. At en.wiki, here is the upload list, just 4 pictures, all of this politician, 2 deleted for lack of license details, one the file you transferred here, and one seemingly the image from which it was cropped. Where are you seeing that "the uploader has many more uploads like [this]"? Again, my apologies if I have misunderstood you. Thanks. --Begoon 10:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear Begoon, Am speaking about the same uploads that you pointed above. At current I don't think that I am here for discussing the Image. If you find this image problematic feel free to mark the Image for DR and let more people discuss it. Hope this helps. Thank you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
As I see it, you are here to have your suitability to review licenses assessed. This seemed to me a good opportunity to discuss the process and how you would approach it, with a tangible example. From COM:LR - "To become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons. A reviewer is required to know which licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons and be familiar with restrictions that may apply". In my opinion, assessing this file is a useful indicator - LR is not just about robotically looking at a Flickr etc. page and ticking a box - awareness of uploader history and behaviour are important, since not every externally claimed license will be valid. Thank you for your answers so far, and if you don't feel inclined to discuss it further that's entirely your call. Good luck. --Begoon 11:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per the last response to Begoon. License reviewers are expected to be open for discussion particularly when the issues raised has to do with files they uploaded, reviewed or transfered here from other projects. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no Indication above that I am not open for discussion. I just noted that this is not a place for discussion of the image. Wikimedia Commons has specific procedures and I tend to follow up discussion about a Image at the image talkpage, uploaders Talkpage, the Village pump or on the DR. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Weak support, eh, I think Tiven2240 have learnt enough about license reviewing.--AldnonymousBicara? 15:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Support Tiven has shown knowledge of copyright and policies. Yann (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17:Both these videos are in the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license on YouTube. The first video is from Bhubaneswar a city in India. As per COM:FOP India it is not ok to upload 2D works. Since Indian copyright laws are modelled on that of UK, we have to refer to COM:FOP UK where "Works of artistic craftsmanship" are OK, "graphic works" are not. So the upload is problematic.
The second videos description clearly states "All of the content in this video belong to their respective owners. We do not own any of the footage or music used in this video." the YouTube uploader has no permission to release these in Creative Commons license, so this video is not Ok to upload on Wikimedia Commons. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose Sincere apologies, but, given the above, I'm still concerned the candidate might tend to "rubber stamp" rather than properly investigate. I could, however, change my mind reasonably easily if shown a couple of examples which demonstrate otherwise. --Begoon 02:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Support: sufficient knowledge of copyright; some minor complaints in the last two years. Thanks for the answers.--Roy17 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a Wikimedia Commons user page.
If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Davey2010.