Commons:License review/Requests

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

Requests for license reviewer rights

[edit]

(Translate) (purge this page's cache)

2020s
2010s
2000s

Before requesting, please read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files.

To become a reviewer, you need to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons and the common practices of reviewing. A reviewer is required to know which Creative Commons licenses are allowed and disallowed on Wikimedia Commons. You should be dedicated to license reviewing every so often and offer your help in the backlogs. You can demonstrate your knowledge by regularly participating in deletion requests or New Files Patrol.

Post your request below and be prepared to respond to questions. The community may voice their opinions or ask a few questions to verify the applicant's knowledge. After a few days, a reviewer or administrator determines whether there are no severe objections to the applicant. If there are not, the user will close the request and add the applicant to the list of reviewers. If permissions are granted, you can add {{User reviewer}} (or one of its variants) to your user page and begin reviewing images.


Click the button to submit your request. Alternatively, copy the code below to the bottom of this page, and only replace "Reason" with the reason you are requesting this user right. Requests will be open for a minimum of two days (48 hours). 

=={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}==
{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}

To close a request, please wrap the entire section excluding the section heading with {{Frh}} and {{Frf}}. If the request is successful, please leave this message {{subst:image-reviewerWelcome}}--~~~~ on the applicant's user talk page.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 5 days.


Tanbiruzzaman

[edit]

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

Comments

  •  Question Hello @Tanbiruzzaman: before voting, I would like to ask you some questions.

You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:

  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/whichpressoffice/27194404271/in/
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/152930510@N02/41519416844/
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDO98lMnZXA
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDJ-kmfo9c
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM1bXT01Rm8
  6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephen_downes/14493547497/in/
Thanks,--Mazbel (Talk) 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Mazbel, Thanks for your question.
1.Decline: Screenshot of a tv programe of ITV News (Copyright owner). There’s no proof if ITV News released it under any free licence or not.
2.Accept: Acceptable license, and included metadata.
3.Decline: Mixing of many/random clip, which could may own by different holder.
4.Decline: There're some copyrighted music playing in bg.
5.Decline: This is clip of w:Emmerdale tv show, and uploader isn’t the real copyright holder.
6.Decline: Unacceptable license (nc isn't allowed in Commons).
Regards, –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you replyes --Mazbel (Talk) 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Granted: Clear consensus. In addition, the user is a VRT agent, so he has experience. --Mazbel (Talk) 02:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.

Queen of Hearts

[edit]

Comments

Alachuckthebuck

[edit]

All the best -- Chuck Talk 20:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

 Question Hello @Alachuckthebuck: , thank you for your nomination, but before casting a vote, I would like to ask you a few questions.
  1. Could you explain why it presents an undefined block on enwiki?
  2. In his request mentions " I'm unable to fully patrol a new image or video because I'm unable to review the license, meaning another person has to go and look at the image" Could you explain why having a license reviewer's permit would help you in your work? I ask you this, because it is not necessary to have a license reviewer's permit to verify whether or not an image has the correct license.

I would also like, if you could review the following

  • You come across the following files that need to be reviewed - Please give reasons as to why you would accept/decline each of the following:
  1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/thekeyport/8638307717/
  2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ktee1026/3472022956/
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/44657206@N00/467245145/
  4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/cc_photoshare/10488395186/
  5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/fischerfotos/14723867088/
  6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/trucknroll/5206638676
  7. https://www.flickr.com/photos/1la/4657069088/

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer the above questions.--Mazbel (Talk) 21:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know why the block is showing as undefined, but the full details are on my en-wiki talk page. If you have any further questions about my block, please leave them on my (commons) talk page.
2. Based on my understanding of policy, if an image as the license review template, a license reviewer must review it unless it meets speedy deletion criteria, then the review isn't needed.
For the images
1. No released with CC-BY-SA-NC 2.0 (emphasis mine) making it non-free and ineligible for upload
2.✓ Yes this is an interesting one, there is no FOP in France, but because Gustave Eiffel died in 1923, all photos of the Eiffel tower taken during the day are photos of a monument/building (its classification is moot at this point) in the public domain, thus can be licensed as the photographer sees fit, in this case, CC-BY 2.0 generic. However, the lights on the Eiffel tower were installed in 1981. As copyright in France is 70 years after death of the artist, they will be unfree until at least 2055.
3.✓ Yes There is FOP in Thailand for architecture and buildings. This image is under CC-BY-SA.
4.✓ Yes Fop for buildings does exist in Singapore, but I would have doubts on scope without knowing what exact buildings are in the photo.
5. No I.M Pei died in 2019. Please see above answer for Eiffel Tower.
6. No Cloud Gate, aka the bean, is protected by copyright in the US. In fact, the bean is used as an example on the commons Copyright rules by territory/United States page. In addition, the artist has been known to be extremely aggressive with copyright, including getting the exclusive rights to use Vantablack in art installations.
7.✓ Yes Unlike the bean, the Statue of Liberty is public domain in the US.
Thanks for the questions!
All the best -- Chuck Talk 22:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.--Mazbel (Talk) 02:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/Requests&oldid=912195054"