Comment I presume there's a record somewhere showing this is Copyleft. I had the idea that in ambiguous cases like this, there would be some kind of link to an OTRS record linked to the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Hi, previous link leads to incorrect photograph which is now corrected; please check and confirm. If required I can get an OTRS mail from the subject or any reviewer from our end can review the license from the linked post.--iMahesh (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what was incorrect or what you changed, but do you think an OTRS notice isn't needed on the file page? What are the guidelines on that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: If a file is published under Creative commons 4.0 share-alike on an external website, I don't think we need OTRS cause the source linked to shows the license published. In this case, the source linked to has a text Available on Wikimedia commons under CC BY-SA 4.0. We only need OTRS if the license of publication is unknown. Correct me if I'm wrong.--iMahesh (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Iam using this process only for public accounts, for private Instagram accounts we're following OTRS process. Since we are habituated for Flickr images, Instagram is quite confusing for many Wikimedians. Instagram should also allow their account holders to change the account license to CC-By just like Flickr, which makes the process easy for us and also benefit many. And it would be easy for us to have a Files from Instagram template just like we got for other photography sites.--iMahesh (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
