Commons talk:Flickr files

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

Possibly unfree images[edit]

OK, what do we do with the possibly unfree images? Links and diffs to prior discussion on this topic would be appreciated here. I'm thinking about those cases when Flickr images have been on COM:DEL, discussion on the pump etc.--Nilfanion 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be a certain time limit during which the image may be speedy deleted. Is the time between detection and upload are less than, say 14 days, the image should be eligible for speedy deletion. Also eligible for speedy deletion might be the cases where the flickr user has been notified of the placement on Commons, and then retracts the CC license, because he/she did not fully understand the consequences of licensing stuff CC. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Those seems reasonable. Another restriction: Any image uploaded after January 1, 2007 (a few days lead in and a nice round date, others possible of course) must be verified as free to be kept. We can push that date back as time goes on...--Nilfanion 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Although legally people cannot retract CC, I think we ought to honor users requests to remove images. People often don't know what they are doing and its bad form to take advantage of their mistakes. Beyond that, pissing people off is not a good way to build a collaborative project. I agree with Bryan's suggestion. --Kzollman 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that old images which are uploaded by a trusted user (see below) should be grandfathered in. That is, any flickr image uploaded by a trusted user before the magic date will be trusted as being free unless there is reason (beyond the license statement on flickr) to think otherwise. I found it a bit silly that my word (as an en.wikipedia admin) was not trusted when it came to a flickr license. If I was out to cause trouble for the foundation, I'm sure I could find much more dangerous things to do than upload unfree flickr images. --Kzollman 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure: I'm an admin on en.wikipedia (Sandstein) and I've uploaded a ton of Flickr images here, many of which have of course now been tagged as unfree by the review bot due to intervening licence tag changes. I'm generally in agreement with the solution that is being proposed above, and I'm trying to give a summary:

  1. All images form Flickr must have their copyright status reviewed, either by the bot or by a trusted user.
  2. Trusted users include admins of large Wikimedia projects (>100'000 articles?) and users chosen by some sort of approval process here.
  3. No-one may review their own uploads, with one exception: pre-2007 uploads by trusted users are considered reviewed by these users.
  4. Images that fail review
    (a) within 14 days of upload: are speedy deleted,
    (b) at a later time: may be deleted after discussion.
  5. Images that pass review are kept, even if the licence tag on Flicker changes afterwards, at least until the copyright holder indicates they want the images deleted, at which time they may be deleted after discussion.

The reason why conducting a deletion discussion is generally desirable is that:

  • in cases of point 4(b) above, other indications that the image was at one point freely licenced may be found;
  • in cases of point 5 above we may want to decide not to honour an author's deletion request, e.g. if the image is in widespread use and difficult to replace, or if as a professional the author ought to have known what they were doing;
  • in any case it may be unclear whether an user is trusted or not.

We should, at any rate, try not to go overboard with paranoia here. There's no real reason why the rationale for such a policy should not also apply to images from any Internet source that does not feature a reliable copyright log, and, well, good luck implementing that. TheBernFiles 08:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, I can think of an addtional reason for a speedy: PU images that are orphans on all WM projects might as well be shot.--Nilfanion 09:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What's a PU image? If you mean an image that fails review, it should also not be in a content category and not be used in a Commons gallery in order to be speediable. Categories and galleries are often linked to from Wikis for illustration purposes. TheBernFiles 09:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, being lazy ;) PU=Possibly unfree, the current failure tag. A true orphan on all projects including commons might as well be deleted without discussion; if the image is used on Commons but nowhere else, that is reason to consider deletion, but only after discussion (odds are the image isn't that useful).--Nilfanion 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, assuming "used on commons" includes being included in a content category such as Category:Flowers. TheBernFiles 09:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that orphaned PU's must be speedily deleted. I am hesitent to introducing some kind of deletion review for PU, as i am quite sure that that will cause an enormous backlog. I would say speedy as much as possible. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


I wanted to revive this discussion, with the following proposal, taken from above:

  1. All Flickr images that have been marked possibly unfree within 14 days after upload should be speedily deleted.
  2. Take down request shall be honoured.
  3. Possibly unfree images that are not used in any Wikimedia project outside Commons are eligible for speedy deletion.

-- Bryan (talk to me) 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 2a: Images that have been marked free and are requested to be taken down are deleted after discussion.
Option 3a: A separate deletion request page is to be set up, where periodically images are listed. Images that are on that page will be deleted after 14 if there is no opposition.
I personally am not to fond of 3a, because I can see no good reason to vote "keep" on such a page. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the reason why we should honour take down requests?
Unfree images should always be deleted. Or do you mean images that are marked possibly unfree? Samulili 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
First, it we never know for sure whether the flickr user knew what the consequences were of freely licensing a picture. Not everybody knows that free means both Commercial and Derivative use. Secondly, although the Creative Commons grant you a perpetual permission, if this this permission was granted while the user did not know the full consequences of this, the license grant may actually be invalid. Ask Gmaxwell for more information on this. Thirdly it would be unethical and give Commons a bad reputation if we would not comply. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (Also added possibly above)

I like points 1, 2 and 3 and think that 2a and 3a are unnecessary. When do we get started? :-D --Iamunknown 21:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to try and clarify #1-3 above:

  1. All Flickr images that have been marked possibly unfree within 14 days after upload should be speedily deleted.
  2. All Flickr images that have been marked possibly unfree after 14 days after upload should be speedily deleted if not used.
  3. All Flickr images take down request shall always be honored, regardless of usage anywhere or license here at Commons.
I also agree that 2a and 3a are not needed. MECUtalk 15:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I read that after posting it and it doesn't make clear what happens to possible unfree images after 14 days that are used. MECUtalk 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Used images that are not clear copyright violations should be separately discussed before deleting. Maybe it's a good idea to add "For possibly unfree Flickr images that are used a free equivalent has to be found, and as soon as that has been done they should be deleted." Although I know from experience that changing images can be very controversial. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition to or prior to discussion, for possibly unfree images which the Flickr user probably owns the copyright to and are in use, we should also attempt contact with the user. --Iamunknown 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Should we adapt the procedure en.wikipedia uses for CAT:REFU? Obviously, possibly unfree is distinct from any sort of fair use, but the process is similar.--Nilfanion 09:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that might be a good idea. Most of these images are going to be of things that we could still create another free image of, so the demand to keep this image doesn't seem right. And removing the image to encourage replacement is a better policy (idea) than letting it exist until a free one is created. There was a fair use image of the w:Cheers sign on the article forever. There was a free image available the whole time, but no one looked because no one cared because the image was already there. And it's not like the image was hard to find, it was in an article linked from the article. Perhaps some simple steps:
  1. Mark image unfree, in use, older than 14 days.
  2. Notify/Request flickr user to license freely.
  3. Place in holding take at <x> for 14 days.
  4. After 14 days, if not freely licensed, the image is deleted. MECUtalk 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came across Image:Riposte 01.jpg which was uploaded by flickrlickr, but hadn't been reviewed, and the current flickr license was NC-ND, and the image wasn't used anywhere and over 14 days. I went ahead and marked as copyvio since the image isn't being used and the change of license should therefore be honored, even though since it was uploaded by flickrlickr, it was likely free. MECUtalk 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that because it is not in line with our current policy. Samulili 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose to these: 2. All Flickr images that have been marked possibly unfree after 14 days after upload should be speedily deleted if not used. 3. All Flickr images take down request shall always be honored, regardless of usage anywhere or license here at Commons.

Reason: If that really became our policy, we'd collect a loads work for ourselves. On top of that comes the totally "pointless" work carried out by people who upload stuff to Commons. We might as well put a big sign here on Commons saying: "Don't bother uploading free stuff from Flickr. We might delete it." Samulili 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I did that also to Image:Rooster Profile.jpg which you can revert as well. I didn't see your note above until after I did that. All work here is subject to deletion, that should be a given coming here. I don't think "Your work might be deleted" is a warning needed, especially with the "don't submit anything, it will be modified by others" disclaimer as well. Being modified beyond all recognition sometimes. But, I will stop marking as such until we figure out what to do. MECUtalk 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Trusted users[edit]

How do we define trusted user? Should there be some page where a user can request flickrreview permission? -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some non-bureaucratic but safe process; bascially "can I be a Flickr reviewer" followed by a few days for opposal. Restricting to sysops is flawed, its just a good start. A subpage seems sensible to me.--Nilfanion 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Me too. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this list could automatically include people who are admins on any of the foundation projects. --Kzollman 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless SUL is going to work soon, which I don't expect before christmas 2007, we have no way to confirm that a user here with the same name is the same user there. We also don't know how admin is handed out on other wikis, so I prefer that the user just request flickrreview status here, since that would be no big . -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that is an issue, although it can be confirmed in some cases. Many users have links on each of their pages to them on other projects. But baring that, I see your concern about cross project verification. If your concerned that adminship might be too easy on some wikis, could some (whole wikis) be pre-approved? Certainly en.wikipedia and de.wikipedia are big enough that their admins are vetted pretty well. I suspect many other project are too, I just don't know. --Kzollman 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed above to include admins on any Wikimedia project with more than 100'000 articles. However, we'd need these admins to confirm their Commons identity on their Wiki user pages, until single login works. TheBernFiles 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I have add a section regarding this subject. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So what[edit]

Why introducing flickrreview when there is no way to proof the license-change? If a trusted users confirms the acceptable license and the creator changes the license and a third party using the picture trusting in Commons will be sued - is the trusted user liable? Then we should define that a trusted user should give his real name that a litigation can de directed easyer to him --Historiograf 02:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a practical problem. CC licences are irrevocable, so using a picture confirmed to be CC is not copyright infringement, even if the author later changes their mind and labels the image with a (C). At any rate, any lawsuit in such a case would probably be directed at the Foundation, not at the reviewing user. TheBernFiles 09:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Try to avoid copyright paranoia. There is no way of verifying for sure that the Flickr user really wanted to release any pic for free (unless they explicitly state so in addition to the Flickr copyright tag); they may have chosen CC-BY without realising its true meaning. Besides, a 3rd party should probably check the source themselves; the best way to address legal concerns is to add a disclaimer to the template.--Nilfanion 09:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the details of copyright law are lost on me here. CC is not the default license on Flickr. If a user goes out of her way to choose the CC license, do we have to also prove that the user "intended" to use the CC license in order to defend ourselves against copyright infringement. If the user takes us to court, can they really say "I chose to publicly declare this image was licensed in a specific way, but I didn't really understand what it meant. So anyone who followed my public declaration is violating my copyright."? This seems crazy, but it wouldn't be the first time I thought this about some legal distinction. --Kzollman 13:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
That's where step 3 of the flickrreview is meant for. I am currently busy writing software that would allow me to mass thank a batch of flickr users that they have released their work CC. If we do this, we are explicitly pointing to the consequences of CC licensing. If the user has no intention to make it that freely available, the file can be deleted from commons anyway.


Almost all images have been reviewed, which concluded the following:

  • There were 10186 images that needed review
  • 4325 images passed the review without any problems
  • 423 images passed the review, but with a different licensed than on Commons
  • 682 images has their license changed to an Commons-incompatible one
  • 238 images were on private pages or have been removed from Flickr
  • The rest of them, almost half of them, could not be compared. This is most often due to the fact that people upload thumbnails from Flickr to Commons. Those images will be rereviewed, using a md5 comparison, and have their full scale version uploaded.

I am also busy implementing phase 3, that is thanking 4748 people for licensing them under the Creative Commons license :) But that has still to be done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I identified 22524 Flickr ids for my Flickr license lists from the latest database dump. A while ago I reviewed the manual flickrreviews and found about 2600 of them done, but the numbers still don't add up. It seems to me that there remains around 10000 unreviewed images from Flickr. --Para 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably, but its getting there. Fault probably lies on me for not tagging every last one for review. Bear in mind we implicitly assume FlickLickr images (I certainly did when doing the tagging runs). That will distort this somewhat.--Nilfanion 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah right, forgot about that. The logs today list about 8000 images uploaded by FlickrLickr, so there's not so many unreviewed after all. --Para 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

From those 4518 unreviewable images, 3521 could be rereviewed. Excactly 100 files did not have the same md5sum on Commons as on Flickr. There appeared to be almost 2000 images here on Commons that had some higher resolution version on Flickr. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started 'saying thank you' to the authors of the images. In this message I have included a link to the Commons Flickr group, and also using CheckUsage included all Wikimedia pages that include the images. Total users: about 1700, 50 done so far. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In bots I trust[edit]

"There is also a review process for images originating from Flickr. This allows for both the verification of freely licensed by a bot or trusted user"

If technically possible, I would like to propose that we exclude users from the first step of the process. By first step, I mean checking images that are in Category:Flickr review needed (please see User:FlickreviewR#Review). I propose this for two reasons:

  1. When it comes to "stupid" chores, a bot can always outperform a human in speed and accuracy
  2. At least in this step, there will be no problem on deciding who is and who isn't a trusted user.

-Samulili 15:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As we speak, there are more than 4000 images that cannot be reviewed by a bot, because people upload thumbnails to Commons instead of full versions. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I would only like to see people not touch those images that a bot can work on. -Samulili 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the images that have been human reviewed can be looked over by the bot now. If the bot can verify free status, it should retag.--Nilfanion 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it can. But first the 4000 that the bot couldn't do yet. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Take down request[edit]

After some reconsideration I don't think it is a good idea to put in the policy that images that are requested to be taken down, are taken down immediatly. I would rather handle them on a case by case basis, to deal with unforeseeable circumstances. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I would like to go further, generally rejecting takedown notices unless there's a compelling argument to acquiesce.
I'm opposed to honouring requests to revoke irrevocable licences because it goes against the spirit of copyleft on which a lot of Wikimedia is founded. Authors who freely and willingly choose a licence for their work have the onus to understand the terms they accept. If one feels strongly about protecting one's works, one shouldn't publish it under a licence without understanding it, and it's unreasonable to punish others for one's own shortcomings in this respect.
Like text contributions to Wikipedia, contributions to Commons are often modified by others, and those modifications are made by volunteers under the assumption that their work won't be undone by the changes of fickle minds.
LX (talk, contribs) 06:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


May I self-review images I've uploaded from Flickr by myself (I'm admin), or is that the point that someone independent from uploader should review the pictures? Kneiphof 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You may, but it is up to you. For example EugeneZelenko for example chooses to have a second person review his uploads, but Kaveh uses {{User:Kaveh/Flickr}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I would follow Eugene's example Kneiphof 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Convincing Flickr that their licensing system is silly[edit]

Are there any efforts to convince the powers that be at Flickr that they shouldn't allow their users to superficially revoke licences that don't actually permit this, or that (at the very least) there ought to be a publicly visible record of which licences have previously been applied to each image? LX (talk, contribs) 06:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, but at the moment, they are swamped with growth and are doing their level best just to keep their heads above water. Rklawton 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it will ever catch on. It is probably one of Flickr's fundamental ideas that anything their users do can be changed later, and I assume most of the users appreciate this. A public record of license changes would take that possibility away from the users. It was discussed earlier, though I'm not sure my point was well taken that time. What should maybe be worked on is some kind of system to confirm the license agreement privately on each download, but I'm not sure how such a system would work. --Para 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The only possibility it would take away is one that doesn't actually exist anyway. I suppose it would be possible to have the licence stored as metadata in the images and provide GPG signatures for each image, automatically generated by Flickr based on a public/private key pair to prove that the metadata is the same as when it was uploaded to Flickr. LX (talk, contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggested something similar to them last year but didn't get any feedback. Perhaps a mock script chain and praises of its usefulness would speed things up. --Para 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should really push for this. If we can convince the foundation that this is important, the request would carry some weight I suppose. Flickr is owned by Yahoo, right? There where some contacts established at some point... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that one can't "revoke" the licenses. But one can cease to offer the image under the license, and this is compatible with copyright law. What flickr users are basically doing is saying, "yes, you can still have this image under that CC license if you can find someone else who can offer it under that license but you can't get it directly from me anymore." This is a pain, but it's legit. As the copyright holder, this is similar to the dual-licensing that some free software creators do (you can have it under the GPL or you can pay me to give it to you without the GPL). — coelacan — 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why we need a log. The flickr user is within their rights to alter their license. However, we need to be able to verify that it was free when we got it...--Nilfanion 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean as a legal benefit beyond what {{Flickrreview}} gives us? — coelacan — 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I used to work at Flickr not so long ago, and now I'm working for the WMF. A lot of people at Flickr want to do the right thing with regards to CC. They pioneered CC as a licensing option, long before anyone else was doing it. Generally, trying to convince someone that they are "silly" is not the first step to gaining their trust or compliance. They have something that works, they're a for-profit operation, and making a log of licensing changes would tie up at least a developer-week. So let's figure out a way where their needs are taken care of, and ours too. Would it be acceptable to the community if there were Flickr API methods which verified the license status of a work at a particular time, signed in some way that Flickr (or outside users) could verify? I know for a fact that it is *super* easy to add API methods to Flickr, and as long as we don't abuse them I think they might be interested in this too. Flipzagging (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for Flickr review status[edit]

Moved to Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Does the above template actually add any information to the images or does it just give a false impression that the images have been reviewed? /Lokal_Profil 15:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It gives a false impression. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Bryan. Samulili 17:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll replace the template with Category:Flickr and {{Flickrreview}} if these don't already exist. /Lokal_Profil 17:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The template is now unused. If an admin deletes it then it won't be used by mistake again /Lokal_Profil 17:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Samulili 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

JavaScript tool[edit]

It would be cool to be able to have a JavaScript thingy which automatically replaced any flickrreview tag (including ones which have parameters filled already) with your own one. This would dramatically increase the speed at which images can be reviewed. Lcarsdata 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. One-click and it puts flickrreview on it for ones that don't need changes, and another click you can change the license or select another option (non-free). MECUtalk 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have left Magnus a message. Lcarsdata 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing own images[edit]

The issue of self-reviewing images has been raised by this recent request. I am not comfortable with the idea of images on Commons being reviewed by the admin or trusted user who uploaded them and/or published them on Flickr. I think the value of the Flickr review process comes from independence from both parties.

I do of course respect the integrity of both our administrators and trusted users but feel that allowing the self-review of images is undesirable. I've seen situations where disgruntled users have requested all their photos be removed from Commons. Whilst such a request is unlikely to be successful, if the user had reviewed their own Flickr images they could decide to change the licence status on Flickr in an attempt to disrupt the project. In this situation there would be no way to verify that the image on Commons was indeed available under a free licence.

The probability of this being a problem is low but my proposal, which is to require that admins and trusted users do not review images they have uploaded to Commons and/or Flickr themselves, would only have a minimal impact on the reviewing backlogs as most would probably be successfully reviewed by the bot.

There is less of a problem with images uploaded by an admin or trusted user but released by an independent Flickr user but I also feel in this case it is better for another user to confirm the licence details are correct. Once again the impact of this would be low as I understand some users already follow this suggestion. Adambro 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll second this proposal. At the beginning, I verified my own uploads, but as I've come across them later, I always tag them for bot review. Just for QA purposes, it's always best to have a second pair of eyes just to make sure you didn't mess it up in the first place. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you have this precisely backwards. Users could be encouraged to verify the validity of their own licenses to ensure that the images that end up here are indeed ones that they are comfortable having here. No one knows better whether an image's license (especially its current license) is valid than the person who took it and posted it on flickr in the first place. Aldaron 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think users should review ther own images. We assume that users/trusted users/admins will only upload images that they believe are free anyway so their review of the image adds nothing. Also by tagging it with {{Flickrreview}} we give FlickreviewR (which we generally trust mor than people anyway) a chance to go over the image. /Lokal_Profil 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
We've really got to stop calling this "reviewing", because that term is obscuring the nature of the issue. If this were truly about reviewing (e.g. confirming that the substance or content of a submission was appropriate, or otherwise acceptable) then I would agree that the original flickr poster has a conflict of interest and should not review his own images. But we're just talking about confirming licenses, and I fail to see a conflict there — in fact see an advantage to having the flicker poster confirm that his own licenses are valid. In any case, I don't see a user's intent to confirm his own licenses (among others) as a reason to oppose his request for "trusted user" status. Aldaron 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
If someone is uploading their own image, why would they bother putting the "source" as flickr, or even mentioning flickr at all? They should just use the "I am the author of this image and give this license:" and that would be the end of it. Whatever the case, I do not think someone should review an image they are the owner of or that they upload from flickr. MECUtalk 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Own images ≠ self-uploaded. This is about confirming that one's image from flickr, uploaded by someone else, has the right license, and about whether that should be prohibited — particularly whether intending to do so (among other contributions) is a reason for being denied "trusted user" status. Aldaron 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Lokal Profil makes a good point about FlickreviewR being more reliable when it comes to examine license tagging on Flickr. However, we should also remember the flipside: FlickreviewR cannot make judgement calls about whether the Flickr uploader is actually the copyright holder, which is also an important consideration. LX (talk, contribs) 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think reviewing one's own images occasionally is OK, in a pinch, (I've done it myself for images I uploaded that were taken by others) but other eyes are far better. Therefore I don't think that reviewership should be granted to someone that is primarily intending to review their own images. Why not pair off with a buddy or something to get them done. Also, I DO think this confirming licenses is a kind of reviewing, as it's reviewing the selected license is in fact what license the uploader granted. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with reviewing images uploaded by oneself. The whole point of the review process is whether you trustworthy or not. Basically: will you lie about licenses or not? If we can't trust somebody with self uploaded images, we can't with images uploaded by others and vice-versa. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I might be misunderstanding here. Are we talking about images of whom the Flickr user is the same as the Commons user, or the review of images somebody uploaded to Commons, but not from the same user on Flickr? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, I think I may have misunderstood this too. If the reviewer is the same as the Flickr user, I don't see the problem. What's important is that the Commons uploader and the reviewer are different. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. All I'm asking about is whether it's OK for a flickr user to confirm that images of his that he finds here have the right license. I see no downside. And even if there's reason for disagreeing about this view, it hardly seems justification for refusing a "trusted user" request. Aldaron 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for a user to self review his uploads from Flickr. If he's the author, he can publish his images anywhere and on any license he chooses (as long as they're not derivative works of a copyrighted image, or violating the law). If he's not the author, he should give evidence that the author is willing to give a copy of his image 'for free'. As I recall, we have the 'Commons-permission' people for that. Yuval Y § Chat § 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer independent review of images I uploaded from Flickr (made by other persons). --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling all flickr reviewers![edit]

In Category:Unknown_as_of_19_June_2007 the first 200 or so images (that start with 2007 or 2005) are images that are from flickr, but labeled "no source" because the uploader just put a generic link to the author's image page on flickr and not directly to the image, and never put flickr review on there either. So, this requires that we search through the author's images and find the correct link to the image and put it in the image and flickrreview at the same time. There are about 4 or 5 flickr users listed as source, so you can be looking for multiple ones at the same time. They've already had their 7 day wait with nothing happening, so they could get deleted, but if you are bored and want to spend time searching through deep images (maybe you'll find more to upload?), saving even one would be a great help. If you are going to do this and want more time, I can put a notice on the category page that the flickr review alert system has been activated and we are attempting to help find all the sources, so please delay deleting for another few weeks. There are ~700 images in the category, but I only know that the first ~200 have this problem. If you go through the other images and see the same problem, please let us know and we can work on all them as well. Thanks. MECUtalk 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template for requests[edit]

I was thinking that many useful pictures on flickr are non-free. These are no good for us of course, but I suspect many flickr users would respond positively to "hi I want to use your pic to illustrate wikipedia's article on...". A standard email/message format for these purposes may increase the sucess rate, but will definitely make things easier on the person doing the asking.--Nilfanion 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following, replacing "Example" with the name of the article, "688948781" with the number of the photo you're writing about, and "8354308@N04" with your Flickr User ID (send me FlickrMail if you can't figure out your Flickr User ID). I borrowed most of it from my w:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Commons 1.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft template for requests[edit]

Hi, and thanks for sharing this beautiful image with much of the world by uploading it to Flickr! I found it while doing research for free online image repository Wikimedia Commons (which stores images for the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, among other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation), and thought that this image (or the highest resolution you have) might be appropriate for inclusion in our article Example.

I am specifically seeking your permission to use this image:
<URL> (or the highest resolution you have)

I would like to include your image in this article:

Storage of your image would be on Wikimedia Commons, to facilitate use in multiple Wikipedias and other projects.

The Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free content images, sound and other multimedia files. Like Wikipedia, it is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It provides a common resource repository to all the various Wikimedia sister projects in any language.

Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge.

Normally we ask permission for images, sound and other multimedia files to be used under the terms of a Creative Commons License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely.

You can review all of most current Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia compatible licenses in full at the "cc" links on Creative Commons copyright tags.

The easiest way that you can set a Wikimedia Commons compatible license, either "Attribution Creative Commons" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons", is to go to the Set a license for this photo page, click the radio button for the appropriate license, click the "SAVE" button, and then send me FlickrMail indicating your change.

These two licenses expressly protect creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our licensing and copyright policy at Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

We choose the Creative Commons licensing for images, sound and other multimedia files because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our projects can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates for images, sound and other multimedia files in a less cumbersome manner than the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which we also accept and was designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for free works (but is not compatible with Flickr). This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikimedia Commons -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations.

With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. If you choose a license outside Flickr, please explicitly state which license you choose.

We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following articles for more information: Commons:Welcome and Wikipedia:Introduction.

We also invite your permission for use of all of your images, perhaps by using Batch Organize / Permissions / Change licensing to change their licensing, or changing your legal notice on your website according to Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Declaration of consent for all enquiries.

Thank you for your time.


HTML for use on Flickr:
Hi, and thanks for sharing this beautiful image with much of the world by uploading it to Flickr! I found it while doing research for free online image repository <a href="">Wikimedia Commons</a> (which stores images for the free online encyclopedia <a href="">Wikipedia</a>, among other projects of <a href="">the Wikimedia Foundation</a>, a non-profit organization), and thought that this image (or the highest resolution you have) might be appropriate for inclusion in our article <a href="">Example</a>.

I am specifically seeking your permission to use this image:
<URL> (or the highest resolution you have)

I would like to include your image in this article:
<a href="">Example</a>

Storage of your image would be on Wikimedia Commons, to facilitate use in multiple Wikipedias and other projects.

The Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free content images, sound and other multimedia files. Like Wikipedia, it is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It provides a common resource repository to all the various Wikimedia sister projects in any language.

Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge.

Normally we ask permission for images, sound and other multimedia files to be used under the terms of a Creative Commons License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely.

You can review all of most current Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia compatible licenses in full at the "cc" links on <a href="">Creative Commons copyright tags</a>.

The easiest way that you can set a <a href="">Wikimedia Commons compatible license</a>, either "Attribution Creative Commons" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons", is to go to the <a href="">Set a license for this photo</a> page, click the radio button for the appropriate license, click the "SAVE" button, and then <a href="">send me FlickrMail indicating your change</a>.

These two licenses expressly protect creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our licensing and copyright policy at <a href=">Commons:Licensing</a> and <a href=">Wikipedia:Copyrights</a>.

We choose the Creative Commons licensing for images, sound and other multimedia files because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our projects can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates for images, sound and other multimedia files in a less cumbersome manner than the <a href="">GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)</a>, which we also accept and was designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for free works (but is not compatible with Flickr). This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikimedia Commons -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations.

With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. If you choose a license outside Flickr, please explicitly state which license you choose.

We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following articles for more information: <a href=">Commons:Welcome</a> and <a href=">Wikipedia:Introduction</a>.

We also invite your permission for use of all of your images, perhaps by using <a href="">Batch Organize / Permissions / Change licensing</a> to change their licensing, or changing your legal notice on your website according to <a href="">Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Declaration of consent for all enquiries</a>.

Thank you for your time.


Other versions[edit]

I have written shorter versions:

Don't hesitate to use them and to edit them if you think it's necessary. Peter17 (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new version of {{Flickr}}[edit]

Just an FYI—I have created an updated version of {{Flickr}}, which can be found at {{Flickr/new version}}. Any comments are welcome at Template talk:Flickr#New version! --bdesham  16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Flickr guidelines[edit]

This page needs a section that details what types of Flickr licenses are allowed on the Commons. I saw a user on enwiki ask what images from Flickr are allowed and I came here looking for a link to provide them and this page just talks about the automated processes, but not if the user simply wants to upload themselves.Nmajdan 19:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a notice, hopefully this makes things clearer. Giggy 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The upload page here on Commons for flickr uploads is fairly clear: MECUtalk 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License"[edit]

Hi, I used the Flominator/Flinfo tool on an image that's CC "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License". The tool said it's a non-free image. Is that correct? Why? I might wanna email the photographer and ask for the license to be changed or whatever. Thanks Ling.Nut 09:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The tool is correct. The licence is not permitted on Commons because it doesn't allow for the content to be reused by anyone as is required. It would of course be great if you could get the photographer to change it to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Adambro 09:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Flick review: different resolution[edit]

I was looking into some of the flickr images needing review, and I came across Image:LebiskariFortress.jpg. This one exists on Flickr with the right license, but the one on flickr is lower resolution than the one on commons. I assume that this should fail the flickr review, but I wanted to check first. Fail or pass? --Sopoforic 22:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The size of the Flickr image matches the file originally uploaded to Commons, so as far as that goes, everything seems fine. However, the source information for the newer version on Commons leaves a bit to be desired. Whether a higher resolution and a lower resolution version of the same expression can actually be considered two separate creative works under separate licensing conditions has, to my knowledge, not been tested by the courts. I believe I tend to err on the side of caution wit copyright concerns, but in this case, I'm actually inclined to say that it's all in order. LX (talk, contribs) 00:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bizarrely, I can not see the earlier version of the file--the link just points at, which clearly isn't right. The dimensions aren't listed either. That's beside the point, though.
I am under the impression that some people provide lower-resolution versions of their images under a free license, and sell rights to use high-resolution versions. Whether this is legally supportable isn't my call, nor really the issue. I'm still a bit hesitant to mark it as okay, but perhaps the easiest solution, for this particular image, would just be to get in touch with the image's creator and ask. Maybe I'll just let someone else deal with the other images like this, since it makes me a bit nervous. --Sopoforic 09:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Licence question[edit]


Is it then allowed to upload this image from flickr? It is under the following conditions: Attribution, noncommercial and share alike. -- 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Images restricted to {{Noncommercial}} use are not accepted at Commons. Commons only accepts images which anyone may use for any purpose. See the blue box at the very top of this page. LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is possible to upload this file [1] on commons? Thanks for answer. Andrzej19 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images on other projects[edit]

I've just done a major run here on Commons, and found something like 2000 Flickr-sourced images that were untagged (with a few false positives). However, I did a quick scan on enwp and found approximately 4000 files linking to Flickr hosted on en (list here). The question is what to do about them? There is no review process there and any Flickr-sourced image on en should be under a free license, so acceptable on Commons. Anything Commons rejects, en would reject (except maybe a few PD-US things which would be rare).

The safest way to do this would be to review, and transfer those with acceptable licenses. Those with bad licenses would then be deleted through the appropriate en process (PUI). We could just transfer the lot and then review once we have them on Commons, it would have the same end result (the non-free files gone and the free ones on Commons) but might upset certain enwp users. With ~4000 files to do, a bot is the obvious way to handle it.

I checked dewp and frwp as well for comparison, but they have nothing like the problem of en and could be sorted by manual work. Any thoughts on how to handle en?--Nilfanion (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Other websites with CC images[edit]

I have seen this suggested several times in the past, but am not aware of an actual implementation. There are more and more websites other than Flickr which offer acceptable Creative Commons images, and we can't create a separate template for each of those. Is there already a process for uploading and reviewing such images? If not, we should create one, or extend the Flickr review process so that it is clear that trusted users can also review images from other websites. Pruneautalk 10:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what websites do you have in mind? We only need a similar process if they have a similar ability to change licenses to what Flickr has.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

French translation[edit]

Hi, this page was translated in French, but I can't remember how to make the links between them. Please can someone check this out? Thanks in advance, best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, sorry :) -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image check please[edit]

Is this image eligible to upload to commons? Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The license is Creative Commons "CC-BY-SA-2.0". It is shown symbolically under "Additional Information". No problem to upload it here. Sv1xv (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, just wanted to double check before I uploaded it. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review image[edit]

I have used the Flickr upload bot to upload File:Dirk mueller.jpg. It is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0, but the REUTERS tag confuses me if this really can be true. Can you please review? --Dwi Secundus (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, it's a copyvio (see user's photostream...).--Trixt (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you help! --Dwi Secundus (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Name of page[edit]

In light of the videos present, I suggest we follow the example of the image: prefix here and rename this page Commons:Flickr files. Richard001 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea especially since the namespace was changed from Image: to File:. Giggy (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(After moving only the talk page at first,) I've done it. Richard001 (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition proposal to 4.4.1[edit]

Hi, i propose an addition to Section 4.4.1. --Martin H. (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

4.4.1 Guidelines

When you're uploading images from Flickr, please:
  • critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Make sure that the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder of the image and that the image was not created by someone else or is a derivative of someone else's work. Please review Commons:Flickr images/Guide for more information.
  • upload the largest version of the image, and
  • use the Flinfo tool for providing an already filled out version of Template:Information for a picture at Flickr identified by its id ID.

--Martin H. (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the Section 4 needs some restructuring
4 Manual 
 4.1 The Commons on Flickr 
 4.2 Searching Flickr 
 4.3 Changing licenses 
 4.4 Uploading images 
  4.4.1 Guidelines 
  4.4.2 Tools
should be changed to
4 Manual
 4.1 Searching Flickr 
 4.2 Uploading images 
  4.2.1 Guidelines 
  4.2.2 Tools
 4.3 Changing licenses 
 4.4 The Commons on Flickr
--Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


I have asked a Flickr user if he/she would release the rights for an image for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. He/She said no, but is currently considering if he/she might let the use of a low resoulation image free. On COM:FLICKR, it states if the full image isn't free to try low resolution image. He/She wants to know how he states that the use of a low resoulution image is under a different licence.

Note: I have asked this at Commons talk:Licensing#Flickr low resoultion images and would like respones answered there thankyou,  The Windler talk  10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's been an answer there anyway. I have updated this section as I noticed my initial addition wasn't very helpful in terms of how to go about the process. Richard001 (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding categories no longer so easy[edit]

The Flickr upload page used to have (until 21 February) a Category entry button where one could add categories to photos at upload. This has disappeared as of 22 February, meaning categories can only be added after the upload in a separate edit. Can it be restored to the previous state, please? - MPF (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Magnus' tool or TUSC[edit]

Hi all, fairly new round here, just trying to get a flickr photo of bacon ice cream for a article. I've tried to use Magnus' tool but when I try to use it having created a TUSC password I then get a TUSC password invalid message and can't upload the file. I'll do it the hard way but would be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction to ask for help. I've tried the JILA bug report page but can't see anywhere to add my query. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometime Magnus tool is not working because of several problems: Toolserver problems or problem with the Flinfo this tool uses. In case the toolserver is down you can still use Flinfo to make your live easier: Translation of this tool:
Titel: Flinfo, easy upload Flickr images
Button: request Flickr-info
Check-box: Text only (i dont know what this means)
Its realy simple, the ID is the image id in the flickr link:
Flinfo automatically creats Geo-locations. --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Martin. Bigger digger (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick check[edit]

Is this copyright level allowed on commons? -- 15:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-ND: Non commercial, non derivative. No, it is not acceptable for Commons. Only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are acceptable. Sv1xv (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. -- 15:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Handling modified Flickr images[edit]

Hi, I transferred two images, File:NY 37 at NY 37B west terminus.jpg and File:NY 37 at NY 37B east terminus.jpg, over from Flickr today. However, both are a bit dark and need to be color-adjusted, so I downloaded both and adjusted them in a photo-editing program. I'd like to upload these improved versions to Commons, but my question is what would be the appropriate way to do so? Should I just overwrite the originals? Should I upload them under a different filename? Since the original images come from Flickr, I don't know what the appropriate course of action is. Thanks in advance. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you improve the image just upload them under the same filename. E.g. for cropped or havyly restored versions of historic images, for modifications on maps or illustrations changing the meanig of the file or for an image with 2 notable person and one cropped it is recommended to upload under a different filename. However, if we once need the original file it is still available in the version history or, in case the license is not changed or the image is removed, on Flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response. I'll follow your advice and upload them under the same filename. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done, good improvement. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How about tagging the pictures with
Applications-graphics.svg This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: color-adjusted. Modifications made by TwinsMetsFan.

? Teofilo (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Katie Jacobs 2009.jpg[edit]

The image has been nominated for deletion over here. I'd like a few people who've perhaps had an experience in this sort of thing to weigh in on the issue. Thanks. LeaveSleaves 07:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the issue. Best regards, Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 07:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice about potentially confusing license issue[edit]

Hi, following discussion at Commons:Help_desk#Some_confusion_over_an_images_licence_and_name I wanted to check with you guys about what the most appropriate action is. Long story short:

  • I am both a Flickr user and a Commons user. I frequently upload a photo to Flickr and upload the same photo to Commons.
  • My photos are all released under the CC0 waiver, which releases all rights. I tag them this way on Commons. Flickr does not present this as a license option, so instead I include explicit CC0 waiver text and a link in the caption of every single image on Flickr.
  • Some users are concerned that because my images on Flickr are marked "CC-BY" there may be confusion regarding their actual copyright status, particularly if the caption is overlooked. I'm also uncertain about whether I need to prove that my Flickr user and I are the same person.

Here's an example: On Commons, On Flickr

Thanks for any feedback. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons = KGB[edit]

My file File:Maryna Zanevska US open 2009.jpg was deleted cause it was "licensed cc-by-ND, that is not free for modification (non-derivative) and not free enough for Commons". What kind of KGB bureaucratic noncence is that??? According to the Flickr page the picture was "free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work". I did not modificate the picture, but did copy, distribute and transmited it... What the hell is "not free enough for Commons"... this is why wikipedia commons reminds me of the KGB... It administrators do not seem to care about improving wikipedia but more in it's own noncence bureaucracy. Flickr gave me permission to "copy, distribute and transmite", I did that, that meens to can not sue wikipedia and to picture can be used to make wikipedia better. - Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Media released under a "Non-derivative" license are not acceptable on Commons under the current policy, see COM:L. The ND flavor of Creative Commons fail the definition of a Free license. If you visit the Creative Commons site ([2]) and have a look in [3] you shall notice that the CC-BY license is "Approved for free cultural works", however the CC-BY-ND license ([4]).Sv1xv (talk) is not. 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Flickr page I got the photo from (see here) it was released under a Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license. Witch makes it free "Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work" but not "Approved for free cultural works" either. - Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Flickr specific issue. If you disagree with the policy of Wikimedia Foundation of not accepting media released under a ND license, you may post a proposal to change it on Commons_talk:Licensing. Sv1xv (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
wmf:Mission statement --AVRS (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright text on Flickr pages[edit]

I've come across a few cases where the upload of validly licensed Flickr images has also uploaded accompanying text which is copyrighted by a third party and included on the Flickr page in copyright violation, or at best, 'fair use' (and therefore not permitted here). Example: File:Alectryon tomentosus Fruit.jpg had some text copied from the Flickr page which in turn copied it from this website which is © 2007 Brisbane Rainforest Action & Information Network. When I've seen it I've deleted it, but there are likely to be other cases. At least some (many/most?) of the cases appear to involve bot uploads. Any ideas on how best to avoid this happening in the first place? - MPF (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a serious problem, however when we discover such a case we can delete the text. In this specific case the text sourced from another site was a brief phrase with simple facts, no big deal. In the past there have been flickr tranfers with more extnsive copyrighted texts, which were also deleted. Sv1xv (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another guideline[edit]

I believe that we should notify the photographer whenever we load a Flickr photo into Wikipedia. This notification should not be mandatory, but it would be polite and collegial and so I have inserted the following into the Guideline section:

  • It would be polite and collegial to leave a message on the image's Flickr page stating that it was uploaded to Wikipedia.

Better wording would be appreciated. Madman2001 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a set of photos?[edit]

Back in February one of the most historic buildings in New Orleans in private hands was briefly open to the public before being auctioned. I took over 200 photos, and uploaded them to my Flickr account under free license. I've meant to upload them to Commons as well, but never got around to it. Is there some sort of tool or bot which might upload all the images in my Flickr set: Spanish Customs House to Commons in Category:Lorreins Plantation House? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

bump! --Exploit (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

new template for linking to Flickr[edit]

I've decided to be bold and change {{Flickr user}} (which was previously an unused redirect to {{User flickr}}) to a template that links to a Flickr user's profile and photos. It uses the same format as {{User}}. I'm not sure how useful this template would be, but I suspect it might come in handy at times. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Mysore Palace Night.jpg[edit]

File:Mysore Palace Night.jpg is from Flickr, at the time of the upload it was checked by a bot and was found to be under an OK license, the image license on Flickr changed since then and I realize that Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. However the original image had a "© Vijay Pandey" watermark on the bottom right corner that was latter removed, doesn't the copyright watermark mean that the image was improperly licensed on Flickr? --Chris Ssk (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also a file licensed under Creative Commons or GFDL or any other free license is © by someone but licensed under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I see, thanks --Chris Ssk (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Duncan McCargo[edit]

Is it possible to use this photo? Duncan McCargo, Bernard Schwartz Book Award Winner --Roxanna (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not on Commons, as it is marked as copyrighted. You can try asking the Flickr user to relicense it under Creative Commons (cc-by or cc-by-sa). -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Roma-campo dei fiori02.jpg[edit]

The permission is available but we never had a license for this file? -- Common Good (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Flickr user not wanting a link to his flickr page[edit]

There is a user who allows Commons the use of his pic, but he prefers to not have a link to his flickr page. Since links are added automatically by the upload bot, what can I do to comply with his wish? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea how to do this? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's quite an unusual request. A basic rule when uploading files to Commons is that the licensing of copyrighted files has to be verifiable. That becomes a bit tricky if you wish to comply with the wish not to link to the source. One alternative might be to make the submission through COM:OTRS, noting the wish of the author. That way, the source will still be traceable, but the information will be limited to a small number of trusted users. Of course, if someone were to look for the source themselves, they could probably find it quite easily through Google even if it's not mentioned here explicitly. LX (talk, contribs) 10:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


This is all very complicated, with multiple links to follow, procedures and caveats to learn. If someone wants to upload an image from Flickr "real quick" and move on, just like they can with Wikipedia text, it becomes a hassle. For instance, I was going to upload a picture of a restaurant from Flickr. I'm now inclined to just go there and take a photo myself instead of learning all this. Is there a way you could make a "simplest case" page, perhaps for CC images, stating exactly what I should tag it with (in case the user rescinds the CC license), so people can visit, see exactly what they need to do, do it, and move on? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Try Flickr2commons or Flickr upload bot. Jklamo (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Upload form[edit]

On the Flickr upload form, there is a reference to a few other methods. To describe the alternate methods better, I made a proposal for an update at MediaWiki_talk:Uploadtext/fromflickr#Update. Docu  at 04:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

how to request permission and get appropriate acknowledgment specifically[edit]

1. What should I as for? The CCSA or the other one? Version 2 or 3?

2. What do I need to get the other person to do to show they agree?

TCO (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing Commons:Flickr files, our page about files transferred to Wikimedia Commons from I'm guessing your question is related to File:Turtle crossing sign JPG.jpeg, which does not seem to come from Flickr.
Judging from the tags on the file description page, the user who reviewed the OTRS ticket you sent in (Chaser, I believe) probably wrote back to you explaining what information was missing, so check your e-mail. Wikimedia Commons accepts a number of free licenses, including Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 and 3.0 and Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 and 3.0, so the author can pick what he prefers. See Commons:Email templates for an example of a standard release. LX (talk, contribs) 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed Flickr users: Where to list them?[edit]

Hi, we have a list of questionable Flickr users but apparently so far no list of confirmed Flickr users. I wonder how to best proceed with cases where we have a confirmation documented through an OTRS ticket. A recent example for this is the Flickr user Titan View Pty Ltd which is officially linked to Titan View, an Australian feature film distributor and production company who generously decided to release some of their posters and photographs related to their films under free licences on Flickr. An example for one of these images is File:Three Blind Mice.jpg that is linked to the OTRS ticket but there are more cases to be handled like File:Mother Fish Poster.jpg. I think that it would be best to document somewhere that this Flickr account is confirmed and then to proceed with the regular Flickr review process to assure that it was indeed published by this Flickr user under a free license. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Flickr images that is work from US government[edit]

Consider this image: File:Evacuating_the_Pentagon_after_Earthquake.jpg

This image is transferred from the official US Navy flickr page. Since it is a US government work it is public domain. It is listed on flickr as Creative Commons with some restriction since Flickr does not list public domain as a licensing option. I changed the copyright tag to PD but I am not sure it should be marked. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins can now upload whole Flickr sets with the Upload Wizard[edit]

See COM:AN#Admins can now upload whole Flickr sets with the Upload Wizard. --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

free?[edit] - free? Strannik27 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Try flinfo. --McZusatz (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Flickr redesign/relaunch[edit]

Just noting here that yesterday (or 2 days ago?) Flickr underwent some major changes, notably in the UI and in how they administer accounts. This probably affects some of the info here, definitely the stuff about Pro accounts. Ultra7 (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Moderate" and "restricted" files[edit]

I've attempted to upload my Flickr photo set (Fremont Solstice Parade 2013) to Commons, using Flickr2Commons on labs ( Flickr requires that photographs that show female breasts be classified as only "moderately" safe, and that more explicit nudity be classified as "restricted," and it appears to me that Flickr2Commons on labs does not see photos that are so classified. Since one of the most prominent features of the parade is the naked body-painted cyclists (e.g., the effect is that Commons has effectively ended up with a censored set of my photos of the parade.

Does anyone know if this is deliberate with respect to Flickr2Commons on labs? If not, can Flickr2Commons on labs be fixed in this respect? If this is deliberate, or if it would be difficult to fix, is there any other tool that will allow me to batch-upload the remaining photographs, or will I have to do this one by one? - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

commons is NOT censored, so there isn't any reason for this tool to be. if somebody snuck it in there (i.e.: creeping bowdlerization), then that needs to be discussed. Lx 121 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Normal users with access to Upload Wizard/Flickr?[edit]

So when can normal users be allowed the ability to upload directly from Flickr without the use of bots or saving to hard drive then downloading from there?...I like to keep tags of what i upload from flickr and its hard when i have to (after uploading using a bot), find the pic and put it on my watchlist..most images are more than 5Mb each so saving to HDD is not an option for me (limited internet)....--Stemoc (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"United States Government work"[edit]

Re [5]: does Flickr ever designate images as "United States Government work"? If not, this should be reverted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that designation does appear on Flickr. A good example are the photos in The White House's photo stream. —RP88 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lower quality images[edit]

This section may be wrong and may need an update. I have commented out the entire section as COM:VPC#File:Trabalhos.jpg indicates that something is wrong here and risks causing unwanted consequences. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Commons be encouraging people to upload non-free images?[edit]

Re: this revert.

The point as basically made is true. Flickr users can discourage downloading of their photographs. But only if they've set the photo license to "all rights reserved".

If a Flickr user chooses to make a photo available under a Creative Commons license, then it doesn't matter what they put in that box, downloading is enabled with no discouragement. Here is the Yahoo page detailing the rule. If you have a Flickr account with that option enabled and go to the page to change your default licence, the text says, "You've previously chosen to restrict who can download your stuff. Selecting a Creative Commons license here will override that setting on future uploads."

The only relevant use of this information is to get around protection for non-free files, so that they can be uploaded to Commons - whereupon they will have to be deleted as non-free. The user does not need to know, because the issue will never legitimately arise. Kahastok talk 17:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. It seems I overlooked your edit note. Jee 03:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Usage of files from the US embassies flickr streams not licenced "freely"?[edit]

Recently I had a discussion with Russavia regarding this issue and he/she seems to feel that images from flickr stream run by US embassies fall in the same copyright category (as a work of the United States government). As you may know, not all US embassies with flickr stream actually release the image under a "United states Government Work" or any other variant free licence, most actually have a Non-commercial or Non-Derivative licence added but as Russavia pointed out, since the image is created by an employee of the US Government, it falls under a free licence (Public Domain) and thus can be used on commons regardless of the licensing criteria for that embassy...I feel this needs to be discussed further and with a few more experienced users and this may be the best place to discuss this...--Stemoc (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A license is valid only if the granting party holds the rights at the time he grants it. So we can ignore them if those works are PD due to the reasons quoted above. But we need clear evidence that such works are "prepared by an officer or employee of the federal government as part of that person's official duties."Jee 15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Tools section seems out of date[edit]

Bryan's flickr upload tool now just says "Unfortunately, the Toolserver will soon be decommissioned. I would like to thank everybody who has used this tool to upload over 250k images to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia has been integrating Flickr uploading into MediaWiki, and you should head over there for future uploads from Flickr." Unfortunately, the page linked doesn't seem helpful at all with regards to Flickr uploads. The information about Flickr uploads should be made more obvious on that page if it's there somewhere. And obviously, you shouldn't be recommending Bryan's tool any more, if it's gone now.

Magnus's tool seems to work fine, so that's probably the one you should be recommending. I had tried Bryan's tool first, because it's listed first, and because the comment on Magnus's tool about needing a "TUSC account" sounded scary. However, that "TUSC account" thing seems incorrect, because I've successfully used Magnus's tool without having a "TUSC account." So that should be removed, too.

Bottom line: Recommend Magnus's tool, and remove any mention of Bryan's tool or TUSC. And maybe a little bit of a tutorial on Magnus's tool would be nice, because it seems designed for power users doing mass uploads from Flickr, and the user interface is slightly intimidating for a first-time user wanting to just upload a single image from Flickr.

--Ppelleti (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel added strikeout to the part about Bryan's tool, and I added strikeout to the part about Magnus's tool needing a TUSC account. The TUSC link now results in "403: User account expired".

--Ppelleti (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and entirely removed the text that was struck out.

--Ppelleti (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Identifying a Flickr account[edit]

While checking wheather a given image had already been added to Commons, I come across this:

I understand that Flickr allows user “names” to be changed at whim, but this means these names cannot be trusted to be stable or even useful. The bot should be ammended to include under {{Information|Author=…}} the unchangeable numeric code (*), while the “human readable” name, if at all, should be included in brackets and quotemarks, as an alias, and dated. In this case, I defend this:

| Author = (a.k.a. “Sberlazza”, as of {{date|2013|11}})

instead of the current:

| Author = [ Sberlazza]

(* Yes, the numeric code is in the linked url, but it would be better to make it readable on the page, not only in its wikitext/HTML source code. On a second point, at least some human readable account names seems to be persistent and fully interchangeable with the numeric code, being used in stable urls. Still a “number-always” policy would be simpler to enforce.)

-- Tuválkin 08:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • May I presume that the unbalanced parenthesis above is a typo, and not part of the proposal? - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, thanks! (Usually missing brackets make me twitch and want to fix them uncontrollably, like some people feel about crooked frames on the wall…) -- Tuválkin 07:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As you mention at the end, there are two types of IDs. All users have numeric IDs, which consist of eight digits, followed by an @ sign, an N, and two digits. This is usually the last part of the URLs for profile and photostream pages. Some users also have an alphabetic ID, and then that may show up in the URLs instead. One can use to figure out the numeric ID given an alphabetic one. The screen name is either the only name shown on the Flickr user's profile page, or the name shown after the slash, and it is not necessarily unique or permanent. I still think it makes most sense to use the screen name in the author field, as this is the best indication we have of how the uploader wants to be attributed, and I don't think the attribution should be drowned out with record keeping data. It's not a bad idea to record this information, but it's better kept in the Flickr review tags, in my opinion. LX (talk, contribs) 18:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on all factual matters, except in what concerns «how the uploader wants to be attributed». Matters stability in referencing and attribution, and we have no reason, need, or duty to keep up with airheads who’ll change their screen names as often as yesterday’s fad goes stale. Thence my proposal of keeping the screen name as given upon uplaod as a mere alias and record visibly (i.e., not only as a hyperlink) on the page the user’s stable name — I agree that this could be, instead of the numeric ID, the human readable user name, though, which is, also «how the uploader wants to be attributed», at least upon chosing it. -- Tuválkin 20:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As a Flickr user who doesn't screw around with my name, I would be rather unhappy to be credited merely as "a.k.a. “Joe Mabel”, as of " rather than "Joe Mabel". (For what it's worth, when I copy my own files over from Flickr, I change the author line to Joe Mabel (on Flickr as Joe Mabel from Seattle, US), but I can't think of an automated way to do an equivalent). - Jmabel ! talk

I understand that an "a.k.a." may look like cheapning someone’s name, and I’d be pleased with a less offensive format which on the other hand would still preserve a reuser’s ability for proper attribution and referencing. What about | Author = [ Sberlazza] (screen name of Flickr user 66321334@N00, as of {{date|2013|11}})? Maybe the template could even be smart enough to ditch the parenthesised bit altogether should the username be identical to the screen name (as well as when there’s none). Instead of the numerical code, the human readable (but stable) user ID could be used instead, when there is one. -- Tuválkin 07:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sneeky Flickr relicense[edit]

I have become aware of editors uploading copright files to Flickr where they change the licenses to make them seem free. Any of these can then be uploaded here and checked by a bot which finds that it's ok. See Special:Contributions/Deshwal for an example. That Flickr account seems to have been created solely for this purpose, otherwise the images could have been uploaded directly. I have seen other examples but not so blatant. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bot only verifies the license, not the validity of the license. Deshwal is blocked now and uploads nuked, please report further Flickrwashing accounts at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images. --Denniss (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I know what to do. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Redundant Flickr reviews[edit]

For some reason, the license of images uploaded with Flickr2Commons[6] are not automatically verified during the upload, which wastes time for people who have to confirm them.[7] Surely this should be an automatic process when uploading? The licenses are already checked when preparing for upload. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images[edit]

See above, regarding a recent change in Flickr's license options, and the implications for Commons. Ultra7 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Flickr public domain images[edit]

Now that Flickr supports images with Public Domain Mark, is there a plan to add this "license" to the Upload Wizard under "The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license..."? Currently the options are CC-BY-SA, CC-BY and US government. Thanks Declangi (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Declangi: there are no plans to do so. Commons expects users to choose one of the more specific PD tags at Commons:Copyright_tags#Public_domain. See Commons:Requests_for_comment/Flickr_and_PD_images for background details on this decision. If files do get uploaded from Flickr via some other tool, most tools have been modified to use {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, but note that this template insists it be replaced with a more specific tag. —RP88 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply, I think I now have a better understanding of the issues surrounding this license. Declangi (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

CC 4.0 License vs 2.0 License: Time to Update Links?![edit]

Hi, I noticed that all the links describing the various CC and PD Licenses are the 2.0 version, there's a 4.0 version now, should all the links be updated? Here's link to 4.0, not sure if they're the same as 2.0 but at the bottom of the 2.0, they tell you there's a new version, all it would take is changing the URL. I'll do it in a few days if no one else does and i'll mark it DONE. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Raquel Baranow, Flickr does not offer its users the option of licensing files under any of the Creative Commons version 4.0 licenses. It only offers its users the option of using version 2.0 of these licenses. Please do not change the links. —RP88 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are NoDerivatives & NonCommercial not allowed?[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a business and the image isn't being modified.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That’s why some Wikipedias allow local hosting of images released as NoDerivatives & NonCommercial. Here’s the Wikimedia Commons, though, whose goal is not merely to illustrate Wikipedias. -- Tuválkin 15:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Licensing/Justifications. LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The PDM Mark[edit]

We have, I think, reached a consensus that the Public Domain Mark, now being used on Flickr, is unacceptable on Commons. No DR with the mark has been closed as a keep. The reason is simple -- policy requires that all image licenses on Commons "must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, the fourth bullet.

The PDM mark can be changed at any time, so it does not meet our needs.

Therefore, I intend to change the instructions on this page to show that the PDM is not acceptable..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I endorse this change. Editors need to realize when uploading that absent specific contrary evidence the PDM isn't safe. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
However, just note that some people may still use it for clearly PD image s(old photos and US-Gov works), those are allowed, since they are simply stating "they are PD for some unknown reason" and need to be replaced, but for own works, they are not allowed. Josve05a (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Related: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#We_need_a_clear_end_to_this. Jee 15:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

So, what was the result?[edit]

Pinging @Jameslwoodward, Jkadavoor, Revent, Yann: and Clindberg. Josve05a (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we keep (and undelete) files, and delete them? Can someone update relevant templates and documentations? Such as {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, to be in-line with the outcomes of all discssions. Josve05a (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisa de ajuda[edit]

Não sei muito bem, as licenças certas em pauta. Gipel (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Upload by Flickr user, license remains unchanged[edit]

This file was uploaded by Shadman al Samee. I don't know if he will change the license on the original Flickr page, but it is clear in the Flickr page comments that he is the uploader and the same person as the Commons user. Can this be reviewed as is, or is Shadman al Samee required to change the license at Flickr? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 08:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Count of files on Commons from Flickr?[edit]

Can anyone demonstrate or even guess how many files on Commons came from Flickr?

Thanks for any quick answers anyone can share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't there a hidden category for this? Otherwise a bot should add them, Panoramio files have this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, there is no single category for all files from Flickr, nor is there any guarantee that uploaders add such categories. Bluerasberry: We can get a decent estimate by looking at Category:Files from Flickr and adding up some of the key subcategories (mainly the review categories, since a single file may appear in several of the other subcategories, but is usually only reviewed once). The number appears to be in excess of 6.3 million files. LX (talk, contribs) 17:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Donald for mentioning Panoramio - I will check it out. Thanks LX for showing me the answer and supporting evidence. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry, Donald Trung, LX: This search gives 6,589,697 files.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Flickr paid plans and deletions[edit]

Flickr was bought by a small company last year, which at least means it's no longer risking to be shut down suddenly like any Yahoo property. However, on January 2019 the accounts with over 1000 photos will see old photos deleted unless they pay for the pro plan.

Creative Commons is working with them, so there's probably no need to panic just yet:

However, it would be good to make sure that

  1. the ArchiveTeam project manages to archive a copy of all Creative Commons files on Internet Archive, so that we can always use them later (as we did with Panoramio);
  2. we list all the accounts with over 1000 freely licensed or public domain photos on a wiki page, identify one by one all those which have some value and import them to Wikimedia Commons with our usual tools.

Nemo 08:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I had never heard the Panoramio Wikimedia story but now I see it at Commons:Panoramio files. I regret that we do not have labor organized to publish about these things to make cultural products, because we and others celebrate these case studies when they exist.
I want this done with Flickr but it is challenging. Archive Team breaks these things down into a series of tasks in their core team before doing the outreach to recruit more casual contributors to help with the download. So far as I know, we in the Wikimedia community have not previously collaborated with any of these efforts.
Flickr / SmugMug does not provide datasets so far as I know. This means someone has to get the data by scraping and a set of other technical operations. If we get to that point then there can be the import of the account's photos to Commons.
I support anyone doing this but technically this is beyond what I know how to do, and what I am aware we teach and support with our documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
If you can write a blog post about the Panoramio uploads, maybe that's a way to inspire more people!
Meanwhile, I see that emijrp is preserving thousands of Flickr videos on the Internet Archive. Nemo 19:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Immediate danger was averted for the past uploads: There's still a risk that users with around 1000 uploads will start deleting older Creative Commons uploads to add new ones, though. Only inactive users and non-profits are safe. Nemo 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Does we have a page to ask for a Bot that will uploads such images? Or did someone already ask for?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
For the accounts which host unfree images, everyone can now gift them the pro status. Jason Scott has started a feed of accounts worth preserving: Nemo 10:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I've made a list of 7200 potential victims of the deletions: Commons:Flickr files/2018 purge. Once we've verified it's reasonably accurate, someone should do a mass messaging. Then everyone can start handling each account as they wish and add notes of what they did. Nemo 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Every individual with a PRO account will cease having a PRO account with their death. So are all linked images associated with individuals at risk?. (I am expecting to die soonish and had hoped that by transferring part of my photo archive to commons would perpetuate the usefulness of some of my images. MargaretRDonald (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear Margaret, first of all best wishes for your last journey, whenever it may be. The photos which are already here at Category:Photographs by MargaretRDonald are safe. A for the other 9k or so, please switch them all to cc-by-sa so that we can archive them here as well. If you're worried by redundancy, don't: the photos are high quality and described in a way that makes them useful.
As for what happens on Flickr, can't you buy multiple years of Pro at once? I'm not familiar with Australian law but you may also be able to leave/bequest a sum of money to someone with the specific request that they use it to gift your account a pro status every year until the money runs out. Nemo 20:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm now sending a photo comment to every single user of the list above, as @wikimediaitalia (example answers: [8] [9]). I may continue with more accounts later, from the ArchiveTeam lists. Nemo 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Thanks, but you hit twice.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes that was for a test run, since fixed. Nemo 14:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Two more accounts can be imported: [10] [11] Nemo 14:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Another with several albums about places plus a number of aviation photos: Nemo 16:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Another with mostly buildings and places: Nemo 08:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

ArchiveTeam is almost done downloading most of the CC-licensed media. I believe this is the list of Flickr account and photo IDs being downloaded (1.5 GiB compressed). Nemo 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Several tidy albums from various places in Wisconsin: Nemo 18:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Some more are ripe: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Nemo 17:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Some from Texas --Nemo 12:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
A lot of military equipment (mostly tanks in museums): Nemo 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Some more to look into: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] (need to check authorship of some) [34] (only some albums are relevant, probably) [35]. Nemo 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

As a note, the deadline has been pushed back to March 12, 2019. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As I hoped, new and future Creative Commons-licensed photos are now exempted too. The users we convinced to switch may be considered safe for now. Sadly, free users can't use the bulk switch any more. Nemo 17:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

With regard to Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/12#Flickr_"distress"_email (which I just saw via [36]), I received the same email and that made me check a small sample of accounts in the list above. Most of them seem to be still fine, so I don't see a need to scramble making emergency archivals, while some outreach could be in order.

The first step, if we're worried about Flickr's future, would be to make (or ask) a dump with (original photos and) metadata, and find some hosting for it. The Internet Archive (and ArchiveTeam) prefers to make WARC files which are then accessible from the wayback machine, but this format is less useful for future imports by us, especially if we don't have a metadata dump. Nemo 09:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Flickr public domain marked pictures[edit]

How should we deal with these images, I uploaded one imgae which is marked as PD,

, what is the right copyright tag for this. Or is it even possbile to use these in wikimedia? --Typ932 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Typ932: PDM is unacceptable here, please read COM:PDM.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
okay, those tools and instructions are little bit confusing, becayse they told to search "Commercial use & mods allowed" license filter and they still cant be used, also those transfer tools ( should not allow to upload these at all- --Typ932 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Flickr Images to export on Wiki Commons[edit]

Hi, I received some photos and the owner has given me written permissions via email by authorizing and allowing me to Upload their files, Photos to Wikimedia Commons Under CC BY-SA 3.0/4.0, First I thought I should email the permissions to OTRS, but then I created my account on Flicker and uploaded those images on my Flickr account and released them in "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)", now I am asking here is that now okay to Upload or export them here on Wikimedia Commons, so these images can be used for relevant Wikipedia articles?. need your valuable suggestions, guidance in this regard, thanks JogiAsad (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Obviously Flickrwashing. How can you publish those as CC0 if the photographer didn't release them under that licence? --Magnus (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, now what are instructions to suggest the phophotographer owner to release them under that licence, so then can be used for fair use on Wiki?.JogiAsad (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey JogiAsad. The owner of the copyright should email permission in accordance with instructions at COM:CONSENT, verifying that they are the original author. Because licenses like CC0 and similar are effectively legally binding contracts, a third party cannot release the content on someone else's behalf without a formal legal agreement empowering them to do so. GMGtalk 13:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for guiding (how to do that) me,...JogiAsad (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

US Army photos on Flickr[edit]

I've seen this question broached several times on this page over the years, but it's still not clear what the steps are for U.S. Government photos on Flickr not posted with the correct license for Commons. There are photos I'd like to use posted by this account - It's a Pro Account from the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army. It's clearly an official account. The photos are posted Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0), so Flinfo says it's not suitable, but as a U.S. government account, they are in the public domain. Can I just upload them to Commons with the government license? Thanks. — ʷiḳỉℳẚṅ₫¡₳ (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Wikimandia. When I find US DoD photos anywhere online, I normally go back to and try to find them there. All official DoD media is required by policy to be registered with DVIDS, and these are normally the original highest quality photos, and meticulously documented with author and public domain status. The flip side to that is that if it isn't anywhere at DVIDS, then it may not be an official DoD photo. (Also, if you register for free, you can batch download zipped galleries from DVIDS.)
I'm instinctively a little weary of a photo like this one, because even though it says "US Army photo", it's actually credited to joint US/ROK public affairs, and the author doesn't carry any military rank. So the author may actually be an ROK employee. If this were the case, then AFAIK, the CCBYNCND would probably be the correct license. Either that, or it would likely just be non-free. GMGtalk 12:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Found photos I want on dvidshub! — ʷiḳỉℳẚṅ₫¡₳ (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to note for future reference, if you ever have any issues, in my experience the DVIDS customer service folks are super responsive and helpful. I'm not sure that they're professional archivists, but they've helped me find photos before. GMGtalk 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Another key is the VIRIN. In the case of the photo mentioned by GreenMeansGo above, "20191219-O-LX039-017", the letter in the middle should denote the originating branch or department (see {{ID-USMil}} for a breakdown), but in this case it is O, for Other. While still possible that an O image could still be public domain, it is another strong warning flag that it would not carry a Commons-acceptable license. Any other code should normally be public domain. Huntster (t @ c) 16:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify @Huntster:, my understanding is that the VIRIN does not differentiate between service members and contractors. Is this your understanding? GMGtalk 17:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, generally I see contractors use the O tag, even when associated with a particular branch. Of course the above wording is just a general rule of thumb, and not a hard rule, but it helps identifying good vs bad a little easier. I'm not 100% sure how it works for U.S. military, but for NASA even contract photography is still required to have no copyright if done in the course of their official duties (this per one of their contract photographers, Bill Ingalls). Huntster (t @ c) 17:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I would very much like to know where this information originates. The blanket coverage for PD works of the US federal government generally excludes contractors. Though NASA may write this into their contracts explicitly. I'd be interested to learn more. GMGtalk 17:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe it is something written into the NASA contracts. I have no idea how to find such info, just going off what I've been told by those involved. Huntster (t @ c) 21:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Smithsonian Terms of Use[edit]

Did the Smithsonian Terms of Use change since this document was written? You may use Content marked with the CC0 icon for commercial purposes without further permission from the Smithsonian. Kees08 (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Their addition of CC0 images is very new; their license page was changed sometime between 16 and 20 February (see archive). There are still only a very small number of CC0-licensed images available, though. Huntster (t @ c) 16:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Since it is clarified now on their page should it be removed as an example on this page? Kees08 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
No, because it is not guaranteed that the Smithsonian will "fix" all of their image attributions. This serves as a warning simply to not take the Smithsonian's claims at face value, when there may be evidence to the contrary. Perhaps it could be clarified in some way, but not removed. Huntster (t @ c) 18:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Was bringen meine Flickr-Download-Rechte[edit]

Hallo, mittlerweile Frage ich mich warum ich überhaupt die Rechte habe auf Bilder herunterzuladen. Ich habe schon etliche Male versucht Flickr-Dateiein nach Commons zu übertragen, aber jedes mal schlug es fehl. Ich beende hiermit zukünftig komplett dieses Vorhaben, bitte nimmt mir wieder diese Rechte, ich hab die Schnauze voll von --Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)