Commons talk:License review

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

Reviewing my own files[edit]

I have uploaded videos from Vimeo via video2commons (for instance) and they are tagged to be reviewed. I don't feel comfortable on raising the workload for reviewers and wonder if I could mark them as reviewed, instead of waiting for others to review. Is it fine to review those files or should I leave it to others?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 00:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Teles: No, it is not fine. You can reduce the workload in another way, by reviewing others' uploads.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No problem. It is weird because it would be automatically reviewed if they were uploaded directly by me and not through video2commons... but, ok, I will leave it to somebody else. Thanks for answering.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Teles: perhaps a wider discussion should be held by on whether video2commons uploads by Admins should be automatically reviewed and how that should be implemented; I think you're right that they should.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsplash images[edit]

Category:Images from Unsplash (review needed) contains nearly 30,000 images needing review. Instead of a license review template, these images are simply added to the category. As you can imagine, this would take an enormous amount of manual work, which will likely be taken up by no one. Is it possible to create an Unsplash-specific review template (similar to the one for Flickr) and have a bot replace the category with this template? This would reduce the labor in reviewing these specific files, and the backlog can at least get chipped at bit by bit. xplicit 01:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Two Questions[edit]

I have been working away at LR’s in Flickr PD Images Needing Review needing to be done and there are many from this flicker account such as File:240th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Chaplains Corps commemorated in Arlington National Cemetery (20121795295).jpg and many others. Everything about the description and the metadata leads me to believe this was made by a US gov employee and would be in the public domain but this flicker account isn’t linked to any .gov or .mil sites as most are. Any second opinions?

Another issue is there have been a lot of uploads such as File:2016 Greeley Unexpected Kickoff Concert (27824763496).jpg. I can almost always find information about states but cities I don’t know. I also can’t tell if this is a legitimate account although it does appear to be at first glance. Regardless I don’t know how a city in Colorado releases something into a public domain. Should these all be rejected? This could amount to a lot of files. Thank you for your opinions. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Sixflashphoto: For the first point: the Arlington National Cemetery is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army: see, so photographs taken by employees during their official duties are in the Public Domain. Note that the Flickr feed is linked at the bottom of the official website, along with other social media accounts. As to the city of Greeley, any copyright holders are free to release items into public domain if they choose, be they private citizens, government agencies, or corporations. Unless evidence points to the contrary, it can reasonably assumed that photographs posted by the City of Greeley are taken by city employees, and thus are works for hire. From that US Copyright circular, "If a work is made for hire, an employer is considered the author even if an employee actually created the work. The employer can be a firm, an organization, or an individual." Also, note that the Flickr feed is linked at the bottom of the City of Greeley website: --Animalparty (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thank you very much. I just wanted a second opinion on the Arlington photos since there are so many and the other US gov accounts looked a bit different. As to the city of Greeley ones I am glad that is cleared up. They should be alright as long as they are not violating anything else such as FoP or anything else as I've found a few have. Thank you for the quick reply. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sixflashphoto: No problem, and thanks for helping to chip away at the backlog. Every little bit helps! --Animalparty (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:32, 28 February 2018‎ (UTC)

Files from Finna for review[edit]

Do any other reviewers have any issue with me putting all the files from into their own category? Right now that is 732 images but will soon be about 2,000 per this thread. This will be much in the same vein as any of the other "image from X" categories that are out of the main license review queue. --Majora (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • No issues here. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    I created it. {{FinnaReview}} and Category:Finna review needed. There are 1,000 images in there right now and from a search there are about 1,800 other Finna images without any license review at all. Not quite sure if it is worth it putting all of those in this category. --Majora (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if it is worth putting all of the images into that category either but as someone who does a lot of license reviews with PD images I appreciate your work (and help in the past to the project and myself) to keep some order. Also I took a quick look at some of those files and while I don't know that they are not PD images, I would not jump into approving them. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the images, we very well may be able to host them, I just wouldn't be the one to mark them approved under that license at this moment. @Majora: if they were marked {{PD-Finland50}} would you approve them? Is the date of the authors death correct? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    Most of them, I believe, are PD-Finland50, Sixflashphoto. From what we have on Finland's copyright laws what matters here is if the photo is a "work of art". If it is a normal "everyday" photo then it falls out of copyright 50 or 25 years after creation depending on the date. Taking that into account, every photo taken prior to 1966 that is not a work of art is in the public domain. Assuming that the dates on the photos are correct then the author is irrelevant for most of these. If the photograph is a work of art then it is 70 years pma. I'm pretty sure we can keep these images regardless. It matters about the correct licensing. We don't want to call something that is public domain "Creative Commons" when it isn't as that would be attaching copyright terms to something that isn't in copyright (something that personally irks me quite a lot when people do so). --Majora (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Batch Flickr reviewing?[edit]

Is there any way to do a good Flickr review of batches of files in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review with the "Public Domain Mark 1.0" that are obviously freely licensed, such as US government works, such as many of the 106th infantry images in Category:New York National Guard (maybe 100), or many of these Category:John Fairbairn Anderson Collection (about 400) pre-1923 Canadian images released freely, or several 16th century book images? Doing them manually will take a long time and be a pain for any reviewer unless there is a quicker way. Ww2censor (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Special:Search/incategory:"New York National Guard" AND incategory:"Flickr public domain images needing human review". Then VFC them with "Perform batch task". Then load them all and select them (inverse selection with none selected is the same as select all). Then go to custom replace. Under edit summary at the top put "[[COM:LR|License review]] passed". Select the first /R/ box and put the following under "Pattern to match": /\{\{FlickreviewR.+?}}/ and in the "Text to insert instead" box put {{Flickrreview|Ww2censor|2018-05-16}} (or whatever the current date is UTC time).

Always examine scheduled changes when doing this and render the page to make sure it is replacing correctly. Examine scheduled changes -> 1 -> Diff -> Render preview. You can do a lot of damage really quickly here if you type something in wrong.

Rinse and repeat for any other categories you like to do. --Majora (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

But to be clear--You do not have to examine every photo individually? I've been working on keeping that category under somewhat control, but lately with over 17,000 photos in it, it's becoming larger and larger despite efforts to keep it down. Not to mention many pictures in there that I am not convinced belong in there, but if we could just get control over US government works and others that are easy to verify that would help a lot. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
You should still look at them all individually. The batch processing just automates the last step. When I do this for tistory related images I verify all the images are correct then do the actual license review template last with visual file changer. See the top of my contribs here. I can imagine you scrolling through the flickr feed of the Guard, verifying that the thumbnail that VFC loads is on the feed, then checking it off and doing the "confirm" replace once you scroll though. But yeah, you should still verify the image is on the feed of the Guard. --Majora (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Majora, Sixflashphoto:: that looks like a rather nifty solution in any attemmpt to reduce the category but when I ran a test using the above instructions, on examining scheduled changes all I see in the preview is exactly the same entry with no changes showing. What am I doing wrong? I do know that "Perform batch tasks" can create terrible problem if used improperly and I do use it for some tasks but I would be happy to help out on some of the obvious reviews if I can get it to work for me. It might be preferable to move any further detailed advise discussion to a use talk page. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you run it using the same category in the example or a different one? 1 refers to the first image in that VFC loads regardless of whether or not the image is selected or if the image actually has the correct syntax it is looking for. It works for me when I do it. Can you walk me through exactly what steps you are doing? If you want to move this to my talk page you are welcome to do so. --Majora (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)