Commons talk:License review

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


A discussion about an aspect of license reviewing is ongoing at Commons:Village pump#Purpose of Template:Custom license marker.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is archived at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/07#Purpose of Template:Custom license marker. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher, Speravir: Thanks for the reminder.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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)