Commons talk:License review

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


A proposal for Commons:License review has been made here. ZooFari 04:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of other files[edit]

Perhaps we should create a review template for files that do not come from one of the places we have a "review wanted" template for? We could add a link in that template to a full list of review templates it is possible to add. Just so that reviewer (and requester) can check if there was a template for that file. What made me suggest this is this file File:Amazona albifrons -upper body-8a.jpg and this notice [1]. --MGA73 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For we should probably create a template like {{geograph}}. --MGA73 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a suggestion Category:Images from the project. --MGA73 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way. That way we should not need a review? --MGA73 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
For, we could just use {{piqs}}. Agree we should create the "review wanted" template for {{LicenseReview}} that can link to available templates like {{piqs}}. ZooFari 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes lets create a "LicenseReview". Perhaps if it is blank (like {{LicenseReview}}) it could be a "review wanted". --MGA73 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins and reviewers[edit]

I just noticed that some admins are marked as Image-reviewers. Are all admins not trusted to review files? And if so admins should automatically be a Image-reviewer (and File-mover and whatever admins should be able to do...). --MGA73 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Both image-reviewers and sysops will be allowed to execute the script (unless we decide otherwise) so image-reviewers flag is redundant for sysops. ZooFari 15:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like abusefilter was set up instead and accepts the admin usergroup as well. Thus admin image-reviewers can be just admins. ZooFari 02:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

See also User talk:Kwj2772#Reviewers. ZooFari 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Flickr Images deleted[edit]

I just had several Flickr images deleted that I put on Wikimedia. I cited the license and copyright information correctly -- and it appeared to me that the photos were eligible for uploading to Wikimedia. Now I am told they were not. Why is that Wikimedia allows images from Flickr to be uploaded and then later decides that they are not eligible for uploading? Wouldn't it be the simplest sort of fix to program the software to reject Flickr photos which do not cite a license that permits their upload to Wikimedia? Smallchief (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smallchief. If you notice at Commons:Flickr files, you cannot upload files under the license cc-by-nd or cc-by-nc as they do not allow commercial use or derivative works. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC-BY) or BY SA (CC-BY-SA) are allowed on Commons. --ZooFari 17:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama[edit]

If the copyright status of an image is unsure due to an Freedom of Panorama concern, should the image be tagged as passing the review in addition to being tagged for regular deletion? MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the license and author still match, you treat it as if there was no concern (while you still tag it for deletion accordingly). --ZooFari 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

unfree flickr note like templates for different sites[edit]

Is there any reason why unfree licensed images do not have a template for a seven day wait period, but instead are tagged for immediate speedy deletion? Should a template and cats be made for the other sites? MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The template used to be a seven day wait period but was changed because it was not in correspondence with the speedy deletion policy. If we know it's a copyvio, it should immediately be deleted. We could change it back to the way it was, but we would need consensus from a large part of the community. As for other sites, it'll be done sooner or later once we are comfortable with how the flickrvio template should work. --ZooFari 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Images incorrectly reviewed[edit]

I've noticed two cases of images where reviewers didn't notice some details were incorrect. First, images from websites not marked as being released under the ported Creative Commons United States licenses (such as File:Paranthrene simulans2.jpg, which I corrected without retagging for review). Also, images from BOLD Systems which were marked as "No rights reserved" by "Unspecified" authors, which were tagged here as released into the public domain (not necessarily true, I assume) by BOLD Systems (the website, not the author). I changed File:Schinia diffusa.jpg, File:Schinia grandimedia.jpg, and File:Schinia deserticola.jpg to {{Copyrighted free use}}, like most such images from BOLD Systems, and resubmitted it for review. Any opinions on what I should do here? And what do these errors mean for the license review system? —innotata 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

List of reviewers[edit]

Please, create a list of the reviewers according to language spoken. I needed to find some one speaking Czech but had to surrender and ask an administrator (whose list exists), as it would take hours to view the profiles of all the reviewers. Petrus Adamus (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Catscan works fine for this task: There are none - at least none with a user page in the relevant categories. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


Do we do license review for the Creative Commons licenced videos on Youtube? See my upload for an example File:Falkirk Wheel.ogg.--Natl1 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so - like we do for all external image sources: {{License review}}. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Scripts to ease the task[edit]

Recently I suggested a "wizard" for license-review. Feel free to comment on User talk:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js#Rewrite coming soon. I already added some features like an auto-generated thanks-message for copy&paste for the flickr-uploader. -- RE rillke questions? 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Validity of reviews[edit]

There are certain events in which reviews could be considered invalid but no standards have been implemented yet. I believe that it should be done as soon as possible so that we have disclaimers whenever such a situation is raised. I propose the following circumstances in which reviews should lose their validity:

  • Abuse of image-reviewer status: New image-reviewers who have had their right for less than a month and abuse their status should be considered invalid reviewers (and demoted) and their reviews should be re-reviewed by another reviewer. A bot could assist in the process.
  • For older reviewers (the "experienced" users), using this revocation could become extreme especially if they've made thousands of reviews (which is why it is a good thing that the requests process has become stricter). I suggest that the community determines whether all reviews or only certain ones should be considered invalid via talk page of the requests page.
  • Also, there is no mention of how a user should be demoted. I suggest that any admin could demote, but they should report it to the reviewing community on the talk page of the requests page. Perhaps adding this as a note on the user rights management (admin-only) would be a good idea?
  • Reviews by image-reviewers who did not get their right via requests page - In the past, their have been admins who were have been completely unaware of the process for obtaining the flag and granted it to users who had not gone through the Commons:License review/requests page. Such users should have their right removed and their reviews invalidated.

These are the only circumstances I could think of at the moment. Suggestions, feedback? --ZooFari 01:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Prohibit self-reviewing[edit]

I think we should do more than just discourage reviewing own uploads. Maybe it is time to prohibit self-reviewing and declare self-reviewed files invalid from now and on? There are plenty of reviewers to go around, and there are no advantages nor reasons for having to review own uploads. --ZooFari 02:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Please add a bot-exception. Yes, they just ensure the images and licenses match but you cannot expect more from them. I don't want such a situation again we had with Indafotó. -- RE rillke questions? 10:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Anyone requesting license review rights who suggests an intent to review their uploads won't pass these days, so this shouldn't too much of a jump. CT Cooper · talk 12:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info This change will go in effect on 20 February 2012 (one month after proposal) if no objections are raised until then. --ZooFari 21:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there the clause? – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that this is a reasonable proposal. In the same way that users can't patrol their own edits, it makes sense that image reviewers should be discouraged from reviewing their own uploads. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Implemented. If there are any objections, feel free to discuss. --ZooFari 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

License in some Picasa images[edit]

How to find the license (on their original page) for images like File:Legia_stadium_store.JPG? -- 01:33, 19 March 2012‎ Materialscientist

append ?banner=pwa to the URL. Then a yellow box will be shown on top of the page. I will integrate this into my license-reviewer script.

-- RE rillke questions? 11:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Such images pop up from time to time, and while usually flinfo can extract information from them, it could not do that for this series. Materialscientist (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Now Flinfo can also handle the Google+ link.[2] In the future, if you find links that Flinfo should but cannot handle, please notify me. Lupo 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Mit Flinfo habt ihr wirklich Großartiges geleistet. Does Flinfo output jsonp? If you fear too much abuse, you may check whether the referrer is set to Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Try "&format=json&callback=yourFunction". Other formats are php, jsonfm, phpfm. Also interesting for scripts may be "&filter=raw,wiki" (default is wiki only; adding raw gives you the raw server output, in the case discussed here from the Picasa queries; for screen-scraping handlers, such as panoramio, raw output is faked (synthesized from basic screen scraping).) Documentation is in the README.TXT in the sources. (Just noticed that the latest, currently running version isn't there. Hm. I'll have to build a V2.6 zip some of these days...) About the field wiki.status see User talk:Magnus Manske/Archive 8#File:An Italian Renaissance villa.jpg. Lupo 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S.:if you're thinking about calling Flinfo from JavaScript, please bear in mind that the server it runs on doesn't do https. That's one of the reasons why I abandoned the original project that led to my rewriting it in the first place: making the fromflickr upload forms query Flinfo and fill in the data automatically once the user had entered a URL. Lupo 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Are these really Creative Commons-licensed content?[edit]

I was going through Flickr to find suitably licensed images of Jayne Mansfield. I found a lot, but are any of those licenses reliable? Can someone check? I am posting a few links. If the licenses are real, I'd probably upload them. Here goes: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Please, forgive me for posting this long series of links. I am not familiar with the process of uploading images from Flickr and getting them reviewed. Aditya (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them are free licensed. Please, take a look on Commons:Flickr files to know which Creative Commons licenses are accepted on Commons. Ralgis 16:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's marked as BY ND SA then what do I take it to be? Usable or non-free? Aditya (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. These following images look okay to me: 01, 02, 03, 04, and 05. Should I go ahead and upload them? Aditya (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's marked as BY ND SA then it can't be uploaded to Commons.
And the licenses of the last images are okay, but it clearly is a case of license laundering. Ralgis 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do I get these reviewed?[edit]

Will {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} apply to the following images: 01, 02, 03, 04, and 05? Aditya (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it will. Ralgis 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

License review not functioning[edit]

Can somone tell me why the usuall license review tools at the drop down menu (next to the star) do not apear any more?. Btw I use the Rillke review java script.--Sanandros (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Situations where licensing self-uploads is okay[edit]

I propose amending the guidance of this page to allow self verification of planned batch uploads, where licence checking has been done for the source systematically, such as via an automated filter but are not open-ended projects that might be suitable for long term bot approval. This is the situation for the 1000+ Picasa uploads in Category:Photographs_by_the_Japan_Ground_Self-Defense_Force which was one of my batch uploads by special request from Russavia.

In these circumstance adding all images to a backlog for manual review would create unnecessary work when the verification has happened at the 'system' level. -- (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. And what about transfers from a user's own Flickr stream? Those should be made a painless as possible as well. --Dschwen (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to see a bureaucrat helping with this discussion. I do not understand your example, this already happens by bot, though the exact same principle is the basis of my proposal. -- (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, we do have the FlickreviewR bot. So let me get this straight (as I seem to be a bit confused about this). You would like to include a filled out review template with the file description at time of the mass upload? This does seem sensible to me if the upload comes from a homogeneous source of files that can easily be verified to be under a given free license. (my aside was about people transferring files from their personal Flickr account to commons. These files do not necessarily have to be freely licensed on Flickr, about which a reviewer (human or bot) could get fussy) --Dschwen (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That is right, per "licence checking has been done for the source systematically". This means that the batch uploader has verified all images as having a suitable licence. This is possible on Panoramio, Flickr, etc. as they use a standard bit of html code that an upload script can check or filter on. There is a separate issue of the credibility of the source, and mistakes can happen on that front regardless of whether a Flickrbot, Panoramiobot or a person running semi-handrollic Google spreadsheet is doing the checking. In order that the community can feel there is sufficient accountability and transparency, we could ask anyone that does this to explain their verification procedure or tools on a project page, in the same way we do at COM:BATCH, this gives others the chance to point out possible risks, question the source reliability etc. Someone verifying their own photostream, or one that they had some direct conflict of interest in, would be excluded for obvious reasons. -- (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

License review[edit]

I discovered that reviewers has enabled Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr. I'm a member of Amical Wikimedia. We are working in a pilot project to engage members of Flickr's Community to take useful free licensed images for Wikimedia Commons. We sent two photographers (Angela Llop and Maria Rosa) to take photos of Can Papiol Romanticism Museum. It's a first phase with this GLAM agent. They uploaded these images by CC-BY-SA in Flickr. The next step is upload these images to Wikimedia Commons. We would like to use this special "Upload Wizard/Flickr" to upload these photos. Probably, we will use it in projects coming, too. For that reason, I would like to become a reviewer.--KRLS (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@KRLS:You're in the wrong page; See the main page. — revi^ 03:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind; user is already a reviewer. — revi^ 03:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Add guidance to uploader[edit]

When using Special:UploadWizard the uploader can chose "This file is not my own work" and then say "It was published with a Creative Commons license". In such case, and if the source added is a URL, it would be great to make the suggestion for the user to also add the License Review template (and perhaps provide a button or dropdown to add it). This would mean that a lot more images would have the template on them from the start and, with a nice explaining help text, that users understand why it should be added. I believe this would improve the process, but I might be missing something. Any thoughts? Ainali (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the workload[edit]

So, following this confusing exchange, I'm posting here. I reacted to lr-tagging by Josve05a of images I had taken from Mynewsdesk. All were very uncomplicated CC-BY affairs and some were of PD-licensed images.[3][4] This was the first time I ever noticed it and my reaction as a long-time user was "oh, that's okay, they're fine". Apparently, I'm not qualified to make that decision, which to me seems very odd. I'm sure there are tons of people who know more about licensing than me, but I would assume that several years of uploading without any major snafus would lead to a modicum of trust.

I have trouble understanding the reason for adding "this image license needs to be verified"-tags like this. Just like with PD images, the presence of an external link, print reference or other metadata is what adds credibility. Without that, the review system is really just a way of saying you don't trust the ability of either uploaders or readers to click links or... well... read. Adding visible assurances for the sake of administrative purposes is all fine and well. But if you go around tagging files indiscriminately you're implying that something needs to be fixed. What's the point of that? Are they scheduled for deletion? Will they be excluded from being featured on other projects?

Peter Isotalo 14:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the licenses can be changes on external websites such as Flickr and MyNewsdesk (they can have -ND and ©, not just -BY) or deleted from their website, we need to have a trusted user to do a "check" that they have at least at some point in time been the given licnese, in case of a future law suit or other legal problems. If a trusted user, who has been "vetted" can say " it was under the given license on "x date", then that is asurance. If no such check has been done and it has been taken down from their website or if they have changed the license to an uncompatible license, then per Commons:Precautionary principle. Josve05a (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@Peter Isotalo: What Josve said. A Creative Commons license cannot be revoked, but the copyright holder can choose at any time to stop distributing the material under that license. An 'example' would be the Voice Of America, whose material was all PD for many years, but now claims copyright. The old information is still on their website at different URLs, but they don't 'point out' what is PD and what is not... an uninformed reuser would merely look at their current terms and be led to the assumption that everything was have from them is a copyvio. Though license review does detect a certain amount of copyright problems, the point really is to give reusers a 'verification' that the license is correct in the absence of being able to directly verify it from the source, whether because the site went down, has been rearranged, or changed their terms. Revent (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I understand the reason for having license reviews overall. But why tag files that someone else uploaded when you're a reviewer yourself? Josve, was this you being exceptionally cautious or is this common practice?
And I'm at a loss as to how we came to the conclusion that not even reviewers themselves are trusted to confirm their own uploads. I mean, the brief discussion at #Prohibit self-reviewing above is literally based on the strange assumption that autopatrolling does not exist. Is there some background to this that isn't evident here?
Peter Isotalo 17:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Given what he's done in the past, I's strongly suspect the 'additions' were done with Visual File Change without 'looking' at the individual files. The problem with 'self review', though, would be that the entire point is to provide an 'independent' verification for reusers. "I verified myself" is meaningless. Revent (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Josve is and has been following guidelines that appear to be supported by consensus. So I'm rather hesitant to turn this into an issue of problematic enforcement from any particular reviewers. If anything, maybe the guidelines need to be clarified.
But I really don't understand how two trusted Commons users would satisfy any kind of independent verification for outside parties. It all comes down to saying "trust us", whether it be one, two or ten users vouching for it. When one or both users are anonymous, it seems even less meaningful. At least Josve and I are open about our offline identities. No offense, Revent, but you are just a random nickname to any reuser, and the same goes for Steinsplitter, Alan or Yann, who commented on my review request. In what way would that make you trustworthy assurances to anyone who isn't part of the project?
So this seems very much like an internal administrative procedure. If there are genuine doubts about externally specified licenses, those files should be scheduled for deletion. I don't see what either license review tags or review notification add to people outside the project. Is there no background to this? Like reviewers okaying stuff they shouldn't have. Because I'm wondering how any of this will help us, or reusers, in the event of a nasty lawsuit.
Peter Isotalo 19:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Four eyes see more than two eyes. The one and only time I tested the Flickr upload mechanism I removed the review request manually as obviously redundant, bot got it right. Somebody fixed my error later, even an upload bot needs supervision by another review bot, just in case. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is a good idea to review images from non-wiki websites. But the examples mentioned were images covered by PD-art so it would not be relevant what the license claim was on the website. So a license review there would not be relevant. --MGA73 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, there's already disagreement[5] about the relevance of PD "reviews".
So either exclude PD licenses from source categories or actually point out on this page that PD is not relevant for reviewing. Because once we start doing "reviews" of PD material just because they came from Mynewsdesk or whatever, information veracity will be judged by purely technical standards. Determining what should be PD-old/PD-art/whatever is about evaluating information about the history of the image itself. In cases like File:Suecia 1-013 ; Stockholm från öster-right side detail.jpg, the metadata is supplied[6] by Maritime Museum in Stockholm, not Mynewsdesk.
Compare this with File:AnthonyRoll-56 Rose Slip.jpg, which was scanned from paper. Any suggestion that this is inherently more trustworthy is completely arbitrary. And that's why we don't have Category:Scans from books.
Peter Isotalo 13:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
PD review is is long-standing process, and a subject of 'license review' just like 'flickr review' is, though it has a far larger backlog. The only 'technical standard' is that certain sources get specifically flagged, that does not mean that 'everything' that it not specifically 'own work' should not get eventually checked by a second pair of eyes. There is a massive amount of 'supposedly' PD material on Commons that is not verifiably PD, usually due to lack of attribution or publication information (and a common 'assumption' that old material grabbed from some website must be PD). Saying 'this has been double checked' is not a pointless process, it's not that unusual to find the 'correct' attribution that the uploader didn't give because they just grabbed it from some random website (which sometimes means it is PD, and sometimes not). And Category:PD-scan exists for book scans that are using the correct templates. Revent (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow. So there's a whole separate category of license reviewing that isn't even mentioned on the main instruction page that reviewers are expected to read? No wait... It's linked once under "other reviews" which doesn't link to Commons:PD review (how silly of me to think such a page actually existed). How the Hell do we expect users to know, let alone understand, what reviewers are up to? Review flagging seems to be fairly random and on top of that, any kind of autopatrol function is viewed with suspicion. Reviewer suitability seems to be defined by purely administrative competence, not experience with actual contributions. And the overarching argument for all of this is "not all edits are correct"? It's a recipe for a Sisyphean task.
Peter Isotalo 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Try looking at COM:PD files, which is linked in the "Wikimedia Commons policies and guidelines" footer on the license review page. 'Review flagging is somewhat random' because it's a massive task, and most people get burned out, but that does not mean that it is not a worthwhile project (there is a ton of 'supposedly' PD material that is not), or that you should be removing license review templates. As far as the 'license review' page itself, 'to become a reviewer, one needs to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons' somewhat implies you should have read the various policies. Revent (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with COM:L in terms of the applying licnese. It's a necessity if you want to avoid repeated copyright violations as a long-time user. Even with automated tools and Upload Wizard, Commons isn't all that forgiving. For example, when you apply {{PD-art}} and specify the year of publication to anything before the 1800s in the infobox, you're still required you to "motivate" why the image is public domain. As if just about anything bublished before c. 1850 could be under copyright. This is a feature that forces users to adapt to bureaucracy instead of the other way around. If reviewers get burned out just flagging material, I'd call that a pretty good indication there's something not quite right about current adminstrative procedures.
Btw, you seem to be referring to fairly arcane procedural policies and practices as your main concern. Like having separate application processes for PD reviewing. All I can say is: improve the clarity of this type of information. I've had almost a decade of fully functional activitiy here without running into any of this. I'd love to help out with PD reviewing, but it seems this task is primarily geared towards technical formalities, not experience with licensing.
Peter Isotalo 15:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
No, my concern is with you deciding to remove license review templates for no particular reason. Policy says that any editor can request a license review, not that the uploader can then remove the template, or edit war about it, because they have some complaint about the process.
And yes, doing a 'PD review' can be somewhat 'technical', because it should be based on obtainable evidence and various laws instead of the (often incorrect, or not legally 'assumable') things assumed by many uploaders. There are many 'PD' images that are not demonstrably PD, or use an incorrect rationale (often because the source used by the uploader didn't attribute it, when the author is actually known). Even for a post-1923 US work with no copyright notice, you should still check to see if the work was later registered (a creator could 'fix' the original omission by registering the work within five years). Revent (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How to report suspicious cases?[edit]

May be I am lazy, but I failed to find a link where to report suspected copyright,... say, sloppiness; neither here nor in "Licensing" page.

Anyway, here it is: File:Rtb House Picture.jpg a company logo. The uploader may or may not be speaking for the company to release the image. Also, the logo itself just a bunch of letters and lines, i.e., may be not copyrightable.

For the future, which policy page describes how to report such cases? Staszek Lem (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. The project page suggests {{subst:Lrw|site=}}.
  2. The project page mentions CAT:License review needed, populated by {{subst:Lrw}}.
  3. I add {{license review}} when I want a review, redirected to {{LicenseReview}}. Allegedly {{subst:Lrw}} is a shorthand—they populate the same categories, {{subst:Lrw}} adds a timestamp.
  4. CAT:License review needed contains CAT:Possibly unfree images, created in 2014 by a user with a "SoFixIt" answer for your question. IIRC you could add images manually to this sub-category. Meanwhile it also has a backlog.
  5. I fear that this talk page here is unsuited for specific cases, it's only about the project page COM:LR, for specific cases check out the Village pump/Copyright. IANAL: Be..anyone (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Crops and modifications[edit]

Is there any special procedure for handling images/videos that have been cropped or otherwise modified from the original? Say an upload is sourced to a larger Flickr image, but is cropped down before its Commons upload. Review it as having the license of the original and move on? Or note the derivative nature of the upload somewhere? – czar 00:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually we do not consider cropping images creating a new copyright on them, but it might be confusing if this isn't mentioned. -- Rillke(q?) 15:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)