Commons talk:License review/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Category:Flickr videos review needed

I checked the files in this category and there are some there I dont know what to do with. If anyone wanna have a second look it would be nice. --MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force

I checked a few random images in the category but all of the images I tried were not located at the source. Does anyone have an idea how we can check the images? --MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: found this link in the info template. Might need some time to pinpoint the exact image. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 15:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Minorax thank you. Yes it looks like it will take some time. But even if we find the image where do we see the copyright status? --MGA73 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ and INeverCry: ping in case you want to comment. The category is in Category:License review needed and not the single files. That makes it a bit hard to review the files. Perhaps you could tell us what you think we should do? --MGA73 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
These are all old files, there was never a single one of the military SDF photographs that was ever demonstrated to be a copyright problem, and all files uploaded by me were automatically verified at the time of upload so that only correctly licenced files could have made the cut. Picasa is long gone, so 'verification' will remain impossible unless archives of the pages are on web.archive or alternative releases happen to exist on military image sites elsewhere.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:活動写真展示(第２師団写真展) イベント・行事・広報活動等 53.jpg (2017)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:陸自キャラクター(タクマくん・ユウちゃん) イベント・行事・広報活動等 35.jpg (2017)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:１０Ｄ：車両部隊による観閲行進 R イベント・行事・広報活動等 37.jpg (2018)
It gets tiring having the same discussion over and over. --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Fæ I think we should remove the license review category if we do not plan to review the files anyway. We discussed earlier/above if we should grandfather old files. If we create a template a bot can add it in no time and then we can hopefully fix the problem once and for all. --MGA73 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
For my uploads, these may all be in Category:Uploads by Fæ with linkrot. --Fæ (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Madagascar hissing cockroaches munching on an apple.webm

Can anyone see the file on Flickr? Do I need a plugin or something? --MGA73 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also File:MVI 5738.AVI.webm --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I've been constantly reminding myself to reply this and I kept forgetting. Ugh. It's late now, I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I can see the thumbnail for both but can't be played. "The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported." Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 06:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Plays fine for me. I'll review. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: That's strange. But happy you could see and review it. Perhaps you could also review File:MVI 5738.AVI.webm? --MGA73 (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Plays fine here. I am using Midori browser, I cannot recommend that you switch to it because 1) It breaks some other things (bigChunkedUpload for example does not work for me) 2) Their website is actually down. Anyhow, I'll review the file now. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup in Flickrreviews

Hi! We have a lot of photos in Category:Unsourced Flickr images and Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review and some videos in Category:Flickr videos review needed. I have added many of the photos in categories like:

I think if we can have someone get us a permission in OTRS we can save all the files. If not we may have to start a mass DR. The last one may be covered by PD-USGov? If so we can easily change the license for those.

If you notice any Flickr users with a lot of files uploaded to Commons you are welcome to put them in a similar category or ask someone with a bot to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For Scot we now have an OTRS. See {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}. --MGA73 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Could someone set up an abuse filter (or similar) which warns about things like this? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@~riley: Help pls :) --Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 08:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Can you lend a hand on this? At my capacity for the week. ~riley (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stefan2: What sort of changes do you wish to be managed/watched? Here we have a complete change of template by either an IP address, or a user with an account less than a day old, and less than a handful of edits. So what is problematic, and you think should be the content/circumstance/happenstance that is to be watched and checked. I lack the familiarity to guess and focusing on content changes alone is going to be problematic.

Have a look at the changes in the various fields to see what is evident to you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Instructions for uploaders (and bystanders)

The current instructions are:

Editors uploading material whose license depends on a declaration in an external website should tag the file description page with one of the tags in Category:License review tags. Use {{Flickrreview}} for images from Flickr and {{LicenseReview}} if no website-specific tag is available.

This makes it sound like you should use the most specific tag possible, say, {{YouTubeReview}}.

That’s wrong though:

The template is intended to be used by the following user groups: Image reviewers

But people are not likely to notice that message. So they will go ahead and try to add that template, only to be greeted by an abuse filter:

You do not have the permission to review images, this edit was therefore disabled.

Huh? What’s going on here? Why are some templates usable by everyone and not others? Should we change the templates and abuse filter, or should we change the instructions here?

See also: Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by Brianjd.

Brianjd (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Flickr images from bad authors

I made a notice at this category. Images are most likely bad and should normally be deleted. But admins and reviewers can make exceptions after a careful check. But now we have a ban of a Flickr user so no matter what files from that Flickr user should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

License reviewers: please remember to check that the file you are reviewing has a license when you have finished reviewing it. Too damn many files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license had their licenses removed by license reviewers. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&sort=last_edit_desc&search=incategory%3A%22Files+with+no+machine-readable+license%22+insource%3A%2Feview%2F&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&searchToken=5tivuhdvets8ns8zxvdu2gk69
roughly 200 such files exist right now. sorting by latest edition date, the oldest problematic file was last edited on 7 June 2020, so look for files after that. (you cant simply scroll to the bottom because there're false positives https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T259599 .)--RZuo (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

PDM and SD

At Category:Flickr public domain images needing specific copyright tags 2000-something files are pending deletion due to misuse of the PD mark in their Flicker source, possibly meant to be “saved” by manual reviewing, although how to do it may not be clear. User:A1Cafel seems to have dealt with the matter this way; I hesitated being that bold but eventually arrived at the same result here. Is this correct? Should be done to all files in question, even though not all have individual authorship (example)? And what’s the next step? The “rescued” files still show the [change license] button, and it doesn’t seem to offer confirmation for the PDMark-owner tagging. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I reviewed that file. I think these files should not be in the "no license" categories. There is a big risk that an admin will just delete the files without checking them.
I was thinking of having a bot remove the speedy tag and change the license to {{PDMark-owner}} so reviewers only have to accept or fail the file. That will be much faster than having to change the license manually. --MGA73 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I made a comment at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js#PDM some time ago. We need someone to fix the script. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I also cleaned up so many files now "only" have {{PDMark-owner}} and {{Flickrreview}} so now they are no longer in a speedy deletion category and reviewers can pass them with 1 click. --MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I changed MediaWiki:Gadget-LicenseReview.js so now it should be possible to change license to {{PDMark-owner}} (and {{Cc-zero}}). --MGA73 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Support for more review templates

The script have been updated and it now support review of iNaturalist and Pixabay. If you find any bugs or have ideas to improve the script please add a comment at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js. --MGA73 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The script also works for files in Category:License migration candidates now. Just an info if anyone notices and wonder what the new stuff is. --MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we put all old files in a sub category?

Reviewing old files is a problem because they are often no longer online and uploader may no longer be actice. So what if we moved all old files to a sub category so only new files go to this category?

Then it might be possible to keep the category empty if we all help. And if we add a one click "Permission not found" to inform uploaders (like if there is no source, license or permission) then it would be easy to mark file where we can't verify the license.

The template/notice should tell uploader to add a specific link to where the permission/license can be found and perhaps they should also copy the text. That would help us if the website is not in English. For example I just reviewed a file where the website said "За исключением случаев, когда указано иное, контент на этом сайте лицензируется по международной лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" I do not speak Russian but Google Translate helped me.

What do you think? --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I just found out it is easy to view the latest files in the category (like this). So I guess it is not really needed. --MGA73 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggest to add more info to uploaders

In Commons:License_review#Uploaders there is a short text telling uploaders to upload {{Licensereview}} etc. I suggest we add a few tips for uploaders. For example:

  1. If it is a still image from YouTube make sure to add time where the image can be found. For exampe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM-0zmCz9yI&t=0m40s (0m40s)
  2. If the license is not clearly visible over/under/next to the image add a link and short text in "Permission field" telling the reviewer where to find the license
  3. If it is a file from Flickr, iNaturalist (and other pages ?) where we have a bot to review the file please upload the original file and when the bot have reviewed the file (usually within 1 minute or 2) you can upload a cropped/edited version.
  4. Concider to go to http://web.archive.org/ and check if the webpage is archived there and if not you can save a copy.

--MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Thank you. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I added the text and found another typo that I also fixed --MGA73 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I personally always force manual archival on my uploads from YouTube on archive.today; sometimes I archive even those videos that did not suit my fancy, in case if the licence will change and somebody else will want to mirror them here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Broken gadget

I’m getting a warning every time I try to use the change license button (or the tabs license + and license −), headed with «deprecation warning» (@ZooFari: ping!). It then offers the usual dropdown menu and seems to accept the selection with an Ok button, but nothing actually happens. (Example.) Any ideas? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to remove your ancient license review scripts and use the gadget instead. --Didym (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tamil pdfs

i suggested exempting the Tamil pdfs: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/03#Files_from_tamilvu.org_pending_licence_review.--RZuo (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

review manually

I am missing on this page the procedure to review some files manually. Where can I find it? Ellywa (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Catedral de Babahoyo

I don't know if this is the right place to ask a question as License reviewer? I was looking at Catedral de Babahoyo.jpg. FoP-Ecuador is OK, owner of copyright (Ministerio Cultura y Patrimonio) is holder of the Flickr account. So far, so good. But whereas source has PD-Mark, Commons now has CC-BY-SA-4.0. Should I change to PDMark-owner? Vysotsky (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@David C. S.: Where did you get the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Look the original image: [1] -- David C. S. 17:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@David C. S.: I did. When is it appropriate to impose additional restrictions on an already free image?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know, Wikimedia Commons does not allow modifying the license of an image uploaded from Flickr -- David C. S. 20:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@David C. S.: It is almost always inappropriate, unless a License Reviewer has documented the change on the File Description Page. Please ping me when replying to me, and fix the pages of any other files you did that to.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

I am a license reviewer. I have 2 questions. (1) What is incorrect in this set-up? {{LicenseReview|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZrjirJSqPA|Vysotsky|2021-12-17}} ? (2) Regarding YouTube review: if the YouTube link is already given in the source description, why is {{LicenseReview|Vysotsky|2021-12-17}} not enough? Shouldn't we make handling of reviews more simple to get rid of the enormous backlog? Vysotsky (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: I would use {{LicenseReview|site=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZrjirJSqP YouTube]|user=Jeff G.|date={{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}}}. Per Template:LicenseReview/doc, "site=" or "1=" is mandatory due to the "=" sign in YouTube URLs. You could use just add "YouTube" as parameter 1, but I like to be more thorough than that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Dutch expression: "why make it easy, if we can make it difficult?" Thanks anyhow! Vysotsky (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: If we were to make the site (parameter 1) optional, what wording would you want to use to refer to the source? The current wording in unadorned use is 'an external website'; I would propose 'an external website specified as "Source" above'.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer making everything optional, and just have me add {{LicenseReviewed}}. The URL is already in the description, the date can be added automatically. I still seem to be a fool not to be able to do it correctly, see this review. (I understand Flickr review, so I am not illiterate alltogether). Vysotsky (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed: "source above" would suffice in my view. Vysotsky (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: I fixed that for you. "2021-12-17" is not a template, and therefore it shouldn't be enclosed in double curly braces.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Vysotsky (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem? with Flickr images

I recently uploaded the three images 1, 2, 3 from Flickr. Because I slightly altered them, the automatic Flickr review does not seem to work and a human review is required. Now I’ve noticed another problem, namely that the photographer changed the license from CC BY 2.0 to CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Thanks to the web archive there is proof that the images had been published under a free license 1, 2, 3 when I uploaded them to Commons. I’m not sure if it is possible to keep them from deletion. Maybe some reviewer can check on this issue. Thank you! -- Clemens (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Clemens Stockner: I've reviewed these 3 files for you and given them an OK. This is an example of why it is a good practice to first upload the original highest resolution flickr image and wait until you get a positive review by the flickr review bot. That generally only takes a few minutes. Only then should you make the modifications, crops or derivative work you need, or upload a modified version. In some instance you may want to save you mods under a different file name leaving a backlink which CropTool does automatically for you. Ww2censor (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done

Requesting review

Hi, would someone be able to review the license on this file? The video is up for featured review and I know it might otherwise be a while, given the backlog. Thank you, czar 21:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Requestin review or advice

In Finland there were parliamentary elections in April and we are currently in transition period. After transition the most likely images of old goverment's ministers will be replaced with images of new images. Because this I uploaded the CC-licenced files from https://kuvapankki.valtioneuvosto.fi/?l=EN to commons (see. Category:Images_from_the_image_bank_of_the_Prime_Minister's_Office,_Finland, subdirs are uploaded by me). Currently, and 247 photos with license review pending and total number of CC-licensed photos is 436 (~150 photos are not yet uploaded)

However, the next question what would be the best way to get them license reviewed before photos are going away. I have tried to think some possibilities. It is possivle to review images at one category at time ( 1 commons category = 1 album in mediapankki.valtioneuvosto.fi ) I have also added kuvapankki filenames in commons image name inside parenthesis to make sorting/matching them easier. Note. First time when link is opened user needs to click "Public content" button to login first, after that the direct links to the albums will work.

Second idea was to was to create a python script which loops the images and shows both commons and source files licence information and link to the article. Main problem with this is that there is no link the source image description page so user needs to trust to the script.

Br, -- Zache (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to document that this is resolved and images are reviewed. --Zache (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:License_review/Archive_2&oldid=857686857"