Commons talk:WikiProject Flickr/Archive 1

About this project

I thought it might be a good idea to have a central place to coordinate stuff relating to Flickr, and discuss images you are not sure about, etc. It is however far from done. Anybody has any proposals? -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Empty

Great job everybody! Category:Flickr images needing human review is almost empty! And don't worry, I'll be filling it again ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job refilling the category :)--Vaya 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Flickr Authors

There are some great people on Flickr like Alan Light and I was curious if we (and this project) should have a means to quickly credit them in a better manner than is done on most of the photos. A category, a little page? Since there isn't too much discussion going on I figured this might be worth bringing up. gren 11:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alan Light has his own category, and so have some other photographers. Husky ^{talk to me} 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so we do, more or less, have a system like that. Thanks :) --gren 08:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Cache of Flickr photos

I noticed Slomox found out that Google caches some Flickr photographs, which is very handy to determine if a non-allowed CC license has been changed. For example, this Eminem photograph was changed to All Rights Reserved, but Google's cache says that is was CC-BY on 11 january 2007. Maybe we should include this information with some of the photographs or use it for a new automtic Flickr review. I made an example of how the template could look like on the Eminem image page. Husky ^{talk to me} 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a great way to solve the problems of changed licensed. I'm however not sure how good it is to link to the cache from the template since the cache might later be purged by Google. /Lokal_Profil 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't seem to be caching much really. I make a list of changes to Flickr image licenses every week, and hardly any of last week's changes are in Google cache, though they should be the most likely to still be there. Maybe a script could be done to check many of these archives, like archive.org and Yahoo cache? What else is there? --Para 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive.org has only cached Flickr until 6 months ago [1] :( -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Archive.org actually archived the actual image pages. If I check out an image page from one of their caches then all I get is the page as it looks today... even if I look at a date before it was uploaded (compare upload date to archive date). On a sidenote I've noticed that a lot of the images where the license had changed have now been speedy deleted as copyvios... just to let you know. /Lokal_Profil 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MECU has indeed been tagging a lot of non-passed Flickr Reviews for deletion. I'm not sure if that's the correct way to solve the problem of Flickr license changes. Many valuable images could be lost in this way. Aside from that, anyone who doesn't likes that his or her images are used on the Commons could simply change the license on the photo to remove it from the archive, something that the Creative Commons-licenses are IMHO designed for to prevent (because they're non-revocable). Maybe we should think of some other solution? Husky ^{(talk to me)} 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Uploaders reviewing own uploads

Is there a policy on uploaders reviewing their own uploads? Part of the credibility of the flickr review process is that you have two different people verifying that the image was in fact under a free licens. I've encountered a couple of cases where the Flickrreview was carried out by he uploader and I'm not really sure how we stand on that. If it's something we don't want then it should probably be mentioned explicitly on {{Flickrreview}}. /Lokal_Profil 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eep, I've been doing it on the last three or so images I've uploaded. I questioned it at first but I figured it was fine because I'm a trusted user. My recommendation would be a new parameter of something like "|mine = yes" so that it won't be deleted (without good reason) if a trusted user reviews their own upload... but it shows that it would be a good idea if another user also did a review. gren 08:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rule 4

Image:Alex psv.jpg seems to clearly be a TV screenshot. Rule #4 states that we should use our judgment in assessing whether it is free or not. The link from the image is wrong, but, how should we label ones that seem unfree? Just put them up for deletion? gren 09:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The link from that image page looks correct to me; the guy's standing over on the left of the flickr image. I wouldn't know if that's the sort of angle that only shows on on TV though. I'd say it's not obvious enough for speedy deletion so if you suggest deletion the normal {{Delete}} process would be appropriate. — coelacan — 13:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the file. It was, in my opinion an obvious copyvio (note that the threshold for copyvio is much lower here at Commons than other wikis). -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Crops

Image:Carla Lamarca.jpg is a reworked crop from a properly attributed Flickr source. Should we be skipping the intermediate step of having the original image and flickr review crops or should we make sure there is an original copy of the Flickr image and then have the crop based on that with no Flickr templates? I tend to favor the later even though it's more work. gren 09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What I've done is that I've flickrreviewed the crop by confirming that the original image was available under a free license. Adding a comment saying that this is a cropped/modyfied version might also be an idea. A similar case are images made up using several other images as sources. Here I think I added a flickrrview for each source. /Lokal_Profil 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hybrids

Not to flood the talk page but... Image:Cabeceiras de Basto.JPG intrigued me. It's labeled CC-BY-2.5 but as if the author uploaded it. The Flickr account and the uploader seem to be the same person. However, on the Flickr account he has it CC-BY-ND-2.0 and this upload is CC-BY-SA-2.5. Should we just remove all references to Flickr and use it as a user uploaded image since all Flickr statements are contradictory. And if the Flickr account had been CC-BY-SA-2.0 should I have changed it to 2.0 or kept it 2.5? gren 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i've seen that a few times before too. I did a negative Flickr review in those cases. Maybe we should make some kind of template talk message we could post to those users. Aside from that, i think it's probably legal to have the same image under two different Creative Commons licenses (just as you can license one image under both a CC license and a normal license). Husky ^{talk to me} 15:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Legally you are allowed to choose between two different licenses. But maybe in those cases it is a good idea to contact the author, to make sure that they understand that a free license means both derivative and commercial use are allowed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the best way will be to contact the author, but if he is inactive/not responding, I guess we should do a negative Flickr review, if Flickr licence is unacceptable.--Vaya 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright on a derivative

Image:Collage of Leaves.jpg comes from http://flickr.com/photos/35905492@N00/11247144 and in the comments there on flickr, the uploader says "It's an unadulterated photo of an art installation at Westonbirt Arboretum." Which would make this a derivative image and not possible for that user to relicense, correct? — coelacan — 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you'd need a sense of what the original is like. If it's a three dimensional installation and the photographer can claim artistic license then I believe it can be put under a free license. If the installation was two dimensional then I think it's definitely problematic. gren 11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Two dimsnsional. The photographer says it was "flat artwork". I've tagged it {{Copyvio}}. Thanks for clarifying. — coelacan — 13:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

license changes, FlickrLickr and a flickr-change-of-license tag

Image:Chainsaw Sabri.jpg was uploaded by FlickrLickr as CC-BY. It's since been tagged with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}, and the flickr page currently says CC-BY-NC-SA. So, did FlickrLickr ever upload images with non-compliant licenses? Does the {{Flickr-change-of-license}} ever matter? — coelacan — 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, FlickrLickr only uploads compliant images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Puerto olimpico.jpg

User claims that this image is from Flickr and it was CC-BY-SA at the time of the upload, but Flickr user has left Flickr. Cau someone help resolving the situation User talk:OsvaldoGago#Image Tagging Image:Puerto olimpico.jpg.--Vaya 14:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is highly likely that the image is cc-by-sa-2.0. The user had, as far as I can find all of their images are under the cc-by-sa-2.0. See this page on archive.org. There is of course no way to be certain, because I cannot find the exact image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the license is wrong either, but what should I do with the image, obviosly I can't give a positive review, can I?--Vaya 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Anybody any suggestions on how to proceed from here? -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The photographer can probably be contacted through the sites he lists in his archived Flickr profile, or on any new ones that may be linked in their old or current versions. This method worked quite well when I contacted a bunch of stock.xchng people outside the main site. --Para 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a good ideia. However may I remind that anyone can figure out how easy it is to crack this review system. It'a as easy as creating a fake flickr account, or by claiming false copyright ownership of the images., and bingo you can upload non free images to the commons and see them tagged as free images by the community. Let's just use commons sense here. Doesn't this count? --OsvaldoGago 00:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to contact the author first, if you fail, will think of something else.--Vaya 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-2.5

I've encountered a lot of images with "changed license" where the license on Commons was CC-BY-SA-2.5 or CC-BY-2.5. I have however not encountered any 2.5 versions of he cc license on Flickr. Is it even possible to pick such a license? If not should we just assume that any image now with a 2.5 license where the license has "changed" to an unfree one was tagged wrongly and should be deleted? /Lokal_Profil 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not possible to have a 2.5 lincese. Maybe I should program my bot to automatically replace them, but I am very hesitant to non human guided license changes. -- Bryan (talk to me) 07:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that if 2.5 licenses aren't possible then all of those images are tagged wrongly. In most cases it's probably just a case of 2.0 becoming 2.5. However if the license has changed to an unfree one then we can never make the argument that the previous license was correct and that the image remains free. /Lokal_Profil 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is no problem about it, we just need to review such images, and correct the tag if it is wrong.--Vaya 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But as the "rules" state now we correct the tag only if it's been changed to another free license (no problems). If the license has been changed to one which is unfree we however leave the license tag and just add a negative flickrreview with the motivation that the old license tag might be right... which in a 2.5 case it can't be. /Lokal_Profil 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:At work (semansco).jpg

Don't know what to do with this image. Check the source, it says: "This photo is private.".--Vaya 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed it as such. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced images

FYI, images that are tagged for flickrreview, but do not specify a source, should follow normal Commons rules and tagged with {{Nsd}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And also, I'd like to draw your attention to such matters see: User talk:Vaya#Re: Image:Aundrea Fimbres.jpg, so maybe it's a good idea to look though page history, when reviewing--Vaya 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

License change requests

There are a lot of valuable Flickr images under non-free CC licenses. I wonder how much success has ever been had in convincing someone to change a license for a particular photo?--Pharos 20:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done it once. What is important to notice is, is that most Flickr users won't understand if you say Could you change the license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, because in the license selector, the licenses are given by their fullname, so you must say Could you change the license to Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike.

Furthermore, what is important, is that the Flickr users basically understands what such a license change means. They will probably not know that they grant a perpetual right to anybody to create derivatives and use their work commercially. We don't want complaints of Flickr users They tricked me into changing my license and now everybody can commercially use it while I thought I only granted a permission to Wikipedia. Besides the fact that this might invalidate the license, since the user was mislead, this would of course be very unethical. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I never ask to change to a particular licence, I ask something like: "What do you think of allowing this image to be used commercially and allow derivatives". If the user agrees I tell him what licence tags there are.--Vaya 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Review instructions should be revised to be tougher

I'm hoping for discussion on our instructions for reviewing images, and posted comments at Template talk:Flickrreview#Review instructions should be revised to be tougher. Please comment there. Thanks. --Rob 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Top reviewers

Top 50 reviewers:

+---------------+----------+
| reviewer      | count(*) |
+---------------+----------+
| Dodo          |     1288 |
| MECU          |      634 |
| Thuresson     |      485 |
| Husky         |      404 |
| Howcheng      |      366 |
| Nilfanion     |      296 |
| GeorgHH       |      195 |
| Jkelly        |      162 |
| Andrew Levine |      157 |
| Lokal_Profil  |      132 |
| Cnyborg       |      119 |
| Alphax        |      103 |
| Enricopedia   |      101 |
| Rüdiger Wölk  |       95 |
| Ejdzej        |       94 |
| Flominator    |       92 |
| EPO           |       89 |
| Bdk           |       85 |
| Vayaka        |       83 |
| Kjetil r      |       82 |
| Lmbuga        |       79 |
| Kneiphof      |       78 |
| Bastique      |       62 |
| Coelacan      |       56 |
| Edub          |       56 |
| Yuval Y       |       56 |
| Bryan         |       55 |
| Barcex        |       54 |
| Yonatanh      |       52 |
| Oxam Hartog   |       50 |
| Yarnalgo      |       48 |
| Conti         |       47 |
| Dantadd       |       44 |
| Mdd4696       |       43 |
| Slomox        |       43 |
| guillom       |       42 |
| Anna          |       40 |
| ed g2s        |       39 |
| Shizhao       |       32 |
| Morven        |       27 |
| Sandstein     |       26 |
| Stahlkocher   |       25 |
| MesserWoland  |       24 |
| Drini         |       23 |
| Spangineer    |       18 |
| Loco085       |       18 |
| grenavitar    |       17 |
| Platonides    |       16 |
| FrancoGG      |       15 |
| 555           |       13 |
+---------------+----------+

-- Bryan (talk to me) 11:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible unfree images

I'm trying to revive a discussion that had started some months ago: Commons_talk:Flickr_images#Possibly_unfree_images -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting collections

When I see a beautiful set like this Isfahan, my jaw drops and I know we need every single one of those pictures. I'm not sure where I should suggest that, though.--Pharos 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Those images are not allowed on commons © All rights reserved--Vaya 12:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it seems he randomly labeled half a dozen of those images CC-BY, while leaving the rest 'all rights reserved'. How tantalizing, and how disappointing.--Pharos 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So you can upload those which are CC-BY.--Vaya 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And you can ask him to release the rest under a free license - most of the time if the flickr user is active and checks his e-mail he'll agree. Yonatan ^talk 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploading the good old-fashioned way

I'm considering uploading some specific free Flickr images using the ordinary upload service. Since Commons now use such elaborate systems as FlickrLickr, I'm wondering if one can still upload the good old-fashioned way with Special:Upload. Is this not recommended? Is there any smart tool that one should use instead? Should I tag the images with certain templates? Väsk 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Use the Upload work from Flickr page, in addition to Flinfo. Kjetil r 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it works nicely. Väsk 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons pool

The Wikimedia Commons pool at Flickr has images for upload if anyone feels like it. Man vyi 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Flickr-change-of-license}}

This tag has a different purpose to a failed flickr review. The question is what purpose exactly does it have now? Unlike a failed flickrreview, this make an assertion that the image is free. Furthermore, this template could be misused by uploaders to "protect" their uploads, when they were never free to begin with. I think we can only use this template when we trust the uploader 100% that the image was free on Flickr. That can only be Flicklickr images IMO. Therefore, it might be an idea to modify {{Flickrreview}} to allow for the "known to be free, but no longer so" case. An extra parameter could be set for the uploader, which will only allow the use of this variant if it was flickrlickr - otherwise it just gives failed review. That prevents the risk of misuse of this template, which could then be deleted as redundant. Thoughts?--Nilfanion 09:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Yonatan ^talk 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Kjetil r 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My uploads... my reviews...?

I remember a while back hearing a comment about reviewing the work you upload. This is pretty rudimentary but, I suggest making it standard that you 1) can review your own work but 2) you should always request another view. So, I just added {{Flickrreview|grenavitar|20-April-2007}} and {{flickrreview}}. In most cases there won't be a conflict between the two (since people don't often change licenses) but, I think this would be good practice.

I also think it may be of some use to allow one template to have more than one reviewer. For instance {{Flickrreview|grenavitar|20-April-2007|USERNAME2|TIME2}} ad infinitum. Not that the goal will be first picture to reach fifty reviewers win. But, if a trusted user just happens upon a page with only one reviewer, the can if they want verify it.

Just some observations. gren 10:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in reviewing your own uploads if you're going to require another reviewer. And reviewing once it's been reviewed doesn't matter. Even if the license changes, it was reviewed and kept at the free license. Unless it was non free and now free, for which removing the previous review and then adding a current free review would seem justified. MECU≈talk 12:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with MECU --Vaya 21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see what's the point of reviewing your own uploads - it doesn't really add any credibility to the claim that a picture is free and by uploading the flickr image you're already implying it's free and since you're a trusted user, we probably believe you. However if a third party looks at a picture of yours and sees that it's now "All rights reserved" on flickr while you say it was CC-BY-SA-2.5 and you reviewed it yourself - it doesn't make them believe the statement even more. I mean, from their point of view, anyone can upload an unfree flickr photo and then flickrreview it saying it's free however when another person is the one that flickrreviews the photo it does add credibility as it's another set of eyes who went over the image and made sure it's free. Yonatan ^talk 01:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think trusted users and admins should be able to review their own uploads. Mistakes happen sometimes, when for example there is an all rights reserved image in the middle of an otherwise cc-by only photostream. Kjetil r 02:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Illegal use of review

See Special:Whatlinkshere/User:FlickreviewR/reviewer-not-editted. What shall we do with it? Just rereview it? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of errors here apparently, I would not re-review but do manual fixing. This was reviewed correctly, a bot error there imo. This is an incorrect filling out of the review template. This results from a derivative upload at a new filename. This appears to have been done by pfctdayelise, whilst logged out. Such a disparate set of results suggests a slightly more delicate methodology is required...--Nilfanion 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, some seem to be so blatantly...wrong. I'm going through and reviewing them (and leaving conspicuous edit summaries). I'll report back with any odd ones. --Iamunknown 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Others aren't so wrong. Image:Angela Lansbury.jpg is a crop of Image:Bea Arthur and Angela Lansbury (1989).jpg, the latter which was indeed reviewed by Howcheng. Do you we have a more appropriate tag for such images? --Iamunknown 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, now that I've done a few, I think I'll stop. I should wait to hear if we do or do not have an appropriate tag for cropped images. My contribs are viewable here. --Iamunknown 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments all. I toned down the template a bit; it was probably a little over aggressive. In my opinion images reviewed by anons should be rereviewed, unless we are absolutely certain that the reviewers and the anon are the same. And of course all the images that are derivs from already reviewed images on Commons should be ok. Just a small stat: there were iirc only 33 images that needed to be tagged like this, as opposed to over 6000 correctly done. It appears the system works :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Image:Turboprop P&W PT6A-67D.jpg Fred Chess added flickrreview in Paras name after her comment here. How can this be changed so that the image doesn't pop up as FlickreviewR/reviewer-not-editted again? Is the only solution to ask Para to retag it himself/herself? /Lokal_Profil 21:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and not too interested in reviewing Flickr licenses. I have only made the license history collected from Flickr available and if anyone finds it useful, then I can consider my time well spent. Lately I've been too busy to update it though, but the information on previously changed licenses is still valid. If I had a say, most of the images on User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible earlier but not anymore should stay. Perhaps next week I could add flickrreview status to the table too. --Para 10:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If my scripts are working correctly, it the tag will only come up once. Of course, if everything is correct. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Appearance proposal

I suggest setting width for this template - 100% same as CC Templates, I think it well look better on image pages.--Vaya 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. In fact, I see no reason not to do so, so I'll go ahead and change the template. However, it may take a while before the changes show up. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS permission for unfree flickr images

How should we tag images like Image:Minneapolis Hennepin County Government Center.jpg? The flickr page says © All rights reserved, but the commons page says Cc-by-2.5 and give an OTRS permission ID. --GeorgHH 10:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the flickrreview tag. OTRS trumps flickrreview. MECU≈talk 00:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This brings up an issue. Flickr doesn't let you use a PD tag. I put photos on flickr for people that belong to a group I'm in. The guy released them to PD and OTRS is pending. But, since flickr doesn't let you tag them PD, I have tag them CC or CC Sharealike on flickr. So, I'd presume they don't need a flickrreview tag? This would all be solved if Flickr allowed PD tags.Rlevse 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're tagging them CC on flickr, you don't need to do OTRS. If you are the author then you don't need flickrreview at all. Just upload them here (and anywhere else you want) and mark them as "self-upload" and the license you want. No need to involve flickr or flickrreview here. MECU≈talk 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This particular set was owned by someone else who released to PD. We wanted them on Flickr and here and Flickr won't let them be tagged PD, so hence the predictament. I did OTRS just to be safe. Thanks for clarifying. GIven the way this was done by me and since OTRS trumps flickrreview, I shouldn't need the review I guess. Rlevse 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can add in the flickr description: "IOn fact, this image is in the Public Domain by XXX, the flickr license reads Cc-by because it doesn't have a PD option". Platonides 10:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive for questionable Flickr copyright claims?

I was just about to upload http://flickr.com/photos/dema/187096824/ when I noticed it had been deleted as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alima2.jpg with commentary that this user tends to do this sort of thing before. Then there is Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007May#User:Kamui99_images which also tends to come up.

Is there a page where we can list Flickr users who release images with questionable ownership, so this issue doesn't come up again? --AnonEMouse 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Starting one: Commons:Questionable Flickr images, COM:QFI. --AnonEMouse 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Notifying Flickr authors of thier images?

Is it customary for reviewers (or bots) to notify the Flickr authors of an image when thier imag eis used on Wikipedia? Just wondering as I noticed some people were surprised when they found out thier photo was on Wikipedia or something... 71.112.249.118 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if it's customary, but it certainly doesn't hurt, and I try to do it whenever I copy and image to here. Legally there's no need to, of course. Richard001 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On changes in copyright

From Commons:Flickr images: Flickr allows its users to select the license of their choice and to change it at any time, without any logs of the prior copyright status of the image. This means there is no easy way to check whether an image currently marked as non-free was uploaded under a free license. This causes problems for the use of these images on Wikimedia projects.

Has anybody thought to ask Flickr to change this? If they can host a billion photos I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to use a few extra bytes to record changes in copyright status. Is there any pressing reason why they might not want to do this? I suppose if you tried to go from a freer to a less free license, having a record of the former status would kind of make that rather pointless, but would that be a good reason for them not to do it? Richard001 (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)