File talk:Volyn biota - Franz et al., 2023, fig. 3j.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dear colleague, why do you think that the license must be reviewed? The article clearly states Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
User:GeoWriter ? Sneeuwschaap (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- The reason is written at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:License_review_needed : "Files in this category are from websites that do not have their own specialized review template like Flickr does. Since licenses on third-party sites can change, this is provided as a method to confirm the copyright status of these files as being acceptable on Commons.". I agree the licence on the source website is CC-BY but a review gives proof. GeoWriter (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The "license on third-party site" can not change in this case, because it is stated even in the article's pdf. And even if it changes, an archive can show that it was free at the time of uploading. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed the "license review needed" template from this image. GeoWriter (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The "license on third-party site" can not change in this case, because it is stated even in the article's pdf. And even if it changes, an archive can show that it was free at the time of uploading. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The reason is written at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:License_review_needed : "Files in this category are from websites that do not have their own specialized review template like Flickr does. Since licenses on third-party sites can change, this is provided as a method to confirm the copyright status of these files as being acceptable on Commons.". I agree the licence on the source website is CC-BY but a review gives proof. GeoWriter (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
