Commons:License review/Requests

(Translate) (purge this page's cache)

Archives 2020s 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2010s 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2000s 2009 2008 2007

Kindly read Commons:License review and relevant pages such as Flickr files before applying for the right.

To become a reviewer, you need to be familiar with the general licensing policy of Commons and the common practices of reviewing. A reviewer is required to know which Creative Commons licenses are compatible with Wikimedia Commons and which are not, and be dedicated to license reviewing every so often and offer their assistance in clearing the backlogs. Relevant knowledge can be demonstrated by regularly participating in deletion requests or in New Files Patrolling.

Post your request below and be prepared to respond to questions. The community may voice their opinions or ask a few questions to verify your knowledge. A few days later (usually 48 hours), a reviewer or an administrator will determine the possible outcome of the request based on the input received from the community. The closing admin/reviewer will grant the right if there are no objections and add the applicant to the list of reviewers. If permissions are granted, you can add {{User reviewer}} (or one of its variants) to your user page and begin reviewing images.

Click the button to submit your request. Alternatively, copy the code below to the bottom of this page, and only replace "Reason" with the reason you are requesting this user right. Requests will be open for a minimum of two days (48 hours).

=={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}==
{{subst:LRR|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason ~~~~}}

• Note for Admins/Reviewers: To close a request, please wrap the entire section excluding the section heading with {{Frh}} and {{Frf}}. If the request is successful, please leave this message {{subst:image-reviewerWelcome}}--~~~~ on the applicant's user talk page.

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 5 days.

Incall

• Incall (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) (search username in archives) (assign permissions)
• Reason: I am well-versed in YouTube licensing and capable of verifying YouTube videos. I also have a strong understanding of panorama freedom laws in Central Asia.--Incall ^talk 08:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Scheduled to end: 08:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC) (the earliest)

Comments

• Want to answer the questions I had asked the other person above?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Would you like me to share my opinion or upload the screenshots? Incall ^talk 15:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your opinion if you will pass license review or not  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  1) YouTube: "Mount Pleasant lost 2 goals to 1 against Harbour View in match week 22 of JPL (Time: 2m40s) — Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported.

  2) YouTube: "MultiVersus – Official Cinematic Trailer - "You're with Me!"" (Time: 2m07s) — Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (the video might normally be considered copyrighted, but since it was uploaded by the official Warner Bros. Games channel under a CC BY 3.0 license, it is acceptable for download and reuse.)

  3) YouTube: "FULL EPISODE: Can Timmy Escape A Video Game World?! (Time: 7m10s) — it cannot be uploaded (because it is under the standard YouTube license).

  4) YouTube: "The FIRST Ever Episode of The Fairly OddParents 🧚‍♀️ in 5 Minutes! (Time: 1m05s) — Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (the video is copyrighted, but since it was uploaded by the copyright holder, Nicktoons, under a CC BY 3.0 license).

  5) YouTube: "Denzil Smith EXCLUSIVE: Life as Trinidad & Tobago’s No. 1 Goalkeeper!" (Time: 4m01s) — Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Incall ^talk 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

   Support  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Question How would you explain the licensing policy to a new user? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In simple terms. Commons only accepts freely licensed or public domain content. That means any file must be under a license that allows anyone to use, share, and modify it, as long as proper attribution is given. Common licenses include Creative Commons (e.g. CC BY or CC BY-SA). Incall ^talk 20:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on FOP? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama is a copyright exception that allows people to take and publish photos of buildings, sculptures, and artworks that are permanently located in public spaces without violating copyright laws. However, the scope of FOP varies significantly from country to country.

Examples: Europe

1) France — Limited Freedom of Panorama (France does not have full Freedom of Panorama. While taking photos of buildings in public spaces is allowed, publishing photos of copyrighted works considered a copyright infringement.)

2) Germany — Full Freedom of Panorama (In Germany, Freedom of Panorama is fully recognized. (You can take and publish photos of buildings, sculptures, and monuments located in public spaces.)

Examples: Central Asia (my region)

3) Tajikistan — Not ok (Although publishing photos of monuments and buildings in Tajikistan on Commons is prohibited, an image may be allowed if the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the photograph.)

4) Uzbekistan — Not ok (Same as above.) Incall ^talk 05:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Question by Grand-Duc: please imagine yourself busy with YouTube video reviews. You come across educational material that fully exploits the opportunities given by the media format: acting humans, animations, subtitles and music. What do you need to verify to be able to say that the given Creative Commons license was legitimately applied to the file? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  When reviewing a YouTube educational video claiming a Creative Commons license, I must verify that the uploader holds the rights to all components: video footage, music, animations, and subtitles. If third-party content is used, it must be under a compatible license or properly cleared. Proper attribution must be given, including the original author, license type, and source. The license should be clearly stated in the video or description. Finally, I check that no content (e. g. trademarks, personal likenesses and trade secret) outside copyright scope is improperly included under the CC license. Incall ^talk 05:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)