Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mountains around Wasilla Alaska.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
According to the license history on Flickr, this was licensed under BY-NC-SA at the time it was uploaded to Commons. RadioKAOS (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The flickr histories of other images from that flickr account show the same problem. Commons has some 62 files from that flickr account (74122471@N00). They were uploaded to Commons, from 2005 to early 2008, by several different users, their licenses were reviewed by the flickr review bot and even sometimes double reviewed by administrators. Also, the flickr pages show that users sometimes left comments thanking the flickr account for having used a license that allowed upload to Commons. At least one file was a featured picture and picture of the day, which normally means additional scrutiny, including of the license, by more users. It is very unlikely that all the users and reviewers, and the bot, were all mistaken. It seems more likely that there is something incomplete on the side of the flickr histories of that flickr account. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ukglo: Can you comment on "Flickr displaying false license history for at least one account on Flickr?" C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some more details. This is a list of the users who uploaded or reviewed files of this flickr account:
- User:Adam~commonswiki 7 uploads
- User:Nilfanion (former administrator, VRT member) 1 review
- User:Rodrigo.Argenton 1 retouched upload
- User:Calliopejen 8 uploads
- User:FlickreviewR (review bot) 51 reviews
- User:Riana 1 upload
- User:Aconcagua 6 uploads (through User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske))
- User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) 6 reviews
- User:Imzadi1979 1 retouched upload
- User:Boricuaeddie 6 uploads
- User:Talgraf777 1 upload
- User:Djlayton4 1 upload
- User:Electron (license reviewer) 2 uploads
- User:Sandstein 2 uploads
- User:Kanchelskis 3 uploads
- User:Arria Belli (former administrator) 3 uploads
- User:One last pharaoh 1 upload
- User:Mattbuck (former administrator) 1 review
- User:Sylfred1977 2 uploads
- User:Überraschungsbilder 12 uploads
- User:Asta~commonswiki 2 uploads
- User:O (former administrator) 1 review
- User:FloNight 1 upload
- User:Lokal_Profil (former administrator) 1 review
- User:Urban~commonswiki 2 uploads
- User:TheLarch 1 upload
- User:Dodo (former administrator) 1 review
- User:Ww2censor (license reviewer) 1 upload
- It seems that all the files were uploaded from 2005 to early 2008. I think the latest upload was made on 5 May 2008. Unsurprisingly, most users listed are now inactive on Commons. Still, many of them were serious users. In total, 28 users participated in handling the files of this flickr account, including 21 uploaders, 2 reviewer bots and 5 human reviewers. They can't all have been wrong about the license. It's practically impossible. Also, it seems significant that all the uploads are from before mid-2008 and none since then. That's unlikely to be because all those Commons users, reviewers and bots were all making the same mistake before mid-2008 and then everybody stopped making that mistake after mid-2008. The more logical hypothesis is that the license changed at the flickr account. And there may be one technical fault in the flickr system that makes it unable to find and correctly display license changes made before some date, say mid-2008 (at least at that flickr account, possibly at other or at all accounts). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Flicker had a big issue; you could change the license to a more restricted one.
- If our bot attested, by no margin of error, the image at that time was at cc-by 2.0.
- This was a very simply check that bot those, and Flicker reviewers became obsolete.
- Basically,
Keep and ignore all other comparison at Flicker website, it is unreliable by now. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Flickr did not show a license history in the past, it does show a license history for some time now. As far as I know, it is not a bug, but a feature that Flickr users can (still) change a "license to a more restricted one". @Rodrigo.Argenton: @Asclepias suggests that the display of the license history is wrong at least for one flickr account for license changes before 2008, but to me it seems, that you do not think that, but consider something different? I remember that one of my imports was deleted because OTRS member Olaf Kosinsky said, that License Review Bots are not to be trusted. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- It was a typo, big issue.
- If the user can change to a more restricted one, that is it. You cannot under after 10 years and say that the license is incorrect. Simply as that.
- Olaf Kosinsky is wrong, the bot is quite simply, and reliable. I do not understand the point of further discussion. If the user can change the license, and we reviewed the license back there, the most reasonable is imagine that the user change the license after the bot attest it. Not the other way. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Flickr did not show a license history in the past, it does show a license history for some time now. As far as I know, it is not a bug, but a feature that Flickr users can (still) change a "license to a more restricted one". @Rodrigo.Argenton: @Asclepias suggests that the display of the license history is wrong at least for one flickr account for license changes before 2008, but to me it seems, that you do not think that, but consider something different? I remember that one of my imports was deleted because OTRS member Olaf Kosinsky said, that License Review Bots are not to be trusted. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, it looks like it's close to 100% certain that there is a problem in the flickr license history system, that it cannot deal correctly with old license statuses of some old flickr uploads, and as a result it displays unreliable or wrong information. The cut date for unreliability might be 17 July 2008. On images uploaded to flickr later than 2008, it is often indicated that there is no license history before 17 July 2008. About the comment by Olaf Kosinsky, context would be necessary to know what it was about, but maybe he simply commented that bots check what license exists at the flickr source, but they do not check if the flickr user is the legitimate copyright owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at a 2007 photo from a different flickr account, the license history displays the usual note stating that "there is no license history before 17 July 2008" and it displays a subsequent change of license made on 13 August 2008. So, I'm guessing that the problem with the license histories on flickr may affect flickr images whose license was changed before 17 July 2008, by displaying in their license history a text that seems to imply that the license had not changed since the upload to flickr. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Given the number of different people who uploaded from this Flickr account with parallel claims about licensing, it beggars belief that all of these users were involved in some sort of fraud, rather than that Flickr has an error in terms of tracking the licensing history of these files. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
