Commons talk:License review

Archives 1, 2

Dead sources

The backlog of files needing review is so old that a lot of sources are dead (some files not even on archive.org) I know we have the {{TrustedSource}} template, but it'd be nice to have an in between template that says the license was unable to be verified but I also have no reason to nominate it for deletion. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

To help with the review backlog, I have edited {{License review failed}} to add a deadlink=yes parameter, which will put the file into Category:License review failed due to dead link for now. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Overwrite with higher-res version and license review

COM:LR states, "Reviews by image-reviewers on their own uploads will be considered invalid.". If during license reviewing, I found out the source website has a higher resolution version than the one uploaded to Commons, am I allowed to overwrite with that higher resolution version then also license review the image? Will that be considered as "my own upload"? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Tvpuppy, the generally accepted opinion is (on Commons and in the world at large), as far as I'm aware, that a granted license is tied to an actual work and not to a concise expression of that work, so that e.g. a black-and-white print of a coloured source image or different resolutions of a motif don't matter in regard to copyrights. So, I would say that you're in the clear when you're enhancing a third-party upload with a higher resolved file. IIRC, I did this in the past, too (it may have been a thing with different Flickr image sizes, where some other Wikimedian uploaded a smaller size that I replaced with the full size offered on Flickr while reviewing). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That's helpful to know. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Photos from Mamlekate

Can a license reviewer take a look at:

• Category:Photos from Mamlekate (see {{Mamlekate}})
• Category:Photos from Vahid Online (see {{Vahid Online}})

File:Mamlekate Telegram 2026-01-13 98243 1.jpg is a cropped version of File:VahidOnline 2026-01-06 69310.jpg, maybe the Mamlekate and Vahid Online are the same?
Given what's happening in the region, linkrot may happen faster than expected. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: They aren't the same but it's tricky. Vahid Online is just one person and Mamlekate is also not an organized news agency, so both are independent and likely operating from outside Iran. They receive and publish media not from official reporters in Iran but from common people. In your example, a protestor may have sent the same photo to both sources, though Vahid Online credits a post on X in the caption. Mamlekate's post is from Jan. 13 but Vahid Online's from Jan. 6.

We had a less complex version of this copyright problem with Tasnim publishing random media from non-reporters, which necessitated license reviews (12.4K and counting still pending review). There, to review, we had to check not only the image's source but also its photographer. That's not possible with Vahid Online and Mamlekate because they don't have official photographers/reporters and access to state funds and don't attribute images to their photographers for safety reasons.

License review requirements, similar to what is done for Tasnim, can be helpful and are in my opinion necessary, but a better solution is getting the sources to clearly indicate when they have received media directly vs. taken it from sources like X. Vahid Online already largely does this, and getting Mamlekate to do the same would help. They should also let uploaders know that they agree to a compatible CC license by sharing media with these channels because this is legally required. CC BY would be better than the current CC BY-SA in my opinion.

Pinging @Darafsh, the creator of the license templates. Ahmad^talk 07:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)