Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wikimedia Commons views this addition of licensing options by Flickr as something positive and welcomes it. However, it creates a few problems which we have to face. Images uploaded from Flickr under the Public Domain Mark 1.0 needs to be tagged with the template {{Flickr-public domain mark}} (substituted as it currently is coded) given that we have no idea why it is under Public Domain. This PD Mark is not a license, nor can someone release something under it. Our current Public Domain-templates, such as {{PD-self}} has a secondary clause that states: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which is needed as a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. We can't relicense something from PD Mark 1.0 to another PD-license/template, since they have different legal text and the Flickr user has not agreed to those terms. Therefore, we can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if they fall under another PD-templates scope, such as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-USGov-DOD}}, or if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Josve05a (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor had requested comment from other editors for this discussion. The discussion is now closed, please do not modify it.

On 30 March 2015, Flickr announced it now allows users to specify Public Domain Mark 1.0 and CC0 licenses. CC0 doesn't seem to present any issues for Commons (other than documentation and tool updates) - images are already being accepted by the automated FlickrReview after an update. PD 1.0 however appears to be a bit more complex - hence this discussion to hash out the implications for Commons (at present, it is not possible to transfer batches of these files using Flickr2Commons, presumably because it doesn't recognise the license), and any images transferred manually will fail an automated FlickrReview, as the bot interprets these as unknown licenses - the bot operator needs to know what specific template or templates matches it before this can be changed [1]. I guess the questions are, are images tagged PD 1.0 on Flickr OK to transfer, and if so, which specific license template do they need, and/or do they need to be tagged for human review? Ultra7 (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background links:

• Commons:Flickr files
• Commons:PD files
• FlickreviewR 2 (talk · contribs)
• Flickr2Commons

Ultra7 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be an idea to template uploads with a generic PD-self license, on the presumption that most images being released on the new Flickr PD license will be released by the photographer, but with a tag that ensures human review. Images which are PD by age or due to release by organizations will be more tricky and may require the uploader to make a choice between specific PD types (such as {{PD-1923}} or {{OGL}}). As Flickr has no systematic way of handling these variations, it will remain impossible for Commons to fully automate the best choice of license. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps for the purposes of the transfer they could be tagged initially with a new template such as PD-Flickr, and the verification bot would just confirm that the Flickr user is claiming that it's in the public domain. The license should then be changed manually to whatever the appropriate PD status is. If they are still marked as PD-Flickr after a week, then delete them. --ghouston (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be unnecessary to make a automatic presumption of being a bad source, however as a proportion of uploads from Flickr are always going to be a copyright problem, it would be smart if the unique Flickr NSID were detected by bot and added as a parameter to the license (more stable than account name which can be easily and frequently changed). For an example see User:Faebot/Flickrstreams of concern which automatically includes "search all" links for NSIDs which are found using an API call if not obvious from the links. Given this, a batch deletion would be easy even if multiple Commons accounts were used. --Fæ (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were left as PD-Flickr, we'd then have PD works that have no explanation of why they are considered to be PD, except a Flickr user said so. I assumed this wouldn't be sufficient, since uploads from Commons users need to have such an explanation. If I upload a work to Commons directly, I have to give a reason, but if I upload it to Flickr and then transfer it to Commons I don't? --ghouston (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, see Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions and its deletion requests. If consensus allows that one to be kept, it seems like a precedent for PD-Flickr. --ghouston (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that further review would be good, but we need a longer time to do so. I would say at least one month (or even more) before asking for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding the category they go into as a subcategory of Category:PD files for review. Revent (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of manual review, I note that a PD 1.0 tagged image that I uploaded as a test of the tools, has actually been accepted by a reviewer (User:1989) and tagged as CC0 [2] (I had assumed it was going to be speedied as it was the one which the auto-review bot had rejected as unknown, and only thought to check up on it now). I've asked them to comment here, but it might be a while, they're displaying a break notice. I'm not sure if this means we need to display more prominent notices about this Rfc? I've also just noticed it being talked about on the VP (the original discussion raising this as an issue having been archived). I hope we have some system of finding any PD 1.0 images uploaded and tagged as CCO (assuming we decided this is not OK). Ultra7 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the license because the notice on the license said it was recommended to change it to CC-0, and I have checked the source. I believe the image is in good standards. 1989 19:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That recommendation is not for you - you're not allowed to license images CC0 if they're not your own work, which this obviously wasn't. And that notice was probably not even meant to be there, it appears the Flickrinfo tool (which Flickr2Commons uses) chose to interpret [3] as [4], which can't be programmed behaviour, since Flickr only starting using PD 1.0 recently, while the other license was depreciated a while ago. Ultra7 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the PD 1.0 as used on Flickr is that there is no assurance being given that it is in the PD in both the US and the country of initial publication (the standard required for the Wiki Commons). I don't have a problem with assuming good faith of a Flickr uploader, but in uploading and tagging an image with PD 1.0 to Flickr, they're not making an assertion that the material meets the copyright standards for this site. As per Ghouston, it would seem strange to require us to apply that standard (and give an explanation) when uploading an image directly to the Commons, but not if we are transferring the same image from Flickr. As I've said on the parallel debate on the FlickrCommons tag, I think it is important that we apply the highest standards around copyright to this site and don't take shortcuts. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a serious concern with the Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions tag since those images have been vetted by large organizations with copyright expertise. That tag is not available for any Flickr user; just institutions submitting via Flickr Commons. Those are virtually always PD in the country of origin, at the very least. On the other hand, there is no such guarantee of research with the generic Flickr PD tag -- those can be added by anyone, who could make varying assumptions (ignoring country of origin, mistaken assumptions about copyright law, etc.) which would make them invalid for Commons. My guess is images marked with that tag may end up with an accuracy rate similar to that tag on archive.org -- which is rather poor. So I would absolutely not allow the Flickr bots to automatically upload those, and I do not consider the other Flickr template a precedent. Also, I don't think FlickrReviewer should validate them. The bots which scan for Flickr links might have to be updated though -- if there is a Flickr source link, and a regular PD tag, and the Flickr tag is the PD one, then the images should not be flagged for FlickrReview (if that would happen currently, which I'm not sure). FlickrReviewer might also recognize that situation to just remove the Flickr review tags, without adding anything which indicates additional approval other than the PD tag which was already supplied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes images tagged PD 1.0 on Flickr OK to transfer, and they should get a template indicating that they were added based on flickr's PD license, and they should get human review of the sort which Flickr content with CC-By licensed content gets. There seems to be some discussion above that since people do not understand public domain that anyone using this tag should have extra scrutiny as compared with CC-By licensing. I think all uploads to Commons should have a little scrutiny but I do not recognize a rationale to direct extra attention to files with this license. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just playing with {{Flickr-public domain mark}} template which I propose to use as a temporary "license" in case of flickr public domain mark images. We might accompany this license with {{No license since}} tag and semiautomatically delete images where this "license" was not replaced in a week or two. Please feel free to modify my template if needed. --Jarekt (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to wrap the {{No license since}} inside this, and pass the date along to it... usage would be long the lines of {{Flickr-public domain mark|day=XX|month=XX|year=XXXX}}... that would avoid getting 'orphaned' images that had this and not the tracking template. Also, the Flikr2commons tool should probably be taught to add this when appropriate (assuming it gets adpoted, ofc). Revent (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, derp, nevermind, forgot that {{No license since}} is substituted.. silly me. Revent (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made {{Flickr-public domain mark}} more similar to Template:Uwlsubst and added {{No license since}} inside. Now typing {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} will add {{Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead|month=April|day=20|year=2015}} to the file page. Unless there are any objections I think @Zhuyifei1999: should add it to his FlickreviewR 2 bot and test it. We should also add it to other upload tools relying on Flickr, like Commons:Upload Wizard, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented. {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} will be added when there is no {{License template tag}} transcluded. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuyifei1999, {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark}} specifically mentions public domain mark 1.0 "license", so the bot should only use that template when public domain mark 1.0 was found with the flickr image. I do not think it should depend on absence of other licenses, (which transclude {{License template tag}}). --Jarekt (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: It's when "public domain mark 1.0 was found with the flickr image" AND "absence of other licenses" (whether pd or not, since there's no specific tag that I know of for pd templates (Is it {{PD-Layout}}?)) Sorry if I wasn't clear. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuyifei1999, That makes sense. And yes {{PD-Layout}} is a template you can test for since it should be transcluded by all PD license templates. --Jarekt (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

if license == "Public domain mark":
    if no {{License template tag}}:   // no license of any kind
        add {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst}}
        review passed
    else if no {{PD-Layout}}:         // non PD license found
        review passed_changed
        skip try_license_subst
    else:                                // PD license
        review passed

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. I would add a line to remove CC licenses from file if flickr uses "Public domain mark" (may be after the first line remove "\{\{cc-by-[^\}]*\}\}" in case independent mode). I am also not sure what "skip try_license_subst" means but I would send those files for manual file review. --Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Implemented most of this, though I'm not sure about removing existing cc licenses. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in phab: phab:T105629 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the tool is now using {{CC-PD}} to tag Public Domain Mark images, and the two are different. @Magnus Manske: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description, including licenses, from flickr2commons are generated by another tool. --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flominator and Lupo: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you're after. Please give me a complete example: Flickr link, and what license you think the image should have. Then I can look at this. Lupo 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A random public domain mark image: [5]. It is marked as {{Cc-pd}} (Public Domain Dedication) whereas it's actually Public Domain Mark. Can you either set it to accept pd tags manually or have {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} for default instead? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! I see. publicdomain/mark != cc-pd. But why subst instead of simply {{Flickr-public domain mark}}? Lupo 18:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: why is this tag Flickr-specific? Would be better if it was not. I don't care about the template's name, but if it just said "This image was originally posted at the source with..." it could be used for other repositories, too. Lupo 18:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lupo, the template is flickr specific because we encountered this issue only with flickr images so far. If there are cases when other websites use the same license I agree that we should make it more general. As for the substitution: we need it because we do not accept {{Flickr-public domain mark}} as a permanent license and would like the up-loaders to replace it with more specific licenses, so we need substitution to set the clock. --Jarekt (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flinfo will use this subst-construct also if it encounters a PD Mark on other repositories. So better rephrase it. Lupo 19:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed in Flinfo: [6]. Lupo 20:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I'm one of the members of the organization staff of WLE 2015 in Spain. In order to get more contributions, we've (as with past editions of WLE or WLM) set up a Flickr group where we encourage flickers to contribute with free images. After that, we transfer the images to commons with a bot. This year, many contributors have chosen PD Mark 1.0 as they thought they were actually free licenses. At the moment we have more that 500 images from good faith contributors in Flickr waiting for being transferred here. I'm really worried about their status and about the possibility of having them deleted after upload to commons. Do you have any idea or advice to give us? Many thanks into advance --Discasto _talk 18:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they have put a PD tag on their own work, it's like Template:PD-author. However they haven't agreed to the fallback license on that template, so it seems to me that it can't be used. I don't know if there's any other relevant template. The best thing would be to use CC0 on flickr instead of the PD Mark. --ghouston (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've asked them to switch to CC-zero, but don't know whether they're reading flickrmail :-( --Discasto _talk 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they have realease the images in to the public domain, using the PD Mark 1.0 isn't that equivalent to releasing the images compleatly free, and would allow us to relicense the images if, and to what, we wanted to? They have agreed to "release" it in to the public domain, have they not? Or what is he real difference between "if the image has come to the public domain due to e.g. age" and if they have "been release into the public domain by the author"? Josve05a (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that it's not really clear in many countries if you really can "release into the public domain". Copyright law says you get copyright automatically, doesn't mention public domain, and doesn't give any way to abandon copyright. All you can do is transfer it to somebody else or license it. That's why the "public domain" statements such as CC0 and Template:PD-author contain a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. It's not possible to relicense somebody elses work, only a copyright holder can issue a license. That's why Template:PD-author can't be used, because the copyright holder hasn't agreed to it. I suspect Template:PD-author is inferior to CC0, e.g., because it's doesn't say it's irrevocable. --ghouston (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First DR-case about this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karan A Chanana, Chairman of the Amira Group, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.png. Josve05a (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.