Commons talk:License review

Archives 1, 2

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)

@Tvpuppy: I ran into a similar issue today after reviewing File:Visit of Naïma Moutchou, French Minister for Overseas Territories, to the European Commission - 2026 (4).jpg. Cropping the image led to the cropped file showing as uploaded by me and also reviewed by me! Grand-Duc's explanation makes sense so I guess this is fine // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Own upload review

User:Schwede66 had reviewed File:Big Ōkahukura Peninsula, Kaipara Harbour.jpg themselves. Not entirely sure why, the bot would have done it anyway. I replaced this with a Flickrreview. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with reviewing my own upload? Schwede66 19:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read Commons:License review#Instructions for reviewers, which says "image-reviewers may not review their own uploads...Reviews by image-reviewers on their own uploads will be considered invalid". Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Schwede66: what Tvpuppy said. If you reviewed any other of your own uploads they may require a new review as well, but I'm not sure how to search for that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine. I did not know that. It doesn’t make sense to me, but if that’s the community consensus, so be it. Schwede66 02:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I faced a same problem, but there is YouTube file, which are still not reviewing by bots. Who can manually review my file? Voltmetro 09:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment - [1], the review was completed by Jeff G. on 28 July 2026, hours before question by Voltmetro. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

License review needed for my app?

Hi! I made an app YouTube to Wikimedia Commons which uploads YouTube media to Wikimedia Commons. So before you're allowed to upload it checks if video is under cc by, and I have a question is license review template really needed. I mean it probably works the same as YouTube license review bot. Malyzolwikson (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Batch license review request: 370 audio tracks from CC BY YouTube videos (car engine sounds)

Hello reviewers,

I uploaded 370 audio tracks extracted from YouTube videos published under the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY), between 22 and 27 October 2026. They are engine and exhaust recordings of cars, used with attribution in RevGuessr, a car-sound guessing game. They are all waiting in Category:License review needed (audio).

Each file page has:

• {{From YouTube}} as source, linking to the original video;
• {{YouTube CC-BY}} as licence, the channel name as author;
• the publication date of the video and a short description in English and French.

Before uploading, my tool checked the licence field reported by YouTube for every video ("Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)") and kept the video's metadata. No file was modified apart from being extracted to Opus audio (some videos were cut to their first 10 minutes).

The full list is in my uploads: Special:ListFiles/Braiion (file names end with "(YouTube <id>)").

Could a reviewer, or YouTubeReviewBot if it can handle audio extracts, review them? I am happy to fix anything on the file pages if something is missing or wrong.

Thank you, Braiion (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)