Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

How to retrieve a Flickr ID[edit]

get profile info by ID (enter e.g. 44657206@N00), get ID by URL (enter a flickr URL; this can be a photo or the profile or a gallery)

{{qfi|Screen name|Alphabetic ID (path_alias?)|Numeric ID|reason}}

Or use this automated tool[edit]

… for adding users to both blacklists

For using the automated tool for adding users to the black lists, JavaScript enabled in your browser is required. Also, you must have the required privileges.
JavaScript is active.
JavaScript is disabled in your browser.
This is a dashboard widget.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Questionable Flickr images.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 4 days.

Please remove 77742560@N06[edit]

flickruser:77742560@N06 was incorrectly added to this list because they uploaded two images of trains that they had downloaded from WP.

The captions of both these photos clearly state that they're not the user's own photos. The caption reads picture downloaded from Wikipedia- I crossed this train twice on my run from Osaka to Hiroshima but photographing anything at that speed was well night impossible as all you can see is a blur of pink and white.

I have trawled thousands of photos uploaded by this user and never seen anything problematic. The user's own photos always contain EXIF data, and I have never seen any anomalies regarding cameras or file dates etcetera. This photo, for instance, was shot with the same Fujifilm X-A1 used for a selfie by the same user.

Here are the two photos that got this user placed on the list: I was surprised to see a pink Shinkansen train on the way, There are two Hello Kitty themed pink Shinkansen trains. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarwIn @Teles alguém pode remover o "77742560@N06" daqui? Obrigado, RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, it was added by @Red-tailed hawk here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It was added after multiple AfDs came up with Flickrwashing. I've not got an objection to the blacklist being lifted, though, in light of the broader activity on the account. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers I remember a couple of uploads by this user that were re-posts of non-free images by other Flickr users. I think the vast majority of their uploads are fine and don’t think they need to be blacklisted, just carefully reviewed. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - as all Flickr photos should be carefully reviewed, since the Flickr interface defaults to whatever license a user last used. I think I myself have accidentally applied a free license to some brochure scans; it doesn't mean I was engaging in Flickrwashing. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers FYI, here are the relevant Flickr links:
I don’t know why the Flickr user said the images were from Wikipedia—I don’t know that either images was ever on Commons/Wiki. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either, but what is important to me is that they clearly stated that these two shots were not their own work. To me, the responsibility falls on Commons users who upload carelessly. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 00:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers@Adeletron 3030@RodRabelo7@Red-tailed hawk Done, removed that entry from the list. Darwin Ahoy! 14:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheerio, thanks DarwIn. Do I need to add {{flickrreview}} to the thousands of photos that were tagged? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 14:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn: could you also please remove 77742560@N06 from the Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users list? I thought that list would update automatically. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers ✓ Done. Darwin Ahoy! 19:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers If they were not reviewed, I suppose so... Maybe it can be done with the VisualChange thing? Darwin Ahoy! 19:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove iip-photo-archive from the list[edit]

Dear Commons members,

flickruser:iip-photo-archive flickr profile states "The GPA Photo Archive is maintained by the Bureau of Global Public Affairs of the United States Department of State, and comprises public-access photos intended for use by U.S. Missions overseas and other State Department entities. Photos may be used by staff of the Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA), U.S. embassies, consulates, American Spaces, and other U.S. mission offices, and distributed as warranted for use by non-USG organizations sanctioned by the embassy. Only non-commercial use is permitted. Credit line should read: GPA Photo Archive / photographer's name / original source. Example: GPA Photo Archive / Carol M. Highsmith / Library of Congress."

I think that this flickr account has been incorrectly added to the bad author's list. As this account's IIP Photo Archive profile says, its photos are US State Department Government work...even when the flickr profile says it should be for non-commercial use which is not legally enforceable.

That is why there are PD images such as these 2 images below which are most likely State Department photos which should be passed from this account. Should someone pass them?

Finally, this image from this source flickr account would be put on the bad authors list which makes no sense as it is a White House photo. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: It seems to me that this flickr account understands and respects copyright. In this photo they name the photographer and credit it to Wikimedia Commons with a photolink. Its not like a flickrwash where they steal other people's images and license them freely on their flickr account and pretend that it is their own work. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better reason to blacklist[edit]

Many users are added to the list with the reason "Flickrwashing". I think that there should be a link to a discussion where this is justified. When users are blacklisted the bot fail them but human users have to decide what to do.

It seems like a waste if users have to start from scratch when a file is marked as blacklisted.

So I think that from now on it should not be possible to add a user to the blacklist without a link to some page. Should be possible to make a filter or something that warns user not to add someone without a link. --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images&oldid=873435643"