Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:DMCA

This page in a nutshell: Sometimes the Wikimedia Foundation needs to remove content for legal reasons, in response to a request under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Such removals cannot be reversed without legal action.

Responding to a DMCA take down notice In the event that material is removed due to a DMCA notice, the only recourse for restoring such material is to file a counter-notice with the Foundation. If you believe that a take-down notice which has been acted upon by the Foundation is without legal basis, please feel free to visit the following sites as a first step in learning about filing a counter-notice:

Please note that filing a counter-notice may lead to legal proceedings between you and the complaining party to determine ownership of the material. The DMCA process requires that you consent to the jurisdiction of a United States court. All notices should be sent to the Foundation's designated agent.

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022–23

2016

Bernie Sanders Logos

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this case, Legal analyzed the various Bernie Sanders campaign logos at issue and determined that they most likely did meet the threshold of creativity for copyright. We also contacted the attorneys representing the Bernie Sanders campaign to discuss the issue and they asked that WMF carry out a takedown in compliance with the DMCA rather than work with the community to update the licensing information or allow the images in some context. @Fae: I redacted the exact same things we redact each time (personal information about the address/actual name of signers) we do not generally ever redact links or images themselves it's just they weren't included here. The actual email was ONLY what I posted it, the main DMCA is in the notice itself. ALL: I have to head into some more meetings (and am talking with Odder on IRC re counternotices) but will post direct links to the images as soon as possible probably in about 2 hours.
Jalexander--WMF 22:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to confirm that I'm planning on working with the Foundation on filing a counter-notice against this takedown request. I'll be deciding the course of action in the nearest future & will update everyone on the progress. odder (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, links to the content removed:
Jalexander--WMF 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are very simple font-based files with colors. These cannot be subject to copyright, they nowhere near approach the threshold of originality. We have many logos of companies, such as Best Western, which are more intricate and complex which the US Copyright office denied protection. 96.39.226.99 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implications: Unless there is a successful counter-claim, it might be a good idea to have an analysis by the Foundation's attorneys on where the line between "normal" copyrightable logos and PD-textlogos is. As others noted, we have a great many textlogos currently, so it would be nice to know which are okay and which are not. Of course, a successful counter-claim would obviate the concern. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counternotice

Hi all, please be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation has received a DMCA counter notice which can be found on FoundationWiki. The original notice filer has been notified and the WMF is now required to wait 10 business days (I'm not sure if we count Martin Luther King day on Monday so looking at either the 28th or 29th of January) for a response before restoring the content. Jalexander--WMF 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I believe there is a log for User:CommonsDelinker and possibly a command in order to do that? Will look into it as soon as I can (running around a bit because of the Wikipedia 15 operations which means I may be slower then I'd like). Jalexander--WMF 00:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the deletion log for each file. On the line where it says that Jalexander deleted the file, it should also say delinker log. Click on delinker log to get a list of pages from which the file was deleted. I'm not aware of a way to get a bot to revert the removals, but it should be possible to go through the lists of pages manually if there aren't too many pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the removals have been reverted on all pages by User:Majora, User:Courcelles and me. I didn't attempt to restore the images on OgreBot galleries on Commons, and I also skipped a user page where the user had replaced a logo with a different image. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency request

Dear @Jalexander-WMF: and other representatives from WMF Legal,

As this is no longer a legal issue, as requested above, can you please:

  1. publish the analysis that was used to consider the deleted logos above the threshold of originality,
  2. publish advice if the current guidelines on Commons for logos are insufficient, in this case leading to differences of opinion between the Commons community and WMF Legal,
  3. explain alternative strategies for future similar DMCA requests, where the WMF can use its resources rather than relying on an unpaid volunteer to expose themselves to the personal risk of a legal case.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure @James has seen it, so I'm pinging him for the second time just to be sure he has :-) odder (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is important so I hope we get a response soon. Rybkovich (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the banner at the top of this page say "In order to avoid legal liability ('safe harbor status') under this US law, the Foundation is required to comply with validly formulated notices even if they are spurious."? I don't think that such a judgement was ever made by the WMF. Your third point is a good idea, but it seems impossible without the WMF taking on full legal liability for all Commons uploads, which is never going to fly. If I misunderstood the safe harbor law please help me out :). BMacZero (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to see WMF legal reply to the direct questions, rather than relying on us volunteers to speculate and guess in their absence. However, as to my third question, there are many solutions that could use "WMF resources" that would not require the WMF to have any direct management or be the guiding mind. --Fæ (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record: We've talked to Legal and they are, indeed, coming up with a response (they have also been watching this discussion). I appologize for the delay in responding (it's been a crazy couple weeks). While I don't have an exact timeline I am optimistic it won't be long. Jalexander--WMF 22:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal thoughts

Hi all, apologies for taking a while to get this together, it has indeed been a crazy couple of weeks, and it takes a while to put together these sorts of legal research written pieces, even for a reply like this.

I want to explain our reasoning on the Sanders DMCA and offer some thoughts on the state of the law around logos and other designs. If you’re interested in this area of law, you’ve probably seen the wikilegal post that we already have up about threshold of creativity. That research is still our starting point, in particular the Feist case (Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (U.S. 1991)). Under Feist, the threshold of creativity is a very low bar: the Court said that the creativity needed was “extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.”

How that Feist standard gets applied can vary a lot. The current wikilegal says that “text is generally only copyrightable when combined with shapes,” but this is a very broad standard. Even the “Feel the Bern” logo of the set submitted by the Sanders campaign, which includes the words at a slight angle, with colors, and in the middle of a circle could be considered by courts to be “text combined with shapes.” In addition, the test varies by circuits. The 9th circuit, for example, doesn’t look at the question of whether there are shapes, but rather whether there are enough separate “uncopyrightable elements” put together for the work to be creative. In the case of the 9th circuit, they’ve found that a sculpture of a jellyfish with 6 separate uncopyrightable elements wasn’t original, though having 7+ isn’t a hard and fast rule. (See Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. Cal. 2003)). The DC circuit has been arguably more protective, when it found that the standard layout of the cover of Reader’s Digest magazine was copyrightable, stating that “[n]one of the individual elements of the Reader's Digest cover -- ordinary lines, typefaces, and colors -- qualifies for copyright protection. But the distinctive arrangement and layout of those elements is entitled to protection as a graphic work.”

What that means is that the issue of copyright in works that are made up of simple shapes, words, or colors, might vary based on where you are within the United States and even within one region might not be treated exactly the same way every time. Because of that risk, we made the decision with the DMCA from the Sanders campaign to grant it when they insisted that we do so.

That said, I think that we made a conservative decision in this case, and perhaps one that could be more nuanced in the future. There is a good argument that while the campaign logos with the wavy lines, star, and multiple colors likely meet most (but not necessarily all) of the tests for copyrightability, the Feel the Bern logo, which consists of a circle, 3 colors, and text at a slight angle, may not meet the 9th circuit’s unofficial “more than 6 elements” test.

Additionally, I want to address the Best Western logo example that is often cited. That example comes from the copyright office determining not to grant registration to a copyright. While that is persuasive and the copyright office certainly has expertise in copyright, it is not binding precedent on the U.S. courts. What this means, especially given the difficulty of determining the exact standard for creativity among different courts, is that a court is not guaranteed to follow that ruling.

Following on this post, I hope to get some updates and additional examples into the threshold of creativity wikilegal article within the next couple weeks.Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure others will have more substantive feedback, but I just wanted to give a quick thank you. This sort of legal guidance on copyright issues is extremely valuable to the community. 24.151.10.165 22:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful in addressing point 1 above, in that the community can have a better understanding of the analysis used.
The examples suggested might help to pad out the case book which may help to address point 2.
With regard to relying on volunteers taking the legal risk, raised in point 3, this has not yet been touched on. I hope to see this in later responses rather than indefinitely parked or ignored.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think for the third point, we do try really hard to use WMF's legal resources to fight against improper requests rather than rely on users. If you take a look at the transparency report, most of the DMCAs we receive are rejected without ever being passed on to users because we believe they are not valid requests based on the research we do. This particular one was in a fuzzy area of the law, and we decided to make a conservative call to avoid giving up our safe harbor immunity. If we had believed that this DMCA was clearly abusing the law, we would have refused to honor it.Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your highly educational replies! Natuur12 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was in no doubt that WMF legal bods were interested in resisting unnecessary DMCA requests. The point raised in (3) was slightly different "there are many solutions that could use "WMF resources" that would not require the WMF to have any direct management or be the guiding mind". For example, we (the community) could promote a fund for volunteers in the position that odder put himself in, so that they have some independent private legal advice before taking any action, or could have a list of suggested lawyers maintained who are prepared to give independent expert opinion on specific DMCA cases that are raised by the Wikimedia Commons community, and will be worth adding to our case book or for the experts to sharpen their teeth on. The WMF is not intended to be a legal body to advise the public on copyright, and is likely to be seen as having its own bias, so independent opinion would add significant credibility to any outcome that might even sway legal or political opinions in the future. If opinions could be given pro bono, and still in a timely way, even better, and people in WMF legal are well placed to pull expert resources together, or suggest realistic ways of funding them. --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteers have to deal daily with complex copyright cases. Such knowledge can only be obtained after years of experience on the subject. Given the quantity of copyright issues on Commons, we need many more people with such experience. Since the WMF can't give legal advise to the community, we need to find such professional expertise elsewhere. I have long requested that some resources to be given on legal expertise by third parties. So in short, Fæ's message above is a step in the right direction. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am an attorney with an interest in copyright law. I would not provide expert opinion as I do not practice copyright law. But I have always been interested in copyright and have had articles published in several journals. So if questions do come up that would need to have a more detailed look into the topic, but without specific legal guidance, I would love to volunteer my time. Rybkovich (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takedown of File:Fashion-Designer.jpg

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the other upload of the user: only 1, cross-wiki upload, looks liks a copyvio too File:Clothing Manufacturing Company.png from "Jupiterimages/Digital Vision/Getty Images". Image marked as copyvio. Raymond 17:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takedown of House-Ant1.jpg

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the other uploads of the user on Commons. 1 file which shows a not copyrightable barcode only. Raymond 21:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful-dream-beach.jpg

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix by Gered Mankowitz 1967

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic tree (18968258040)

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Please note that the Office of General Counsel has decided that a "strike" is not appropriate in this instance because of mitigating circumstances (e.g., there is a clear lack of willfulness and a mistaken belief of compliance).

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we don't see the DMCA letter. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I neglected to add a link to that from the DMCA itself. The letter is located here. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was sourced from Flickr [4], as a photo of a grave in Edinburgh. I suppose it counts as a 2-dimensional work and isn't covered by freedom of panorama. --ghouston (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see the connection between the complainant and the image, and at the moment this looks to me like a bogus claim. The complainant does stuff with celtic patterns. A grave in Edinburgh has a celtic pattern. Now all celtic patterns belong to the complainant? Joe Sutherland (WMF), may we see the DCMA letter, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this to the DMCA notice. Sorry for missing that. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tagishsimon, it seems like a very dubious claim. Both the complainant's work and this are rooted (so to speak) in a tradition going back centuries. Even if they somehow ended up with identical Celtic tree designs (let alone merely similar ones), any copyright claim would require that the complainant could show that the creator of the other work had seen the complainant's copyrighted work beforehand. We should fight this one. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an identical design though. If it's a modern grave, it's quite possibly copied from an image somebody found on the Internet, and maybe even licensed properly. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get a headstone taken down as a copyright violation. --ghouston (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the URLs in the email link to an identical image, Ghouston? (Not doubting you, just have yet to make the connection.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: http://www.aon-celtic.com/projects/cprojects/cproject211.html appears to have the same design, to the 'limits' of the method of reproduction... even the leaves are there. Reventtalk 01:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other 'cproject' links show the same design, replicated in various forms as commercial products. Reventtalk 01:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Agree the similarities, not least the little leaves. It's not a problem in the UK, where Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 permits such an image, irrespective of the copyright on the artwork; but I appreciate that we are not in Kansas. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the uploader, I think this is pretty weak, especially considering the photo has been available at Flickr for well over a year and is still available there now. I looked at this as being a 3 dimensional engraving/relief covered under UK FoP. The design isn't flat. But this is probably not worth fighting for; cemeteries in the UK are a focus of mine, so I've uploaded several thousand images of gravestones from Scotland, Wales, and England. lNeverCry 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While we can probably get Jacob to respond here if desired I know that both legal and, upon legals request, multiple of us within SuSa looked to see if we could find evidence that would refute the claim. In the end Legal believed that there wasn't enough for us to show that it was incorrect and that we had to carry it out. As you know we never like to do takedowns and so tend to try hard to ensure that it's one we need to implement and we certainly worked to try and disprove it in this case as well. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries James. I've uploaded hundreds of gravestone images to Commons that're much better than this one. I won't miss it. lNeverCry 04:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A reply from Jacob would be nice since this case is quite complex and Jacob explaining such situations helps admins to do a better job. Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing this is the copyright registration filed by Cari M. Buziak. (refer t email in PDF and title of copyright register). (t) Josve05a (c) 04:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is dubious. The file remains on Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/hagdorned/18968258040/ on a CC-BY license, so the claimant is either not bothered about it being freely available on Flickr, or Flickr has rejected the DMCA claims. Sorry, this just does not look right at all. Please consider reversing your action and enter into dialogue with the complainant. --Fæ (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A DMCA letter dated from March 2014 is being used to ask to take down a photo taken in June 2015? Also, the part of the letter reproduced there doesn't include background and explanation, if there were any. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. This case is looking increasingly ropey. It would be sensible for WMF legal to spell out the evidence and timeline of events in more detail, at the moment what has been made public does not add up. --Fæ (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, happy to share the analysis here. For this one, I didn't look at it as a FoP issue because the claim is not that the photograph of the gravestone is violating the copyright of the gravestone maker. Rather, the claim is that the photograph violates a traditional 2d copyright design (as linked from various examples on the artist's website). I don't feel great about this one, as it does seem like an uncreative variation on a traditional cultural design and a gravestone seems likely to be old, so I initially responded to the artist suggesting that the image might not be copyrighted and asking for more information. The artist responded that they thought the style of the gravestone and the similarity of the design meant that the gravestone itself had been copied from one of the artist's stencils. So, that left us in the following situation: we couldn't find any evidence of this specific image being used earlier than the copyright claimed by the artist, the gravestone is not dated, and the artist does appear to have been using this design since at least 1995. It's also creative enough, despite being based on traditional imagery, to get copyright protection and it's unlikely that the photograph is fair use (not impossible, but I don't think the argument for a photograph of the design by itself is very strong). And the artist complied with all the DMCA requirements, including swearing under penalty of perjury that this was their design. Lastly, the old date on the letter is sloppy (they obviously reused an old letter), but all the information required by 17 U.S.C. §512 was sent to me, so I couldn't come up with a reason to reject the request. Note that this probably means that the gravestone itself was a copyright violation if it wasn't licensed, but we're not responsible for that, it's up to the artist to try and resolve that issue. If anybody does have more information (for example, if you know for sure the gravestone is older than the artist claims), that could be a very good case for a counter notice. As a last note, there would likely be no issue with a photograph of the graveyard including this stone because that would be a de minimis violation (i.e. legally too small to be a problem). It's only a picture focusing in on the design like this that presents the issue. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I think having several volunteers being sceptical about the case, and looking at it from different angles, has helped give confidence that this was the best outcome. --Fæ (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the legal analysis is correct, and I thank Jrogers (WMF) for providing it... we are rather bound by the assertion that the design was granted a Canadian copyright registration, unless the claim is demonstrably false. The use on the gravestone might indeed have been licensed, but that does not allow the photographer to legitimately make claims about the underlying material, even though there seems to be no evidence of intentional infringement. Reventtalk 23:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF): I wonder what manner copyright law applies to stencils. If the artist sells stencils with designs, that is promoting others to recreate the designs in their own work. I'm wondering how copyright law handles these type of situations. Offnfopt(talk) 16:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a pretty good implied license there, but nothing that would help us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I have taken the photo. I am not sure how old the grave stone is, but my guess it is at least 50 years old. I am happy to wander along and take another picture of the whole stone including any years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8010:60bd:1:75f3:d692:92a0:9e9e (talk • contribs)
@2a02:8010:60bd:1:75f3:d692:92a0:9e9e: We (commons admins) cannot overrule a WMF office action, but evidence that the copyright claim is clearly incorrect might cause them to reconsider.. it's possible, however, that a gravestone was erected many years after the person was buried, and that must be taken into account. Reventtalk 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look at the stone - it does look fairly new and shiny with the latest addition in 2008.
Thanks for taking the trouble to do that, Hagdorned (?). Much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merrakech1

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Josve05a: concerning these other files:
Considering the misspelled filenames, I suppose that it is the same uploader involved, and the same copyright issues. When 2 and 3 were deleted, why wasn’t 1 also considered for deletion as copyvio? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skotnik images

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Jalexander-WMF (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The copyright holder sent a much longer list of images (all uploaded by the same individual) requesting that they be deleted. Legal requested evidence of ownership and received evidence to their satisfaction for the ones above. Obviously if we receive evidence for the other images we will update here and if the community, separately, believes they should be deleted they are more then welcome to. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jalexander-WMF Given the nature of the images perhaps someone in the community with admin rights would be willing to just go on and delete some or all of the others that were uploaded by the same person. I really don't see anything in that list we will miss and my guess is the others won't be either. Reguyla (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't do speedy deletions on the basis of personality rights, do we? Or are you proposing declaring them probable copyright violations that the uploader needs to explain if he wants them kept? It also sounds like they would be easily deletable by a regular COM:DR: Not just Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle related to copyright now, but also by applying the precautionary principle to Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Austria or Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Italy (since one photo shows an Italian license plate, so perhaps the photo was taken under Italian law). --Closeapple (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Closeapple: Sorry I wasn't more clear. Yes I was refering to them being probable copyright violations and given the low probability of the usefulness of the image as further consideration I didn't really think it was worth the effort to fight it. Not my call though of course, just a suggestion. I really don't know who submitted them or how many there are. Reguyla (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that advice to use info-en-c was given. It is a pity that the benefit of avoiding DMCA was apparently not understood by the complainant. Ref Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Elecom2. --Fæ (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Skotnik" mean in this context? Is this a name?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the complainant's name (i.e. the asserted copyright holder in DMCA terms). --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BR-5972 LAjandrive16 MG a02.jpg

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated other files uploaded by this account: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Boxinzzz. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017

File:Mt. Vesuvius.jpg

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request attachment is missing. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know and I apologise for this. Trying to figure out how to make it available as the request did not come electronically.Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded it and added it to the DMCA page (you can also see it directly here on wmfWiki. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jalexander-WMF: Are we to assume the WMF is not paying them $1000? (amused) - Reventtalk 00:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jalexander-WMF and Kalliope (WMF): Is it possible for legal to provide the response which was sent back to them? I'm curious about this case --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does :) Jalexander-WMF (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Falls Hilo

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Multiple other copyvios (some, ick, widely used for years) from the same uploader speedied. - Reventtalk 01:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pixixica

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Stravinsky, New York City (1946)

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF sort of links to this Getty page. I'm skeptical about a lot of US photo copyrights of this age--it would have been real nice to get the renewal number--but it seems to be big enough and notable enough that it wasn't something that just got swept into Getty.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would have not been controversial as a DR, as though Getty is synonymous with unabashed copyfraud of PD photos, the photographer died in 2006. --Fæ (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an American photo by an American photographer; when he died is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, so I work this out as to be undeleted in 2042. --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The license of that photo was all wrong. Uploaded to flickr under CC license while stating it is a photo taken by someone else. Uploded by User:Ikfedorova who had only a single contribution. --Jarekt (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Flickr user in this case to our blacklist. That account appears to be a collection of copyvios. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenkins Kamera-film

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Jalexander-WMF (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is indeed an obvious copyvio which is identical to File:Kamera-film.jpg which was deleted on 16 March 2016 along with other copyvios by the same user. Unfortunately, nobody noticed that the photo was re-uploaded on the following day despite being caught by Steinsplitter's tool for the detection of re-uploads of previously deleted files. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018

St. Michael (Löffingen) interior

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takedown on Foundationwiki forthcoming, sorry for the delay. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now up. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): the files aren't deleted yet? Natuur12 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's fixing :) Jalexander-WMF (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And deleted. The tool we use for this was updated recently and we're still finding the bugs. :) Thanks for the catch! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What here is copyrighted? The paintings, or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These were in Category:St. Michael (Löffingen), inside. According to http://bernhardjensch.de/kirche-st-michael/ (presumably the author's own authorized site): The "Volksaltar" or "Zelebrationsaltar", not along the wall, but standing out in the middle; and the "Ambo", nearby lectern. On Commons, File:Kath. Pfarrkirche St. Michael in Löffingen, Signatur Bernhard Jensch.jpg has the signature "Bernhard Jensch 1993 / 1994", apparently on the Volksaltar. That file and File:Kath. Pfarrkirche St. Michael in Löffingen, Ambo und Volksaltar.jpg look unsalvageable, but File:Kath. Pfarrkirche St. Michael in Löffingen.jpg and File:Kath. Pfarrkirche St. Michael in Löffingen 2.jpg could probably each be cropped to the top two-thirds to exclude the new altar and lectern. --Closeapple (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interno chiesa bedero valcuvia

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF) and Jmabel: The remaining uploads of Davide9191 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  are now subjects of DRs.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada--yukon--ivvavik-np--spe 3021

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted! I was able to snatch it after reading this, seconds before it was deleted. The original image can be found on http://www.happytellus.com/gallery.php?img_id=3021. If that page doesn't work for you (it gave problems here), here is a thumbnail of it: https://imgur.com/a/QXrOIMb. Happytellus credits it to Steyr with BY SA 3.0 license and tagged it "Yukon Territory Canada river wilderness Ivvavik National Park". - Alexis Jazz 23:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alexis Jazz - we consulted with the Legal team at the Foundation, and asked for additional information from the filer (see the takedown notice for more info). We are confident this DMCA is valid. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): oh that's not what I meant. I mean it is rather hard to discuss a picture nobody (apart from admins) can actually see, so I gave some links to the image as it was originally shown here. That's what I meant by original, happytellus.com claims the source to be http://picasaweb.google.com/iphone.parasiteland/ but that doesn't exist anymore and sounds suspicious anyway. - Alexis Jazz 23:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Ah, apologies for misunderstanding. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geology.com

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Jalexander-WMF (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Müller piano

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

found it - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other contributions of the uploader appear to be copyvios as well and have been nominated for deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all uploads which appear to be copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019

RussellMNelson

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle Maersk

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is from https://www.flickr.com/photos/maerskline/6953653240/. (dead) Description said "Estelle Maersk on her maiden voyage. Departing Algeciras for the Suez on the 27th November 2006. Photo by Simon Burchett from www.channelphotography.com".
Presumably Flickrwashing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Both images were removed from Flickr. Yann (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about all these 500+ images from the same Flickr feed? Such as the featured pic File:Computer generated image of the Mærsk Triple E Class (1).jpg? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The query generates nothing, so I suppose you are talking about Category:Files from Maersk Line Flickr stream? Yann (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed suspicious that the whole account disappeared from Flickr... Yann (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(That query (special:search/insource:79298641@N07) works for me...) Yes, and COM:PRP requires us to at least investigate this account's uploads. ���--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
http://maerskstories.maersk.com/ links http://www.flickr.com/photos/maersk/ (40193831@N06), an official account which also disappeared. 79298641@N07 (maerskline) was possibly their old Flickr account, will have to dig in archive to confirm. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The maerskline account was from Maersk -- it was still active just recently I'm pretty sure. I've visited it a number of times trying to identify a couple of the particular ships in their images (not too successfully). For example this web.archive.org link was the source for File:Maersk on Ice. In the Baltic Sea, near Saint Petersburg (8340340499).jpg. This article details some of that 2013 media campaign. It looks like they used some of their own images (and/or employee submitted images) but per this takedown also may have used images they had internally but did not own rights to. The images on Flickr had the CC licenses, for sure, and were not copied from elsewhere on the web, but of course we don't know if Maersk put them up there incorrectly like this. A lot of those images got copied all over the net, though not necessarily through Wikipedia (but having any infringing ones here obviously doesn't help). Sounds like Instagram was the primary distribution point. Not sure we can do much else, other than wait for other DMCA takedowns if any others were wrongly posted. Hopefully this takedown got all the ones from this particular photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Video Call Santa

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five-element-cycles

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader's other files look like copyright violations, as well. clpo13(talk) 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished dealing with them. --Majora (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JSutherland (WMF): Mind if I ask you (or if you could forward the question to the appropriate person) if it is the legal teams view/opinion that the image in question is above COM:TOO. Seems like a simple diagram with a bit grading and shadowing (not sure though if the Japanese characters are drawings or not, but such things tend to be below COM:TOO#Japan). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt any of the elements are copyrightable, but the selection / arrangement might be. The basic arrangement is of course known, but looking at a Google Image search, there is a wide variety among the representations, so this particular way may be enough for a copyright. A couple of its arrow directions seem different than almost all others, as well. It's also very easy to create an original arrangement for use here; no real need to use a potentially unlicensed one. Would also be interested in the legal team's opinion, but I can also imagine it may not be worth contesting on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • JSutherland forwarded this to me. An image like that does have some argument for the COM:TOO exception, but when we reviewed, we determined that it was most likely copyrighted. The standard in the 9th Circuit where Wikimedia is based is Satava v. Lowry which looks at how many distinct elements there are and their arrangement when determining copyrightability (that case was about a jellyfish sculpture and how many elements were distinct or original from an actual jellyfish). Here, there were enough choices in terms of position, color, diagram structure, and character fonts that we felt the overall image was copyrighted even though most of the separate elements would be too simple. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear football

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I left the file's talk page undeleted, if anyone would like to delete that. I don't want to step on anyone's toes there. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Jamie Chung an employee of the Smithsonian? If yes, he's probably not the copyright owner.
  • If he's not, did he take this picture as an assignment from the Smithsonian? If yes, he may actually not be the copyright owner. The legislative notes for 17 USC 105 state: it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld.
  • Otherwise, he probably is.
@Clindberg: what do you think? don't say you think I copypasted you, shush, I look clever now - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an agreement between the parties, that would take precedence over all normal rules like work for hire and the like. Copyright would follow that, and there isn't much to argue. If Jamie Chung was a *federal* employee of the Smithsonian taking that picture as part of their duties, then yes it should be PD (since the Smithsonian would not have the rights to avoid it becoming PD). But in just about any other scenario, a special agreement would define what happens. The fact that they named the photographer probably is a hint that the Smithsonian may not own the copyright -- and that magazine does seem to get a lot of their lead photos from external sources. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices&oldid=357754252"