Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎The Weeknd: Aaaaah! I'm calmed down again
m →‎The Weeknd: bonus round!
Line 283: Line 283:
#If I'm right, sue the shit out of them.
#If I'm right, sue the shit out of them.
Aaaaah! I'm calmed down again. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 02:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Aaaaah! I'm calmed down again. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 02:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
::Bonus round!
:::"Disclaimer: This e-mail is the copyright of Web Sheriff®. The contents of this e-mail are strictly private and confidential, are for the attention of the addressees only and may also qualify for legal privilege. This communication may not be disclosed or otherwise communicated to anyone other than the addressees, nor may it be copied or reproduced in any way without the written authorization of Web Sheriff®."
::Morons. [[foundation:Legal:DMCA The Weeknd]] is basically Legal saying "sue me, dickhead". Don't forget to check [[foundation:File:DMCA The Weeknd.pdf|the PDF]]. The word "CONFIDENTIAL" is plastered all over the background. Amateurs.
:::"GOODWILL SUBSTITUTION ADVISORY blah blah blah (and to be accompanied by a copyright credit to the Rights Owners specified herein) https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4nqkih3kho3ji3/_N9A3803.jpg?dl=0"
::Herein? Herein where? The mail? Or the Dropbox link? Actually it doesn't seem to matter, it may well be copyvio. The Dropbox link says "From Melissa Mahood (SAL&CO), Extension: jpg, Size: 460.29 KB". Melissa Mahood? Who the hell is that? [https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissa-mahood-aa325a9b "Melissa Mahood, Artist Management at SAL&CO / XO Records"], well mystery solved. ''She'' owns the copyright? Like, personally? Not the company, but ''her''? Either someone is telling porkies (and we already caught them once with their pants down on that "revocable Creative Commons" license) or their administration is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe both! [https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8545682/the-weeknd-blinding-lights-colbert Sure as shit she's not the photographer], because that's [[w:Nabil Elderkin|Nabil Elderkin]]. According to [https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/the-weeknds-goes-retro-with-blinding-lights-stream-it-now/ar-BBXvbwf MSN] this image from Nabil Elderkin is © The Weeknd. Considering they use [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHI8X4OXluQ these] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uj9b9JCIJM photos] on their official YouTube channel that better be true. But then.. Melissa. Oh, dear Melissa. I think someone is abusing you. The claimant here is WEEKND XO, LLC, not SAL&CO / XO Records. I doubt they even know themselves who hired Nabil. - [[User talk:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] <sup><small>ping plz</small></sup> 03:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:28, 14 March 2020

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

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]

Kelly Cutrone

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) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both appear to be the same photo, uploaded by Rathewon156 (talk · contribs) as "own work". The date on the second file is 2011-05-17 00:26:53 (presumably based on metadata) while for 1goaB.png it was 2013-08-28 18:09:48. (presumably based on upload date) I also searched for the photo and found http://www.contactmusic.net/kelly-cutrone/pictures/1371150 which may have been the source for Rathewon156 as the Zenfolio site isn't as easy to find. Confusingly, the watermark on contactmusic.com says "© contactmusic.com", but the © isn't actually a copyright symbol - it's contactmusic.com's logo!
Is it "Ra the Won" or "Rat, he won"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Your site intentionally published a photo of mine under Creative Commins.", well, only a volunteer, but the moment the rest of us know about it we are also potentially liable so I'm glad that the WMF takes more swift action than the OTRS. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: They never contacted OTRS, did they? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: , not what I meant, I meant that the lawyers working at the Wikimedia Foundation don't wait 200+ (two-hundred plus) days to post a reply (if not more), if the paid staff worked as slowly as the volunteers then this place would've been sued out of existence. As much as I disagree with much of what the Wikimedia Foundation does I want to show them that I appreciate how they protect and maintain this place. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Copyright reports via commons-copyvio at wikimedia.org are dealt with pretty quickly. Often within hours. No fake news please. Natuur12 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Donald Trung, OTRS is frequently dealt with in a matter of days or weeks, not months. The 127 day backlog statistic is a bit misleading in that sense. For example, OTRS for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Detlef Dauer wast sent somewhere around 8 July and confirmed on 12 July. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not all OTRS tickets are resolved that quickly, I have contacts who sent permission and while some were quick others weren't, or is Bert Lijnema waiting a couple of months "fake news"? This just seems quite petty as I stated that copyright reports are handled quickly by the WMF while copyright confirmations aren't. Yes, there are two different systems but claiming that the OTRS could take months for a ticket isn't "fake news". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you people are a talking about two different things here: commons-permissions vs.c commons-copyvio queues … --El Grafo (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's what you meant Trung but that isn't a logical interpretation of what you actually said. Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"a bit misleading" as description for the backlog "statistic" consisting of a single number is an understatement. i have experienced that a complex request in the permission queue was cleared within days, while the backlog was 150+. and an easy request was stuck for 150+ days in the same queue. a better statistic would show the ticket numbers together with a status like accepted declined waiting for user... --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Lamb

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) 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by ImJesusPrayToMeNow in November 2015 claiming own work. I won't withhold the description from you: "My lamb called Dinner. Also the date is wrong bcuz i can't choose year 0-30 :/".. Obvious copyvio is obvious. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic view of how the world feels like with schizophrenia

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) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not deleted the associated talk page, but please let me know if you'd like us to do that when we process DMCA takedowns in future. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to let admins handle that to minimize office actions to a minimum. But it's definitely helpful to point that out here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, in this case the talkpage should remain, due to the current and the previous DR. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we usually don't keep talk pages of deleted files, even if they have content and have been kept before. I don't feel strongly about this, though. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would preserve it for forensic reasons. Think of the legal situation of an external re-user who took this image when it was freely licensed on Commons and might now be sued by the rights-holder. For an external person, the image has now completely disappeared from Commons. With the preserved talkpage he could at least show that his use of it was good-faith based, which plays a role at least in some legislations (Switzerland for example). --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion notice links to this page, and the talk page only contained a reference to the previous "kept" decision. But if you want to restore it, please go ahead! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): I was glad to find the link to the DR on the talk page, so maybe copy-paste the contents of a talk page if one exists? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
foundation:File:DMCA Artistic view of how the world feels like with schizophrenia.pdf: "Our client’s name is confidential."
Yeah.. that information isn't gonna leave the internet anytime soon. Also, wtf they lawyered up.
"Censored also requests that his name and personal details, including the fact that he has schizophrenia, be redacted in any published takedown notice or public correspondence in relation to this takedown request. Censored is quite distressed that these details have already been published and made public online via Wikimedia Commons."
Yeah.. That wasn't us though. This was published on https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020146 in 2005, uploaded on Commons in 2006 and given a license review by Amitie 10g in 2015. And the author only found out yesterday? On https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002925 it says "This article was republished on August 15, 2019, to remove the article figure and its accompanying legend from publication by request of the original artist due to a change in copyright." which is very strange. CC0 can't be revoked. So there was no change in copyright. Either it was and is freely licensed, or it never was. No change. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, in an older version of the article (won't link because name..) the painting is included without any specific license information. The article is CC0, the painting probably never was. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this happens. We can find something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GC136

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) 01:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - this one is a little unusual in that this takedown applies only to this file, and all other BP logo uploads on Commons are not affected. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): odd, the jpg (wrong format for this) was barely in use. But I assume this means legal thinks the BP "Helios" logo exceeds the TOO? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: The DMCA takedown request was pretty explicit about asking for this particular logo (they explain why in the request itself, but the tl;dr is that it's a logo that they don't use and it was causing them confusion). We do think the logo meets the threshold for copyright, but we do see a difference between the modified logo and the official logo. Whether Commons wants to keep the other BP logos on here is a community decision to make; we aren't going to force anything here. Hope that makes sense. I can ask Jacob to give his thoughts too if that'll help. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted file had "bp" to the left of the helios whereas the official logo has "bp" above and to the right of the helios. For anyone who was wondering. It's funny, if they had simply nominated the file for deletion with "unofficial/inaccurate logo version" or something like that, it would have probably been deleted without the hassle of a DMCA. Anyway, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:BP logos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): If you think the logo meets the threshold for copyright, why didn't you either delete all versions of it or nominate them for discussion? Also, who is "we" in "we do think the logo meets the threshold for copyright"? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@World's Lamest Critic: The simple answer is that this is generally a community process, so we planned to leave it to you all. "We" = Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team (and the Trust and Safety team, though I'm just the messenger here). Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: that's exactly what I did. Do note that Wikipedia does not always get it right. They frequently upload PD-textlogos with a fair use rationale locally because they are confusing trademarks and copyright. And sometimes they just doubt the file on Commons is really free and prefer to keep their fair use file. In this case, they're probably right. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny bit from wmf:Legal:DMCA BP logo: "It appears that it is not possible to overwrite this file." nope, you need autoconfirmed for that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF): You said here that "the one with the BP at 1 o'clock isn't violating copyright law for various reasons including both fair use and permission". Can you expand on that comment? Specifically about the "permission" part. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): My edit was reverted by Josve05a. I think Josve05a is mistaken. Legal deals with DMCA requests, so you look at US TOO. You don't give a damn about the source country. Also, Jrogers said "I do think the BP Helios logo is creative enough for copyright protection (not by a lot, but just enough)" which would make no sense if he was talking about UK TOO, which it obviously exceeds. So, am I correct in thinking you were talking about US TOO? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: Could you re-open the DR please, and let it run for the full minimum of 7 days. A speedy close of the DR is not justified based on the statement from the WMF employee in the DR, which explicitly says that the decision is one for the community, not a "Legal hath speaketh" ruling for all graphically similar BP logos. Explicitly "the one with the BP at 1 o'clock isn't violating copyright law" contradicts your closing statement, and demonstrates that a discussion by the community is to be had and is needed to supplement this take down. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: the logos in the DR were used on projects like Dutch Wikipedia, which doesn't allow fair use. The use of that logo on w:nl:BP (oliemaatschappij) is most probably in compliance with fair use law (all that matters) and (for whoever cares) also complies with the Dutch w:Right to quote. (w:nl:Citaatrecht) So clearly, the logo being here does not violate copyright law. (there was a bogus PD-textlogo copyright tag, but whatever, that's not going to win you a court case. PD-textlogo is an opinion and protected by free speech) That's what legal was saying, we can legally host the BP logo but our own policies prevent it. When Jrogers (WMF) said "fair use and permission" I suspect (but this is speculation) he was referring to BP not complaining about the logos in the DR, which implies permission to use the logo on Wikipedia. Also, a fair use rationale for the logo that was taken down would be much weaker because it wasn't an official logo as used by BP. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I will not re-open the DR (another admin might), but legal has said (a) it is above TOO; but (b) they aren't forced under copyright law to delete it due to fair use (which is not ok by Commons policy, see COM:CSD#G2). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): after thinking about all this, I suspect that when someone files a DMCA complaint that is invalid because the file is legal per fair use, you won't take action. Which, I think, is actually good. But could you drop the community a note in that case? Perhaps on the village pump, or my talk page (I tend to agree with you so I wouldn't mind proxying for you) Starting the DR yourself might not be ideal because it would put a certain weight on things. Unless you use an anonymous alternative account that isn't in any way connected to the WMF to start the DR. That would also be fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to a few different things here. First, In my other comment on the deletion discussion, I was talking about the U.S. Threshold of originality. The main case in Wikimedia's jurisdiction is Satava v. Lowry, which I might have linked once or twice before on-wiki. It's a case about how a jellyfish sculpture couldn't be copyrighted and talks about how the courts look at the combination of unprotectable elements to decide TOO questions. I think in the case of the BP logo, you've got several creative choices happening in the selection of the four different colors and the application of those colors to the different geometric regions (which are themselves made up of some creative choices around the spacing and proportion of the triangles). It's still relatively simple in that it's a symmetric geometric pattern made of circles and triangles, but I think there's enough there to provide them at least the thin copyright discussed in Satava, which protects against exact copying (and derivative works that include the exact copy). Second point, my comment about fair use and permission was phrased to not lock us into just those reasons. Being a lawyer, I'll never give a totally definitive answer on something like that just in case I need to make other arguments in the future. That said, I think the 1 o'clock image is hosted as a fair use and in the email thread I had with the person representing BP, they told us explicitly that they're fine with the Wikimedia projects hosting the 1 o'clock logo, so that was my reference to fair use and permission. Lastly, on the question of letting you all know if we reject something on fair use grounds, I think we could forward a note to OTRS when that happens, or perhaps note if it's fair use when posted here. We'll try and see if we can do that, might need a reminder the next time it comes up. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF): I'm unclear how the wishes (for or against) of the copyright holder has a bearing on fair use under US law; please can you elaborate? Also, BTW, w:Satava v. Lowry has no article on en.Wikipedia - given its undoubted relevance to our work on that and sister projects, it would be great if you or someone else with the requisite knowledge could fix that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder's wishes occasionally impact the market harm factor of fair use. Part of the question in that factor is whether a use is one that's typical in the market, and whether the copyright holder is okay with a use is one data point indicating whether it's typical. Also, I don't think it would look good if I wrote the article about a case I cite often, but whenever I change jobs, I'll put it first on my list if there isn't a good article by that point. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a wikileagal-text about it on meta or wmfwiki in the meantime would suffice. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harrie Smolders Vestrum

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) 22:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like File:Harrie Smolders Vestrum Team.jpg is also a copyright violation, based on the metadata. The uploader's other contributions are likely suspect as well. clpo13(talk) 22:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Metadata indicated "Thomas Reiner" as copyright holder. The file has been speedy deleted --Ruthven (msg) 23:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has uploaded File:Piergiorgio Bucci su Casallo Z.jpeg which is a similar photo, with the descritpion text "Thomas Reiner was informed that the photo was published on the Wikipedia entry Piergiorgio Bucci.". Needs OTRS permission, or be deleted as well. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Andre Thieme and Conthendrix - Leipzig Partner Pferd 2014.jpg looks pretty suspect as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Weeknd

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) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as usual, the file talk page has not yet been deleted. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er...JSutherland (WMF) This was a Flickr reviewed file license reviewed by Thibaut120094. Are we saying that the Flickr profile was incorrect or lying about the license? We have over 1,000 photos from that Flickr stream so this is a rather important question. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We received a valid DMCA requiring us to take it down, and that's about the extent of what I know about the file's history. Though it looks like the source link on the image page leads to a 404, so if I had to guess I'd imagine the Flickr profile was indeed incorrect. Happy to loop Jacob in for his thoughts though? Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the 404 as well but that is generally why we perform license reviews in the first place. To guard against dead links or attempts to change the license after the fact. We see the latter happen more often than I'd like and as CC licenses are irrevocable the license review stands as a testament to its original state. Saying that the profile was incorrect makes the entirety of the Flickr account suspect and therefore the other 1,000+ images. This is not something that should really be taken lightly in my opinion. This one DMCA request could potentially result in a lot of images being brought up under suspicion. --Majora (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The File:The Weeknd (36335324381).jpg is also redirecting to a 404 page, so just waiting for a new DMCA for this file. - Premeditated (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 1000+ photos from that Flickr stream we have 236 with Anton Mak as the photographer. Either or this request has the potential to create a lot of headaches. --Majora (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't assume the whole Flickr account or even that particular photographer is always a problem. There could be several things happening here. Perhaps the Flickr account did upload a photo that they didn't own the rights to, and it got noticed after Web Sheriff got hired to manage digital rights in this particular photograph. Or the owner of the Flickr account legitimately thought they had the rights to the image, but it turned out they didn't for one of several possible reasons (e.g., many concert venues now require copyright assignments in the fine print of their tickets and people don't know about it). Or it could be that Web Sheriff committed perjury. The problem with the last one is that we'd need some evidence to dispute the notice, but the Flickr page was down (which often means they succeeded in a DMCA against the original already) and we didn't find anything else indicating different ownership from what they were asserting. That said, if we get any more DMCAs that trace back to the same Flickr account, that probably would indicate that the account owner was mislabeling images. Hope that helps. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of other photos from that same photographer from that same event still on that Flickr account. Does seem a bit worrying (some have since changed to CC-BY-ND, not all of which we did a review for). On the other hand, per below, it's very possible it was not the photographer issuing the DMCA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a gesture of goodwill and subject, simply, to due and timely compliance with this copyright notification, the Rights Owners are happy to offer the following, more up-to-date, official photographs of THE WEEKND™ and for on-line reproduction under a limited, non-commercial and revocable, so-called ‘creative commons’ license" (bold mine)
Scam or stupid noobs IMHO - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ignorance (or trademark violation) of using "creative commons" in conjunction with revocable licenses aside, that does make it seem as though Web Sheriff's client is the performer, not the photographer. That does make one wonder if they really do own any copyright, and are just targeting any photos of the performer, though there could be a tangle of contracts involved in that performance we don't know about as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF) and JSutherland (WMF): I think I figured it out! And if I'm right (and I usually am!), we are dealing with a bunch of what we call in professional terms fucking idiots. Prepare for another fun rant!

  1. Who is claimed to be the rights holder? Answer: "1. Rights Owners : WEEKND XO, LLC"
  2. Who the fuck is WEEKND XO, LLC? Well, [3] doesn't tell me much besides that this entity exists at 16000 Ventura Blvd Suite #600, Encino, CA 91436-2753 and that it is a business registered with the City of Los Angeles, Office of Finance and started on July 11, 2016.
  3. Considering "4. Infringed Individuals / Entities : WEEKND XO, LLC & ABEL TESFAYE (P.K.A. "THE WEEKND™" AND THE SUBJECT OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN QUESTION)" I will assume that w:The Weeknd simply created his own company for whatever reason. (tax evasion, sell merchandise, hire goons for extortion scams, impress chicks with business cards, the usual, who knows why)
  4. This pretty much rules out the concert venue theory.
  5. Considering that Mr. Tesfaye is the subject, is it likely he owns the copyright to the photo? Did a photographer that he hired (as in work for hire) come to his show to take the picture? Well, File:The Weeknd August 2017.jpg was taken with a Canon EOS 6D with serial number 072153000374 at 20:54, 6 August 2017. File:The Weeknd (36335324381).jpg was taken with a Canon EOS 6D with serial number 072153000374 at 20:49, 6 August 2017.
  6. You see where this is going right? File:Lorde Osheaga 2017 (01).jpg was taken with once again the same camera, 2 days earlier and File:Drake at the Velvet Underground - 2017 (36398066420) (cropped).jpg the same camera a few weeks later. The author IS Anton Mak, no doubt.
  7. Does Anton Mak work for The Come Up Show? Yes: Photography by Anton Mak for The Come Up Show.
  8. So what THE FUCK is going on here? Websheriff has used the power of ambiguity my dear pupils, ambiguity!
  9. "5. Infringing / Violating Materials : PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OWNERS' COPYRIGHT & MORAL RIGHTS / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OWNERS' RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT VIOLATE CONSUMER PROTECTION RIGHTS – ALL IN BREACH OF ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY AND ALL IN BREACH OF INFRINGING WEB-SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (as applicable – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW)"
  10. *VOMIT* WHAT THE CRAP WAS THAT?
  11. A long list of mostly irrelevant bullshit, that's what that was. Moral rights? Personal goodwill and reputation? Business goodwill & reputation? Violation of consumer protection rights? What a pile of crap! The only thing there that could apply for DMCA is copyright. The relevant part comes at the very end: "(as applicable – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW)" (THEIR CAPS LOCK KEY IS BROKEN BTW)
  12. The URL list mentions NONE of these. ZERO. BUPKIS. Let's guess!!
  13. Personality rights! Mr. Tesfaye is depicted, and what makes this photo special is that it was in use on several Wikipedias. That's why this photo was targeted. As soon as it has been replaced, you will receive another takedown notice from these idiots. Regardless of who the author is!
  14. Wait Alexis, you bloody bastard. The source at Flickr was taken down! Surely you are wrong Alexis, and Websheriff is a totally fair and competent company that's just protecting the rights of some poor artist! Well, we can only speculate, but did you actually read the takedown request? It's pretty intimidating with all © and ® and ™ (hallmarks of a diseased mind), it must surely be legit and I'll eat my hat if The Come Up Show (or Flickr) didn't receive the exact same alpha dog takedown crap. What do you think they'd do? Take down a couple of photos they don't care that much about or risk legal fees?
  15. Please hit reply and ask those fuckers benevolent business people exactly which rights they believe were violated. If they claim copyright was violated, get them to confirm Anton Mak was hired by WEEKND XO, LLC or sold his photos of Mr. Tesfaye to WEEKND XO, LLC.
  16. If they actually claim that, contact Anton Mak to confirm. I don't believe it.
  17. If I'm right, sue the shit out of them.

Aaaaah! I'm calmed down again. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus round!
"Disclaimer: This e-mail is the copyright of Web Sheriff®. The contents of this e-mail are strictly private and confidential, are for the attention of the addressees only and may also qualify for legal privilege. This communication may not be disclosed or otherwise communicated to anyone other than the addressees, nor may it be copied or reproduced in any way without the written authorization of Web Sheriff®."
Morons. foundation:Legal:DMCA The Weeknd is basically Legal saying "sue me, dickhead". Don't forget to check the PDF. The word "CONFIDENTIAL" is plastered all over the background. Amateurs.
"GOODWILL SUBSTITUTION ADVISORY blah blah blah (and to be accompanied by a copyright credit to the Rights Owners specified herein) https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4nqkih3kho3ji3/_N9A3803.jpg?dl=0"
Herein? Herein where? The mail? Or the Dropbox link? Actually it doesn't seem to matter, it may well be copyvio. The Dropbox link says "From Melissa Mahood (SAL&CO), Extension: jpg, Size: 460.29 KB". Melissa Mahood? Who the hell is that? "Melissa Mahood, Artist Management at SAL&CO / XO Records", well mystery solved. She owns the copyright? Like, personally? Not the company, but her? Either someone is telling porkies (and we already caught them once with their pants down on that "revocable Creative Commons" license) or their administration is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe both! Sure as shit she's not the photographer, because that's Nabil Elderkin. According to MSN this image from Nabil Elderkin is © The Weeknd. Considering they use these photos on their official YouTube channel that better be true. But then.. Melissa. Oh, dear Melissa. I think someone is abusing you. The claimant here is WEEKND XO, LLC, not SAL&CO / XO Records. I doubt they even know themselves who hired Nabil. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices&oldid=404007586"