Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices

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

Shortcut: COM:DMCA

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.

2015[edit]

Flipperfoxfoxmike[edit]

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 11:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As a courtesy to the photographer who is concerned for the copyright of their work, could you please redact the photograph you have chosen to include in your PDF publication of the DMCA notice on the WMF website? Thanks -- (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Why? It's a clear fair use, without the problem of us and others using it as if it were free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Commons does not support fair use, therefore hosting files under fair use here on commons is not allowed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: As far as I can see, the file is hosted at wikimediafoundation.org, not Commons. --El Grafo (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh. True :-). Misread. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
In general we publish the whole recieved request (redacting some specifically personal information) and I actually think that having the photo included is both legally logical and a good idea in general. Commons users have repeatedly asked me exactly what was deleted so that they can verify the legitimacy of the deletion and challenge the DMCA if it's problematic and I believe the transparency of keeping it is better then the (very understandable) courtesy of deleting it. I will ask the lawyers again, but I am not inclined to redact the photo itself. Jalexander--WMF 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else find it amusing that the url they included in the takedown notice is incorrect (There is a space where there should be an underscore). Bawolff (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

File:A village in Gandaki, Annapurna Range, Nepal.jpg Takedown[edit]

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) 08:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been uploaded by Flickr upload bot on 19 June 2014 from Flickr (original source link) where it has been apparently taken down as well. The Flickr user 66555845@N00 has already been added to Commons:Questionable Flickr images with the rationale album of birds stolen from other flickr-users. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
We still have >388 files from this flickr user, see Category:Photographs by Mukesh Jain. In this files I count many different cameras (Canon EOS 350D, 400D, 500D, 1000D, 20D, 30D, Poweshot S5, Poweshot A53; Nikon D90, D70, D60, Coolpix S10; Sony Cybershot, DSC W55, DSC T700; Panasonic DMC LX2, FZ5, FZ18; others). In most cases one camera only covers one group of images. I dont think the problem is with some bird photos, i suspect the user is stealing groups of photos from other users. --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
>510 files, found more with more cameras, some files even have watermarks. --Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Speedydeleted all files. Seems to be a clear case of COM:LL. Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Has the Flickr-account been added to our "black list" (COM:QFI) ? --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think so, See AFBorchert's comment above :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering, could a bot be setup to compare an image from Flickr to an image here and generate a list of potential images affected? Reguyla (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Baffin Island fjord[edit]

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 23:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the Flickr account that was the source of this license laundering has already been closed, and searching for the Flickr username and userID on Commons doesn't give any other results. Revent (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it was this photo by Gordon Wiltsie (not Chris Toombes). Good deletion. LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A Group Of Ants[edit]

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 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Only 2 files uploaded by this user, both deleted. Yann (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pappa Fourway[edit]

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 23:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Following this, I nominated for deletion other images of the same type from this user: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tigerboy1966. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing Company[edit]

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 23:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Both of these files were sourced to a since deleted Boeing Dreamscape Flickr account. Does anyone know if this means that the "Boeing Dreamscape" Flickr account that was at the center of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Boeing Dreamscape ('kept' result) actually lacked the necessary authorization to release the entire set of photos under a CC license, or if these two files are an exception to what was otherwise an authorized upload to flickr? —RP88 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That request seems strange and incomplete/invalid as there's no reason for removal stated. If the Flickr account was authorized then the images were correctly licensed and this DMCA takedown notice is actually an abuse.--Denniss (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the request is kind of odd. If the Flickr account was not authorized, it's strange that Boeing only requested the deletion of two of the images. On the other hand, if the account was authorized then the CC license is not revokable. If we assume the "Boeing Dreamscape" Flickr account was authorized, the only explanation that makes sense is if Boeing itself did not have the necessary rights to release those two images under a CC license. The two photos that they requested to be deleted were from the 1960's, while, as far as I can tell, the rest of the set are contemporary images. So I guess it's possible that Boeing acquired the exclusive rights to distribute these two photos from a third-party, but Boeing doesn't actually have the authority to release them under a CC license. —RP88 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Etna.png[edit]

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 02:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

2016[edit]

Bernie Sanders Logos[edit]

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)

  • This looks like a strange takedown request. All of the images look like typical textlogos to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Me three. The sample image I checked out would normally be interpreted as ineligible for copyright. I am confused by the DCMA takedown published on wikimediafoundation.org as it has been redacted to meaninglessness, especially compared to other notices which actually included the images even when this was discourteous to the photographer. Could you please provide links to online versions of the logos? Being a logo it will presumably be in use somewhere, otherwise the claimed IP would be valueless. -- (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like PD-textlogo to me. I am curious why legal decided that this takedown notice has to been honored. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone,
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)
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)
As promised, links to the content removed:
Jalexander--WMF 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • While the counternotice is pending, one of the logos has been reuploaded. See File:Bernie logo.png --Majora (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Can Legal provide the "analysis" it performed in regard to these logos? The "magnet" logo is literally just text, and as the IP editor notes above, much more complex logos do not meet the threshold. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is so stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee C Thompson (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 January 2016‎ (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, a few of these logos are probably above the threshold of originality,[2] while File:FEELTHEBERN.svg is not. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • [3] seems to have a copyrightable background, but that logo doesn't seem to be included in the set. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hah, I guess Lessig was right that «the consultants have captured Bernie's campaign». Maybe Lessig can give them some private lessons on copyright. ;-) Thanks, Odder. Nemo 07:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jalexander-WMF Hi can you please clarify "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". I can understand if the files were taken down for just in case reasons, but I do not understand how all of the logos can be considered as copyrightable. At first look, to me, the File:Bernie Sanders 2016 Pride.jpg is likely to be considered as copyrightable. However File:FEELTHEBERN.svg is very unlikely to be considered as copyrightable. And, File:Bernie Sanders 2016 logo.png can be considered to be somewhere in the middle. For certain, File:FEELTHEBERN.svg is 100% acceptable under our commons standards. It is very important that we get some info on our legal team's analysis as we need to look into whether or not our general standards match up with the legal team's standards. Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Counternotice[edit]

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)

  • FYI: Ars Technica has now published an article on this, in addition to Techdirt (as noted above by Philosopher). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 22:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Conclusion: The campaign has contacted the WMF and formally withdrawn the DMCA. I will be undeleting the images immediately after I save this message and notifying the 3 users who I sent notices too on their talk page. I have already notified odder and we are asking for a written version of the withdrawal (it was done initially over the phone) so that we have it formally for odder and for posting. Jalexander--WMF 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jalexander-WMF: Is there a way to undelink the files on all the various wikis they were on? Or does someone have to go through and manually readd all of them? --Majora (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • Yeah, I got impatient and started undoing CommonsDelinker on enwiki. There probably should be a way to undo the bot programmed in for future cases. --Majora (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
        • This has already been discussed and addressed years ago: from the deletion log there is even a "delinker log" link. Nemo 07:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Transparency request[edit]

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 -- (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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)
This is important so I hope we get a response soon. Rybkovich (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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. -- (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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 -- (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for your highly educational replies! Natuur12 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
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. -- (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

Takedown of File:Fashion-Designer.jpg[edit]

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)

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)
✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Takedown of House-Ant1.jpg[edit]

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)

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)

Beautiful-dream-beach.jpg[edit]

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)

Jimi Hendrix by Gered Mankowitz 1967[edit]

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)

  • What a waste of effort. It was about to be deleted by the normal procedure in just a few hours. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Celtic tree (18968258040)[edit]

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)

Um, we don't see the DMCA letter. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
Thanks! --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've added this to the DMCA notice. Sorry for missing that. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
The other 'cproject' links show the same design, replicated in various forms as commercial products. Reventtalk 01:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • 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. Face-wink.svg lNeverCry 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  • I'm guessing this is the copyright registration filed by Cari M. Buziak. (refer t email in PDF and title of copyright register). (tJosve05a (c) 04:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 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. -- (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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. -- (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    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)
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. -- (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
There's probably a pretty good implied license there, but nothing that would help us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)

Merrakech1[edit]

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)

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)
  • @Tuvalkin: They were deleted after this DMCA. (tJosve05a (c) 13:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, indeed they were (10 min. later) — and I should have noticed that before I asked. Sorry about that! -- Tuválkin 03:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Skotnik images[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)
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. -- (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
What does "Skotnik" mean in this context? Is this a name?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's the complainant's name (i.e. the asserted copyright holder in DMCA terms). -- (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I see, tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

BR-5972 LAjandrive16 MG a02.jpg[edit]

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)

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