Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices

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

2018[edit]

St. Michael (Löffingen) interior[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) 00:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Takedown on Foundationwiki forthcoming, sorry for the delay. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Now up. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF): the files aren't deleted yet? Natuur12 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
He's fixing :) Jalexander-WMF (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
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)

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

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)

Interno chiesa bedero valcuvia[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) 23:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • It would seem that this and a good number of other deletions should mean a thorough look at all uploads by it:utente:Davide9191, no? - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF), 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)

Canada--yukon--ivvavik-np--spe 3021[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) 22:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
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)
@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)
@Alexis Jazz: Ah, apologies for misunderstanding. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Geology.com[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) 04:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Müller piano[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) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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

2019[edit]

RussellMNelson[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) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Estelle Maersk[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) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Both images were removed from Flickr. Yann (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
It is indeed suspicious that the whole account disappeared from Flickr... Yann (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)

Video Call Santa[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) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Icon of some shitty app uploaded as "own work" by some vandalism account with mostly deleted uploads. Obvious copyvio is obvious. I have my doubts they own the rights to the santa image, but who cares. It's actually a previous version of the icon, so I can't check anything. It's virtually the same except for the text. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I knew it. Those bloody bastards. @JSutherland (WMF): the actual copyright holder is inhauscreative on iStockphoto. For everyone's amusement, they have more photos of Santa. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    They might have some marginal copyright in the icon itself. I, too, doubted it was their Santa Clause, but wasn't persistent enough to search for it. And yes, who cares, no loss.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Prosfilaes: in the US (which is the basis for any DMCA claim), the simplistic border, color reduction and some text overlay are going to be {{PD-ineligible}}. http://dualverse.com/ claims they are "a Seoul based mobile technology company", which COM:TOO doesn't cover. But for DMCA that doesn't really matter. It was a copyright infringement, but they are not the copyright holder. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Many thanks for checking on this! You're correct that the ownership of the image doesn't affect the DMCA in this case, but it does mean that if we receive anything from this sender again we'll be more skeptical and look closer, especially if there's a case where a copyright violation might be somewhat more ambiguous. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Five-element-cycles[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) 20:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The uploader's other files look like copyright violations, as well. clpo13(talk) 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Just finished dealing with them. --Majora (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • Since we have an opinion from legal experts, I added this case to our list: [2]. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear football[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) 22:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
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)

Kelly Cutrone[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) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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! Facepalm3.svg
Is it "Ra the Won" or "Rat, he won"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"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)
@Donald Trung: They never contacted OTRS, did they? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@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. Face-smile.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)

Lost Lamb[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) 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Artistic view of how the world feels like with schizophrenia[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) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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)
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)
IMO, in this case the talkpage should remain, due to the current and the previous DR. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Yes this happens. We can find something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GC136[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) 01:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)

@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)

@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)
@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 -- (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@: 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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

2020[edit]

Harrie Smolders Vestrum[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) 22:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

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)
Correct. Metadata indicated "Thomas Reiner" as copyright holder. The file has been speedy deleted --Ruthven (msg) 23:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
File:Andre Thieme and Conthendrix - Leipzig Partner Pferd 2014.jpg looks pretty suspect as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Weeknd[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) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, as usual, the file talk page has not yet been deleted. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • "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)
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)

@Jrogers (WMF), 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)

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)
I'm guessing they want us to use the noncommercial images from Nabil in the Dropbox links for brand unification reasons or whatever. We're not going to do that, so I've changed the image on all wikis to File:FEQ July 2018 The Weeknd (44778856382) (cropped).jpg, from a different photographer. I predict another ridiculous mail from the Websheriff about.. after the weekend. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Joe Sutherland and everyone.
This is obviously a bogus request to try to replace the image present on multiple wikis by promotional images for his new album.
The file was license reviewed by myself in August 2017 and double-checked by Materialscientist in April 2019 (the deletion request coincide with the coming release of the new album, probably opened by WebSheriff or someone from The Weeknd staff).
For the Flickr account, it still exists but the picture in question disappeared, Flickr probably responded to the same DMCA request or the author received pressures.
Anyway, CC licenses are not revocable and per Alexis above, this bogus DMCA should be counter-claimed or it could create a dangerous precedent.
xoxo. --Thibaut (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no real doubt it was under the named license on the Flickr site at the time. By all appearances, it seemed OK. However you never fully know what contracts exist behind the scenes. It's usually up to the copyright owners to counter-claim, and the fact they did not bother to contest the Flickr take-down would make it much harder for us to counter-claim, I'm guessing. I would have very much liked a clarification request to Web Sheriff to explain exactly how their client does own copyright, but that's up to the WMF. That happened on the Estelle Maersk image above, where it was also licensed fine on a Flickr account but it turned out that the account owner did not have the rights to license it that way in the first place, which was nicely explained in the reply from the other lawyer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah web sheriff are known for using bogus DMCA stuff for media management. see this.Geni (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
A history of false DMCAs is not exactly promising. I fully understand that you have to comply with validly formatted DMCA requests, JSutherland (WMF) and I am not faulting you for having done so in this situation. Quite the opposite actually as doing so protects all of us from large problems. However, if you or perhaps Jrogers (WMF) has some time next week perhaps you could try to contact Web Sheriff to inquire how they concluded that they have the right to file this DMCA. If they can't provide a valid answer perhaps further action should be explored. I do understand that you are busy and I don't expect anything to happen immediately but it would be greatly appreciated if you could look into this more if that is possible. --Majora (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. This just seems like...a few too many things that don't exactly add up here. GMGtalk 19:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I think the notice is invalid. Grilling the Sheriff (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. On both first and second read, it looks a bit like legal word salad to obfuscate that the best they may have is personality rights. I don't much like that. I don't much at all like the idea of someone strong arming the WMF and in turn our volunteers as a PR management technique. My broader concern is that if this is the case, being able to bully Wikipedia and it's sister projects may be very lucrative, which provides a strong incentive for this to continue. GMGtalk 22:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Google take down notice is at https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/20130121. -- (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Fæ, here's the complete list for those who don't want to give their email address.
Most of the websites have either removed the picture or replaced the picture by the promotional images given in the DMCA request (sometimes it's even anachronic!), which reinforce my view that this is purely for brand/marketing purposes and not a real copyright problem. --Thibaut (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Those dumb shits tried to remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weeknd from Google! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF), Jrogers (WMF): <withdrawn> Grilling the Sheriff (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There's not a ton they can do unless a community member is willing to take legal responsibility for it and file a counter notification. The vauge threats from a recently-created account are not helpful nor appropriate. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
So Weeknd XO LLC claims that copyright was assigned to them by the photographer. It might be true, although in 99 % of cases it's just the photographed person making things up. There are two things one can do: 1) educate the artist about how to improve images on Wikimedia projects; 2) unofficially ask the photographer whether they had such a contract with the artist. Nemo 07:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Logs for The_Weeknd_August_2017.jpg[edit]

Examining the office action of deletion, there are three deletions entries for this deletion. My presumption is that there was an original upload on 2017-08-10, then on 2017-10-07 someone overwrote the file twice, perhaps making crops or similar adjustments. Could someone explain these changes, and confirm that they were similar enough for the take-down to apply to all 3 versions, for the benefit of transparency? @Materialscientist: as likely interested party. Thanks -- (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

1st upload was cropped; 2nd uncropped (possibly to let the FR-bot run correctly); 3rd cropped again. All were the same photography. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Note that all 3 have the same Original Document ID which is convincing that they all have the same original source, even though all three have different SHA1 values. -- (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Related files[edit]

Here are some related files that may help illuminate any underpinning issues. This is a transcluded report and may change.

File list with same camera, 196 files
File Actor Timestamp
1K_Phew_(38877201221).jpg 287 20190326175817
1K_Phew_(38877204951).jpg 287 20190326175838
1K_Phew_(38877208961).jpg 287 20190326175846
1K_Phew_(38877212311).jpg 287 20190326175900
1K_Phew_(38877249751).jpg 287 20190326175921
6lack_(36412305696).jpg 131 20181009043054
6lack_(36458733975).jpg 131 20181009043110
6lack_August_2017.jpg 8025 20180826121428
Aha_Gazelle_(37990742515).jpg 287 20190326175932
Aha_Gazelle_(37990747825).jpg 287 20190326175946
Aha_Gazelle_(37990756935).jpg 287 20190326180006
Aha_Gazelle_(38161953454).jpg 287 20190326180104
Aha_Gazelle_(38161956314).jpg 287 20190326180115
Aha_Gazelle_(38846947782).jpg 287 20190326180131
Aha_Gazelle_(38846953172).jpg 287 20190326180147
Aha_Gazelle_(38846956622).jpg 287 20190326180202
Aha_Gazelle_(38846961712).jpg 287 20190326180218
Aha_Gazelle_(38877111971).jpg 287 20190326180019
Aha_Gazelle_(38877118611).jpg 287 20190326180036
Aha_Gazelle_(38877124841).jpg 287 20190326180053
Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35985208163).jpg 2059 20171218185527
Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35985212683).jpg 2059 20171218185538
Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397301110).jpg 2059 20171218185459
Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397309510).jpg 2059 20171218185534
Azealia_Banks_(38053207461).jpg 287 20190326180720
Azealia_Banks_(38053215281).jpg 287 20190326180740
Azealia_Banks_(38053221981).jpg 287 20190326180801
Azealia_Banks_(38053249091).jpg 287 20190326180652
Azealia_Banks_(38053256021).jpg 287 20190326180712
Badbadnotgood_(36458187965).jpg 131 20181009043051
Daniel_Caesar_2017.jpg 809262 20190128083321
Danny_Brown_(36425446276).jpg 131 20181009043149
Danny_Brown_(36469752015).jpg 809262 20190128094451
Danny_Brown_(36470850215).jpg 131 20181009043136
Denzel_Curry_(36333802701).jpg 809262 20190128081942
Denzel_Curry_(36333938531).jpg 809262 20190128081955
Denzel_Curry_(36334092241).jpg 809262 20190128082218
Denzel_Curry_(36470475655).jpg 809262 20190128082206
Denzel_Curry_(36470843325).jpg 131 20181009043257
Denzel_Curry_(36471489825).jpg 809262 20190128081335
Drake_@_Velvet_Underground_2017.jpg 89712 20170912100407
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35986086223).jpg 2059 20171218185613
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35986086223)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20180408042436
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35986086223)_(cropped_2).jpg 22669 20180408042755
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420).jpg 2059 20171218185603
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20180408042440
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped_2).jpg 22669 20180408042530
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped_3).jpg 22669 20180408042647
Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped_5).jpg 105731 20180505192846
Gabriel_Garzón-Montano_Live_at_Revival_-_Toronto.jpg 3405 20171208150028
H.E.R._(37691657264).jpg 131 20190105125101
H.E.R._(37691663034).jpg 131 20190105125102
H.E.R._(38350863186).jpg 131 20190105125121
H.E.R._(38350866726).jpg 131 20190105125115
H.E.R._(38406024151).jpg 131 20190105125102
H.E.R._(38406029481).jpg 131 20190105125059
H.E.R._2017.jpg 8025 20171115115609
Jorja_Smith_and_Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35960868694).jpg 2059 20171218185548
Jorja_Smith_and_Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35960868694)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20180408043027
Jorja_Smith_and_Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35960874344).jpg 2059 20171218185543
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35960435114).jpg 2059 20171218185602
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35985917313).jpg 809262 20190128082928
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397356070).jpg 809262 20190128083803
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397356070)_(cropped).jpg 7164380 20181009013954
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397363740).jpg 809262 20190128083743
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397789690).jpg 2059 20171218185533
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397896650).jpg 809262 20190128083545
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36398027280).jpg 809262 20190128083754
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36655425331).jpg 809262 20190128083946
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36655425331)_(cropped).jpg 7164380 20181009014831
Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36794826925).jpg 809262 20190128085857
Joyner_Lucas.jpg 34 20180831124416
Joyner_Lucas_(36791475733).jpg 287 20190326181621
Joyner_Lucas_(36791478663).jpg 287 20190326181634
Joyner_Lucas_(37202720060).jpg 287 20190326182030
Joyner_Lucas_(37203629000).jpg 287 20190326181822
Joyner_Lucas_(37203803310).jpg 287 20190326181727
Joyner_Lucas_(37413530976).jpg 287 20190326181857
Joyner_Lucas_(37413535826).jpg 287 20190326181910
Joyner_Lucas_(37413540886).jpg 287 20190326181923
Joyner_Lucas_(37413546406).jpg 287 20190326181936
Joyner_Lucas_(37413553496).jpg 287 20190326181947
Joyner_Lucas_(37413581586).jpg 287 20190326181814
Joyner_Lucas_(37429154822).jpg 287 20190326182008
Joyner_Lucas_(37429161972).jpg 287 20190326182028
Joyner_Lucas_(37429176642).jpg 287 20190326182043
Joyner_Lucas_(37429180262).jpg 287 20190326182057
Joyner_Lucas_(37429770382).jpg 287 20190326181957
Joyner_Lucas_(37430070152).jpg 287 20190326181834
Joyner_Lucas_(37430074332).jpg 287 20190326181845
Joyner_Lucas_(37430112602).jpg 287 20190326181739
Joyner_Lucas_(37430115132).jpg 287 20190326181753
Joyner_Lucas_(37448144606).jpg 287 20190326181436
Joyner_Lucas_(37448145626).jpg 287 20190326181450
Joyner_Lucas_(37448146426).jpg 287 20190326181502
Joyner_Lucas_(37448147306).jpg 287 20190326181515
Joyner_Lucas_(37448148166).jpg 287 20190326181530
Joyner_Lucas_(37448148916).jpg 287 20190326181544
Joyner_Lucas_(37448149766).jpg 287 20190326181558
Joyner_Lucas_(37448150536).jpg 287 20190326181610
Joyner_Lucas_(37461181301).jpg 287 20190326181647
Joyner_Lucas_(37461184591).jpg 287 20190326181703
Joyner_Lucas_(37461186801).jpg 287 20190326181715
Joyner_Lucas_(37496045541).jpg 287 20190326181420
Killer_Mike_-_Osheaga_2017.jpg 10171 20190131140718
Killer_Mike_-_Osheaga_2017_(cropped).jpg 4301 20190404053612
Lecrae_(37969935145).jpg 287 20190326180228
Lecrae_(37969940695).jpg 287 20190326180242
Lecrae_(38826313602).jpg 41003 20190802012715
Lecrae_(38826316802).jpg 287 20190326180305
Lecrae_(38826318202).jpg 287 20190326180316
Lecrae_(38826319432).jpg 287 20190326180332
Lecrae_(38826341902).jpg 287 20190326180354
Lecrae_(38826346382).jpg 287 20190326180406
Lecrae_(38826353802).jpg 287 20190326180426
Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(01).jpg 92081 20171219222019
Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(01)_(cropped).jpg 1764310 20180129130050
Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(02).jpg 92081 20171219222906
Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(03).jpg 92081 20171219223225
Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(04).jpg 92081 20171219223559
Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(05).jpg 92081 20171219223815
Majid_Jordan_(36334181771).jpg 131 20181009043230
Majid_Jordan_(36336445021).jpg 131 20181009043219
Majid_Jordan_(36424911586).jpg 131 20181009043235
Majid_Jordan_(36470976275).jpg 131 20181009043249
Mick_Jenkins_(36425488926).jpg 131 20181009043315
Mick_Jenkins_(36426504546).jpg 131 20181009043316
Mick_Jenkins_August_2017.jpg 8025 20170810074117
Osheaga_2017_Attendees_(36336099951).jpg 131 20181009043403
Osheaga_2017_Attendees_(36336826411).jpg 131 20181009043356
Osheaga_2017_Attendees_(36472277105).jpg 131 20181009043348
Playboy_Carti_(36593283492).jpg 287 20190326170758
Playboy_Carti_(36593284092).jpg 287 20190326170809
Playboy_Carti_(36593284702).jpg 287 20190326170825
Playboy_Carti_(36593291262).jpg 287 20190326170915
Playboy_Carti_(36623941721).jpg 287 20190326170931
Playboy_Carti_(36623947081).jpg 287 20190326170950
Playboy_Carti_(36623956731).jpg 287 20190326171007
Playboy_Carti_(36623960391).jpg 287 20190326171024
Playboy_Carti_(36763308755).jpg 287 20190326170851
Playboy_Carti_(36763310175).jpg 287 20190326170857
Playboy_Carti_(36763336065).jpg 287 20190326171036
Run_the_Jewels_(35637115724).jpg 5971 20170810034714
Run_the_Jewels_(35662895033).jpg 5971 20170810034703
Run_the_Jewels_(35662895033)_(cropped).jpg 26765 20190914013633
Run_the_Jewels_(35663588543).jpg 5971 20170810034704
Run_the_Jewels_(36076077520).jpg 5971 20170810034721
Run_the_Jewels_(36303319652).jpg 5971 20170810034701
Run_the_Jewels_(36427801256).jpg 5971 20170810034703
Russ_(36467931135).jpg 131 20181009043101
Russ_(36467931135)_(cropped).jpg 404 20190124182041
Sampha_(36468412335).jpg 131 20181009043055
Thaiboy_Digital_(39392305464).jpg 287 20190326174252
Thaiboy_Digital_(39392351984).jpg 287 20190326174225
Thaiboy_Digital_(39392358054).jpg 287 20190326174240
Thaiboy_Digital_(40071528452).jpg 287 20190326174330
Thaiboy_Digital_(40104472141).jpg 287 20190326174135
Thaiboy_Digital_(40104494921).jpg 287 20190326174149
Thaiboy_Digital_(40104506361).jpg 287 20190326174311
Thaiboy_Digital_(40104510911).jpg 287 20190326174158
Thaiboy_Digital_(40104527671).jpg 287 20190326174215
Thaiboy_Digital_(40104540331).jpg 287 20190326174341
The_Weeknd_(36335324381).jpg 131 20181009043344
The_Weeknd_(36428013676).jpg 8086 20171205193909
The_Weeknd_(36428013676)_(cropped).jpg 386 20200314033928
The_Weeknd_(36471697425).jpg 131 20181009043349
Tory_Lanez_(36333766651).jpg 131 20181009043213
Tory_Lanez_(36334139801).jpg 131 20181009043221
Tory_Lanez_(36426606656).jpg 131 20181009043224
Tory_Lanez_(36427478776).jpg 131 20181009043139
Tory_Lanez_(36473188825).jpg 131 20181009043155
Tory_Lanez_August_2017.jpg 8025 20170810073231
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(01).jpg 92081 20171219225347
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(01)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20171225061359
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(02).jpg 92081 20171219225558
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(03).jpg 92081 20171219225835
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(03)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20171225061327
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(04).jpg 92081 20171219230042
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(04)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20171225061349
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(05).jpg 92081 20171219230249
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(05)_(cropped).jpg 2133336 20200110064539
Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(06).jpg 92081 20171219230505
Vance_Joy_(36425473466).jpg 131 20181009043322
Vance_Joy_(36426983686).jpg 131 20181009043322
Yung_Lean_(36424014676).jpg 131 20181009043126
Yung_Lean_(36469272325).jpg 131 20181009043132
Yung_Lean_(36469479305).jpg 131 20181009043124
Yung_Lean_(39211585215).jpg 287 20190326174105
Yung_Lean_(39211628375).jpg 287 20190326173923
Yung_Lean_(39398721414).jpg 287 20190326173906
Yung_Lean_(39398733924).jpg 287 20190326173945
Yung_Lean_(39398737114).jpg 287 20190326173957
Yung_Lean_(39398744544).jpg 287 20190326174010
Yung_Lean_(40078165212).jpg 287 20190326174027
Yung_Lean_(40078169912).jpg 287 20190326174043
Yung_Lean_(40110757521).jpg 287 20190326174115

196 rows in set (2 hours 43 min 8.11 sec)

Updated with 196 files, which appears to be all files on Commons with camera data that matches the DMCA deletion, though this is not all files from the same photographer. -- (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@: what's the advantage of this list over incategory:"Photographs by Anton Mak" incategory:"Taken with Canon EOS 6D" ? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
They may be equivalent now, but any deletions will remain in a report. -- (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Update from the Foundation[edit]

Hi everyone - we reached out to WebSheriff for some more information about the authorship of this image in particular given the confusion here. They informed us that the photograph was indeed taken by Anton Mak, as the metadata on Commons already showed; however, Mak retained his rights to the image, so when the publication uploaded his photograph to Flickr and licensed it under a CC license this was not authorised by himself as the photographer (note that this may be true of other images on the Flickr account, but we don’t know outside of this specific one). At some point between that upload and this takedown request, Mak signed an agreement with The Weeknd's company ("Weeknd XO, LLC"), who wound up acquiring the photograph and the copyright to use it. Therefore, as best we can tell, the copyright does indeed belong to The Weeknd rather than the photographer here.

Hopefully this clears things up. As always with DMCA takedowns, anybody is free to file a counter notice should they wish to. We have yet to receive one. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this update, Joe Sutherland (WMF). Given this, I do not think that we can continue to consider the Flickr stream thecomeupshow as trustworthy. Hence, I have added this Flickr id to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have filed an associated deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This case is currently discussed in the Signpost newsroom. Proposed headline: Celebrity pays consultant to withdraw CC license. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the tale told by WebSheriff to be taken without any kind of confirmation? Will Anton Mak confirm this story? Can the acquisition by Weeknd retroactively trump the free licensing made by the thecomeupshow? -- Tuválkin 20:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Thought I'd post a quick response here (should I also note this in the Signpost discussion?). Generally yes, we do take the info in DMCA requests as given by the requester. That's why there's the penalty of perjury requirement: if Web Sheriff lied about the info JSutherland shared, they'd have perjured themselves. We do still sanity check requests though. For example, I run a reverse image search and will ask requesters what's going on if an image they claim to own appears to belong to someone else. But unless we find evidence to the contrary (which hasn't happened here as of this posting), we have to accept that the info someone sends us as part of a DMCA is factually accurate. As to the retroactive part, if we assume the info from Web Sheriff is accurate, the image was never CC licensed to begin with because the party that purported to license it didn't have the right to do it. That probably does mean that viewing this Flickr account as suspect is a good move, sadly. That also means that there's no challenge in this case to the CC licenses themselves. CC licenses continue to work just fine, but they always require that whoever offers the license owns the rights to actually do it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Tuvalkin: Please note that Sikander reported in the associated deletion request about his attempt to get in contact with the photographer (ticket:2020033110008444). So far, we do not have received a statement by the photographer regarding the claim by Web Sheriff. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I note that the takedown notice cited in the OP says "the copyright in the relevant images... has been assigned to the Rights Owners", but does not specify when that assignment took place. It may or may not, therefore, have occured after the image was licensed by the former right holder - we simply do not know. But we should endeavour to find out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Vera Tammen[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) 17:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Please note that this DMCA takedown notice also includes File:By Vera Tammen.jpg (see third URL in wmf:File:DMCA Vera Tammen.pdf on the first page) which was today speedily deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Haahava by De728631. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, good catch AFBorchert, thank you. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF): Legal question about this DMCA notice that probably shouldn't be stated on wiki per BEANS - how should I ask it? Email? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: By all means email ca@wikimedia.org. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Sent --DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Peter and Paul[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) 19:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

File:National Army Museum, London.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! NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello NahidSultan (WMF)! Thank you for notifying us about this. Why has the name been redacted in the DMCA? That information isn't usually redacted unless it is simply an employee acting on behalf of a company. Also, it is only redacted on the foundation-page and not in the PDF. (ping JSutherland (WMF)) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Josve05a: I think that was just an oversight, I can unredact the name of the photographer. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not have much time right now but this photo is part of a set of photos uploaded by Britishfinance on 7 October 2019 which are all related to Category:Event Communications, a category which was created on the same day. Some of these photos are sourced from elsewhere, others are declared as {{Own}} as File:National Army Museum, London.jpg has been. Take for example File:EPIC The Irish Emigration Museum I.jpg which was published before according to tineye. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I have been nominating some of the uploader's images which are findable on the web (more recently, that uploader seems to have been better about finding licensed Flickr images instead). Don't think I've made it to the above ones yet, but agreed that the lower-resolution "own work" images from that upload era are likely taken from the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Clindberg, all 347 of this users own works are suspicious, and may all have to be deleted. I will complete a write up and nominate them all later this week, unless you'd prefer to. There is no need to nominate anymore individually.--BevinKacon (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
OK. I spot checked some of the others and did not find any obvious internet hits, so left them alone. There are lower-resolution ones among those for sure. I think I'm done though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for checking other uploads as well. @Josve05a: It was indeed an honest mistake. Thanks Joe for taking care of this. -NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)