User talk:Christine (WMF)
Alexander Liptak[edit]
ResolvedI don't think there's anything that can be done to "fix" this, so it will have to just be what it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)I see you've deleted a series of items uploaded by Alexander Liptak. He wanted to "own" those items, and when he couldn't get his way, he fought it tooth and nail. If he somehow tagged them as "copyright violations", then you've probably been "had". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying, but in order to maintain our safe harbor status, we're legally required to comply with DMCA takedown notices, regardless of anything else that's gone on in the past. In the case of these files, Philippe and I are acting at the direction of WMF legal staff. Christine (WMF) (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Who originated those "takedown" notices? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, other discussions have made it clear: The uploader himself made legal threats, and you all caved in because you didn't know his history. He himself uploaded those items, which he had stated were his own creations, and when he couldn't exercise control over their use, he looked for ways to get them deleted. They aren't copyright violations; he lied to you, as he has done over and over. There is now a user ban discussion going on, and it's just as well. That guy proved himself to be of no value whatsoever to the project. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, he did make that request. But let's think this through here a minute. If he really didn't understand how the license works, do we want those files on Commons? And if he did understand the license and wanted to manipulate it, do we still want those files on Commons? I think the answer in both cases is "no" and the right thing to do is to pull the files down. That's regardless of the law, which in this case is pretty clear: if we want to maintain our safe harbor status we have no choice and we must comply with DMCA takedown notices. Even if we did have a choice, we (that is, Philippe and I) do not. We operate at the pleasure of the Wikimedia Foundation, the Board, the Executive Director, and the Chief Community Officer. In all of those things, there is an expectation that we will fulfill the requests of the Legal Department. Neither of us are experts on law, however we do consult with lawyers who are. And, well, if they tell us to pull files down.... we pull them down. I understand the frustration this guy and his actions have caused, trust me, but there's just no win-scenario here that allows the files to stay up. Christine (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was explained to Xander over and over. He just didn't agree with it. Do we want him anywhere near Wikimedia in the future? Definitely NOT, and that's why a ban discussion is going on. He gamed the system every way he could think of, finally resorting to a bogus legal threat, and you all caved in to it. But it's good riddance, from a practical standpoint. Here's something to think about: He uploaded those illustrations. Then he apparently claimed they were copyright violations. If they were, then he himself violated their copyright. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, he did make that request. But let's think this through here a minute. If he really didn't understand how the license works, do we want those files on Commons? And if he did understand the license and wanted to manipulate it, do we still want those files on Commons? I think the answer in both cases is "no" and the right thing to do is to pull the files down. That's regardless of the law, which in this case is pretty clear: if we want to maintain our safe harbor status we have no choice and we must comply with DMCA takedown notices. Even if we did have a choice, we (that is, Philippe and I) do not. We operate at the pleasure of the Wikimedia Foundation, the Board, the Executive Director, and the Chief Community Officer. In all of those things, there is an expectation that we will fulfill the requests of the Legal Department. Neither of us are experts on law, however we do consult with lawyers who are. And, well, if they tell us to pull files down.... we pull them down. I understand the frustration this guy and his actions have caused, trust me, but there's just no win-scenario here that allows the files to stay up. Christine (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, other discussions have made it clear: The uploader himself made legal threats, and you all caved in because you didn't know his history. He himself uploaded those items, which he had stated were his own creations, and when he couldn't exercise control over their use, he looked for ways to get them deleted. They aren't copyright violations; he lied to you, as he has done over and over. There is now a user ban discussion going on, and it's just as well. That guy proved himself to be of no value whatsoever to the project. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Who originated those "takedown" notices? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
<---------- Yeah, you know, it totally sucks. Really. The guy was gaming us, and he had a ton of attention and help from the community, and still this is how it ends. Christine and I were just venting about it. I wish there was another way, but the truth is, she's right. We've got a valid DMCA takedown, and in the face of that, we face exposing the entire community to liability by not getting safe harbor. In the equation, that wins. So you're right... and Chris is right. You're right that it's frustrating and stupid. But she's right that this was absolutely the only thing we could do. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand y'all's position, and I was venting a bit also. But I must ask: "Liability" from whom? Not from Liptak - he's the guy that uploaded them. The only way he can claim copyright violation is by admitting that he stole them from someone else. But knowing him, it's probably better to just wash our hands of him, and just make sure he never darkens Wikimedia's door again, by issuing a permanent ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having now seen the actual letter he wrote, I have to say it's a totally bogus representation of the situation. Further evidence that we should wash our hands of this guy forever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Basically, his claim is that others had no right to alter the drawings that he uploaded. He was told over and over again that he had relinquished such rights when he uploaded them freely. Maybe you all are right, maybe he didn't understand initially. Maybe the part about "public domain" fooled him. Anyway, he won. This time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- He understood - he just didn't like it. A rock and a hard place for the Foundation. I'm sure that the decision to take it down was legally correct, but it does open a pathway to anyone to abrogate the upload license of original material at anytime simply by filing a takedown notice. If I recall correctly, the one time I received a takedown notice for an image I put on my personal weblog some years ago, I was given the opportunity to respond with sufficient reason for the publisher (Blogspot, i.e. Google) to resist the takedown. If that's the case, the Foundation might want to ponder whether, if a circumstance such as this occurs again, it might want to try closing the door to that pathway by fighting it -- but that's both a strategic and tactical decision into which must go a lot of stuff I'm not privy to, so I can't say that it's something you necessarily ought to do.
Still, as Bugs says "Good riddance to bad rubbish." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- And having now seen his website, and the absurd prices he's asking for these items, it seems pretty likely that his entire game here was a spamming operation. (Everyone else probably figured that out already. I'm slow.) That would be why he got so enraged at having his name taken off them. One more reason for "good widdance". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- He understood - he just didn't like it. A rock and a hard place for the Foundation. I'm sure that the decision to take it down was legally correct, but it does open a pathway to anyone to abrogate the upload license of original material at anytime simply by filing a takedown notice. If I recall correctly, the one time I received a takedown notice for an image I put on my personal weblog some years ago, I was given the opportunity to respond with sufficient reason for the publisher (Blogspot, i.e. Google) to resist the takedown. If that's the case, the Foundation might want to ponder whether, if a circumstance such as this occurs again, it might want to try closing the door to that pathway by fighting it -- but that's both a strategic and tactical decision into which must go a lot of stuff I'm not privy to, so I can't say that it's something you necessarily ought to do.
- Basically, his claim is that others had no right to alter the drawings that he uploaded. He was told over and over again that he had relinquished such rights when he uploaded them freely. Maybe you all are right, maybe he didn't understand initially. Maybe the part about "public domain" fooled him. Anyway, he won. This time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having now seen the actual letter he wrote, I have to say it's a totally bogus representation of the situation. Further evidence that we should wash our hands of this guy forever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
DMCA Takedown notices[edit]
Hi Christine, as we admins actually do deletions and un-deletions, DMCA Takedown-notices should at least also be put on the COM:AN board. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
First port of call for me :)[edit]
please ignore the previous message left here, the issue has been passed to the WMF legal team for advice. Thanks anyhow, BarkingFish (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)