User talk:JSutherland (WMF)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, JSutherland (WMF)!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:International-Space-Station wordmark blue.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 04:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Zhuyifei1999! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I just have a (few) questions that I was hopining you could answer. Do you know how many DMCA requesst the WMF receives for Commons-images, but which are rejected by the WMF legal team? Wouldit be possible to forward these rejected DMCAs to the community (OTRS) or similar for a community review of these as well, but in accordance with e.g. the Commons:Precautionary principle instead of the legal definitions on how a DMCA must be formatted etc.? Thankful for your time answering this :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josve05a - thanks for the question :) The Support and Safety team doesn't actually get to see DMCA takedown notices that our Legal team rejects. That said (though you're probably aware, so sorry if I am repeating things), there is some information on takedown statistics in the Wikimedia Foundation Transparency Report. Hope that helps. I can talk to Legal about this if you'd like. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my tardiness. Thanks for your response. As an active administrator and an OTRS agent, it would be beneficial to see declined DMCA notices as well. Yes, I’ve seen these reports however they are very broad and do not link to specific files which may be violations, but not conform to DMCA standards. I am fully aware of that you guys don’t deal with these emails, however if you could forward my query to the legal team that would be lovely. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Josve05a, Joe flagged this one to me. We already share some DMCAs with the Lumen database (search Wikimedia Foundation at We've been working on also making sure that all the invalid/declined/poorly labeled DMCAs are still classified as DMCAs and wind up on Lumen, where they can be searched by any member of the public. It does require a bit of tool work on our end though to make sure they're all there, and we already report on the total numbers via the transparency report, so this has been something of a low-priority project. That's probably not the answer you want, but we will get to it eventually. I would also note that with a lot of DMCAs, I don't think the precautionary principle makes much sense. In many cases, bad DMCAs are bad because 1) you can't figure out what the person is even talking about, 2) somebody claims to own a thing without any evidence whatsoever and it's pretty obvious they're lying, or 3) it's quite clear from analysis that it's legal to host the work. There are a few DMCAs a year where it might be a close call and one could reasonably argue that the community removing a picture even though the law doesn't clearly require it is the best outcome, but I think that's often quite rare. Also, in cases like that where it's close, we'll often point the requester to the community anyway because we think they've got a reasonable argument where volunteers might be willing to help. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:2016 Strategic Approaches Report.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! 12:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:In the news round up lead montage for July 7th.jpg[edit]

العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:In the news round up lead montage for July 7th.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

BevinKacon (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Montage for News on Wikipedia - September 15.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Finnusertop (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It died again[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 75#Reviving thread "T&S concern"

We need information. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA Counter Notice at Lumen[edit]

The link *[ Create DMCA Counter-Notification] at Lumen at Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/Header seeem to have died (Lumen is re-making their website it seems). Could you help find a replacement? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen and DMCA[edit]


When WMF reports DMCAs to Lumen (Example), there are fields that are not filled out, such as "KIND OF WORK:Unspecified" and "JURISDICTIONS:Unspecified". If, when reporting to Lumen, it is possible to fill out these details, it would be very helpful for us DMCA-watchers. Thanks in advance! --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Josve05a, I forgot to reply here, but we're looking into this. I think the main problem is that often we just don't have that information, but our tools definitely don't ask for it so we might be able to adapt them to collect this information. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, JSutherland,

Regarding this discussion and other conversations I've had with editors, after reading over the request WMF has received, there is some question whether this request was sent by the individual who signed it and portrayed themselves as the Trust representative. There is a lawyer by this name but he is retired, lives in a different state (Florida) and was not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. According to the Commons discussion, there is no lawyer with this name who is licensed to practice in MA which adds to the mysterious inconsistencies surrounding Alahverdian.

I guess my question for you is not to contest the deletion but whether WMF legal team actually is in contact with the person who sends in these type of requests and claims to represent the individual holding a copyright. Or are these requests taken at face value? This is important to know because of the development of the article on Alahverdian on the English Wikipedia which has been changing as new sources of information have recently come to light and because the actions of WMF are now becoming part of his story. Thank you for any information on this you can provide. Liz (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article might be of interest to you regarding this subject. Liz (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz, I've commented again on the DMCA noticeboard, as has Jacob, which can hopefully clear some things up. We're otherwise still looking at this case. (Also for the record I'm also emailed when there are edits made to my talk page :) ) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA in the form of a deletion request?[edit]


You might wish to take a look at two deletion requests, Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:"Houses of the Holy VI" Painting by Stella Michaels.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/User:Oljagged.

It says that I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use). I hereby state that the information in this Notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that I am the owner of the copyright that is allegedly infringed. This looks like typical language from a DMCA takedown notice. However, I think that there are at least two flaws in the takedown notices. First, the takedown notices were provided in the form of deletion requests on Commons with the text also repeated on the file information pages, but I think that a real takedown notice should be sent to the address provided at wmf:DMCA takedowns as the takedown notice otherwise risks being missed by the WMF's designated agent. Secondly, if you state something under penalty of perjury, I think that you need to provide some kind of contact information so that you can be penalised if applicable, but the person who submitted the takedown request only provided an IP address, which I assume is not enough.

I don't know if the foundation is supposed to act on these takedown notices or if they should be left for the community to decide the outcome of the files. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Sorry for the delay in responding here. You are right. DMCAs should be sent to the address provided at wmf:DMCA takedowns, preferably via email since our office is closed due to COVID. More information on DMCA compliance can be found on wmf:DMCA Policy. Basically, image removal can often be handled by volunteers, but if someone would like to go the DMCA route, they should write to the Foundation. BChoo (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]