Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices

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

Shortcut: COM:DMCA

This page in a nutshell: Sometimes the Wikimedia Foundation needs to remove content for legal reasons, in response to a request under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Such removals cannot be reversed without legal action.

Responding to a DMCA take down notice In the event that material is removed due to a DMCA notice, the only recourse for restoring such material is to file a counter-notice with the Foundation. If you believe that a take-down notice which has been acted upon by the Foundation is without legal basis, please feel free to visit the following sites as a first step in learning about filing a counter-notice:

Please note that filing a counter-notice may lead to legal proceedings between you and the complaining party to determine ownership of the material. The DMCA process requires that you consent to the jurisdiction of a United States court. All notices should be sent to the Foundation's designated agent.

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

2022[edit]

Liberia, Africa 2013[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) 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it was uploaded from Panoramio. It had a free license there, under the user blk24ga. But, it seems the photo was also given to Alamy under a different username... who has thousands of photos on Alamy from the looks of it. So, it may have been license laundering on Panoramio (or vice versa). Looking at uploads here, we have a *lot* of Panoramio uploads from that user. They are generally all relate to Liberia from the looks of it. There are however a disturbing number of different camera models, for photos which have it (and many who don't look like they had previously been on Picasa). File:Kenedja Hotel - panoramio.jpg has a credit to a photographer Nick Fraser in the metadata, which does not seem to be mentioned elsewhere. File:Liberia, Africa - panoramio (103).jpg was apparently available before upload here on a usaid.gov site -- however, it was credited there to Joni Byker/Samaritan's Purse so it would not seem to be free. And a different photographer than that first file. File:Liberia, Africa - panoramio (317).jpg and File:Liberia, Africa - panoramio (315).jpg both have the Alamy contributor's name from the DMCA request in the metadata. Most of the blk24ga uploads don't necessarily look like professional photos, but quite a few do, and the variety of cameras in the EXIF is more than a bit disturbing -- do we think we can trust that user's uploads from Panoramio? It looks like we have over 1000 images from that account, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we need a deletion request for these images. Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kenedja Hotel - panoramio.jpg and Category:Files from blk24ga Panoramio stream. Yann (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While investigating a couple of the other images above, I did see a Flickr source to the ones from the photographer of the deleted image. That one is also available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbdodane/9615132749 . It appears it was uploaded the day it was taken, and under a CC-BY license, in August 2013. In April 2014, the Flickr license was changed to a non-free CC license, and was further changed to All Rights Reserved in September 2014 (maybe that was when they were given to Alamy?). The two other images from the same author mentioned above were copied to Panoramio during the period it was licensed CC-BY; unsure about this one (would need to see the archived Panoramio source from the deleted file) but the only issue may have been the wrong author being named. At the least, it does seem as though the Panoramio uploader was at least being somewhat careful about licensing for the photos they uploaded, even if they were not about author and source credits. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023[edit]

1984 translation[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) 22:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is indeed a still copyrighted work as the translation was done by Michael Walter (1951–) who is still alive. Interestingly, the translator was neither named in the file description nor in the DMCA notice. The source was at archive.org where this work was likewise taken down. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the US, 1984 and any derivative work is still copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[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) 23:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yeah, looks like the uploader put a bogus "own work" and a bogus license on this, and it never got noticed. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was this the 1996 logo or the 2003 one? The former is definitely copyrighted (see registration VA0000963992). Ixfd64 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless, there was more iconography in the image which are above TOO than just the logo (it was a blue background with icons of cockroaches behind the logo). So, it wouldn't have mattered. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hindi phrasebooks (hi.wikibooks)[edit]

Hi folks. This DMCA was not for a Commons file, but I imagine it will still be of interest to those who watch this page. Details are on the Hindi Wikibooks. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kempes en Valencia[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 Wikimedia Foundation 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) 17:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks to have been {{PD-AR-Photo}} but {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've started four DRs on 1990s photographs that are PD in Argentina but not in the US because of URAA. There are other potentially URAA-restored photographs uploaded by this user. Abzeronow (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The URAA technically doesn't apply here; works from 1989 on are copyrighted as Berne Convention works and were in copyright in the US from creation. The US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term, so they're treated in the US like any US photo from the same era.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photograph was created in 1979, per takedown requesting party's website, not 1989. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have raised a DR on photos that sources are Revista El Gráfico (same as the takedowned photo). Thanks. SCP-2000 07:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nebra Sky Disc[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently received a takedown request under the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Due to the receipt of a counter-notice, and under the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, no files will be removed from Commons at this time; we are instead posting this note here for record-keeping and transparency.

The takedown can be read here. The counter-notice can be found linked from that page.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! This is interesting! Thanks for this information. Yann (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting indeed, pinging Gnom FYI... Gestumblindi (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, wow! --Gnom (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the wording in the DMCA request itself, that the assertion that the state of Saxony-Anhalt owns the copyright to be object and therefore all images of it, is bogus, at least from a United States copyright law perspective, but doesn't File:Oberhausen - Gasometer - Der schöne Schein - Nebra sky disk 01 ies.jpg demonstrate that these images are effectively copies of a publicly displayed photograph at an exhibition, whos copyright presumably belongs to whoever took that photograph? Is the WMFs perspective that as a 2D work of art, whos creator died long before copyright was even conceived, that all face-on images of the disc are public domain? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this is interesting. I don't think the object itself would have any copyright in the US, so really is not the basis for a DMCA takedown, I would not think. The 25-year publication right in the EU may be valid there, but not the US. However... File:Oberhausen - Gasometer - Der schöne Schein - Nebra sky disk 01 ies.jpg would seem to be a photo of a photo, and not sure we have a license for the underlying photo. Maybe the original photo is a PD-Art situation (EU rules did somewhat change on this recently), but if not, that underlying photo would seem to have a copyright in both countries. The other photos seem derived from that one, removing more and more of the original public context and making it more a copy of that photo. There are some interesting borderlines here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Due to changes in EU and German law, specifically Article 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market of 2021 and the resulting § 68 of Germany's copyright law, I think it's possible to assume that § 71, upon which the DMCA takedown notice is based, no longer applies to visual works (such as the Nebra Sky Disc). Germany's new § 68 says "Vervielfältigungen gemeinfreier visueller Werke werden nicht durch verwandte Schutzrechte nach den Teilen 2 und 3 geschützt", that is: Reproductions of public domain visual works are not protected by related rights per parts 2 and 3. And as § 71 (publication right of 25 years for previously unpublished public domain works) is exactly one of those related rights in part 2, I think it's reasonable to read this that there is no longer any 25-year publication right for visual works and § 71 is only applicable to other works, such as text or music. The photograph in the exhibition itself would not be protected for the same reason - as it is a reproduction of a public domain visual work. § 72, the protection of simple photographs (Lichtbilder), is also one of the related rights excluded by § 68. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gestumblindi: Thanks for the specifics. It probably does come down to whether the underlying photo counts as a "reproduction" or not, or a photographic work in its own right (similar to a PD-Art question in the US). Not sure there is any case law on those 2021 law changes, which is what makes it rather interesting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): Thanks, but please note that File:Nebra 1b.jpg is mentioned twice above and in all the documents.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the flag. I'll remove from the announcements but will keep the documents intact. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF) and Clindberg: and others interested in this case: There is a lengthy discussion on German Wikipedia's "Kurier" talk page and a less lengthy one on "Urheberrechtsfragen" (the copyright "village pump" / forum). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment 1) If we argue that a photograph of a PD object is PD itself under the relevant laws, then a photograph of a photograph of a PD object must be PD too. Consequently, all CC-BY-SA 4.0 license of File:Oberhausen - Gasometer - Nebra sky disk.jpg and its derivatives would be invalid. They should probably be replaced by a PD template (like it was done at File:Oberhausen - Gasometer - Der schöne Schein - Nebra sky disk 01 ies.jpg). 2) Having only the photographer of the photography (Frank Vincentz) listed as author when the author of the original photograph is (now) known to be Juraj Lipták is very bad style to say the least. --El Grafo (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly the name of the "official" photographer wasn't known at the time these "reproductions" were taken. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's why I wrote now. El Grafo (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original photo showed surrounding context and would have a copyright in its own right. The PD tag on that is incorrect in my opinion. It chose its own framing separate from that of the hanging poster. The later ones which remove all that context really aren't derivative of that one anymore, but rather only the underlying photo, correct. We should name the original photographer, for sure (although if there truly is no copyright on them, there may be no moral right either, not sure -- but either way we should credit them). We should still note the source photo so we know how we got to the end result.
Frankly, by current practices, the original photo may fall under the "not quite 2D" area like coins, and we may well have deleted it if nominated long ago, particularly given earlier German law. It's a very new law in Germany (and the EU) and is untested. Similarly the Bridgman decision in the US did not mention 2D vs 3D either, but it gets a harder to apply the logic from tha decision the more 3D something is, so the US is similarly gray for something like this. We have kept photos of slightly 3D stuff like bas relief walls, but this might have been just a bit further along the spectrum. Given the current DMCA situation though, seems best to let it play out -- we may get further clarification to make future decisions easier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for clarification: By "original photo" you mean File:Oberhausen_-_Gasometer_-_Der_schöne_Schein_-_Nebra_sky_disk_01_ies.jpg which was presumably made by the uploader, User:Ies who apparently identifies as Frank Vincentz (that's the author's name on all their uploads, so I don't think there are ANON issues), as a photo of the photo by Juraj Lipták in the exhibition. I agree with you that the simple PD-Art tag on Ies' photo is incorrect, there are fitting more complex tags available at Commons. I think I would use {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} which allows to enter separate licenses for the work shown (in this case, the Nebra Sky Disc in Juraj Lipták's presumably unprotected photograph per § 68), and for the photo itself (this would in this case be the GFDL chosen by Ies). Gestumblindi (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now added the name of the original photographer Juraj Lipták to the description of said "original photo". --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ideally it should be added to all of the photos. Should some kind of PD tag be added to the images also, if that is the logic that the WMF follows? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gestumblindi: Yes, I meant File:Oberhausen_-_Gasometer_-_Der_schöne_Schein_-_Nebra_sky_disk_01_ies.jpg. I don't believe that is PD-Art as there is additional stuff other than the central photo, as irrelevant as it seems. Once that is cropped away, then there would be no more copyright of User:Ies (in the US at least), but only a copy of the underlying photo from Mr. Liptak, which would then be either PD-Art-Licensed or a deletion depending on how that PD determination of Mr. Liptak's photo comes out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Job Centre Plus[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 Wikimedia Foundation 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) 23:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Indeed, there are many copies on the Net. Source may be [1]. Yann (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source is mentioned in the takedown message; it's a stock photo. Omphalographer (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a hard time believing in any square digital source - who makes square DLPs?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices&oldid=826083548"