Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2013

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

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Brief summary for Adrian Dove-1.

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. 

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown: wmf:DMCA_Flaherty

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium 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. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Affected file: File:Racetrack_Playa,_Death_Valley,_CA.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mujeres y Hombres

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. 

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why this template didn't work - this is what I placed:

{{subst:DMCA takedown notice|1=MUJERES Y HOMBRES|2=DMCA Random House Mondadori|3=MUJERES Y HOMBRES.pdf}}

Where did the header go? If I'm doing it incorrectly, might somebody clarify the instructions or point out my error to me? If the template is broken, can somebody fix it? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
On this takedown and the last one, the file is still accessible from WMF systems via the link to the upload server in the takedown notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

El_caballero_de_la_armadura_oxidada

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium 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! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Darragh MacAnthony images

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 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: The linked take down notice also contains a demand to remove another image that we were asking them for further clarification on and are not currently removing. Jalexander (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, you noticed that a) the takedown notice itself contains the images and b) it says "strictly not for publication? --El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he did. -- Rillke(q?) 10:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks El Grafo, As Rillke said I did indeed notice (he emailed me about the image as well). Regarding the "strictly not for publication" the short answer is "yes, yes I did, I just didn't care". That is not an option if you want to issue a DMCA to us, we take the position that the public has a right to know and see any take downs we get. I generally have the same belief about the images in the take down, they are easily a fair use claim by us on foundationWiki given their quality and use in the document they sent us. That said It's been a while since I did one of these fully (and I will be doing more of the ones that come in) and so I may well have made a mistake on the images. I don't think so because Michelle (the lawyer who generally reviews DMCA's) wanted to be 'conservative' and remove all of the lawfirms info but didn't say anything about the image but it's clearly better safe then sorry and I'm going to double check in the morning (I'll report back). Jalexander (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, do whatever you think is appropriate – you know that better than me. I very much welcome the "include the public" approach, just wanted to make sure that we/you don't accidentally run into a follow-up DMCA ;-) Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Malibu & Maria Shriver

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 (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong forum but I am curious about office action removals. In the case of File:1960s Batmobile (FMC).jpg where Ford changed their license on Flickr. I don't think Jennifer released any rights to Ford. If she simply phoned or emailed the office or an admin would that suffice for a deletion or deletion review? She may be upset that the image is hosted here but also may wish to avoid any Streisand effect that could cause problems with Ford and any other clients. In other words what be the best way to have such images removed quietly without causing too many problems and effort by all parties involved? Office actions may seem more public than DRs as they are posted here and on the projects. 'Courtesy' DRs are noticed and discussed by very few.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Who is Jennifer and what are you talking about? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
w:Jennifer Graylock. I am wondering what the normal procedures are for office action removal of images are. Can they just remove them after a simple email or phone call or is a legally formatted document needed? Is it easier for a rights holder to just request a deletion review? Which venue would attract the least attention?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
What does she have to do with Mr._Malibu_&_Maria_Shriver.png? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry in the delay in responding here, I saw it and then it fell off my blotter as we were dealing with a couple other things (including the original image, see below). To your question on how to request an office action, it is almost always because of an official 'DMCA' take down demand. While if someone calls us we'll often try to connect them with a community member who can work with them within the policies it takes a relatively extreme case to rise to the level of an office action. In fact that vast majority of take down requests we get are rejected at some level (connecting them to the community, explaining the polices of commons or the project involved, or refusal on legal/policy reasons). If she didn't release the rights the first step would likely be to try and talk with OTRS and/or the on wiki community but obviously if she wanted to pursue the DMCA process she could and we'd work with her. It's tough to comment on an individual case without getting the chance to dig into the individual specifics that change each time. Jalexander (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the response even though it is the wrong forum. I doubt Jennifer cares about it but it is nice to know for future images by others. If they have a copyright issue then asking a user to put it in a quiet DR may be the easiest and attract the least attention.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ira Siegel, according to Robert McEwen is "commonly described as a copyright troll" and the firm as "a legitimate company (although not very ethical)".
  • There are some strange redactions on the DMCA takedown notice. A toll free number (Toll Free: 877-526-7974) is listed on the company's web site.
  • It is unfortunate that as well as removing the file, the file details have been removed, which denies others the chance to evaluate the validity of the take-down, and hence effectively the ability to challenge it.
Rich Farmbrough, 03:01 1 July 2013 (GMT).
  • Hey Rich, trying to find the right balance of redaction is tough, I've generally try to remove any personal contact info even if I know it's easy to find elsewhere though if you need it for a counternotice or something we obviously can provide it. I'm also always happy to provide a description of the file on request (and will try to provide anything needed if someone is thinking about challenging). Jalexander (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delays in responding here. After receiving an unofficial response from the uploader (not a formal counter notice) we had some internal discussions and reached back out to the DMCA filer. After a bit of discussion with them they formally retracted their take downdemand this morning. Because of that I will be restoring the photo after I save here since their is no longer an OFFICE reason to keep it deleted. I'm going to be updating things over the next couple hours most likely (if anyone finds a spot after that where they think I should leave a comment please let me know) I'm recording the changes with Chilling Effects etc as well. Jalexander (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Equine reproduction services fetus

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 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

While I have no stake in this image, this DMCA looks rather inconsequential from the side of the alleged rights holder, as the image in question is still available (at this moment) under a CC-BY license on Flickr (http://flickr.com/photos/27137264@N00/2117874965) from where our copy was sourced. --Túrelio (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, I don't know if they filed one there or not but looking into it the lawyers (and to be honest myself) think it's reasonable to believe that it could be a legitimate claim and is certainly well formed. Obviously not our responsibility to force them to file everywhere. Jalexander (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Should admin add the account to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors? At least the bots couldn't be used to upload it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Darwin_fish_ROF.svg

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.

Thank you! Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Affected file:

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This one is pretty interesting, did you read en:Parodies of the ichthys symbol#Darwin fish Philippe? Where can we see the DMCA claim? The only thing I can find in OTRS is #2013062610010548 and that's an old trademark claim. Multichill (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The DMCA claim is at foundation:DMCA Darwinfish. —RP88 14:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
We still have File:Darwin Fish 01.svg in case someone wants to use it. odder (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Multichill, the decision on whether to take this down does not lie with me; I just execute it. If you have concerns, you could write to legal@wikimedia.org. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Multichill, I am one of the attorneys at WMF who evaluated this matter. Consistent with WMF Legal's standard operating procedure for DMCA notices, we investigated this matter to the best of our ability before complying with the notice. We are aware of the reports of controversy regarding the valid copyright holder of this image as well as online mentions of a prior court case. However, we were unable to locate any official records in the major legal databases regarding the findings of a court in any intellectual property dispute involving the image in question. If any members of the community have found official legal records or a published opinion regarding the intellectual property owner of this work, please contact us at legal@wikimedia.org and we'll be happy to re-evaluate the validity of the DMCA notice. However, based on the information we currently have available, we are legally required to comply with the takedown notice at this time.
However, we have notified the original uploader of the takedown. The content uploader (or anyone who wishes to) may submit a counter notice to contest removal of the content pursuant to DMCA Section 512(g)(2)(B). Upon receipt of a valid counter notice, we will repost the content unless the DMCA notice sender files a lawsuit within 14 days to restrain the restoration of the content.
We should note that submitting a counter notice is an official legal action and the party requesting the takedown may file suit against the person submitting the counter notice. You may read more about counter notices at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions#DMCA_compliance
I hope this helps! Rkwon (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Gunnar Heydenreich.jpg

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.

Affected file:

Respectfully,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Cranach Digital Archive

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 06:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note: As I noted on the takedown notice itself (on top) the request demands 4 actions (3 file removals and 1 meta data removal), the WMF Legal team refused to do the image takedowns based on their determination that the files were within the public domain. They determined that there may be a copyright claim for the longer comment that was placed within the meta data described on [4] and so I removed that from the file itself and deleted the old version. Jalexander--WMF 06:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I just want to point out that there are perhaps different claiming copyright holders in OTRS Ticket #2012122210009986:Stiftung Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf / Cologne University of Applied Sciences with regards to file [2] (see Commons:Village pump#Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Cranach Digital Archive and this actual takedown:
(Cranach Digital Archive
<redacted>
.40479 Düsseldorf
University of Applied Sciences
.CICS
.<redacted>
50678 Köln)

.

The Cranach Digital Archive as joint research initiative has no legal entity. According to the Cranach Digital Archive's website the copyright holder is Stiftung Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf / Cologne University of Applied Sciences like mentioned with OTRS Ticket and not the claimant of this notice. Regards --Oursana (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Apis-mellifera-queen-worker-drone

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. 

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Barack_Obama_first_meeting_with_Nelson_Mandela.jpg

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! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices/2013&oldid=159197919"