Open main menu

Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices

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.

2017Edit

File:Mt. Vesuvius.jpgEdit

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! Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The request attachment is missing. -- (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I know and I apologise for this. Trying to figure out how to make it available as the request did not come electronically.Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded it and added it to the DMCA page (you can also see it directly here on wmfWiki. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jalexander-WMF: Are we to assume the WMF is not paying them $1000? (amused) - Reventtalk 00:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jalexander-WMF, Kalliope (WMF): Is it possible for legal to provide the response which was sent back to them? I'm curious about this case --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • After further conversation Legal has decided to undo this DMCA because of some additional issues that came up. I will be undeleting the image and while we may come back to do so again after further conversation with the requester the community can obviously review it on their own as always. @Josve05a: I can ask :). Jalexander-WMF (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It does :) Jalexander-WMF (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Rainbow Falls HiloEdit

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) 23:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Multiple other copyvios (some, ick, widely used for years) from the same uploader speedied. - Reventtalk 01:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

PixixicaEdit

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, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment Clearly a copyvio. No other uploads from this uploader. Platonides (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky, New York City (1946)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) 22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The PDF sort of links to this Getty page. I'm skeptical about a lot of US photo copyrights of this age--it would have been real nice to get the renewal number--but it seems to be big enough and notable enough that it wasn't something that just got swept into Getty.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This would have not been controversial as a DR, as though Getty is synonymous with unabashed copyfraud of PD photos, the photographer died in 2006. -- (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It's an American photo by an American photographer; when he died is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
True, so I work this out as to be undeleted in 2042. -- (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The license of that photo was all wrong. Uploaded to flickr under CC license while stating it is a photo taken by someone else. Uploded by User:Ikfedorova who had only a single contribution. --Jarekt (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added the Flickr user in this case to our blacklist. That account appears to be a collection of copyvios. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Jenkins Kamera-filmEdit

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) 00:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  Comment This is indeed an obvious copyvio which is identical to File:Kamera-film.jpg which was deleted on 16 March 2016 along with other copyvios by the same user. Unfortunately, nobody noticed that the photo was re-uploaded on the following day despite being caught by Steinsplitter's tool for the detection of re-uploads of previously deleted files. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

2018Edit

St. Michael (Löffingen) interiorEdit

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 valcuviaEdit

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 3021Edit

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.comEdit

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 pianoEdit

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)

2019Edit

RussellMNelsonEdit

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 MaerskEdit

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)
  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 SantaEdit

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-cyclesEdit

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 footballEdit

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 CutroneEdit

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!  
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.   --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 LambEdit

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 schizophreniaEdit

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)