User talk:Jrogers (WMF)
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki — it is really easy.
More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.
Apropos Anne Frank wikisource removalEdit
You wrote (Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements): "Based on email discussions sent to the Wikimedia Foundation at legal[at]wikimedia.org, we determined that the Wikimedia Foundation had either 'actual knowledge' (i in the statute quoted below) or what is commonly called 'red flag knowledge' (ii in the statute quoted below) that the Anne Frank text was hosted on Wikisource and was under copyright."
You did not specify whether the email discussions were sent by the copyright holder or a third party, though the reference to UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC and your parenthetical suggest the notifier may have been a third party. My concerns/thoughts are two: 1) It would be nice to have such third party DMCA removals referenced at Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices and/or wmf:Category:DMCA or at least linked to from those locations in some fashion; 2) If the email discussions were forwarded by the copyright holder or at their direction, such action would appear to be an end run around the takedown notice process and arguably a violation of the uploader's right to file a counter notice (not that there appear to be any grounds for doing so in this instance but the potential for abuse is troubling). Feel free to respond wherever you feel is the most appropriate venue or, of course, to ignore this if you do not consider these real/important/pressing concerns. Regards. 184.108.40.206 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm happy to respond, though I don't agree with the request. To start out, if I had any reason to think that the information we received was done at the behest of the copyright owner as some kind of DMCA workaround, we would not take the content down. I'm confident that was not the case here. The person or people involved were not making legal demands that WMF remove content and I want to respect the ability of anyone to contact us privately and ask questions. This was a very rare case where the communications were particularly detailed and the copyright status of the work was well-known and not open to dispute. It's the combination of those two factors coming together that created the knowledge under the DMCA that forced us to take action even though we think it shouldn't work this way. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you and you have allayed any concerns I had with respect to this request. I did not mean to imply that the request was in fact improper, merely that I could not tell from the blog post if it was via a third party. Keeping open private channels of communication seems like a very valuable goal. It would still be nice to have such completed requests linked to the office actions board in some manner for archival purposes, just so all material taken down for DMCA compliance purposes could be recorded in one place. It is possible that this is done somewhere else with which I am not familiar. Thanks again. 220.127.116.11 00:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
i would suggest you email User:Rubén Ojeda (WMES), who is a GLAM volunteer on the ground in Spain. you can see his reports in the GLAM newsletter. . cheers. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, Can you give me some help? the deletion request is being erroneously raised against me again, although previous requests was closed as keep where I told the image has no problem legally. --Puramyun31 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Puramyun31: I'm sorry to say I can't really help with this one. It's up to the users to make the decision about what to host or not. If you're feeling like this has been nominated for deletion too often, you might want to message a Commons admin, though, to ask if there's anything you can do to make sure the issue doesn't keep repeating forever. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Reiss Engelhorn MuseumEdit
Dear Jrogers (WMF), I liked your remarks about the Reiss Engelhorn case. And I think I agree, and hope WMF will keep on resisting these German court decisions. To keep you informed: I hope you have also seen the reactions of some German Wikimedians at Forum. (They don't agree.) I think WMF or WMF-de needs to make the level of responsibility clear. Vysotsky (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)