Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2020

2020

Harrie Smolders Vestrum

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):

• File:Harrie_Smolders_Vestrum.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like File:Harrie Smolders Vestrum Team.jpg is also a copyright violation, based on the metadata. The uploader's other contributions are likely suspect as well. clpo13_(talk) 22:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Metadata indicated "Thomas Reiner" as copyright holder. The file has been speedy deleted --Ruthven (msg) 23:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Another user has uploaded File:Piergiorgio Bucci su Casallo Z.jpeg which is a similar photo, with the descritpion text "Thomas Reiner was informed that the photo was published on the Wikipedia entry Piergiorgio Bucci.". Needs OTRS permission, or be deleted as well. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Andre Thieme and Conthendrix - Leipzig Partner Pferd 2014.jpg looks pretty suspect as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Weeknd

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):

• File:The_Weeknd_August_2017.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, as usual, the file talk page has not yet been deleted. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Er...JSutherland (WMF) This was a Flickr reviewed file license reviewed by Thibaut120094. Are we saying that the Flickr profile was incorrect or lying about the license? We have over 1,000 photos from that Flickr stream so this is a rather important question. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We received a valid DMCA requiring us to take it down, and that's about the extent of what I know about the file's history. Though it looks like the source link on the image page leads to a 404, so if I had to guess I'd imagine the Flickr profile was indeed incorrect. Happy to loop Jacob in for his thoughts though? Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I did notice the 404 as well but that is generally why we perform license reviews in the first place. To guard against dead links or attempts to change the license after the fact. We see the latter happen more often than I'd like and as CC licenses are irrevocable the license review stands as a testament to its original state. Saying that the profile was incorrect makes the entirety of the Flickr account suspect and therefore the other 1,000+ images. This is not something that should really be taken lightly in my opinion. This one DMCA request could potentially result in a lot of images being brought up under suspicion. --Majora (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The File:The Weeknd (36335324381).jpg is also redirecting to a 404 page, so just waiting for a new DMCA for this file. - Premeditated (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Of the 1000+ photos from that Flickr stream we have 236 with Anton Mak as the photographer. Either or this request has the potential to create a lot of headaches. --Majora (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume the whole Flickr account or even that particular photographer is always a problem. There could be several things happening here. Perhaps the Flickr account did upload a photo that they didn't own the rights to, and it got noticed after Web Sheriff got hired to manage digital rights in this particular photograph. Or the owner of the Flickr account legitimately thought they had the rights to the image, but it turned out they didn't for one of several possible reasons (e.g., many concert venues now require copyright assignments in the fine print of their tickets and people don't know about it). Or it could be that Web Sheriff committed perjury. The problem with the last one is that we'd need some evidence to dispute the notice, but the Flickr page was down (which often means they succeeded in a DMCA against the original already) and we didn't find anything else indicating different ownership from what they were asserting. That said, if we get any more DMCAs that trace back to the same Flickr account, that probably would indicate that the account owner was mislabeling images. Hope that helps. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a bunch of other photos from that same photographer from that same event still on that Flickr account. Does seem a bit worrying (some have since changed to CC-BY-ND, not all of which we did a review for). On the other hand, per below, it's very possible it was not the photographer issuing the DMCA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• "As a gesture of goodwill and subject, simply, to due and timely compliance with this copyright notification, the Rights Owners are happy to offer the following, more up-to-date, official photographs of THE WEEKND™ and for on-line reproduction under a limited, non-commercial and revocable, so-called ‘creative commons’ license" (bold mine)

Scam or stupid noobs IMHO - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The ignorance (or trademark violation) of using "creative commons" in conjunction with revocable licenses aside, that does make it seem as though Web Sheriff's client is the performer, not the photographer. That does make one wonder if they really do own any copyright, and are just targeting any photos of the performer, though there could be a tangle of contracts involved in that performance we don't know about as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF) and JSutherland (WMF): I think I figured it out! And if I'm right (and I usually am!), we are dealing with a bunch of what we call in professional terms fucking idiots. Prepare for another fun rant!

1. Who is claimed to be the rights holder? Answer: "1. Rights Owners : WEEKND XO, LLC"
2. Who the fuck is WEEKND XO, LLC? Well, [1] doesn't tell me much besides that this entity exists at 16000 Ventura Blvd Suite #600, Encino, CA 91436-2753 and that it is a business registered with the City of Los Angeles, Office of Finance and started on July 11, 2016.
3. Considering "4. Infringed Individuals / Entities : WEEKND XO, LLC & ABEL TESFAYE (P.K.A. "THE WEEKND™" AND THE SUBJECT OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN QUESTION)" I will assume that w:The Weeknd simply created his own company for whatever reason. (tax evasion, sell merchandise, hire goons for extortion scams, impress chicks with business cards, the usual, who knows why)
4. This pretty much rules out the concert venue theory.
5. Considering that Mr. Tesfaye is the subject, is it likely he owns the copyright to the photo? Did a photographer that he hired (as in work for hire) come to his show to take the picture? Well, File:The Weeknd August 2017.jpg was taken with a Canon EOS 6D with serial number 072153000374 at 20:54, 6 August 2017. File:The Weeknd (36335324381).jpg was taken with a Canon EOS 6D with serial number 072153000374 at 20:49, 6 August 2017.
6. You see where this is going right? File:Lorde Osheaga 2017 (01).jpg was taken with once again the same camera, 2 days earlier and File:Drake at the Velvet Underground - 2017 (36398066420) (cropped).jpg the same camera a few weeks later. The author IS Anton Mak, no doubt.
7. Does Anton Mak work for The Come Up Show? Yes: Photography by Anton Mak for The Come Up Show.
8. So what THE FUCK is going on here? Websheriff has used the power of ambiguity my dear pupils, ambiguity!
9. "5. Infringing / Violating Materials : PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OWNERS' COPYRIGHT & MORAL RIGHTS / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OWNERS' RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT INFRINGE BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION / PUBLISHED IMAGES THAT VIOLATE CONSUMER PROTECTION RIGHTS – ALL IN BREACH OF ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY AND ALL IN BREACH OF INFRINGING WEB-SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (as applicable – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW)"
10. *VOMIT* WHAT THE CRAP WAS THAT?
11. A long list of mostly irrelevant bullshit, that's what that was. Moral rights? Personal goodwill and reputation? Business goodwill & reputation? Violation of consumer protection rights? What a pile of crap! The only thing there that could apply for DMCA is copyright. The relevant part comes at the very end: "(as applicable – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW)" (THEIR CAPS LOCK KEY IS BROKEN BTW)
12. The URL list mentions NONE of these. ZERO. BUPKIS. Let's guess!!
13. Personality rights! Mr. Tesfaye is depicted, and what makes this photo special is that it was in use on several Wikipedias. That's why this photo was targeted. As soon as it has been replaced, you will receive another takedown notice from these idiots. Regardless of who the author is!
14. Wait Alexis, you bloody bastard. The source at Flickr was taken down! Surely you are wrong Alexis, and Websheriff is a totally fair and competent company that's just protecting the rights of some poor artist! Well, we can only speculate, but did you actually read the takedown request? It's pretty intimidating with all © and ® and ™ (hallmarks of a diseased mind), it must surely be legit and I'll eat my hat if The Come Up Show (or Flickr) didn't receive the exact same alpha dog takedown crap. What do you think they'd do? Take down a couple of photos they don't care that much about or risk legal fees?
15. Please hit reply and ask those fuckers benevolent business people exactly which rights they believe were violated. If they claim copyright was violated, get them to confirm Anton Mak was hired by WEEKND XO, LLC or sold his photos of Mr. Tesfaye to WEEKND XO, LLC.
16. If they actually claim that, contact Anton Mak to confirm. I don't believe it.
17. If I'm right, sue the shit out of them.

Aaaaah! I'm calmed down again. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Bonus round!

"Disclaimer: This e-mail is the copyright of Web Sheriff®. The contents of this e-mail are strictly private and confidential, are for the attention of the addressees only and may also qualify for legal privilege. This communication may not be disclosed or otherwise communicated to anyone other than the addressees, nor may it be copied or reproduced in any way without the written authorization of Web Sheriff®."

Morons. foundation:Legal:DMCA The Weeknd is basically Legal saying "sue me, dickhead". Don't forget to check the PDF. The word "CONFIDENTIAL" is plastered all over the background. Amateurs.

"GOODWILL SUBSTITUTION ADVISORY blah blah blah (and to be accompanied by a copyright credit to the Rights Owners specified herein) https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4nqkih3kho3ji3/_N9A3803.jpg?dl=0"

Herein? Herein where? The mail? Or the Dropbox link? Actually it doesn't seem to matter, it may well be copyvio. The Dropbox link says "From Melissa Mahood (SAL&CO), Extension: jpg, Size: 460.29 KB". Melissa Mahood? Who the hell is that? "Melissa Mahood, Artist Management at SAL&CO / XO Records", well mystery solved. She owns the copyright? Like, personally? Not the company, but her? Either someone is telling porkies (and we already caught them once with their pants down on that "revocable Creative Commons" license) or their administration is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe both! Sure as shit she's not the photographer, because that's Nabil Elderkin. According to MSN this image from Nabil Elderkin is © The Weeknd. Considering they use these photos on their official YouTube channel that better be true. But then.. Melissa. Oh, dear Melissa. I think someone is abusing you. The claimant here is WEEKND XO, LLC, not SAL&CO / XO Records. I doubt they even know themselves who hired Nabil. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing they want us to use the noncommercial images from Nabil in the Dropbox links for brand unification reasons or whatever. We're not going to do that, so I've changed the image on all wikis to File:FEQ July 2018 The Weeknd (44778856382) (cropped).jpg, from a different photographer. I predict another ridiculous mail from the Websheriff about.. after the weekend. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joe Sutherland and everyone.

This is obviously a bogus request to try to replace the image present on multiple wikis by promotional images for his new album.

The file was license reviewed by myself in August 2017 and double-checked by Materialscientist in April 2019 (the deletion request coincide with the coming release of the new album, probably opened by WebSheriff or someone from The Weeknd staff).

For the Flickr account, it still exists but the picture in question disappeared, Flickr probably responded to the same DMCA request or the author received pressures.

Anyway, CC licenses are not revocable and per Alexis above, this bogus DMCA should be counter-claimed or it could create a dangerous precedent.

xoxo. --Thibaut (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no real doubt it was under the named license on the Flickr site at the time. By all appearances, it seemed OK. However you never fully know what contracts exist behind the scenes. It's usually up to the copyright owners to counter-claim, and the fact they did not bother to contest the Flickr take-down would make it much harder for us to counter-claim, I'm guessing. I would have very much liked a clarification request to Web Sheriff to explain exactly how their client does own copyright, but that's up to the WMF. That happened on the Estelle Maersk image above, where it was also licensed fine on a Flickr account but it turned out that the account owner did not have the rights to license it that way in the first place, which was nicely explained in the reply from the other lawyer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah web sheriff are known for using bogus DMCA stuff for media management. see this.Geni (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A history of false DMCAs is not exactly promising. I fully understand that you have to comply with validly formatted DMCA requests, JSutherland (WMF) and I am not faulting you for having done so in this situation. Quite the opposite actually as doing so protects all of us from large problems. However, if you or perhaps Jrogers (WMF) has some time next week perhaps you could try to contact Web Sheriff to inquire how they concluded that they have the right to file this DMCA. If they can't provide a valid answer perhaps further action should be explored. I do understand that you are busy and I don't expect anything to happen immediately but it would be greatly appreciated if you could look into this more if that is possible. --Majora (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. This just seems like...a few too many things that don't exactly add up here. GMG^talk 19:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I think the notice is invalid. Grilling the Sheriff (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. On both first and second read, it looks a bit like legal word salad to obfuscate that the best they may have is personality rights. I don't much like that. I don't much at all like the idea of someone strong arming the WMF and in turn our volunteers as a PR management technique. My broader concern is that if this is the case, being able to bully Wikipedia and it's sister projects may be very lucrative, which provides a strong incentive for this to continue. GMG^talk 22:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Info The Google take down notice is at https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/20130121. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Fæ, here's the complete list for those who don't want to give their email address.

Most of the websites have either removed the picture or replaced the picture by the promotional images given in the DMCA request (sometimes it's even anachronic!), which reinforce my view that this is purely for brand/marketing purposes and not a real copyright problem. --Thibaut (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Those dumb shits tried to remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weeknd from Google! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF) and Jrogers (WMF): <withdrawn> Grilling the Sheriff (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There's not a ton they can do unless a community member is willing to take legal responsibility for it and file a counter notification. The vauge threats from a recently-created account are not helpful nor appropriate. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So Weeknd XO LLC claims that copyright was assigned to them by the photographer. It might be true, although in 99 % of cases it's just the photographed person making things up. There are two things one can do: 1) educate the artist about how to improve images on Wikimedia projects; 2) unofficially ask the photographer whether they had such a contract with the artist. Nemo 07:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Logs for The_Weeknd_August_2017.jpg

Examining the office action of deletion, there are three deletions entries for this deletion. My presumption is that there was an original upload on 2017-08-10, then on 2017-10-07 someone overwrote the file twice, perhaps making crops or similar adjustments. Could someone explain these changes, and confirm that they were similar enough for the take-down to apply to all 3 versions, for the benefit of transparency? @Materialscientist: as likely interested party. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

1st upload was cropped; 2nd uncropped (possibly to let the FR-bot run correctly); 3rd cropped again. All were the same photography. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that all 3 have the same Original Document ID which is convincing that they all have the same original source, even though all three have different SHA1 values. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Related files

Here are some related files that may help illuminate any underpinning issues. This is a transcluded report and may change.

File list with same camera, 196 files

File Actor Timestamp 1K_Phew_(38877201221).jpg 287 20190326175817 1K_Phew_(38877204951).jpg 287 20190326175838 1K_Phew_(38877208961).jpg 287 20190326175846 1K_Phew_(38877212311).jpg 287 20190326175900 1K_Phew_(38877249751).jpg 287 20190326175921 6lack_(36412305696).jpg 131 20181009043054 6lack_(36458733975).jpg 131 20181009043110 6lack_August_2017.jpg 8025 20180826121428 Aha_Gazelle_(37990742515).jpg 287 20190326175932 Aha_Gazelle_(37990747825).jpg 287 20190326175946 Aha_Gazelle_(37990756935).jpg 287 20190326180006 Aha_Gazelle_(38161953454).jpg 287 20190326180104 Aha_Gazelle_(38161956314).jpg 287 20190326180115 Aha_Gazelle_(38846947782).jpg 287 20190326180131 Aha_Gazelle_(38846953172).jpg 287 20190326180147 Aha_Gazelle_(38846956622).jpg 287 20190326180202 Aha_Gazelle_(38846961712).jpg 287 20190326180218 Aha_Gazelle_(38877111971).jpg 287 20190326180019 Aha_Gazelle_(38877118611).jpg 287 20190326180036 Aha_Gazelle_(38877124841).jpg 287 20190326180053 Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35985208163).jpg 2059 20171218185527 Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35985212683).jpg 2059 20171218185538 Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397301110).jpg 2059 20171218185459 Alcordo_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397309510).jpg 2059 20171218185534 Azealia_Banks_(38053207461).jpg 287 20190326180720 Azealia_Banks_(38053215281).jpg 287 20190326180740 Azealia_Banks_(38053221981).jpg 287 20190326180801 Azealia_Banks_(38053249091).jpg 287 20190326180652 Azealia_Banks_(38053256021).jpg 287 20190326180712 Badbadnotgood_(36458187965).jpg 131 20181009043051 Daniel_Caesar_2017.jpg 809262 20190128083321 Danny_Brown_(36425446276).jpg 131 20181009043149 Danny_Brown_(36469752015).jpg 809262 20190128094451 Danny_Brown_(36470850215).jpg 131 20181009043136 Denzel_Curry_(36333802701).jpg 809262 20190128081942 Denzel_Curry_(36333938531).jpg 809262 20190128081955 Denzel_Curry_(36334092241).jpg 809262 20190128082218 Denzel_Curry_(36470475655).jpg 809262 20190128082206 Denzel_Curry_(36470843325).jpg 131 20181009043257 Denzel_Curry_(36471489825).jpg 809262 20190128081335 Drake_@_Velvet_Underground_2017.jpg 89712 20170912100407 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35986086223).jpg 2059 20171218185613 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35986086223)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20180408042436 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35986086223)_(cropped_2).jpg 22669 20180408042755 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420).jpg 2059 20171218185603 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20180408042440 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped_2).jpg 22669 20180408042530 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped_3).jpg 22669 20180408042647 Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(36398066420)_(cropped_5).jpg 105731 20180505192846 Gabriel_Garzón-Montano_Live_at_Revival_-_Toronto.jpg 3405 20171208150028 H.E.R._(37691657264).jpg 131 20190105125101 H.E.R._(37691663034).jpg 131 20190105125102 H.E.R._(38350863186).jpg 131 20190105125121 H.E.R._(38350866726).jpg 131 20190105125115 H.E.R._(38406024151).jpg 131 20190105125102 H.E.R._(38406029481).jpg 131 20190105125059 H.E.R._2017.jpg 8025 20171115115609 Jorja_Smith_and_Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35960868694).jpg 2059 20171218185548 Jorja_Smith_and_Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35960868694)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20180408043027 Jorja_Smith_and_Drake_at_the_Velvet_Underground_-_2017_(35960874344).jpg 2059 20171218185543 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35960435114).jpg 2059 20171218185602 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(35985917313).jpg 809262 20190128082928 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397356070).jpg 809262 20190128083803 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397356070)_(cropped).jpg 7164380 20181009013954 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397363740).jpg 809262 20190128083743 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397789690).jpg 2059 20171218185533 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36397896650).jpg 809262 20190128083545 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36398027280).jpg 809262 20190128083754 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36655425331).jpg 809262 20190128083946 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36655425331)_(cropped).jpg 7164380 20181009014831 Jorja_Smith_at_the_Velvet_Underground_in_Toronto_-_2017_(36794826925).jpg 809262 20190128085857 Joyner_Lucas.jpg 34 20180831124416 Joyner_Lucas_(36791475733).jpg 287 20190326181621 Joyner_Lucas_(36791478663).jpg 287 20190326181634 Joyner_Lucas_(37202720060).jpg 287 20190326182030 Joyner_Lucas_(37203629000).jpg 287 20190326181822 Joyner_Lucas_(37203803310).jpg 287 20190326181727 Joyner_Lucas_(37413530976).jpg 287 20190326181857 Joyner_Lucas_(37413535826).jpg 287 20190326181910 Joyner_Lucas_(37413540886).jpg 287 20190326181923 Joyner_Lucas_(37413546406).jpg 287 20190326181936 Joyner_Lucas_(37413553496).jpg 287 20190326181947 Joyner_Lucas_(37413581586).jpg 287 20190326181814 Joyner_Lucas_(37429154822).jpg 287 20190326182008 Joyner_Lucas_(37429161972).jpg 287 20190326182028 Joyner_Lucas_(37429176642).jpg 287 20190326182043 Joyner_Lucas_(37429180262).jpg 287 20190326182057 Joyner_Lucas_(37429770382).jpg 287 20190326181957 Joyner_Lucas_(37430070152).jpg 287 20190326181834 Joyner_Lucas_(37430074332).jpg 287 20190326181845 Joyner_Lucas_(37430112602).jpg 287 20190326181739 Joyner_Lucas_(37430115132).jpg 287 20190326181753 Joyner_Lucas_(37448144606).jpg 287 20190326181436 Joyner_Lucas_(37448145626).jpg 287 20190326181450 Joyner_Lucas_(37448146426).jpg 287 20190326181502 Joyner_Lucas_(37448147306).jpg 287 20190326181515 Joyner_Lucas_(37448148166).jpg 287 20190326181530 Joyner_Lucas_(37448148916).jpg 287 20190326181544 Joyner_Lucas_(37448149766).jpg 287 20190326181558 Joyner_Lucas_(37448150536).jpg 287 20190326181610 Joyner_Lucas_(37461181301).jpg 287 20190326181647 Joyner_Lucas_(37461184591).jpg 287 20190326181703 Joyner_Lucas_(37461186801).jpg 287 20190326181715 Joyner_Lucas_(37496045541).jpg 287 20190326181420 Killer_Mike_-_Osheaga_2017.jpg 10171 20190131140718 Killer_Mike_-_Osheaga_2017_(cropped).jpg 4301 20190404053612 Lecrae_(37969935145).jpg 287 20190326180228 Lecrae_(37969940695).jpg 287 20190326180242 Lecrae_(38826313602).jpg 41003 20190802012715 Lecrae_(38826316802).jpg 287 20190326180305 Lecrae_(38826318202).jpg 287 20190326180316 Lecrae_(38826319432).jpg 287 20190326180332 Lecrae_(38826341902).jpg 287 20190326180354 Lecrae_(38826346382).jpg 287 20190326180406 Lecrae_(38826353802).jpg 287 20190326180426 Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(01).jpg 92081 20171219222019 Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(01)_(cropped).jpg 1764310 20180129130050 Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(02).jpg 92081 20171219222906 Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(03).jpg 92081 20171219223225 Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(04).jpg 92081 20171219223559 Lorde_Osheaga_2017_(05).jpg 92081 20171219223815 Majid_Jordan_(36334181771).jpg 131 20181009043230 Majid_Jordan_(36336445021).jpg 131 20181009043219 Majid_Jordan_(36424911586).jpg 131 20181009043235 Majid_Jordan_(36470976275).jpg 131 20181009043249 Mick_Jenkins_(36425488926).jpg 131 20181009043315 Mick_Jenkins_(36426504546).jpg 131 20181009043316 Mick_Jenkins_August_2017.jpg 8025 20170810074117 Osheaga_2017_Attendees_(36336099951).jpg 131 20181009043403 Osheaga_2017_Attendees_(36336826411).jpg 131 20181009043356 Osheaga_2017_Attendees_(36472277105).jpg 131 20181009043348 Playboy_Carti_(36593283492).jpg 287 20190326170758 Playboy_Carti_(36593284092).jpg 287 20190326170809 Playboy_Carti_(36593284702).jpg 287 20190326170825 Playboy_Carti_(36593291262).jpg 287 20190326170915 Playboy_Carti_(36623941721).jpg 287 20190326170931 Playboy_Carti_(36623947081).jpg 287 20190326170950 Playboy_Carti_(36623956731).jpg 287 20190326171007 Playboy_Carti_(36623960391).jpg 287 20190326171024 Playboy_Carti_(36763308755).jpg 287 20190326170851 Playboy_Carti_(36763310175).jpg 287 20190326170857 Playboy_Carti_(36763336065).jpg 287 20190326171036 Run_the_Jewels_(35637115724).jpg 5971 20170810034714 Run_the_Jewels_(35662895033).jpg 5971 20170810034703 Run_the_Jewels_(35662895033)_(cropped).jpg 26765 20190914013633 Run_the_Jewels_(35663588543).jpg 5971 20170810034704 Run_the_Jewels_(36076077520).jpg 5971 20170810034721 Run_the_Jewels_(36303319652).jpg 5971 20170810034701 Run_the_Jewels_(36427801256).jpg 5971 20170810034703 Russ_(36467931135).jpg 131 20181009043101 Russ_(36467931135)_(cropped).jpg 404 20190124182041 Sampha_(36468412335).jpg 131 20181009043055 Thaiboy_Digital_(39392305464).jpg 287 20190326174252 Thaiboy_Digital_(39392351984).jpg 287 20190326174225 Thaiboy_Digital_(39392358054).jpg 287 20190326174240 Thaiboy_Digital_(40071528452).jpg 287 20190326174330 Thaiboy_Digital_(40104472141).jpg 287 20190326174135 Thaiboy_Digital_(40104494921).jpg 287 20190326174149 Thaiboy_Digital_(40104506361).jpg 287 20190326174311 Thaiboy_Digital_(40104510911).jpg 287 20190326174158 Thaiboy_Digital_(40104527671).jpg 287 20190326174215 Thaiboy_Digital_(40104540331).jpg 287 20190326174341 The_Weeknd_(36335324381).jpg 131 20181009043344 The_Weeknd_(36428013676).jpg 8086 20171205193909 The_Weeknd_(36428013676)_(cropped).jpg 386 20200314033928 The_Weeknd_(36471697425).jpg 131 20181009043349 Tory_Lanez_(36333766651).jpg 131 20181009043213 Tory_Lanez_(36334139801).jpg 131 20181009043221 Tory_Lanez_(36426606656).jpg 131 20181009043224 Tory_Lanez_(36427478776).jpg 131 20181009043139 Tory_Lanez_(36473188825).jpg 131 20181009043155 Tory_Lanez_August_2017.jpg 8025 20170810073231 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(01).jpg 92081 20171219225347 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(01)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20171225061359 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(02).jpg 92081 20171219225558 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(03).jpg 92081 20171219225835 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(03)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20171225061327 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(04).jpg 92081 20171219230042 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(04)_(cropped).jpg 22669 20171225061349 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(05).jpg 92081 20171219230249 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(05)_(cropped).jpg 2133336 20200110064539 Tove_Lo_Osheaga_2017_(06).jpg 92081 20171219230505 Vance_Joy_(36425473466).jpg 131 20181009043322 Vance_Joy_(36426983686).jpg 131 20181009043322 Yung_Lean_(36424014676).jpg 131 20181009043126 Yung_Lean_(36469272325).jpg 131 20181009043132 Yung_Lean_(36469479305).jpg 131 20181009043124 Yung_Lean_(39211585215).jpg 287 20190326174105 Yung_Lean_(39211628375).jpg 287 20190326173923 Yung_Lean_(39398721414).jpg 287 20190326173906 Yung_Lean_(39398733924).jpg 287 20190326173945 Yung_Lean_(39398737114).jpg 287 20190326173957 Yung_Lean_(39398744544).jpg 287 20190326174010 Yung_Lean_(40078165212).jpg 287 20190326174027 Yung_Lean_(40078169912).jpg 287 20190326174043 Yung_Lean_(40110757521).jpg 287 20190326174115 196 rows in set (2 hours 43 min 8.11 sec)

Updated with 196 files, which appears to be all files on Commons with camera data that matches the DMCA deletion, though this is not all files from the same photographer. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: what's the advantage of this list over incategory:"Photographs by Anton Mak" incategory:"Taken with Canon EOS 6D" ? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

They may be equivalent now, but any deletions will remain in a report. --Fæ (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Update from the Foundation

Hi everyone - we reached out to WebSheriff for some more information about the authorship of this image in particular given the confusion here. They informed us that the photograph was indeed taken by Anton Mak, as the metadata on Commons already showed; however, Mak retained his rights to the image, so when the publication uploaded his photograph to Flickr and licensed it under a CC license this was not authorised by himself as the photographer (note that this may be true of other images on the Flickr account, but we don’t know outside of this specific one). At some point between that upload and this takedown request, Mak signed an agreement with The Weeknd's company ("Weeknd XO, LLC"), who wound up acquiring the photograph and the copyright to use it. Therefore, as best we can tell, the copyright does indeed belong to The Weeknd rather than the photographer here.

Hopefully this clears things up. As always with DMCA takedowns, anybody is free to file a counter notice should they wish to. We have yet to receive one. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this update, Joe Sutherland (WMF). Given this, I do not think that we can continue to consider the Flickr stream thecomeupshow as trustworthy. Hence, I have added this Flickr id to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have filed an associated deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This case is currently discussed in the Signpost newsroom. Proposed headline: Celebrity pays consultant to withdraw CC license. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is the tale told by WebSheriff to be taken without any kind of confirmation? Will Anton Mak confirm this story? Can the acquisition by Weeknd retroactively trump the free licensing made by the thecomeupshow? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thought I'd post a quick response here (should I also note this in the Signpost discussion?). Generally yes, we do take the info in DMCA requests as given by the requester. That's why there's the penalty of perjury requirement: if Web Sheriff lied about the info JSutherland shared, they'd have perjured themselves. We do still sanity check requests though. For example, I run a reverse image search and will ask requesters what's going on if an image they claim to own appears to belong to someone else. But unless we find evidence to the contrary (which hasn't happened here as of this posting), we have to accept that the info someone sends us as part of a DMCA is factually accurate. As to the retroactive part, if we assume the info from Web Sheriff is accurate, the image was never CC licensed to begin with because the party that purported to license it didn't have the right to do it. That probably does mean that viewing this Flickr account as suspect is a good move, sadly. That also means that there's no challenge in this case to the CC licenses themselves. CC licenses continue to work just fine, but they always require that whoever offers the license owns the rights to actually do it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: Please note that Sikander reported in the associated deletion request about his attempt to get in contact with the photographer (ticket:2020033110008444). So far, we do not have received a statement by the photographer regarding the claim by Web Sheriff. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I note that the takedown notice cited in the OP says "the copyright in the relevant images... has been assigned to the Rights Owners", but does not specify when that assignment took place. It may or may not, therefore, have occured after the image was licensed by the former right holder - we simply do not know. But we should endeavour to find out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Received a reply from photographer with legal@wikimedia.org in the recipient list, but not permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I've forwarded the email to the OTRS team. Ticket:2020033110008444. // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth asking The Come Up Show if Anton Mak was commissioned to take those photos or not.
Acagastya (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Vera Tammen

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):

• File:Vera_Tammen.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Please note that this DMCA takedown notice also includes File:By Vera Tammen.jpg (see third URL in wmf:File:DMCA Vera Tammen.pdf on the first page) which was today speedily deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Haahava by De728631. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good catch AFBorchert, thank you. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): Legal question about this DMCA notice that probably shouldn't be stated on wiki per BEANS - how should I ask it? Email? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: By all means email cawikimedia.org. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sent --DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Peter and Paul

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):

• File:Петр_и_павел.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I deleted one of the user's uploads as copyvio and DRed the other two files; all uploaded in 2014. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

File:National Army Museum, London.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):

• File:National_Army_Museum,_London.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you! NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello NahidSultan (WMF)! Thank you for notifying us about this. Why has the name been redacted in the DMCA? That information isn't usually redacted unless it is simply an employee acting on behalf of a company. Also, it is only redacted on the foundation-page and not in the PDF. (ping JSutherland (WMF)) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Josve05a: I think that was just an oversight, I can unredact the name of the photographer. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not have much time right now but this photo is part of a set of photos uploaded by Britishfinance on 7 October 2019 which are all related to Category:Event Communications, a category which was created on the same day. Some of these photos are sourced from elsewhere, others are declared as {{Own}} as File:National Army Museum, London.jpg has been. Take for example File:EPIC The Irish Emigration Museum I.jpg which was published before according to tineye. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been nominating some of the uploader's images which are findable on the web (more recently, that uploader seems to have been better about finding licensed Flickr images instead). Don't think I've made it to the above ones yet, but agreed that the lower-resolution "own work" images from that upload era are likely taken from the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Clindberg, all 347 of this users own works are suspicious, and may all have to be deleted. I will complete a write up and nominate them all later this week, unless you'd prefer to. There is no need to nominate anymore individually.--BevinKacon (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. I spot checked some of the others and did not find any obvious internet hits, so left them alone. There are lower-resolution ones among those for sure. I think I'm done though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for checking other uploads as well. @Josve05a: It was indeed an honest mistake. Thanks Joe for taking care of this. -NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)