Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices

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

Shortcut: COM:DMCA

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

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

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

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022–23

2024

[edit]

Fireworks at Land's End

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated all images uploaded by this user: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ashyoung114. They have similar EXIF data that this one. Yann (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Winter Olympics Canada clebrating hockey gold medal

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File log shown on page 10 of the takedown notice indicates that the upload originated on English Wikipedia. This should serve as a reminder for local file reviewers on enwiki as well as file movers that not all locally-stored files on enwiki are either eligible for Commons or not infringements or violations to others' copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography of Banbhatta

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book is transcribed on hiwikisource (see https://commons-delinquent.toolforge.org/index.php?image=%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9F_%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE.pdf)
@JSutherland (WMF): Could you ask legal if that would also be covered under the DMCA, or if we need to find local editors to delete the pages? I'm not fluent in Hindi unfortunately. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will confirm. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated books written by the same author Hazari Prasad Dwivedi: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_"हजारी_प्रसाद_द्विवेदी". SCP-2000 02:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Deleted. Not public domain in India nor in USA. Proper links to Hindi Wikisource: s:hi:विषयसूची:हिंदी साहित्य का आदिकाल.pdf and s:hi:विषयसूची:हिंदी साहित्य की भूमिका.pdf. Yann (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President Joe Biden swearing in ceremony

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment according to page 5 of the takedown order, the file is claimed to be a PD-USGov content (from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights). The claimed copyright holder, Alyssa Schukar, does not appear to have served the U.S. Commission (as it is not listed among her clients in her curriculum vitae). Unless the X account of the U.S. Commission just reposted the image for their post that was the alleged source of the alleged infringing PD-USGov file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Commission's post on X for anyone to comment or analyze. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo was actually taken by Alyssa Schukar for the The Wall Street Journal (See the eighth photos in the news report). Furthermore, the second photo in the post on X was taken by Saul Loeb for AFP [1] and I will nominate this photo for deletion. No idea why US Commission did not mention the photographer. Thanks. SCP-2000 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link of the deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kamala_Harris_oath_of_office.jpg SCP-2000 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarchi4

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a deletion request for other files uploaded by this user: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by E120gh. Omphalographer (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Osborne ready for 2016 Budget

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just my own note here that this looks like a very similar situation to the Joe Biden one above, whereby a government social media team posted a copyrighted image thus confusing its copyright status. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a relevant deletion request Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_insource:_twitter.com/hmtreasury. SCP-2000 02:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenhub videos

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these files were annotated "Licenced as CC-BY as of download date 3/1/15". We have a ton of other Kenhub videos that have that same annotation. A searched for a few of them on Youtube, and did not see a CC license listed. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this looks like being quite complicated, I've started a discussion here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Kenhub videos. --bjh21 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrruh-haa Island and Oligandufinolhu Island

[edit]

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment For the record, a first version was uploaded and license reviewed in 2013 from Panoramio. A better version was uploaded in 2018 from Flickr by Arthur to, and also license reviewed. Yann (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who reviewed the license for the Flickr upload? That should not have passed license review; the account is blatantly obvious Flickrwashing. Omphalographer (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:FlickreviewR 2 on 05:25, 30 December 2018. Yann (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ha. Okay, I think I can excuse the bot for not noticing. :) Omphalographer (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially the claim here seems to be that Sakis Papadopoulos took the photo and owns the copyright, and the person who put it on Panoramio was plagiarizing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. If you check the metadata for the 2013 revision, it says Comment: 01/07/2008, Maldive Islands --- Aerial view of desert island with seaplane, South Male atoll, Maldives, Indian Ocean, Asia --- Image by © Sakis Papadopoulos/Robert Harding World Imagery/Corbis. Slam and dunk right there.
Special:Search/insource:"http://www.panoramio.com/user/3265834" There are 2,492 images on Commons from that Panoramio user, out of the 14,444 they uploaded to Panoramio. Some of them are more plausibly own works, others not so much. Not sure what we should do with that. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Either that user owned a lot of cameras, including a bunch of cheap and nearly identical point-and-shoot models (Sony DSC-W310 and DSC-P10, Kodak DC4800, Olympus X300, Coolpix L11, PowerShot A530...), or they had a habit of uploading other people's photos. Unfortunately, I think I know which one is more likely. Omphalographer (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it's safe to assume that all the photos were probably stolen unless proven otherwise. I don't know how one would go about deleting 2,500 images in one go though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"what we should do" - start by deleting the ones that are obviously stolen. 184.146.235.184 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy. All files are already in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 3265834. There are indeed a lot of different cameras. It would useful to have a table with their uses by chronological order. Yann (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some suspicious pictures:
Is this list of some help: User:GeorgDerReisende/Sandbox ? GeorgDerReisende (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeorgDerReisende: Great, very useful. Why do images from NIKON COOLPIX L11 are shown as "unknown", i.e. File:Siciliano - panoramio.jpg? Also could you put the timestamps from EXIF data? The mentioned date is not really useful, as files could be uploaded much later than when taken. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unknown camera tags come from different order of the tags in the files and I lost the information during the crunching of the data. The timestamps come from the „Taken on“ tag. I have seen the difference. GeorgDerReisende (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the geolocation is wrong, or the timestamp was manipulated, or these were taken by different people: claimed to be taken at 10:01, 13 August 2009 while is claimed to be taken at 11:32, 13 August 2009 about 700 km apart with the same device. Yann (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: 08:28, 31 May 2010 in Croatia, 09:58, 31 May 2010 in the middle of China, 15:27, 31 May 2010, back in Croatia. This guy can travels very fast!!! Yann (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to work with the files on the server to ask for the original file numbers in the EXIF data? GeorgDerReisende (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. I don't see what different information could be accessible from the server, which wouldn't be from the web. Yann (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the timestamp is wrong, i.e. this can't be taken at 02:47 am (even counting the jet lag from Italy), and this can't be taken at 06:34, 18 December 2010, in Northern Italy. Yann (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that these photos were taken with a point-and-shoot camera, the time was probably set wrong on the camera. Most cameras from that era didn't set the time automatically; the user needed to configure it manually in the camera settings. Omphalographer (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the date is also wrong. This also doesn't explain the travel incoherence: the plane picture I mentioned above is claimed to be taken in Italy in the middle of a trip to Israel. Yann (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in view of the incoherence, I would delete at least everything which is not in Southern Europe. Yann (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I threw the data from User:GeorgDerReisende/Sandboxinto QGIS. Even the southern Europe photos have a wide variation in cameras, including among photos taken in the same month. A lot of the cameras that only show up once are also southern Europe. The DSC-W310 images mostly show up together, but not always, and there are a couple of months in there where that camera shows up in 3 different continents. There are 3-4 other cameras that have groups of images taken at the same place at the same time with the same camera, but there are almost always more images from that same group with a different camera. I'd have a hard time saying any set of images from this user are non-suspicious. I guess the most plausible good-faith explanation would be that they're an airline pilot who hates their camera rental store, but that's a bit of a stretch I think. Unfortunately I can't find an easy way to export the data from QGIS as geojson with the styling, so I don't have a fancy map to show unfortunately. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I say "at least". I would also delete images where the camera shows up only a few times. None of the suspicious images have copies on the web, and there are generally of poor to medium quality. IMO these images come from two or more friends, and are not copied from the Internet, but that's not really good for us either. Yann (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I would favor deleting everything from this uploader. We would have to speculate as to which camera(s) were actually theirs, and we don't have enough to base that speculation on. Should I start a DR? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I propose, but I won't oppose that either. Please go ahead with the DR. Yann (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What will then happen in this case: File:Salzburg - Universitätsplatz mit Alter Universität.jpg is used here: https://www.sueddeutscher-barock.ch/In-Werke/s-z/Salzburg_Alte_Uni.html , on the right, third file from above? GeorgDerReisende (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion wouldn't affect reusers (unless they're hotlinking), but if the image is a copyright violation they might want to replace it anyways. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DR started at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 3265834. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yann found an unlikely travel pattern, which suggests that the photos were taken by different people. Of course, it could also be that the EXIF dates are wrong.
Camera time of the day could be explained by an incorrect setting. For example, you may have set it to local time in your home country, but now you are in a different country and don't bother updating it, or you never set the time, so it has been wrong all the time (maybe camera manufacturer's time zone). Also, if the photographer didn't bother setting the time, the photographer probably didn't bother setting the date either, so that's probably also wrong. If the date is wrong, you could maybe find photos with wrong climate, such as snow during summer.
The large number of different cameras is suspicious. Usually, you don't have dozens of different cameras. More than half of the photos were taken using a DSC-W310, so were those photos taken by the Panoramio user while everything else is copyvio. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move my list to a better place, out of my sandbox. --GeorgDerReisende (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices&oldid=974109897"