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.

This page lists notifications the Wikimedia Foundation may make of removal of content in response to a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice. (Such notices are claims of copyright infringement.) In order to avoid legal liability ("safe harbor status") under this US law, the Foundation is required to comply with validly formulated notices even if they are spurious. Such removals are Office actions and may not be reversed. Removals can only be challenged by legal action by someone other than the Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation may publish the take-down request at wmf:Category:DMCA.

{{DMCA takedown notice}} should be used to post a takedown notice here, and then to announce it at Commons:Village pump, pointing to the notice here. Deletion summaries of files taken down should, if possible, link to either the takedown file at wmf:Category:DMCA, or at least to this page. For an overview of Wikimedia's policies with respect to DMCA notices, see wmf:DMCA Policy.

Archives 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022–23, 2024

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):

• File:Önümçilik kärhanalaryň daşky gurşawa etýan täsirlei.jpg

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to verify several of this user's other uploads as copyvios. The rest I've nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Orazgeldiyew. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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):

• File: Stoned Fox.jpg

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This takedown is particularly interesting because the alleged copyright infringement does not concern the photograph itself, but rather the subject of the photo—a taxidermized animal that is being claimed as a copyrighted artwork. Given that copyright generally does not extend to natural objects or functional creations, it raises the question of whether a taxidermized animal, even if arranged in a specific manner, meets the threshold for copyright protection. It would be useful to see any precedent where taxidermy has been deemed copyrightable as a work of art rather than a physical object. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem reasonable to consider this to be a work of art akin to sculpture given the very deliberate anthropomorphic unlifelike pose. This article provides more context from the artist [1]. I think this image could be locally re-uploaded as fair use for the relevant articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia@Josve05a taxidermies can be copyrighted; see COM:CRSM#Taxidermy. FoP is of no use in most cases, as majority of the countries that host interesting taxidermies or modern reconstructions of archaeological artifacts do not permit free uses of indoor/museum works, like the Netherlands, Germany, and Czech Republic, while others are in no-FoP countries like Italy and Tanzania (see, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Hominin photos violating FoP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the artist's former website http://www.adelemorsetaxidermy.co.uk did not have a copyright notice on 26 May 2018.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:ru:Упоротый лис (which has more coverage on the artwork than the corresponding enwiki article) as I translated the content using Microsoft Edge's translation, the taxidermy is associated with memes in Russia. Despite being a work of a UK-based artist, the taxidermy was frequently exhibited in Russia (which does not have suitable FoP for non-architectural works). The last known exhibition was during May 24–26, 2013 in Moscow, and May 31–June 2, 2013 in St. Petersburg. No more recent info about the artwork's exhibition ever since; I suspect it is not meant for permanent exhibition in public space. Even if one day Russia expands FoP someday (which may not be possible in reality), this work will fail FoP as it is not for permanent display in public; ruwiki entry on the taxidermy hints at its non-permanent nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had not seen that section - now I'm gonna go down a rabbit hole a few days in order to read up on caselaw. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reuploaded this file en:File:Stoned Fox.jpg locally on English Wikipedia as fair use. Absolutiva (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva: If the file meets the fair use doctrine, Legal would not take down the file. See also previous case. Thanks. SCP-2000 09:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated this (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Упоротый лис 1920x2560.jpg) for deletion. Absolutiva (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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):

• File: Promenade des Anglais, Nice.jpg

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by MrJoack and overwritten by Remitamine.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should really include the uploader's user name in the DMCA notice. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added  Info, Remitamine uploaded the "higher resolution version". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another added info: this is the only upload of MrJoack (talk · contribs). Consider that uploader unreliable from now on, unless they learn from both COM:Licensing and COM:NETCOPYVIO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious copyright violation from https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/nice-la-promenade-des-anglais-ne-sera-plus-jamais-la-meme "PHOTO AFP / Valery HACHE". Multichill (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): Would you mind leaving the "warning notice" on the original uploader MrJoack's talk page as well, and not just the user who uploaded the larger resolution version? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think that’s reasonable. I can also include the upload log when I put these notices onto the board if that would be helpful for people? Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes overwrite uploads are a completely different image, meaning the original uploader didn't do anything wrong -- part of the reason why overwrites are now a lot more restricted. But given that update summary, then yes, it sounds like it was the same basic image uploaded originally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

In this specific case, the DMCA was granted because the owner of the picture sent the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal department messages under penalty of perjury claiming that they had never licensed it to the original Flickr upload from where the image was originally taken from. The usage of this image may still be fair use in specific contexts, and the legal department encourages editors to do local uploads to that end with an appropriate non-free content justification under local policy, but it is currently too broadly used for that to be the justification the legal department provided in this case. 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 Queen presents the 1966 World Cup to England Captain, Bobby Moore. (7936243534).jpg

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, May we know who is copyright claimant of this file? Yann (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this info will be in the takedown itself. In this case it was Alamy. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ah I see it is division of en:PA Media. Yann (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): You state that they sent messages under penalty of perjury claiming that they had never licensed it to the original Flickr upload from where the image was originally taken from. Could one one those messages also be shared on the foundation-wiki? Or is it the email which you've currently shared you consider doing this, despite it not actually mentioning the Flickr account upload? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original Flickr upload was https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmediamuseum/7936243534/, which is no longer online. Omphalographer (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted them to wmf:Legal talk:DMCA/The Queen presents the 1966 World Cup to England Captain, Bobby Moore. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that a corporation claims the copyright (rather than an individual person) can we assume 70 year copyright form creation/publication, instead of after death of the individual who photographed this (as a work-for-hire)? I.e. public domain in the UK in 2037? (US URAA copyright not commented on - givent the "newsworthiness" of this image, it's not out of the question that this was published in the US as well within 30 days... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the copyright term duration is always based on the person of the author (a human being), even if a corporate body may own the copyright. Crown Copyright being an exception from the rule. --Rosenzweig τ 07:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another exception is when the author is genuinely unknown. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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):

• File: Blessed Virgin Mary.jpg

Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, May we know who is copyright claimant of this file? Yann (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this info will be in the takedown itself. In this case it was Fratelli Bonella S.r.l. They also provided a copy of the copyright filing from 1985. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Fratelli Bonella S.r.l. from Milano, Italy, registered a copyright in USA? Interesting. Yann (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have registered at least one of my works with the USCO, and I'm from Sweden. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it happens, but I have rarely seen real cases. Yann (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively rare, but that was how to maintain protection under the Universal Copyright Convention. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCC rules are still enforceable despite most of all countries having implemented Berne Convention rules. Also, the work registration was from 1985, during the time UCC had the most effective rules (before 1990s/2000s). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All UCC countries have joined Berne at this point. It would be interesting if a case brought up something on those merits which Berne otherwise allowed -- hard to say the outcome. But yes, not suggesting there is any issue with this takedown -- this work was clearly restored and will be under copyright for quite a while. Just mentioning that foreign registrations and renewals were a lot more common before 1992 (when renewals were abolished), even if still relatively rare. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in claiming "Undelete in 2053" given it was first published per the renewal form on May 1, 1957? Or is there any foreign copyrights to take not of? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italy seems to be the country of origin (since the work is most associated to the claimant who is based in Milan). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, based on the details of the artwork given by this document, this was published in 1957 and was a work made for hire. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Per the above, I don't see a human author mentioned, so the Italian copyright should last until 2028, and the U.S. until 2053. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree Category:Undelete in 2053. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): (It's a long time until then, but:) Would it be ok for the community to undelete the file as a community action in 2053 without a counter-claim?, or do we need to go through those formalities then? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Originally uploaded in 2007 without a source and claimed to be a 19th century painting. Shows that we are right to demand proper sources and not trust unsourced claims like from the 19th century. --Rosenzweig τ 07:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]