Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2019

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

2019[edit]

RussellMNelson[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) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle Maersk[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) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
 Comment Both images were removed from Flickr. Yann (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is indeed suspicious that the whole account disappeared from Flickr... Yann (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Video Call Santa[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) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five-element-cycles[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) 20:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader's other files look like copyright violations, as well. clpo13(talk) 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished dealing with them. --Majora (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

Nuclear football[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) 22:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Kelly Cutrone[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) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@Donald Trung: They never contacted OTRS, did they? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Lost Lamb[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) 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Artistic view of how the world feels like with schizophrenia[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) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
IMO, in this case the talkpage should remain, due to the current and the previous DR. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes this happens. We can find something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted File:Disturbi mentali.jpg as a derivative of this file. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GC136[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) 01:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[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) 20:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - this one is a little unusual in that this takedown applies only to this file, and all other BP logo uploads on Commons are not affected. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): odd, the jpg (wrong format for this) was barely in use. But I assume this means legal thinks the BP "Helios" logo exceeds the TOO? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: The DMCA takedown request was pretty explicit about asking for this particular logo (they explain why in the request itself, but the tl;dr is that it's a logo that they don't use and it was causing them confusion). We do think the logo meets the threshold for copyright, but we do see a difference between the modified logo and the official logo. Whether Commons wants to keep the other BP logos on here is a community decision to make; we aren't going to force anything here. Hope that makes sense. I can ask Jacob to give his thoughts too if that'll help. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted file had "bp" to the left of the helios whereas the official logo has "bp" above and to the right of the helios. For anyone who was wondering. It's funny, if they had simply nominated the file for deletion with "unofficial/inaccurate logo version" or something like that, it would have probably been deleted without the hassle of a DMCA. Anyway, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:BP logos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): If you think the logo meets the threshold for copyright, why didn't you either delete all versions of it or nominate them for discussion? Also, who is "we" in "we do think the logo meets the threshold for copyright"? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@World's Lamest Critic: The simple answer is that this is generally a community process, so we planned to leave it to you all. "We" = Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team (and the Trust and Safety team, though I'm just the messenger here). Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: that's exactly what I did. Do note that Wikipedia does not always get it right. They frequently upload PD-textlogos with a fair use rationale locally because they are confusing trademarks and copyright. And sometimes they just doubt the file on Commons is really free and prefer to keep their fair use file. In this case, they're probably right. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny bit from wmf:Legal:DMCA BP logo: "It appears that it is not possible to overwrite this file." nope, you need autoconfirmed for that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrogers (WMF): You said here that "the one with the BP at 1 o'clock isn't violating copyright law for various reasons including both fair use and permission". Can you expand on that comment? Specifically about the "permission" part. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): My edit was reverted by Josve05a. I think Josve05a is mistaken. Legal deals with DMCA requests, so you look at US TOO. You don't give a damn about the source country. Also, Jrogers said "I do think the BP Helios logo is creative enough for copyright protection (not by a lot, but just enough)" which would make no sense if he was talking about UK TOO, which it obviously exceeds. So, am I correct in thinking you were talking about US TOO? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: Could you re-open the DR please, and let it run for the full minimum of 7 days. A speedy close of the DR is not justified based on the statement from the WMF employee in the DR, which explicitly says that the decision is one for the community, not a "Legal hath speaketh" ruling for all graphically similar BP logos. Explicitly "the one with the BP at 1 o'clock isn't violating copyright law" contradicts your closing statement, and demonstrates that a discussion by the community is to be had and is needed to supplement this take down. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: the logos in the DR were used on projects like Dutch Wikipedia, which doesn't allow fair use. The use of that logo on w:nl:BP (oliemaatschappij) is most probably in compliance with fair use law (all that matters) and (for whoever cares) also complies with the Dutch w:Right to quote. (w:nl:Citaatrecht) So clearly, the logo being here does not violate copyright law. (there was a bogus PD-textlogo copyright tag, but whatever, that's not going to win you a court case. PD-textlogo is an opinion and protected by free speech) That's what legal was saying, we can legally host the BP logo but our own policies prevent it. When Jrogers (WMF) said "fair use and permission" I suspect (but this is speculation) he was referring to BP not complaining about the logos in the DR, which implies permission to use the logo on Wikipedia. Also, a fair use rationale for the logo that was taken down would be much weaker because it wasn't an official logo as used by BP. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I will not re-open the DR (another admin might), but legal has said (a) it is above TOO; but (b) they aren't forced under copyright law to delete it due to fair use (which is not ok by Commons policy, see COM:CSD#G2). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF): after thinking about all this, I suspect that when someone files a DMCA complaint that is invalid because the file is legal per fair use, you won't take action. Which, I think, is actually good. But could you drop the community a note in that case? Perhaps on the village pump, or my talk page (I tend to agree with you so I wouldn't mind proxying for you) Starting the DR yourself might not be ideal because it would put a certain weight on things. Unless you use an anonymous alternative account that isn't in any way connected to the WMF to start the DR. That would also be fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to a few different things here. First, In my other comment on the deletion discussion, I was talking about the U.S. Threshold of originality. The main case in Wikimedia's jurisdiction is Satava v. Lowry, which I might have linked once or twice before on-wiki. It's a case about how a jellyfish sculpture couldn't be copyrighted and talks about how the courts look at the combination of unprotectable elements to decide TOO questions. I think in the case of the BP logo, you've got several creative choices happening in the selection of the four different colors and the application of those colors to the different geometric regions (which are themselves made up of some creative choices around the spacing and proportion of the triangles). It's still relatively simple in that it's a symmetric geometric pattern made of circles and triangles, but I think there's enough there to provide them at least the thin copyright discussed in Satava, which protects against exact copying (and derivative works that include the exact copy). Second point, my comment about fair use and permission was phrased to not lock us into just those reasons. Being a lawyer, I'll never give a totally definitive answer on something like that just in case I need to make other arguments in the future. That said, I think the 1 o'clock image is hosted as a fair use and in the email thread I had with the person representing BP, they told us explicitly that they're fine with the Wikimedia projects hosting the 1 o'clock logo, so that was my reference to fair use and permission. Lastly, on the question of letting you all know if we reject something on fair use grounds, I think we could forward a note to OTRS when that happens, or perhaps note if it's fair use when posted here. We'll try and see if we can do that, might need a reminder the next time it comes up. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF): I'm unclear how the wishes (for or against) of the copyright holder has a bearing on fair use under US law; please can you elaborate? Also, BTW, w:Satava v. Lowry has no article on en.Wikipedia - given its undoubted relevance to our work on that and sister projects, it would be great if you or someone else with the requisite knowledge could fix that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder's wishes occasionally impact the market harm factor of fair use. Part of the question in that factor is whether a use is one that's typical in the market, and whether the copyright holder is okay with a use is one data point indicating whether it's typical. Also, I don't think it would look good if I wrote the article about a case I cite often, but whenever I change jobs, I'll put it first on my list if there isn't a good article by that point. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a wikileagal-text about it on meta or wmfwiki in the meantime would suffice. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices/2019&oldid=639098292"