Talk:Legal/Legal Policies

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments and suggested edits[edit]

Edits marked in green.

  Suggestion Comment / rationale / concern
1 "to assist in ensuring consistency" Typo.
2 "Rules on choice of law that are established by the editorial community of a particular Pproject as a matter of policy generally should be respected. Such rules however may lead to adoption of more restrictive policies than are required by international law principles, and are in all cases a matter of editorial discretion or norm and not binding or of legal force either." Clarifies who chooses local policies (editorial community of projects) and clarifies they are not intended as legally binding either (covered WMF only).
3 "However, if any aspect of Italian law is less protective of trademarks than U.S. law" Clarifies this applies to all parts of a law and not just "the law" overall.
4 "Users subject to Spanish law should continue to comply with the law while it remains legally valid" Clarifies up until what point.
  • Red text added by Deryck Chan to address grammatical awkwardness of the phrase "Spain users". 10:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, Users subject to Spanish law rather than "users in Spain" -- it might be an important distinction in some cases.
5
  • "the Wikimedia Foundation may, at its discretion or as required by law, take action to block the accounts and editing access of repeat infringers."
  • "Pursuant to the DMCA, the Wikimedia Foundation may, at its discretion or as required by law, take action to block the accounts and editing access of repeat infringers"
We don't "terminate accounts" and we may take a variety of blocking actions. Also improve flow while rewording it. Wording occurs twice in draft.
6 "within 10 days...should be replaced within 10-14 business days... will be reposted 10-14 days after receipt" If this is intended as a general permission to reinstate, then it needs specify an exact time (eg after 10 days or 10 business days) not "10-14". Also "may be replaced/reposted" -- ie not "should/will"

If 10-14 days is stipulated by law (ie requirement not permission) then it should be clearer all round: "The OGC will/must repost the material within 10 - 14 days". It also needs to say whether other editors can or cannot reinstate after 10 days (could be a high profile matter with very itchy edit fingers).

7 "should authorize deletion of content where there is (1) actual knowledge that the content is infringing copyright or (2) awareness of facts or circumstances from which copyright infringing activity is apparent" This actual knowledge is on whose part, precisely? Specify.
8 Trade secrets - add: A matter that was a trade secret but has substantively passed into permanent non-secrecy, for example by wide-scale discussion or high profile dissemination in readily located popular websites online, is not usually considered to constitute a trade secret for our purposes. See for example AACS encryption key controversy where an encryption key was virtually published on every major website in the IT world, Tshirts, etc. This stuff happens. Worth being unambiguous.
9 Trademark infringement: add to the effect - Display of a trademark within legal bounds and for routine use within a encyclopedia article related to the trademark or to its trademark-owner's business or products, is usually not removed by the Foundation unless legally required. Clarity when we will push for validity of use.
10 "a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct" Typo.
11 "As soon as possible, the Office of the General Counsel or the Reader Relations unit should report any discovery of child pornography (as described above) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children" Always? And regardless of actual content? What about images that show generic body parts unlikely to be identifiable (such as close-ups)? Is it only when both unambiguous and also potentially useful in identifying persons in (or responsible for) the image? Double check required on this area, which may need slight elaboration.

Also to consider: what policy is given for ambiguous images that could be parts of children or legal adults? What about images stated or claimed to show an adult but that are unclear and raise doubts or concerns? These are likely situations to arise. Delete? Always report to NCMEC?

12 "Even when reporting, Community members are advised not to store or send images of child pornography through any means, including the mail or email without obtaining prior legal advice or police confirmation." Storage for evidence is a bad idea. So is snailmail. But if they want to submit them they should always seek police or legal advice before taking such steps.
13 "See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (or its equivalent in other projects)." This link is to an enwiki-only (local) policy wording. Is there a project-wide requirement for terms that an individual Wikipedia's BLP policy should contain at a minimum?
14 "the subject's legal counsel expresses a willingness" Clarity which "legal counsel".
15 "In extreme cases such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing..." Remove "extreme" to ensure vandals and other abusers cannot argue that it therefore implies non-extreme matters cannot be blocked without warning.
16 "In cases of serious harassment, involving, for example, credible threats of violence, users should contact a suitable police force either local to themselves, to the incident, or to the perpetrator." Often an admin in one country deals with a threat made by a resident of another country. I doubt for example my local police can or would do much with a threat made by an Australian user against a school in Perth.
17 Harassment - "Under the Privacy Policy, the Wikimedia Foundation and editors may disclose" Eg checkusers, admins, or other users with personal knowledge, may also disclose. Worth noting.
18 "A user has received contributions on her talk page where another user has threatened to burn down a home or school. The threat appears credible. The victim of the threat should contact her local police, the police local to the home or school, the police local to the perpetrator (if known), or other suitable local police body (state or federal police) and report the incident" As above, needs a better example to be more useful.
19 "Exception: the Wikimedia Foundation may respond to a foreign subpoena or order if the information sought is needed by police in an investigation that involves an immediate threat to life or limb. In an extreme urgency, uUser information may be released" Latter wording isn't policy. Privacy policy is merely that it must be "reasonably necessary". Also "may respond" is better since it doesn't suggest we "recognize" overseas law, just that we are responding on a discretionary basis due to the threat component.

("...may recognize..." is repeated in this section and examples - replace by may respond to)

Other points to consider:

  • Be clear that deletion includes redaction (via "RevisionDelete" and suppression (via Oversight or RevisionDelete"). For example some material may be redacted rather than deleted if (eg) only the edit summary or only the revision text is a problem.
  • Be clear that deletion—in all its forms—is not a guarantee of privacy or confidentiality (as it sounds like it should be).
  • Be clear if this is temporary or permanent. Are such actions time limited or subject to review?
  • Stubbing only applies to the current revision of a page. The policy doesn't appear to pay regard to the question of history revisions, whether reversion or editing is sufficient, or when history must be removed/redacted too. (If history is removed or redacted then there may be attribution consequences.)
  • Be clear that an waiver, discretionary act, or exception on one occasion is not a precedent or binding for other occasions, and may be withdrawn or revoked without notice at any time.
  • DMCA takedown and counter-takedown notices -- can the policy be more explicit on privacy of parties in these? Are users responding to such a request able to protect their pseudonymity, or must they choose between counternotice and "outing"? Is there any way WMF can accept a counter-takedown notice and yet keep the party details private? If not then suggest this wording: "The Wikimedia Foundation will not publicize personal details of pseudonymous users who are parties in a takedown or counter-takedown (with the exception of usernames), but the parties themselves will be provided these and the Foundation has no voice in how either party will privately act".
  • Child grooming / predatory behavior / pedophilia advocacy or related activities: some of these are (or may be) covered by law but nothing is mentioned on them.
  • Possibly be clear that community-originated policies (ie policies adopted within user communities) are in all cases matters of editorial discretion or norm and—like OGC's policy—not binding or of legal or contractual force in any way, too. Probably needs saying.

Overall not bad. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to 6, if that is referring to the DMCA which I believe it is, then the 10-14 days is actually written into statute, i.e. no less than 10 and no more than 14, and changing it to an optional statement with "may" drastically changes the outcome.
Also 3 changes the meaning as well. The broader phrase "Italian law" is inclusive of "any aspect" of Italian law; but the same is not true in reverse. Example: On a whole, hypothetically Italian trademark law may be considered more protective than U.S. law, but one particular aspect of it is not. By your proposed edits, the WMF is bound to reject the more favorable aspects on a whole due to one small subset of the broader law.
8 is superfluous. For something to be a trade secret it must in fact be a secret. If it becomes generally known, it loses trade secret status. In essence, your wording says "If a trade secret is no longer a secret...." at which point it doesn't matter because it is no longer a trade secret.
Same thing with 4: Once it becomes no longer "legally valid", they're no longer obligated to comply with it anyway, as it is no longer a law.
7 is an unnecessary change. The entire paragraph is referring to the WMF's knowledge of alleged infringing content, and it is obvious who it is talking about since it is the OGC authorizing it.
Most of these edits have the effect of being MORE restrictive on OGC's ability to act. I don't think that is the desired intent. Sometimes over-clarifying things is not helpful SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This policy has to avoid unfortunate legal interpretations and consequences, including community responses, that may arise if the wording suggests something that isn't the case. It also gives the communities guidance on WMF/OGC's formal position on various issues and therefore must consider its readership (diverse and divisive) and their needs.
  1. If 10-14 is written into DMCA (wasn't aware of that) and there is a legal obligation to reinstate the material within that tight a time-frame (ie it's a requirement not a permission), then it needs to be clearer and allocate responsibility. "The OGC will/must repost the material within 10 - 14 days" (or "within the 10-14 days specified by law") would be clearer. Edited to make this clear and take account of your point.
  2. Disagree on your understanding of the Italian law example. Suppose Country X law is generally more protective of trademarks as the US (or more so) but in one point is less so. Even if Country X law is more restrictive "as a whole", in that aspect it is less restrictive so WMF may need to intervene. So the accurate wording is that "if any aspect of Country X law is less protective of trademarks than U.S. law then the Wikimedia Foundation may request that the policy be rendered compliant". In other words the "restrictiveness" of local wiki policy is point by point, not "as a whole". It cannot on any point or aspect be less restrictive than US law, or else illegal use (per US law) may arise in that area.
    I disagree with your final sentence. It is up to the OGC to determine whether illegal use may arise or not. Why should they be prevented a priori from making that call? It should be OGC's flexibility and discretion to make a subjective determination of the "protectiveness" of a particular country's laws, as particular sub-sets of them may be less restrictive than US law but still not illegal (or may be wholly irrelevant to the situation, e.g. a country that recognizes trademark infringement (confusion) claims more protectively than the US but not trademark dilution claims -- and the claim at hand is a confusion claim. One can say that on a whole, the country's law is equally or more protective, but has a subset that is not, despite it not being at issue here. Why should OGC be restricted based on one "less protective" subset if that subset of the law is not at issue? Your interpretation would unnecessarily hinder OGC in their duties). SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  3. Point 8 isn't superfluous so long as we have editors who may face the situation and outside parties who may need to know our legal stance on content in that situation. In the AACS case cited, you yourself (unsuccessfully) sought WMF's official legal stance [1]—or more accurately whether the WMF would formally agree to legally endorse the "non-secret"'s removal under DMCA. So we cannot assume that if something is publicized to the point it's a non-secret, that users or legal persons will agree it's obviously no longer a trade secret. After all, you yourself didn't in that case, and you asked WMF to provide legal (office) endorsement of your view. Similar situations are likely in future.
  4. "Spain" is an example provided for clarity to users, who are non-lawyers. They spell things out. Part of that clarity is to be clear that while compliance endures during challenge, it ends if the law is overturned.
    Still pointless. If the law is declared invalid, there is no more law for them to follow. So...what's the point? SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  5. No, it's not obvious, and it's potentially important. This clause as written states OGC "should" take certain remedial action when there is "actual knowledge". Would you like to have to argue against a complaint that WMF had actual knowledge (even if OGC didn't) or that there was an internal failing that nobody set up a process to ensure OGC was informed? There's nothing there saying who must have the actual knowledge. Be clear that it's OGC who must have the actual knowledge. Saves problems down the line.
    It's referring to an office action. It is clear who are authorized to perform office actions, and that OGC authorizes them. I think that's quite obvious. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    It's not clear whose "actual knowledge" counts. WMF is a single body. Is it OGC's? A board member/C-level? Any staff member? Anyone from the community brought onto staff for a project or limited period? Which of these is responsible for acting? Which of these having "actual knowledge" means WMF and OGC are imputed to have it? Which of these has a positive duty according to our policy (that must not be overlooked) to inform OGC? FT2 (Talk | email) 22:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    And if the answer is "it depends", what is there to gain from restricting ourselves by policy when the question is likely to be at issue in any litigation anyway? SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Arguably, if you can't say whose "actual knowledge" matters or who is responsible for what in these situations, then you really shouldn't have a legal policy that says it's someone's duty but we don't know whose, to act on knowledge held by someone but we can't say whom. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Oh it's clear whose knowledge matters -- it's that of the "service provider" per the statute. It does not define it any further, and issues of imputation and agency are not my forte. You're asking for a definition that goes beyond what the law requires, and it's a moot point since it's referring to a prescriptive act (staff in their staff capacities preemptively removing content in advance of a DMCA takedown) that can only be authorized by OGC anyway and can only be done by certain people authorized to take office actions. So I'm still not seeing the need. In any event, I've made my point clear on this, I don't really intend to debate the semantics of the DMCA into the ground. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Alternatively just state that "implementation details for this part are still to be decided" or the like, pending decision.) FT2 (Talk | email) 04:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
FT2 (Talk | email) 08:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I keep screwing up the indents. Sorry. SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
'sok :) FT2 (Talk | email) 04:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Defense of Editors[edit]

  • This section mentions only financial help and so on: however, this isn't the only needed help. For instance, a chapter may need an official letter from the WMF to state that it doesn't have responsibility over the websites; or it may need to "forward" the lawsuit against the WMF, which would then be protected by the first amendment. Nemo 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Other help may well be needed, for example, letters of support. feeling "left out in the cold" or "thrown to the wolves" is to be avoided, even if financial help isn't possible. How about "In some cases, especially where the causative action appears to have been taken in good faith for the benefit of the project, the Foundation and The Office of the General Counsel will look favorably although at its complete discretion upon requests for limited non-financial and non-contentious assistance, such as letters of support, confirmation of stipulated facts salient to the case, a public statement, or statements of applicable policy, by either party." FT2 (Talk | email) 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children[edit]

And to local missing children organizations as well. The photo may well be internationally identifiable or identifiable in the country it was uploaded for example. How about "should report... to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (800-843-5678), and upon request to any other reputable missing child organization". FT2 (Talk | email) 21:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DMCA[edit]

  • I like this approach. In the past, things have not been so clear. Category:DMCA is currently a red link, how are you going to manage it? Nemo 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought the DMCA take-downs were being put up on WMF wiki [2] by Philippe and Christine? Theo10011 21:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • THey are. Mistype, I'll correct. Philippe (WMF) 04:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Trademarks[edit]

  • There's Legal/Legal_Policies#Trademark_Licensing but no mention of basic trademark decisions, for instance: will the WMF protect/register sister projects trademarks? Where will trademarks registered and actually defended? Will the WMF try to recover squatted domain names with WMF trademarks? Nemo 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Transparency[edit]

  • I think that it would be interesting to know all ongoing trials, such as the example «The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to challenge a copyright law in Spain that affects whether certain art falls into the public domain». The Office of the General Counsel could publish a biannual report with a complete list of all ongoing litigations, with just the minimal details. At least the Board should be provided something like that (or more detailed), probably. Nemo 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reporting of cases of community interest[edit]

As actual instigated litigation is comparatively uncommon, important, and almost never secret as to existence, could we add the following:

Legal actions

The OGC will maintain in a reasonably current manner, a public page listing legal cases by and against the Foundation, where a case has been formally instigated or subpoena served upon the Foundation, or a case has been formally instigated by or on behalf of the Foundation. The details provided are: country or jurisdiction, court and case reference (where public), significant filed documents (where publicly viewable), a summary of the matter in dispute, current status, and–where known and public–a summary of the Foundation's position and the legal significance of the case to the Foundation and the project.

At OGC discretion, other details, including the details of parties and events and matters withheld to prevent harm, may be omitted. Matters deemed to be routine and frequent - including if applicable routine subpoenas related to removal of copyright material under the DMCA, routine requests for provision of IP or user data under United States court order, and cases having no reasonable prospect of success or lacking recognized legal basis, need only be provided in aggregate."

The idea being that these are the kinds of cases in which the community may show heightened interest, and the kinds of details that would probably not be prejudicial to a case once formally instigated in a court. There probably aren't many. Let's refine this and maintain a summary of them. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

subpoenas[edit]

i haven't read all of the draft(s) yet but "The Wikimedia Foundation receives a subpoena from Berlin to disclose user information to support an ongoing civil lawsuit there." (example 1.) caught my attention

-> if you are refering to berlin in germany, i'm pretty sure that this is a (maybe untentionally) misleading example. german (civil) law doesn't know something substantially equal to the us-term subpoena and i recommend to use the intended german term (verfügung by a german court -> ~"gerichtliche Herausgabeverfügung" or what was intended?) + the most obvious english approximation (explicitly marked as such) in parentheses. such a clarification wouldn't affect the practical use for the staff but prevent some confusion for readers (community or others). vice versa: the german community implemented the voluntary translation of the privacy policy last year and used "Subpoena-Aufforderung" to handle this terminological difficulty, regards --Jan eissfeldt 23:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Links[edit]

I think this document is good and much-needed. Well done, everyone involved in this. One thing that I miss though is links to relevant laws. There are some parenthis references pointing to laws and other documents, and for sure, one could Google the phrase to find the law in question, but I would still like that service to the reader. Thanks// svHannibal 07:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy edits, just some suggestions[edit]

Applicable Law[edit]

1a. clarify US origin, ambiguous after mention of international law: The First Amendment remains a cornerstone...

1b. cleanup parentheses: (“Generally, the policy applied on Commons is to only allow images that can be used in all (or at least most) countries.”)(“The safest way to apply international copyright law is to consider the laws of all the relevant jurisdictions and then use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not.”).

Responsibility for Edits and Contributions[edit]

2. remove 'their', implied: local courts may try to impose their local norms

Defense of Editors[edit]

3. italicize?: pro bono counsel

4. move common phrase before colon: requests involving issues that:

Office Actions[edit]

DMCA Takedowns[edit]

5. move parenthetical before verb: will terminate, in appropriate circumstances,

Trade secrets[edit]

6. identify commentator regarding trade secrets, who is s/he and why do we care: “the amount of time...

7. move reference to bottom of page or format better: I. Ballon, E-Commerce & Internet Law, Section 10.06.

Trademark infringement[edit]

8. standardize 'such as...' formatting with parentheses or commas consistent with other sections:(such as a clear-cut case of piracy)

Fair Use[edit]

9. move link to within sentence: such as Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use Other Projects

General[edit]

10. consider integrating examples into the text or removing them where they basically repeat the policy

69.253.41.54 03:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Thanks![edit]

I wanted to thank everyone for their excellent comments and the time they took to explain and improve. I was quite impressed. As you can see in the history page, I incorporated many of the suggestions both in substance and style. A few comments:

1. In some cases, though I understood its merits, I did not incorporate a comment for one or more reasons: (1) It was a great observation, but I preferred to consider it in a future revision; (2) I wanted to avoid an overly complex document with the idea that, if further detail were needed, it would be borne out with experience; (3) I agreed with points in the discussion to leave the text as is; or (4) there were legal considerations for using particular language.

2. DMCA: 10-14 days is statutory language.

3. Reporting child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is a statutory requirement. And, as I understand, the NCMEC has the ability to investigate internationally. I tried to make that clearer.

4. I did not address our trademark registration practice, though it may make sense to do this in the next revision. We are focusing on this now internally, so we may update our policies later. (We do actively recover squatted domain names by filing petitions with the WIPO.)

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to shoot me an email. Many thanks again.

Geoffbrigham 20:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on other legal policy[edit]

This article contains information about Wikimedia Foundation legal thoughts on "defense of contributors". There is a request for comment on a proposed policy for defense of Wikipedians who are harmed while performing other volunteer roles, such as serving as admin, here - Request for comment/Legal Fees Assistance Program. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Said program now exists. This page should include a section on it. I'll add one.--Elvey (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't; {{editprotected}} Please unprotect so I can.--Elvey (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Or just add a See : Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program for legal assistance sometimes available to some users with special rights.--Elvey (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Even as locla sysops, I don't think we are supposed to be touching this page in any real way without it coming from or approved by the WMF office, given it was originally (under an old title) protected by the General Counsel. Courcelles 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I have prodded Philippe to have a look. As it lies with staff, I am removing the tag. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, and thank you. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

CP link is broken[edit]

{{editprotected}} There's an archived version at WebArchive that would alleviate the initial confusion I had over the link being broken.

I don't believe that we should use the archived link if we are looking to supply a legal definition, we simply need to find a new primary link. So I consider the suggested link change should be marked as X mark.svg Not done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Do you mean to say that if the current link is archived, the information contained therein may be outdated? And that we should look for a more current document that provides up-to-date information about this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: partly saying that, though also a little more. A third-party archive site cannot be said to be authoritative where we are talking about a specific definition, just representative. Which includes the "out-of-date", though emphasises the authority.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I've found the unarchived, most current version at http://www.missingkids.com/LegalResources/Exploitation/FederalLaw and I hope it is a suitable replacement for the current broken link. Note that it's composed of a list of dropdowns of the relevant legal statutes. Also for the broken search link: http://www.missingkids.com/Search TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Link update to legislation done. NO search link to replace.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated matter, @Philippe: what do you think about a minor who photographs themself? In this case, would the minor or his/her legal parents/guardians be responsible as "perpetrators" of the crime? Would anyone, especially responsible people willing to nominate such an image for deletion, be liable for criminalization because their browser stores a temporary cache of the file? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding, TeleComNasSprVen - I'm not a lawyer, so I couldn't tell you legally. As a non-lawyer, my understanding is "intent matters", at least in the US. So if the intent was to notify and have the file removed, I would believe that the user is probably okay. But again, IANAL. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: The legal document this is pointing to appears to only address "coercion" of minors by outside abusive parties, and does not address core issues of the unlikely yet completely possible probability of a minor spreading explicit sexual content of himself/herself of his/her own volition, and what implications it might have for viewers of such content. Also consider the opinion of Wikimedia Commons on this matter: as the mission of Commons is to be able to provide a free repository of media files for anyone to reuse, remix and distribute commercially, it would endanger this mission if Commons were to host files no one could actually use because of local statutes. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If you have concerns of a perceived inadequacy of the policy, it is probably more likely to evoke a response if you email the provided email address. A push approach versus a pull.

That said, the principle here would rule and we would take similar actions for similar reasons, while the person themself may not have undertaken a legal wrong due to minority, the viewing of the material does not have a different legal standard, and we have no guarantee of the person's age, so a referral would still be appropriate to criminal investigative bodies, and their decision on what actions to take. Commons position can only be a higher standard, not a lower standard, so I don't see how the point is relevant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

The following link in the "Office Actions" section is broken: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/. AHeneen (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Thanks, it appears to have been moved when they upgraded their site. I'll find the new location and update accordingly. Jalexander--WMF 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)