Talk:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge

Deletions on Commons

Thanks for this post. Some of the material, especially in the second paragraph, is news to me, and I'm looking forward to giving it more thought.

I appreciate the reasons for your position that "WMF does not see a reason to engage in mass deletions of content simply because of general concern about the URAA", and I agree with it. However I believe such mass deletions haven't been seriously considered since the Commons community rejected the idea two years ago, and massive restorations of URAA-affected content have now been proposed on Commons. I think this is because the Board's recent response included a similar statement against mass deletions, without any counterbalancing statement that some community deletions are necessary (like that in your post last year: "The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing.").

Does the absence from your post of any such statement about community deletions mean that you have changed your position, and that you now believe such community deletions are unnecessary? I ask because I'm concerned that it will be read this way, and this may not be your intended meaning. --Avenue (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Avenue: Thanks for your question! I will respond here shortly. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that we don't see a need for any deletions – mass scale or otherwise – based solely on a general concern that the work may be infringing. I will remove the reference to "mass deletion" in the post to make this clearer.

Community members should always refrain from uploading content that they know to be infringing. But how community members review potentially affected works is a community decision. And, of course, we can't provide legal advice to community members. Generally, however, community members are not likely to have the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. To give you an example, the URAA does not restore copyright in a non-audio work unless the work originally entered the public domain in the US because of: (1) noncompliance with previous copyright formalities, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with a manufacturing requirement or (2) lack of copyright relations between the US and the source country. It would be really difficult to know whether a work originally entered the public domain in the US because the author failed to provide proper notice or comply with a manufacturing requirement. Yet this is information that a copyright holder could include in a valid DMCA takedown notice, at which point we would be required to remove the work. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)