Transparency Report Update: January – June 2017

The time has come for the bi-annual update to our transparency report, covering January 1 to June 30, 2017. As usual, we’ve shared updated data about national security requests, government requests for user information, government demands for removal of content, as well as notices of copyright and trademark infringement. We’ve included some of the most interesting highlights below.

Intellectual Property

We received the highest number of DMCA takedown notifications in a single six-month reporting period. From the 5,006 we received between July-December 2016 to 9,273 this period, we saw an 85% increase.

The bulk of this increase comes down to just two complainants, both of which submitted over 2,000 reports each, accounting for 47% of the 9,273 total takedowns received. To truly appreciate the top two complainants’ volume, you should note that the third highest complainant submitted 371 reports.

We often received multiple copies of the same DMCA notice (sometimes days apart!), and often these duplicate notices target material that had already been removed or was hosted elsewhere. This highlights the problem with automated takedown systems that have no element of human review. We’ve written about the issues involved with DMCA takedown bots before, and the figures in this report suggest that the problem isn’t going away. The high volume of thoughtless takedown places a big burden on the small team we have, who are charged with carefully reviewing and processing our notices, to ensure the rights of copyright holders and our users are protected.

Due to the high volume of bot generated deficient takedown notices, we removed content in response to only 22% of the DMCA notices we received in this period, compared with our average of approximately 60% across the past six reporting periods.

Meanwhile, we can count on one hand the number of counter notices we received from our site owners, and it’s the fewest we’ve seen in a reporting period to date: 5. As we’ve mentioned, the counter notice process is intimidating and can lead to a user being sued in federal court, which means spending a tremendous amount in legal fees defending their case, even if the court determines the user’s material isn’t infringing.

Government Demands

We receive a steadily increasing number of takedown demands from governments around the world, with a 61% increase this reporting period compared to last’s.

Takedown demands from certain countries are particularly concerning. While Russia is sending us the greatest volume, we’re seeing especially problematic demands from the Turkish government, which actively censors content that criticizes the Turkish government, officials, and/or army. In hopes of defending the rights of our users to speak about their government, we have filed objections to 13 of the most egregious court orders. Unfortunately we have not seen much success. Eleven of our appeals have been rejected, and two are pending. Additionally, we do what we can to partner with our affected users in filing our objections — Turkish citizens who are blogging about their government. However this is very fraught territory, especially when filing an objection would be made in a user’s name. One of our users said it best: to appeal, and reveal their identity, would be “suicide.”

Further, after consulting with additional experts on Turkish law, we’ve learned that not only are the users who bring the case at risk, even the lawyers and judges in cases involving national security (for example, content that criticized military involvement and suggested military misconduct) can be charged for assisting terrorist organizations.

We will continue to fight for freedom of expression and our users in Turkey, which includes being as transparent as we can about the situation, the demands we receive, and our response to them.

National Security

We recently shared some information about the process we followed to lift the nondisclosure restrictions associated with five NSLs received in previous years and provide copies of our correspondence with the government. We hope this information will be useful to other companies who may wish to take advantage of the legal options that are currently available to challenge NSL nondisclosure orders.

We’ve also developed a form reciprocal notice request. If your company has received an NSL in the past and you would like the government to review the letter’s nondisclosure requirement, this form may be useful to you.

As always, please take a look through the data, and let us know if you have any questions or other types of data that you’d like to see in future reports!

Transparency Report Update: July–December 2016. Consistency is Key.

Today we launch our seventh bi-annual transparency report, covering the period between July 1 and December 31, 2016.

As usual, we detail the number of takedown demands and requests for information received from governments, as well as the intellectual property (IP) takedown notices we have received.

Having published these reports for a number of years now, something that is particularly striking is just how consistent the intellectual property figures are from one period to the next. To demonstrate this point, here are the percentages for the number of DMCA takedown requests we have rejected for each period, on the basis of being incomplete or abusive. The graphs include the total overall number of requests to provide some more context:

Looking just at the percentage of abusive notices received per reporting period, we see an even tighter range:

We believe that these numbers demonstrate a persistent and ongoing issue with the current copyright takedown system, which allows abuse to go unchecked due to a lack of real statutory consequences. Ten percent of notices on a single platform may not appear like much of a concern, but if our experience is representative of other similar hosts in the industry, the overall volume of abuse would amount to a huge number.

The same consistency seen in the IP numbers is not reflected in the percentage of government takedown demands that result in some or all content being removed as a result. Rather, these figures show a marked increase. This is partly due to a steadily climbing number of demands from countries such as Turkey and Russia, and also to a shift in our approach to handling these.

We encourage you to spend time looking through the data that we have collected, and dig in for yourselves. We’d also call on all hosts — big or small — to publish their own figures, and add their voice to the conversation.

The full transparency report is available here.

Leave No Trace!

Earlier this year, we talked about the dangers of relying on third-party bots to chase down potential copyright infringement, and the ironic circumstances that ensue when the rights holder’s own content becomes a target. It’s a frustrating situation for everyone, but this kind of oversight is no surprise when automation is let off the leash. What’s even more shocking are cases in which this paradoxical level of enforcement is employed by humans, as we recently experienced with Subaru for America.

The car manufacturer is currently sponsoring a nonprofit organization, The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics. For the uninitiated, “Leave No Trace” is the concept of enjoying the wilderness responsibly, with an eye towards conservation and preservation of natural beauty. A noble cause to be sure, but two WordPress.com users discovered the hard way that a corporation’s actions can sometimes speak louder than its words.

In the application for The Subaru Leave No Trace Traveling Trainer Program, it’s suggested that, among other things, applicants should be able to generate social media content via creating blogs, posting photos, and creating videos. This is exactly what Sam and Jenna attempted to do when they created this blog as part of their application process.

Surprisingly, however, Subaru was less than thrilled with this harmless use of the brand name, and accused our users of trademark infringement and cybersquatting. Apparently the legal department at Subaru wasn’t aware of their company’s sponsored initiative. Yikes!

We passed along the notice to Sam and Jenna with the understanding that we would not be taking any action against their blog as their content does not constitute trademark infringement. In good faith, though, our bloggers took the high road and removed most instances of ‘Subaru’ from their blog to appease the automaker’s demands.

While Subaru reminded us that it “aggressively protects its trademarks and other intangible assets,” it’s unfortunate in this case that they didn’t maintain that same level of overzealous enthusiasm for our users or the great outdoors.

More Transparent Content Removal

Every day we receive a significant number of requests to have content removed from sites hosted on WordPress.com. Many of these involve alleged copyright violations making use of the DMCA takedown process, or the publication of sensitive private information. We review every single one by hand to ensure that the processes are not being abused for the purposes of censorship, and are constantly looking to improve how they are handled.

Content Removal Image

Before now, whenever content was removed from sites in these situations, there was no visual indication to explain why things may not be displaying correctly, with visitors confronted with a 404 page not found error instead. This was far from an ideal situation, and as part of our commitment to increased transparency, we are proud to be able to say that this is no longer the case.

From today, when content is removed from a WordPress.com site as the result of a DMCA takedown, or a private information complaint, a notice will be placed on the site in question to explain exactly what content has been removed, when, and why. In the case of images, a placeholder will be displayed. We hope this will help ensure that on those occasions where we are required to intervene, that the reasons for doing so are as clear as possible.

Read more about our DMCA policy here.

Read more about our private information policy here.

In addition to implementing this new process, we have also updated our documentation with new pages on how we approach the DMCA in general. You can find this at the following links:

https://en.support.wordpress.com/our-dmca-process/

https://en.support.wordpress.com/copyright-and-the-dmca/