Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff

Continued presence here presents a clear and present danger to our reusers of lawsuit threats by Diliff and their proxies Pixsy, Fossick OU trading as Fossick Pictures, Owerk LTD, Owrek Ltd, Tom Corser, et al.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also COM:VP#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling. It may be archived to a second instance of Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/03#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling or to Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling. As a precedent, I cite Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by Marco Verch.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the discussion in the VP archives… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: It hasn't been archived yet. The latest comment was just 1 day ago.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Regrettably. There is conclusive evidence that Diliff has been using Commons to copyleft troll via proxies (i.e. demand payment via legal threats rather than allowing good faith reusers to correct errors in attribution). For the sake of our reusers, we need to remove these images from the project. If Diliff announces that he will no longer copyleft troll, we will of course restore them. Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I am no longer active on Commons and Wikipedia and it seems that, from reading your comments on my talk page, that you made no effort to inform me of the reason for your line of questioning or your perspective. I don't consider a content creator who operates on a commercial basis but in parallel, offers their images on a 'free' licence that contains specific stipulations about re-use, to be a "copyleft troll". Seems like your lack of an initial explanation on my talk page and then leaping to conclusions about my motivation is in bad faith. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Then a simple main question here: Did you send bills for license violations to nonprofit reusers without prior request to comply with the license requirements? If you did so do you agree to not to do so in the future? GPSLeo (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The questions you ask are not the right questions to understand what has been happening here. Firstly, no I didn't send bills myself, I engaged the services of a company who manages the investigation of infringements on my behalf. And secondly, no, I don't agree to that because I have every right to defend copyright and license violations. You have to understand that my images, while they may be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, licensing and enforcement is not managed by Wikimedia Commons and it is not their business as they don't have copyright ownership. Further, Wikimedia Commons has no right to strongarm content creators to try to prevent them from parallel-license their images with both Creative Commons licenses and other licenses of their choice. Diliff (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Then your files should not be hosted on this project. Gaining money from nonprofit reusers how made a mistake when using a file without giving them a chance to correct their mistake is against the idea of Wikimedia Commons and the Wikimedia Movement Charter. Using Wikimedia Commons for commercial purposes is without approval is also against the Terms of Use. GPSLeo (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What specific part of the Terms of Use has he violated? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Why so hasty? We are still discussing at Commons:Village pump#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling and are far from a consensus. – Aristeas (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We are facing a fundamental problem with this deletion request: it is based more on personal criticisms of the user than on an objective evaluation of the content itself. Each image has been rigorously examined to verify whether it meets our criteria for relevance and proper licensing. If these conditions are satisfied, there is no legitimate reason for their removal. Proceeding with this action would not only unnecessarily harm the project but also seem more an attempt to punish the user than a measure based on valid concerns about the images. It is imperative that we maintain our focus on the integrity of the content that is published, something I have personally ensured by making all my work available in the public domain to avoid future legal complications Wilfredor (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We should give the author 30 days to respond to this accusation. If we do not get any response we shuld  Delete. GPSLeo (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree with User:GPSLeo not to be hasty and to give at least 30 days to somehow resolve this. However, if Diliff intends to treat even minor, accidental online violations of his copyright and license as legal matters where he demands payment and gives no chance to "cure" them violation, then no matter how good these photos are, we should not be hosting them.

It is one thing to go after a large corporation (especially a media corporation that should no better) when they violate a copyright, especially commercial use in a print medium where "cure" is impossible, repeat violations after prior warning, or refusal to remedy an online credit. It is another thing entirely to go after a small non-profit or "some guy with a blog" because they got an online credit wrong (e.g. attributing to "Wikimedia Commons" rather than the correct photographer) and are completely willing to fix the credit or remove the image. If the latter is an ongoing pattern (and it appears to be), we cannot continue to host these images. Contrary to what User:Wilfredor says, it does not matter how good these images are. If a certain minor harm to the project is the only way to avoid an ongoing danger to the general public, we need to simply accept that harm to the project. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this to be the first wave of deletions of all contributions by professional photographers? In the past, we told photographers that they could license their photographs also differently. The main purpose of publication on Commons having been to make them available for Wikipedia. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I use a photo from Commons under the terms of Creative Commons and then the photographer claims I didn’t pay them, then I do t see how this could even work. Once an original image is uploaded to Commons, the copyright reverts to Wikimedia with the CC terms going into effect. How could Dillif even sue someone? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chris.sherlock2: Once an original image is uploaded to Commons, the copyright reverts to Wikimedia with the CC terms going into effect. No, it doesn't. The copyright still rests with the photographer or image designer. What makes you think the copyright reverts to Wikimedia?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Jeff G. I stand corrected. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike regular deletion requests because of Copyright issues, this time we have images that are in use all over the projects connected with Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata, and are also correctly licensed there. Deletion is only necessary as the precaution to deflect harm from future re-users - this harm must be averted, either by deletion or by the user stopping the legal threats.
  The correct step is not to delete first (which means these featured (!) photos will be summarily delinked from thousands of articles without much notice), but to first replace all these photos with "actually free-to-use" photos. Also yes, GPSLeo and Aristeas are right with the argument for an extended limit. Let's not be hasty, instead wait for the esteemed but inactive photographer to respond. But yes, failing a convincing response, and after replacing these works, we should ultimately  Delete edit: changed vote to keep with enforced watermarking, see comments below. --Enyavar (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To set the record straight here, my photos are "free-to-use" as long as the licensing terms are respected. It has long been the case that I have offered and allowed commercial use of my images -by request- without any CC-BY-SA licensing restrictions, and by agreement for a fee. This, I have always believed, was still in keeping with the aims of Wikimedia. If Wikimedia wanted to ensure that all hosted images were truly "free" without any use restrictions whatsoever, it would not have settled on the licenses it has chosen. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As GPSLeo says, the author should be given time to respond to the allegations. If nothing is heard, however, I strongly believe we have a responsibility to protect end users from situations like this and the images should be  deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntster (talk • contribs)
• Doesn't deleting all these images expose anyone that used them to copyleft trolling, since the original image source and Creative Commons licence will no longer be available? If so, is there a safer way to address this issue e.g., disabling image downloads? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps all the images should be replaced with blank placeholders so that the file pages remain. Nosferattus (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blank placeholders do not help at all with this problem. Users need the original image to be present on the file page in order to prove that the image they have used/are using was/is available there under the given CC license; when the file page shows a placeholder, this is no longer possible, so everybody who has ever used such an image would be much more exposed to copyleft trolling and other accusations than now. @Julesvernex2: You are right, this is a big problem and an important argument against deleting the files. Yes, there are many other possible ways to deal with the problem, see the original discussion. – 06:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeas (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep as premature. The VP thread is ongoing. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Updating at the bottom — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep All the files are properly licensed and in scope. The damage to Wikimedia projects, if we decide to delete, would be disproportionate. Correctly attributed external usages would link to non-existent source pages, too. If we allow us to produce such a mess, I really wonder where are we going to end up someday, sorry. --A.Savin 21:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy keep. We don't delete duly uploaded and licensed files because of the later behavior of a former contributor. Edited to add that the precedent was set with User:Livioandronico2013, who was blocked for incivility and inveterate socking. So not deleting images because of behavior is the rule, although I just found out a few minutes ago that there was an exception: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with marco verch. I have no idea how good marco verch's images were, but Diliff's are great, and I don't see how the spread of freely-licensed photographs that merely require attribution would be helped by deleting many of the all-time best images on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ikan Kekek: Just FYI: Marco Verch’s photos are good, but much simpler than Diliff’s ones. Most of them were quite (IMHO) boring stock photographs which are easily replaceable. And what is more important, the evidence of “questionable” behaviour was much stronger. I am still not convinced that Diliff knows or has realized the full extent of the bad things which happen in his name; but the evidence was strong that Mr Verch must have know what was going on. So the fact that we have deleted Verch’s photos does in no way imply that we should or must delete Diliff’s photos, too. – Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware that many low-level and barely-commercial users have regrettably been caught up and I have historically tried to intervene and/or significantly reduce the fee being sought for retrospective licensing. I hope you can also see my inherent dilemma, however. Firstly, there are huge number of legitimate large commercial users who have used my photography illegally and I feel that morally speaking, they should be accountable for acting illegally to deprive me of income. Secondly, I don't have the resources to pursue these individually and need to rely on external resources. Thirdly, it is difficult to identify the extent of the misuse or potential loss to myself simply from the location of the image on the internet, which therefore makes it difficult to focus resources only on the most egregious misusers. Fourthly, the resources expended on tracking the images down and contacting the owners is not negligible, even if -potentially- the damage to my photography income is negligible. For the process to be viable, it seems reasonable to at least be able to recover the costs incurred. Fifth, as you would likely be aware, what is sought in damages and what is settled on are often very different things. All of the above may not persuade you that I am within my moral rights to do this, and it may also not persuade you that doing so is in keeping with Wikimedia Commons licensing (I firmly believe it is), but I do want to make it clear that I am sympathetic to those who have been inadvertently caught up in this due to accidental misuse, and that this is not, as Nosferattus implies, the actions of a heartless copyleft troll. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just want to ask you to clarify one bit here: there are huge number of legitimate large commercial users who have used my photography illegally and I feel that morally speaking, they should be accountable for acting illegally to deprive me of income - since the images are CC licensed, how is failing to properly attribute depriving you of income? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have always parallel-licensed my images. They can be used with restrictions (CC licensing and correct attribution etc) for free, or (often by request or negotiation) they can be licensed without those restrictions by commercial users for a fee. Therefore when someone uses the image commercially and doesn't attribute correctly, they are depriving me of the licensing fee for unrestricted use. Given the Creative Commons licenses don't prohibit this and Wikimedia Commons has never discouraged dual-licensing, I don't feel I've done anything wrong here. There are moral arguments for and against of course, but that's a separate issue to what is being discussed. Diliff (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose where the criticism is coming in is kind of based in this idea (Therefore when someone uses the image commercially and doesn't attribute correctly, they are depriving me of the licensing fee for unrestricted use). That's well and good for Apple or Conde Nast, but for most commercial uses (e.g. Bob's Travel Blog, which is technically commercial but really just a hobby), they're not depriving you of a licensing fee -- they just didn't made a mistake when using the CC version. If an image had a fee, they would've just used a different image because that's not a realistic cost for the vast majority of small businesses. For a lot of people getting by paycheck to paycheck, even a reduced fee could be devastating. You and I are not in the same league in terms of photography, but I know that I see my work used all the time -- sometimes it's by popular publications/companies, but most often it's by the huge number of people who rely on WikiCommons because they can't afford things like licensing fees. What people are objecting to at VP isn't getting the fee that Apple would've paid if they did things properly -- it's the extracting a fee from someone who never would've used it if they knew a fee was involved, who likely just made a fixable mistake, and who would rather just shut down their business. The dilemma, as I framed it at VP, is that there's no suitable middleground between spending all your time chasing people down and hiring a firm that will act unethically. I think that latter, however, is deeply uncomfortable for a lot of us. The solution to "the Pixsy problem" proposed by Cory Doctorow is just to update licenses to CC4, which builds in a 30 day window to fix attribution. Maybe if you did that, it would rein in Pixsy's ability to go after smalltimers? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep Per others. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot - very similar case, has been resulted as "kept" Юрий Д.К 07:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (already voted ‘keep’ above) This could be the prelude to a new era of Commons inquisition. Imagine some greedy lawyer sends in your name an invoice to somebody who has used one of your photos without 100% perfect attribution. (This and similar things have happened, at least here in Germany. The attribution is often not perfect, and there are corrupt lawyers.) Imagine that the upset ‘somebody’ may complain here on Commons about this issue. Then other Commons users will urge you to proof that you did not authorize that lawyer. But it is very difficult to proof that you did not do something (that’s a general problem of epistemology), and so the other users may not be satisfied by your assurance that you are innocent and do not have authorized that lawyer. So all your files would be deleted … Or imagine you are ill and just not able to respond to the inquiry in time. Then all your files would be deleted … Or imagine that corrupt lawyer sends the invoice in the name of the heirs of one of our deceased contributors. The heirs may not be present at all on Commons and not easily reachable, so nobody will defend the photos of our deceased contributor and the photos will be deleted. That would be a shame. Therefore we should not open this can of worms; deleting Diliff’s images could be the beginning of the end of Commons. – Aristeas (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fully agree that closing this DR as "deleted" would be beginning of the end of Commons Юрий Д.К 07:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we call Apocalyptse Now? here, let's take the other route: If word gets around in the media that Commons is the premier platform to commit Copyleft Trolling without getting restrictions or blowback from the community, and that you need to lawyer up every time you take a photo from Commons, THEN THIS is just as easily the end of Commons. Even if just 10% of our photos turn out untouchable four reuse, the public takeaway is "Commons is a Paywall platform".
      Let's first wait and see what Diliff's reaction to all of this is. As far as I see it, this affair is going on for less than a week by now. There is plenty of time to respond. Also, we're NOT dealing with the hypotheticals that Aristeas describes (most avid contributors are available for comments more easily and/or would publicly refute to work with copyleft troll firms; any claims on "inherited CC photos" would be ludicrous; and finally, the photos may get undeleted upon request) while Nosferattus says there is strong evidence that the lawyer IS acting in Diliff's name and interest and not a rogue. (And sure, I'll be happy to learn that is not the case.) --Enyavar (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't approve of the behavior described in the linked thread, but is there any evidence anyone was harassed for using his photos with attribution? Commons photos are supposed to be used with attribution unless they are public domain. I don't support bullying, but I also don't support denying attribution to photos provided by volunteers as Copyleft files. Either linking them to Commons where they are attributed or downloading them and including the name or username of the photographer in the attribution is required under the terms of the Copyleft license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Here is the page that Diliff uses as the basis for the alleged actions. So what must a honest re-user do? First, place a link to the full URL next to the image. Second, also place the licence text that Diliff prescribes there, with both his name and the license. He gives a "suggested" attribution, but it seems he went after everyone who violated either of the two required terms on this special page.

      Still, I want to learn about his side. If he can present evidence that he didn't pursue each case to the full amount he demanded, and only went after big companies who should have known better because they have the people to scrutinize details like his license page - then I would be okay with the whole thing. But hounding people for innocent first-time mistakes which they are willing to fix, and collecting their money? That idea leaves me in a sour mood. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Diliff, thank you for the comments you have provided so far. Regarding the point Enyavar makes above, can you clarify if you or any of the agents acting on your behalf have ever demanded payment from users that have used the suggested attribution text ("Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0") verbatim i.e., without a link or the full text of the license you require elsewhere in your terms? Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I agree that this DR is a bit premature, and there are other solutions that deleting these. I would support 1. Blocking Diliff unless he provides evidence that this inacceptable behaviour stopped. 2. Add a big red warning on each file description page informing reusers of the potential issues. Yann (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yann: Everyone reading this subpage should now be aware of what Diliff has done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's perhaps useful to treat those two proposals separately, as: #1 is specific to Diliff's case; #2 should be part of a broader policy to be reused in future cases of copyleft trolling to ensure they are dealt with swiftly and consistently. Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent proposal – simple, effective, fair. I would be happy to help with adding the warnings, if necessary. And yes, we can treat the two parts separately. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How about a big red warning on every non-public domain photo? It's bad that Copyleft photos are routinely stolen. I've seen quite a few COM:DR nominations in which photographers have requested deletion of photos because they are frustrated by repeated reuse of them without attribution. Such deletion requests are not granted, but I think we should sympathize with the photographers thus victimized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would work, since it grabs the viewer's attention. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The one thing I have not seen in this discussion is anyone questioning whether this actually broke any policies. I still have my doubts over whether David Iliff still knows any of this is going on, given the murky attribution of the copyright claims and the fact that all they can provide is a digital signature with a now-defunct company. But let's put that to one side for a moment and imagine that Mr Iliff did sign this agreement with Pixsy/Fossick. He gave permission for his photos to be reused under specific conditions - with specific attribution that conforms with all Commons licensing policies. If someone reuses his photos with that attribution (which need be no more than 'By David Iliff. License: CC BY-SA 3.0'), there is no problem. Was there, at the time Mr Iliff uploaded his photographs, any Commons policy against attempting to use a third-party agency to enforce against misuse of attribution requirements? If there was not such a policy - and as far as I can tell there still is not now - then what we are doing here is finding something we don't like and making up policy on the hoof to deal with it, which doesn't seem at all fair.

I think what this points at is a larger problem by which authors have to either accept that their work will be frequently used under conditions completely violating the Creative Commons license with which they shared it, or they can seek to enforce it but only through the medium of very questionable companies that demand arbitrary fees against those who have improperly reused them. I don't know how to solve that problem. But deleting many hundreds of photos that, if they are attributed correctly, can be used freely and in accordance with all Commons requirements - especially when the author is not here to defend himself and explain his choices, and has not been regularly active beyond tiny and very sporadic edits to Wikipedia articles for many years - is categorically not the solution. If this deletion request passes it would hugely impoverish the project by removing a large amount of high-quality Creative Commons licensed content. It would also send a message that Commons can make up new policies at random and delete many years of work by trusted users if they do not conform retroactively to those policies.

I think Yann/Aristeas's proposal of adding a template to inform future reusers of these images of the importance of conforming with the license agreement is fair and reasonable.Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It has been noted that it has been quite a while since this user uploaded anything new at Commons and he has not edited Wikipedia for 6 months. His Talk page there has inquiries about lawsuits and demands for payment from the various entities, including those listed at the top of this discussion, going back at least a year. Most of his Commons image descriptions include directions to interested persons to post a note on his Wikipedia Talk page with any questions about licensing. Many have done so, including those sued and dunned purportedly on behalf of Diliff, but the user has never replied. I doubt that he will respond here in light of his inactivity. At best, his images have been hijacked by extortionists without his participation, which the lawyers call misfeasance. At worst, he is an active participant in a scam to earn money from CC images, which would be malfeasance if true. As devastating as it might be to remove so many high-quality images, and regardless of his involvement or lack thereof in the scams, how can we condone the actions of the companies seeking fees from those who used the images in good faith, relying on the CC copyright provisions under which they were published on Commons? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was a user in very good standing for many years and has FPs dating back to 2006, I think there is no realistic way in which you can assume he joined Commons to participate in a copyleft trolling scam. As for ‘those who used the images in good faith, relying on the CC copyright provisions’, no one who complied with the Creative Commons license provisions has been contacted by Pixsy. Only people who did not properly attribute the images, or attribute them at all. If the images are attributed according to the correct license then there is no problem using them.

  To be quite frank, and I mean this as a statement of fact rather than as a form of blackmail, if these images are deleted I will retire from Commons. I don’t like what Pixsy is doing and their scare-tactic method of doing business any more than anyone else here, but to delete these images would set a precedent that Commons simply does not care about anyone’s work, and that the community can unilaterally decide to delete stuff on a whim in order to protect those who have used the images improperly and illegally. I don’t see why anyone who wanted to retain at least some rights over their images would ever contribute to a project like that. Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was approached by Fossick a couple of years ago asking to license my images. I a) asked them for a copy of the actual contract and terms they would propose to use, and b) emailed David Iliff to ask what was up with Fossick. I got no response from either. What prevents us from advising people who've gotten demands from Fossick and come to Commons that they should simply correct the licensing to the correct CC-by-SA format, adding a notice about that to all of Diliff's images? Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Reply: I'm just a troubled as Cmao20 and everyone else who expressed concern at the potential to lose so many excellent (many of which have been featured) images. Acroterion's idea sounds like a good one to address the issue, if such a note could be added to all the image descriptions fairly easily. It's clear that directions in the descriptions to contact a user on his Talk page, who is rarely present, about use issues are insufficient. Looking back again at the notes from users on Diliff's Talk page over on Wikipedia, I see that many, but not all, mentioned that they failed to provide attribution and hadn't been aware until Pixsy or one of the others contacted them with a fee demand. I note that all or most of the images are licensed under both Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation Licence, Version 1.2 or any later version. I noted that at least one user reported about a year ago that a court action had been commenced against them by Fossick. The insidious nature of copyleft schemes is that the cost of hiring a lawyer to advise on copyright (and to tell the Pixyss and Fossicks of the world to "pound sand") is prohibitive to most small organizations and part of the extortion scheme. Anything we can do to protect the creators' rights and the ability of the users to use the images as provided by the licence is good. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd want advice from someone actually familiar with the relevant law. who could advise if the "cure" I'm talking about is actually legally useful before we start offering advice to people, but it's worth asking. And we need to steer as clear as we can from direct legal advice per WMF policy, so the WMF will need to have a say. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies if I didn't respond to you at the time. I don't actually recall seeing your email but there have been times where the account hasn't been actively monitored. I am surprised that you didn't get a response from Fossick but perhaps there was a bit of suspicion in both directions there. I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't believe the proposed suggestion to correct the licensing and ignore the threat is good advice, as it does nothing to prevent the argument of retrospective damages which is generally what is being sought in the first place. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I had not considered the retrospective damages issue. For my part, I've found that it pays to be suspicious of someone who contacts me out of left field. My response to Fossick was not negative, I told them I'd want to check with you, and I absolutely wanted to see what their terms were before further consideration. I write contracts for a living, so that's important. I would not want somebody to go after de minimis or naive use, and I wanted to see how one might reconcile previous release under CC with enforcement of the CC license in that context. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The worst that should happen here is forced watermarking a-la Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot. Deleting the entire set is pure grudge-bearing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Forced watermarking would be a pity, because it would spoil great photos. If people couldn't follow a big red warning that could be added to all Copyleft images, isn't that on them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong oppose to damage photos, adding a warning message for reusers would be a good solution. Юрий Д.К 13:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Support this idea: I see this for the first time. That looks like a good, workable idea, which leaves the wonderful images intact, keeps them on the same site here, but adds a text that warns off re-users. Yes, it spoils the images, but doesn't damage them. --Enyavar (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "it spoils the images, but doesn't damage them"? How do you mean that? --A.Savin 20:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at the examples: The image content itself remains unaltered (i.e. undamaged). All that gets done is adding a footnote right below the image:

  Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

  Hardcoding such an addition into the image spoils it for many use-cases (that was what I meant), but it also alerts the re-users to check the terms of the image. They either accept the image as it is, or they get creative, remove the tagline and work the attribution into their publication in another way. The attribution can remain unobtrusive - white background and small but clearly legible font. If we want to follow the example of Larry Philpot to the letter we might also add another line:

  David Iliff sued users of his work for minor attribution errors, keep this attribution intact.

  which leaves nothing unclear to the re-user. The second line can maybe left out this time, depending how minor the actual attribution violations have really been. At the moment, we have no clue how many and how severe the cases of attribution violations were, but Iliff allegedly sued private (!) website owners who made honest mistakes, like taking multiple images and just crediting "CC Wikimedia Commons" for all of them, instead of mentioning him personally below his image. Sure, these re-users were doing things wrong, but "you-are-my-legal-adversary-fork-over-cash-500" wrong? --Enyavar (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to be clear I am not necessarily in support of forced watermarking, but it was done before and is clearly preferable to deletion if something needs to be done. No opinion on whether something needs to be done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I 100% oppose this. There is no need for watermarking in any way. The idea is preposterous. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How would a watermark help, in any case? All it does is make the image very unattractive for any practical use. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dillif, I don’t have a huge issue with you charging for infringement, but clarifying what you are doing would be great. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I'm not persuaded that there's actually a problem that requires deletion. It might be worth adding information to the description page of Diliff's images that he's rather litigious about the attribution. I think a broader issue is that many people are sloppy about attributing Creative Commons-licensed images because they don't take a "free" license seriously. (I note in passing that the journal of the Swiss Railways Society often reuses Commons images and is meticulous about crediting the author in each case). Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree. I'm sorry for the people who have received unpleasant communications from this rather nasty company and I think we should protect them if possible, but that doesn't change the fact that if they are attributed properly, no one will have any issue with using these images. Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And that (sloppiness/carelessness about correct attribution adherence) is the entire reason why I have been frustrated, and have pursued external help to protect against misuse of my images. I absolutely see valid arguments on both sides of this debate, but I do think it should be made clear that this would be a non-issue if people treated copyright ownership more seriously and were more diligent with adherence to licensing terms. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Deletion would be a dreadful response. Those reusers currently validly providing attribution via a link to Commons/Wikipedia would no longer be compliant with the licence. Please do not disregard the interests of these reusers. Thincat (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment If we can come up with a template to add to these images pages warning future reusers of the importance of attributing these images properly, I will happily add it to all pictures this user has ever uploaded. Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent idea. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That should be added to all our CC-by licensed images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I favour deletion. Things can be put back if necessary, but we should not take the risk. Deb (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that avoids risk. I read that even a temporary licence infringement before CC4 put the reuser in breach thereafter. The licence will "terminate automatically upon any breach".[1] Thincat (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What risk? There is no risk as long as the images are correctly attributed. This logic if followed to its extreme will eventually mean that Commons can only host Public Domain images because it is asking authors to give up all rights over their images and all hope of ensuring that Creative Commons licensing is actually followed. Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep per Commons:Deletion policy. There is absolutely no "I don't like how copyright infringements are being handled" heading under Commons policy to support deletion. Deletion is and must be based not on a vote on ethics, but on breach of some Commons rule. And there is none.

David Iliff was for many years a prolific supporter of Commons, and one of our few reliable sources of professional-quality images. These he uploaded in significant numbers, and even now – nearly seven years after he stopped significant uploads – he is still in the top 10 of Featured Picture contributors. So far as I know, all of his images were uploaded years ago in good faith, are correctly licensed and appropriately tagged, and they always have been. Although I don't know why he stopped contributing, I suspect that he simply got fed up with people repeatedly breaching the CC licence conditions, and accidentally or otherwise omitting the required attribution. That happens to all uploaders of reasonably decent images, and because of his professional-quality pictures he will have seen it more than most.

It's not relevant to this discussion whether he has some years after uploading placed his images with a third party to deal with copyright infringements. If he has not, the fault is with the company, not with him or his images. If he has placed them, he is perfectly entitled to do so, whether we agree with his approach or not. No-one has suggested that CC licensed re-users are being unlawfully approached. He is in breach of no rule of law, CC licence term, nor Commons policy.

We should bear in mind that Commons is supposed to be a permanent repository of freely-licensed images and media, and we shouldn't under any circumstances start deleting properly-uploaded and licensed images on the basis of out-of process moral outrage directed at the photographer. If we do that, Commons ceases to be a reputable repository, and all professional-quality contributors run the risk of losing their contributions simply because they enforced the very licence that Commons has approved. If we don't want lawful enforcement to happen, we should change policy so that we don't allow CC uploads rather than pretending that the licence incorporates some sort of enforceable but unwritten moral element.

Deletion of these images would harm not only Wikimedia and Wikipedia users in many languages, but also all those external users who have the opportunity to use these wonderful images under the CC licence conditions. And that is what Commons is here for.

If third party enforcement is considered undesirable by the Commons community, I'd support a new warning tag to be applied to these and similar images to make it absolutely clear to re-users the legal consequences of breaching the stated licence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we want to delete some correctly licensed images merely for ethical reasons, then I'd say let's start with war criminals. --A.Savin 19:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That would open up a massive can of worms – if we are going to do that, shall we delete the files depicting transphobes, too? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope we'll never going to delete anything due to depiction of someone or something... except maybe very few special cases such as child porn. --A.Savin 02:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, except when it's required by Virginia and US federal law, there shouldn't be a need to delete photos of such kind. SHB2000 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs, A.Savin, and SHB2000: This isn't about enforcing morality, it's about protecting our good faith reusers from being extorted for huge amounts of money even when they are more than willing to correct attribution mistakes. (And even if you don't care about our reusers, the prevalence of this practice does not help the reputation of Creative Commons licenses or Wikimedia Commons. A media archive that no one uses is not a very successful project.) Nosferattus (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the bread you make is stale, you don't stop making the bread altogether – instead, you work to fix the bread. Likewise, if our reusers who have been extorted for huge amounts of money, you don't delete the files altogether, you try to ensure that our reusers understand what needs to be done to ensure such abhorrent copyright trolling never happens again. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it extortion though? All Dillif asked for was attribution. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2: No, he demanded large amounts of money (via proxies) regardless of whether attribution had been corrected or not. If the reuser did not pay the money, they would be sued for statutory damages (according to the threat letters), which in the U.S. is $30,000 per work infringed, or up to $125,000 for willful infringements. That sounds like extortion to me. Maybe Dillif agrees that Pisxy's practices are unethical, but he's still using them and is thus responsible for the actions they take. Nosferattus (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extortion implies they violated the law. I see no evidence of them violating the law. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Commons may be the only source that shows an image was uploaded under a CC (or other) license. Consequently, I want the file to be kept so someone who is accused of a copyright violation can easily see the information. If we learn that an uploader is behaving like a copyright troll, then we can flag the uploads with a black box warning that users should be especially careful about licensing requirements. That should be enough warning to future users; it does not require taking down the image. In the past, we have also added the required licensing text to the image itself. Deleting the image is too big a step. Glrx (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep initially my gut reaction was that this was very wrong, but really the only issue is that the people who use the photos weren't providing attribution. It's not much to ask for them follow the only criteria for reuse, so I'm not in favour of deletion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I have similar sentiments as Chris. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. I don't see how any Commons policies have been violated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep This doesn't seem like copyright trolling to me? He just seems to be particularly interested in enforcing the terms of his license, which is perfectly within his rights as the creator. I think for small creators he could probably benefit from not swinging so hard out of the gate (ie ask them to correct it before legal threats), but he didn't break any rules. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep We currently have no guidance or positions on how users may enforce compliance with Commons licensing. I encourage anyone to propose a policy. Our licensing has always insisted on attribution and I am grateful that this user is one of fewer than 10 of all the hundreds of thousands of uploaders who has explored an enforcement option. I am not sure how we should manage enforcement but we encourage people to try new things, and this discussion is overdue. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bluerasberry: In that case, I hope you will participate at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Prohibit copyleft trolling where we are trying to craft such guidance. Nosferattus (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal there. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Having read Diliff's explanations - and I will point out that those on the original village pump discussion who were so sure, contrary to all evidence of this user's years of good-faith contributions, that this was a scam/extortion that they were very insistent the author would almost certainly never reply to this discussion, have been proven wrong - I am more convinced than ever that this discussion needs to be closed. I still don't like Pixsy's business model. It would be better to ask for the attribution to be fixed first before demanding payment. But then again, I don't know how viable their business would be in that case, or what % of likely violations would be successfully enforced. Ultimately Commons needs to decide whether it is more interested in protecting the rights of content creators or protecting people who misuse images without proper attribution. I don't see how we can hope to attract high-quality photographers if we basically insist they give up all rights over their content and all hope of enforcing that it is properly attributed. Besides, the license conditions (one short sentence plus a link to a URL) are hardly onerous. Deleting these images would take Commons backwards, make it worse and less useful as a media archive, and make it a project that is honestly much less worth taking part in. Cmao20 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmao20: You are the one who kept insisting it was a scam by Fossick and that Diliff could not possibly be involved. So maybe we were both wrong. This has nothing to do with asking anyone to "give up all rights over their content" or give up "enforcing proper attribution". Of course people should enforce proper attribution, even by suing if necessary. But they must give good faith reusers an opportunity to correct mistakes. If attribution is actually the goal rather than making lots of money from extorting people, what is the problem with this requirement? Why do you oppose letting reusers correct their attribution before suing them (or threatening to sue)? That is all we are asking for. Nosferattus (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you appear to be highlighting here is that there are two extremes that are possible with images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on Creative Commons licenses: One in which content creators happily release their work without any concern for how it is used afterwards, and the other where the entire purpose of uploading is with malicious intent to create a honeytrap for reusers who inadvertently fail to meet the obscure and complex terms of the license. You seem willing to accept that there are many situations within this spectrum in which the content creator has the moral right to pursue reusers for monetary compensation, so what remains is a debate over what specific situations warrant this. The main issue I have with the assertion that I should have been satisfied with a promise to fix the attribution is that it doesn't take into account the sunk costs incurred just to identify, investigate and contact these reusers. The fact is, it isn't easy for me (or anyone) to identify which situations warrant pursuing legal actions without investing considerable resources to investigate. A reasonable parallel here is the right to seek costs in law cases where considerable costs are incurred to pursue a successful claim. I accept it isn't a perfect analogy, but I do believe that even if, after investigation, the loss of income to the content creator from a single minor misuse of an image are likely not significant, a (small) penalty of some kind can still be justified for a couple of reasons. Firstly to reimburse the sunk costs that are incurred in order to investigate, contact, pursue and negotiate the merits of the claim, and secondly to act as a disincentive for reusers to not pay due attention to copyright and/or licensing terms in future. Just as penalties still exist as disincentives in law even when it's potentially arguable in certain cases that it was a 'victimless crime'. Again, I accept that this is an imperfect analogy but hopefully you see the moral argument. What you also need to consider is that while in many cases a large figure for damages is initially demanded, negotiation can and usually does take place, and a lesser amount is often agreed upon. I deliberately have avoided being involved in such negotiations, but that is my understanding based on outcomes. While that may not change your position about the validity of a claim, I did feel the need to correct the assumption being made by many here that all reusers involving minor breaches are being 'extorted' for the initial asking figure as I don't believe that is the case. Diliff (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It is indeed an imperfect analogy, and one that I think adds very little to this discussion. The objective here should not be to define the morality of these actions, but instead to determine if they break the spirit of Creative Commons law and the policies of Wiki Commons. The former has been firmly established with the creation of CC4, which includes a 30-day grace period to prevent exactly this sort of situation. In my view, the latter has also been broken. The buck stops with you: as the photographer, you are the ultimate responsible for any action that Fossick, Pisxy, or other agents take on your behalf. The good news is that you also hold the power to end it, by upgrading your images to CC4. Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I would also add that this kind of commercial use of the projects damages the reputation of the project. This project is mainly run by volunteers how give their time and also their money to the project. GPSLeo (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      To be fair, this applies to Diliff too; at least some years ago when he was active here. --A.Savin 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that this isn't about the morality of my action; clearly it is. The 'spirit' of the Creative Commons laws is very much open to interpretation IMO, and in any case, what the spirit intends and what the license actually allows for are two different things. If there was any indication that my actions break any laws, I would have been accused of it already. The only actions that have broken any laws are those of the reuser who has failed to follow the license terms. A lot of people seem to be suggesting that CC4 solves all the problems. I don't believe it does, at least not from the photographer's perspective. It removes the photographer's ability to claim retrospective damages. Let's say a very high profile company illegally uses my image for a very high profile but short-term publicity campaign, in circumstances where I could potentially have licensed it for a very considerable sum to them. If by the time I notice the misuse, organise a representative to respond to them and demand a response, I simply allow them to 'fix' the error within 30 days by amending the attribution then they will have benefitted from the licensing error and will not have to offer any compensation for this deliberate act. It effectively gives a reuser the 'get out of jail free card' that allows them to break the law egregiously knowing that there will be no recourse other than requiring a fix that only needs to be applied AFTER the image is no longer useful to them. I don't think these CC4 license terms are fair and reasonable, and have not been considered from the content creator's perspective with respect to the potential income it takes from them. Diliff (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Diliff: Hi, That's the case if you primary objective is to make money from your pictures. That's clearly not the objective of the CC license, which is to allow free use of content with attribution. I did once sued someone because one of my picture was used without the license requirement, but that was only after 3 failed attempts to get properly credited. And that was clearly someone who had a budget for the use of images, not a poor NGO or a blogger without money. Yann (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "spirit" of the Creative Commons licences are documented at Enforcement principles. Of course, one is can read the licence and come up with one's own principles but there is an agreed set of principles. I think your thinking is all wrong about this. Some important mistakes

1. The "sunk" cost of you or your agent seeking violations, investigating them, writing, and so on are not the mis-user's responsibility. Those are entirely yours and indeed may make the business model uneconomic, which is your problem not theirs.
2. The deterrent effect or disincentive is only applicable (and justified by CC principles) if addressing the problems of a repeat offender or one who refuses to comply. Thinking that you, Diliff, or Pixsy, might single-handedly educate the world on how to reuse CC images is cloud cuckoo land.
3. CC4 only "doesn't fix the problems" if you are wedded to a model where the cost of seeking violations itself requires payment for time incurred from (nearly) every violator. If it makes Pixsy's business model uneconomic, for CC4 images, that isn't CC4's concern. The principles are specifically that nobody should be running a business collecting fines for CC images. I don't have a problem with Pixsy collecting fees for non-free works.
4. Your explanation of why 30 days gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card is very much not in the spirit of CC or Wikipedia. We exist primarily as a free content project. It is way way down the list of our purposes to attribute works. It is entirely none of our business about the morals of the re-user. Whether someone "takes advantage" of our generosity is not something any of us should lose sleep over or seek compensation or revenge for.

Imagine for a second that Wikipedia Foundation decided it needed another income stream, and chose to seek and fine all those who every copy/pasted some text from Wikipedia without attribution. It would pass on 50% of the recovery to editors, in proportion to text contributed. How long before Wikipedia Foundation gets "cancelled" and ceases to raise donations or attract any editors? Days, I reckon. So, Diliff, this is one of those "if everyone did this, the world would be shit".

Part of the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't attribute well. Pretty much any website that does it properly, puts the attribution below the image in the caption. A book may have a chapter at the end with image credits. But on Wikipedia it is hidden. As a UI experience, this is a hidden feature that many readers may not be aware of until they accidentally click on a picture. On mobile it is even worse, as the CC licence details are yet another click on the tiny (CC) image. If all our images had attribution captions, I think the world would be far better informed that these images are only licenced and still copyright. I don't think Diliff demanding £900 from some random person somewhere is going to achieve anything about the problem. Indeed, if it puts people off re-using images from Wikipedia or Commons, then that's a negative wrt our mission.

Diliff, you say you are a professional photographer? Really? That isn't the Diliff I remember. Is this really paying your mortgage and putting food on the table? Or just buying the latest Canon lens you lust after? I think you have spent too many nights in bed worrying about people misusing your images without correct attribution and thinking about all the money you could have got if only they had paid you first for permission to do that. What percentage of Pixsy's clients are corporations with photo licencing departments? I suspect almost none, as they know what they are doing. Fine if the only copy of the images is on Shutterstock or Getty and someone really is nicking them. But sending the heavies round to collect for CC images from individuals and small businesses is imo as morally bad as those car parks we have in the UK that appear "free" but charge people £70 because they stayed 10 minutes too long when their child had to go to the toilet, or because an old person typed in the registration of their wife's car, or put an O instead of a 0. I'm not impressed. -- Colin (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Regarding sunk costs for identifying who's not worth it: how much time and money could that really involve? So you have a variety of searches that would be done regardless, to look for uses of the images. There's no additional search which would need to be done. Once you find a website, I have a hard time imagining that it takes very long to understand if we're talking about a for-profit company with resources or a small-time blog. It would be helpful, I think, to understand what sort of costs are involved in looking at a website and making that call. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Diliff outsources that work to Pixsy, as he’s said before, because it would be too demanding on his own time. So it’s Pixsy that carries out these (automated)searches and incurs anybody‘sunk costs’, which motivates Pixsy to do all it can to maximise the money it gets from the people it hits with demands. Rather than Diliff deciding whether a transgression is carelessness or deliberate theft, or a transgressor a commercial enterprise or an amateur blogger, that is what Pixsy should be doing for him. But we know that’s not the case. Look at the cases cited from Diliff’s own page which all this started from. And from personal experience as well as that of others I can verify that Pixsy is uninterested to the point of being dismissive, in any excuses, personal circumstances, explanations, apologies, counter-arguments, counter-offer, any attribution you add, or any information you demand of them in return. They may reduce their demand after a time, but it will not be because they are interested in you, it’s purely a ‘take this offer now before we withdraw it’ ploy. So yes the company has a reputation for unethical behaviour and a photographer who uses them must have decided a certain amount of collateral damage is acceptable for the sake of attacking the people who use their photos in commercial ads or try to resell them as their own. Then there are the Marco Verches of this world who make this their business model. Normanlamont (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The images are in scope and in many cases in use. No policy based reason for deletion has been advanced. Our lesson from this case should be that we need to explain better to re-users (including those who take images directly from Wikipedia, where no attribution or image-licence is displayed to the reader) what are their obigations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have requested a related change, at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Adding notice about image copyright and mw:Extension talk:WikimediaMessages#Adding notice about image copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete it's clear from their replies that User:Diliff does not see any harm in requiring significant payments for simple one-time mistakes by random unknown people who might simply have a blog or other website they're already operating at a loss, refusing to give them the chance to first correct the mistakes. While I fully support licence holders enforcing their licence terms, this does not have to mean pursuing actions in that fashion which is actively harmful to both the free content movement, and Wikimedia COmmons. Diliff is free to distribute their material elsewhere if they desire, but there's zero reason we should assist in such harmful actions, which are in fundamental opposition to everything the free content movement, and the Wikimedia Commons should stand for. Baring deletion, we should forcefully watermark their images and do whatever else we can to try and stop this incredibly harmful behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep As of now we have no policy at Commons that would allow us to delete the uploads of a contributor on the grounds how they choose to defend their copyright outside of Wikimedia Commons. We have some precedents like that of Wuestenigel where people came to Commons primarily for mass uploading of questionable images in apparent bad faith to make profit even from minor mistakes in regard to the license (in case of Wuestenigel see this discussion). I think we can agree that Diliff came to Commons for contributing excellent images in good faith since 2005 (2848 images in total). Still, I think it is heartbreaking to read letters like this one or that one where, as it appears, license fees of £ 450 where asked for from charities or other non-profits by obscure companies, apparently without giving an opportunity to fix mistakes without a fee. While Diliff has every right to pursue this merciless but legal option, this gives Wikimedia Commons a bad reputation. And this is in conflict with the mission of Wikimedia to “develop educational content under a free license [..] and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” People do make mistakes and as long as people are willing to fix them, we should help them and continue to spread the knowledge about how images can be correctly re-used. But right now we have no policy encouraging and, where necessary, enforcing a practice where the copyright is defended with a less hostile approach where opportunity is given to fix errors within some reasonable timeframe. I am against deleting these images which were uploaded in good faith as long as we do not have a policy in place that expresses our expectations how copyright should be defended in good faith. We should, however, take a case like this one as a reminder that we need to find a consensus for such a policy. I am likewise against watermarking which is discouraged per COM:WATERMARK. I wouldn't mind against a warning template that is added to the respective file description pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment where could that template be placed and how should it look to alert every re-user? Currently, even the most prominent flashy red template would only appear well below the image in question, and people can overlook it just as they seem to overlook the licensing template that Diliff does place well-readable in all his image descriptions. I do think that watermarks are the best solution here, as they hardcode attribution into the image. We discourage watermarking, but there is precedence where we chose doing this instead of deletion. The watermark doesn't have to be huge, it just has to be present so people will notice it. --Enyavar (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar: I know that precedents exists but in my opinion they should be reverted as well. The proper way to include a credit line along with the license close to the image is to include it in the caption on all projects using it (as it is done by no.wikipedia.org). I would love to see this implemented across all Wikimedia projects but unfortunately we cannot enforce this. A warning template on the file description page can still be helpful as even re-users find the file description page in most cases to download larger images. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I only have a vague idea what’s going on here but “I don’t like how this user is behaving offsite” is not a legitimate deletion rationale. Besides the listed precedents there’s also the fact that the only legal restrictions on uploading a file are “is it legal in the US?” “Is the copyright statud acceptable?” And “is it under a valid license?” Everything else is strictly “let the reuser beware”. We can place warnings, but we can’t delete something in-scope that isn’t isn’t in violation of those principles, even if the uploader isn’t upholding thr spirit of them. Dronebogus (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service: There have been some proposals on how to deal with copyleft trolling once we keep the images (in this discussion, and in related/future cases). --Enyavar (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I think it is stupid if he is having some company send people pissy messages about unattributed use of his image. On the other hand, attribution really isn't that hard: I have spent hundreds of bucks and hiked many miles and climbed on top of very shaky things to take photos that I make absolutely no money from, simply so that other people may benefit from having nice pics. Sometimes they use my photos on websites and in newspapers -- which is fine, it doesn't bother me that save hundreds of bucks in doing so and I don't get anything -- but I feel like mentioning the name of the photographer is the absolute least you can do in return. Of course, simply going directly to a demand letter seems quite rude and cavalier. But I think it is stupid and pointless to try to police how people respond offsite to license violations, and to the extent that it's possible it's bad. JPxG (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A month has gone by since the last comment, and many of the above !votes came before Diliff's responses and the now-stalled discussions on the village pumps, so I think it's time to revisit this and reflect on what we know so far. For me, I initially voted keep as premature. In the end, I think I'm leaning towards...
  Forced watermarking, as annoying as that is. It really all comes down to this statement by Diliff: I do believe that even if, after investigation, the loss of income to the content creator from a single minor misuse of an image are likely not significant, a (small) penalty of some kind can still be justified. Trying to force money out of absolutely everyone, including small-time/independent reusers, for even trivial license violations is directly contrary to the creative commons enforcement principles and, IMO, the principles of WikiCommons. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rhododendrites I understand your frustration but the problem is these are CC licensed images. Commons can not "force" a watermark on the images as they are not our images, they are Diliff's. Commons is not a publisher, but a repository. Our policy on overwriting is clear: a contentious change requires a forked image file. The very moment someone disputes your watermark, say, we require two files, one with and one without. Wikipedia would not be at all happy if ideologically angry Commoners put watermarks on their thumbnails. Wikipedians generally don't consider themselves part of a free content mission, vs a free-to-read encyclopaedia. If Commons insisted on this, Wikipedia would fork their own un-watermarked versions and we'd have achieved nothing except to piss off Wikipedians. -- Colin (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple things in response. First, it's a good point that the creator could dispute the watermark and a second file would be necessary. In that case, I would support deleting the original once the derivative is created. We are not obliged to retain the original, after all. Second, I just wanted to point out that you can display a crop within a Wikipedia article pretty easily without the need for an additional file. Yes, there will be complaints, but that seems preferable to outright deletion. If a local Wikipedia wants to host its own unwatermarked version, they can, of course, but here on Commons we're obliged to think about all of our media reusers and not just Wikipedians. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just curious: Who is going to make hundreds of file versions with forced watermark and upload them all? --A.Savin 00:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless someone has a way to automate it, I imagine it'll have to be multiple people. It's not like we don't already make decisions that take a while to implement, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support for this, and I'd volunteer too if it's a manpower problem. This is not a rushed process (this debate lasts already for two times the maximum grace period of CC4.0!), and if it turns out that only one or two people are implementing the watermark-decision and it takes weeks to do it, then so be it. I commend Rhododendrites for the Draft of the help page. --Enyavar (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Two months into this, I think three things have become clear: 1) Diliff's actions violate Wikimedia and Creative Commons principles; 2) These actions are hurting users; and 3) Diliff has no intention of stopping. The fact that the images are good, the effort required to replace them in articles, the effort required to remove the Featured Picture status many of them have, the effort required to leave behind a placeholder that does not orphan the licence, and any other implementation hurdles should not stop us from doing the right thing. I favour deletion over forced watermarking because i) it is more effective (particularly if we end up cropping the watermark in the version displayed on articles), ii) it does not split photographers into two groups (those that enforce the licence and those that don't), and iii) it is consistent with Flickr's policies, presenting a strong unified front. Whether it's deletion of watermarking though, we need to do something. Right now we're part of the problem, and the message we're sending to copyleft trolls is that we're not willing to take this matter seriously. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that we ought to do something, and the above reasoning. Doing nothing sends the wrong message to present and future copyright trolls. I favor forced watermark which still allows us and others to use these images. I guess that forced watermark would de facto remove the QI and FP badges to these pictures, and that many will be removed from articles. Yann (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There isn't a consensus to delete/watermark in this discussion, which has been running for nearly two months. And if you had a similar discussion on Wikipedia, which I do think is necessary, I think it would snowball close keep and only demonstrate hostility towards Commons. The precedent of a handful of concert photos likely succeeded because nobody cared much. We are dealing here with 1500 photos, nearly all of which are in-use on multiple Wikipedias on articles that get a lot of visibility. The photos are world-class and can't be substituted without huge loss to Wikipedia. If Commons deleted or watermarked the images, Wikipedia would shift them over to local copies in a day. (Rhodo's idea of a crop wiki markup isn't easy when many uses are inside infoboxes and it would be beyond tedious to do that for 1500 photos x multiple Wikipedias). And then there would have been zero effect on David's practice since, lets face it, nobody is discovering those photos on Commons: they are discovered via Wikipedia or Flickr (where they remain). You can see here someone asked him today on his Wikipedia page about correct licensing and were thanked for asking. We have to weigh the fact that we have 1500 images serving both a free-to-view mission on Wikipedia and a free-to-use mission on our projects, where if re-users actually obey the CC licence, everyone is happy. The evidence we have here are that a handful of people "didn't read the instructions" and got a hefty bill. I am not at all happy about that but people do get hefty bills for carelessness in life all the time.

  I have a few further concerns.

  • Watermarking may just encourage some of our more egotistical photographers to behave badly in order to get their images watermarked. After all, we generally remove watermarks, so putting them back on because you've been a naughty boy seems backwards. If 1500 photos on English Wikipedia have "David Iliff" prominently on them, lots of other photographers will be asking why they can't get that level of publicity too.
  • I don't think this is something Commons should do without gauging if Wikipedia agrees. We are a repository for them, plural, which means our role is simply to check the image has educational value and a free licence. We aren't the CC morality police. It is not our role to affect the content displayed on Wikipedia pages - that's for editors on those pages to decide.
  • Deletion may have a negative impact on those using the images and relying on a link back to the image-description-page in order to meet their licence obligations (which is exactly how Wikipedia gets away with not attributing the images properly on its pages).
  • David Iliff is a living human being. Wikipedia has rules about making negative comments about living people. Sticking a notice (as was done with the concert photographer) that "David Iliff has sued users of his work for minor attribution errors" onto 1500 Wikipedia pages might not only raise BLP concerns but also potentially a lawsuit against Wikipedia for defamation or whatever. Our "proof" in that VP discussion isn't at a "reliable sources actually explicitly saying this" level that would convince any Wikipedian to make in-article accusations about a living person.
  • And I'll repeat that last bit. David Iliff is a human being. No matter how upset we may be that he isn't acting how we think he should, I am concerned that doing something like this could escalate into news coverage of a kind and we end up with a So You've Been Publicly Shamed scenario with bad consequences. A common theme in that book is when Jon Ronson asks people who did the shaming how they feel about how it turned out, they nearly always deeply regret it.

  I think instead we should explore how to get Wikipedia to better display attribution and to inform potential reusers about their licence obligations. That would help all of us too. Have a look at File:St Patrick's Cathedral Exterior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg (you may need to log out of Wikipedia to get the image page that non-users see). It does have a pretty prominent notice about licence conditions. What could be done to make that more helpful and more scary? If we do feel Diliff's photos need even more warnings, can that licence notice be amended? Or could we argue for some way of tagging certain Commons images so that when a reader clicks on them they get a really big "WARNING" notice. I don't think this is people stealing thumbnails (is it?) so I think the people who got into trouble clicked on that Wikipedia link and downloaded the image. -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the Wikipedia discussion bit. Yes, Wikipedias should get a warning that this is going to happen (if it's going to happen, of course), and that warning can include "If you want to host a local copy of an unwatermarked image at the risk of users, that's up to this local community". We're making a decision here about what's right for Commons, though.

  Regarding the more prominent attribution instructions/warnings, I 100% support that, and would support getting rid of any watermarks that are added if the system improves.

  Regarding BLP, the wording of the watermarks isn't set in stone. I would imagine something like "[correct attribution] / If you use this image, make sure to copy the attribution above to the letter. The owner of this image employs a license enforcement firm that may threaten legal action for any mistakes by any media user." No need to name the uploader, and there's nothing there that hasn't been verified by Diliff himself.

  Regarding zero effect on David's practice since, lets face it, nobody is discovering those photos on Commons: they are discovered via Wikipedia - When you click the image or try to download it, it will have the watermark. Presumably it's not terribly common for someone to use Wikipedia images by using some screen capture device on the thumbnail...

  The people hunted by Pixsy on Diliff's behalf are humans, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. Diliff may not be engaging in public shaming of other users, but silently demands €/$ ~450 for each photo if his name isn't mentioned. That's affecting people harshly, Colin, and also falls back directly on Wikimedia. If we can't sanction this in some way, then a) more people will jump on board with the moneymaking scheme, and b) more people will be affected by copyleft trolling. "7 reasons why Wikipedia is just a big scam" is not a headline that anyone here should want to read. --Enyavar (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was that if Wikipedia takes local copies sans watermark, then clicking on the link wont give you an image with a huge watermark. All you've done is make work for a lot of Wikipedians. You really need the Wikipedians to mass agree to it, and I'm not sure "Village Pump (idea lab)" is going to get that. I think this also breaks the trust/contract we have with Wikipedia that we are just a repository of images that meet certain licence conditions.

  What we are responding to here is, AFAIKS, one person who isn't a Commoner or a Wikipedian and has actually given very little detail about how they misused Diliff's image. They are pissed off that they made a mistake and one could argue are now looking forward to us taking revenge for them. They say they used four pictures that were "public domain", though we don't know what they are, and didn't check Diliffs image licence details at all. This person hasn't indicated what they used the image for. It might be if they did tell us, we'd be less sympathetic. They then listed nine other "cases" but we don't really know how those resolved. One is a vet, which in the UK should be well aware of the effect of giving huge bills to people who didn't expect it.

  What we aren't seeing and have no idea about really, is all the people who do use Diliff's image correctly along with the many thousands of people who see Diliff's images on Wikipedia and enjoy looking at them in all their huge detail. So those suggesting we/Wikipedia should delete them aren't really weighing up the cost to both Wikipedia and careful re-users by doing that. That because a handful of people were stupid on the internet, tens of thousands of people get denied fantastic images when reading Wikipedia, dozens of book authors denied the ability to include a world class image for no more effort than an attribution line. Punishment is historically a rubbish way of preventing bad behaviour, and in this case we are punishing ourselves more than Diliff. It's a shit situation, but I don't think this is the solution. -- Colin (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Colin, this has nothing to do with punishment or shaming. I've uploaded 3,900 images to Commons and re-used only a handful of photographs from others, so my natural bias leans towards Diliff, not the users. Yet, when I set aside emotion and ignore the annoyance of sometimes bumping into my images without proper attribution, I see how big of an issue copyleft trolling is. Diliff's case is just the tip of the iceberg, and if you doubt that just have a look at how seriously Creative Commons and Flickr are dealing with it. No photographer and no image is irreplaceable, nor is the need to sync up with Wikipedia an insurmountable obstacle. Let's take this matter head-on instead of following the path of least resistance. Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, this isn't about punishing Diliff, not at all. He got singled out here, but there have been other cases before, and it seems like this DR leads to a policy change, in how this may be handled in the future. When I see that Diliff's user page has had maybe a few dozen anxious queries by sued people over the last years, and if those people are also just a tip of an iceberg AND if Diliff is also just one among maybe a dozen people on Commons... all of these are rather lowball assumptions: Then we're talking already about several thousand cases and a multimillion enterprise that is leeching fees from supposedly "free" material that we're hosting on Commons. I don't begrudge anyone making money (hey even Paid Editing can have a few upsides), but license trolling is not a honest business that Commons should enable. --Enyavar (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, if we delete Diliff's images, we're not punishing Diliff who is out here since long time and probably doesn't care much anymore, instead we're punishing ourselves. Regards --A.Savin 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you are considering the many hundreds, if not thousands, of successful reuses of Diliff's images. The idea this problem is "several thousand cases and a multimillion enterprise" is for the birds, frankly. Diliff's images are rather exceptional in their professional quality and reuse potential. As he noted, when people wish to use the images without the CC conditions, he ask for and earns a small fee, but many many more are happy to comply with the conditions and get great images for free. We really here have no idea of the numbers of those and especially what portion of those who didn't obey the conditions were large commercial enterprises stealing CC images they should really be paying for? Diliff above claims there are a huge number of such enterprises blatantly abusing the CC licence conditions because they can. We get a sob story by some random internet user, who won't say what his case actually was and suddenly folk start talking about vandalising our project in protest, as though that might actually fix anything.

  Most of us think this isn't morally right. That at the very least Pixy should set a bar for misuse that forgives and helps personal users or tiny businesses, churches and tiny charities to get it right. And Diliff said he has historically intervened in such cases. I don't think many of us here would be sympathetic for LLoyds Bank PLC if they ran an advertising campaign using Diliff's images and didn't credit or pay him. Most of us who use CC licences would agree Diliff would be right to challenge that. And while few of us get many such opportunities, most of us would be perfectly happy with Diliff's dual-licence model where people asking to use an image without the attribution get asked to pay as small fee. This isn't a clear-cut copyright-troll scenario where (a) there is prior intent to dishonestly publish supposedly CC images and (b) Diliff is personally running a business off of that. It's disappointing, like finding out a good friend voted Tory. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we're going around in circles, so I'll just reiterate the key points where I don't agree with you and then I'll shut up: 1) Copyleft trolling has nothing to do with large enterprises, which very rarely use CC images (why would they, if it's safer/easier to pay for the copyright royalties and use it without attribution?), it is about going after small users and demanding money even after the image is taken down or the attribution corrected; 2) Diliff has clearly stated this is what he/Pixsy are doing, which is a direct violation of Wikimedia/CC principles. This is the only thing that matters, everything else is fluff; 3) For instance, quality and quantity shouldn't matter, unless we want our own version of 'too big to fail' ('if you're a small-time uploader we'll have no issue in blocking you and deleting your images, but don't worry if you're one of the big ones'); 4) This is not (only) about Diliff, it's about setting a precedent for how we will handle future cases, and it's about sending a message to copyleft trolls kicked out from Flickr that Wiki Commons is not an alternative. Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree why would they but they do. Even large enterprises employ stupid people. But I'll repeat what I wrote on the Wikipedia discussion. Right now we don't actually have any evidence this case is anything more than someone who stole one of Diliff's photos for commercial use without the slightest concern for licence terms because they thought everything on the internet is free and abusable without consequence. Well there was a consequence and they feel butthurt about it. As for "principles", I'm not aware that Wikimedia has an opinion on this. And if you think Flickr is an example to follow: Diliff's Flickr page is alive and well. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Julesvernex2 and @Rhododendrites I'm concerned by this edit which makes a claim about "someone that engages in copyleft trolling, would hate to see more small-time users extorted for €400+." This is a potentially libellous claim against a named individual stated without any evidence. Is our random internet complainer actually a "small-time user"? They certainly didn't make a careless small mistake in the format of the attribution: they just saw a photo on the internet and assumed it was public domain and have told us this themselves. And use of criminal language like "extorted" is seriously unacceptable as that's illegal.

  I don't have a problem with people opposing dillif's images and writing something like "per this discussion" and linking to this page. But we need to stop this business of making libellous claims of criminal activity on the basis of an anonymous poster complaining they got charged a fee for illegally using a copyright image. The only actually illegal activity here is the one the poster admitted to: using a CC BY-SA licensed image without any attribution. None of us would be sympathetic if our poster were Apple. We know nothing about them. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Without any evidence? By Dillif's own words: I do believe that even if, after investigation, the loss of income to the content creator from a single minor misuse of an image are likely not significant, a (small) penalty of some kind can still be justified. That is the definition of copyleft trolling, whether one likes the name or not. And even if our original poster is Apple (!), plenty of other cases from small-time users have been provided above. Still, if you feel that my actions are "libellous" and "illegal", please initiate the necessary procedures to curb them. If not, please stop with the fear mongering. Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Diliff had a discussion of the ethics and some aspects of his comments are not really that clear and were unspecific to the case of the original poster. We really don't have any "evidence" of actual cases involving small non-commercial users making a small error in attribution and being charged huge sums. Nor, Julesvernex2, do you have any evidence of "extortion" which I can only repeat is a serious criminal offence. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The evidence is crystal-clear, and I genuinely commend Diliff for owning up to what he did instead of evading the questions. Copyleft trolling is not illegal, but it is against Wikimedia polices. But, again, if you want to treat my use of "extortion" as an accusation of a "serious criminal offence", please go ahead. In the meantime, I'm done with this discussion. Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I was pinged. AFAIK I never used the word "extortion". Regardless, this is getting absurd, Colin. Someone using the word extortion on the internet -- a term used ubiquitously as both hyperbole and a figure of speech -- is not libel. It is a fine bit of opinion for someone to interpret "I spent time determining you didn't really harm me, so now I am entitled to your money or else I'll sue you" as "extortion" in the non-legal sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence? Colin, you obviously have missed the complaints of small-time re-users who complained directly to Diliff's talk page about being terribly sorry, the last thing we'd want to do is using a copyrighted image, sorry look we changed the website already SORRY please do not make me pay 450 Ł$€ and why are you not accepting an apology?. Small private website owners, and charities were the ones that got hurt. And no, not "butthurt". Hurt right in the finances.

These (what, ten?, cases directly cited and linked in the VP) are just the tip of the iceberg: those were just the ones who could find their way back to either Commons or Wikipedia, and just the ones which were spotted by Normanlamont who brought this to our attention. Remember that the copyleft troll business is not conducted within Commons at all, this happens in emails way outside. Well, Diliff "dealt privately" with them (nothing I've seen points towards forgiveness!) and he scrubbed his talk pages regularly to make this affair less obvious.

Now, when I said that this is a multimillion business, I explicitly did not refer to Diliff (if the guy has had 100 successful claims via Pixsy, he only raked in 22'500 Ł), but to the whole industry which we are enabling further every day we can't put an end to this. And the worst thing is that Pixsy does make errors, and fraudulently hounds innocent licensees who did everything right, too. This is their business model after all, of course they are pursuing copyleft violations in the grand scale omelett where you really need to crush all the eggs available.

Okay, and now about the usage of terms, where @Rhododendrites is entirely correct. While "extortion business" is indeed the wrong legal term, the correct term extraction business is confusingly similar. But this should not be a discussion on how to name this flagrant disregard of the spirit of our community (no @Julesvernex2, I don't even see any existing policy has even been violated), but on what to do against it before it really harms the reputation of Commons and Wikipedia. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did see those sob stories, though not the one you just made up here which is fiction. They don't count as "evidence" that would matter in any legal dispute. And as Diliff pointed out, the actual sum agreed isn't the same as what Pixsy might initially request. An anonymous person on the internet claiming to be a "small business" isn't very precise is it. Lots of small businesses turn over millions. My dentist and the local vet are both small businesses who are absolutely raking it in each day. This is small beer money to them. And I repeat that the original anonymous poster is someone we know nothing about. Nor do we have anything that would count as "evidence" wrt what the error is, though it is clear from most of the posts (including the original poster) that most didn't make a "small mistake" but simply took an image that they thought was public domain and used it as though it was free or thought all images on the internet were free to use how they liked.

There's a difference between the "evidence" needed to persuade users on an internet forum that Diliff did a bad thing and that we might do something about the pictures we host here, and the actual Evidence needed to defame someone and make what can be interpreted as criminal allegations without it backfiring.

I'm glad that Julesvernex2 is "done with this discussion" because what we don't need is WMF saying they've got a letter from Diliff's lawyers and this whole page has been taken down. Just as one can't be careless with copyright images (go misuse a Getty or AP image and you'll know all about butthurt), people here should stop being careless in their language. Enough. -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I had indeed hoped to be done discussing your accusations. Instead, you opted to double-down by opening a formal complaint against me, so I'll need to deal with that: [5]. Here, I will gladly continue to work with the many users - on both sides of the DR - that are genuinely interested in addressing the issue of copyleft trolling, instead of debating the difference between "extortionate" and "extortion". Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across this addition to the discussion. As the original poster who opened this can of worms, I can see why I ought to identify myself as 'not Apple'. I'm an amateur musician who's run a blog for over ten years just to talk about my music and that of other musicians. I have no good defence for using Diliff's photo without attribution - it was carelessness and AFAIK the only time I've used a photo without attribution in over ten years. As you'll see the other cases included charities and non-profits. Pixsy characterised my site as 'commercial' and probably did for them too. I have sold the odd CD on my site, but the Pixsy demand, £900, was many times the total I've made in sales over the years. (I accept that's not a legal defence.) I have no knowledge of Diliff's intentions to make a business model of this or not. He certainly seemed well respected here and he engaged with the discussion. His embrace of 'parallel licencing' was seen as questionable by some posters on the original page. I think the crucial thing is the 'blunt weapon' of Pixsy and similar organisations. I eventually settled with Pixsy, after months of fairly harsh exchanges, for a small fraction of the initial demand, but many a Pixsy victim has no hint that this may be possible, nor do they have a way of understanding what the amount they demand is based on. I relied on legal sites for advice. Some may not know of these or be so scared they ignore the Pixsy demands. So I endorse the addition of a 'What to do if approached my Pixsy' section. So in summary I raised concerns because I'd read about copyleft trolling when I got my Pixsy demand, discovered many others on Wikipedia trying to contact Diliff about it, and my concern was not to attack Diliff but to help stop people being hit with very large demands on questionable grounds. Normanlamont (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per Nil Einne and Geoff. The whole thing is totally ridiculous behavior on the uploaders end that goes against Commons:Project scope's whole thing about how "Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed." There's nothing good faithed about any of this and I think there's a line that has clearly been crossed here we can justifiable delete the images as being uploaded by someone who clearly is NOTHERE to build a free media repository of images that anyone can use for any purpose. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And how can Diliff's images not be used by anyone for any purpose? --A.Savin 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jmabel's comment from 17:05, 2 April 2024 essentially covers it. Although you could quible all that doesn't necessarily restrict usage, but if a refuser can't even make an honest mistake and/or have a chance to correct it then I don't see how that's not a bad faithed restriction that goes against the projects goals. Its at least to extreme of a bar to reuse and I think there's a limit on how much control an uploader should have on things further down the line. Like if someone were to upload an image under the terms that it can't be altered from the original and then knee jerk sued any reusers who did minor modifications to it. How does that not restrict usage or at least not violate the spirit of this? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I think most people here agree with the Creative Commons Statement of Enforcement Principles there's nothing remotely suggesting anyone receiving a payment demand made an "honest mistake". Ignorance is not any defence in law. Nobody here has misspelled Diliff's name or written CC-BY-SE instead of "CC BY-SA" or some other petty or minor error. They simply all saw an image on the internet and thought it was free for them to use without condition and did so. The CC licence version used by Diliff, and by the huge majority of CC images on Commons, does not have a forgiveness clause. We accept that licence and if you think Commons demands a more forgiving one, go ahead and open a DR for the millions of images we'd have to drop. It becomes invalid if the licence terms are not met and your behaviour becomes as illegal as if you'd copied a photo of Taylor Swift out of a newspaper and used that on your publicity or website. Tens of thousands of people enjoy Diliffs images every day on Wikipedia and thousands more have successfully reused his images per the CC licence terms. I reckon his images are successfully reused per licence conditions more often than all the images uploaded by all the people in this discussion. This is a ridiculous over-reaction to some anonymous poster we know nothing about. We don't actually have any (a) what the reuser actually did wrong and (b) what their commercial usage involves and how much money they make (c) what they ended up paying, for anyone. But we do know that not a single one of them gave Diliff a second thought until a letter came in the post. -- Colin (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this argument, each of the dozen users who upload daily images from the Internet with a wrong or no license should be fine 400+ $/€? Great! The WMF just said that their source of income is decreasing. You should write to them, they would appoint you chief financial officer. ;o) Sorry, but you won't fly very far with this reasoning... Yann (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much an issue with the license per se as how this particular user enforced it. Which is why this a deletion request for Diliff's images, not every image on Commons that has "CC BY-SA" or whatever license. I'm sorry you can't see or don't care about the distinction. The fact is though that Diliff's particular way of enforcing the licensing terms is totally ridiculous and goes against the spirit of the project. Does that mean the million other "CC BY-SA" licensed images on here should be deleted to? No of course not. I'd argue any image where the uploader enforces or threatens to enforce a license in a bad faithed, authoritarian manor should be deleted out right though. There's no reason we should pander to that type of nonsense or give someone like Diliff the benefit of the doubt (let alone associate them with the project) if they aren't willing to give re-users the same benefit of the doubt or respect in return. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two arguments why the images should stay available on Commons: The weak one is that at least some of these images were originally created with funds that Diliff gott from Wikimedia. The stronger argument is that re-users should be able to prove where they got the images from originally. This is not possible if we vanish the images without a trace. Oh, also a lot of these images got lots of community engagement (picture of the day and featured votes), some documentation of how the photos originally looked would be great too.

There are two consequential options to keep them: One is reuploads with forced watermarks (which I hear can be hidden when inserting into projects); the other is reuploads as downscaled versions (that can still be used in projects, although lacking quality in detail). --Enyavar (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two arguments are very much secondary to the main argument. Though the issue with deletion potentially leaving the evidence of a free licence dangling is one Commons should have addressed years ago. These are professional quality images of important buildings that have been, are, and can continue to be re-used both on Wikipedia and by countless others with a CC licence. You delete them and Wikipedia could well divorce Commons. I'm not joking here. The outrage would be "Can we have our own repository for Wikipedias separated from all the free-content purist idiots on Commons". And I say that as someone who values free-content and has campaigned to get rid of some of the GDFL nonsense that some photographers used in the past. Wikipedians don't give free-content a moments thought. They are totally happy considering their website as a free-to-read project. It might even encourage them to push for allowing -NC licences and that probably would be the end of non-NC licences for professional-level images that Commons demands.

Having watched both Notre Dame fire and Glasgow School of Art fire, I've seen what it is like to see important buildings destroyed. These high resolution photos by Diliff of English cathedrals now represent an important cultural heritage for the UK that is freely available for anyone who engages their brain before reusing. This isn't something that should be destroyed because you are a bit pissed off with the photographer.

Yann misunderstands my arguments. I'm not defending copyleft trolling. And the use of Pixsy and some of Diliff's comments aren't good. But to be perfectly frank, we know actually nothing about even a single case story. Not one. We have someone posting here who won't even tell their own story, other than to admit they thought the photo was free public domain. They repost several other posts that appeared on Diliff's talk page but none of them tell us the actual facts of what happened. And the internet being what it is, we don't even know which of any of them are real stories. All together we are on very dodgy ground legally making the kind of allegations people have made here, such as using language like "scam" and "extortion" which is the sort of childish hyperbole I'd expect from a certain rich man-baby on Twitter. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, ad-hominem arguments are not helping, I kindly ask you to amend your accusations (Edit: as User:Colin implies further down that I don't understand what an insult is: Colin, you are describing those who don't agree with your position as as "purist idiots" in a roundabout way, when you could also have used "purists" without the idiot. You even likened other people in the discussion to certain Twitterers. Whomever you might have alluded to there, nobody would want to be placed in the same basket with either of them. I couldn't help but notice that you admonished others for hyperbolic language in the same sentence and keep arguing that everyone needs to weigh their words more carefully. Good advice.).

I don't think this debate here is about "free-content purism", and on the contrary, I think most users have no problem with a few missing pictures. Deleting them is the proverbial storm in a waterglass, the images are replaceable (but again, I advocate against deletion and for watermarking instead). On the other hand and also perfectly frank, you are making all efforts not to even learn about even one single case story. Granted, we mostly just have the tales from the victim's perspective (like Normanlamont), but why do you think these stories might have been faked? Who would do that and why? Common sense, please.

Copyleft trolling does harm, and if "our" users do it, Commons shares responsability and should help prevent further cases. We are not laying the landmines, but we can at least defuse them in our territory. --Enyavar (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Enyavar here. There's really only two ways to look at this once you put aside the hyperbole and tangential side discussion.

1. Hosting the images puts re-users at legal risk
2. Hosting the images doesn't put re-users at legal risk

It seems clear to me that we are dealing with the first scenario. You can spend all day capitulating about how we destroying cultural heritage or whatever by deleting the images, but that goes for any and all images that get deleted. The fact is that we mainly (if not only) here to make sure re-users don't get needlessly sued for using an image from our site. It's not like the images can't just be hosted somewhere else though. For instance, the ones being used on Wikipedia can be re-uploaded there under fair use. Or Diliff can re-upload them the thousands of other image hosting websites that don't care about their users or following the law. We aren't obligated to host anything on Commons though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've got one comment that doesn't understand what "ad-hominem" means or another that doesn't understand what "fair use" implies or the bizarre comment about "following the law". Em, the only people who didn't "follow the law" were those that used copyright images as though they weren't. That's, you know, not legal. I get the forgiveness bit, I do, but the only law that was broken was copyright law. And Commons doesn't actually have any policy abut copyright enforcement practices. It does however accept a variety of licences that permit the copyright holder to enforce their rights if the licence conditions aren't met. We agreed to those licences and Diliff donated his images at the time in good faith. I'd much prefer we resolve this by asking Diliff to change their behaviour about the images on Commons. I don't like what Diliff is doing the same as most people here. But I don't think deleting all the images is a sensible response. It's like burning down a library because you don't like that the librarian hands out fines if people don't return their book on time.

No, Diliff's images are not replaceable. They really aren't. I'm not saying the stories are faked, I'm saying that if some some serious person actually asked you for evidence that a real actual person was "scammed" and "extorted" and you replied "Well, some red-link user posted this on Diliff's talk page" .... -- Colin (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons doesn't actually have any policy abut copyright enforcement practices. Sure, but we enforce a lot of things that are against the spirit or aim of the project all the time regardless if there's a specific policy reason behind it or not. So what's your point. Are you going to argue that we shouldn't take action on something that's clearly at odds with the projects goals just because it doesn't perfectly fit within an existing policies framework?

I'd much prefer we resolve this by asking Diliff to change their behaviour about the images on Commons. It seems like people already asked him to change his behavior a month ago and he either ignored the messages or outright refused to.

You replied "Well, some red-link user posted this on Diliff's talk page That's how a lot of problems are brought up and resolved. Red-linked users have as much right to complain about something as anyone else on here. What bar of evidence that's this an issue would be good enough for you though? Because your acting like it's only a valid complaint if we go to the person's house, read the actual documents, and then give Diliff a year to respond after asking them multiple times to fix their behavior. That's not how things work on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what's a 'red-link user'? (I think you're talking about me here.) Normanlamont (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normanlamont: A 'red-link user' is Wikimedia slang. It refers to someone who is new to the project, perhaps with little knowledge about how things work and therefore hasn't created a user page with some info yet. User pages often contains information about the person and what they are doing here on the project. You automatically get a talk page as soon as you write anything on Commons or Wikipedia, but a user page requires some effort on your part. As soon as you write something (anything) on your user page and click on 'Publish page', the color of your name will change from red to blue. --Cart (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Normanlamont (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Comment This messy discussion has gone on far too long, all because a guy wants to have the cake and eat it. Diliff is using the exposure that Commons/WikiMedia can give, but also wants the money that Pixsy can hustle for him and let WikiMedia take the heat for it. That is not a grown-up and responsible behavior; it is also unprofessional. He needs to make up his mind to use one of these, you should never mix your hobby with your job. AFAICS the files uploaded on Commons, need to be removed from the Pixsy service, not WikiMedia. You can be on both platforms, but not with the same files. If you want to play both sides, there are so many cleaner ways to do this. Like for example hosting your best shot off-Wiki and make all the money-making you want from it, and post the second-best shot here on Commons. This is not hard today when photographers take so many shots of the same subject/angle. Or, make a choice of what sort of photos you upload on Commons and what shots you keep for commercial purpose. Before I retired, I kept a clear line between my product photos for my business and the shots I made for Commons. It's only after I retired that I've given up my copyright on some of those photos (and the designs) and published such photos here. They are of little use to me now, and perhaps they can serve as inspiration for new artists.

Again I stress: You can't have it both ways! It is damaging both to WikiMedia's reputation and yours. If your photos were on Commons first, they are, to put it harshly, "lost to the Internet" and should not appear on commercial photo sites. Learn to live with it! I have learned this lesson from decades of copyright fights; the only way to beat the Net is to always be one step ahead with new material that you can make money from while it's still fresh. Or sulk, grow bitter and crazy. So, make new versions (most churches are still standing) with better photo equipment/experience and make money of those. If Taylor Swift could do this, so can Diliff. --Cart (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, I don't think I understand the combination of "keep" with the content of your vote. Diliff is having it both ways. Here we're trying to determine if we should intervene in the only "way" we have any control over. "Keep" = we're fine with you having it both ways, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be unclear, I was trying to explain under what conditions I was for keeping the files. I'm urging him to see reason first and remove the files from Pixsy so that we can keep them here on Commons. If he doesn't, they should be removed so that he doesn't have his great "advertising platform". Without his photos on Wikipedias, he'll be almost invisible to his clients. Wikis are the way he can run this operation, so either he cleans up his act or his photos are gone. Even photos here with forced watermarks or downscaled versions will work as "ads" for him, and that is no ok to me. Yes, we will lose a lot of good photos, but we will do well anyway. People mostly use Wikipedia for text and facts, not the pretty pictures. The rules should be the same for everyone, we shouldn't bend them just because he's 'too big to fail'. I understand the arguments that removing the files will leave good re-users outside Wiki with a problem if they have linked back to Commons, so perhaps instead of deleting the file pages, those could be kept with a message explaining why the photo is no longer available. I have changed the 'vk' to 'cmt' since that might be more appropriate. --Cart (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think I've actually voted. Per all my above comments. This stinks. I wish Diliff would stop. But deleting all these images is a terrible idea. -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I think PCP applies here. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @A1Cafel: The policy COM:PCP states the following: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted". Now is there any doubt that any of the Diliff's files in question might be unfree? --A.Savin 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is clear that this user is completely incompetent which confirmed by multiple blocks, warnings (and after his indefinite block has been lifted!) and lacking answer to your question. I think that final of this long story will be WMF/global ban of the user. And than faster it occurs, than better for Commons. I request to closing admin not to count A1Cafel vote because it is not based on Commons policies and traditions but only on radical deletionist views of A1Cafel. His goals are delete and disrupt project and troll users. My previous reply has been cancelled by long-term A1Cafel ally, Adamant1 (I will go to AN/U if he will revert me again) 145.224.73.168 13:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well now, anyway I've the impression that users who are themselves contributing quality content here have (apart from a few exceptions) voted in favor of keeping, while users who are known mainly for drama and/or have only some dozens of edits on Commons have voted in favor of deletion. Regards --A.Savin 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Another way to look at it is a lot of us chimed in early because this was premature and Diliff hadn't responded yet. Of the users who voted after Diliff's last comment here, most have supported something other than keeping (watermarking or deleting), including multiple people who participate at FPC. That said, I'd disagree with both the substance and the subtext (that people who upload good photos better understand free culture, commons policy, behaviors of reusers, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rhododendrites, almost no additional votes have appeared since Diliff last commented here compared to the solid "vk" mass of votes earlier. You are discounting the idea that people who voted earlier have read the posts since and not changed their minds, so I think it unfair of you to dismiss those votes as somehow discardable. One can't really say anything much about it statistically. The truth is that this DR has dragged on for two months longer than it should have, and now we are even just getting votes from recently indeffed users who don't even read policy.

  Diliff said earlier that the actual amounts people pay are small in reality and NormanLamont has just conformed above that he paid "a small fraction of the initial demand". If an "amateur musician" can do a bit of googling to realise you don't have to pay much to make Pixsy go away, then I guess any of the other handful of cases posted here that started this could have done the same. So rather than this being a "business model" it's looking more like an occasional sum that might after a few years help towards a new lens. Contrast that below with the numerous cases of successfully free licence use for just one image out of 1500 and I can't see the moral case for denying the world free access to freely licenced images just because literally a handful of people were ignorant and ended up paying the price of a parking ticket.

  I don't know what is being hoped by dragging this along. You really really are not going to get all of Diliff's images deleted. Ain't gonna happen. Let's put this to bed please and say prayers that Diliff changes his mind. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - deletion arguments more persuasive. Potential for Harm being caused inadvertently Zymurgy (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I have a go search for uses of the File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpg that launched this.

• Homeviews: 10 best places to live in Hammersmith Credit: "(Main image credit: Diliff)". Commercial website who's own content is "© 2018-2024 HomeViews - All rights reserved".
• 7Marvels Ltd. Credit: "Credit: Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0". Commercial retailing website. Own content "Copyright 2024 © 7Marvels Ltd."
• Adventure Clues Credit: "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0" Commercial travel services. Own content "Copyright © 2024. Adventure Clues. All Rights Reserved"
• TNS Electrical Solutions Commercial electrical services. Credit: "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0"
• Thames Festival Trust. No visible credit. Charitable organisation. Own content "© Thames Festival Trust. All rights reserved."
• Womanthology Credit: "Main image credit: By Diliff – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Main image credit: By Diliff – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19085420" Commercial magazine. Own content "Womanthology © 2024. All rights reserved."
• Beachcombing Magazine No visible credit. Commercial magazine. Own content: "©️ Etched by the Sea Inc. Beachcombing is published by Etched by the Sea Inc. All rights reserved. All images are used by permission and are the property of their respective owners.

That's just one photo and just a google image search. Mostly being used according to the CC licence terms by commercial organisations who themselves keep their content wrapped up in "All rights reserved". Even a local electrician can get it right. A couple of uncredited uses but possibly those have reached an agreement with Diliff as has been his practice for many years. What I am seeing here, for just one photo out of 1500, is our free content repository working to offer free-to-use images even for commercial purposes by organisations who themselves are not generously offering any content as free-to-use (vs free to read, perhaps). Multiply this by 1500 and whether you are asking for deletion or ugly watermark banner, you would be seriously harming the chance of thousands of successful free uses of these images. Within our own project, the image is used on seventeen projects. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any user approached by Pixsy or similar organisations will immediately remove the photo as a first reaction, unless they want to tough it out with Pixsy, so you won't see them.

"reached an agreement with Diliff as has been his practice for many years." The people who posted on Diliff's page didn't get replies from him to reach an agreement. If they had it would have cast a completely different light on the discussion but I think he actually said somewhere he didn't check the page so didn't know they'd been trying to contact him. You could say I reached an agreement, with Pixsy, but it was only by refusing to pay their demands and, in preparation for a court case if it came to that, offering a small amount which I never thought they'd accept. To most people there is no way to reach an agreement with a photographer who uses Pixsy. Normanlamont (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My search was not to find violating images. That's impossible to know as anyone could use Diliff's image without attribution by coming to an agreement privately with them. From past discussions, those using images for charitable/non-profit purposes are not charged. My purpose was to demonstrate that for just one image out of 1500 a very quick search shows up that his images are being used widely per licence terms and enjoyed by many people. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to those "past discussions" which indicate to you that charities "are not charged." Is that a statement by Pixsy, or by Diliff? --Enyavar (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: A clear majority here support keeping the images in question given their high quality and within-scope status. Commons policy does not provide a justification for mandating the deletion of these images. There is no consensus about forced watermarking, but it seems discussion is ongoing at the Village Pump to determine how best to deal with similar cases in the future. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]