Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff

Files uploaded by Diliff (talk · contribs)

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)

Discussion

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)

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

@Chris.sherlock2: It hasn't been archived yet.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)

•  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)
  • Firstly, I am no longer active on Commons and Wikipedia and it seems that, from reading your comments on my talk page, that you made no effort to inform me of the reason for your line of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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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

•  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

  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)

  @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)

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

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • Perhaps all the images should be replaced with blank placeholders so that the file pages remain. Nosferattus (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    • 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)
•  Keep as premature. The VP thread is ongoing. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)

• @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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

•  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)
• (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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

      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)

      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)

      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)

•  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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

•  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)

•  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

•  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)

  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)

  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)

   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)

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

  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:

  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:

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

•  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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
•  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)

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

  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)

•  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)

  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)

  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)

•  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

@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)

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

•  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)
•  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)
•  Keep I have similar sentiments as Chris. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep. I don't see how any Commons policies have been violated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
  • @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)

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

•  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)
  • @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)
    • 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)

      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)

      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)

      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)

• 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)

• @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)

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)

• • • 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)

      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)

• 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)

  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)

•  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)
•  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)

 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)

@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)

•  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)

Related discussion about image crediting on WP. Copied to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where it can continue.

Comment For those who would want to see photos better credited on Wikipedia, I occasionally come across that on the Norwegian Wiki, [2] [3] [4]. It's not done on every image, so I don't know what their policy for this is, but it's worth a look. I think it looks very professional, and it doesn't disturb the article. I don't know if there are other Wikis with this practice. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)  Comment Interesting – thank you, Cart! I have never seen this in other Wikipedia editions. I guess most of our photographers would appreciate this kind of attribution very much, but maybe not all Wikipedians would like that idea … Of course we normally argue that attribution of individual images is not necessary in Wikipedia articles. But the absence of any attribution in Wikipedia may contribute to the misunderstanding of many re-users of images that “Wikipedia images” are public domain. If we would attribute all photos in Wikipedia articles in this unobtrusive manner, more people could learn that not all “Wikipedia images” are PD, but that they must be attributed properly. – Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC) I thought it was worth mentioning. It could be optional, and you might toy with the idea that professional photographers might be more inclined to donate some of their images to a CC license if they were credited in this way. There are arguments to be had both pro and con. --Cart (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC) There's a good page on enwiki arguing for photo captions here: en:Wikipedia:Image_citation. I think if enwiki in particular is going to buy-in, it's going to be on the basis of verifiability, citing sources, and providing information without the need to go to a sister site. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC) These day with all the AI-generated images and fake news, I think that in some cases it can help the article, if the reader immediately sees that the image comes from a trusted photographer, a museum or a photographer affiliated to some institution, without having to click away to get that info. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC) I actually have always wanted that on enwiki, just because I like checking for photographer names and I don't like clicking to do it. It's nice for verifiability reasons. The way Norwegian Wikipedia does it is nice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Yes the idea is nice, however if hardly anyone maintains it and as a result some pictures are attributed correctly, some incorrectly and some not at all, that's definitely not nice in the end, and I would say better let it be completely. IMHO --A.Savin 01:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Yes, I agree that it's what would happen; and already is happening at the Norwegian Wiki. I think they try to go by the letter of the CC license and actually credit the photographers, and failing just like A.Savin says. So in the end we on the WikiProjects are/would be just as sloppy and inaccurate as everyone else using our photos, yet we are the ones throwing stones here. I regard any photo I upload on Commons as a "lost" photo, and I live with it (like Korda did). It's always interesting to see where my photos turn up, and I'm not losing any sleep over if my name is on it or not. So many of my designs and artistic ideas have been stolen over the years, and if you don't let go of it, you will go crazy and bitter. I give this as my advice to Diliff and others. If you want to get paid for your work, make a hard copyright from the beginning and don't mix your profession with your hobby. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Sad but true … Theoretically attribution hints like the ones in the Norwegian Wiki could in most cases be generated automatically by the Mediawiki software. When an image looks like a photo (has the usual Exif values etc.), has a single entry in the ‘Author’ field of the {{Information}} template and this entry has the standard form of a user-page link, the software could automatically add “Photo: <username link>” at the end of the image caption. In all other cases the software could show a small warning instead: “Fellow editors, please add the attribution to this image manually.” This way the need for maintenance could be reduced drastically. – Aristeas (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) If you're talking about the same technical solution as in the "Favorites" userpages (such as yours User:Aristeas/Favorites), then I'd have to oppose -- the attributions are not always correctly generated, apparently there are problems at least with file imports such as Flickr. --A.Savin 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC) I think any solution would need to involve no effort on the part of Wikipedians, and do the credit line automatically much like you get in the Media Viewer one sees when one clicks on a Wikipedia image while logged out (or if that's your preferred setting if logged in). It isn't perfect, relying on the photographer/uploader/commoner to get it right wrt templates and such, but it is better than expecting Wikipedians to do it. The Wikipedia style is technically within the CC law, but requires a click to show any credit info. The Norwegian style isn't explicitly correct either, giving just the author name, and relying on clicks for the rest. So someone copying a Norwegian image and sticking "Diliff" below it, would very much still be using it illegally. This has the unfortunate effect that the most popular and likely place anyone will see your photo is somewhere that does not explicitly get the licence details right, and the image can be copied without ever seeing the attribute or licence details. It is this that sites like Pixsy make their CC money from, and Wikipedia imo should take responsibility for enabling the copyleft-troll business model to exist. If the images explicitly had "© User:Colin Licence: CC-BY-SA-3.0" on them, there'd be less excuse that one didn't know it wasn't free and didn't know what one was supposed to do to reuse it. Wikipedia could also help by having a little "reuse this image" button on each image that took you to a page that explained what you need to do. Currently the Media Viewer is an example of how to do it right but there's no Help Page link explaining what is necessary. If Commons images were all self made, we could impose conditions on uploading them wrt pursuing individuals for incorrect attribution. But most licenced images on Commons come from elsewhere, and as long as our model is hoovering up whatever appears to be free, we are susceptible to abuse. I suspect Wikipedians will not be interested in correct explicit attribution. The text-based project they spend most effort on is collaboratively built and they accept their contribution is a drop in a hidden list of many. They also don't really view themselves working on a free-content project, vs just writing Wikipedia (i.e. Wikipedia is free to read; they don't realise it is also free to reuse). And the collaborative model that discourages any ideas of ownership of articles, also discourages a mindset that gets terribly upset when people copy the text without getting licence details right. Our single-creator free-to-use-anywhere image model is alien to them. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I do not want to end this important discussion, but as this goes far away from the deletion request itself so we should move this to another place. GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Fair point, you are absolutely right. Since I was the one who derailed this thread, I'll copy-paste the last bit of this to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where I'm sure the discussion will continue, and fold up that part here. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) @W.carter: Or there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) @GPSLeo: Please suggest another place, or as requestor I am fine with keeping the discussion going here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)