Commons photographer demanding payment for images lacking correct attribution

[Hemiauchenia]

Recently at the Commons Village pump ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... ns_clearer ) a user, Normanlamont (T-H-L) complained that he was being persued for damages by Pixsy (a firm used by photographers to collect payments from copyright infringers under threat of legal action) on behalf of Commons user
Diliff (T-C-L), who is professional photographer David Iliff.

David Iliff has uploaded numerous CC licensed images to Commons, which require the authors to be credited for their photos. Iliff's Commons talkpage archive shows numerous recent cases where he sent Pixsy and a similar firm, Fossick, to demand payment for people who did not properly credit him in their image use.

Many Commons users in the discussion seem unimpressed that these users were persued for payment even if they were willing to promptly correct the image credits or take down the image entirely. Cory Doctorow has dubbed this sort of behaviour "copyleft trolling" (which he discusses in this Medium post https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-ea ... 6360713299), and as noted in the discussion, Flickr has banned similar behaviour. Jeff G was animated enough about it to propose deleting all of diliff's images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... _by_Diliff , which doesn't appear to be heading towards deletion.

On the other hand as Rhododendrites points out, if you're uploading images to Commons with the requirement that the images are credited and then they are not and then you have no real recourse, then that's quite frustrating and not really fair to the photographer, and the images may as well be public domain. David Iliff relates in the discussion that he once saw his images being used by Apple, and got no reply once he asked for credit.

Overall I see both sides of the issue as having reasonable points. At the end of the day though, as a professional photographer, I think releasing your images for free in any capacity just seems unwise. The willingness of people to release high-quality professional photographic images for free (or nearly so) has significantly devalued the market for commerical photography (which will no doubt be devalued further by AI images).

[Konveyor Belt]

On one hand if I had taken good photographs and uploaded them to Commons under a copyleft license to do a nice thing, it would be quite annoying for people to not in turn do the right thing and give me credit. In the case of Mr. Iliff his status as a professional photographer makes getting his name out there even more important.

On the other hand the cases of Normanlamont and the other people who have posted on his talk through the years seem very much like small fry. Linkedin pages, small blogs, a musicians' charity, etc. aren't exactly Apple Inc., and one wonders if they had properly credited him if he would have received even one additional iota of attention. I think the right thing to have done in these cases would be to simply demand proper attribution with no mention of "damages".

Ultimately I don't think Iliff was trying to trap people or make money off of Wikipedia. Rather, he's just uploaded these images to a service that scrapes the web for them and send out demand letters automatically. It does suck for Commons though because they're going to either remove these high quality images or be an unwilling participant in this system. Maybe there should be some kind of warning banner to alert viewers on Commons that "the owner of these photographs has taken legal action against other sites" or something along those lines.

[Ron Lybonly]

Doesn’t the free use license used by Commons require subsequent users credit either Commons or the uploader (I’m not sure which)?

It’s hardly an onerous requirement to get free use something valuable.

[rnu]

Doesn’t the free use license used by Commons require subsequent users credit either Commons or the uploader (I’m not sure which)?

It’s hardly an onerous requirement to get free use something valuable.

It depends on the specific license used for each image. But most require attribution as a minimum. The most common exception are images that are in the public domain because the copyright has expired. There are also a few people who release their images to the public domain.

[Hemiauchenia]

Doesn’t the free use license used by Commons require subsequent users credit either Commons or the uploader (I’m not sure which)?

It’s hardly an onerous requirement to get free use something valuable.

It requires crediting the author specifically, along with the license. Many sites (including those of major media organisations) don't bother though, and only credit Wikimedia Commons. I assume this is because imaging licensing companies like Getty don't require you to credit the individual photographer when you license images from them.

I should note that this isn't the first time this has happened. As discussed in Cory Doctorow's article, back in 2019, country music photographer Larry Philpot (Commons user Nightshooter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spec ... ghtshooter) who uploaded a bunch of photos to Commons of country musicians back in 2013 sued a non-profit music website called MetaBrainz for $10,000 because they didn't explicitly credit him when using one of his images (though they did provide a link to the original source). The lawsuit was dismissed in court with prejudice. Following this, he was banned from Commons (despite not having made any edits in 6 years), and visual license credits were added to all of his images. (Discussed in the threads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... ve/2019/06 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... on_request )

[Bezdomni]

The willingness of people to release high-quality professional photographic images for free (or nearly so) has significantly devalued the market for commercial photography (which will no doubt be devalued further by AI images).

I doubt people will be satisfied with AI images of their weddings, babies, personnel, properties for sale, etc. The market for commercial photography has never really been about photos of churches and sheep...

[Hemiauchenia]

The willingness of people to release high-quality professional photographic images for free (or nearly so) has significantly devalued the market for commercial photography (which will no doubt be devalued further by AI images).

I doubt people will be satisfied with AI images of their weddings, babies, personnel, properties for sale, etc. The market for commercial photography has never really been about photos of churches and sheep...

AI-generated images will definitely have an impact on commercial stock photography, which is what I had in mind.

For example, bizarre, oddly specific images like this:

[SarekOfVulcan]

AI-generated images will definitely have an impact on commercial stock photography, which is what I had in mind.

For example, bizarre, oddly specific images like this:

[ArmasRebane]

The willingness of people to release high-quality professional photographic images for free (or nearly so) has significantly devalued the market for commercial photography (which will no doubt be devalued further by AI images).

I doubt people will be satisfied with AI images of their weddings, babies, personnel, properties for sale, etc. The market for commercial photography has never really been about photos of churches and sheep...

AI-generated images will definitely have an impact on commercial stock photography, which is what I had in mind.

For example, bizarre, oddly specific images like this:

Same as it ever was. I'm old enough to remember the day-long bespoke shoots for commercials or print spreads. It got wiped out in less than 10 years by stock libraries. The photographers who survived switched to weddings and the like, and it'll be the same case here.

Commons banning people for this stuff seems excessive. By the letter and spirit of the law these people aren't being properly attributed. You have to be kind of silly to think this wouldn't happen, I suppose, but it's also not hard to do.

[rnu]

Someone thought it would be a good idea to put one of Iliff's photos on the Main Page. What could possibly go wrong?

Today's POTD
We should not be featuring a photo used for copyleft trolling on our Main Page. We are endangering our users! Please switch it to a different photo. Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

[Ming]

Someone thought it would be a good idea to put one of Iliff's photos on the Main Page. What could possibly go wrong?

Today's POTD
We should not be featuring a photo used for copyleft trolling on our Main Page. We are endangering our users! Please switch it to a different photo. Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, nothing actually. They attributed him, he got exposure, commons got cred getting a donation from a pro.

[rnu]

Someone thought it would be a good idea to put one of Iliff's photos on the Main Page. What could possibly go wrong?

Today's POTD
We should not be featuring a photo used for copyleft trolling on our Main Page. We are endangering our users! Please switch it to a different photo. Nosferattus (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, nothing actually. They attributed him, he got exposure, commons got cred getting a donation from a pro.

Well, it gives prominence to the photo. There is a (slight) chance that someone will say "ooh nice photo, I'm gonna use it without attribution". It's a bit odd to feature one of his photos while there is a discussion about what to do with him and his photos.