Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-15/Opinion

Discuss this story

There have been lawsuits attempting to enforce the Gnu Public License terms on derivative software (see gpl-violations.org), but when it comes to CC license violations in the reuse of photographs, you're apparently on your own... AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos, your impression is refuted by reality: there are many cases of lawsuits and legal threats around (actual) CC license violations, often resulting in redressing the misuse (e.g. adding missing attribution), and sometimes involving the paying of a compensatory fee without going through a court of law. A whole spate of such legal threats has just taken place in my native Israel in recent months. Ijon (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a centrally-organized funded group which undertakes such lawsuits on behalf of photographers? That would be very new, and I'd be interested to hear about it. AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pixsy, which I use send demands for payments on my behalf (they take 50% of any settlement), and if they don't pay they may refer the case to one of their legal partners for a proper lawsuit. One such case is Glad v. 1BusinessWorld, Inc. in the works right now (me being "Glad"). But Pixsy has gotten a bad rep' due to some photographers using it to send demands to re-users who has actually tried in good faith to attribute, but failed - one such creator and their images has even been banned from Wikimedia Commons due to this practice. This something I...am undecided on; since they didn't follow the license they offered, why should a creator demand anything less than full adherence - not all users/creators are contributing "to this community" simply to spread libre/free/open ethos around the world, some (think e.g. corporations such as Disney) could begrudgingly "allow" to donate a work under a free license given that any re-users are forced to follow the license specified - and we would not believe anything less than the fact their legal department would stamp on any re-users who would not adhere to the license. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: Does the photographer have to individually approve any demands before Pixsy sends them? For some of the cases where people have said they received inappropriate demands from Pixsy (or maybe a similar service), it was not clear to me how involved the photographer was in the demand process, so I would be curious to hear from you about the workflow. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 01:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photographer needs to fist review the match (if Pixsy's automatic 'image-finder' has detected an image elsewhere online) and then actively press something to start a case, then it needs to fill out when the photographer first became aware of this infringement, if it is used by a commercial company or not, (and if it is licensed under Creative Commons, the photographer needs to confirm that the re-user did not attempt to attribute at all) and then agree to Pixsy's terms of service before Pixsy can actively start pursuing something. So no, Pixsy cannot and won't act one something without prior go-ahead. But how they pursue or what they send to the re-users is not something I as a photographer knows (more than what amount they feel they should ask for).. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: that is somewhat reassuring. To confirm, you get to see exactly where and how the image is used, so that you can see whether it might be non-infringing or only-kind-of-infringing, and you also approve the amount that is demanded, although you don't get to choose your own amount or see the exact form of the demand? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 18:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get to see the image being used (their site displays my image and their image next to each other so I can see if it is the same image or a false match - if they are I'm prompted to open their website to view and review its usage. I can then either skip the match (mark as "Not my image", "Ignore match", or "Approved usage"), send a DMCA, or I can submit a case to Pixsy (if the domain seems to be in their coverage area - I believe about 14 countries). When submitting a case, I have to confirm (swear) that there isn't an existing commercial license or good faith attribution (in case of Creative Commons) before I can proceed to submit a case. I am the one who submits each case. I can either suggest an amount myself, approve of "Pisxy's pricing", or ""Whichever is highest" (in case I wish to demand a minimum amount). After that, I get updates as follows:

When they reviewed if the case is accepted: organizational use (not personal), in their accepted countries, not fair use etc.
When they start investigating the usage (the spread, the type of usage, etc.)
1. If they think they can negotiate with the company they'll contact the infringer, and then I find out what amount they will seek.
  1. When they start calling, in case of non-responsiveness
  2. When they send a final notice
  3. When they either decide to give up, or recommend to pursue the legal route
2. If they do not believe they can negotiate, or if the above has already been tried they will refer to their legal partner
  1. I might get asked if I want to pursue a lawsuit or not.
  2. I haven't done anything further than this...

There has been some cases in the "news" of good-faith Creative Commons re-users who has been "hit", but either the photographer lied when submitting the case that there were no good faith attribution attempt, or the infringers complain because they are under the mistaken understanding that the 4.0 licenses gives them a 30 day notice period to correct their attribution (this only applies if they actually tried to attribute in the first place) and since Pixsy don't go after images licensed under 4.0 due to this, but will go after images licensed under e.g. 2.0, they complain it is just technicalities with license numbers. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth mentioning that one of the people you refer to is Cory Doctorow (see [1], which is unfortunately paywalled). He describes receiving false Pixsy complaints in cases where he did properly attribute the original material, and hearing of other cases where reusers did make a good-faith attempt to attribute but made "minor" mistakes. Given his involvement with the copyright reform movement, I think it is rather implausible that he would've messed up something as basic as a Creative Commons attribution (and he also says that the complaints against himself were withdrawn when he pushed back). The problem of photographers lying or exaggerating the degree of a violation seems (to me) a rather serious issue. Creative Commons is supposed to be an assurance that I can use an image without having to consult a lawyer, so long as I comply with the conditions. When that breaks down, it undermines trust in the whole system. --N Y Kevin 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that is really the creator’s wrong-doing lying when submitting a case, more than Pixsy’s “false complaints”. Due diligence should be done on both sides, but it seems like an echo chamber is made when a few “false positives” cause other false positives refer to each other claiming a systemic issue. I sometimes Google reverse image search my images, and in 60-75% of all images there is absolutely ZERO attempts to attribute the CC license. True, there is a few “personal usages” which I don’t care about on blogs etc. but the other ones I despise on some level. I give away a free image, under the premise I get credit (and technically also a link-back) - I deserve at LEAST that much - in other settings I deserve money if I weren’t this generous, donating for free. Cases where individual reusers claim to have attributed in good-faith rarely seems to back that us with Wayback archived versions of their sites, and simply point to other infringers complaints online, inferring some bad faith on the creator’s side…that’s at least my interpretation on most cases. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a question of what the reuse is. If it's a commercial operation, say a Wikipedia mirror, yeah, they better make sure they have their licensing in order and done right, and I have no sympathy for them if they don't. If it's a 14 year old kid who used it as part of a Facebook post, on the other hand—well, at least try asking them to fix it before you sic the lawyers on them. (Also, bit of a nitpick, but always a bit bothersome—infringements are not correctly referred to as theft. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's a matter of laziness. A few years ago Warner Brothers was making Sully (film) and they liked my photo of a parade on Fifth Avenue as a background for a barroom scene. So, they asked for a license. Go ahead; it's already licensed, I said; see the file in Commons. No, they were going to edit the photo and wanted a specific, signed authority from me. This meant I had to remember how to prepare and activate my printer, sign the form, rummage for my scanner, remember how it works, and send the form. With my secretarial skills it took a couple hours. Had they simply used it without credit, I would have been ahead. Difficult for me to imagine why I would want to spend hours defending my rights in such a matter, big corporation or not. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licences are not free! If it was licensed under CC-BY-SA, then they did need your permission (a new licence), because otherwise they would have needed to attribute it. While most people can (and do) get away with it, everyone knows Warner Brothers have deep pockets, and refilming or digitally altering the scene to remove the image might have been expensive. I know a few Wiki-photographers who habitually chase down unattributed use of their material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to hear about Pixsy, but it's based on a rather different model than Gpl-violations.org. I declared most of the images I created on my own (i.e. not derivative of images by other people) to be Public Domain, since I don't really care who uses them, but some people have asked me for permission anyway. (Of course, none of those images are photographs...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the biggest issue here is Satan himself, Getty Images, who very much has a history of fondness for charging people to use PD, CC0, or otherwise CC images. I'm not especially kind to finding instances of Getty taking some historical PD image from the Library of Congress and trying to charge a fee because they have better SEO. GMG ^talk 12:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the courts have ruled that it is legal for them to do so! That's one of the big drawbacks of making your images PD. It is better to licence your images as CC. Pixsy can then charge them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it still feels very much like theft by deception. Feels very Aloysius O'Hare charging people for air. GMG ^talk 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to defend Getty Images or their fee structure. However there is value in organizing freely available photos in ways that facilitate users finding an apt photo for their illustration needs. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One could (in a very construed and forced way) draw parallels to Wikimedia Enterprise which charges for access to freely licensed articles and content here (Wikipedia and Wikidata) - they charge for access but not the copyright in this instance. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getty can provide a valuable service in allowing content creators an easy way to monetize their work, much like YouTube offers a low barrier-to-entry for content creators who would otherwise be working away on some site on the fourth page of Google. But reselling public domain content is morally gross. GMG ^talk 21:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]