Commons talk:Copyleft trolling

Draft feedback

I started a draft. I feel pretty good about it, although there are still a couple placeholders. I don't think we're going to find a consensus for any enforcement, but perhaps we can come to a consensus about a guideline. I've tried to define copyleft trolling, give some tips to distinguish it from other types of enforcement, explain what I think there is strong consensus for in terms of principles, and detail some of the ways we've dealt with it in the past. The point isn't to provide anything prescriptive, but to document "this is something we care about and could do something about".

Pinging some of the users active in the VP discussion: @Nosferattus, SHB2000, King of Hearts, Normanlamont, Adamant1, Jeff G., Chris.sherlock2, Jmabel, Nil Einne, Yann, Enyavar, Bluerasberry, and Julesvernex2: (sorry if I missed anyone -- I just pinged those whose name stood out more than once in that thread) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Rhododendrites, this is a great start. I think the 'Victim of copyleft trolling?' section is a key one, as many users will likely land on this page only after being hit with a claim. I've reached out to CC for their feedback on which jurisdictions/scenarios Pixsy & Co. are more likely to pursue legal action, and what actions victims can consider to decrease the odds. As you said, we need to fall short of providing legal advice, but hopefully there's some useful stuff we can include. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Great start! I agree that we'll need to fall short of providing legal advice. Maybe we should also point out the fact that CC-4 gives a 30-day grace period? SHB2000 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SHB2000: That's in there, but remember that grace period only applies to restoring the license. It doesn't stop the demands for money; it only means you can continue to use the image once you've paid. With the older licenses, if you pay a fee, fix attribution, and continue using the images, you could be sued again because you didn't have a 30-day window to restore the license. It's not much of a fix, but it does reduce some of the harm. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is a nice start. Thanks for your work on it. So far I've been rather disheartened that it seems almost impossible to build consensus to do anything about copyleft trolling here. Maybe this page will help to inform people so that we can start to build some consensus around defending our values and protecting reusers. Nosferattus (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks all. I'm going to move this into projectspace and remove the essay template (without replacing it with anything). Here's my question: should this be shaped into something that can be proposed as a formal guideline? Or should it be a "help" page? It's explaining and articulating some principles rather than prescribing any particular behavior, which makes me think it could be out of place as a guideline, but maybe being a guideline would give those principles more weight? Curious about your thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing this. I’m sure it will help a lot of people. Normanlamont (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I like it, but I had to add a word. I suggest making it a guideline.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Finally took the time to fully read this. It is a great overview on the current situation, and a solid foundation to build on once the community decides on further actions. --Enyavar (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Negotiation

@Nosferattus: Regarding this, to me the line you removed is less telling people to pay trolls and more telling people they don't have to pay the amount stated, which seems useful to know. What about modifying that line to start with "If you decide to pay the fee..."? Certainly we shouldn't tell people not to pay, as ignoring the demands can turn accidental infringement claims into "willful infringement". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. FWIW, I do think ignoring the monetary demand is an option and we should not preclude that. Nosferattus (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Definition

I think the article needs to have something in the lead about valid licence enforcement (rather than half way down) including your comment about otherwise the image would be functionally public domain. The lead sentence mentions "for minor licensing violations". The current Diliff case was brought about by a user who admitted they didn't read the licence conditions at all, thought the image was public domain, and didn't attribute Diliff at all. That's not a minor licence violation. They essentially treated the image as "If it's on the internet it must be free". And we also don't know anything about this person. They could work in the advertising dept of a large corporation for all we know. So in fact it might not fit into the model described and be indeed a perfectly reasonable example of licence enforcement.

The main issue for which we actually have facts, is that Diliff has employed Pixsy for licence enforcement. What is definitely different about the Diliff case is there was no prior intent to upload images from which an income stream would arrive as Dillif was active here for years. Diliff has himself expressed that he has tried to intervene to help out the less egregious misuse and personally has no desire to demand big fees from individuals or tiny businesses.

I think this is more of a case of where Pixsy has been used as a blunt tool for licence enforcement of misuse by large corporations, with collateral damage. Can we distinguish that somehow? The idea that Diliff personally wishes to seek large fees from minor licensing violations from individuals and small businesses is false, as Diliff has explicitly said that is not their intent. Really, we need something saying please don't use Pixsy for licence enforcement. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Colin: Let us consider either rearranging file description pages to put the licensing first, or putting a "Licensing" link (in the appropriate language, to the licensing selection further down) above the file display. I don't know how feasible either would be.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So proposed at COM:VPP#Make licensing easier for reusers to see.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been reading more on this. The Pixsy ban proposal, which failed had useful input from one user who made use of Pixsy while claiming to be behaving honourably. They made use of a template User:Josve05a/Pixsy that appeared in their image description page that warned users the image was protected against "image theft" by Pixsy. This might be a useful pattern to follow, though the Media Viewer doesn't pick it up.

The CC Enforcement principles do not mention anything about "differentiate between independent/small-time reusers and large corporations" which this page does. I'm getting the feeling that this is more of personal viewpoint than something that really should appear on this page. I don't think any enforcement practice could request information on company turnover and even independent and apparently small firms can have turnovers or routine business expenses for which a few hundred quid is a minor trouble. The article later notes that Pixsy only pursues commercial re-users. I suggest this be reworded to say trolls go after private individuals and non-commercial operations.

CC's licence enforcement page says "We believe it is important that reusers make their best efforts to comply with the terms and conditions of the license, and we support enforcement of the licenses when CC-licensed materials are being used without regard to those simple terms." Note this "without regard to those simple terms". I think an important distinction is where there has simply been "image theft", that the image has been taken and reused "without regard to those simple terms". This is quite different to when the attribution is simply wrong in some way. I would be interested to know if Pixsy's search is cleverer than just an image search but seeks out attempts at attribution such as mention of the photographers username or real name. CC say "The CC licenses reflect a deep-seated belief that authors deserve credit for their work, consistent with moral rights in force around the world." Clearly CC see a difference between a good faith attempt that didn't quite reach the mark, and complete disregard and disrespect for the content creator.

The CC Enforcement principles demonstrate best practice. But we are a broad church and there's a gulf between saintly behaviour and unacceptable behaviour. They highlight "not a scheme to trap" and "When enforcement becomes profitable, especially when licensors act in a way that suggests they want reusers to violate the license so they can collect fees, it crosses over into trolling and runs counter to these principles." I think there is a level where enforcement is not compliant with CC's own (quite recent) enforcement principles, but has not reached the level of copyleft trolling. I think that line gets crossed when there appears to be a prior intent to create and upload works with an apparently free licence that then traps reusers making minor attribution mistakes, targets any and all non-compliant reusers including non-commercial reusers, and which operates at a scale that is a "business model". This line could be the kind of hard line around which we developed a policy for deletion of such images and banning such users. Below that line is behaviour that we don't regard as best practice and doesn't comply with CC's enforcement principles. I suspect there could be a wide range of opinion among professional photographers of the application of forgiveness and spending one's time helping commercial users comply that would appear to load that "cost" onto the photographer rather than onto the reuser business. One spends an evening helping a chain of BMW car dealers comply with the CC terms, on an image they reused "without any regard to" the photographer, and get diddly squat in return. In contrast, in our broad church, are creators who either explicitly give away their works without strings, or attach strings merely in the hope that some will comply but not care when some don't. This range of attitudes is important to Commons as we take images not just from Commoners and not just from saintly Commoners, but scraped off the internet from people we don't know, don't share all our values and whom we can't actually ban.

The core of CC's definition of copyleft trolling is "licence enforcement as a business model". As with any business model, it requires an intention to lure "customers", to require all "customers" to pay, and to operate at scale. Being non-compliant with every single one of CC's enforcement principles is not quite enough to reach what I believe they mean by "copyleft trolling" but it isn't good either. I think there could be an argument that FP and QI require either a CC v4 licence or PD or CC0. I suspect that would probably rule out a huge number of images taken from other websites such as Flickr, which AFAICS, still use CC v2. -- 12:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikicon proposal

Just a heads up to those interested, after digging into this quite a bit over recent weeks I decided to propose a session about copyleft trolling at this year's WikiConference North America. I framed it around poka-yoke, or "error-proofing". (i.e. talking about what the issue is, but focusing on how to prevent it rather than how to squash it). I plan to gather some of the ideas floated here and at the VP, put some visuals together for them, and hopefully gather some ideas from the big crowd who attends there. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I could help raise awareness at the German Wikicon this October, probably in one of the (shorter and less formal) lightning talks. Right now there is also time for topic proposals for the official agenda. --Enyavar (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

VPP and DR closures

The two long threads that sparked discussion on this subject have now been closed.

On June 24, IronGargoyle closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff as

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

Today Matrix closed Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Prohibit copyleft trolling with this statement:

This discussion has run its course, and I am hence closing it. Out of these proposals, it is clear numerically that proposal no. 4 is the most successful.

• The help page Commons:Copyleft trolling has been created, and subsequent comments can be made on its talk page.
• Idea is we can convince users to switch to CC4, and then they can continue to use firms such as Pixsy.
• Authors who still do not switch to CC4 should accept forced watermarks so proper warning is given to reusers.

Per the successful proposal, I am also adding the template to make Commons:Copyleft trolling an official guideline on Commons.

Both of these discussions had some problems whereby earlier participants were operating according to incomplete information. In the DR, the comments after Diliff finished responding are a bit more complicated than the row of keeps at the start. Given the complexity but preponderance of keeps, IronGargoyle sensibly closed as keep while pointing to the Village Pump thread for more general guidance.

In the VP discussion, the three bulletpoints Matrix listed are based on the three bulletpoints in the proposal, which were worded before we have complete information about CC4 and Pixsy. Namely, (a) CC4 doesn't require that reusers be given a chance to correct a violation to avoid demands for money; it provides a window for reusers to restore their license to avoid being sued again after paying those damages. i.e. It doesn't protect against someone seeking damages the first time. (b) Per my conversation with Pixsy, they simply do not deal with images licensed with CC4. They may just think it's too legally blurry or they may want the ability to go after people more than once, but my sense is they're operating under the same mistaken assumption about CC4 that we were, so it's possible they'll modify the policy in the future.

So I'm mainly just hoping to get IG and Matrix to share their thoughts about the discussions the other closed and ask what their recommendation is, following those, to modify this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I closed the VP discussion because it was stale (last comment was 21 days ago) and the most successful proposal was number 4. I think Julesvernex2's comment provides some insight into why CC4 is still better. The most important part IMO was, "most courts will hesitate to award material damages for temporary infringements. As long as there are CC2/CC3 licences out there, Pixsy has bigger fish to fry". The conclusion we can draw from this is that CC4 is still the better choice and we should still encourage its use over CC2/3. Is the limitations of CC4 a thing that should be at least mentioned in this help page? Absolutely. Does it change the crux of this proposal? No. That's my personal take at least. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matrix: Thanks. One more question for you. You closed with Authors who still do not switch to CC4 should accept forced watermarks so proper warning is given to reusers. - given that you've also added the guideline template to this page (and guidelines have some degree of enforceability), how would you word that bit for inclusion here? Or perhaps no change? Right now this page primarily explains the concept of copyleft trolling, tries to list some ways it can be differentiated from other forms of enforcement, explains why it's contrary to the spirit of Wikimedia/Commons, and offers some ways Commons has dealt with it in the past. i.e. it's not prescriptive. Is that consistent with your closure? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The current page does indicate solutions on the section "How Commons handles copyleft trolls". Notice the use of the word "should" in my summary. Ultimately this is a very messy problem, and there is no "one size fits all" solution. This is something that should be handled according to the specific circumstances, and this guideline offers ways that this could happen. I hope this answers your question. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this in any particular direction (which is one of the reasons I decided to close the DR). The numbers and weight of arguments in reference to policy seemed to mandate a keep. I also don't see a problem with Matrix's VP close. Is there some more precise aspect of it you wanted me to comment on? I caveat this by saying I'm not sure why my comment beyond the DR close should have any particular weight. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, Matrix, and IronGargoyle: My question is how should this page be updated in light of the village pump discussion? Since it seems there was consensus for Proposal #4, should we modify the "How Commons handles copyleft trolls" to include those suggestions? In other words, should we replace the "No standard practice" section with a section saying that verified copyleft trolls should be asked to upgrade to CC4 and if they refuse their images should be watermarked? That would seem to be the logical conclusion, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That was largely my question above, too, but the reply from Matrix indicates, to me, that there is nothing prescriptive there. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well we seem to be caught in a catch-22. No one wants to take any action against copyleft trolls because there are no prescriptive guidelines. And there are no prescriptive guidelines because we aren't taking any consistent action against copyleft trolls. Proposal #4 seemed to have consensus, and that was confirmed by Matrix's closure. So shouldn't we add the wording from Proposal #4 to the "How Commons handles copyleft trolls" section? Otherwise, we are effectively enacting Proposal #5 (to just create a landing page), which did not have consensus. Nosferattus (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Matrix: Would you mind clarifying your comments? Nosferattus (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of implementation problems that still need to be discussed. For example, what's the threshold for a forced watermark? How do we put the watermark in bulk? What should it say? How will we deal with images still in use? I wanted to turn this into a guideline (since it still offers valuable information) but to turn this into anything prescriptive we still need details on how we would execute forced watermarks, we can't just say "put forced watermarks" and leave for the day. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That is very helpful guidance. Nosferattus (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the threshold for a forced watermark?

Per Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Proposal 4 and the discussion above, we need to decide what is the proper threshold for a forced watermark. My suggestion would be:

1. There is consensus that the author of the work(s) or their proxy is engaging in copyleft trolling per the definition given here. This must be established on a case-by-case basis through evidence and discussion.
2. Following the establishment of copyleft trolling (#1), the author of the work(s) does not agree to switch to a CC4 license within 30 days of being asked to do so. (If the author does not have an account on Commons, this can be asked on Flickr, or wherever the images were originally posted.)
3. If the author subsequently switches to a CC4 license, the watermarks can be removed.

Nosferattus (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

How do you intend to apply forced watermarks? Ok if there is a few images to add manually but if there is a few hundred or thousand is going to be impossible. Bidgee (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

ImageMagick. Nosferattus (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't get how CC4 is a solution here. Yes, for the time being it would mean you can't work with Pixsy but for every case where (1) is satisfied without using Pixsy, if they switch to CC4 they can just continue on as they have been. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume that very few authors are willing to put in the time required to do this without Pixsy (manually search for misattributed images, hunt down the users, handle the negotiations, retain a lawyer if the case gets to court), so this only seems like a potentially sizeable issue if there are Pixsy competitors willing to work with CC4. Is that the case? I can try to find out if nobody has looked into this yet. -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Philpot, one of the cases mentioned on this page, did not use Pixsy AFAIK. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if CC4 is a good solution or not; it's just the only solution so far that has gotten any support. Please propose other solutions if you have ideas. Unfortunately, the Commons community seems to prefer shooting down ideas over finding solutions (and the perfect is always the enemy of the good). Nosferattus (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think CC4 is a solution. We should certainly encourage it across the board, and I would support a requirement that images created (and not just uploaded) after [whenever such a proposal would be enacted] cannot use older CC licenses across the project. But I don't think we're going to find a bright line for when forced watermarking is required because opinions vary so much about what should qualify as "copyleft trolling" and what the best approach to dealing with it is. We've thus far been very inconsistent. My hope is that having this guideline will provide a sort of rubric to evaluate future cases, and to establish that there are multiple possible remedies on the table. Many of the !votes in the Diliff DR talked about the practice not going against any Commons policy or guideline. Well, that's different now, to an extent. Not arguing to relitigate that case, but it'll be interesting to see if the next case will be different.

Here's a constructive next step you could take: establish, for the cases when we do use watermarking to protect users against copyleft trolling (regardless of how those cases are determined), how exactly should this watermarking take place. Maybe you could work on an essay/information page on the subject, trying to sort out all the practical bits (wording, placement, coloring, size, tips for adding them, information on how Wikipedias can crop using templates, etc.). I wouldn't take the Philpot case as prescriptive, but an example of how it's been done before. That text never really went through a proper discussion AFAIK, so whatever the discussions that happen over this hypothetical information page find may result in those watermarks being changed to align with TBD best practices. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Some other ideas for condition #2:
A. Following the establishment of copyleft trolling (#1), the author of the work(s) does not agree to allow good faith reusers a 14-day grace period to correct attribution errors before demanding a fee or initiating legal action.
B. Following the establishment of copyleft trolling (#1), the author of the work(s) does not agree to discontinue the problematic actions identified in the discussion.
Do either of those sound more workable? Nosferattus (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Those suggestions sound workable to me, but I would suggest to begin one step beforehand: How are cases of copyleft trolling identified in the first place?

1. An original uploader (following OUL) can be reported for copyleft trolling. Those reports (by one or by multiple named re-users, irrespective of having an account on Commons) need to be credible and substantiated, ideally by handing in the evidence/emails/legal documents to the VRT who then acknowledge the established legal threat in the discussion thread. (Nothing speaks against showing the whole legal correspondence in public, but VRT seems to be the best way to ensure the privacy of the reporting re-user (following RRU), if that is wanted.)
2. A discussion on the case is then held on the talk page, ideally with participation of both the OUL and RRU. This discussion has to take at least a certain time - 2 or 4 weeks. Possible results include the OUL (or the VRT) disproving the allegations of the RRU (false reports/misunderstandings?); the OUL agreeing to no longer engage in copyleft trolling (by switching to CC4, or also informally); or the OUL insisting to pursue his copyleft rights (--> establishment) or the OUL refusing to participate at all (--> establishment). Nothing in our process here, changes anything about the civil legal proceedings and obligations of the RRU who got sued.
   • (I don't think anyone will argue that the case examples of Philpot or Diliff warrant us to go through steps #1 and #2 again: These are established cases of copyleft trolling.)
3. Once it is established that a user has engaged in copyleft trolling per steps #1 and #2 and seems likely to continue that practice, actions can get taken, possibly including Deletion Requests or Forced Watermarking.

With regards for subsequent removal of the forced watermarks if something changes... I am doubtful that a switch to CC-4 really cures the problems of copyleft trolling. So a mere license switch should not be grounds for watermark removal, the OUL needs to also promise to not continue trolling. --Enyavar (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I think your suggestions about the establishment process are fine, although I don't think we have to be that detailed in prescribing the process. Basically, there just needs to be consensus that the user is copyleft trolling and the user must be given an opportunity to defend or explain their actions. Nosferattus (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, Julesvernex2, Enyavar, and Chris.sherlock2: From the discussions here so far, it sounds like there is agreement that switching to the CC4 license is not a solution to copyleft trolling. How do people feel about requiring agreement to a 14-day grace period instead (and otherwise applying forced watermarks)? Nosferattus (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

a misunderstanding that belongs to a different policy, has been moved to a new section below

We just can't prevent copyleft trolling. All we can do here is collect evidence about who does it, try to friendly convince them to stop it, and if they won't, we delete or watermark their uploads. --Enyavar (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Commons try to enforce a 14-day grace period on all uploads. I'm suggesting that after a person has been found to be copyleft trolling, if they don't agree to allow a 14-day grace period from then on, then we add forced watermarks. This is basically proposal A from above. It sounds like maybe you would prefer proposal B. Could you clarify? As far as getting the WMF to change their ToU (similar to what Flickr did), that was already proposed on the Village Pump and shot down by pretty much everyone except Glrx, so I don't think it will fly. Nosferattus (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems we may have had a misunderstanding there. I now moved that part into a new section (see here), and also move the discussion about how the watermarks are going to be formed (see here). --Enyavar (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now that I removed the distractions to another section, here's my reply: Yes, I'm with proposal (b). Because (a) means to unilaterally change the Terms of Service for just the offending individual users, like Iliff. That would be unenforceable and/or possibly even unlawful, see the moved section.

Rather, we could give the copyleft troll a grace period of 14 days after our (b)-consensus is reached. If the troll uploaders have not credibly assured within in 14 days that their affiliation with Pixsy is over, the community may proceed to pursue watermarking or deletion. (note: may, not must. In the case of Diliff, we are late by months; and I wouldn't expect that future cases are clear-cut.) --Enyavar (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for threshold

Per the discussion above, I propose the following threshold for forced watermarks:

1. There is consensus that the author of the work(s) or their proxy is engaging in copyleft trolling per the definition given here. This must be established on a case-by-case basis through evidence and discussion.
2. Following the establishment of copyleft trolling, the author of the work(s) does not agree to discontinue the problematic actions identified in the discussion. Following the establishment of copyleft trolling, the author of the work(s) continues the practice or is unresponsive.

Specific time frames for these criteria can be established later if desired (as I don't want the discussion side-tracked by minor details). Please state whether you support or oppose this proposal. Nosferattus (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose as too vague. Discontinue problematic actions? Commons allows users to post copyrighted material. Commons allowed them to use CC 2.0 and 3.0 licenses. We do not dispute that unsophisticated people have violated license terms. Any dispute starts off wiki. By the time the dispute is known to Commons, much of the evidence has been taken down. We do not know how egregious the violation was. Was a copyright notice in the metadata deleted? A lawyer would tell her alleged violator-client to keep quiet, and if the alleged violator does talk, then it may be self-serving. Commons is not in a position to adjudicate an off-wiki dispute. Maybe after a few incidents come to light, then the Commons community may act on presumptions, but it is closing the barn door after the livestock has escaped. I do not like the idea of trolls, but I also see a lot of Commons creators not getting the credit that they deserve. Glrx (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your livestock metaphor is imperfect. Our original livestock remains in the barn, but a copy escapes through unclosable barn doors. And most of this imaginary livestock is unproblematic in the wild, and we do not even wish to prevent its escape. We are debating here to mark the very few livestock which has been proven as dangerous when released, with a "Danger" sign. --Enyavar (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  The livestock that left the barn early were not branded. Branding the livestock in the barn does not put brands on the livestock who already left. Glrx (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  True. And that will be our policy going forward, too: First people have to report being gored by escaped livestock, before we can know which of our livestock is about to gore more people in the future. But once we know that, there are these future gorings which we can still prevent.
  

  To narrow down the metaphor even more, the livestock does not really escape on its own. Our open-barn-policy allows anyone to enter our barn and take any lifestock with them (as a copy). The general public will continue to enter our barn and they expect only fluffy harmless lambs. We owe it to them to mark the rabid rams. --Enyavar (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• This would need to be advertised widely, but I'm not inclined to support or oppose anything at this stage. I have a session at Wikicon North America next month, which will probably draw 30-50 community members to talk about this issue. Obviously nothing will be decided there -- that must be done on-wiki -- but I want to document some broader perspectives before supporting or opposing any concrete changes. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: That would be great! Thank you. Nosferattus (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Awkard phrasing "[author] does not agree to discontinue the problematic actions identified in...". That is especially wobbly because the author can "agree to discontinue", while not stopping. So instead: "the author of the work(s) continues the practice or is unresponsive." --Enyavar (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't think any scheme where Commons decides it is no longer a free-content media repository but instead to vandalise media when it doesn't like the behaviour of the creator, albeit with good intentions, is going to be accepted. This project only exists with the goodwill of all Wikipedias, who primarily regard themselves as free-to-read community-created encyclopaedias, not "free content" (even though they are the latter). All this sort of thing will do is cause a Wikipedian to fork an unvandalised image onto the local Wikipedia to use there, and since 99% of reusers get their images from Wikipedia rather than Commons, you will achieve nothing good. You would need to demonstrate significant buy-in from the Wikipedia community, not some poll on an obscure Commons talk page. I'm saying that you'd need to change the definition of free content to exclude works created by someone a tiny community consider copyleft trolls. And on the basis of the Diliff discussion, a community over-ready to believe the tales told by red-linked newbies who just plain didn't read the instructions and thought "It's on the internet so must be free". -- Colin (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Colin: What solution would you propose instead? Nosferattus (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    Obviously we need to treat genuine copyleft trolling (the deliberate creation of supposedly free media as entrapment) as a serious matter leading to blocks.

    There are technological solutions we could create/use whereby media can be tagged and that influences what (a) wikipedians see when they try to reuse it on Wikipedia (e.g. to suggest they don't) and (b) what users of Wikipedia see when they click on the image description page. We already have solutions that block certain external links on Wikipedia or that warn medical editors that a science journal is predatory and so on. These things are possible. Any solution that crudely watermarks an image that would then appear like that on Wikipedia is dead in the water. (It might even have the wrong effect, whereby egotistical photographers desire it).

    I think we should discourage contributors here from using Pixby, as there's too much collateral damage. One method is to consider denying them a featured or QI badge. It can't be our "finest work" if it comes with this risk. But it is still technically free content, and if used correctly (as Wikipedia sorta does) then isn't it wonderful that we have these great images of English cathedrals and so on. In the discussion we had before, I found the majority of people clearly used Diliff's images per licence and those that didn't I'm unable to say whether they had an agreement with Diliff (which is something he does). So a lot of people are gaining from these images being hosted here, displayed on Wikipedia and having a free licence.

    But a huge portion of images on Commons are not created by users, and we generally have no concern for the artist or copyright holder's behaviour. Ultimately our main focus is on hosting free media, however the wide Wikipedia/Commons community want to define that. Any metadata about copyright concerns, etc, need to be kept separate from that media, otherwise we are not curators of a repository.

    We do also need to keep remembering that these images are not ours, and that there exist a spread of opinions about whether to just plain give away one's work, or how restrictively to licence it, and about enforcement of that licence. Sometimes you just have to accept some people have opinions and methods you don't like, and as long as they aren't the majority, to accept that as part of a project involving humans. -- Colin (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

On the we should discourage contributors, yes that is an important point here. Even most egotistical contributors would shy away if their content is marked "this user threatens to sue re-users" next to the correct attribution. And of course, the less "crude" a watermark is, the better. The last thing we should do is go with destructive stamps all over the images. Comparatively small footnotes are more tasteful, I would think. On the the images are not ours? Sure not, but we as a Community host them, and they were released under a license that allows our platform to make changes. Users who do use Pixsy services may not violate our rules directly, but they still violate the spirit of our free media repository. This should not be rewarded with inaction from the community.

I'm amenable to support your proposed technical solution! Do you want to program this as a template? How would it work, like a pop-up that warns re-users when they download a CL-TR image? Once you have finished the prototype, we can then test and improve the feature to make it ready to be rolled out in all affected files. Good thinking to provide this all by yourself, especially given how niche topics on Commons get practically no developer attention from The Wikimedia Foundation. The faster you can volunteer your solution, the better. --Enyavar (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Colin: If there is a technical solution that would work, I would love to see it. As it stands, the Commons community decided that watermarking was the best solution and they are waiting on us to figure out the implementation. Every time copyleft trolling has been brought up in regards to featured status (which has been discussed on both Commons and English Wikipedia), the overwhelming response is that it has nothing to do with the featured criteria and thus is not actionable. They are expecting the issue to be handled either through deletion or watermarking. Nosferattus (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You had a discussion where literally a handful of people participated. The so-called guideline page that this has apparently become doesn't actually say which which practice to use, it just documents some examples. (and if someone edited it to express their preferences, I really wonder if it shows up on more than a dozen watchlists). It isn't really a "guideline" in any sense that wouldn't cause great amusement if proposed at Wikipedia. More like an essay by an activist editor.

It is up to users here to pressure WMF and/or volunteers to improve the solutions on Commons/Wikipedia to prevent our users getting into legal problems with the very much copyrighted-but-licenced images that make up a huge proportion of our repository. Simply saying "I'd love to see it" doesn't work. Watermarking e.g. all of Diliff's images would, I can guarantee you, either result in Commons being told where to stick its repository or Wikipedia making local copies and effectively tell you where you can shove your watermarks.

I strongly object to the term "copyleft trolling" being used to refer to people who are not intentionally setting traps. Indeed, I would caution anyone in the UK using that sort of language, since if you referred to a photographer with deep pockets, you could find yourself seriously financially impacted by libel action. I think Wikipedia community norms would be such that any editor there calling another editor a "copyleft troll" without evidence that they are baiting traps, would likely face sanctions for personal attacks and breaching the ToU. Some people in this discussions have rather let their emotions get ahead of themselves.

This is, as far as I can see, a small problem, mostly restricted to people being stupid on the internet and assuming everything there is free. If "completely free of copyright and any consequences of not reading the instructions" is the Commons you want, go get a vote on CC0/PD being the only terms acceptable. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can Commons deal with copyleft trolls by changing the Terms of Use?

This section was created after a misunderstanding.

There is no legal framework for us to require such agreements [i.e. 14-day grace periods]. The CC4 license prescribes a whole month grace period. The CC3 license (and earlier ones) prescribes no grace period at all, which means that Pixsy may legally serve you a fee the next second after they detected your using a CC1-CC3 picture with improper attribution. How do you imagine we as a platform would approach Pixsy to grant detected re-users two weeks, when that very idea runs both counter to their business model and counter to the license model they misuse? Who are even the negotiating parties in such a deal? WMF and Pixsy? People like Iliff who use Pixsy? The re-users? The good lawyers from Creative Commons? Compared to all of them, we concerned users on this talk page have about the least binding power to decide any grace periods for licenses. --Enyavar (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is a legal framework. WMF can set the terms of use of its websites. If you upload a file here after the new terms take effect, then you agree to give any copyright infringer 30 days (not 14) to correct the error. Glrx (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And would WMF possibly enforce those ToU? The action of all copyleft trolling happens completely outside of Commons, we are just hosting the bait. Also, what happens to files our users uploaded before the date of the changed ToU? --Enyavar (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WMF would not need to enforce that portion of the ToU. It is a contract with a third-party benefit. The defendant would show the clause applies and claim its benefit. It is not a complete solution, but the ToU can be if you upload a file after date x, then you agree to the ToU for even earlier uploads. Glrx (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I think you misunderstood my suggestion. I'm not suggesting that Commons try to enforce a 14-day grace period on all uploads. [..] As far as getting the WMF to change their ToU (similar to what Flickr did), that was already proposed on the Village Pump and shot down by pretty much everyone except Glrx, so I don't think it will fly. Nosferattus (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yeah, I don't think that a general change in the ToU (Terms of Use; or Service, ToS) would work all that great in practice, because Commons/WMF would need to roll out notifications to everyone. Then, would Pixsy and their users even follow those new restrictions? Also, what about the already uploaded pictures? We would have wait until this is litigated by the courts - for images pre-ToU-change and post-ToU-change, for each of the CC licenses, and for various other circumstances (personal use vs. private use, etc.). Until such litigation is done, Pixsy (and their contractors) can still rake in the money they extract from users who are afraid to litigate the issue, and may even be rightfully afraid.

But if we demand just from a few uploaders that they accept a unilateral change in their ToS (requiring them and their contractor, Pixsy, to observe new rules made up by the Commons community that are not grounded in any license or law), such a policy means unequal treatment due to off-platform behaviour. I am not a lawyer, but if Pixsy takes the requirement to observe new grace periods seriously, then I anticipate them to formulate a discrimination lawsuit against WMF or something similar. Or, if they don't take it seriously, they will make uploaders like Iliff agree to the requirement, and then just ignore that unenforceable agreement. Or, they will just ignore us entirely. --Enyavar (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Pixsy thinks of the agreement. If the uploader agrees, that almost certainly means they will need to discontinue using Pixsy (unless they can somehow get Pixsy to ask people to correct their licensing before threatening them with lawsuits, which seems unlikely). The rules on Commons don't have to be grounded in a license or law. We can make up whatever rules we want as long as it doesn't break existing laws. Nosferattus (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

example: proper attribution in bold, warning text in normal

How should the watermarks look?

If watermarks are affixed to the images, they must include the entire required attribution. To discourage the practice, a warning should also be included. Okay, now how should watermarks look like? I'm not sure that the Philpot images are establishing a good practice: The attribution texts in those are very large. I uploaded an attribution test example on a currently not-in-use image by Diliff for demonstration purposes, it includes a) the desired attribution in bold and b) a warning. Technically, I added a 94 pixel white border below the proper image with black text, Verdana, Font-size 36. Added is the important word, because I did not change a single pixel of the original image. The chosen text of the warning stands up for debate, too. The following would have been like Philpot: "David Iliff sued users of his work for minor attribution errors. Keep the attribution intact." As far as I know, Iliff did not sue however, he threatened lawsuits in the legal notices; and it also has not been proven that the attribution errors were in fact "minor" (afaik: we just know there were errors). That's why I rephrased it as "Caution for re-users: Keep this attribution intact, Iliff has been threatening users of his work with lawsuits for infringement." I'm open for better suggestion... for example "copyright infringement" sounds better? Regarding the size: this is a in a very large font already but proportionally to the image it seems rather small. With the smallest download size (301 × 240 pixels), it can only just be read if you know what it is supposed to say. That might not suffice; but on the other hand, re-users are still responsible in how they re-use images.

@Enyavar: I think the small size of the watermark is OK. It just needs to be there, it doesn't need to be super prominent. I also agree that it needs to include the attribution, the license, and a brief warning to reusers to retain the attribution. I think saying "copyright infringement" rather than just "infringement" is important, as "infringement" is too vague about what is going on. Nosferattus (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on the final wording for the watermark on Iliff's 1000+ bait images, before there is more harm? Is "Caution for re-users: Keep this attribution intact, Iliff threatened users of his work with lawsuits for copyright infringement." acceptable? And how will we apply the standardized watermark on all his images? Let's be real, Iliffs "grace period" here on Commons is about to approach 6 months. --Enyavar (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reply to Enyavar's earlier question: Applying the watermark to all of Diliff's images could be done with ImageMagick and a bot. Nosferattus (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned that program before, I trust you have a fitting script ready? Some pictures are larger than others, so the added whitespace and watermark may need to be scaled differently. --Enyavar (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)