This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commons:AI-generated media, which was created in 2022, had a lot of debate and refinement last year, but has been completely stable this year and seems to have calcified into something that more or less reflects the community consensus on how to handle AI-generated media. It's been cited in dozens of deletion discussions as well as user talk page and village pump discussions. Should it be made an official guideline? Nosferattus (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Mostly looks good. A few concerns, though: the scope question isn't actually answered; the implications of some of the legal points aren't explained; and AI-modified images are included alongside AI-generated images. For the latter, there are a variety of denoising, sharpening, scaling, "enhancing", colorizing, etc. applications, some of which are AI-based and some not, but with similar effects. e.g. Photoshop has some new AI tools to replace selected areas, which is just a somewhat better version of a non-AI feature called "content aware fill" that's been part of the software for years. We should probably be documenting when a lot of those are used, but in general if it's not an image that's generated by an AI, but rather the modification of existing images, I probably wouldn't include it in this guideline. Otherwise I'd rename the guideline and add a clear section about AI-based, or non-AI-based but powerful editing tools that do the same thing, software used to modify existing images as opposed to the generating new images. — Rhododendritestalk | 14:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
At the end of the day there should probably two different guidelines/pages for AI generated images versus AI/normally enhanced ones. Although I think at this point both AI enhanced and AI generated issues have a lot of the same issues, but there probably needs to be separate guidelines for both regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The more aggressive end of AI upscaling is very much generating (and occasionally hallucinating) new content that wasn't there before, when the starting image is of low quality or resolution and the software is being asked to serve back a much higher quality version. Something like File:Napoleone Ratti.jpg (derived from the very low quality historical photo File:Napoleone Ratti original.jpg) is basically asking AI to generate an original human face - but using the outlines of a blurry photo as the constrained input, rather than a detailed text prompt. Belbury (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I have removed the small amount of content related to AI-modified media so that the guidelines focus solely on AI-generated media. Could you clarify what specific "implications of some of the legal points aren't explained"? Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I went ahead and removed another piece related to AI-modified rather than AI-generated content (and a few other minor edits). Hope that's alright. Support — Rhododendritestalk | 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Support The European Union passed a law regulating AI. This project should pass the proposed guideline as well, especially for the good of this project. Well, I realize that jurisdictions vary when reading the guideline. Furthermore, certain cases are subjective. The guideline might change substantially... or not? George Ho (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Neutral. While I certainly feel that a policy on AI-generated and retouched content on Commons is necessary, it's not clear to me that this document provides any substantial guidelines yet - as it currently stands, it's primarily focused on the legality of AI-generated content, not whether it's appropriate for Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The only one that concerns me is you are expected to document the prompt used to generate the media in the file description. I'm not sure that is, strictly speaking, necessary to have freely-licensed content and may be something that users may not want to document. Not sure why we would require that in general, though maybe could be proof of authorship for previously-published works to avoid VRT. Most everything else seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. This guideline doesn't make a lot of sense anymore, given that many popular hosted image generators (e.g. ChatGPT, Bing Image Creator, Midjourney, etc) don't use a textual prompt in a way that's visible to the user, and are frequently updated in ways that would make results non-reproducible anyway. Omphalographer (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe I was the first to put forward the proposal that prompts be documented; if not, I was one of the first, and I still stand by it. It was never about reproducibility. It was/is about two things: (1) if an AI image is being put forward as representing something in particular, it seems important to know whether that was present in the way the AI was prompted, vs. someone saying after the fact "hey, that looks kind of like such-and such." (2) There may be some historical value in knowing what might have been a typical output for a given generative AI at some point in its (presumably ongoing) evolution. Frankly, for most outputs of generative AI, that documentation of the AI itself is about the only reason they should be of any educational value at at all. - Jmabel ! talk05:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
They would certainly be helpful, and maybe could be encouraged, but this seems to say they are required, and seems like it would generate DRs on that basis alone. Changing "expected" to "encouraged" would be fine for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Even if you can't make a 100% accurate reproduction of an image with a prompt they are an important way to know if it's potentially a derivative work or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Striking Oppose.0xCollection Dvorak DreamsMuch or most of these proposed guidelines such as How should AI-generated media be handled? seem to be written entirely for specifically user-generated content created with prompt-based text-to-image generators of the past couple years, rather than for AI-generated media in general. At the very least, this would need to add clarifications that this proposed guideline is for the subset of AI-generated media that is created through prompt-based software. For example, I am including here a photo of AI-generated media by Refik Anadol. For this type of image of AI-generated media or anything similar, it doesn't seem helpful to have this guideline saying "give the name of the specific AI engine used, followed by the name of the person who created the prompt ... you are expected to document the prompt used to generate the media in the file description." Elspea756 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You'd still want to know what software was used, and if no prompting was involved, that's fine, say that. - Jmabel ! talk17:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea what software was used for that work, and I also have no idea whether any prompting was used or not in creating that work, or who would have created any prompt(s) if they were used. I suppose anyone who thinks this a good proposed guideline as it currently is should then feel free to follow the proposed guideline and provide "the specific AI engine," "prompt used for that image," and "name of the person who created the prompt" for that image. I have added it to my watchlist, so I will see any of your updates as you follow this guideline. Elspea756 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not interested in any of this information, but, yes, anyone interested in the "the specific AI engine," "prompt used for that image," and "name of the person who created the prompt" being called for in these proposed guidelines would likely have to try to contact those three. I have already added the image to my watchlist, so I will see any of your updates as you get responses from them as you follow this proposed guideline. Elspea756 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact that there may be a few AI images where this cannot be determined is not much different that the fact that we have some anonymous older artwork, or things that are clearly in the PD for which we don't have clear sourcing. Those don't change the general requirement that images should indicate author and source. -Jmabel ! talk05:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, "images should indicate author and source" is a guideline I would support. The proposed guideline of "the specific AI engine," "prompt used for that image," and "name of the person who created the prompt" is not something I support. Elspea756 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
If we know that little about it, how do we know there is no human authorship, making it a copyrightable work and the photo therefore a derivative work that needs someone else's permission? Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The uploader says "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under ... the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication." I don't think the uploader following the proposed guideline and also listing a "specific AI engine," "prompt used for that image," and "name of the person who created the prompt" would make any real difference. Elspea756 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That's fine for the photograph, but what about the pictured artwork? What is the license on that? If copyrightable, the photograph is a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
At the end of the day guidelines are just that, guides. They aren't policies. But its good to say it would be worth including the prompts then not, because I can guarantee most people don't or won't think about it to begin with. No one is calling for anyone who doesn't include a prompt to be blocked or anything though. So this whole side thing just comes off as super nitpicking. Since when are we not allowed to make suggestions about best practices or guide people on the best way to do something? Because that's literally all this is. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If this is written entirely as a guideline for specifically user-generated content created with prompt-based generators, rather than for AI-generated media in general, I think that should be clear, rather than being described as for all "AI-generated media." Elspea756 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't even necessarily disagree, but then that alone isn't a valid excuse to hold up the whole thing either. It's not like the few minor issues can't be resolved once it's implemented. Otherwise it's just bikesheding. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I get the feeling you think that's of gotcha or admission of something about this on my part. Regardless, I'd totally support improving the guideline after its implemented of course. That's usually how it works with guidelines. Proposals are just that though, proposals. They aren't meant to be 100% accurate documention of every single possible edge case or over exaggerated scenario and you can't really improve a guideline that exist to begin with. So...I'm all for improving things once they are implemented though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
No, that is not a "gotcha" at all. That is a sincere "thank you" for saying you don't disagree with the changes I've suggested to the proposed guideline. I wasn't not expecting so much disagreement from others to what I thought was a very reasonable, clear, and simple suggestion for clarifying the scope of much of the proposed guideline. I am currently making some of those changes to the proposed guideline so that I can hopefully support this proposal. Thank you again. Elspea756 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Uh OK. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I guess I just always assumed it was exclusively for AI created artwork since the guideline is literally called "AI-generated media", not "AI enhanced media" or whatever. It would probably be to everyone's benefit to just create Commons:AI-enchanced media as a side thing to main guideline specifically for that aspect of AI software though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, yes, I am talking about "AI-created" media. Not all AI-created artwork is created with a system that uses prompts, but this proposed guideline was largely written as if that were the case. I've made the sort of edits that I'd proposed in my original post here, making clear that certain sections are only for the subset of AI-generated media that is created through prompt-based software, and clarifying in other sections that the proposed guidelines are referring to all AI-generated media, not just that created through systems that use prompts. These changes can be seen here.[1] I will wait maybe 24 hours to see if these changes are accepted, or wait to hear from any of the people above who opposed my suggestions, and if my changes are accepted, then I will switch to "support." Thank you again, Adamant1, for not opposing my proposed changes. Elspea756 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's inherent to the thing that if someone can't provide a prompt for whatever reason that they don't have to. Just like it's a guideline that people provide the original author of something but there's still exceptions for anonymous works. Although I can't think of an AI image generator that doesn't involve some kind of prompting to begin with. But then it doesn't really matter, because no one is being forced by this guideline to provide a prompt if there isn't one to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Support Yes, with the clarifications I've made, that Adamant1 said they don't necessarily disagree with, that have survived the weekend, yes, I can now support this proposed guideline. Elspea756 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elspea756: Yes I have, including the section Copyright of AI-generated media modified by humans. If the image was entirely AI-generated it's fine, but if there were significant human alterations later, it's not (the additional human contribution can easily have a copyright). If we know nothing about the image, it's dangerous to assume how it was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a bit of a stretch between "we need all the detail" by Carl Lindberg and "Nah, it`ll be fine" by Adamant1 and associates. Having looked at most of the stuff uploaded for one week, I tend to go with we need all the info. Alexpl (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that's my position. I'd just like see a proposal get approved for once instead of getting dragged down by pedantry. Although I have yet to see a legitimate argument for why prompts should be required, not just suggested. Let alone why AI enhanced artwork should be included in this. So I'm more then willing to throw chum to the people who think they don't matter as a compromise so this doesn't just get derailed over something that probably doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, if at least at this point, anyway.--Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd first want to see evidence that, in general, IPs are bad at creating categories, not that one person bad at creating categories happened to be editing without logging in. - Jmabel ! talk05:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: You are right, there are some, spread over several years, but that cannot be labeled as a pattern.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although we have blocked accounts in the past for copyleft trolling, it seems we do not actually have a policy that prohibits it. Last year, Flickr updated their community guidelines to prohibit copyleft trolling: "Failure to allow a good faith reuser the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license and not in line with the values of our community, and can result in your account being removed." Should we adopt something similar? If so, how should it be worded? Here is some background reading on the topic for those that are unfamiliar with it: [2][3][4][5]. Nosferattus (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I would simply add to the Commons:Assume good faith guideline that this guideline also applies to third party reusers. And I would require users who have a contract for automated copyright enforcement to disclose this. GPSLeo (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems unworkable, since you're essentially advocating for deprecating pre-4.0 CC licenses. We don't have the power to force Flickr or Youtube to do anything, so that would basically result in cutting ourselves off from several massive sources of free content (especially around newsworthy current events such as protests). With GFDL the loss of content was minimal (any new content was mostly people intentionally choosing the GFDL to make their work as unfree as possible), so the tradeoff was worth it, whereas there is still a lot of new content being released under pre-4.0 CC (such as on some websites that do not even have a 4.0 option). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠19:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No. It would just add a condition for using WMF websites. If you upload a work here, then you must give violators an opportunity to cure a license violation. It offers a benefit to people who use files uploaded by the creator. If a user is sued, the she can point to the ToS and argue that she was not given the opportunity. It does not change or deprecate any CC license. It just makes it unattractive for a troll to upload more works here because he would have to give an opportunity to cure. (It is not perfect. If a third party uploads a CC 2.0 work, then the original author has not agreed to the WMF ToS. Consequently, a troll might encourage others to upload his works here to get around the ToS.) Glrx (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A troll doesn't even need to get others to upload their works here - they can import their Flickr photos themselves with a Wikimedia account that is not obviously tied to their Flickr account, and we have no way of proving they are the same person. And because we are trying to defend against users who are trying to game the system, this is precisely the kind of thing that we have to assume they'll do if given the opportunity. The only way to close this loophole is to ban pre-4.0 licenses. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠17:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I will agree in part because legal battles are expensive. One would hope that discovery would show the uploader is an agent of the creator. Glrx (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
That effectively bars us from importing CC licensed work from elsewhere if the license version is less than 4. The user here cannot make any promises, if not the copyright owner, and the copyright owner doesn't have to agree to the terms of service in that situation. It's basically a condition you are trying to add to the CC licenses, which you really can't do. And disclosing contracts may have the same problem, if they just post stuff to Flickr and let others import to Commons. It's not an easy problem -- some people may not realize a company they contracted with uses those tactics. The licenses really need to stand on their own, but would be good to do something. Disclosing the contract status, if a user here, could be a help. Do we have a category for uploads from users known to use (or contract to use) tactics like that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Reading over this that sounds like the proper approach. Although I wonder if its something we need to consult with the legal department about or get their premisson to adopt considering the nature of the thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I've come across this which shows how serious Flickr are about reversing the trend. The poster reported a photographer who'd made a Pixsy claim against him to Flickr. I presume they must have received other complaints about this person, but after a month or two, the photographer was banned from Flickr and all his photos removed.
I'm glad that Flickr is taking this seriously. However, doesn't deleting images expose all its re-users to copyright claims, since the original CC licence disappears (assuming the image is not available elsewhere)? Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I've read about this case and... this is sad. Anyway, I hope everyone is aware that issuing a "always assume good faith from reusers" clause would render the licenses of this site into something like:
" Hey, you are allowed to use all these files with no attribution or share alike licensing whatsoever. Only in the unlikely event of the creator noticing your reuse, reaching to you and complaining, you might be required to include attribution or a similar license next to the photo."
I mean, there can be not only bad faith uploaders, but bad faith reusers too. Disclaimer: I have uploaded from Flickr a few images that turned to be created and distributed by (at least) one of these copyright trolls (this one). (And since then, every time I upload content from Flickr I fear the creator could be one of them). Strakhov (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Currently, it seems that proposal #4 (the one I suggested) has several supporters, while the other ideas seem to have been of less interest yet. The discussion itself however has died down considerably, and I think that we could move forward with a cool head on this one.
Sounds good. I just wanted to prevent the ArchiveBot taking an interest into this whole debate before we had reached a conclusion like this; and also didn't want to move this topic further all on my own, since it's not my personal priority. --Enyavar (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Clarification of proposal
The proposal is not entirely clear. To clarify, I think the proposal should be:
Anyone who violates the licensing terms of any image on Commons should have a minimum 14 day grace period in which they can rectify licensing problems before charging the consumer with licensing fees or commencing legal action.
I agree with Bidgee that it isn't clear what change is being requested.
Furthermore, we need some on-wiki way of showing when they were advised of the problems. Currently, as an example, Diliff is keeping all correspondence off-wiki and appears to employing a third party company to go after license violators. Enforcing licensing terms is not a problem, but the manner in which it is done very much does matter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think that wording is too specific and would lead to further arguments (e.g. "14 days from when?"). Also, it's not legal actions that are the problem, as copyleft trolls rarely actually take any legal action. It's terminating the license and using that to make legal threats that is the problem. I would prefer that we just state what we expect in broad terms. Nosferattus (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
There is very little Commons can meaningfully do to enforce this, unless it is willing to allow contributors unwilling to accept the policy change to delete their uploaded media and leave. The CC version 2 and 3 licences say what they say, and contributions were made on the basis of what the licences say. Unless I've missed something, there's nothing in the old licences that allows Commons to retrospectively change those terms. Kahastoktalk17:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal #2
I propose that we add the following wording to the end of Commons:Assume good faith#Good faith and copyright: "It should also be assumed that third party reusers are acting in good faith. Failure to allow reusers the opportunity to correct errors in licensing or attribution before terminating a license can result in your upload privileges being revoked or your account being blocked." Nosferattus (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is about sending a bill about many hundred euros to the operator of a small blog or a small non profit organisation. AGF does of course not apply when the file is used by Reuters, Adobe Stock or in a commercial video of Google or Amazon. GPSLeo (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@SHB2000: I'm not sure I understand your oppose. How would this interfere with getting your photos attributed properly? You are still welcome to sue them or send threatening letters or whatever you want to do if they do not correct the attribution. Nosferattus (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, so your person who enforced the letter (rather than the spirit) of the old licences got blocked. Well, in cases like the recent one, they're not uploading anyway so why do they care? And if they're blocked, that also prevents them from engaging with the community and hearing the community's concerns and the community's responses to any questions they might have. Kahastoktalk17:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposal #3
A different possible wording (this is just a draft):
A similar assumption of good faith should be extended to third-party reusers of content, especially reusers who cannot reasonably be presumed to be expert in copyright and licensing matters. It is important that people whose materials are hosted on Commons comply with the spirit, and not just the letter, of free-licensing. In particular, if an online use of an image by an individual or small organization does not give a proper credit, the individual or small organization should be given a reasonable opportunity to "cure" the problem before any demand for payment on threat of legal action. (CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 overtly require a 30-day grace period for this purpose; for differently-licensed images, Commons participants should certainly allow at least a 14-day grace period.) Not to do so constitutes "copyleft trolling."
There is generally no way to "cure" a use in print (as against online) or film/video (unless online), but still any demand for payment should not grossly exceed what might reasonably have been paid for use of the photo under normal commercial licensing.
We welcome our community members to extend such an assumption of good faith even to reusers who can reasonably be presumed to be expert in copyright and licensing matters, but that is not required. Stock photo companies (Alamy, Getty, etc.), media organizations (major newspapers, television and radio stations, etc.), large businesses (really anything past the "mom and pop" level), government agencies for anything other than small localities, major NGOs and international organizations (the UN and its component organizations; major non-profits such as Médecins Sans Frontières or the National Rifle Association, etc.) and companies large enough that they certainly engage with such issues on a routine basis can reasonably be expected to understand copyright and licensing. While we generally encourage that a similar assumption of good faith be extended here, it is not a requirement.
It is also not required to extend such an assumption of good faith to individuals or organizations that are demonstrably repeat offenders.
Commons users who make egregious legal threats or excessive demands of payment from reusers are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including being banned from Commons. Commons reserves the right to delete their work from our site or to retain that work and add warning notices of our choosing addressed to potential reusers, and/or to topic-ban these users from uploading and to blacklist their photos from being uploaded by others.
Hey, sorry for only proposing this on the VP main page so far: I don't think we should make big fundamental changes that will disturb everyone. Instead:
We first need a help page (landing page) that explains the concept of "copyleft trolling" to unsuspecting users (who will most likely only find it after getting stung, but better than no landing page at all) and where people can also go to alert the community about those who do use trolling tactics.
Those specific users we then need to convince of switching to CC4 (they may continue using those firms, but with the 30 days grace period observed, I don't see dramatic moral/ethical issues).
Those authors/users who we cannot convince of switching and who still file lawsuits, should in my opinion accept forced watermarks (not destructive ones, but like like here in the most extreme cases), so that reusers are given proper warning.
Only the final point would require a policy change, in that we as a community need to agree to make forced watermarks a regular policy - but only in established cases of copyleft trolling. --Enyavar (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Support This sounds good. But the transfer from 2.0 and 3.0 to 4.0 is a big work. It will take time. Yann (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Neutral This proposal might be based on a misinterpretation of the CC BY 4.0 licenses. I checked the license for CC BY 4.0 which I use for my photos. It appears to say in section 6b that the license is reinstated if a copyright violation is cured within 30 days after the person violating the license discovers this (or if the licensor expressly reinstates the license). However, please look at the last sentence of section 6b: "For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License." IMO this could mean that you might still be sued or billed for the copyvio right away, at least before you actually correct the credit line. So you might need to add the watermarks even with CC BY 4.0 licenses. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose for 1, there are "copyleft trolling" but then you have those who rightfully seek damages for the violation of the CC license. You need to take care when drafting the landing page.
for 2, no way should it be 30 days, at a minimum 14 days is more than enough time for the violator to cure the violation.
for 3, what if the legal action/lawsuit was warranted, as the violator ignored all attempts to "cure"? Do we mark those too? Bidgee (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
1) What is your idea of "rightfully" seeking monetary damage from re-users of a for-free-licensed image? If you can define how those hypothetical people are not copyleft trolls, we can work that definition into the proposed help page and say they are exempted from steps 2+3.
2) the duration is prescribed by the CC 4.0 license - I personally find it rather short, but I'm not complaining.
3) No, @Bidgee: If a creator switches to CC 4.0 license, I don't see problems with their content. If that creator still notifies people about their violations, gives them their due grace period, then processes them for their violations after they haven't taken the warranted action? Good for those creators, what else can I say? --13:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Enyavar (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
That Medium article you link in 1) seems to be about people pursuing large damages and paying to send legal threats to small bloggers who attribute a CC image but miss some formality or even doing it correctly. That's a pretty big jump from "collecting from companies that should know better just taking images off the internet with no attempt to credit the creator", which from my understanding of the proposal would still be prohibited without allowing a 30-day grace period. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The trolling legal firms are pursuing large damages without regards to the size of the "offending party": they threaten bloggers, charitable organizations, and companies all alike (except that big business usually pays for professional stock images in the first place); and the troll business model apparently pays itself. / The 30 days grace period is a feature of CC 4.0, and has little to do with the proposal. My proposal was just an idea how to bring as many creators as possible to update their licences. Other CC-license platforms like Flickr (to my understanding) are much more proactive in banning users who engage in copyleft trolling. For Commons this is hopefully the start of dealing with the problem. --Enyavar (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bidgee: Have you taken a look at Commons:Copyleft trolling? No one is going to add forced watermarks to the images of someone legitimately seeking commercial damages for copyright infringement. As that page makes clear, we are only talking about when a photographer "sues people indiscriminately for licensing violations, whether major or minor". In these cases, forced watermarking is a last resort in order to protect our good faith reusers. If you have ideas for how we can make this distinction more clear, please feel free to edit Commons:Copyleft trolling. Nosferattus (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
But define "legitimately seeking commercial damages for copyright infringement", what do you call "sues people indiscriminately for licensing violations, whether major or minor"? Commons:Copyleft trolling is a mess. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is something I think I can do by example, but not from an a priori approach.
Clearly legitimate bases to threaten or bring legal action:
Movie uses your content without attribution.
Someone that you have already warned on a prior usage uses your content online without attribution.
Major media organization that clearly should know copyright law (major newspaper; TV station) uses your content without attribution.
Someone uses your content in a widely distributed advertisement or on a billboard without attribution.
Blatant misattribution, especially by a major media organization.
Clearly copyleft trolling to pursue these; however, all of these examples can be qualified by the remark above about you having given prior warning:
Someone posts a copy of your content to Facebook or to a non-notable personal blog without attribution, but on contact is completely willing to credit you or to take it down.
Your photo is used online and credit is given to Wikimedia Commons or to Wikipedia, rather than to you. On contact, they are completely willing to credit you or to take it down.
Your photo is used online and they credit you, but don't provide the particular links that may be required by the license in question. On contact, they are completely willing to cure this or to take it down.
Your photo is used online and they misspell your credit. On contact, they are completely willing to cure this or to take it down.
Use by a child on a class project.
In between: I'd be concerned if I saw repeated, large claims on this basis, but requesting two to five times what they might reasonably have paid in advance to use such in image seems OK to me.
Almost any completely unatttributed use in print with more than a tiny circulation, since you can't "cure" print media.
@Bidgee: "Legitimately seeking commercial damages for copyright infringement" means when there are actual commercial damages, i.e. a commercially significant use, not someone using a photo as the banner for their LinkedIn profile or in a blog post for a small veterinary practice. And even in those cases, if someone failed to fix the attribution after being notified, the author would certainly be entitled to sue them. If you have different ideas, please share them. Just saying that the page is a mess is not very helpful. If you agree that copyright trolling is a problem, please help us figure out how to address it. Due to your extensive experience as a Commons contributor and community member, your collaboration would be very valuable. Nosferattus (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Support, though the watermarking only resolves the issues after the fact, allowing copyleft trolling by new actors until they are noticed and their files flagged. I'm not familiar enough with the scale of copyright trolling to know if this is sufficient, but even if not sufficient, it's a good start. Consigned (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment A longer comment both because this is the only proposal going anywhere constructive and because it came before the clarification below. Switching to CC4 does nothing to prevent people/companies from demanding money from people. None of the stories we've heard about the case that started this involved people being sued multiple times, so I don't think it's realistic to think e.g. Pixsy would stop demanding money from people just because they know they won't be able to do it more than once. Yes to an information page about copyleft trolling, but we don't need a formal proposal for that. Someone can just write it. I don't think it's realistic that people who use these companies are going to be persuaded to switch to CC4 (as Diliff made clear he would not). What's left is forced watermarking. We would need very clear guidelines as to the criteria for users whose images are to be watermarked this way, how those watermarks are enforced (many Wikipedians will complain and try to crop, after all), clear guidelines the form/content of those watermarks, clear guidelines about when the watermarks can be removed, etc. I say all this because I think it will be hard in practice. There's also one element missing from these proposals: what to do with the users whose behavior leads to forced watermarking? Seems to me if we get to that point, we should not be accepting further uploads from that person? — Rhododendritestalk | 12:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Support only for the Copyleft trolling landing page. I don't know what copyleft trolling is and wonder since quite some time what this discussion is actually about. I tried to look for some explanation in the discussion, but after two paragraphs I gave up. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: "Copyleft trolling" is basically when someone publishes an image with a free license, but then threatens a lawsuit with substantial damages for relatively innocuous violations of copyright when that image is not properly attributed. I'll add that to Commons' glossary. - Jmabel ! talk20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Be informational, define relevant concepts, link to articles
Have no rules or guidance at this time
Develop rules on the talk page there
There are already lots of subproposals here and I do not think we will untangle much without longer discussion. For some things Wikimedia Commons should ping the Creative Commons community and other stakeholders, perhaps Flickr, to be in sync and aware of each other. Other issues may need legal clarification. This seems like a potential months-long project. These other proposals should proceed, and I see the Wikimedia Commons community as the best place to develop these ideas, but this is discussion is too big for this board. Bluerasberry (talk)00:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I think you overestimate the ability of the Common community to have productive long-term discussions about thorny topics. Notice, for example, that Commons has no policies on harassment, legal threats, personal attacks, civility, dispute resolution, child protection, or many of the other policies that most Wikipedias take for granted (and it's not for lack of trying). If nothing comes out of the current flurry of interest, I doubt any productive reforms will be made regarding copyleft trolling (at least until the next major incident). Nosferattus (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I also think that we should go forward incrementally here, just like Bluerasberry suggests. So first, implementing the landing page idea, and discussing further action from there. --Enyavar (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment This is an extreme solution but it would almost entirely protect all re-users against copyleft trolling; it would also incentivize users to use more modern licenses. Ideally this would be done systematically without the need to reupload new files, and there be a way to download/use the file without watermark at the re-user's own risk, both of which would require a significant software enhancement. Consigned (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm certain that most uploads using the older licences have been done by users before the new license was published, and not as a ploy for copyleft trolling. And even newer uploads using the old thing may have been done out of routine or ignorance of the updated license. That is the reason why I suggested creating a greylist of users (we currently have like... just three names?) who have engaged in copyleft trolling, and to only force watermarks on their material. If it turns out there are a dozen more cases, we also treat those images. But the thousands of people who uploaded under older licenses without intent to sue others, should be left alone. --Enyavar (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
According to [12], isn't the problem much more significant on older licenses, where there is no grace period for the re-user to correct the issue? Consigned (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
As discussed below, it does nothing to prevent people from being sued for minor violations. All it does is allow reinstatement of the license once the problem is fixed. For older licenses, once there's a violation you're not allowed to use the image anymore and can be sued. With CC4, you can get the right to use the image back, but you can still be sued (and you can be sued multiple times if there are multiple minor violations of the license). — Rhododendritestalk | 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No, no, no. We don't need ugly forced watermarking on a huge chunk of the site. Like, could my images hypothetically be used for "copyleft trolling"? Maybe? Am I going to do it? Hell no, and neither are most users. Dronebogus (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
As the user whose reporting of a photographer's activity using Pixsy started this whole discussion, I've been encouraged by another user to add my views. I'm not a photographer or a Wikipedia administrator, I'm writing just as an ordinary user. I want to address:
· the small time 'offender's' viewpoint
· Pixsy's modus operandi
· the photographer's viewpoint
· the proposals so far
All the cases I reported involved charities or very small-bloggers. Other contributors mentioned others. When Pixsy claims damages it's very threatening and quite a shock. I'm not asking for pity here, bear with me. The way the demand is worded asserts clearly that ignorance of copyright, carelessness and a willingness to correct the attribution will have no effect on the demand. You MUST pay a large amount of money, and quickly, or you will have legal action taken against you which could result in you paying a much larger amount in legal expenses. So in each case we're talking about someone who is shocked and scared. In many of the cases quoted the offender tried to contact the photographer to see if something was negotiable, to no avail. Not everyone did. At least one was so afraid they closed down their website and business completely. In my case I didn't try because Pixsy said they represented the photographer and communication should only be through them.
(I'm using Pixsy as an example here because they were involved in these cases - as you know there are many organisations working in this field.)
In my case, and I'm sure in the other cases I reported, had I been simply been reminded 'you didn't attribute that photo correctly (and if you don't then ...)' I would have immediately corrected it. I wouldn't need a 30-day grace period.
I'm well aware that during the discussions that followed my report, there's been scant sympathy for Pixsy and similar businesses, even from supporters of the photographer, however I still feel I should reiterate the user's point of view.
In this case the photographer expressed some regret that small users were 'caught up' in what he sees as a legitimate process. Looking at Pixsy's Trustpilot page shows many photographers praising them for recovering thousands of pounds from illegitimate commercial use of their images. It seems that in many cases they're actually providing a valuable service to photographers. However, when it comes to images that are licenced under CC we can see that:
a) Pixsy does not distinguish between careless use of CC and abusers who, for example, re-sell photos, change metadata, use them in advertising campaigns etc. Indeed in my experience, Pixsy automatically categorises websites as 'commercial' and CC use as breach of licence. (I know that technically it is, but that is an expedient according to Cory Doctorrow.)
b) Pixsy offers little justification for the amount they charge. Their justifications change over time and are never verifiable.
c) Pixsy offers no suggestion that this can be resolved in any way other than paying what they demand. There's no question of negotiation or of approaching the photographer.
d) their legal arguments are not valid (too much to go into here but at least under UK law, and the UK court, their claims are simply incorrect)
From the photographer's point of view, there's obvious benefit; an arm's length relationship keeps it simple, and removes the need to spend valuable time looking into individual cases. I think, however, this gives them a skewed idea of how the claim process goes. The photographer Diliff for example suggests that because what he is eventually paid is in some cases less than the original claim, then some mitigation has been accepted and some negotiation has taken place. In all the cases I know of, this is not so. Many site owners will just pay up immediately out of fear and shock, with no challenge or negotiation. Others may attempt to negotiate, but this may never reach the photographer. (For example I offered to go the the UK mediation service instead of a full court case. Pixsy refused to even comment on this, so I have to assume the photographer was never told.) Finally Pixsy will offer a reduction or 'discount' after several months if the user shows they are going to argue. This is not presented as a concession by the photographer, in fact they say they are not authorised to negotiate but to speed things along they can offer a discount. So the photographer should be under no illusion that Pixsy are dealing with small users and CC claims in any 'softer' way than commercial abusers.
Also from the photographer's view, we are told they should be able to claim retrospective damage for the time the photo was used, and should be able to claim for the work involved in bringing the claim in the first place. This may work in the US, but UK courts will only look to reinstate the photographer to the position they would have been in had it been correctly attributed; and legal costs other than very small expenses such as travel are not reclaimable. As others have stated it's a false dichotomy to say the alternative to an unattributed photo is a paid licence - it's an attributed photo or a different photo altogether.
It's been suggested here and there on the web that claims for CC misattribution rarely reach court. I don't know if it's true, but even if it is, many people will have paid these companies immediately out of fear, so it's no consolation.
I was surprised how much discussion my report produced and the depth and care taken around the proposals for remedying the situation.
I won't comment on the proposals to delete this particular photographer's contributions or put other sanctions on him. Flickr have adopted a harder stance and at least one photographer has been completely removed because of Pixsy activity. But that's different governance, different situation. This is a matter for Wikipedia and the discussion here has been thorough.
Proposal 4 includes a landing page that explains the risk of misattribution. In my case that would have caused me to take better care of attribution. My failure to attribute was due to nothing but haste and carelessness; I normally attribute everything including libraries like Pexels. So it would have worked for me and, I imagine, most of the cases I reported.
The grace period - as I said in my case a 5-day grace period would have worked - it was an 'oops!' moment, but the CC4 30-day period, or the reduced 14-day period suggested are all perfectly good to me. However it requires photographers who use services like Pixsy to authorise them to issue a takedown notice before bringing out the heavy guns. They do have that choice, at least with Pixsy. Diliff for one argued against that, but I think his arguments don't stand up for the majority of cases, they were only about photos being used in a short term ad campaign. Clearly this is something between the photographer and their copyright chasing agency and WM have no power to force them to do anything; but an education programme for contributing photographers about the reasons for using CC4, bringing in the arguments of Cory Doctorrow and the change of policy at Flickr might help. Many photographers will, like Flickr, not want to be associated with the hounding of CC violators as collateral damage for photographers seeking redress for serious commercial theft.
The problem is that you don't attribute photographers at all (you mentioned earlier). It's not a question of a mere detail that went wrong. (Did you also get claims for Getty Images? How did that work out?) Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I normally attribute. That day I neglected one. If it had been drawn to my attention I would have corrected the error immediately. Normanlamont (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday I had the chance to speak with Creative Commons about copyleft trolling. I've summarised my understanding of their feedback below, a warm thank you to Kat Walsh, Anna Tumadóttir, and Cory Doctorow for their time!
The 30-day grace period in CC4 does indeed only apply to reinstating the licence, meaning that users are still liable for damages before the attribution was corrected or the image taken down. However, experience suggests that this makes the business model significantly less interesting for companies such as Pixsy, as 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;
Upgrading to CC4 can only be made by adding the licence on top of existing CC2/CC3 licences. Existing attributions, if the user does not update the attribution to CC4, continue to be governed by the old licence. Existing misattributions also continue to be governed by the old licence, but Pixsy would have a harder time convincing a court to award damages. Again, bigger fish to fry;
In theory, deleting images of copyleft trolls does not impact existing attributions, as the licences are irrevocable. However, this business models hinges on fear mongering and information asymmetry, so anything that makes it harder for users to prove they were using the images correctly can help copyleft trolls. One possible solution is to leave the image page online, but only with a small resolution preview of the image;
Regarding Proposal 4, which currently gathers the widest consensus:
A landing page needs to fall short of providing legal advice but can nevertheless be very useful if it includes statements such as "Pixsy is less likely to pursue a case if you do X and Y" and "in scenarios Z and W, the likelihood that Pixsy takes you to court is small";
Upgrading CC2/CC3 to CC4 may be the single most effective action to address copyleft trolling;
Forced watermarks run the risk of rewarding trolls with extra publicity and weakening the position of other photographers that do not have watermarks. Deleting images has proven to be more effective, although at the cost of potentially losing valuable content.
Thanks a lot from me, this seems indeed helpful. I fully agree that the landing page should not give legal advice - in fact, I only expected it to explain the concept of copyleft trolling, and urging (our uploaders) to change to CC4 and linking (the re-users who get threatened) to the page where they can report uploaders that have sued them. But helpful statements on how to withstand Pixsy's legal threats are also a good idea.
Upgrading the licenses is obviously the best way to proceed; but the "bad apples" (I mean those who already engage in copyleft trolling) are unlikely to do so. Four years after the CC-inventor published his article on the supposed Commons-troll from Serbia, the image of his mouse is still up under CC2 and actively used in WP articles.
We are completely lacking the teeth to do on Commons, where Flickr has it a policy to even ban users who upload in bad faith: There are no community rules that are in support of deleting images just because they are used for copyleft trolling. From experience, I don't think we can implement such drastic rules anytime soon: Just notice how many users seemed to support the idea that Diliff did not even do anything wrong - after all it was totally legal and backed by the Commons Rules, so why should anyone outlaw the legal rights of poor Diliff? Also speaking against deletion is that this robs current legal re-users of their proof that they downloaded it from Commons under that free license that they are displaying. The alternatives to deletion are, as I see it: giving copyleft trolls free reign on Commons (status quo, not preferable), or forcibly altering the images in some way. You report that we could only keep thumbnails (the CC lawyers suggestion); the other idea is watermarking the images (still my favorite). I also don't want to encourage watermarking, but if the watermark includes "do not remove this license text, or User:XYZ is likely to sue you", this should not advertise the practice (both of watermarking and of copyleft trolling) to most users, and seem more like punishment. --Enyavar (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this, and for getting the discussion moving again. I'd like to ask a few questions.
Re the proposed landing page - when would this be shown? Is it when someone clicks on an image?
The proposer of Proposal 4 links to an image by the photographer Philpot as an example of watermarking. I assume some sort of similar discussion must have taken place regarding him and Marco Verch, who have more clearly and explicitly embraced the practice we've called copyleft trolling. I was surprised they are still allowed to do this and have pictures in WM but there must have been reasons. Can anyone point me to the previous discussions?
Finally I don't know how these WM discussions work - how many people have to vote for one of these proposals to be enacted? Is there a closing date when a decision gets made, or are these discussions advisory to some committee who makes the decision and starts action? Normanlamont (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@Julesvernex2: "Pixy has bigger fish to fry". This completely misses the point. Pixsy doesn't care about enforcing copyrights. They are an extortion scam. They don't actually take people to court, they just harass and intimidate you until you pay them something. They don't actually monitor the infringements, they don't care what actions you take, they just send you various form letters with escalating threats and offers and then apparently keep 50% of the money. It's up to the photographer and photographer's lawyer to initiate any actual legal action (which they almost never do unless its a significant commercial use). Honestly, I don't think forcing people to use CC 4.0 licenses will do much of anything, but since this is the only proposal that has support, I'm supporting it. Right now one of Diliff photographs is on the main page of English Wikipedia because we haven't taken any action. This will probably cause hundreds of additional good faith reusers to get harassed by Pixsy and generate of nice bit of profit for both Pixsy and Diliff, at the expense of the entire free culture movement. We are getting completely exploited and it's sad that so many people are supporting this behavior. I hope we can work together to get this successfully addressed in some form or another. Nosferattus (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
"Pixsy doesn't care about enforcing copyrights. They are an extortion scam. They don't actually take people to court, they just harass and intimidate you until you pay them something." hyperbole. Most of law is actually about settling out of court, all with the mutual threats of actually going to court. We might not like it, but let's not pretend that this isn't normal. Maybe people are too young these days to remember w:Napster, but this is just how the legal system works in most place around the world. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it misses anything. All of the copyleft trolling cases I've read about involved CC2/CC3 licences, and even Pixsy seems to have gotten their facts about CC4 wrong ("However, users of images with a Creative Commons license release type 4.0 (or above) are granted a 30-day grace period in which they can resolve breaches of license terms, before it is considered copyright infringement.", [13]). Switching the analogy from culinary to burglary, no lock is unpickable but can nevertheless be effective if it takes too much effort to break in. I do agree though that continuing to promote these images in Wikipedia is perverse. Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
"Forced watermarks run the risk of rewarding trolls with extra publicity and weakening the position of other photographers that do not have watermarks. Deleting images has proven to be more effective, although at the cost of potentially losing valuable content." Forced watermarks largely prevent the images from being used on Wikipedia, which is how 99% of reusers discover them. So I think it is largely effective at reducing copyleft trolling. I too would prefer deletion, but it seems that the Commons community does not support this. Nosferattus (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, my name is OperationSakura6144. I need to replace File:Palestine Red Crescent Society.png with File:Palestine Red Crescent Society logo.svg in the Persian Wikipedia article "جمعیت هلال احمر فلسطین", but I cannot do that manually because my IP is blocked there. (Please don't tell me to appeal the IP block. I tried it all, but it's no use. I'd wait 5-6 months for the block to expire. Until then, please help me.) I hope you hear me and help me in this situation. I need to have it done real quick.
Also, I wish File:Palestine Red Crescent Society.png to be deleted, because it is a low-quality duplicate of File:Palestine RCS.png and File:Palestine Red Crescent Society logo.svg, and that logo has claims of being Saltanat ebli's own work, which would be a bit misleading as File:Palestine Red Crescent Society.png reperesents the logo of a third-party organization, which, in this case, shouldn't have claims of being someone's own work unless that person is the original logo designer. I hope you fully understand my opinions about deleting File:Palestine Red Crescent Society.png, and also, the file was made the earliest as far as I can know, but sometimes, older things has to be ditched for newer ones, and that's what I think about everything. I hope you hear me out and help me, and reply me if you're done and/or I'm wrong. I'd like to have that job done as soon as possible, because I want to spend my time in the holidays. So, do it as quick as possible. I'll see you again if it's done. Bye. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF): Please help me understand how the results of Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey have been incorporated into this new tool. Has this been developed prior to the needs survey? The need for this feature was not even mentioned on the page. What are the next improvements planned accounting for the results of the needs survey. Thanks. --Schlurcher (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Schlurcher, yes, this tool has been developed prior the survey, in line with our research about relieving moderators from some burden of work. I know for a fact that the results of the survey has been presented to higher management, and I know that they have been considered for this fiscal year (1 July 2024 - 30 June 2025), but I don't know yet which one will be implemented. I'll try to keep you posted on this. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral. While I certainly feel that a policy on AI-generated and retouched content on Commons is necessary, it's not clear to me that this document provides any substantial guidelines yet - as it currently stands, it's primarily focused on the legality of AI-generated content, not whether it's appropriate for Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. JopkeB (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment A longer comment both because this is the only proposal going anywhere constructive and because it came before the clarification below. Switching to CC4 does nothing to prevent people/companies from demanding money from people. None of the stories we've heard about the case that started this involved people being sued multiple times, so I don't think it's realistic to think e.g. Pixsy would stop demanding money from people just because they know they won't be able to do it more than once. Yes to an information page about copyleft trolling, but we don't need a formal proposal for that. Someone can just write it. I don't think it's realistic that people who use these companies are going to be persuaded to switch to CC4 (as Diliff made clear he would not). What's left is forced watermarking. We would need very clear guidelines as to the criteria for users whose images are to be watermarked this way, how those watermarks are enforced (many Wikipedians will complain and try to crop, after all), clear guidelines the form/content of those watermarks, clear guidelines about when the watermarks can be removed, etc. I say all this because I think it will be hard in practice. There's also one element missing from these proposals: what to do with the users whose behavior leads to forced watermarking? Seems to me if we get to that point, we should not be accepting further uploads from that person? — Rhododendrites talk | 12:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
