6 ms·

Someone tried to shake our company down once. They posted all this stock imagery on the web, waited for someone to use it with an ambiguously worded attribution

Someone tried to shake our company down once. They posted all this stock imagery on the web, waited for someone to use it with an ambiguously worded attribution policy, then have a third party chase you down and demand $100k but will settle for $5k. It turns out we did attribute the right way (in our terms of use) and could prove it with logs of when we added the language and when it was removed after we removed the image, but I am sure they nail people all the time with this strategy. This didnt stop them from sending 20 emails, demand lawyers get on the phone, etc. There are a couple of similar scams like this out there.

jabl 8mo ago
Sounds like the creative commons attribution scam as detailed by Cory Doctorow https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/ https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/
arjie 8mo ago
Oh that's a classic trick. It's been going on for decades. One example I am particularly familiar with is that of Larry Philpot / User:Nightshooter on Wikimedia Commons. He would upload his photos there with an addendum on how he should be attributed. Any slight impression in the attribution would be followed by legal action. It was obviously a copyright troll mechanism and now all of his photos on Wikimedia Commons have forced attribution affixed by users that warns others that he sues people. His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-puppetry to get his content into a place. Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much. Here's the thread where he's discussed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_74#User:Nightshooter_-_block_&_deletion_request https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27... Here's an example forced-attribution photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg
- zem 8mo ago
  I am honestly flabbergasted that his pictures weren't expunged with great prejudice. what is the value they add to wikimedia that makes being associated with this sort of sleaze okay?
  - arjie 8mo ago
    A valid question. These kinds of approaches are a pretty standard attack in the copyleft world. I don't know on what basis the community chooses forced-attribution vs deletion. Marco Verch managed to get his stuff deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Images_by_Marco_Verch https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests... So it's a question of the execution of the operation really. By the way, do you also have the same user handle on Reddit? I have the vaguest memory of you quoting someone else on the subject of denying a person suffering on the street drugs that went something to the effect of not wanting to do it because denying such a man drugs deny him his only escape from such reality or something of the sort. I never did find that comment again, and it's been at the back of my mind for years (perhaps even a decade) and now I'm not even sure if I've asked you this before.
    - zem 8mo ago
      yes that was me! I love that quote (it's by samuel johnson), so it's really moving to hear it made an impression on someone else too. here it is: What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths." -- Piozzi: Anecdotes
      - arjie 8mo ago
        Ha, perfect! Well that's one mystery solved. Thank you.

jabl 8mo ago

Sounds like the creative commons attribution scam as detailed by Cory Doctorow https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/ https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/

arjie 8mo ago

Oh that's a classic trick. It's been going on for decades. One example I am particularly familiar with is that of Larry Philpot / User:Nightshooter on Wikimedia Commons. He would upload his photos there with an addendum on how he should be attributed. Any slight impression in the attribution would be followed by legal action. It was obviously a copyright troll mechanism and now all of his photos on Wikimedia Commons have forced attribution affixed by users that warns others that he sues people. His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-puppetry to get his content into a place. Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much. Here's the thread where he's discussed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_74#User:Nightshooter_-_block_&_deletion_request https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27... Here's an example forced-attribution photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg

zem 8mo ago
I am honestly flabbergasted that his pictures weren't expunged with great prejudice. what is the value they add to wikimedia that makes being associated with this sort of sleaze okay?
- arjie 8mo ago
  A valid question. These kinds of approaches are a pretty standard attack in the copyleft world. I don't know on what basis the community chooses forced-attribution vs deletion. Marco Verch managed to get his stuff deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Images_by_Marco_Verch https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests... So it's a question of the execution of the operation really. By the way, do you also have the same user handle on Reddit? I have the vaguest memory of you quoting someone else on the subject of denying a person suffering on the street drugs that went something to the effect of not wanting to do it because denying such a man drugs deny him his only escape from such reality or something of the sort. I never did find that comment again, and it's been at the back of my mind for years (perhaps even a decade) and now I'm not even sure if I've asked you this before.
  - zem 8mo ago
    yes that was me! I love that quote (it's by samuel johnson), so it's really moving to hear it made an impression on someone else too. here it is: What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths." -- Piozzi: Anecdotes
    - arjie 8mo ago
      Ha, perfect! Well that's one mystery solved. Thank you.