For those of us who don't know as much, could you elaborate? I know "CC" is Creative Commons, but I don't know what FZ-AT-UT-W2 are.

From the link (which can be hard to grok for people like me who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes), it looks like there are users who upload images and mark them with a free license and then try to sue people who re-use the photos on other sites for minor infractions of the license terms.

It seems that while the images may legitimately be licensed as Creative Commons, the user takes a very strict view of the CC licensing and sues people for minor infractions. "re-users have complained about receiving costly cease and desist orders on behalf of this Flickr-user for minor infractions of the licensing terms." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Admi...) Because the CC license's attribution requirements can often be a bit hazy or difficult to comply with, it makes it easy for someone to claim that the copyright has been infringed for "minor" infractions.

You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

That's some of the guidance from the CC license page. It would be easy for someone to re-size the image and not indicate that changes were made, not include the title of the work, etc. There are whole pages about how you should attribute things depending on what information is available: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detai...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#/media/File:Ryan_Cro...

I'm literally looking at the featured photo from the "In the News" section of English Wikipedia right now. It has an attribution source of http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-..., but that page doesn't exist when I try to view it.

Looking at the "more details" page, it gets confusing. What is the "title"? Do I have to duplicate author information if it's in the title? Given that the photo, "has been extracted from another file," I guess I'd have to cite both the original and the derived work if I were to re-use it.

Based on the attribution comparison chart, I think I'd have to write something like:

"This work, 'Ryan Crouser in 2016' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_201...) by Materialscientist (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist) and licensed under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en), is a cropped version of 'Rio de Janeiro - Norte-americano Ryan Crouser bate recorde olímpico e leva ouro no arremesso de peso nos Jogos Rio 2016, no Estádio Olímpico. (Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil)' (http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-...) by Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil used under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt)."

What if I just casually grabbed the photo and linked to the Wikipedia page? I think most Wikipedia people would be like "eh, close enough". I think some might send me an email being like, "Could you please put my name next to the link? Thanks!"

Oops, actually, my attribution is wrong! I haven't put in the copyright notice which is, "EBC-EMPRESA BRASIL DE COMUNICAÇÃO/Agência Brasil. Uso sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. CRÉDITO FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL"

Let me correct that:

"This work, 'Ryan Crouser in 2016' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_201...) by Materialscientist (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist) and licensed under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en), is a cropped version of 'Rio de Janeiro - Norte-americano Ryan Crouser bate recorde olímpico e leva ouro no arremesso de peso nos Jogos Rio 2016, no Estádio Olímpico. (Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil)' (http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-...) by Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil used under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt) with the copyright notice, 'EBC-EMPRESA BRASIL DE COMUNICAÇÃO/Agência Brasil. Uso sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. CRÉDITO FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL'."

DONE! Wait... the copyright notice specifies, "FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL", but the "author" is listed as "Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil". Do I go with the author as specified in the image or with how the CRÉDITO specifies it? I'd think I should go with how the CRÉDITO specifies it, but I definitely didn't see that initially.

For those that think I'm being pedantic, I am. However, as one person noted: As not all of you may know, the copyright law of Germany and Austria allows the copyright-holder to issue a so-called Abmahnung (sort of Cease and desist) against anyone who in his opinion infringes his copyright, without first calling a court. The typical cost of an Abmahnung is between 500 and 1200 Euros for 1 image. As no court is involved, there is no independant evaluation of the case. Many people pay the amount requested in order to avoid going to court, as this might be even more costly. IANAL. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Admi...)

I understand that maybe you could fight it and win in court. However, the complexity of the attribution requirements do allow a bad actor to be evil to people while claiming to be legitimate. Given that users have been complaining that this is actually happening, it's somewhat worrying.

I'm not trying to sound negative about anything other than the fact that it's easy for trolls to "well technically" people. If I used the cropped Wikipedia photo and didn't note the modification, but did properly attribute the title, author, and original URI (which seems to be a dead link), am I using it wrong? Well technically I would be since it was modified and I didn't note that (and didn't provide credit to the modifier). It would be an easy mistake to make: grab the author, title, and URI from the Wikipedia page and I think I'm done! I think most courts and the CC folks would be like, "c'mon, they put in a good faith effort and yes they need to correct it, but they shouldn't be subject to thousands of dollars in penalties!" However, courts aren't cheap and there's a lot of risk.