Photo trolls suing for failure to provide proper “attribution,” stifling creativity?

Copyright policy is being called into question as more and more “not-so-benevolent” photographers are posting images on various websites such as Flickr and Instagram that can be synched with photo infringement detection websites such as Pixsy, which allow photographers to see if anyone is using their images, drawings, art, illustrations or other creative digital content. Pixsy will surf the internet and social media sites looking for any website that has posted the photographer’s images.

Once a “match” is found, a photographer belonging to Pixsy can send out a cease and desist letter or even take legal action. This is all fine and dandy; however, I am seeing more and more that Creative Commons licenses are being abused and turned into a “profit center” by photographers looking to hold a commercial business liable for failing to follow the (often complex) requirements of attribution.

For example, an image may be found online and the rights to FREE use of the image (even for commercial purposes) can be enticing for a company, often smaller companies, looking for royalty-free images and photos for their websites, podcast cover art, social media posts (ex. for TikTok, YouTube videos or for Instagram or Facebook photos), and at other times for use as a background image for a real estate company’s website, such as a beautiful beach landscape image for a California or New York realtor brokerage.

Companies may feel safe using these images because (1) the author promotes it as FREE to use, (2) the attribution requirement may seem simple, and (3) they may assume the photographer is a “good-sumaritan” type of person who has no interest in filing a federal copyright infringement lawsuit.

In these cases, a photographer may find its image being used via Pixsy, or Tineye, or Yandex reverse image search tools, and take a closer look to see if the proper attribution was made. If not made TO THE TEE (ex. providing a link to the license and a link to the original image on the photographers website, or adding the copyright symbol, etc.).

The greedy photographer may then hit the company with a copyright infringement cease-and-desist and legal demand letter. I have seen offers as high as $60,000 for a single image. The question here becomes, is this type of licensing fostering the progress of science and the “useful arts,” as is often said, important to society? Or is this type of conduct deceptive in nature and done maliciously to extract large settlements by photo infringement artists that may be doing this and filing a large number of federal court lawsuits?

As to these “attribution cases,” there needs to be a very simple and fair way to provide the attribution and simple instructions. If not, I cannot see much value in the creative commons system, as it can take quite some time to read the license terms and comply strictly with each and every requirement imposed. Congress should look into this.

The so-called “sharing culture” is becoming increasingly the “lawsuit GOTHCA culture” if this is allowed to continue. If you want to be a benevolent photographer, make it easy for everyone, and lawsuits should be banned in all but the most aggrieve cases.

If not, copyright infringement defendants will be left to argue fair use, innocent infringement, copyright misuse and other defenses for merely trying to use an image they believed in good faith was FREE to use by a friendly photographer.