The topic of the session talks about a specific case, from which it is possible to draw conclusions regarding other cases of the conduct of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For several years, editors at the Hebrew Wikipedia, have come across the case of a former editor who files many lawsuits against people who very innocently use pictures from Commons without giving credit according to the terms of the license. As someone who is very active in the Commons and, works as a volunteer in the VRT team, I am aware that many do not understand the law on this subject, and think that any picture that is on Wikipedia, anyone can use completely freely, without giving credit.
I have come across cases where websites, including press and university websites, have used pictures that I have taken and uploaded to Commons. I turned to those websites that did this, and I always got a matter-of-fact answer. Either they gave credit, or they removed the pictures. I have never been sued for using images without credit.
I take pictures for use in Wikipedia articles and to increase knowledge in the world. It is important to me that they give credit so that users learn to appreciate the effort invested in the pictures and uploading them, and perhaps this will increase their desire to contribute to Wikimedia Foundation projects. But a lawsuit damages the image of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia project. People do not differentiate and do not understand the nuances that this is one person who does not represent the community.
In some cases, the legal claims are also made for photos that do not have copyright to the photographer. For example, a picture with a camera of a book cover. The picture is uploaded in fair use to the Hebrew Wikipedia. Also, to commons. And a legal claim was made because the editor took the picture. demanding compensation
In other cases, the editor photographed a painting found in the public domain, which included a picture whose copyright had expired. In Israel there is freedom of panorama. In addition, according to the copyright law on pictures in Israel, they expire 50 years after the picture was taken. Taking a photo of a picture whose copyright has expired, which is part of a painting, does not create copyright for the photographer. He is not the original photographer. This picture is a kind of scanning of an image using a camera. And yet people have been sued for using such pictures.
An appeal was made to the legal advisor of the Wikimedia Foundation to delete all the pictures that the photographer uploaded to the Commons, to stop the damage done to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation's legal advisor did not think it was within the foundation's authority to delete such pictures.
I raise the matter for discussion in the session. Are there cases in which the Wikimedia Foundation does need to intervene in the various projects.