on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own) better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10 years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted, as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their work.
as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and desist letters as business model not interesting any more, technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both sides.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Artik... [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-intervie...
best rupert